[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]