No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
The Financial Impact of Different Stormwater Fee Types: A Case Study of Two Municipalities in Virginia
Abstract
Eight stormwater user fees (SUFs) were applied to the City of Roanoke and the Town of Blacksburg, Virginia, to determine the effect each has on how land use type impacts the sources of revenue. Roanoke is larger and includes more industrial areas, but less multifamily impervious areas than Blacksburg, which translates differently in the SUFs. Residential parcels comprise the highest percentage of the revenue in all eight SUFs in Blacksburg and four in Roanoke. For both municipalities, two specific SUFs consistently comprised the highest percentage burden for residential homeowners while three other SUFs demonstrated the highest burden for commercial parcels. Open space parcels contain little impervious area, yet account for up to 27% of the revenue in the Blacksburg Area fee structure. Industrial parcels comprise more revenue in Roanoke, averaging 10.1-4.5% in Blacksburg. Fee types that are easier to administer (e.g., Flat fees) may not fully represent the stormwater contribution from the parcels. SUF types that more accurately represent the stormwater burden on the municipality are also more administratively intensive and are more variable with fee factors.
... The equivalent residential housing unit [9]- [11], [13]- [16], [24]- [35] approach, uses the average impervious area of a property as a standard unit to determine the stormwater fee. Residential equivalent factor [10], [14], [29] calculates the average runoff volume for a selected stormwater event for properties with the same zone status (e.g., single dwelling), and all properties in this zone-category are charged the same fee. For the gross property area, a stormwater fee is imposed on the property's gross area. ...
... The gross area and the intensity of development methods assign factors for different land use types [31]. For the tier fee [29] fees are charged by classifying property plots in categories based on the rate of impervious area, land use purposes, etc. The flat fee is a funding mechanisms that charge a flat rate to users of a stormwater conveyance system [24], [29] and is based on the size of a property, and on the average stormwater burden their property type contributes [32]. ...
... For the tier fee [29] fees are charged by classifying property plots in categories based on the rate of impervious area, land use purposes, etc. The flat fee is a funding mechanisms that charge a flat rate to users of a stormwater conveyance system [24], [29] and is based on the size of a property, and on the average stormwater burden their property type contributes [32]. Fee types that are easy to administer (e.g., flat fees) is not fully representing the stormwater contribution from the parcels [29]. ...
... Phase II Rules added the remaining 'small' urbanized areas (< 100,000 residents as defined by United States Census Bureau 2020; United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 2005) to the scope of the permitting requirements with rules to classify which small MS4s were 'regulated' (United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 2012). Phase II rules are controversial since small municipalities requiring permits lack the resources of large cities to interpret and comply with MS4 regulations (Eisen 1995;Keeley et al. 2013;Brown 2018) and often encounter confusion or difficulties in complying with regulations (Fedorchak et al. 2017). ...
... While the implementation of BMPs and MCMs to comply with regulations might appear straightforward, smallmunicipality MS4 permittees frequently grapple with several common challenges faced by government and community stakeholders that result in a lack of actionable stormwater management plans (Fedorchak et al. 2017;Kim and Li 2017). The central challenge is regulating a diffuse, nonpoint source of pollution (i.e., stormwater) using local authority, with little control over large portions of the stormwater source (i.e., private properties), and limited funding to implement actions (Backhaus et al. 2012;Dhakal and Chevalier 2016;Subramanian 2016). ...
... Fees based on some measure of per-unit runoff or impervious cover level from parcels can directly fund stormwater management (Eisen 1995;National Research Council (NRC) 2009;Keeley et al. 2013;Kea et al. 2016), though they may not always be the most effective at abating pollution (William et al. 2017). A variety of fee structures have been developed that can be considered by municipalities as they seek to balance ease of calculation, revenue generation, and the equitability of cost to landowners (Fedorchak et al. 2017). ...
Federal regulations for municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) in the United States have been in place since 1990 as part of the Nation Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), aiming to reduce sediment and pollutant loads originating from urban areas. However, small-municipality (Phase II) MS4s frequently grapple with several challenges, resulting in a lack of stakeholder buy-in and actionable stormwater management plans. We identify five common challenges concerning MS4 requirements based on literature review, professional experience, and feedback solicited from stakeholders, municipal managers, and fellow professionals and offer real-world examples of efficient, effective MS4 frameworks and/or solutions. The five challenges are summarized as beliefs that: (1) agricultural land use is the largest pollutant contributor and the root cause of pollution problems; (2) stormwater management only benefits downstream communities; (3) large, expensive projects are required to comply with regulations; (4) maintenance, monitoring, and inspection of best management practices (BMPs) is overwhelmingly complex and expensive; and (5) a lack of direct funding makes complying with regulations an impossible task. These challenges are universal in nature for Phase II MS4 permittees and can create real barriers for effective stormwater management. However, we found many examples of methods or techniques to effectively address these five specific challenges, making them well-suited and important for discussion. BMPs can create tangible improvements for surrounding communities (e.g., reduced streambank erosion and flooding), and improved understanding of the structure and options within the MS4 program will help small municipalities make informed choices about management plans.
... These fees are calculated by measuring the amount of impervious surface cover within a parcel. Stormwater utility fees have been used for over forty years and have become a popular choice as a steady source of funding for stormwater management programs (Fedorchak, Dymond, & Campbell, 2017). More municipalities are looking toward Stormwater utility fees for several reasons, including economic pressures, increased regulations, and maintenance of aging infrastructure. ...
... The several States in the United States have incorporated stormwater utility fees except for states such as New Jersey and New York. Florida has the most stormwater utility fees (180), Minnesota (163), Wisconsin (120), Washington (113), and Texas (103) (Fedorchak, Dymond, & Campbell, 2017). Also, there are about 1,700 stormwater fees implemented in different jurisdictions across the country, but there are no stormwater fees in Louisiana (Campbell et al., 2019). ...
... The advantage of flat fees and area fees is that it is less labor-intensive for the municipality, but the main disadvantage is that it does not reflect the stormwater impact of each parcel. The equivalent residential unit and residential equivalency factor (REF) fee types deal directly with the stormwater contribution from parcels, and it requires the creation of fee structure before the charged (BGR, 2017;Fedorchak, Dymond, & Campbell, 2017). The figure below describes the stormwater fee types, and it also shows the number of municipalities that implement such fee type. ...
Abstract
The need for adequate and steady funding mechanisms in municipalities is the main issue affecting various regions of the United States. Stormwater management utility fees (SWMUFs) is a dependable process of funding for the maintenance of water resources, environmental protection, and flood control. SWMUFs are an estimated fee for all property owners, including homeowners, businesses, governments, and schools. The pros of SWMUFs include the provision of credits to those who incorporate best management practices on their parcel, which reduces stormwater runoff at the source, thereby protecting the waterways. This paper is a literature review paper on the mechanism of SWMUFs, rate structure, and factors to consider in establishing a stormwater utility fee. The findings from this review show that the equivalent residential unit (ERU) is the most prevalent funding method used in several municipalities, which is found on impervious areas, and many jurisdictions need to implement the SWMUFs.
... These fees are calculated by measuring the amount of impervious surface cover within a parcel. Stormwater utility fees have been used for over forty years and have become a popular choice as a steady source of funding for stormwater management programs (Fedorchak, Dymond, & Campbell, 2017). More municipalities are looking toward Stormwater utility fees for several reasons, including economic pressures, increased regulations, and maintenance of aging infrastructure. ...
... The several States in the United States have incorporated stormwater utility fees except for states such as New Jersey and New York. Florida has the most stormwater utility fees (180), Minnesota (163), Wisconsin (120), Washington (113), and Texas (103) (Fedorchak, Dymond, & Campbell, 2017). Also, there are about 1,700 stormwater fees implemented in different jurisdictions across the country, but there are no stormwater fees in Louisiana (Campbell et al., 2019). ...
... The advantage of flat fees and area fees is that it is less labor-intensive for the municipality, but the main disadvantage is that it does not reflect the stormwater impact of each parcel. The equivalent residential unit and residential equivalency factor (REF) fee types deal directly with the stormwater contribution from parcels, and it requires the creation of fee structure before the charged (BGR, 2017;Fedorchak, Dymond, & Campbell, 2017). The figure below describes the stormwater fee types, and it also shows the number of municipalities that implement such fee type. ...
The need for adequate and steady funding mechanisms in municipalities is the main issue affecting various regions of the United States. Stormwater management utility fees (SWMUFs) is a dependable process of funding for the maintenance of water resources, environmental protection, and flood control. SWMUFs are an estimated fee for all property owners, including homeowners, businesses, governments, and schools. The pros of SWMUFs include the provision of credits to those who incorporate best management practices on their parcel, which reduces stormwater runoff at the source, thereby protecting the waterways. This paper is a literature review paper on the mechanism of SWMUFs, rate structure, and factors to consider in establishing a stormwater utility fee. The findings from this review show that the equivalent residential unit (ERU) is the most prevalent funding method used in several municipalities, which is found on impervious areas, and many jurisdictions need to implement the SWMUFs.
... To address water pollution and protect water quality in the United States, the U.S. Congress passed the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972. This act focused primarily on wastewater and industrial discharge but did not specifically address stormwater [5]. In 1987, the CWA was amended through the Water Quality Act Existing literature on stormwater management finance mainly consist of government manuals, implementation guidelines and reports, particularly from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and local governments. ...
... Kea et al. [25] analyze the relationship between location, population density, home value, and SUF characteristics, and identify trends and patterns in the establishment, funding mechanisms, and magnitude of SUFs. Fedorchak et al. [5] analyze the application of eight SUFs in Virginia to determine the impact of land use on the sources of revenue. Other studies have focused on the use and economic efficacy of stormwater credits to incentivize users to adopt BMPs. ...
... Several parameters, some of them directly related to the amount of runoff, may be used by the municipalities to determine the usage of the system including the impervious area, the percentage of imperviousness, the amount of runoff, the water consumption, and the intensity of development among others. The most commonly used parameter is the impervious area on a property [5,13,18]. ...
Lack of stable and dedicated funding has been a primary challenge for municipalities in the United States to implement effective stormwater management programs. Stormwater utility fees (SUFs), as user fees, are an alternative dedicated revenue source to fund stormwater management. When complemented with stormwater utility credits or discounts, SUFs provide greater flexibility to adopting best management practices and reducing stormwater runoff at a lower overall cost to the community. While SUFs have been increasingly used, there is little systematic research on this topic. This paper reviews literature on how SUFs work, discusses the mechanisms for setting the fees, and provides examples of different rate structures from across the U.S. Then, we use the findings of the literature to evaluate SUFs as a funding strategy for stormwater management based on four revenue evaluation criteria of efficiency, equity, revenue adequacy, and feasibility. Overall, the literature indicates that stormwater utility fees are a more efficient and environmentally sustainable source of revenue that allows for long-range planning of capital improvements and operations, but their high political visibility and legal obstacles can affect their effective implementation. However, more empirical research is needed to assess these propositions. There is a lack of literature on effective SUF designs, equitable fee types, the extent to which SUFs lead to change in public behavior and their impact on business and stormwater management investments in a municipality.
... Stormwater management fees are the subject of much interest in the international literature. Most notably, consideration is given to the fact that raising funds through stormwater fees can provide a stable source of funding for infrastructure investments (Brisman, 2002;Fedorchak et al., 2017;Tasca et al., 2018;Chalfant, 2018;Ehrenfried et al., 2018). In addition, stormwater fees are an important mechanism inducing changes in the behavior of residents, who are at the same time fee payers, users of public infrastructure, and victims of flooding and urban pollution (Chouli & Deutsch, 2008). ...
... In addition, stormwater fees are an important mechanism inducing changes in the behavior of residents, who are at the same time fee payers, users of public infrastructure, and victims of flooding and urban pollution (Chouli & Deutsch, 2008). Furthermore, it has been pointed out that the determination of the stormwater fee depends on a number of factors, such as the benefits and challenges of stormwater collection (Fedorchak et al., 2017;Ehrenfried et al., 2018;Aladesote & Hunter, 2019;Tasca et al., 2019). At the same time, the literature also emphasizes that affordability at the household level should be taken into consideration when determining fees (Porse et al., 2022). ...
Theoretical background: Active national fiscal policy is an important determinant of sustainable development. Poland falls below the water security level, which is why natural retention is a particularly important issue, as the poverty of societies begins with a lack of access to water. This also poses a challenge for public finance, which should encourage specific behaviors. As of 1 January 2018, a fee for the reduction of natural land retention is levied in Poland. Purpose of the article: The aim of the article is to analyze and evaluate the fee for reducing natural field retention as an instrument of sustainable public finance and to assess its fiscal efficiency in terms of its ability to raise public revenue, in particular the revenue of municipalities on the example of cities with county rights in the Silesian Voivodeship. Research methods: The paper draws on literature reviews and the conducted empirical research. Data were collected using the direct method via access to public information. First, an analysis was carried out on the amount of revenue generated from the fee for reducing natural field retention, constituting the income of the State Water Holding – Polish Waters. Subsequently, an analysis was made on the amount of revenue generated from the fee for reducing natural field retention in municipalities with county rights in the Silesian Voivodeship. The study covered the years 2018–2022, i.e. from the introduction of the fee until the last year for which the data are available. Main findings: The fee for reducing natural field retention is a sustainable public finance instrument designed to shape attitudes and influence behavior. Although levying a fee for reducing natural field retention does not solve the problem of insufficient retention, it encourages discussion and implementation of measures to improve it. The mandatory fee is intended to discourage the construction of impervious surfaces and, at the same time, encourage property owners to incorporate retention systems into their construction plans to counteract the lowering of groundwater levels. It is of great importance, not in an economic or fiscal sense (public revenue), but rather in a social sense, by raising public awareness of the problem of natural retention.
... The decision about which fee structure to adopt for a SWU is influenced by several factors. Administrative burden and available capacity can be major limiting aspects for incorporating greater complexity into a stormwater fee (Fedorchak et al., 2017). For example, a flat fee is an administratively undemanding means of charging a stormwater fee but may appear "unfair" because property characteristics are not considered (Tasca et al., 2017). ...
To confront the converging challenges of failing infrastructure, climate change, degraded water quality, and fewer undeveloped lands, many municipalities are establishing stormwater utilities (SWUs) to allocate a dedicated funding source to stormwater management (SWM) services. As a public service, creating a “fair” SWU by defining collective values that reflect community and municipal needs is crucial. However, the prevalent professional discourse surrounding SWUs often conflates “equity” with “economic efficiency” when they are two theoretically separate concepts, which obscure concerns raised by service beneficiaries. This paper unpacks ideas of fairness based on a systematic literature review that frames SWM financing in terms of economic efficiency and SWM services in terms of distributional, procedural, and structural equity. The distinction of which is important to set appropriate expectations between SWUs and beneficiaries.
... Without dedicated funding streams for stormwater programs, municipalities rely on general funds from tax revenues, which means that stormwater management competes against other municipal services. To address funding gaps, some municipalities develop diversified funding for stormwater that includes general funds, dedicated utility revenues, credits, fees, and grants (Fedorchak et al. 2017, Zhao et al. 2019, EPA 2020. Some stormwater programs also leverage other municipal spending by designing projects that not only meet water quality goals, but also support other beneficial outcomes, including urban beautification, ecosystem protection and restoration, reduced water and energy consumption, climate change adaptation, and improved land management (Grigg 2013, Li et al. 2013, Prudencio and Null 2018, Meerow 2019. ...
Communities in the U.S. fund stormwater management programs to reduce flooding and improve and protect water quality. Few studies have attempted to quantify municipal storwmater management expenditures. This task is important given efforts to meet increasing water quality standards and develop new revenue sources. The purpose of this study was to evaluate trends in municipal stormwater management expenditures across the state of California. The study identified and compiled publicly-available data on reported stormwater expenditures (spending) and budgets for local governments in California. Data were extracted from annual reports for over 160 public agencies. A standardized rubric of activities was developed and used to create a first-of-its-kind database of municipal stormwater budgets and expenditures. The results indicated that there is over $700 million in annual municipal stormwater spending, but this total does not represent all spending due to gaps in publicly-available data. Counties and flood control districts often have the largest total expenditures in a region, but in aggregate cities reported more spending statewide. Available data are not sufficient to adequately evaluate whether current spending meets regulatory requirements. Additionally, publicly-available data are inconsistent across geographic regions regulated by different agencies. The analysis offers a template for improved cost reporting of stormwater programs in U.S. municipalities, which can help answer key questions such as the sufficiency of current funding. Future research can use the method to evaluate spending in other states and regions, evaluate trends over time to improve outcomes, and refine the spending categories based on examples from other states.
... Hovedfordelen er lavere administrasjonskostnader sammenlignet med trinnvise og variable systemer. Ulempen er at avgiften ikke er knyttet til mengden overvann fra den individuelle eiendommen (Aladesote, 2019;Fedorchak et al., 2017). I flere rettsaker i USA er kommunale tjenesteleverandørers muligheter til å bruke flate overvannsgebyrer blitt utfordret fordi de fungerer på samme måte som en skatt (Black&Veatch, n.d.;Campbell, 2019;NACWA, 2016;Tasca et al., 2018b). ...
A stormwater fee for Oslo? A computational approach to user financed climate readiness.
Stormwater fee systems constitute a potential policy instrument for user financed climate
readiness in Norwegian cities. Stormwater fees can contribute to operation and future maintenance requirements of stormwater networks and wastewater treatment required with climate change. However, stormwater fees calibrated to a property's stormwater runoff has been criticized for being too complex and expensive to compute. In this paper we show how stormwater fees can be computed for a whole city’s built area adjusted
to local property run-off conditions. We demonstrate how a property specific fee can
be calculated for all properties in Oslo through the combination of detailed landuse maps, a simple but bespoke hydrological model, estimates of current and expected costs of stormwater networks and treatment due to climate change towards 2040. Calculations are carried out in an online web application in Google Earth Engine. The application makes it possible for the property owner to test the effect of different LID measures on run-off and stormwater fees providing support for the choice of optimal measures and cost savings. We compare the characteristics of the stormwater fee for Oslo with international experiences from other cities and discuss further technical and practical
improvements needed to achieve good stormwater management in a future climate. Our
work shows that computation costs are not an important argument against introduction of a user differentiated stormwater fee.
... The LP based credit trading approach has the advantage of identifying the responsible parties in GI planning and implementation, but presently few studies are available on application of such approach. This lacking of research may be caused by two reasons: 1) the public contribution in providing either sites or funding somehow covered up the financial problem, and 2) many studies used modeling approaches that generally dealt only with physical constraints, including rivers, road and watershed boundaries, while the LP boundaries were not considered (Yang and Chui 2018; Fedorchak et al. 2017;Li et al. 2017). Among the existing studies on stormwater management with economic means, Fullerton and Wolverton (2003) suggest that taxation on stormwater discharge may not be feasible because water is not a directly taxable commodity. ...
Implementing green infrastructure (GI) to reach certain stormwater reduction goal may be a challenging task for some land parcels (LP) in urban areas due to their unfavorable landuse conditions. In this paper, we proposed a capacity/credit trading (CT) method that allows city LPs with favorable landuse conditions to build more GIs than required and trade their extra capacity as monetary credit to LPs with building difficulties; this will allow the whole city area to achieve general stormwater mitigation goal in a more cost effective way. We investigated the effects of CT on cost reduction and (re)distribution of GIs among LPs over different trading scales, and an optimization model was constructed on the basis of different zoning of CT. The model was applied to determine GI distributions among individual LPs in order to minimize the overall cost. With a case study, we demonstrated that, without CT, requiring individual LPs to meet the mitigation goal on their own can be costly, and the cost grows with implementation pressure from storm runoff reduction; engaging CT for GI implementation reduced the cost significantly even at a small trading scale. Our analysis showed that, cost increment for GI implementation can be cut in half by performing CT at a spatial scale of 500–600 m that includes 5–6 LPs; when the CT trading zone is expanded to 1200 m that include 17 LPs, the cost increment can be cut by 3/4. The benefit of CT is obtained by re-distributing GIs among different LPs; but the spatial scale of CT needs to be limited to preserve the virtue of onsite treatment of stormwater with GIs. The proposed approach can be used to take advantage of the city landuse diversities to lower the overall cost of GI implementation for stormwater management.
Rapid urbanization and climate change have intensified water-related challenges in urban areas, requiring innovative solutions for sustainable water management. This study critically examines China’s sponge city initiative, which integrates green infrastructure and ecological principles to enhance urban water resilience. The research identifies key challenges, including inadequate planning, design inconsistencies, and financial sustainability issues, which hinder the full realization of ecosystem service benefits. To address these gaps, we propose a novel ecological compensation framework that integrates the ecosystem services framework with urban planning and public payment mechanisms. Our four-step methodology leverages low impact development practices to enhance policy efficacy, aligning urban development with ecological integrity and sustainability. By transitioning from ecosystem service recognition to a publicly funded compensation model, this approach ensures the financial viability of sponge city projects, fosters broad societal participation, and supports resilient urban development. Importantly, the developed framework is adaptable, making it applicable to sponge city initiatives worldwide. It offers a flexible, evidence-based strategy for cities facing similar water management challenges, promoting ecological resilience while ensuring long-term financial sustainability. This study contributes to global urban water management discourse, providing a scalable model that supports integrated, community-backed urban planning and sets a new standard for sponge city development.
Municipalities worldwide implement stormwater management programs to mitigate the hydrological and water quality impacts of stormwater runoff. Stormwater utility fees (SWUF) are often used to fund such important programs by collecting revenue from residential and commercial properties. However, existing SWUFs often solely rely on the estimate of impervious surfaces and do not consider other environmental, infrastructure, and socioeconomic factors in the generation and effects of stormwater runoff. This study is the first attempt to propose a reconstruction of SWUFs from the perspectives of social equity and environmental justice. The method aims to address disparities in fee rates among residential parcels, focusing on helping economically disadvantaged communities. It integrates drainage service, potential contribution to non-point source pollution, and socioeconomic status through two alternative schemes. The two schemes allocate fees based on combined rankings of the three factors at the level of census block groups. The proposed method was applied to 88 180 residential parcels in Corpus Christi, Texas, a mid-sized coastal community. The results suggest that over 70% of the disadvantaged communities would benefit from the reconstructed SWUFs without affecting the targeted funding for stormwater infrastructure. This method builds on publicly available datasets and offers an adaptive framework for other municipalities to incorporate additional factors or datasets, representing an exploratory step toward achieving more equitable stormwater management practices.
Challenges are observed worldwide in the cost of urban drainage through fees compromising the sustainability of its management. Strategies are needed for greater involvement of users of the drainage system, assuming their responsibility for the cost of this system and collaborating with the system on their properties through the containment and delay of the surface runoff of rainwater to the public network from sustainable technologies. Incentives for these users to implement technologies that minimize the outflow of their properties can be an essential strategy for implementing fees. Therefore, this work aimed to evaluate, through a systematic review (SR), the values and methods of drainage fees and incentives for urban environmental services provided by users of drainage systems. The SR was developed from a search on the Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus platforms, whose data were analyzed using the StArt system. Among the 199 articles studied and published between 2010 and 2021, it was possible to relate fees and incentives practiced. Concerning fee models, the ERU method (Equivalent Residential Unit) was predominant. Regarding the incentive models, the most used was tax reduction.
This study evaluates a popular approach to assessing stormwater utility fees in the context of social equity. Analyses are based on comparing single-family land parcels in different neighborhoods of Corpus Christi, a U.S. city in the state of Texas that recently introduced a stormwater fee program. The stormwater fees are based on the same stormwater runoff factor for all single-family residential land parcels. We instead derive stormwater runoff estimates from parcel-scale impervious area measurements through the application of a machine-learning model to high-resolution remote sensing data. The difference between the official runoff factor and our estimate tends to be larger among land parcels in census tracts with proportionally more low-income and Hispanic households. This finding at odds with the ability-to-pay principle is attributable to the association of different neighborhoods’ sociodemographic compositions with their housing development patterns. Our work not only contributes to the design of a stormwater fee program that better characterizes the generation of stormwater runoff but it also helps city officials alleviate social inequity for homeowners in economically disadvantaged communities.
Stormwater utility fees (SUFs) are one way to fill the growing gap between stormwater management needs and available funding. However, there is a lack of data on the overall role they play in stormwater program budgets. This paper presents an evaluation of SUFs across multiple jurisdictions to understand their contributions to overall revenue, the uses of revenue, and the extent to which ratemaking is equitable within and between jurisdictions. We compiled data on SUFs for 124 jurisdictions and program budgets for 80 jurisdictions to describe the composition of revenues and influence of municipal stormwater permit status. We also calculated SUFs applied to individual parcels in 11 jurisdictions to assess two equity outcomes: proportionality and affordability. Results indicate that SUF revenue contributed 91% of the 17–328), per housing unit (0.01–2.70 per ft ² impervious surface). SUFs in some cities were large enough to burden low‐income households, and the way they are billed may preclude assistance for renters. In the context of escalating costs driven in part by new regulatory requirements, these results illustrate the tension between achieving full cost recovery for stormwater services and ensuring prices are affordable for ratepayers.
Nature-based solutions (NBS) are widely regarded as cost-effective responses to climate change and environmental degradation that also provide numerous co-benefits. However, despite significant policy attention, NBS plans often fail to materialize due to public budget shortfalls. Alongside traditional public finance, the international debate increasingly urges the mobilization of private capital for NBS through alternative financing (AF) techniques. In this scoping review, we examine the literature on a) the AF models connected to NBS and b) the drivers and barriers associated with these AF models in terms of their financial technicity and their embeddedness in the political, economic, social, technological, legal/institutional, and environmental/spatial ("PESTLE") context. Although many models are discussed, the results indicate that none can be considered full substitutes for traditional public finance. Barriers and drivers converge around seven overarching tensions: new revenue and risk distribution vs. uncertainty, budgetary and legal pressure vs. political willingness and risk aversion, market demand vs. market failures, private sector engagement vs. social acceptance and risks, legal and institutional conduciveness vs. inertia, and upscaling potential vs. environmental risks and land use. Future research should focus on a) how to further integrate NBS monitoring, quantification, valuation, and monetization into AF models, b) systemic and empirical approaches to improve the understanding of the applicability and transferability of AF models, and c) an exploration of the potential qualities and social risks of AF models in NBS governance arrangements.
Changes in the hydrological cycle due to climate change and urbanization augment and accelerate runoff and flooding, degrade the urban environment, and cause human and material losses. Thus, it is important to implement measures that ensure urban hydrological conditions are kept as close as possible to pre-urbanization conditions, preventing floods. In addition to the conventional major and minor systems, cities may establish criteria for percentage of permeable area as well as stormwater
management practices such as stormwater detention tanks, a type of low impact development technology (LID). The present study evaluates the adequacy of current practices in private lot detention tank design. It analyses time to empty, total detention time and flood peak abatement provided by detention tanks designed according to Curitiba’s (Brazil) Bylaw 176/2007. Based on the results obtained, modifications were suggested to existing legislation to increase the efficiency of the detention tanks and, thus, reduce urban flooding and adapt to climate change. The proposed methodology can be applied elsewhere to guide detention tank design.
Stormwater utility fees provide dedicated revenues for managing stormwater. In setting fees, household-level affordability should be considered. Existing research does not address methods to evaluate the affordability of stormwater utility fees, especially alongside other household water costs. This paper aims to fill that gap. We present a scenario-based approach to evaluate household affordability of stormwater utility fees in a municipality, which considers other essential household water service charges. We estimate the relative contribution of stormwater utility fees to total household water costs and evaluate affordability across income brackets by integrating data for socioeconomic status, land use, water utility charges, and impervious surface cover. Using data for a case study region, results indicate that stormwater utility fees are small contributors to overall household urban water costs and comprise no more than 2% of the median household income across nearly all income quintiles. For low-income households, stormwater charges only exceed 1% of the household income for the lowest-income brackets (<$20,000) and still represent a small portion of household water costs. The analysis demonstrates a generalizable approach that can be applied everywhere when evaluating a stormwater utility fee as a funding strategy.
Several factors, such as municipality location and population, are thought to influence trends among stormwater utilities (SWUs); however, no analysis of the relationship between these factors and SWU characteristics has been performed. This article corroborates hypothesized relationships and identifies trends and patterns in the establishment, funding mechanism, and magnitude of SWUs by analyzing location, population density, home value, and year of establishment for a comprehensive national SWU database with data for 1,490 SWUs. The equivalent residential unit (ERU), a SWU that charges based on impervious area, was the most prevalent funding mechanism in all National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Climate Regions of the United States except the West and West-North-Central. The ERU was also found in larger cities with high population densities, whereas the Flat Fee, a SWU that charges a single rate for all properties, was found in smaller towns. Higher home values were correlated with higher monthly fees for 28% of the municipalities analyzed. The residential equivalence factor, a SWU that charges based on runoff produced, was popular in municipalities with higher home values, whereas the Flat Fee was popular in municipalities with lower home values. The number of SWUs established increased with Phase I municipal separate stormwater and sewer system (MS4) permit and Phase II small MS4 permit deadlines. Summary tables provide guidance to aid municipalities considering a SWU.
Authorities of municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) in small urbanized areas (population less than 100,000) are required to implement stormwater control measures (SCMs) to mitigate and reduce the impacts of urbanization on stormwater runoff under Phase II of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System’s (NPDES) stormwater program. This 16–year-old policy has been challenged in its effectiveness in maintaining or improving water quality, but reviews are scarce because of the policy’s subjective requirements, and because it governs MS4s across a wide variety of characteristics, objectives, and institutional capacity. This research models SCM selection as a function of these differences, thereby systematically evaluating the policy’s outcome in its constituents. The results show that certain characteristics of an MS4 community significantly affect the selection of SCMs, suggesting that regulations may need to be refined to address distinct groups of MS4s. The results also reveal inefficiencies and underutilizations in the SCMs employed—a problem that could be resolved by effectively sharing strategies among permittees. Subsequent recommendations are provided for policymakers and stormwater authorities.
Urban stormwater programs provide mandated and discretionary public services of convenience, security, and environmental enhancement. Due to their increasing complexity and funding needs, they have become more complex to organize and finance. Competing visions for them are common and how communities value these services creates a challenge to measure effectiveness and levy charges. Usually, two organizational models compete, the tax-supported public works model and the fee-based utility model. Taxpayer revolts led to the utility model, which creates new revenue streams and has been widely accepted but not universally. State laws provide the legal structure for stormwater finance, and research showed the utility model to be accepted commonly in the West Coast and Mountain regions, in Florida and along the southern part of the East Coast, as well as in parts of the Central region of the United States. The public works model is prevalent in much of the Northeast, the noncoastal Southeast, and parts of the Central region, where programs vary from state-to-state. Prospects for stormwater programs indicate more experiments with program organization and finance as communities seek to balance responsibilities. The competing views of stormwater program organization and finance s will join larger issues of local government roles in solving social and environmental problems and outcomes will be a bellwether of commitment to sustainable and livable communities.
Virginia 2015b Stormwater Utility Fee and Credits http://www.roanokeva.gov/1843
- Roanoke City
Stormwater Utility Survey http://bv.com/docs/default-source/management-consulting-brochures/2014-stormwater-utility-survey
- Veatch Black
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey
- W.G. Campbell
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey
- W.G. Campbell
- R. Dymond
- K. Kea
- A. Dritschel
Census Summary File factfinder.census.gov
- U S Bureau
Stormwater Utility Fee and Credits
- City Of Roanoke
City of Roanoke, Virginia, 2015b. Stormwater Utility Fee and
Credits. http//www.roanokeva.gov/1843/Storm-Utility-Fee-and-Credits.
Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds
NRCS (National Resources Conservation Service), 1986. Urban
Hydrology for Small Watersheds. Technical Release No. 55 (TR-55).
Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey
SESWA (Southeast Stormwater Association), 2013. 2013 Southeast
Stormwater Utility Survey [Published Report].
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System -Regulations for Revision of the Water Pollution Control Program Addressing Storm Water Discharges
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1999. National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System -Regulations for Revision of the Water Pollution Control Program Addressing Storm
Water Discharges. Phase II Final Rule (Vol. 64). Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
User-Fee-Funded Stormwater Programs (Second Edition). WEF User-Fee-Funded Stormwater Programs Task Force
- Wef
WEF (Water Environment Federation), 2013. User-Fee-Funded
Stormwater Programs (Second Edition). WEF User-Fee-Funded
Stormwater Programs Task Force, Alexandria, Virginia.