January 20, 2014
New Report Assesses the Damage Caused by Urban/Suburban Runoff, Calls for Action
(ANNAPOLIS, MD)—With the challenge of reducing urban and suburban runoff at the forefront of discussions at all levels of government, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) today released a new report: Polluted Runoff: How Investing in Runoff Pollution Control Systems Improves the Region's Ecology, Economy, and Health. The purpose of this report is to shed light on the problem, debunk myths around the costs of solutions, and call for actions to be taken that will reduce the damage of polluted runoff.
"As the only major pollution source continuing to grow, attention is now focused on reducing untreated urban/suburban runoff," said CBF President William C. Baker. "This is a local problem requiring local solutions that will provide significant local benefits. But there are important roles for the federal and state governments in tackling the challenges of polluted runoff."
When rain hits hard surfaces, like streets, parking lots, and lawns, it collects a toxic mix of pollutants including bacteria, chemicals, and nitrogen and phosphorus. Nationally, researchers have found pesticides in 97 percent of urban runoff samples, at levels high enough to harm aquatic life 83 percent of the time. Our antiquated system for managing this polluted runoff in many existing towns and cities is to get it as quickly as possible, untreated, into local rivers and streams.
The visible results are beach closures, flooding, and fish consumption advisories. The less visible results are serious damage to the life in our rivers and streams. Researchers have found that Brook trout disappear when only 2 percent of a watershed is paved over. Sensitive amphibians disappear when 3 or more percent is paved. And yellow perch stop reproducing when 10 percent of a watershed is paved.
Some examples of local streams whose aquatic life is at risk due to the percent of the watershed that is paved are: the Bynum Run-Bush Creek watershed in Harford County, Maryland, which is at least nine percent covered; the Hogestown Run and Wertz Run watersheds, just west of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, which are at least ﬁve percent paved; and the South Fork Rivanna River watershed north of Charlottesville, Virginia, which is at least ﬁve percent covered.
The runoff problem is two-fold: first, many towns and cities were built when treating runoff merely meant getting rid of it; and second, the urban and suburban runoff continues to grow as development spreads far and wide. Every year new development paves over 10,000 acres of forests and farms, an alarming rate. To put that in perspective, every four years an area of land the size of Washington, D.C. is paved or hardened in the Chesapeake Bay Region.
"The costs of reducing runoff pollution can be substantial, but initial estimates have been found to be dramatically overestimated," Baker said.
For example, an analysis by the University of Maryland Environmental Finance Center found that one Maryland county could reduce its costs by 96 percent by using more efficient methods and targeting investments in projects that provide the greatest environmental benefits.
Another study by the Finance Center found that investments in reducing polluted runoff benefit local economies and create jobs. For example, every $100 million invested in Lynchburg, VA, returns $170 million to the local economy and supports 1,440 local jobs. In Anne Arundel County, MD, that same investment returns $115 million to the local economy and supports 780 jobs.
The report found that the three major Bay states and federal government all need to do more to limit the damage caused by urban and suburban polluted runoff.
The Clean Water Act requires the states, with EPA oversight, to issue permits in highly populated cities and counties for managing urban and suburban runoff. In Virginia 10 of 11 municipalities have runoff control permits that are outdated (older than their intended five-year term) and weak, lacking measurable and enforceable pollution limits and other means for ensuring accountability.
CBF is calling on Virginia to issue new permits for the 10 jurisdictions with outdated permits by July 1, 2014. Those permits should contain measureable and enforceable limits.
The General Assembly should also support the efforts of local jurisdictions to reduce polluted runoff by ensuring an additional $50 million is available for matching grants through the Stormwater Local Assistance Fund. The Fund should prioritize cost-efficient, low-impact practices, and projects should be structured, where possible, to attract additional private investments.
Finally, lawmakers should support, and not delay, the scheduled July 1, 2014 implementation for Virginia's runoff management rules, which have been under development for the last 10 years.
"Diverse stakeholders, including developers, local governments, stormwater technical experts, and conservation organizations, worked on Virginia's runoff regulations for more than five years and reached consensus," said Ann Jennings, CBF Virginia executive director. "It is past time for Virginia to implement the program. Our message to the General Assembly: no delay, no dilution, and no exemption."
Critics of Maryland's landmark 2012 pollution-control law are threatening legislation that would delay, weaken, or overturn the law's requirement for the 10 most urbanized jurisdictions to generate fees dedicated to pay for local pollution control projects. CBF calls on legislators to resist delay or weakening, and keep the fee structure in place. This is essential to ensure that Maryland meets its commitments to the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint.
For communities not covered under the 2012 law, CBF encourages the voluntary adoption of local fees to make investments in reducing runoff pollution.
"Some legislators in Maryland want to cancel or delay projects already underway in neighborhoods around the state that will make swimming areas safer for our children, reduce basement and street flooding, and provide other benefits. Whose interests do these lawmakers represent?" said Alison Prost, CBF Maryland Executive Director. "Why would we want to reverse progress, and return to the days of ignoring the biggest water pollution problem in many of our urban and suburban communities?"
As in Virginia, Maryland is responsible for issuing runoff permits to its largest jurisdictions. In Maryland, six of the 10 permits are out of date, and the four current permits lack measureable and enforceable limits. Those permits should also include clear benchmarks and deadlines.
Legislators should also approve a budget that includes funding to support the installation and maintenance of practices that reduce runoff pollution. That should include Governor O'Malley's proposed $42 million in the 2010 Trust Fund, $36 million in additional investments in the Capital Budget, and $45 million for the State Highway Administration for Chesapeake Bay Blueprint implementation.
In Pennsylvania, CBF is calling on the Governor and lawmakers to restore funding and update standards for Pennsylvania's 1978 Storm Water Management Act. This planning program received state funding through 2008, but then was zeroed out. The law requires counties to prepare stormwater management plans to reduce pollution and flooding, and implement the plans through local ordinances. These plans need state support for Pennsylvania to meet its commitments to the Clean Water Blueprint.
CBF also calls on the legislature to pass legislation to limit the type of lawn fertilizers that can be sold and the time of year it can be applied. Similar legislation has already been passed in Maryland and Virginia.
Lawmakers should also reject a proposed bill (House Bill 1565) that would remove requirements for new developments to protect or restore forests along some of Pennsylvania's most pristine streams. Forest buffers play an important role in controlling flooding, filtering pollution, and maintaining a healthy stream.
Finally, CBF encourages regional cooperation in efforts to reduce polluted runoff. Because of fragmented nature of Pennsylvania governments, cooperative projects could save money and more effectively reduce pollution. York, Lycoming, and Lancaster counties already employ programs to share resources, and other municipalities should follow their example.
The Federal Government
At the federal level, CBF calls on EPA to enact new, national stormwater regulations. CBF also calls on EPA to ensure that permits proposed by the states include measurable and enforceable pollution limits.
"The problems are large, but not insurmountable," Baker said. "The progress being made to reduce pollution from agriculture and sewage treatment plants has demonstrated that progress can be made when businesses, governments, and individuals work together. That model must now be applied to reducing pollution from urban and suburban runoff."
The report is intended to educate the public as well as elected officials, and cites research done across the region as well as national studies. It can be found at cbf.org/pollutedrunoffreport.