Switchboard, from NRDC › Rebecca Hammer's Blog

New Federal "TIGER" Transportation Grants Direct Some Funding to Green Infrastructure Projects, But More Investment Is Needed

2011-12-16T17:17:23Z

Rebecca Hammer, Project Attorney, Water Program, Washington, DC

Yesterday the Obama administration announced the new round of TIGER grants, some of which will be used to fund pollution-preventing green infrastructure projects.

Federal agencies award TIGER (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) grants on a competitive basis to transportation projects aimed at promoting “livability.” This usually means projects that encourage a range of modes of transportation, like transit, biking, and walking.

That's a worthy goal. But as NRDC recommends in our recent report After the Storm, TIGER grants should also give priority to projects that incorporate green infrastructure techniques to control transportation-related stormwater runoff.

Roadside runoff (photo credit: urbanworkbench)

Runoff from roads and highways pollutes and erodes our water bodies, causing serious health, financial, and environmental consequences. We can prevent these consequences by ensuring that our roadways use runoff controls that capture stormwater before it runs off into water bodies in the first place.

The best way to do this is with a group of techniques called green infrastructure. Using practices like grassy swales, rain gardens, wetlands, and trees planted next to streets, green infrastructure replicates the natural functions of a landscape, reducing the volume of runoff by capturing and managing rainwater where it falls.

Green infrastructure also generates a wide range of economic and social benefits beyond improved water quality. For example, using vegetation to soak runoff into the ground can recharge groundwater supplies, create wildlife habitat, reduce the urban heat island effect, and make communities more beautiful. These are benefits that traditional stormwater controls like curbs, gutters, and sewer pipes just can’t provide.

Seattle's "SEA Street" green street, which uses roadside vegetation to reduce runoff (photo credit: NRDC)

So, how many of the new TIGER grants were awarded to projects that use these beneficial green infrastructure techniques?

Of the 46 projects funded this year – totaling $511 million in grant funds – only one project explicitly intends to incorporate green infrastructure, with one other project providing stormwater management through techniques that aren’t specified.

The Syracuse Connective Corridor, a $17 million project conducted by the city of Syracuse, will create a corridor of “complete streets” connecting the Downtown and University Hill areas. As part of the project, green infrastructure will be integrated into these streets. Syracuse has already shown a commitment to green infrastructure, as we detailed in our new report Rooftops to Rivers II, so it’s great to see the city taking advantage of this funding opportunity to put more green infrastructure in the ground.
The St. Albans Main Street Reconstruction, a $2.7 million project conducted by the city of St. Albans, Vermont, will reconstruct 1,600 feet of the town’s Main Street. Among other things, the project will provide stormwater management, but the project listing doesn’t say whether this will be achieved through the use of green infrastructure.

These two projects are a great start, but the administration needs to invest more federal dollars in green infrastructure projects. Stormwater runoff pollution must be prevented from fouling our waterways and endangering our health, and green infrastructure is a cost-effective way to accomplish this – all while providing a wide array of benefits.

Failing to invest in these techniques, as most of the TIGER grant projects do, wastes a valuable opportunity. We hope to see more TIGER grants directed toward green infrastructure projects in the future.

New NRDC Report Shows Music City and Motor City Are "Emerald Cities" Investing in Green Infrastructure

2011-11-18T14:49:33Z

Rebecca Hammer, Project Attorney, Water Program, Washington, DC

My colleagues in the NRDC Water Program have been talking a lot this week about our new report, Rooftops to Rivers II, which shows how communities across the country are using green infrastructure techniques to stop water pollution. That’s because the report provides such a fantastic resource for communities across the country who are looking for information on these innovative techniques. It provides case studies for 14 cities that all can be considered green infrastructure leaders, using a six-point “Emerald City Scale” to identify which key strategies each city is using to become cleaner and greener.

Two of the communities profiled in the report, Nashville and the Rouge River watershed (which includes Detroit), are showing the rest of the country how green infrastructure can be used to solve a city’s unique water management problems.

In Nashville, last year’s catastrophic flooding led the city to focus on green infrastructure techniques, which can help prevent flooding by catching and stopping rain where it falls. Nashville recognized that this aspect of green infrastructure was a huge benefit that could help mitigate the city’s risk of floods in the future.

Nashville green roof -- photo courtesy RD Herbert

Thanks to its commitment to this approach, Nashville achieved a score of 3 on the Emerald City Scale with the following strategies:

Nashville adopted a Green Infrastructure Master Plan in 2009 to guide the city’s progress. The plan identifies green infrastructure practices for use in the 12.3-square-mile downtown area and analyzes the benefits that implementation of those practices could have.
The city provides guidance and assistance to help people use green infrastructure at their own properties. It maintains a website with information about rain gardens and rain barrels, and the city has conducted a green street demonstration project to show Nashville residents all the benefits that green infrastructure can provide.
Nashville also has a dedicated funding source for green infrastructure: its stormwater user fee, which is based on the amount of impervious surface area on each user’s property.

The Detroit-area communities of the Rouge River watershed have also begun to use green infrastructure as a solution to their own local problem: combined sewer overflows, which occur when rainwater mixes with raw sewage in outdated sewer pipes, spilling untreated into waterways. The Detroit area has been spending millions of dollars on conventional infrastructure solutions like pipes and tunnels, but they’ve switched tactics to focus more on green infrastructure because it can save the city money.

As a result, the Rouge River watershed achieved a 1 on the Emerald City Scale thanks to its guidance and demonstration projects, including rain gardens, rain barrels, downspout disconnect programs, constructed wetlands, and “grow zones” along streams. Detroit has also been removing structures from vacant lots, taking them off the sewer system, and replacing them with porous land covers. These projects are increasing the visibility of green infrastructure in the region.

Greening of Detroit tree planting (Oct. 20, 2007) -- photo by Santa Fabio

However, both the Music City and the Motor City could do more to improve their Emerald City standings. Neither community has adopted a requirement for newly developed and redeveloped properties to use green infrastructure to reduce runoff, as cities like Philadelphia and Milwaukee have done. Neither requires the use of green infrastructure to reduce runoff from existing impervious areas. And neither provides strong incentives for individuals and businesses to install green infrastructure on their properties. Adopting these strategies would really help move the ball forward in both cities.

Still, the steps that Nashville and the Rouge River watershed communities have taken are a strong start. These cities’ experiences are proof that green infrastructure works. We hope that they inspire communities around the country to follow suit and invest in these green technologies.

New NRDC Report Shows Our Nation's Capital Is a Green Infrastructure Leader

2011-11-17T19:04:31Z

Rebecca Hammer, Project Attorney, Water Program, Washington, DC

As two of my colleagues revealed yesterday, NRDC has just released a new report called Rooftops to Rivers II showing how communities across the country are using green infrastructure techniques to stop water pollution. The report provides case studies for 14 cities that all can be considered green infrastructure leaders, using a six-point “Emerald City Scale” to identify which key strategies each city is using to become cleaner and greener.

It’s only fitting that our nation’s capital, Washington, D.C., is one of the most highly rated cities on the scale. The District is implementing an impressive five of the six strategies we identified, second only to Philadelphia – the only city to adopt all six.

Green roof at World Wildlife Fund Headquarters, Washington, D.C. -- photo courtesy American Hydrotech, Inc.

Here’s how D.C. scored so highly on the Emerald City Scale:

Thanks to its new Clean Water Act stormwater permit issued just last month, the District is committed to adopting a requirement for all newly developed and redeveloped properties over 5,000 square feet to retain the first 1.2 inches of stormwater on-site. Thanks to this requirement, properties throughout the city will use green infrastructure to capture and store rainwater.
The District’s new stormwater permit also commits it to using green infrastructure to reduce runoff from 18 million square feet of existing impervious surfaces.
The District has a dedicated funding source for green infrastructure in the form of two stormwater fees, paid to the District Department of Environment and D.C. Water, both of which are based on the amount of impervious surface area on each ratepayer’s property.
D.C. government provides incentives for individuals and businesses to use green infrastructure practices on their own properties. For example, the District is developing a program to give ratepayers a credit off of their stormwater fee if they use green infrastructure controls.
Last but not least, the District provides training, guidance, and assistance for the use of green infrastructure, reaching out to citizens with a public education campaign and providing subsidies and technical help to those installing green roofs and other practices.

The District is using green infrastructure to address pollution from both its separate and combined sewer systems. While the new stormwater permit described above mandates the use of green roofs and trees in the separate sewer areas of the city, D.C.’s water utility is also using green infrastructure to stop combined sewer overflows, as the Washington Post describes today.

However, the city does fall short in one area: it hasn’t adopted a long-term green infrastructure plan to guide its progress, as other cities (such as Nashville, New York, and Philadelphia) have done.

Still, the steps that D.C. has taken represent a true commitment to green infrastructure for which we commend the city. They’re going to go a long way in cleaning up the District’s historically troubled rivers, saving money on stormwater management costs, and making the city a more beautiful place to live.

D.C.'s New Stormwater Permit a Step Toward Clean Rivers in the Nation's Capital

2011-10-05T16:12:40Z

Rebecca Hammer, Project Attorney, Water Program, Washington, DC

Today the Environmental Protection Agency is issuing Washington, D.C. a new stormwater permit that has the potential to make our nation’s capital a cleaner, greener city.

Every time it rains, gross stuff like dirt, oil, toxic chemicals, heavy metals, bacteria, and trash wash into the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers, local streams, and other bodies of water through the city’s separate sewer system. The permit issued today requires the District to start cleaning up those discharges by preventing polluted runoff from entering the sewer system in the first place.

The permit’s key provision is a requirement for newly developed and redeveloped properties in D.C. to retain 1.2 inches of rainfall on-site through the use of green infrastructure controls like green roofs, rain gardens, and trees planted along streets. This means that no pollution will run off into the District’s waterways from new or redeveloped buildings or parking lots during 90 percent of rainstorms.

This requirement is a big deal. It’s one of the strongest requirements we’ve seen in the entire country, and it could make Washington, D.C. into a national leader for green infrastructure.

Not only that, it could also improve the quality of life for D.C. residents.

That’s because the green infrastructure practices that prevent stormwater pollution and clean up waterways also make cities more beautiful. Unlike pipes and underground tanks normally used to control stormwater pollution, studies show that green infrastructure can increase property values and attract economic development. It can also improve residents’ health and wellness, since green neighborhoods encourage people to get out and walk around more.

While the 1.2-inch retention standard for development is great – and we hope to see it replicated or even exceeded in other cities around the country – the District’s new permit does have some weak points.

For one thing, while it requires a portion of existing buildings and paved areas to be retrofitted to retain runoff, that portion is very small. It falls short of the full-scale restoration that’s necessary to address the pollution problems that plague District water bodies and the Chesapeake Bay.

Most troubling is the fact that the permit leaves out meaningful requirements for the District to meet its own water quality standards for a host of pollutants. In other words, while the District is required to undertake various practices, it’s not actually required to ensure that the quality of the water in the rivers is good enough. This leaves the city unaccountable to residents for contributing to conditions that impair our waterways for fishing and swimming.

Ultimately, the permit’s success or failure in cleaning up our waterways will depend on how the District implements it. We’re going to watch that process closely and work with the District as it moves forward.

New Senate Bill Aims to Prevent Polluted Stormwater Runoff from Roads and Highways

2011-05-06T13:47:44Z

Rebecca Hammer, Project Attorney, Water Program, Washington, DC

When most people think about the environmental impacts of roads and highways, they usually think of things like air pollution and noise from vehicles, or wildlife being hit by cars. What many people don’t realize is that the roads themselves have a significant impact on the environment – especially on water quality.

Every time it rains, runoff from roads and highways washes harmful pollutants into nearby rivers, streams, and lakes. Because the surface of roads is impervious – meaning that water cannot pass through it – rain that falls on roadways is not able to soak into the ground as it would naturally. Instead, that rainfall runs off into local water bodies, carrying with it all the stuff that was on the road’s surface: dirt, oil, grease, toxic chemicals, heavy metals, road salts, trash, and other pollutants.

According to American Rivers, when an inch of rain falls on just one mile of road, it produces 55,000 gallons of polluted stormwater. That’s bad for our local water bodies – not just because all that water carries pollution with it, but also because the excess water itself can erode stream banks, washing dirt into the water and destroying adjacent habitat.

(Photo credit: Erin Bluhm)

Fortunately, we know how to avoid these impacts: by controlling stormwater runoff from our roadways using something called “green infrastructure.” Green infrastructure techniques aim to reduce the volume of runoff, stopping the water where it falls before it can carry pollution into waterways. This can be done by infiltrating stormwater into the ground, or by using plants to evapotranspirate the water back into the air.

This approach is great because it’s much easier to keep pollution out of rivers and lakes in the first place than it is to remove the pollution once it’s there. We also love it because green infrastructure techniques provide communities with all sorts of benefits other than water quality improvement: air pollution reduction, creation of wildlife habitat, reduction of the urban heat island effect – even improved health and increased property values.

(Roadside infiltration swale -- Photo credit: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments)

We have reason to believe that this approach will soon be the norm for roads and highways around the country. That’s because a new bill introduced in the Senate yesterday by Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland will require certain new and redeveloped highway projects to maintain the “pre-development hydrology” of the site – in other words, preserve or restore its natural condition – by retaining runoff using green infrastructure and other techniques.

Senator Cardin said it best upon introducing the bill:

“Stormwater is the largest source of water pollution in our nation, and when it rains a myriad of dangerous contaminants are washed from road surfaces directly into our streams, rivers and other water bodies. We must design and construct roads in ways that address contaminated highway runoff at its source, reducing the chance of flash floods and stopping pollution before it reaches the waters of the Chesapeake Bay. Highways built with federal funds already are required to meet design standards for safety and structural quality. It’s time we implemented an environmental design standards for highways that protect water quality as well.”

Let’s hope that the Senate acts quickly to pass the STOPS Runoff Act. Not only will it reduce the impact of our roads and highways on the environment, but it will also ensure that our communities reap a wide range of other benefits, making them better places to live.

When You Make a Mess, Clean It Up: The Federal Government Must Commit Resources to the Anacostia's Restoration

2011-05-05T13:41:12Z

Rebecca Hammer, Project Attorney, Water Program, Washington, DC

On Monday morning, I headed down to the beautiful new Yards Park on the Anacostia River along with a bunch of my colleagues and a few local and federal officials. We weren’t there to admire the park or the view of the river – though both are lovely. Instead, we were there to mark the release of a new report by local non-profit organization DC Appleseed, “A New Day for the Anacostia,” which makes recommendations for how to clean up the river.

As I listened to the speakers at the event, I couldn’t help but think about the potential benefits that the Anacostia has to offer people like me who live in the Washington, DC region. I could picture people boating and swimming in the river on a summer afternoon, or families fishing and watching wildlife from the river’s shores.

(Photo credit: Capitol Riverfront BID)

Yet the Anacostia isn’t currently living up to this potential. In fact, it’s one of the most degraded urban rivers in the entire country – it’s filled with trash, polluted by stormwater runoff, fouled by sewage overflows, and contaminated by toxic materials. It’s not safe for fishing, swimming, or boating. That’s a real shame.

One major challenge is that the District is one of over 700 communities, largely located in the Northeast and Great Lakes region, with a “combined” sewer system, meaning that sewage flushed from homes and businesses is carried by the same pipes that receive runoff from streets and other impervious areas when it rains. These systems were originally constructed many decades (in some cases over a century) ago, and are designed to allow the mix of raw sewage and runoff to overflow into our rivers when we have a significant enough rainfall. This is a serious pollution problem – according to EPA, these discharges can contain pathogens (including bacteria and viruses) that can cause disease, toxic chemicals, and – ewww – “floatables.” As documented in NRDC’s annual survey of beachwater pollution and beach closings and advisories, “Testing the Waters,” sewage discharges are an important cause of beach pollution.

(Photo credit: Anacostia Watershed Society)

Fortunately, DC Appleseed’s report provides some concrete suggestions as to how things can be turned around for the Anacostia. Most importantly, the report recommends that the federal government declare the river’s restoration a priority and lead a new pilot program that could be replicated for other polluted urban rivers across the country.

You might be wondering, why should the federal government get involved in the clean-up of the Anacostia? Well, DC Appleseed has four very good answers to that question:

The federal government has been recommending that communities across the country adopt innovative techniques to curb water pollution, such as green infrastructure. The Anacostia is an ideal place to demonstrate these strategies, since a report was released last year listing thousands of candidate green infrastructure projects that are ready to be implemented here.
The federal government has a unique responsibility to remedy the damage done to the Anacostia, both because of its historical actions in the watershed (including deforestation, weapons manufacturing, and installation of DC’s combined sewer system), and because it’s still one of the watershed’s largest tenants and sources of pollution. It’s just like my parents always taught me – when you make a mess, you should help clean it up.
The Anacostia restoration will create jobs and economic investment. A clean, beautiful river will spur development along the waterfront in some of the DC area’s most economically distressed communities.
Without federal involvement and coordination, the restoration will be done inefficiently, and will take much longer than it would with EPA’s help.

Sounds pretty convincing, right? Unfortunately, the federal government doesn’t seem to fully agree – at least yet. Last month, when the President and leaders in Congress negotiated a bill to fund the government through September, they actually reduced the federal payment to DC Water, which is the sewage authority for the District, and which has developed a plan to address the overwhelming majority of sewage overflows, called the “Clean Rivers Project.” For a fun overview, check out the mostly great video below, following a raindrop through the city sewers (I say only “mostly” because I think it could do a better job of highlighting the promise of green infrastructure, especially in light of pleas from NRDC and other local partners to better incorporate green infrastructure into the plan).

It’s not only disappointing that the feds are short-changing the District’s cleanup efforts, given the federal government’s responsibility, but it also highlights a flaw in the reasoning of those who think that cutting government spending is always good. Here, because somebody will have to pay the costs of addressing the city’s sewage overflow problems, the costs that the feds fail to pay will instead have to be paid by local ratepayers.

At the report release event on Monday, EPA and other federal officials made some nice speeches expressing their commitment to act as a full partner in the clean-up of the Anacostia. I am convinced that those expressions were heartfelt. But if DC Appleseed’s plan is to succeed – an outcome that would benefit everyone in the DC region – the federal government needs to put its money where its mouth is. Otherwise, those nice words are ultimately just words.

New Studies Link Intense Rain and Snow Events to Climate Change

2011-02-17T17:34:15Z

Rebecca Hammer, Project Attorney, Water Program, Washington, DC

If you’re like me, you probably know someone who views this winter’s crazy blizzards as evidence that global warming obviously doesn’t exist. If you do, you might want to show that person the two studies appearing in this week’s Nature magazine that directly link rising greenhouse gas levels with the growing intensity of rain and snow in the northern hemisphere.

As described by the New York Times:

[T]he researchers used elaborate computer programs that simulate the climate to analyze whether the rise in severe rainstorms, heavy snowfalls and similar events could be explained by natural variability in the atmosphere. They found that it could not, and that the increase made sense only when the computers factored in the effects of greenhouse gases released by human activities like the burning of fossil fuels.

According to the study, over the second half of the 20th century, the likelihood of extreme precipitation on any given day rose by 7%. In other words, extreme events like heavier-than-usual rain and snow are becoming more common. And it’s not just a coincidence or fluke – that 7% increase is well outside the bounds of natural variability. It can only be explained by climate change.

This finding is a big deal. According to the Washington Post, “this is the first time researchers have been able to point to a demonstrable cause-and-effect by using the rigorous and scientifically accepted method of looking for the ‘fingerprints’ of human-caused climate change.”

Hold on, you might be thinking. More rain and snow? Isn’t climate change supposed to cause more droughts and water shortages, like NRDC pointed out in our recent vulnerability report? Actually, that’s right. Paradoxically, climate change is predicted to cause both more floods and more droughts.

While that might seem a little counterintuitive at first, the evidence supports it. Climate change is expected to push our weather patterns toward the extremes. While some places might end up getting less rain overall, leading to shortages and vulnerable water supplies, each individual precipitation event might be more intense, leading to flooding.

As these climate change impacts become more common, we won’t be able to rely on past weather and climate patterns as a guide for how things will be in the future. That makes it a lot harder to plan for things like where to build roads and houses, how to manage our water supplies, and when and where to plant crops.

So what should we do about it? Of course, it’s crucial that we reduce our greenhouse gas emissions so that we can minimize the occurrences of extreme weather events like those described in the Nature studies.

But some climate change impacts are inevitably going to happen anyway because of emissions we’ve already put into the atmosphere. We have to be prepared to adapt to those changes when they happen. When we’re talking about intense rains and floods, “adaptation” means doing things like:

Improving monitoring, forecasting, and early warning systems for storm events.
Preserving and restoring wetlands, floodplains, dunes, and other natural barriers to reduce the impacts of storms.
Reducing stormwater runoff by requiring low impact development measures to capture and retain the water that falls during storms.
Requiring the Army Corps of Engineers and FEMA to incorporate the effects of climate change in their analyses of future flood risk.
Discouraging development in areas that are, and will increasingly be, vulnerable to flooding.

The new Nature studies show that it’s more important than ever for states and local communities to start planning for the changes that are already happening. If we act quickly to enact well-informed, environmentally sound policies, we may be able to avoid the worst of these impacts – and hopefully be ready to cope with the next big rain or snowstorm.

Congress Requires Feds to Pay Their Fair Share to Clean Up Stormwater Pollution

2010-12-27T16:03:47Z

Rebecca Hammer, Project Attorney, Water Program, Washington, DC

America's rivers, lakes, and streams got an early Christmas present from Congress last week. Before adjourning for the year, the House and Senate passed a bill that requires federal agencies to comply with local stormwater fees that are used to treat and manage polluted stormwater runoff.

Before this bill was passed, there was some uncertainty about whether federal agencies were legally required to pay stormwater fees. Here in Washington D.C., for example, the federal government told our local utility, D.C. Water, that it didn’t want to pay the utility’s impervious surface area charge. The revenues that D.C. Water collects from the charge pay for the maintenance of storm sewers that collect runoff.

Every time it rains, water carries trash and pollutants from hard surfaces (like roads, parking lots, and roofs) into our waterways. This polluted runoff is one of the reasons why our nation’s capital has some of the dirtiest urban rivers in the country. D.C. Water needs to charge its stormwater fee so that it has enough money to keep runoff out of our water, and it sensibly decided to allocate the fee based on how much hard surface a property contains – because that directly relates to how much polluted runoff the property generates.

But the feds claimed that the fee was an impermissible tax on the government that they weren’t required to pay. Since the federal government owns a significant percentage of the land within the District (about 20% of D.C.’s impervious area), this would have represented a huge loss of revenue for D.C. Water. The utility would have had to hike up rates for every other resident and business in the District in order to cover its operational costs. That just wouldn’t be fair.

This problem isn’t specific to D.C., either – it’s surfaced in other areas of the country where the federal government owns land. According to one recent news story, federal agencies owe thousands or even millions of dollars in stormwater fees to communities as diverse as Lexington, KY, Aurora, CO, Tampa, FL, Seattle, WA, and Atlanta, GA.

Fortunately, the bipartisan bill passed in Congress last week – which was cosponsored by Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland and Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma – eliminates the controversy by making clear that the federal government is required to pay stormwater fees. The bill does this by specifically stating that the fees are “reasonable service charges,” which the federal government is required to pay, and not taxes, which it isn’t.

As Senator Cardin said upon the passage of the bill, “At stake has been a fundamental issue of equity: polluters should be financially responsible for the pollution that they cause, including the federal government.” In other words, the federal government is now held accountable to pay its fair share. This is a good result both for revenue-strapped communities and for polluted rivers and streams across the country.

What Do the 2010 Census Results Mean for the Southwest's Water Supplies?

2010-12-22T00:27:48Z

Rebecca Hammer, Project Attorney, Water Program, Washington, DC

The 2010 U.S. Census results, released today, provide us with lots of new information about how America has grown in the past ten years. In particular, we can see that a great deal of that growth has taken place in the Southwest. If you rank all fifty states by rate of population growth, the top four are Nevada (35.1%), Arizona (24.6%), Utah (23.8%), and Texas (20.6%). Those rates dramatically outpace the national growth rate of 9.7%.

Unfortunately, according to NRDC’s report Climate Change, Water, and Risk, these happen to be four of the states facing a high risk of water shortages by mid-century as a result of climate change. If you look at the map that accompanied our report, you’ll see that a lot of areas within these four states are colored dark red (meaning that their water supplies are the most vulnerable).

What our report found was that, when climate change impacts are considered, 13 of 15 Arizona counties, 9 of 17 Nevada counties, 235 of 254 Texas counties, and 13 of 29 Utah counties will face an extreme or high risk of water shortages by 2050. That’s because these areas are projected to get less rainfall at the same time that water use – both agricultural and urban – is projected to increase. In other words, there won’t be enough water to go around in some of those areas.

This all means that the greatest U.S. population growth is occurring precisely where water supplies are going to be the most vulnerable over the coming years. That’s a scary thought. Fortunately, there are some things that Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and Texas can do to protect their citizens from devastating water shortages.

NRDC’s fact sheet “Climate Change and Water Resource Management” sets out some of these common sense solutions. For example, communities in vulnerable areas should focus on conservation and efficiency to make the most of precious water supplies. These communities should also begin to implement green infrastructure and low impact development practices – in other words, techniques like green roofs, rain gardens, and permeable pavement that stop rain where it falls, storing it and allowing it to filter into the ground so that it can recharge local groundwater supplies.

An NRDC report from last year found that implementing low impact development in certain areas of southern California had the potential to increase local water supplies by up to 405,000 acre-feet of water per year. That’s roughly two-thirds of the volume of water used by the entire city of Los Angeles each year. For communities that are facing the prospect of shortages – such as the four Southwest states with the fastest-growing growing populations – those water savings could mean a lot.

Bill Introduced in Senate Cleans Up Waterways, Boosts Water Supplies & Greens Cities Nationwide

2010-07-08T19:53:23Z

Rebecca Hammer, Project Attorney, Water Program, Washington, DC

Last week, the Senate introduced a bill I’ve been working on that will provide tools to help communities clean up their waterways and make them more resilient to droughts, water shortages and floods at the same time.

That bill -- sponsored by Tom Udall (D-NM) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) -- is the Green Infrastructure for Clean Water Act, and I blogged about it back when it was introduced in the House of Representatives last December. Since then, 40 members of the House have signed on. Now it’s the Senate’s turn. If enacted, it will provide funding and technical support for communities to use something called “green infrastructure” techniques to manage their stormwater pollution.

Every time it rains, water carries trash and pollutants from hard surfaces (like roads, parking lots, and roofs) into our waterways. Green infrastructure prevents that from happening by using techniques like green roofs, rain gardens, and permeable pavement to stop rain where it falls: storing it, allowing it to filter into the ground, or using it as water for thirsty plants. That way, rainfall is prevented from turning into harmful polluted runoff.

When that kind of runoff isn’t controlled, it creates a lot of problems for our lakes, rivers and bays. It’s one of the main sources of pollution for America’s waterways, and one of the only sources that’s still growing.

Nationwide, our water and sewer systems -- made of concrete, pipes and tanks -- are failing as their age increases and our population grows. Those systems can no longer adequately deal with wastewater and runoff. But green infrastructure, which prevents stormwater from entering sewer pipes in the first place, is the most cost-effective way to address the problem. The bill introduced last week recognizes that.

In addition to cleaning up waterways, the Green Infrastructure for Clean Water Act will also help to increase property values, foster job growth, improve air quality, promote health and fitness, and improve the overall quality of life in cities nationwide -- all added benefits of green infrastructure. After all, who doesn’t want to see more plants and enjoy more green space in their town?

Green infrastructure techniques also happen to be a great way to both naturally boost water supplies for dry times and reduce flooding on wetter days. Because it gets water to soak into the ground instead of being lost as runoff, green infrastructure can help recharge groundwater supplies in places that are dealing with droughts and shortages. And because it uses vegetation to decrease runoff volume and slow the water down, green infrastructure can also reduce flooding.

Because green infrastructure is effective in all climates, it makes sense that the two Senate sponsors of the bill come from a dry state (New Mexico) and a wetter one (Rhode Island). Here's what the two sponsors had to say about the bill in a press release from earlier today:

“Water quality is an issue facing states across the country, but in particular those of the arid southwest like my home state of New Mexico, where water is always in limited supply,” Udall said. “By promoting greener design of stormwater infrastructure, we can create jobs, save on construction costs, and help recharge our aquifers, all while reducing pollution and flooding of our scenic rivers.”

“In the wake of the March floods, it’s become clear that we need improved techniques to handle storm water runoff,” Whitehouse said. “This legislation will help improve green infrastructure, create good jobs and help control future floods.”

Let’s hope that the Senate moves quickly to pass the Green Infrastructure for Clean Water Act. There’s a lot to love about a bill that will not only help to curb water pollution but also make communities more livable, make water supplies more sustainable, and protect against floods when it storms.

EPA Water Pollution Controls in Nation’s Capital Are Off to a Good Start — Tell Them to Finish the Job

2010-05-05T13:25:07Z

Rebecca Hammer, Project Attorney, Water Program, Washington, DC

Two weeks ago, on the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, EPA released a draft stormwater permit for Washington, DC that gives us hope about the future of the District’s waters. This region has some of the dirtiest urban rivers in the country, especially the Anacostia River, which is severely polluted by sediment, nutrients, pathogens, toxins, and trash. Every time it rains, water runs off of impervious surfaces in the District and dumps all of those pollutants into our waterways.

That’s why it’s crucial for EPA to issue a strong permit that will control how much stormwater pollution runs into DC’s rivers and streams. When we first saw the permit draft, we were excited to see certain provisions in there, especially the requirements for “green infrastructure” or “low impact development” controls throughout the District. Not only does green infrastructure clean up our waters, but it also creates jobs and livable, walkable neighborhoods that are good for businesses and our health. That’s the kind of innovative, smart water practice that communities across the country need to be focused on.

The draft permit is a good start. But we’re not sure that it has the teeth it needs to ensure that the District will take adequate steps to solve its water pollution problems. After reading it closely, we’ve identified some areas in which the draft permit needs to be strengthened in order to effectively protect and restore DC’s waters, including:

Specific requirements, including numbers and deadlines. Stormwater permits require the permittee – here, the District – to create plans describing how it will reduce stormwater pollution. The draft DC permit contains few specific requirements for what the District must include in those plans. Instead of giving the District the chance to set weak targets for itself, EPA should include specific pollution reduction goals in the permit and set deadlines for DC to meet those goals.
A requirement to meet water quality standards. Under the Clean Water Act, states set “water quality standards” for each of their water bodies. That means that the state first designates what it wants each river, stream, or lake to be used for – such as recreation, water supply, or aquatic life – and then sets pollutant limits to protect those designated uses. The draft DC permit gives the District a “free pass” on meeting local water quality standards, as long as it meets the other permit terms. That’s just not good enough. The permit should contain a separate provision specifically requiring DC to fulfill its legal obligations on water quality standards.
Better opportunities for public participation. As previously mentioned, stormwater permits require permittees to “fill in the blanks” as to the specifics of their stormwater management strategies in plans that they themselves write. These plans are every bit as important as the permit itself. Especially because the draft DC permit is vague about what the plans must include, it’s critical that the public be able to review and comment on the plans – an opportunity that the draft permit does not currently provide.

A good permit from EPA will help bring about meaningful, measurable strategies to curb stormwater runoff pollution in the District. As currently written, the draft permit does not quite make the grade. While EPA should be encouraged to keep the draft permit’s requirements to plant trees, build green roofs, and manage runoff from the District’s impervious surfaces, it must also be urged to make the important changes mentioned above.

Tell EPA that you want a strong stormwater permit that will clean up the waterways in our nation’s capital. DC needs a permit that reflects the serious commitment of EPA and the District to creating healthy communities and growing our economy.

DC Poised to Clean Up its Rivers, Bay with Smarter Water Practices

2010-04-22T15:24:53Z

Rebecca Hammer, Project Attorney, Water Program, Washington, DC

On the 40th anniversary of Earth Day – an occasion that gave way to historic environmental progress like the creation of the Clean Water Act – we’re excited about news that a new initiative will help control water pollution in our nation’s capital, with impacts that will reach the entire Chesapeake Bay.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has just released a draft of a new stormwater permit for Washington, DC, incorporating smarter water practices that hold promise for making great strides toward cleaning up the District’s rivers and waterways. EPA is billing the permit as the “next generation” of stormwater controls, and it could set a model for the rest of the country to follow.

It may not sound like it, but stormwater permits are actually extremely important to clean up our nation’s waters because they help control the pollution that stormwater runoff carries through a sewer systems and into waterways. This new permit looks like a big improvement over previous stormwater controls, issued in 2004, because it requires the District to take several new progressive steps that help keep polluted stormwater out of our rivers and streams, including investments in so-called “green infrastructure” techniques on land that make a real difference for our water.

In DC, 38.6% of the land area can be characterized as impervious, meaning water can’t pass through it. This means that falling rain doesn’t find its way back into the ground the way it would in a natural setting. Instead, rain hits the city surfaces – parking lots, buildings, roads – and runs off. Think about the street outside your house: Is there trash in the gutters? Oil on the street? Dirt? I’m guessing yes. When it rains, stormwater runoff carries all that stuff into storm drains and ultimately into rivers and other waterways.

In fact, stormwater is the only growing source of pollution in the Chesapeake Bay. It’s a large source of the pollutants that cause “dead zones” in the Bay. And it’s a major reason why 34 miles of rivers and streams in and around DC do not support swimming or aquatic life.

Fortunately, we know what to do about it. We have solutions. And that’s where this new stormwater permit comes in.

The draft permit for DC’s separate sewer system, released this morning, has three provisions that are some of the strongest and most progressive stormwater protections in the Bay watershed:

A requirement that the District undertake a certain number of “green infrastructure” projects. The best (and most cost-effective) way to deal with stormwater is to mimic what happens in nature, by putting that water back into the ground where it falls, rather than funneling it into drains and pipes. This is achieved through “green infrastructure” measures like rain gardens, green roofs, tree cover, permeable pavement, rain barrels, or anything else that keeps rainwater from running off into our sewers. Not only is this a very effective way to deal with stormwater pollution, but increasing vegetation and green space improves air quality, reduces energy costs, and increases property values. The new permit will require DC to use these green infrastructure practices, such as planting 4,150 new trees every year and installing 350,000 square feet of green roofs on District properties.
Enforceable limits on pollutants entering the District’s waterways. Under the Clean Water Act, maximum daily pollutant limits are set for each polluted body of water. Stormwater permits require the permittee (in this case, the District) to make a plan describing how it will meet that daily limit for each pollutant. Under the old permit, the District was required to have a plan, but it was not legally obligated to implement it. The new permit requires DC to set specific dates by which it will meet pollution limits and describe how its chosen methods will ensure the targets are met. Moreover, the elements of DC’s plan will become enforceable terms of the permit after approval by EPA.
New stormwater standards for new development and redevelopment in the District. The new permit will require developers, regardless of whether they are building on a green space or redeveloping existing construction, to include stormwater management techniques that control the majority of stormwater on-site, instead of allowing it to enter our waterways. For every 24 hours of rain, developers will have to make sure their properties retain 1.2 inches of rainfall. That number was chosen because all but the very biggest storms in DC will generate that amount of rain or less.

These kinds of smart water practices are exactly what NRDC and other leading experts have been encouraging communities nationwide to turn to in order to clean up our waterways. These three provisions alone represent immense progress away from the tank-and-pipe systems of the past that are failing us today, and as the Washington Post is saying, they signify “a major shift in thinking for a city covered in glass, concrete and shingles.” We hope that local government officials will support the inclusion of these provisions in the final permit.

And while the new permit is a step in the right direction, there’s at least one way we think EPA can make it even stronger to solidify the District’s position as a model for the rest of the country:

More certainty in the permit’s public participation requirements. The MS4 permit written by EPA sets various targets that the District of Columbia is expected to meet. The District then writes plans detailing how the District will hit those targets. Those plans are every bit as important as the permit itself. The draft permit implies that the public will be given notice of the plans and the opportunity to comment on them. But an implication is not good enough. The permit must be crystal clear that the District of Columbia is mandated to solicit and consider public comment on its stormwater management plans.

Overall, DC’s proposed new water pollution controls and investment in smarter water practices seem to be a big step forward. Moreover, this progress is particularly significant because of where it’s happening. In every other state in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, the state government drafts the stormwater permit and submits it to EPA for approval. However, for the District of Columbia, EPA writes the permit directly. This means DC’s new stormwater permit could set a precedent for the kinds of requirements the agency will be looking for when other states submit their own plans. We look forward to examining the draft permit in greater detail over the coming weeks, and to working with EPA to make DC a leader in smart clean water practices for 21st century pollution control in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and nationwide.

This blog was co-written by NRDC Water Program Fellow Cori Lombard.

New Green Infrastructure Means Clean Water with Added Benefits

2009-12-04T14:31:13Z

Rebecca Hammer, Project Attorney, Water Program, Washington, DC

When I first started learning about a practice called “green infrastructure” during my first weeks at NRDC, I found that a certain word kept popping up to describe it: multi-beneficial. I was amazed by the range of positive effects provided by this stormwater runoff management method beyond, well, the effective management of stormwater.

As I’ve blogged about before, using green infrastructure techniques – such as green roofs, rain gardens, and porous pavement – decreases stormwater runoff and water pollution by capturing rain where it falls. This practice helps clean up our waterways and our beaches, reducing the disease-causing pathogens that get dumped into the water and making it safer to swim.

Remarkably, these techniques also do all sorts of other neat things at the same time: they create green spaces and opportunities for urban recreation, prevent people from dying of heat-related illnesses, save heating and cooling energy costs, generate green landscaping and construction jobs, cleanse pollutants from city air, reduce levels of urban crime and violence… The list goes on and on. On the other hand, the traditional stormwater management strategy of building gutters and underground pipes provides almost none of these side benefits.

For everybody who’s a fan of multi-beneficial green infrastructure, yesterday was an exciting day. Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.), Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-Mo.), and Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-Oh.) just introduced a bill that will help spread the use of green infrastructure in communities across America. This bill does three things to promote green infrastructure approaches:

It establishes “Centers of Excellence” for green infrastructure: a small group of research institutions across the country that will get federal support for their research into innovative green infrastructure tactics. These centers will serve the very important function of coordinating information, so that any community that wants to implement green infrastructure can have the data it needs to get started.
The bill also establishes a green infrastructure program at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It’s crucial that EPA start to incorporate green infrastructure into all of its permitting and enforcement programs so that regulated entities have incentives to take the leap to these new and sometimes unfamiliar techniques.
Last but not least, the bill creates a grant program that will give communities around the nation – especially low-income communities and ones with raw sewage-discharging combined sewer systems – the resources they need to undertake their own green infrastructure projects. These projects will make the grant recipient counties, cities, and towns into better places to live for all their residents.

The sponsors of the bill gave it the title “Green Infrastructure for Clean Water Act of 2009.” But they could just as accurately have named it the “Green Infrastructure for Clean Water, Clean Air, Flood Prevention, Abundant Water Supplies, Green Jobs, Cost Savings, Better Health and Reduced Crime Act of 2009.” Green infrastructure has all of those positive effects (and more), and it should get credit for being the amazing multi-beneficial approach that it is.

Water: Our Common Ground

2009-12-03T20:10:53Z

Rebecca Hammer, Project Attorney, Water Program, Washington, DC

The Copenhagen climate negotiations are coming up, and it can be a bit daunting to think about all those delegates from around the world trying to reach an agreement when there are so many diverse ideas about what we should do. Instead of focusing on our differences, we should try to remember that there is one thing everyone can agree on: the need to help water resources adapt to climate change.

As I blogged about back when the U.S. Senate's climate and energy bill was introduced, climate change impacts threaten the water that we all use to drink, swim, wash and bathe. Rising temperatures and changing weather patterns will mean more floods and intense storms, longer droughts and shortages, and increased water pollution in America and around the world. These changes will be expensive for our communities: a recent NACWA/AMWA report found that the cost to America's water utilities of adapting to climate change's effects could range from $448 billion to $944 billion.

No matter where in the world they live, most people agree that water is something we should be concerned about. A GlobeScan/Circle of Blue worldwide poll found that more than 90% of people think water pollution and freshwater shortages are somewhat serious or very serious problems. Since climate change will cause more of these problems, it could make sense for decision-makers to focus on them in order to find a common ground in climate negotiations.

In an op-ed in Monday's L.A. Times, water expert James Workman makes that very point. "Water is the planet's one common denominator," he writes, arguing that water adaptation strategies should be a top priority in Copenhagen. Mr. Workman also expresses frustration and confusion about the fact that many references to water have been deleted from the draft agreement text.

Mr. Workman's article does a great job of attracting attention to the critical issue of water adaptation. And he's right that there aren't very many references to water remaining in the draft Copenhagen agreement text. However, we at NRDC think there is still reason for optimism. As my colleague Heather Allen blogged a few weeks ago, a couple of key references to water remain in a key adaptation non-paper. (A "non-paper" is a proposed agreement or negotiating text circulated informally among delegations for discussion without committing the originating delegation's country to the contents.)

These references aren't quite enough to give water the full focus and attention that it deserves in the negotiations, and it's unclear whether and how they will be incorporated into the final agreement, but these non-paper provisions do highlight the value of water and ecosystems - and that's something the whole world can agree on.

Managing Stormwater and Making People Nicer: All in a Day’s Work for Green Infrastructure

2009-10-16T20:07:03Z

Rebecca Hammer, Project Attorney, Water Program, Washington, DC

Ever think that it's a waste for all the fresh water falling as rain to be swept immediately away to the ocean and other water bodies, becoming polluted and unusable along the way - all while parts of the country struggle with drought? Well, in California - where they are in their third dry year - the state legislature is of like mind. They recently passed a bill that will try to change the way California communities think about stormwater, encouraging them to consider it as a resource rather than as waste.

As described in the Los Angeles Times, this new law - the Stormwater Resource Planning Act - allows California municipalities to use funds for projects "that reduce or reuse stormwater, recharge the groundwater supply, create green spaces and enhance wildlife habitats."

Hopefully, the projects that get funded will use green infrastructure and low-impact development (LID) techniques to make those goals a reality. Green infrastructure and LID are development practices that address the stormwater problem "at the source" by restoring some of the natural hydrologic functions of areas that have been developed.

In practice, using these techniques often means creating vegetated areas like parks and rain gardens, installing "green roofs" on buildings, or using permeable pavement in parking lots and roads. All of these practices capture and treat stormwater at the location where it's created, before it has the opportunity to get swept away into sewers and far from the urban dwellers who need it. Instead, it seeps through the soil into aquifers for people to use, getting naturally filtered and cleansed as it goes. Or, it can be kept in rain barrels and cisterns on-site for people to reuse right away.

NRDC is a big proponent of green infrastructure and LID approaches. Our Rooftops to Rivers report sang the praises of green stormwater management strategies back in 2006, and just this past summer NRDC recommended LID as a solution for thirsty California cities.

Why do we like this approach so much? In addition to treating stormwater naturally and effectively and providing a source of extra water for communities in need, green infrastructure and LID techniques provide a ton of other environmental benefits, like improved air quality, a decrease in the urban heat island effect, and better urban aesthetics. Plus, a new study shows that looking at natural environments - like the ones created in cities when green infrastructure is used - makes people nicer!

With benefits like that, let's hope that other states around the country also recognize green infrastructure as a great way to manage stormwater - and become a happier place to live at the same time.