[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 89 (Tuesday, June 10, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3548-S3550]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. CARDIN:
  S. 2457. A bill to require States to establish highway stormwater 
management programs; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I come to the floor to discuss the 
introduction of my latest legislative proposal to better control the 
harmful and volumes of polluted stormwater that is generated from our 
Nation's Federal aid highways. Highway stormwater is a growing threat 
to water quality, aquatic ecosystems and the fish and wildlife that 
depend on the health of these ecosystems. Moreover, the high volumes 
and rapid flow of stormwater runoff from highways and roads poses a 
very serious threat to the condition of our Nation's water and 
transportation infrastructure as well as personal property particularly 
in urban and suburban communities.
  The Environmental Protection Agency has recognized that pollution 
from point-sources have been steadily declining since the enactment of 
the Clean Water Act. Likewise, we have seen reductions in pollution 
from certain non-point sources like agriculture which are attributable 
in part to the success of a wide variety of USDA Natural Resource 
Conservation Service Programs and farming innovations in soil 
conservation and nutrient pollution management.
  One non-point source sector where we are unfortunately seeing an 
increasing impact on water quality is from impervious surface that 
create rapidly moving high volumes of untreated polluted stormwater 
that rush off of road surfaces, erode unnatural channels next to and 
ultimately underneath roadways comprising the integrity of roadway 
infrastructure, and increases the stress on storm sewer systems 
shortening the useful life of this infrastructure and ultimately lead 
to the discharge of untreated pollution that is carried off roadways 
and into our lakes, rivers, streams, and coastal waters.
  Impervious surfaces include most buildings and structures, parking 
lots and of course the nearly 9 million lane miles of roads across our 
country. The total coverage of impervious surfaces in an area is 
usually expressed as a percentage of the total land area.
  The coverage increases with rising urbanization. In rural areas, 
impervious cover may only be 1 percent or 2 percent, however road 
surfaces comprise 80 percent to 90 percent of a rural area's total 
impervious surfaces. In residential areas, impervious surface coverage 
ranges between 10 percent in low-density subdivisions to over 50 
percent in more densely developed communities, where the composition of 
the impervious surface area coverage works out to be 50 percent roads. 
In dense urban areas, the impervious surface area is often over 90 
percent of the total land area, with roads comprising 60 percent to 70 
percent of that coverage.
  According to EPA, urban impervious cover, not just roads, in the 
lower 48 adds up to 43,000 square miles--an area roughly the size of 
Ohio. Continuing development adds another quarter of a million acres 
each year. Typically two-thirds of the cover is pavement, roads and 
parking lots, and 1/3 is buildings.
  According to the Chesapeake Bay Program, impervious surfaces compose 
roughly 17 percent of all urban and suburban lands in the Chesapeake 
Bay watershed. The greatest concentration of impervious surfaces in the 
Bay watershed is in the Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Areas of DC, 
Maryland and Virginia. The Virginia Tidewater area, Philadelphia's 
western suburbs, and Lancaster, PA, are also regions in the watershed 
where impervious surfaces are greater than 10 percent of the total land 
area.
  Rainfall on hard surfaces like roads and highways has a very 
destructive and turbulent affect on nearby waterways and 
infrastructure. For example, the rain events that occur over a week 
long period at the end of April brought nearly 8 eight inches of rain 
to the Baltimore-Washington region. The urban runoff from roads in 
Baltimore caused an embankment above the CSX railroad track along East 
26th Street, between St. Paul and Charles Street, to collapse. 
Fortunately no one was injured though homes had to be evacuated for 
more than a month, nearly a dozen parked cars were destroyed and 
moreover movement of freight along CSX railroad was disrupted for more 
than a week. This event shows just how destructive and disruptive 
poorly managed stormwater from transportation infrastructure can be.
  Some may chalk this up to a freak storm of unusually large 
proportion. It's true this storm was unusual, but so were the polar 
vortexes and all of the snow we had in the mid-Atlantic and Southeast, 
and last year's 3-mile wide tornado in Alabama, and the California 
drought and wildfires, and baseball sized hail in Nebraska just last 
week. ``Unusual'' weather seems to becoming a lot more usual. As 
extreme weather events triggered by our changing climate become more 
frequent it is imperative that we incorporate better designs into our 
infrastructure to be better handle these types of events.
  Under the Clean Water Act, stormwater is considered a non-point 
source and there are no requirements that stormwater be collected or 
treated. The exception being for localities where in order to meet the 
standards

[[Page S3549]]

set in an MS4, Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System, permit a region 
may include its transportation infrastructure in its MS4 permit.
  However, in most cases stormwater that falls on roadways washes oil, 
grease, asbestos brake-dust, nitrogen deposits from tailpipe emissions, 
trash, road salt and de-icing agents, and sediment into nearby 
waterways. Highway stormwater runoff is most often not treated or 
adequately managed.
  While these organic and inorganic contaminants are legitimate threats 
to water quality, the greater concern with roadway runoff is the sheer 
volume and rapid flow rate in which stormwater leaves these hard 
surfaces and enters our waterways. Flows and volumes that cause roads 
to collapse in Baltimore.
  Roads are designed for stormwater to flow off of the driving surface 
quickly, for safety reasons. When stormwater rushes off of road 
surfaces into storm drains it is usually piped straight into the 
nearest river or stream without removing contaminants, detaining any of 
the volume, or slowing down the flow. This creates an enormously 
destructive set of circumstances for our waterways.
  Another example of the destructive force that persistent unmitigated 
and poorly managed highway runoff can have on the condition and safety 
of highway infrastructure is in Mobile Alabama along Highway 131 in the 
Joe's Branch Watershed. The Mobile Bay Estuary Program, part of the 
National Estuaries Program, in coordination with Alabama Department of 
Transportation is having to spent millions of dollars to reinforce a 
highway embankment to keep the highway from slipping down a hill and 
into the Joe's Branch Creek, restore the hydrology of the river, and 
help protect private property from the dangerous erosion that's been 
caused by poorly managed stormwater from Highway 131.
  The Mobile Bay Estuary Program described the problem this way: ``In 
the Joe's Branch watershed, on the property of Westminster Village 
adjacent and parallel to Highway 131, a head cut stream is eroding at 
an accelerating rate, an ominous condition as ALDOT prepares to 
undertake improvements to the highway. Identified as a high priority 
stabilization area in the D'Olive Creek, Tiawasee Creek and Joe's 
Branch Watershed Management Plan, MBNEP has submitted a funding request 
to the Alabama Department of Environmental Management on behalf of its 
partners in Spanish Fort, Daphne, ALDOT and Westminster Village to 
undertake restoration of the stream using a cutting-edge technology 
called Regenerative Step Pool Storm Conveyance.''
  The four entities involved are spending large amount money to repair 
a problem caused by stormwater damage that could have been prevented at 
a lower cost by incorporating better stormwater mitigation facilities 
into the design of the highway.
  These high-volume/high-speed flows also hasten the deterioration of 
water infrastructure. A 2001 study on the erosive power of urban 
stormwater flows examined how excessive stormwater volumes and flow 
rates off of urban surface infrastructure caused more than $1 million 
in roadway and water infrastructure damage in the Cincinnati 
metropolitan areas in Ohio and Kentucky in a single year.
  While there are serious water quality concerns with not adequately 
controlling roadway infrastructure runoff, there are serious 
infrastructure costs, that are ultimately passed on to taxpayers and 
ratepayers, that can be avoided if transportation authorities do more 
to control and manage stormwater runoff with the infrastructure assets 
they manage and build.
  The increased incidence of flash flooding events that occur even 
during seemingly mild and routine storm events is a direct result of 
the growing percentage of impervious land cover in urban and suburban 
communities. Replacement of the ``greenscapes'' that are lost to 
pavement is essential to restoring hydrological balance to our urban 
and suburban communities and impaired watersheds.
  According to USGS: an inch of rain on one square foot of pavement 
produces 1.87 gallons of stormwater, Scaled up, 1 inch of rain on one 
acre would produce 27,150 gallons of stormwater. Using FHWA design 
standards for interstate highway lane and shoulder widths, 12 feet per 
lane, 10 foot right shoulder, 4 foot left shoulder, 10 miles of a four 
lane interstate highway generates nearly 2.5 million gallons of 
polluted stormwater for every inch of rain. To put that into 
perspective for the Potomac and Anacostia River Watersheds: The Capital 
Beltway, not including its 48 interchanges, generates nearly 30 million 
gallons of polluted stormwater for every inch of rain that falls on the 
64 mile 8 to 12 lane interstate highway loop. It is volumes of 
stormwater like that which cause dangerous streambank erosion.
  Gillies Creek is an urban waterway located East of Downtown Richmond. 
It is a tributary of the James River which flows into the Chesapeake 
Bay. Gillies Creek is surrounded by industrial and residential 
development and also receives stormwater from State highway 33, 
Interstate 64, US 60, and hundreds of city streets including Stony Run 
Parkway which directly adjacent to the creek for several miles. The 
banks and bed of this creek have eroded so badly as urban development 
around the creek has added more impervious surfaces to the watershed 
that streambed sheering has created cliffs more than ten feet tall at 
spots along the creek. Trees supporting the bank continually fall into 
the creek and nearby roadways and other infrastructure as well as homes 
and business are at risk. Reducing the impacts of the storms by 
mitigating the flow and volume of stormwater in this watershed will 
protect against further erosion and save the cost of repair and 
eventual replacement of the assets located along this endangered creek.
  The aim of this legislation is to improve highway designs to better 
manage stormwater to avoid the costly damage that poorly managed 
stormwater causes to infrastructure and nearby streams, rivers and 
coastal waters.
  I held a hearing on this issue in the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee 
on May 13. I heard many ideas from both the minority and majority 
witnesses that were invited to present testimony at this hearing. I 
listened to the concerns of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle and I have incorporated provisions into this bill that should 
alleviate concerns they may have had with previous attempts to better 
control highway stormwater.
  My bill's approach to highway runoff management is one that I hope my 
colleagues of both parties can support. First of all it puts states in 
the driver's seat for developing hydrological analysis and 
implementation of best management practices to control highway runoff. 
The objective of the legislation is to control and manage flow and 
volume of stormwater from highways not to treat runoff in order to meet 
water quality standards. By taking this sort of approach we avoid EPA's 
involvement in the process. Lastly, States would only need to apply 
these procedures to new construction on major reconfiguration projects 
that significantly increases the amount of impervious surface in the 
project area.
  Title 23 of the U.S. Code states: ``transportation should play a 
significant role in promoting economic growth, improving the 
environment, and sustaining the quality of life'' through the use of 
``context sensitive solutions.'' In 2008, the Government Accountability 
Office issued a report examining key issues and challenges that needed 
to be addressed in the next reauthorization of the transportation bill. 
That report highlighted the clear link between transportation policy 
and the environment. With 985,139 miles of Federal aid highways 
stretching from every corner of the US, polluted highway runoff is no 
small problem facing our Nation's waters. I would urge my colleagues to 
join me trying to address this problem facing America's waterways and 
infrastructure.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2457

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Highway Runoff Management 
     Act''.

[[Page S3550]]

     SEC. 2. FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY RUNOFF MANAGEMENT.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 3 of title 23, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 330. Federal-aid highway runoff management program

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(1) Covered project.--The term `covered project' means a 
     reconstruction, rehabilitation, reconfiguration, renovation, 
     major resurfacing, or new construction project on a Federal-
     aid highway carried out under this title that results in--
       ``(A) a 10-percent or greater increase in impervious 
     surface of the aerial extent within the right-of-way of the 
     project limit on a Federal-aid highway or associated 
     facility; or
       ``(B) an increase of 1 acre or more in impervious surface 
     coverage.
       ``(2) Erosive force.--The term `erosive force' means the 
     flowrate within a stream or channel in which channel bed or 
     bank material becomes detached, which in most cases is less 
     than or equal to the flowrate produced by the 2-year storm 
     event.
       ``(3) Highway runoff.--The term `highway runoff ', with 
     respect to a Federal-aid highway, associated facility, or 
     management measure retrofit project, means a discharge of 
     peak flow rate or volume of runoff that exceeds flows 
     generated under preproject conditions.
       ``(4) Impacted hydrology.--The term `impacted hydrology' 
     means stormwater runoff generated from all areas within the 
     site limits of a covered project.
       ``(5) Management measure.--The term `management measure' 
     means a program, structural or nonstructural management 
     practice, operational procedure, or policy on or off the 
     project site that is intended to prevent, reduce, or control 
     highway runoff.
       ``(b) State Highway Stormwater Management Programs.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this section, each State shall--
       ``(A) develop a process for analyzing the erosive force of 
     highway runoff generated from covered projects; and
       ``(B) apply management measures to maintain or restore 
     impacted hydrology associated with highway runoff from 
     covered projects.
       ``(2) Inclusions.--The management measures established 
     under paragraph (1) may include, as the State determines to 
     be appropriate, management measures that--
       ``(A) minimize the erosive force of highway runoff from a 
     covered project on a channel bed or bank of receiving water 
     by managing highway runoff within the area of the covered 
     project;
       ``(B) manage impacted hydrology in such a manner that the 
     highway runoff generated by a covered project is below the 
     erosive force flow and volume;
       ``(C) to the maximum extent practicable, seek to address 
     the impact of the erosive force of hydrologic events that 
     have the potential to create or exacerbate downstream channel 
     erosion, including excess pier and abutment scour at bridges 
     and channel downcutting and bank failure of streams adjacent 
     to highway embankments;
       ``(D) ensure that the highway runoff from the post-
     construction condition does not increase the risk of channel 
     erosion relative to the preproject condition; and
       ``(E) employ simplified approaches to determining the 
     erosive force of highway runoff generated from covered 
     projects, such as a regionalized analysis of streams within a 
     State.
       ``(c) Guidance.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this section, the Secretary, in consultation 
     with the heads of other relevant Federal agencies, shall 
     publish guidance to assist States in carrying out this 
     section.
       ``(2) Contents of guidance.--The guidance shall include 
     guidelines and technical assistance for the establishment of 
     State management measures that will be used to assist in 
     avoiding, minimizing, and managing highway runoff from 
     covered projects, including guidelines to help States 
     integrate the planning, selection, design, and long-term 
     operation and maintenance of management measures consistent 
     with the design standards in the overall project planning 
     process.
       ``(3) Approval.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     heads of other relevant Federal agencies, shall--
       ``(A) review the management measures program of each State; 
     and
       ``(B) approve such a program, if the program meets the 
     requirements of subsection (b).
       ``(4) Updates.--Not later than 5 years after the date of 
     publication of the guidance under this subsection, and not 
     less frequently than once every 5 years thereafter--
       ``(A) the Secretary, in consultation with the heads of 
     other relevant Federal agencies, shall update the guidance, 
     as applicable; and
       ``(B) each State, as applicable, shall update the 
     management measures program of the State in accordance with 
     the updated guidance.
       ``(d) Reporting.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2)(A), 
     each State shall submit to the Secretary an annual report 
     that describes the activities carried out under the highway 
     stormwater management program of the State, including a 
     description of any reductions of stormwater runoff achieved 
     as a result of covered projects carried out by the State 
     after the date of enactment of this section.
       ``(2) Reporting requirements under permit.--
       ``(A) In general.--A State shall not be required to submit 
     an annual report described in paragraph (1) if the State--
       ``(i) is operating Federal-aid highways in the State in a 
     post-construction condition in accordance with a permit 
     issued under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1251 et seq.);
       ``(ii) is subject to an annual reporting requirement under 
     such a permit (regardless of whether the permitting authority 
     is a Federal or State agency); and
       ``(iii) carries out a covered project with respect to a 
     Federal-aid highway in the State described in clause (i).
       ``(B) Transmission of report.--A Federal or State 
     permitting authority that receives an annual report described 
     in subparagraph (A)(ii) shall, on receipt of such a report, 
     transmit a copy of the report to the Secretary.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 3 of 
     title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

``330. Federal-aid highway runoff management program.''.

                          ____________________