    [House Hearing, 111 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                IMPACT OF GREEN
                             INFRASTRUCTURE AND LOW
                           IMPACT DEVELOPMENT ON THE
                NATION'S WATER QUALITY, ECONOMY AND COMMUNITIES

    =======================================================================

                                   (111-140)

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                        WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                       TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                               September 30, 2010

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
                 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
     58-491 PDF               WASHINGTON : 2010
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
    area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104  Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
    20402-0001

                 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                     JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman
    NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia,   JOHN L. MICA, Florida
        Vice Chair                       DON YOUNG, Alaska
    PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon             THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
    JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois          HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
    ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of   JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
        Columbia                         VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
    JERROLD NADLER, New York             FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
    CORRINE BROWN, Florida               JERRY MORAN, Kansas
    BOB FILNER, California               GARY G. MILLER, California
    EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas         HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
    GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi                 Carolina
    ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland         TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
    LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa             TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
    TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania             SAM GRAVES, Missouri
    BRIAN BAIRD, Washington              BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
    RICK LARSEN, Washington              JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
    TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York              Virginia
    MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine            JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
    RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri              MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
    GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California      CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
    DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois            CONNIE MACK, Florida
    MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
    JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania          JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
    TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota           CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
    HEATH SHULER, North Carolina         MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
    MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York          VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
    HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona           BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
    CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania  ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
    JOHN J. HALL, New York               AARON SCHOCK, Illinois
    STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin               PETE OLSON, Texas
    STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               TOM GRAVES, Georgia
    LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California
    ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
    PHIL HARE, Illinois
    JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio
    MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan
    MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York
    THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia
    DINA TITUS, Nevada
    HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico
    JOHN GARAMENDI, California
    HANK JOHNSON, Georgia
                Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment

                    EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
    THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia     JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois          DON YOUNG, Alaska
    GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi             JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
    BRIAN BAIRD, Washington              VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
    TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York          FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
    RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri              GARY G. MILLER, California
    STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin               HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
    DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland Vice          Carolina
        Chair                            TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
    SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas              BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
    PHIL HARE, Illinois                  MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
    DINA TITUS, Nevada                   CONNIE MACK, Florida
    HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico             LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
    ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of   CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
        Columbia                         ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
    MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts    PETE OLSON, Texas
    GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California      TOM GRAVES, Georgia
    MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizaon
    JOHN J. HALL, New York
    BOB FILNER, California
    CORRINE BROWN, Florida
    JOHN GARAMENDI, California
    HANK JOHNSON, Georgia
    JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
      (Ex Officio)

                                    CONTENTS

                                                                       Page

    Summary of Subject Matter........................................    vi

                                   TESTIMONY

    Becher, Drew, Executive Director, the Pennsylvania Horticultural
      Society, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania............................    18
    Boncke, Bruce, P.E., Cheif Executive Officer, BME Associates,
      Fairport, New York.............................................    16
    Neukrug, Howard, P.E., Deputy Commissioner, Philadelphia Water
      Department, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.........................    20
    Ortiz, Hon. Adam, Mayor of Edmonston, Maryland...................    10
    Richards, Timothy, P.E., Nafsma Director and Stormwater Committee
      Chair, Deputy City Engineer, City of Charlotte, North Carolina.    14
    Schwartz, Hon. Allyson Y., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Pennsylvania..........................................     7
    Yocca, David, Principal Landscape Architect/Planner, Conservation
      Design Forum, Elmhurst, Illinois...............................    12

              PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

    Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, of Texas............................    58
    Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona..............................    66

                   PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

    Boncke, Bruce, P.E...............................................    67
    Neukrug, Howard, P.E.............................................    79
    Ortiz, Hon. Adam.................................................    92
    Richards, Timothy, P.E...........................................   109
    Schwartz, Hon. Allyson Y.........................................   128
    Yocca, David.....................................................   132

                           SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Edwards, Hon. Donna E., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Maryland, Environmental Council of the States,
      Resolution 07-10...............................................     5
    Neukrug, Howard, P.E., Deputy Commissioner, Philadelphia Water
      Department, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, ``Green City Clean
      Waters, The City of Philadelphia's Program for Combined Sewer
      Overflow Control, A Long Term Control Plan Update, Summary
      Report''.......................................................    90
    Ortiz, Solomon P., a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Texas, American Rivers, ``Putting Green to Work: Economic
      Recovery Investments for Clean and Reliable Water.''...........    24

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

       IMPACT OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT ON THE
                NATION'S WATER QUALITY, ECONOMY AND COMMUNITIES

                                  ----------

                          Thursday, September 30, 2010

                      House of Representatives,
       Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
                Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:11 a.m., in
    room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Donna F. Edwards
    presiding.
        Ms. Edwards. Good morning. This Subcommittee began and is
    ending the 111th Congress by holding hearings on very similar
    topics.
        I have to say it is probably appropriate that we hold this
    hearing on this rainy morning on which we have received about 4
    and a half inches of rain in the last 48 hours. And I know I
    sat in traffic, along with my colleagues and others this
    morning, watching as the oil is on the road, and we know that
    the runoff is happening. So it is probably an appropriate
    morning to hold this hearing.
        In February of 2009, we held a hearing in this Subcommittee
    on sustainable water infrastructure. Today's hearing focuses on
    the impact of green infrastructure and on the Nation's water
    quality, economy and communities. As today's hearing will
    demonstrate, there are still many things we need to learn about
    green infrastructure and low-impact development.
        But in the intervening year and a half, we have also come
    very close to learning a lot of the advantages of this
    innovative approach. For example, nationally 30 percent of
    clean water and 29 percent of drinking water funds provided
    through the Recovery Act were used for green infrastructure and
    water and energy efficiency improvements.
        Six States used approximately half of their clean water
    infrastructure money on green projects. These numbers indicate
    that there is a growing demand for programmatic and financial
    support for green infrastructure projects, especially related
    to clean water and drinking water infrastructure.
        Green infrastructure approaches take a very different view
    to stormwater control. Instead of engineering the stormwater
    system to deal with increasingly large amounts of stormwater,
    these low-impact development approaches use technologies that
    aim to reduce the amount of stormwater that even enters the
    system. This is achieved through processes that encourage
    stormwater to infiltrate the ground or evaporate.
        Simple approaches such as green roofs, increased tree
    cover, disconnecting downspouts, and adding more green space
    can go a long way to reducing the amount of stormwater that
    enters the sewers. And in some circumstances, these
    technologies also can realize significant cost savings from
    municipalities and building owners. In this time of economic
    uncertainty and tight municipal budgets, it may behoove city
    planners to look in other directions for ways to deal with
    impacts of urban stormwater runoff than by solely falling back
    on traditional capital-intensive infrastructure approaches.
        The fact remains, however, that many of the technologies
    are new. They haven't been applied in all conditions in cities.
    And today, I hope to hear testimony that will answer a few
    questions.
        First, what barriers exist with regard to the increased
    adoption of green infrastructure technologies and approaches?
    Second, what can the Federal Government, both EPA and the
    Congress, do to reduce these barriers? And third, what
    processes do EPA and the States use, and should EPA and the
    States use, to balance the need to promote new technologies
    while at the same time protecting water quality?
        And finally, I would like to note that as we think about
    our water infrastructure options and our water quality goals,
    we can do better. We can do better than to discuss policies and
    approaches as either this or either that. We need to look
    beyond the disturbing vision of just an impassive concrete
    landscape or the pastoral vision of an Eden-like urban utopia.
    Instead, we have to think about what that balance is and the
    various tools that we have and those that we might have to
    bring to bear site-specific water quality problems.
        Not everything works in the same way and the same place.
    Increasing both options and information are two of the most
    vital tools we can provide for our State and municipal
    managers.
        So I look forward to looking beyond where we are today so
    that we can do better. And with that, I want to welcome our two
    panels today, including Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz of
    Pennsylvania, who has been a leader and champion on these
    issues.
        I will yield first to our Subcommittee's Ranking Member,
    Mr. Boozman.
        Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Today the Subcommittee will explore another new and
    important topic, green infrastructure and low-impact
    development, and how it might help address some of the
    deleterious impacts that stormwater runoff can have on our
    Nation's water quality.
        One of the many factors that can affect the water quality
    of our lakes, rivers, bays and estuaries is stormwater runoff.
    The impervious surfaces found in the urban and suburban
    environment accelerate drainage through curb gutters and drains
    to nearby natural streams and water bodies. As it flows through
    the landscape, water can pick up pollutants and sediment and
    carry them into receiving waters. In a more naturally vegetated
    landscape, water tends to move more slowly and get soaked up by
    the soil and plants, and pollutants and sediment tend to be
    filtered out.
        Some have suggested that urban areas need to mimic the
    natural landscape by employing more green technologies or
    limited-impact designs to reduce the quantity and rate of flow
    of stormwater, and thereby reduce the impacts of stormwater on
    the environment. These measures may include green roofs, rain
    barrels, permeable pavement, rain gardens, and buffer zones.
        Green infrastructure can be expensive, and its
    effectiveness will vary depending on the characteristics of the
    areas where it is used. Green infrastructure, while effective
    at removing certain pollutants, may not be the optimal solution
    to each and every situation. Soil, hydrology, topography,
    weather, climate, and other conditions vary from region to
    region, from site to site, and over time.
        Nevertheless, where the right conditions exist, new
    technologies and designs can be cost-effective and efficient in
    managing stormwater. Where they work, those innovative features
    can reduce the need for traditional stormwater infrastructure.
        In our efforts to be more conscious of our environment, we
    must not lose sight of the cost and effectiveness of
    implementing new designs and technologies. We must not
    overprescribe remedies to address urban stormwater that will do
    little to improve the overall health of our waters.
        Municipalities need a variety of tools in their toolboxes
    of best management practices to address stormwater management.
    It is the local officials, both elected and professional, who
    must decide what are the best solutions for their specific
    circumstances. One-size-fits-all solutions or regulatory
    schemes to deal with impairments will not work for water
    quality improvement. Green infrastructure should never be
    considered as the only tool for improving our Nation's water
    quality. And by no means should it be a requirement imposed by
    the government.
        Municipalities and engineers need to stay educated on all
    the options, both traditional methods as well as new or green
    designs. Additional research and development of innovative
    technologies is also needed to help identify the most efficient
    and effective methods and add to the tools available to local
    officials.
        We all want the same goal, which is clean water, as we at
    the Federal level look at the Nation's stormwater policy. We
    must be careful that we don't impose solutions on
    municipalities that may not be the best fit, either technically
    or economically.
        I think we can accomplish a lot with education outreach to
    help local officials consider all options. Future solutions
    need to be science-based, economically feasible, and compatible
    with regional and site-specific conditions. Communities need to
    do a rigorous analysis of the cost and benefits of installing
    these technologies and decide for themselves the most
    appropriate course of action.
        And I look forward to listening to our panels and hope to
    learn from today's expert witnesses and certainly look forward
    to their testimony.
        With that, I yield back, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Boozman.
        Before we begin, I want to call attention to the resolution
    of the Environmental Council of the States, which was adopted
    in August 2010, that supports the use of green infrastructure.
    I ask unanimous consent that this resolution be made part of
    the record. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Edwards. With that, I would like to welcome the
    Honorable Allyson Schwartz, who is a Member of Congress from
    the 13th District of Pennsylvania, and look forward to hearing
    your testimony. Good morning.

    TESTIMONY OF THE HON. ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

        Ms. Schwartz. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. It is a pleasure
    to be back in this room.
        I did serve on T&I in my first term, so I spent a few hours
    in this room, and it is good to be back.
        So, good to see you.
        And to Ranking Member Boozman, I appreciate your being here
    and holding this hearing.
        I know you could have postponed it. But you are absolutely
    right; it is a good day to do it as we watch the heavy rains
    fall on us and fill our water system here.
        I am particularly pleased to testify about green
    infrastructure and some of the proposals I put forward, and to
    also offer some of the experience and introduction to the
    experience that Philadelphia has had and is having in working
    to implement green infrastructure along with the aging
    infrastructure.
        As you may know, Philadelphia is the home of the first
    public water system in the Nation. So we have a history of
    being innovative and trying to figure out how to make sure we
    have clean water for our population.
        We also are known as one of the greenest cities by having
    one of the largest public park systems in a big city in the
    country. So proud of our rich history, and want to build on
    that and build it in a green way.
        So I am pleased to testify on the importance of green
    infrastructure and my own proposal, the Green Communities Act.
        And Ms. Edwards knows of this legislation. We will talk
    more about it, and your proposal as well, and your leadership
    in this area.
        So I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this, and want
    to just start a bit by a little background on our Nation's
    infrastructure and the needs for green infrastructure. The
    water infrastructure needs of the United States are immense.
    And implementing green infrastructure solutions can enable
    municipal governments to better meet water quality standards
    while addressing other critical priorities in the communities.
        Benjamin Grumbles, the EPA's Assistant Administrator for
    the Office of Water under the Bush administration, wrote in
    2007, ``Green infrastructure can both be a cost-effective and
    an environmentally preferable approach to reduce stormwater and
    other excess flows into combined and separated water systems in
    combination with, or in lieu of, centralized hard
    infrastructure solutions.''
        It is the capacity of green infrastructure to meet multiple
    goals, which makes its implementation such a worthwhile and
    cost-effective investment. In addition to improving water
    quality to ensure compliance with standards that protect our
    health and welfare, green infrastructure has been demonstrated
    to attract business, increase property values, and improve
    people's perceptions about their communities. University of
    Pennsylvania research has shown that greening of vacant lots
    created a 37 percent increase in adjacent property values,
    while properties located next to a non-greened vacant lot saw
    their property values decrease by 20 percent.
        In addition, University of Wisconsin research demonstrates
    that putting trees in streetscapes of a business district
    improved visitors' perception of the location and typically
    resulted in longer shopping visits. Surprised me, but that is
    what they showed, which is great.
        Green infrastructure can create not only results in
    cleaner, safer water quality, but can also revitalize depressed
    economic areas and contribute to economic growth. It is a
    sensible and wise investment. In recent years, my home City of
    Philadelphia has been recognized as a national leader in
    implementing green infrastructure.
        Mayor Michael Nutter's Greenworks, a vision and a plan to
    become the greenest big city in America by 2015, has put
    Philadelphia on the cutting edge. Specific goals of Greenworks
    is increasing tree coverage by 30 percent by 2025 by planting
    300,000 trees; providing parks and recreation resources within
    10 minutes of 75 percent of residents by expanding open space;
    and making a $1.6 billion commitment to managing the city's
    stormwater by using green infrastructure.
        Philadelphia has used both private and public institutions
    to accomplish these goals. First, the mayor created the Office
    of Sustainability to promote sustainability efforts across all
    departments and agencies within city government. Their efforts
    include increasing the number of green roofs, expanding
    pervious pavement to additional 25.7 acres, and distributing
    more than 1,600 rain barrels. These efforts and other
    improvements to build efficiency, recycling, and alternative
    transportation have already led the city to be recognized
    nationally by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for its commitment
    and achievements.
        Second, Philadelphia has strong community and philanthropic
    institutions that care about this. This includes the
    Pennsylvania Horticultural Society, which will present later,
    and the William Penn Foundation. They can muster the much
    needed human and capital resources in the private sector.
        And third, Philadelphia is fortunate to have a municipal
    water department--again, you will hear from them on the next
    panel--that is determined to find and implement the innovative
    solutions to address serious stormwater problems through green
    infrastructure.
        So while Philadelphia takes pride in its national
    leadership in green infrastructure innovation, we don't want to
    keep it to ourselves. We want to share our knowledge and
    experience with other cities large and small. That is why I
    have introduced the Green Communities Act, which is House bill
    2222, which aims to take the excellent work that we are doing
    in Philadelphia and disseminate it to communities across the
    country that are less experienced in the use and value of green
    infrastructure.
        Specifically, my proposal would authorize the Secretary of
    Commerce, through the Economic Development Administration, to
    partner with five nonprofit organizations with experience in
    implementing green infrastructure initiatives in order to work
    with 80 municipal governments across the country to build
    capacity in the implementation of green infrastructure.
        The Secretary of Commerce would select the communities with
    input from nonprofits and with the sensitivity towards areas in
    need for economic revitalization. The bill would authorize $180
    million over a 5-year period to accomplish this work. The
    proposal has received bipartisan and bicameral support in
    Congress. It has 24 cosponsors from many parts of the country
    and has companion legislation in the Senate.
        In addition, many businesses, environmental, and water
    agency organizations have expressed support. I would provide
    the Committee with a long list of the supporters.
        Just to highlight the support of this proposal that has
    come from business, the American Nursery & Landscape
    Association said of my bill, quote, ``Investments in landscape
    systems, such as those found in House bill 2222, will yield
    visible and high returns in the form of employment, economic
    and social benefits, and will increase the monetary value over
    time.''
        So, in summary, green infrastructure can play a vital role
    across the country in meeting our water infrastructure needs.
    The City of Philadelphia has made a commitment to do this, and
    I believe the approach can serve as a model across the country.
    My legislation, and I would include Congresswoman Edwards' as
    well, can better enable the dissemination of information and
    training necessary to offer beneficial green alternatives to
    gray infrastructure to address our Nation's water
    infrastructure deficiencies. It will yield multiple benefits,
    improved water quality, a cleaner environment, and enhanced
    economic development.
        Infrastructure investments can accomplish multiple goals
    and yield multiple public benefits. In tough financial times,
    the ability to meet multiple community needs with smart and
    targeted investments makes common sense.
        Thank you for your time this morning. I would be happy to
    answer any questions you may have.
        Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Congresswoman Schwartz.
        As is the custom when Members appear before our
    Subcommittee, we tend not to ask questions, unless Mr. Boozman
    has any questions.
        Mr. Boozman. No, I don't have any questions. But I do
    appreciate you being here this morning.
        Ms. Schwartz. Absolutely.
        Mr. Boozman. I was an example of stormwater runoff when I
    came in.
        But, again, your personal experience and your testimony has
    been very helpful.
        Ms. Schwartz. Thank you. And, again, thank you for the
    Committee's willingness to hear from some experts from
    Philadelphia who are doing this work on the ground. And both of
    your comments, both the Chairwoman and the Ranking Member,
    really speak to the fact that we could and should move ahead on
    mixing green infrastructure with that gray infrastructure that
    is going to get done as a more cost-effective, more innovative
    way to meet the water quality needs and to address some of the
    other economic and environmental goals that we all share. Thank
    you very much.
        Mr. Boozman. And Madam Chair, hopefully, maybe, at some
    point, we will get to go to Philadelphia, and she can show us
    some of these things firsthand.
        Ms. Schwartz. We would be delighted to have a field hearing
    in Philadelphia.
        Ms. Edwards. I am sure we could take a field trip to
    Philadelphia.
        Thank you, Congresswoman Schwartz, for your testimony this
    morning.
        And let's welcome the next panel. And if we want to make a
    shorter trip, I know that Mayor Ortiz from Prince Georges
    County in Maryland is here. We could take a drive down the road
    and take a look at some green infrastructure. I welcome the
    next panel.
        Joining us in this next panel is the Honorable Adam Ortiz,
    who is the mayor of Edmonston, Maryland. And joining us also,
    Mr. David Yocca, principal landscape architect and planner with
    the Conservation Design Forum in Elmhurst, Illinois; Mr.
    Timothy Richards, the NAFSMA director and Stormwater Committee
    Chair, and deputy city manager of the City of Charlotte, North
    Carolina, who is testifying today on behalf of the National
    Association for Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies; Mr.
    Bruce Boncke, CEO of BME Associates, in Fairport, New York, who
    is testifying today on behalf of the National Association of
    Home Builders; and Mr. Drew Becher, executive director of the
    Pennsylvania Horticultural Society from Philadelphia,
    Pennsylvania; and Mr. Howard Neukrug, Deputy Commissioner,
    Philadelphia Water Department in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
        With that, I welcome our panel, and I look forward to being
    corrected on the pronunciation of anyone's name as you give
    your testimony.

      TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ADAM ORTIZ, MAYOR OF EDMONSTON,
     MARYLAND; DAVID YOCCA, PRINCIPAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT/PLANNER,
        CONSERVATION DESIGN FORUM, ELMHURST, ILLINOIS; TIMOTHY
    RICHARDS, P.E., NAFSMA DIRECTOR AND STORMWATER COMMITTEE CHAIR,
    DEPUTY CITY ENGINEER, CITY OF CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA; BRUCE
      BONCKE, P.E., CEO, BME ASSOCIATES, FAIRPORT, NEW YORK; DREW
      BECHER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE PENNSYLVANIA HORTICULTURAL
    SOCIETY, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA; AND HOWARD NEUKRUG, P.E.,
          DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, PHILADELPHIA WATER DEPARTMENT,
                       PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

        Ms. Edwards. Mayor Ortiz.
        Mr. Ortiz. Madam Chair, thank you very much for having me
    here today. I appreciate it.
        And also, thank you, Ranking Member Boozman.
        It is my pleasure to be here on behalf of the Town of
    Edmonston to talk about our experience implementing green
    infrastructure.
        Ms. Edwards. Excuse me, Mayor Ortiz, can you pull your
    microphone a little bit closer? Thank you.
        Mr. Ortiz. Is this better? OK. Thank you.
        It is a pleasure to be here today to talk about our
    experience in the small town of Edmonston. We are a small
    working class town about 7 miles from here located on the
    Anacostia River. We are very diverse. We are about equal parts
    white, black, and Hispanic. And I like to say that we are
    diverse in every way except that we don't have any rich people.
        In the last decade, our small town flooded four times. One
    time, 56 homes were underwater. The damages were substantial.
    Families lost everything in some cases. Furniture, books,
    important documents, and even automobiles were lost. In some
    cases, families lost absolutely everything except the clothes
    that they were wearing.
        Although we straddle the Anacostia River, we did not flood
    from it. We flooded from parking lots. We flooded from
    highways, roads, shopping centers, and roofs. We flooded from
    millions of raindrops that were collected from hard surfaces,
    then funneled down through storm drains through the underground
    concrete stormwater system to our little tiny town.
        We were overwhelmed. Two things conspired against us: the
    increasing severity of storms, and decades of bad stormwater
    planning and practice.
        In time, however, we were able to secure a $7 million flood
    control facility to help keep us dry. And we haven't flooded
    since.
        Through this ordeal, we learned that environmental neglect
    comes at a cost, and that cost is always paid by someone,
    somewhere, at some time. As we learned this lesson firsthand,
    we decided to take our responsibility for our own impact on the
    world around us.
        As Members of this Committee, you well know that all
    streets have an expiration date, a time when they must be
    restructured or resurfaced. The date for our main street,
    Decatur Street, was coming due, and we decided to do it right.
    We decided to build the most sustainable and responsible street
    we possibly could.
        We also realized that a street is much more than just a
    place for cars. Streets are public spaces. They belong to the
    neighborhood, just like a community center or a park.
    Therefore, it should do more than just serve cars. It should
    serve the community as a whole as fully as possible.
        From top to bottom, in this way, we attempted to reshape
    our main street. But as a small town with a very small tax base
    and a working class community, we didn't have the resources on
    our own. We were lucky to establish partnerships with a number
    of nonprofit organizations, the Chesapeake Bay Trust, and
    ultimately, we received help through the Recovery Act and the
    EPA's State Revolving Fund to help us accomplish what we needed
    to accomplish to keep us dry.
        So, from top to bottom, we rebuilt our street. At the top
    we planted native canopy trees, large canopy trees. We replaced
    our streetlights with light emitting diode fixtures, LED
    fixtures, powered by clean wind energy from the Midwest that we
    purchased.
        At street level, we narrowed the street to slow traffic. We
    added bike lanes and sidewalks to promote community
    participation and interaction, health, and wellness. And most
    importantly, at the bottom, we built natural bioretention tree
    boxes, or rain gardens, along the street to naturally filter
    water into the ground, mimicking the way it was in the age
    before strip malls.
        And there is a rendering of it here. And it is a simple
    curb cut with a slightly engineered, just kind of typical rain
    box.
        We had read about this technology used in Portland, Oregon,
    and we wanted it here in our town. In addition to providing a
    beautiful landscape feature, these rain gardens prevent
    pollution and flooding downstream, as 90 percent of the
    stormwater from the street is diverted from the storm drain and
    into areas like this.
        In the process, we created 50 jobs for local contractors.
        Our goal, in addition to staying dry and being responsible,
    is to encourage other communities to also take their
    responsibility for their impact on the environment and on the
    communities downstream from them. We want them to steal our
    ideas. We stole ideas from other people. We have made some
    modifications, and we hope that people steal ours and make
    modifications still.
        So we have placed all of our engineering drawings on the
    Internet on our Web site. And we are building an interpretive
    walking tour of the streets so others can visit and see
    firsthand what we did and think about how they could do it even
    better. We don't need or want any credit. We just want more
    environmental responsibility.
        In terms of cost, the stormwater improvements added little
    additional construction cost. In the long term, we expect to
    see savings in maintenance of the underground stormwater system
    and from cleanup of the Anacostia River and the Chesapeake Bay.
        We expect to see increased revenues from increased property
    values and greater commerce from sightseeing. As of this
    morning, I have four delegations from different parts of the
    region coming to see our street.
        Also, our ribbon cutting and dedication is on October 25th,
    and you are all welcome to come. We have been told that
    Edmonston is the greenest street in the United States. And I am
    not sure if that is true, but I am very grateful to at least be
    in the running.
        And we don't fit the stereotype. We are not a wealthy,
    liberal area. We are a working class community. We are the
    little guys. And if our little town can build a responsible,
    sustainable street like this, anybody can. Again, I thank you
    for this opportunity to speak to you today about green
    infrastructure, and I applaud your consideration of this issue.
        Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mayor Ortiz.
        Mr. Yocca.
        Mr. Yocca. Good morning Chairwoman Edwards, Ranking Member
    Boozman, and other Members and staff of the----
        Ms. Edwards. Is your microphone on?
        Mr. Yocca. Sorry--and other Members of the Subcommittee on
    Water Resources and the Environment. Again, my name is David
    Yocca. I am the principal landscape architect at Conservation
    Design Forum, an Illinois-based planning, design, engineering,
    and ecological services small business.
        Today I am representing the American Society of Landscape
    Architects, many of whose members, like me, are trained to
    incorporate multiple benefit green infrastructure strategies
    that address stormwater management, water quality, and a host
    of other issues into our neighborhoods and cities. Thank you
    for inviting me today to discuss a few of my professional
    experiences with green infrastructure applications in cities
    large and small. Ten years ago, the City of Chicago asked my
    firm to lead the design process to convert the city hall
    rooftop into the Nation's first green roof demonstration
    project. Our scope for this unique project included the design
    of the green roof system, as well as grading and drainage
    design, plant selection, and construction oversight.
        Back in 1999, when construction began on the green roof,
    there were no local contractors with experience building and
    maintaining green roof systems. Today I work with over two
    dozen local, mostly small business, contractors and suppliers
    of green roof systems, components, materials, and plants. These
    specialized companies make the green roof components, stage the
    materials, install, and then maintain green infrastructure
    systems designed to ensure optimal performance.
        What we are seeing in Chicago is the creation of an
    industry that did not exist 10 years ago. We are not only
    creating sustainable buildings, alleys, streets, and
    neighborhoods, we are creating good-paying, local jobs that
    capitalize upon the talents and expertise of local workers.
    Today the City of Chicago is currently one of the shining
    examples of how greening a city has yielded tremendous
    ecological and economic benefits at the same time.
        Green infrastructure and the low-impact development
    approaches are equally effective in small towns like West
    Union, Iowa. The Iowa Department of Economic Development called
    upon my firm to plan and implement the Green Streets pilot
    program to demonstrate the application of green infrastructure
    strategies appropriate for small Iowa towns and to support and
    stimulate local business in the downtown district. The benefits
    of green streets extend beyond curbside appeal. This project
    showcases state of the art sustainable streetscape strategies,
    including permeable pavement, rain gardens, energy efficient
    lighting, and a district-wide geothermal heating and cooling
    system that is projected to save millions of dollars over its
    design life.
        Small businesses in West Union will directly benefit from
    the streetscape improvements through increased foot traffic and
    retail sales, higher real estate values, lower utility costs,
    which will also serve to attract new local businesses. Further,
    the improvements of the local hydrology will also have a
    positive on Otter Creek, a destination trout stream for Midwest
    anglers, who spend tourism dollars in West Union and the
    surrounding area.
        Charles City, Iowa, also retained us to develop a
    comprehensive plan to address their stormwater issues and
    decaying streets. We designed a green streets plan for a 16-
    block area of that city that features permeable paving, parkway
    biosoils, infiltration beds, and curb extensions with
    integrated bioretention. We modeled the hydrologic design to
    capture stormwater runoff from streets, yards, and alleys, and
    provide for the complete infiltration of a 2-year storm event,
    and nearly 90 percent of a 10-year rain event. This project is
    now about 90 percent complete as of today, and we are seeing
    already virtually zero stormwater runoff even in very heavy
    rains that we have experienced recently. After implementing and
    integrating our green strategies, a neighborhood susceptible to
    periodic localized flooding has seen no flooding.
        So why green infrastructure or low-impact development?
    Simply put, when properly conceived and designed, these are
    better performing, longer lasting, and cost-effective resources
    that provide a wide range of multiple benefits. Integrated
    green infrastructure strategies combine leading edge living
    technology with local design, craft, and skill to restore
    neighborhoods and cities to be healthier, more beautiful, and
    ultimately more economically and ecologically sustainable over
    time.
        I encourage the Members of this Subcommittee and their
    staffs to visit the green roof at ASLA's headquarters located
    here in D.C. There you can see firsthand a local example of a
    successful green infrastructure project that is helping the
    District to address its combined sewer overflow problem, as
    well as cleaning the air and providing energy cost savings for
    our organization.
        I thank you for the opportunity to testify in front of this
    Subcommittee, and I especially want to thank you for convening
    a hearing on this very important issue.
        I also want to thank Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz and
    Congressman Russ Carnahan, both of whom are honorary members of
    the ASLA, for their work on these issues, and to Congresswoman
    Donna Edwards, Chairwoman, for taking a leadership role in
    highlighting the varied ways that green infrastructure can help
    our communities. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Edwards. Thank you for your testimony.
        Mr. Richards.
        Mr. Richards. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair and Member
    Boozman for having us here today.
        NAFSMA is a national organization that represents about 100
    local and State flood and stormwater management agencies, most
    in large urban areas. We represent about 76 million citizens.
    And it is important to note that many of our members are Phase
    I and Phase II jurisdictions falling under the Clean Water Act.
    NAFSMA testified in spring 2009 on the effects of urban
    stormwater, where we focused on green infrastructure. Today's
    testimony reflects some updated information since spring 2009,
    and it clearly shows that our 2009 testimony was on point and
    is supported by the new data.
        NAFSMA endorses approaches like mentioned in H.R. 4202 to
    encourage further research on green infrastructure that is
    relevant to different geographic regions and to provide Federal
    funding and support for that research. We also urge the
    Committee to look at expanding this research effort to other
    best management practices for management of stormwater runoff
    as well.
        NAFSMA is concerned, however, with some direction that we
    see through the U.S. EPA's current rulemaking effort, which
    appears to be headed towards the creation of mandatory Federal
    requirements for nationwide implementation of green
    infrastructure practices to the exclusion of other effective
    stormwater BMPs. We continue to believe, as we have stated in
    the past, that green infrastructure is an appropriate tool in
    the toolbox. However, it should never be considered as the only
    tool for improving the Nation's water quality.
        One of our most significant concerns continues to be that
    there is currently no activity, practice, or method that we
    know of, including green infrastructure, that has proven to be
    effective in restoring an impaired watershed to an unimpaired
    state for all sources of pollutants. Charlotte, North Carolina
    worked with the consultant Tetra Tech in September 2005 as part
    of producing our Post Construction Controls Ordinance and found
    that green infrastructure techniques were no more effective at
    achieving certain in-stream goals than less expensive
    practices. Charlotte now has an ordinance that prefers green
    infrastructure but does not mandate that it be the only choice
    or even the first choice for meeting water quality needs.
        A recent study jointly sponsored by the Urban Drainage and
    Flood Control District in Colorado and Urban Watersheds
    Research Institute evaluated the relative effectiveness of both
    community-based and green infrastructure BMPs in terms of
    reduction of pollutant loads, surface runoff volumes, and the
    long-term economics of keeping the BMPs in operation. It found
    that BMPs that infiltrate water into the ground did not have
    dramatically different pollutant removal abilities than BMPs
    with underdrains that discharged captured runoff back to the
    surface or underground conveyance systems.
        And this brings us to the consideration of the impact of
    green infrastructure on the economy. Not only has green
    infrastructure not been proven to be the best solution for
    improving water quality of receiving waters in all cases, it
    has shown to be one of the most expensive options sometimes for
    trying to improve water quality. The Denver study mentioned
    above found that the unit cost per pound of pollutant removal
    was significantly higher for rain gardens and porous pavements
    than it was for community-based BMPs, such as retention ponds
    and extended detention basins. In addition, Denver has shown
    that the total cost for construction, administration,
    maintenance, and rehabilitation of rain gardens to be over four
    times the costs for conventional stormwater management
    techniques in a 50-year lifecycle for new development.
        Charlotte, even though we have a more limited base of
    information, found similar results of the average cost of
    installing bioretention and rain gardens at over $35,000 per
    acre treated. Improving wetlands and ponds on the other hand,
    came in much lower, with costs of approximately $10,000 and
    $5,000 per treated acre respectively. That can be shown on the
    chart that you are seeing in front of you.
        This chart was produced to show that using retrofits of
    existing facilities could be a much less expensive option for
    treating pollutants.
        We also have another--actually, this chart. And then we
    have another chart, chart two, which shows the annual cost of
    units of pollution removed. And this also shows that the cost
    is higher for bioretention and rain gardens than it is for some
    other methods.
        We have a chart, number three, which also shows that if you
    look at the annual maintenance costs and capital costs, they
    were much higher for bioretention than wet ponds and wetlands.
        This brings us to the effect of green infrastructure on our
    communities. NAFSMA continues to say that MS4s must compete
    with many other local service demands, not the least of which
    are public safety, transportation, and solid waste services to
    fund and manage water quality programs. Local government
    agencies are especially capable of making the best decisions
    for their community given all competing interests. We continue
    to hear from our development community and those particularly
    interested in affordable housing that increasing costs for
    development, including permitting and construction, are hurting
    their ability to provide low-cost housing.
        We can often get more pounds of pollutant removed and more
    acres treated through near-site or off-site regional BMPs for
    far less money spent.
        In summary, green infrastructure can be effective and is
    effective in removing certain pollutants, though not proven to
    be effective in restoring watersheds. Given other choices, we
    would hope the Committee and Congress would realize the need
    for using these options and don't support mandating green
    infrastructure as a one size fits all. Thank you.
        Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Richards.
        Mr. Boncke.
        Mr. Boncke. Thank you.
        Chairman Edwards, Ranking Member Boozman, and Members of
    the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on
    behalf of the National Association of Home Builders, a
    Washington, D.C.-based trade association, representing 175,000
    members.
        I am currently the chief executive officer of BME
    Associates, located near Rochester, New York. We provide site
    engineering, land planning, surveying, environmental services,
    and construction services. Our firm has earned a reputation for
    well-designed projects that balance environmental
    sustainability, community vision, and the developer's market
    needs.
        I have been working on land development projects for nearly
    40 years, and have seen the transition from developers and home
    buyers wanting large-scale lot developments and homes into
    communities focused on smaller lots and efficient use of
    resources surrounding the development. In fact, home builders'
    experience and support for voluntary energy efficiency and
    green techniques predates many of the available green ratings
    systems today.
        Long before green building and low-impact development were
    part of the construction industry vocabulary, BME and NAHB
    members alike were actively engaged in sustainable development
    as part of an evolving process that has significantly reshaped
    residential construction. Beginning in 2007, I represented NAHB
    on the American National Standards Institute Consensus
    Committee that developed the National Green Building Standard
    for the home building industry. The development of the NGBS is
    the most recent and most dynamic effort undertaken by the
    industry to set compliance markers for green building in the
    various aspects that comprise residential construction: single
    family, multi-family, remodeling, and land development. This
    standard is the first standard submitted to ANSI for green
    residential construction and remodeling in the United States.
        I believe the most important aspect of this standard is
    that it is performance-based, not prescriptive. Although NAHB,
    its members, and BME are invested in the approach taken in the
    development and outcome of the NGBS, each State and region has
    their own approach to sustainable development. As such, I
    believe it is important to support regulations that are
    flexible enough to allow different regions to prepare localized
    guidance based on that region's particular needs. Whether it is
    the physical characteristics of the land or the population's
    housing demands, it is important to avoid implementing a style
    of development that is not possible in a particular region.
        For example, low-impact development does not work on every
    individual site, and LID is only one component of the big
    picture. To successfully implement LID, a property needs the
    right kinds of natural features, such as soils and topography,
    and must have enough land area to accommodate the various LID
    techniques. Therefore, properties that have impermeable soils,
    high water tables, or steep slopes are generally not good
    candidates for LID.
        Additionally, sometimes a regional approach to land-use
    sustainability has better results than site by site regulation.
    It is very difficult to go from extensive years of developing
    our communities in a certain way and then switch gears
    overnight. I would caution that rushing to judgment would
    subdue the creativity we need.
        A good way to ensure regulations are in tune with the
    uniqueness of a region is to install a collaborative and
    education-based approach that addresses all stakeholders and
    considers the feasibility of regulations that are most
    effective to make the progress needed to implement sustainable
    development.
        For example, in New York, where BME is located, we have
    provided training to municipal officials throughout the State
    because we have found it is much easier to educate community
    decision makers on the front end, before the project details
    are discussed.
        Additionally, often local zoning ordinances and
    construction standards lag behind the new innovative planning
    principles. NAHB members often find they cannot implement
    innovative environmental design on a timely basis because the
    local codes have not caught up.
        Builders, developers, and communities need room to be
    creative and find new ways to reach common environmental goals.
    If officials do not understand the challenges of site planning
    and design, it becomes more difficult, more time-consuming, and
    more expensive to implement more sustainable design practices.
    For this reason, we place a very high priority on real-life,
    real-time education and getting information down to the working
    community level.
        My career path 10 years ago found me as president of our
    State home builders association and president of the local
    planning federation at the same time, representing a
    development-based membership and a community official
    education-based membership simultaneously. After finding that
    we were 90 percent on the same page, it was obvious that the
    environment was best served by a collaborative and education
    best effort.
        I am very excited how far we have come in a short period of
    time. While we have much further to go, this collaborative
    approach can only serve the home building industry and the
    environment as we work and continue towards sustainable
    developments. Thank you very much for your time.
        Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Boncke.
        Mr. Becher.
        Mr. Becher. Good morning, Chairwoman Edwards, Ranking
    Member Boozman, and other Members of the Committee.
        First of all, my name is Drew Becher. I am the president of
    Pennsylvania Horticultural Society. And you all mentioned that
    you would like to visit Philadelphia. I am going to do some
    shameless promotion here. March 6th through the 13th is the
    Philadelphia International Flower Show, the world's largest
    indoor flower show. And you can come see all of our great
    stormwater techniques that my friend Howard and PHS have
    implemented, along with the largest indoor flower show in the
    world. So you can be my guest. Thank you.
        My testimony today will cover basically five areas:
    greening as part of urban revitalization; trees: restoring the
    urban forest and scaling up the plantings; redeveloping parks
    as center of communities; stormwater scapes and green
    infrastructure; and then basically scaling up, building that
    capacity we have been talking about through State and national
    partnerships.
        For more than 30 years, the Horticulture Society has helped
    community revitalization in Philadelphia. PHS has been working,
    cleaning and greening vacant land with significant impact to
    the economics of Philadelphia. As Congresswoman Schwartz
    pointed out earlier, there was a study from the University of
    Pennsylvania that mentioned that a 37 percent increase in home
    values adjacent to neglected land was happening.
        I also want to point out another study that happened in
    Chicago. It was Dr. Frances Kuo from the University of Illinois
    that was actually focused on public housing, where they tore up
    asphalt around all the public housing developments and replaced
    it with trees and just simple grass. Not only is that good for
    stormwater, but actually crime was reduced by half, which
    actually started the transformation initiative in Chicago's
    Housing Authority.
        It should also be known that all of these green
    infrastructure components create jobs. And jobs are really
    important. As part of our urban greening program, Philadelphia
    Land Care, we have created over 230 jobs in the City of
    Philadelphia cleaning and greening vacant lots and corridors
    throughout the city. These are good-paying jobs that actually
    are training people to go on to get jobs with the private
    sector.
        Out of this has spawned our Roots to Re-Entry program,
    which also trains ex-offenders. We have a 65 percent placement
    rate in this particular program with our landscape contractors
    earning $12 to $15 an hour. Many similar programs are going on
    in other cities like Chicago and New York. And it is really
    quite impressive. It is all based on the green economy.
        Trees. Trees are probably one of the simplest forms of
    stormwater management. They are natural and they are beautiful
    at the same time. But we are losing a lot of them in our urban
    areas. We know from the research that also Congresswoman
    Schwartz said, Kathy Wolf of the University of Washington, that
    people actually spend more money when streets have trees on
    them. And that goes directly to the pocketbooks of
    municipalities, to allow them to put more money back into
    stormwater management techniques.
        In New York, Mayor Bloomberg focused on this and created
    MillionTreesNYC, which is by any accounts one of the most
    successful urban tree-planting programs in the country. In just
    over 3.5 years, has gone to plant about 400,000 trees, where
    they were only planting about 8,000 before, and losing 12,000
    at the time, so there was a net loss. And now there is a huge
    net gain in the trees.
        Mayor Daley in Chicago has done the same over the past
    couple decades, planting hundreds of thousands of trees. And I
    think, by the time he leaves office, about 800,000 trees will
    have been planted.
        In the coming months, PHS will launch TreeVitalize One
    Million. Building on our existing regional efforts, this will
    be a three-State, 11-county regional approach to tree planting,
    one of the largest in the United States. And when you are there
    in March, you can come and see how we are doing on that as
    well. We will have that big launch.
        Also redeveloping parks as center of communities. This has
    been something that has not been focused on a lot over the past
    couple decades. During the City Beautiful Movement, when the
    Olmsted brothers, Frederick Olmsted, created Central Park, it
    not only was a place of beauty, but also economic development.
    And we are getting back into that effort with Chicago
    Millennium Park, New York's Highline, Houston's bog parks, and
    LA's Great Park Initiative.
        Parks also create construction jobs. They create planning
    jobs, professional jobs. The maintenance workers at the end.
    And it is a really good investment. I think I would much rather
    be sitting in a park than sitting on I-95 looking at the
    greenscape and the stormwater runoff happen.
        Stormwater scapes as green infrastructure. I worked closely
    with Mayor Daley in Chicago when I was assistant to the mayor
    to support the green roof that was built on Chicago's City
    Hall. It has become an iconic landscape that has ushered in
    support for green roofs and other forms of these stormwater
    scapes throughout the country.
        But that is a big project. And these projects don't always
    have to be massive and large. Programs such as this, such as
    disconnecting downspouts, rain barrels, rain gardens, different
    types of landscaping in people's yards are what it is about and
    where it is.
        To that end, we have at PHS forged a great partisanship
    with Keep America Beautiful and their 600 affiliates across the
    country to introduce this type of landscaping, greening, and
    stormwater management to millions and millions of households.
    And this is all about being able to scale up rather quickly to
    make sure that this infrastructure and everything that we are
    talking about here can actually happen at the community level.
        So with that, I would just like to thank you all, and I
    appreciate your leadership and your interest and support, and
    thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. And we
    look forward to working with you in the future to implement
    what your dreams are. Thank you so much.
        Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Becher.
        Mr. Neukrug.
        Mr. Neukrug. Good morning.
        And welcome to a beautiful rainy day in Washington,
    Philadelphia, and New York. It is rain that is well needed. And
    we should all be happy about it.
        My name is Howard Neukrug, and I am the deputy water
    commissioner for the City of Philadelphia. I am honored to be
    here today to testify on behalf of my utility, the City of
    Philadelphia and NACWA, the National Association of Clean Water
    Agencies. I am happy to report to you that experts all over the
    world now fully embrace green infrastructure as a wise and
    sustainable approach for urban reinvestment. The benefits are
    clear: cleaner water and improved economies and public health.
        Now is the time that the policies and rules that govern our
    water resources nationally be adjusted. A major shift is needed
    in investment toward sustainable cities, an economical,
    holistic approach to meet our environmental responsibilities
    for air, land, and water.
        Philadelphia attaches immense importance to its rivers and
    streams, and we seek not just fishable/swimmable goals of the
    Clean Water Act, but accessible and beautiful rivers and
    streams as well.
        I would like to thank the U.S. EPA and the Pennsylvania DEP
    for their support as we seek final approval of perhaps the
    Nation's most ambitious green approach to cleaning our water
    supply. Our program is called Green City, Clean Waters. It is a
    $2 billion, 25-year plan which seeks to achieve a host of
    environmental, social, and economic benefits, while also
    meeting our responsibility toward clean water.
        Our plan will manage one-third of the city's impervious
    cover, one-third of the city's impervious cover, with greened
    infrastructure, and restore nearly 20 miles of urban stream
    corridor. We are essentially demonstrating a whole new way of
    doing business in Philadelphia.
        We have conducted watershed and triple bottom line
    analyses, balanced the full cost of service accounting with
    what our citizens can afford, and created new rules for
    governing our city. We are committed to this program, and we
    are working with all our city agencies, local nonprofits, like
    PHS, and the business community to ensure our success.
        A large part of this new way of doing business is to work
    in our diverse communities, many of which are low-income and
    minority. We are constantly looking for ways to integrating our
    mission of conserving rain water with capital projects on our
    roadways, in our schools, recreation centers, so that every
    dollar spent on green infrastructure and water management also
    provides a double bonus to our city's sustainability and
    livability.
        There are key congressional proposals that would help pave
    the way for us and other cities to invest wisely. The Green
    Communities Act legislation provides greatly needed funding for
    community-based greening programs. The Green Infrastructure for
    Clean Water Act would create Centers of Excellence for green
    infrastructure, and Philadelphia would be honored to be so
    designated. And the work of the Livable Communities Task Force
    is key to paving the way to integrating green stormwater
    infrastructure into transportation, housing, and economic
    development projects. We thank Congress Members Edwards,
    Schwartz, and Blumenauer for their leadership in this area.
        Congresswoman Schwartz and Mr. Becher both invited you to
    Philadelphia. Well, I would like to invite you also. We have an
    event coming up, on December 6th and 7th, which is called the
    Urban Water Sustainability Leadership Conference. We will be
    showcasing U.S. cities from all over the United States that
    embrace these strategies to enhance environmental stewardship,
    economic development, and overall quality of life.
        The changes toward a green approach to water management are
    everywhere. Mayors everywhere are trying to understand the
    relationship between an array of water-related issues and the
    growth and sustainability of their cities.
        Mr. Neukrug. This is our time. This is our opportunity, we
    are so close to realizing a new, green ethic for our cities.
    Getting the water dialogue in all its forms into the process is
    crucial for the success of our cities and their water supplies.
        In closing, Mayor Nutter spoke before a large audience a
    few weeks ago in D.C. on the issue of a call to action for
    addressing U.S. freshwater challenges, and he said, We don't
    have the luxury to ignore this most fundamental of issues that
    will so dramatically impact our Nation's future.
        Thank you for this opportunity to testify.
        Ms. Edwards. Thank you to all of our witnesses.
        At this time, although it is usually the custom of the
    Committee to enter our Members' statements into the record or
    have them use their time for questions for statements, since
    there are so few of us today on this rainy day, I would like to
    offer Mr. Johnson an opportunity to offer his statement.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thanks
    to the Chairwoman and the Ranking Member for holding this
    important hearing on the impact of green infrastructure and low
    impact development on the Nation's water quality, economy and
    communities.
        Green infrastructure holds enormous promise in its
    potential to help reduce the cost of ensuring access of
    cleaning drinking water for all Americans. Not only are green
    projects often cheaper to build, they can also save on future
    maintenance costs by relying on nature's own cleaning system.
    For several decades, our country has grown at an unprecedented
    pace, and in doing so, has too often paved and built over our
    streams, forests, farms and wetlands. These natural buffers
    reduce the impact of storms and help to filter pollutants out
    of our water. It is time to grow smarter by building a strong
    economy on a foundation of sustainable infrastructure.
        For example, one example of how green infrastructure is
    currently addressing stormwater runoff and water quality is the
    Atlanta BeltLine project in the City of Atlanta. The Atlanta
    BeltLine is a $2.8 billion redevelopment project that would
    shape the way that Atlanta grows throughout the next several
    decades.
        The project provides a network of public parks, multi-use
    trails and transit along a historic 22-mile railroad corridor
    circling down town and connecting 45 neighborhoods directly to
    each other. The Atlanta BeltLine will increase Atlanta's green
    space by nearly 40 percent as the project adds nearly 1,300
    acres of new parks and green space throughout 25 years. It will
    create a linear park with 33 miles of multi-use trails
    connecting 40 parks including approximately 700 acres of
    existing parks.
        I recently had the pleasure of accompanying Chairman
    Oberstar on a visit to the Atlanta BeltLine project to see
    firsthand how the investment in urban parks and green space is
    addressing these water quality issues in Atlanta. During that
    trip, we had the opportunity to visit the historic fourth ward
    park, which incorporates a stormwater basin into a green space
    and uses a natural setting to retain 9 million gallons of
    stormwater and reduce flooding in the surrounding area.
        This park is located on a former industrial site that had a
    paved concrete parking lot and abandoned, dilapidated
    structures. The site was remediated of contamination and
    transformed into a park adding more than 100 trees, spurring
    investment in housing adjacent to the site, and it will also
    assist in mitigating storm damage that has prevented a 2
    million square foot historic building from being developed.
        This project will create a 17-acre park in an urban area
    that will be complete in early 2011.
        I look forward to the day when green infrastructure is no
    longer a subset of infrastructure building but standard
    practice. As we work to provide funding for our Nation's water
    infrastructure, we must consider how best to promote green
    sustainable infrastructure building.
        Thank you, again, Madam Chairwoman, for allowing me to make
    an opening statement, and I look forward to the questions that
    I hear from Members.
        Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. I will begin with
    questions. Let me begin with Mayor Ortiz.
        Mayor Ortiz, in your testimony, you indicated obviously
    that you are from a small town, a small municipality, and you
    noted the number of green infrastructure stormwater
    improvements that were made to your Main Street, but you also
    noted the stormwater improvements added little additional
    construction costs. And so I wonder if you could speak in a
    little more detail about those costs and about the choices that
    you made because you, it seems that you had some flexibility
    about what you were choosing to do in order to manage your
    stormwater.
        And in your response, I wonder if you could also speak to
    your reference again to the Recovery Act and the importance
    that you seem to indicate about it bringing about the work on
    the Decatur Street and whether that set aside, that 20 percent
    set aside in the Recovery Act was important to addressing some
    of the concerns and costs in implementing the technologies on
    Decatur Street.
        Mr. Ortiz. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am very happy to
    answer those questions.
        We are an older community. In some parts of the town, the
    stormwater infrastructure is over a century old, so the cost of
    digging up and replacing that infrastructure, which is falling
    apart, is extremely high. By--instead of digging up and
    replacing the entire structure that has to be done sooner or
    later by building these rain gardens, which, depending on size
    can cost from, I don't know, $1,000 up to 12- or $15,000. That
    is a very, very small drop in the bucket for reducing
    substantial stormwater volume from going into the regular
    system.
        So compared to that, if you look at it that way in terms of
    the whole system, it is a tremendous savings. But for us, it
    was, our project altogether, and we did an entire streetscape
    and that includes replacing streetlights and everything on
    about two-thirds of a mile was $1.3 million. But we went whole
    hog on it. We wanted it to be an beautiful street and an
    important economic engine.
        The stormwater features alone, maybe 5 to maybe 10 percent
    of that cost, that is just on that cost, but compared to
    actually digging up and replacing the entire stormwater system
    which needs to be done, a fraction of the cost.
        I would also like to go back to the portion of my testimony
    where I mentioned the $7 million flood control facility that
    was put in. That is a tremendous cost that is borne by the
    taxpayers of our region. And that is not enough. Engineers tell
    us we need probably another $7 million facility to control more
    of the stormwater throughout the region but Cussler is not low
    impact development.
        On the recovery side, that funding was absolutely extremely
    helpful. As I mentioned, we were able to benefit from a number
    of stars aligning for us. We had a number of partners in the
    community in the State of Maryland with a big interest in the
    Chesapeake Bay, and the time was just kind of right with the
    new awareness that we have of low impact development and green
    infrastructure, and they saw us as a pilot project. We were a
    good risk for their grant dollars and investment.
        The SRF money was absolutely, absolutely helpful. And just
    kind of zooming out for a second, there is a lot of money that
    the Federal Government gives back to communities and the
    residents. Very little of that money is for older streets and
    older communities. A lot of that is, as you know, highway
    moneys, interchanges, expansions, that sort of thing. So this
    is a way for us to capture some of those dollars and really
    kind of enhance and bring back the historic character of our
    older communities and to make them livable and beautiful.
        And Madam Chair, also, I just wanted to reference American
    Rivers put out a fantastic report analyzing that set aside, and
    its impact on green infrastructure, so with your permission, I
    would like to enter that with my testimony into the record. It
    is called Putting Green to Work.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Edwards. Thank you. We will accept that for the record.
        I wonder, Mr. Boncke, you know when we passed the American
    Recovery and Reinvestment Act, I recall that there was actually
    some bit of pushback about the set-aside minimum of 20 percent
    for the clean water, State revolving funds to address green
    infrastructure water, energy efficiency improvements, and other
    innovative activities. And in multiple hearings on the Recovery
    Act, it seemed that most accounts of the green reserve actually
    view it as a success, there were more applications than could
    be funded with that 20 percent.
        Did the National Association of Home Builders actually
    support the reserve?
        And do you agree that the growing consensus of the approach
    for Federal encouragement of green technologies was beneficial
    to the green technologies industry?
        Mr. Boncke. Thank you very much for the question.
        There were a few questions in the question that you have
    asked, but as it relates to the set aside in the Recovery Act,
    promoting green technology, absolutely, our support is there.
    We also stick to a fairly firm position that this is also
    evolving technology and we need time to work on it and time to
    develop best management practices. And very often those best
    management practices are found in the field, in the trenches
    and very often, quite frankly, in a private sector nature. So
    we do encourage obviously funding and resources to further
    these thoughts. But we also very much encourage volunteer and
    voluntary methods to come to these same means at the end of the
    day.
        Ms. Edwards. Do you have some sense though, I am just
    curious as to whether the numbers of the experiments that were
    going on with the Recovery Act, and I describe them as
    experiments because we are learning a lot from these
    technologies, that those are helpful as we try to figure out
    the questions that are raised regarding efficiencies, regarding
    savings and regarding the impact to the environment.
        Mr. Boncke. I would say that unfortunately at this
    juncture, we actually don't have enough empirical data. It is,
    to some extent, too soon. You may also be aware of the industry
    itself has not been where it was a couple of years ago in the
    actual construction of facilities. There are actually, quite
    frankly, a lot of projects that are laying fallow right now
    because of the economy.
        So with that being much of the reason, it is hard for us to
    gather empirical data. Likewise, a lot of the technologies that
    we are using are very exciting. They are very new. And the
    efficiencies and cost aspect and, quite frankly, the success of
    innovative technologies that we are using will take a long time
    to see quite frankly if they are working. So we are in a period
    of time where we just don't have enough empirical data probably
    to get a good enough answer back to you.
        Ms. Edwards. Before I turn it over to the Ranking Member, I
    do have a couple of questions for you, Mr. Richards. I am
    having a little bit of difficulty understanding your position
    on the value of low impact development projects. And part of
    the reason is because many of us who have been interested in
    these issues have read about, thought about, and been
    celebrating Charlotte, North Carolina that was recognized last
    year by the EPA for adopting nationally renowned smart growth
    policies and ordinances that incorporate low impact development
    concepts in your master plan.
        And during the formation of these policies, the former
    mayor recognized that ``without smart growth we have no growth
    in the future.'' And if I am not mistaken your city's efforts
    to develop the policies and ordinances were actually
    spearheaded by your boss, city engineer Jim Shoemaker.
        So I wonder if you could explain in your testimony that you
    seem to suggest that the benefits of the policies are unproven
    and have no more benefit than less expensive practices by which
    I assume you mean traditional gray infrastructure.
        Can you tell me whether you agree or disagree with the
    position of your city on the potential benefit of smart growth
    and low impact development policies?
        Mr. Richards. Sure, thank you very much for the question.
    Yes, I would say we, NAFSMA, and also the City of Charlotte
    both agree that green infrastructure and smart growth both are
    very good practices, and they are things that we want to be a
    part of, they are things that we want to continue to pursue.
        I will say from my testimony's perspective, one of the
    things that I want to highlight, and I can do this best from
    Charlotte's perspective, that is where I am from, is that when
    we were developing our post construction controls ordinance, we
    spent a lot of time with our consultant and with our
    stakeholders, over 36 meetings, almost 2 years worth of work,
    where we looked at our impaired waters.
        Now for Charlotte, North Carolina, in Mecklenburg County in
    which we reside, probably 75 percent of our streams are
    impaired. Most of our impairments, if not just about all of
    them, are impaired for sediment and bacteria. Now when we
    looked at what were our options for addressing these
    impairments, our consultant and also the work that we were
    doing was showing us that green infrastructure, while it was a
    good option, and a preferred option in some instances, was not
    the only option, and, in fact, it was not the less expensive
    option for treating our impaired waters.
        That is one of the reasons I believe that NAFSMA says that,
    you know, we recognize this is a great tool, and it fits right
    in the toolbox and should be used where appropriate but
    sometimes it is not the best option. So for Charlotte, with
    smart growth and with green infrastructure while we prefer that
    in our ordinance, we don't require people to use it because
    really, if we are trying to restore our watersheds then some of
    our other methods are a little less expensive.
        Ms. Edwards. But for the record, you acknowledge also that
    Allyson Schwartz earlier testified about the measures that she
    is proposing around green infrastructure, again in the nature
    of experimentation investment and nonprofit organizations to
    work with municipalities, with communities and the legislation
    that I proposed as well, don't have mandates in them. And your
    testimony, though, reflected some concern about a mandate when
    that is not something that we have actually seen.
        We have actually been looking at some of these techniques
    and the nature of adding to the toolbox just as you described.
        Mr. Richards. Yes, ma'am. That is a reflection of what our
    NAFSMA members are seeing across the Nation. I guess what I am
    trying to reflect is whether there is actual, actually a
    mandate or not. What we are seeing in permit renewals, is
    language that says, you are going to use green infrastructure,
    and you are going to show us how you are proposing that this is
    your first choice, and if that choice doesn't work then you
    might look at something else. And I am just, that is what
    NAFSMA is seeing through our membership. So we are concerned
    about that.
        Ms. Edwards. Thank you. Mr. Boozman.
        Mr. Boozman. So you are talking about permit renewals
    through the EPA?
        Mr. Richards. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Boozman. Very good.
        Mr. Ortiz, what sorts of operating O&M costs does your
    community have for the green infrastructure compared to the
    traditional gray?
        Mr. Ortiz. I am sorry, sir, you said operating costs?
        Mr. Boozman. Yes, in other words, once you put the
    structure in, there is more, I would assume that there is more
    maintenance regarding that concept versus the traditional gray
    infrastructure.
        Mr. Ortiz. That is an excellent question. Primarily it is
    pulling weeds in the rain gardens and in the tree boxes. So we
    have a public work staff that we already have, it is a little
    more work for them, but we think it is a priority, and we have
    also hired a landscape firm more on the beautification side,
    but, of course, there is overlap and I think we budgeted $3,000
    to bring them on board in the fiscal year.
        Mr. Boozman. It sounds like you have got some drainage
    problems in the area and things. Have you changed your zoning
    so that you wouldn't get yourself in the same situation? Are
    you zoned now for low impact?
        Mr. Ortiz. We have rezoned. We don't have power over our
    own zoning, but we have been working with our county and
    regional partners who do have authority over that. There is
    some, and there have been some changes in that way, but in the
    State of Maryland, we have been coming to a consensus through a
    long process on stormwater management and requiring some
    waivers and exceptions that all new development and
    redevelopment have to meet certain thresholds for better
    stormwater management. And we hope that that will make a
    difference in the long term.
        Mr. Boozman. So you are in the process of doing that? You
    haven't done it yet or?
        Mr. Ortiz. The law was recently passed in 2007. It was
    passed in the recent State general assembly session the
    grandfathering was extended so it actually hasn't gone into
    force. I don't believe it will begin going into force until
    2013.
        Mr. Boozman. Mr. Yocca, again, along the same line, can you
    describe the difference between gray infrastructure and green
    infrastructure in terms of cost to water, again, water
    benefits, employment numbers, with O&M?
        Mr. Yocca. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Boozman. A couple of things.
    Generally, as part of the integrated planning process in
    designing a green infrastructure project, we look at life cycle
    costs, both capital costs and long-term operations and
    maintenance costs, and for every case, whether it is a private
    development or a public infrastructure project have to
    demonstrate that there is appropriate budget and resources to
    implement and manage that project over time, and oftentimes,
    that is sitting within either existing or even shrinking
    budgets.
        In the case of the West Union project that I mentioned, we
    went through that analysis and looked at each aspect, or each
    element of the green infrastructure and evaluated the
    combination of capital costs and operations and maintenance
    costs, and the end result is that the capital costs, for some
    of the items are actually more than conventional materials,
    other things are less.
        The aggregate is actually, of the total project, was more
    than what the conventional approach was with additional
    qualities and benefits added in. So it is costing more, but
    there are more elements and attributes of the project. In terms
    of operations and maintenance, the aggregate cost is actually
    less over time. Some of the elements are much more durable and
    require albeit different but less costly maintenance. And so,
    for the example of the porous paving, for example, it is
    estimated to be a 50-year street without repavement. There
    needs to be annual vacuuming and a few other maintenance items,
    but those are less costly than what the city was spending in
    maintaining its asphalt street in the same area.
        There is an additional cost in terms of the bio retention
    and landscape elements. And in the case of West Union, they
    didn't have the staff, it is a very small town, only 2,500
    people they didn't have public works staff that were capable of
    maintaining that landscaping so we actually worked with a group
    of local master gardeners who agreed to take responsibility for
    that.
        So several of you mentioned the fact that it is not a one-
    size-fits-all solution, and that is very much what has been our
    experience, that part of the design process has to identify
    what are the resources, both for capital costs and for long-
    term maintenance and operations and fitting the design to those
    conditions.
        Mr. Boozman. Mr. Richards, you mentioned that the mandate
    without the mandate situation that you are in. Do you think the
    EPA has the authority to do that?
        I know they are doing it.
        Mr. Richards. I think it is our opinion that they do not
    have the authority to do that.
        Mr. Boozman. Very good.
        And again, I keep going on about the, I would agree with
    that. I keep coming back to the cost, and I think that is
    important because we have had the stimulus and that money has
    essentially been spent or allocated so there is not going to be
    any more money. We are running almost a trillion and a half
    dollar deficit right now, so money is tight and I think
    everybody would agree with that. So I think the cost really is
    important as far as the practicality of moving forward.
        Mr. Boncke, can you comment on that also about the
    difference in cost to water quality benefits from your
    perspective?
        Mr. Boncke. Certainly, and thank you for the question.
        I would like to try and answer it quickly in a couple of
    ways. First, in the absence of certain empirical data as
    whether some of these techniques are working and all, the costs
    per individual home of the stormwater regulations as they have
    evolved over the last few years are costing somewhere in the
    neighborhood of $3,500 to $10,000 per home depending on regions
    you live in. That is very significant as a starting number. But
    more specific to your question, it is very interesting if we
    allow our creative and technical juices to work properly. And I
    would like to just give you a scenario on that.
        Incrementally, site by site, item by item, the costs can,
    in fact, be significant and out of proportion. And I very much
    appreciate some of the comments from Mr. Richards. We also have
    to look at the future of maintenance costs. Ultimately, we can
    design things that nature can be the maintainer of a situation
    rather than trucks and bulldozers. That is very significant to
    our communities. So while the upfront costs may be and are
    proving to be a little bit more, we can also see benefit to the
    down-the-road cost for our communities.
        But a very quick scenario if I could, I started my career
    designing narrow streets without gutters, very practical, put
    the water in the ground type of solutions. I also watched
    neighborhoods, as I was a youngster, drain the oil out of their
    cars and walk out to the street and dump it into the inlet.
    That may be why I ended up being a civil engineer, I don't
    know. But over a 40-year career, I have watched our communities
    build codes and standards that ultimately we are building the
    Roman empire. Streets got wider, gutters got put in, we spent a
    lot of money having to then create pipes to send the water
    away, then 10 years later, we worried about uh-oh, too much
    quantity, and we got to knock it down.
        We started to do that site by site. This is a wonderful
    period of time for me. We are coming full circle to many of the
    principles I had 40 years ago with the water quality aspect of
    things. But I would also submit that incrementally, I think the
    costs right now are often too high when we treat them item by
    item, site by site. If you take a regional detention facility
    that was built 20 years ago solely for the purpose of
    detention, of volume, and now go back and spend some money
    wisely in the development process to go back and retrofit that
    facility for the greater good of quality rather than go back
    incrementally site by site, those dollars can be far more cost
    effective than site by site. Also, the maintenance of that one
    larger facility can be far less than incrementally.
        So while not giving you empirical numbers, this is what we
    are seeing evolving, but we need to be very careful that there
    is, as chairperson said, there is no one answer to all
    solutions. But I am very excited at the balance between looking
    at initial cost and saving our communities money.
        And when the developer walks away from the site and sold
    his site, he necessary doesn't have to maintain that for the
    next 20, 30 years, it is the community that does. And I will
    say we are developing a lot more sensitivity within our
    industry, the maintenance, than the actual up front
    construction. I hope I have come close to the question without
    numbers.
        Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Edwards. Thank you. Mr. Johnson.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you Madam Chair.
        Anyone familiar with the National Urban Runoff Program that
    would talk about specific methods and design tools for
    stormwater runoff that was formulated in the 1970's, as I
    understand it? Is anyone familiar with that program? Well, tell
    me something, is there anyone who thinks that the Federal
    Government should have the foresight to fund studies that could
    recommend, or at least highlight specific methods, design tools
    and even software to deal with the issue of stormwater runoff,
    suggested methods those kinds of things? Is that something that
    should be a Federal pursuit or should it be left more to local
    authorities to impose standards?
        And I guess that question is somewhat, does the Federal
    Government have a role here is what I am trying to ask? And if
    everyone could respond if you desire that is fine. Starting
    with Mr. Ortiz.
        Mr. Ortiz. Thank you for the question, Congressman. And I
    am not familiar with the program, so I plead a little bit of
    ignorance. But in general, as we all know, a number of these
    issues go across State borders and it requires a solution,
    depending on the region, depending on the waterway or estuary
    or bay or river, so it has to be site specific, but I think
    absolutely. These, in a lot of ways, what we have talked about
    here, are not new technologies that have been dreamt up in the
    hauls of academia somewhere. They are actually fixing problems
    that we have created over the last 40 to 60 years in trying to
    restore natural processes. We are actually going back and
    trying to mimic the natural processes that worked very well for
    many millennia before we paved over too much of our lands.
        So I do think that there is a role for the Federal
    Government. I believe it should be regionalized and
    contextualized as appropriate, and I do think it is much more
    of a restoration than really doing something entirely new.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. All right thank you. And I would
    remind you I have got a short period of time left for responses
    so if you could condense them, that would be great.
        Yes, sir.
        Mr. Yocca. Thank you, Congressman. I would say that there
    are certainly things that the Federal Government can do to
    continue to assist in the exploration and promotion of green
    infrastructure practices to the benefit of local communities.
        One of the things that has been, one of the obstacles I
    think, some of the panelists have already shared in terms of
    the implementation of the sustainable strategies is having the
    performance statistics to back up how to implement these
    systems in the most efficient way. A lot of times, some of the
    costs that are incurred are because of redundancy, and the only
    way to eliminate that redundancy is to have confidence in the
    performance within a particular area or geographic location of
    the perform of these green infrastructure standards.
        That is why a lot of the work that we do and others are on
    demonstration projects that are set up to monitor that
    performance and then to fine-tune and adjust and inform the
    models and other tools that are used to design and implement
    and ensure that the systems are proper.
        And just one other quick point along those lines. The
    American Society of Landscape Architects, along with other
    partners, including EPA, has developed a tool called the
    Sustainable Sites Initiative, which is geared toward this very
    thing. It is to identify one of those ecosystem services that
    green infrastructure can provide and to encourage monitoring
    and measurement in reporting back in different geographic
    locations on the performance of those tools. Thank you.
        Mr. Richards. Yes, sir, thank you for the question.
        I will say that NAFSMA has recommended on the record
    several times in our discussions a NIRP II program which would
    be kind of a second look at urban runoff. We believe science is
    so important to this decision for new regulations that we know
    EPA is pursuing over the next couple of years and so we believe
    there should be some type of scientific forum to look at this
    and a NIRP II-type program would be appropriate for that, and
    Federal funding to support that would be good.
        Mr. Boncke. Thank you. We will be very brief. Actually,
    from the National Home Builders perspective, we believe the
    Federal Government should encourage, to the best extent
    possible, incentivize, but not mandate or regulate these
    issues.
        We do believe that through that encouragement and
    incentive, we should leave it to regional and local to develop
    their own standards. New York State has very successfully, with
    the engineering, building and many other communities and
    stakeholders, developed an excellent best management practices
    manual as a working document. But we believe it should be
    regional and local, and that is also importantly not a
    political view or statement. It is really an engineering view,
    geology, hydrology, all of the factors that go into these
    issues are very, very localized and regionalized throughout the
    country. Thank you.
        Mr. Becher. I agree. I think local control, regional
    control is always good. However, I do think there is a place
    for the Federal Government, much like the Energy Star program
    and others, as long as the Federal Government sets, I think, a
    very straightforward sort of framework and program for it, I
    think it could be, actually, quite successful.
        Mr. Neukrug. I am unfortunately old enough to remember
    NIRP, and I remember the engineers running out trying to
    capture that first cup of rainfall to be able to bring it back
    to the labs and analyze it. It became the basis of everything
    we really know today about pollution in stormwater. And without
    that NIRP program, we in the United States and throughout the
    world would be at a loss of quite a bit of data. So it was very
    valuable then.
        Is there still a role for the Federal Government? Yes there
    certainly is. And I think I have heard the words already,
    incentivize, leverage, support, but both private investment,
    public investment, research along the lines of what EPA does in
    Edison, New Jersey and elsewhere and support through programs
    like the two Acts that have been discussed today where both of
    them provide funding to encourage folks back home to figure out
    how green infrastructure can be made to work appropriately.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you for that response or for
    those responses. And it just seems to me that with runoff from
    creeks, streams into rivers which flow through and between
    States which capture that runoff, it seems that certainly, and
    some of those rivers may even are navigable, and I think they
    are, many navigable waters, I think that certainly the Federal
    Government has a role to play in making sure that our rivers
    contain as few contaminants as is possible. And we can
    certainly get to that through standards and incentives that
    States and local governments can follow. So I think we simply
    have to start paying attention to smart growth and ways in
    which we can exist with growth along with protecting our
    environment. So I thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. I just have a couple
    of additional questions. A real follow-up for Mr. Neukrug. We
    focus a lot here on cost effectiveness, on whether investing in
    or what is the balance of gray infrastructure versus green
    infrastructure some combination of both, and as you know, Mr.
    Neukrug, many cities are considering low impact development and
    green infrastructure approaches and technology, and those
    cities are also under consent decrees, I believe Philadelphia
    has been under a consent decree around its discharges. And so
    the advantage of pure gray infrastructure approach is that we
    know, with a high degree of certainty, that the installation of
    pipe Y is doing to result in the decrease of X number of
    gallons and so it is certain, you know what you have to do, and
    you know what the result is going to be.
        I think green infrastructure, on the other hand, we are
    learning a lot about, and it doesn't give us the same degree of
    certainty. But I wonder, if you could discuss when Philadelphia
    decided, when Philadelphia had a choice about how it was going
    to comply, find itself into compliance under the consent decree
    and could have chosen purely a gray infrastructure approach or
    a green infrastructure approach and made some decisions there,
    can you tell me how those decisions came to be and what the
    relative consideration was with respect to cost and then how
    you demonstrate then to the enforcement authorities that you
    are meeting your compliance requirements?
        Mr. Neukrug. Thank you for that question.
        I think Mr. Boncke addressed a bit of this earlier on when
    he talked about the way we have designed our cities for the
    past 200 years and how it made sense to take water and move it
    away from the houses and the businesses and move it into our
    rivers and streams, and then through sewers into our rivers and
    streams. And as we went along, it still made sense to harden
    our land.
        Today, it doesn't make any more sense. We have this
    incredible infrastructure that is in place in Philadelphia and
    throughout the country dealing with stormwater, dealing with
    waste and then sewage. And the question is, what is the next
    step? Is this the approach that we are going to take for the
    next 200 years? And we are at this turning point now where
    either we take this system that was placed in here and hardened
    our cities from the environment and do we continue that, and is
    that our approach for the next 200 years by building on to
    those systems? Or do we now take this more soft approach, use
    the basis of what is there, and manage our water in a different
    way that also creates other benefits for our cities?
        So that is kind of where we are looking at, in terms of the
    amount of money we are spending, it is Congress and EPA who
    have decided that the priority for our cities in environmental
    legislation is water. And there is a desire for all of us to
    move down this road to reduce as much as possible the amount of
    overflows going into our rivers and streams. And the question
    becomes what is the best way to spend that money?
        And every time that we build a new tank or a tunnel in the
    city of Philadelphia, we are helping that one cause. But we are
    doing nothing about climate change, we are not bringing more
    people into Philadelphia, we are not making the quality of life
    for Philadelphians better, we are not improving or protecting
    public health from issues other than someone swimming in the
    water.
        So if you look at the green infrastructure approach, what
    we found is that for the same dollar, we can achieve that same
    first goal of water protection and add to that this other layer
    of sustainable cities.
        And the last thing I want to say is that as a water utility
    in a city that doesn't have a lot of money, when we look at the
    amount of money, we are talking about spending which is $2
    billion and we looked at we need to recover that from our
    ratepayers, and we looked down the road and see what is
    Philadelphia going to look like in 10 years, in 20 years in 50
    years, it is very critical for the water utility and for the
    ratepayers every dollar we spend to spend it in a way that
    promotes the growth and sustainability of our city.
        So to sustain our utility, we are sustaining the city of
    Philadelphia and managing the water issues. The cost benefits
    of any one piece is judgmental and is up for discussion. But
    the triple bottom line analysis is very clear, just about all
    of this, that green infrastructure really is the approach. I
    won't speak for every city in the country, but certainly for
    the city of Philadelphia and other mayors and other water
    utility managers, I am speaking to, it is also very clear that
    this is the way to move. And the next question for all of us is
    just how do we help this along? And how do we not miss this
    opportunity that we have in front of us?
        Ms. Edwards. And so just to follow up, again, in your view,
    it was the ability to consider green infrastructure as part of
    the approach that you were taking, but you are not aware of any
    mandate for green infrastructure, is that correct?
        Mr. Neukrug. I have been very curious hearing that today
    because I am feeling just the opposite. I feel like the mandate
    is for gray infrastructure. The easiest thing for a city to do,
    for a utility to do, for EPA to approve, is a tunnel, a tank or
    other concrete system to deal with the issues at hand.
        The complicated part that takes leadership from a mayor,
    like Mayor Nutter, is to accept this new approach that takes
    more work and more energy by the city governments to allow for
    this green infrastructure to happen. What we are looking for is
    for some understanding, and I don't know how you we are going
    to get there, whether it is the Clean Water Act or some other
    entity to eventually allow all of us to be thinking once again
    more holistically about what our real goals are here for
    environmentally for our cities and for our country.
        Ms. Edwards. Am I correct in recalling that at in fact, at
    least in the instance of Philadelphia, the EPA would have been
    much more quick actually to approve the pipe as opposed to some
    of the green infrastructure techniques----
        Mr. Neukrug. I don't want to put words in EPA's mouth, but
    it is hard for EPA to approve a green infrastructure program
    today because there are metrics that are needed. There are some
    uncertainties out there. And all parties, the cities, the
    Congress, the EPA, all need to take some level of risk as we
    move to this new way of looking at infrastructure in our urban
    centers, so going from this very hard approach to this very
    soft approach.
        Ms. Edwards. And it does speak to Mr. Richards' concern
    there that we make sure that we do the science the right way as
    well so that we can strike the appropriate balance.
        With that, I would like to thank all of our witnesses
    today. I look forward to continuing this discussion in this
    Committee making sure that we come up with a framework that
    allows our cities, municipalities, the tools and flexibility
    that they need to incorporate green infrastructure techniques
    and the array of ways in which we need to protect our
    stormwater and our clean water. Thank you very much for your
    testimony today. And with that, we are adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Link for Green City Clean Waters Report
        http://www.phillywatersheds.org/ltcpu/LTCPU--Summary--
    HiRes.pdf

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]