Philadelphia's Green City Stormwater Solutions

Philadelphia recently kicked off an initiative to help solve their stormwater system problems by incorporating use of porus pavement and rooftop gardens. See this link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110601/ap_on_re_us/us_philadelphia_water_2

Addressing creative solutions to stormwater management and low impact development is what LandmarkJCM is all about. For incorporating such measures in your project, contact Keith Rudy, head of our Water Resources Division, 302-323-9377.

Smart Growth Clashes with Storm Water Regulations

Everyone says it is a good idea, encourage development where there are opportunities for re-development or where there are already utilities and infrastructure.  Stop sprawl by creating urban centers where people can live, work and play.

All of this means higher density development but concentrated in a smaller area allowing the preservation of natural resources.

Many consumers are now deciding that this is how they would like to live.  Governments, Environmentalists and others are applauding the idea.  So what's the problem?

New, more stringent storm water regulations being implemented by Federal and State governments make smart growth nearly impossible.  These rules want to encourage infiltration, reduce impervious surfaces and make storm water BMPs larger.  All of these things potentially conflict with "Smart Growth".

NAHB has published an article about this here: http://nahbenews.com/nahbehs/issues/2010-07-02/4.html

For more information on Smart Growth and Storm Water Rule Changes, contact Joe Charma or Keith Rudy at LandmarkJCM.

Federal Government Refuses to Pay Storm Water Fee

From the NAHB Environmental Issues Committee Newsletter:

http://nahbenews.com/nahbehs/issues/2010-07-02/3.html


The Federal Government (EPA) has mandated that the District of Columbia, reduce the amount of storm water run-off.  In response, DC has mandated a storm water fee to be paid by all property owners.  The problem:  The Federal Government owns 20% of the land area of DC and refuses to pay the fee.

Jim McCulley of LandmarkJCM serves on the NAHB Environmental Issues Committee which meets again in September in New York City. 

Turbulence Over Storm Water Deal in Maryland

Reprinted for your information by LandmarkJCM:


March 16, 2010, Baltimore Sun

A deal to give some development projects a break from Maryland's new storm-water pollution regulations may not be settled just yet.

Sen. Paul G. Pinsky, presiding chairman of the legislative committee that reviews regulations, has written a letter to state Environment Secretary Shari T. Wilson saying the agreement announced last week raises "many questions," and he wants answers. His questions could cause trouble, since the Joint Committee on Administrative, Executive and Legislative Review has the power to veto emergency regulations, which are key to carrying out the deal.

Builders, local officials and representatives of some environmental groups said last week that they'd reached what they called a compromise on the regulations, which were unveiled last year. The rules, which require developers to do more to control polluted runoff, had riled builders and local officials, who complained they would make some projects too costly to construct. They said they'd have to revamp projects already begun using the current, less stringent requirements. And they warned that redevelopment would be discouraged, undermining the state's Smart Growth anti-sprawl efforts.

The parties agreed to "grandfather" an unknown number of developments already under way or with at least preliminary approval from local governments. They also agreed to ease requirements on some redevelopment projects. The changes would have to be made via emergency regulations to avoid the original rules from taking effect on May 4. Wilson's Department of the Environment sent the emergency rules to Pinsky's committee at the end of last week.

Activist involved in reaching the deal said it was needed to avoid the risk that worse changes might get pushed through the General Assembly this year. But the deal has split environmental activists, with some arguing that it was unwise to give in, considering the growing harm storm-water runoff is causing to streams and the Chesapeake Bay. They also contend that bills granting concessions to builders and local officials would never pass the Senate.
Pinsky, a Prince George's County Democrat, is one of the legislature's most ardent environmental advocates. He was not party to the negotiations, which were guided by Del. Maggie McIntosh, a Baltimore Democrat who is chairwoman of the House Environmental Matters Committee. Pinsky says he's troubled by the changes in the rules.

"I'm not real comfortable with them," Pinsky said. While developers had raised some valid concerns, he said he was concerned that the deal went too far. "As it is now, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night." Though he said he was not prepared to "blow up the agreement," Pinsky said he wants more information and possibly some tweaks to the rule changes. Of particular concern, he said, was how many development projects in the planning pipeline would be allowed to go forward under the deal using less stringent runoff controls, with up to seven years to actually begin construction. "Are there 75 or 7,500?" he asked. "I believe in data-driven decision-making. Here we are making a major change in the regulations and no one has a clue on how it changes things on the ground. It astounds me."

McIntosh, who had pressed for a compromise to avoid a legislative battle over the storm-water rules, said she hoped that Wilson, the environment secretary, would be able to provide Pinsky with satisfactory answers to his questions. She said she hoped that Pinsky would allow the rules to come before the committee. Asked if the deal could be revised without falling apart, she said, "It depends on what he's talking about."

Maryland Storm Water Regulations

For more information on how these regulations may affect you, contact John Gonzalez from the LandmarkJCM Maryland Office at john.gonzalez@landmarkengineering.com

A reprint from the Baltimore Sun:


February 24, 2010, The Baltimore Sun

The new state storm water regulations set to go into effect this spring, when applied to approved projects and to redevelopment properties, would have severe consequences, including a loss of density, that will cause a substantial increase to the costs and the value/economics of a project. Certain environmental interest groups are arguing that the several hundred developers who are protesting the regulations would actually save money. The fact is that the construction industry, which is in the best position to judge the impact of the new rules, clearly understands that costs will increase significantly -- in many cases to levels that will doom needed projects and the jobs they bring. Local governments have drawn similar conclusions.

Certain environmental interest groups have relied heavily on an EPA study that did not review Maryland's proposed regulations and, in fact, was done before Maryland even developed the regulations. When you look at the details of that study -- instead of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation's self-serving interpretation, you discover:

• Many of the projects revealed significantly increased costs;

• The bulk of the projects examined were greenfield development, not urban redevelopment;

• Loss of density (sprawl) was not a consideration;

• Numerous estimated savings were attributed to a reduction of road width, yet the fire marshalls and public works departments in Maryland would not permit this; and

• Higher maintenance costs were not accounted for in these studies.

As a matter of fact, there were no case studies of private or public redevelopment of high-density, mixed use projects. So the EPA study does nothing to address our legitimate fears.

These environmental interest groups also suggest that Maryland's new regulations are similar to those already in place in Montgomery County and Philadelphia. Again, the facts, when examined objectively, show that is inaccurate. There are some common elements, but the differences are great enough to greatly reduce the cost impacts.

It is true that in Montgomery County there is a current requirement for a 100 percent reduction of impervious surfaces. However, Montgomery County allows many credits that Maryland's new regulations will forbid. To mention a few: Montgomery County allows a 100 percent credit for a green roof (Maryland does not); Montgomery County allows environmental site design to the maximum extent practicable for water quality (Maryland does not). These differences have huge impacts on cost and density in the real world.

CBF also cites Philadelphia as an area using similar standards -- yet upon looking at the facts, there are much bigger differences than similarities. Philadelphia requires a smaller reduction of impervious surfaces, allows a greater credit for green roofs and provides more alternatives and flexibility in meeting its goals.

The real facts are that every bit of hard evidence out there indicates that Maryland's regulations will greatly increase costs. EPA's hypothetical studies and the details of the Montgomery County and Philadelphia standards simply illustrate how extreme the new Maryland regulations are compared to reasonable standards. This problem is compounded by the state's insistence that the regulations apply retroactively to projects that are working their way through the long development pipeline.

There has been a suggestion that the new regulations will create more "green jobs" -- apparently referring to the additional huge costs that the counties and municipalities will incur in maintaining the new environmental site designs. That burden will, of course, fall on taxpayers, not developers and those jobs can only be created if the new regulations do not kill new development. We know that the new regulations will kill projects, and that is why we are certain that the regulations will directly cause the loss of jobs in the construction industry.

Recent articles have cited a 41 percent growth in impervious area with an 8 percent population increase, and that these hard surfaces have created the stormwater pollution problem. This data is factually inaccurate. Based on our consultant's analysis of the EPA Watershed Model 5.2, the EPA's data shows a Bay watershed population increase of 10.3 percent and an increase in impervious surfaces of 14.2 percent from 1990-2000. Further for the state of Maryland, from 1990-2000, the Maryland population increase was 10.7 percent while the impervious surface increase was 15.2 percent.

The Maryland Home Builders supported the 2007 storm water legislation, and we continue to support keeping the May 4, 2010 standards for new projects entering the long entitlement process. But the new stormwater regulations should not apply retroactively to projects that are working their way through the approval process.

Lastly, we think the dialogue stemming from the debate over these regulations is good because it is important this time around when bay clean up goals are set that they have a chance of being met. To be direct, development contributes 3 percent of the sediment pollution to the bay and minuscule amounts to the nitrogen and phosphorous pollutants. The development industry is prepared to do its part. Development cannot shoulder the pollutant burden by itself. It would be too costly (thus impacting affordability), and it would not happen and yet another goal would not be met.

So let's get all of the stakeholders at the table, and let's come up with revenue strategies, policies and programs that allow all of the pollutant sources to shoulder their proportionate responsibility. The development industry is ready.

Thomas M. Farasy

The writer is president of the Maryland State Builders Association.

EPA Releases ELG Standard for Storm Water

For the first time ever, the U.S. EPA has set a numerical standard for sediment leaving construction and development sites.  The limit has been set at 280 NTUs (Nephelometric Turbidity Units) at the outfall from Construction and Development sites as a daily average.

This limit does not apply on days where the site receives the equivalent rainfall of a 2 year 24 hour storm or greater.

This rule goes into effect for sites where 20 acres or more are disturbed at any one time and in 2014 for sites where 10 acres or more are disturbed at any one time.  This rule will be enforced by the States in most cases and the States can adopt the rules early and can make them more strict.

We will stay on top of this issue.

Feel free to contact us if you have any questions.

http://www.landmarkjcm.com/

302-323-9377 x143 Jim or x141 Keith