Browsing by Subject "green stormwater infrastructure"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Assessing the Feasibility of Green Stormwater Infrastructure Implementation in Downtown Durham
    (2012-04-20) Schuneman, Matt
    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND The city and county of Durham are currently determining how to comply with two sets of nutrient management strategies which mandate significant water quality improvements for Jordan and Falls Lakes. These strategies, known as the Jordan and Falls Lake Rules, seek to reduce the quantities of phosphorus and nitrogen in the lakes’ waters. Preliminary estimates by Durham Stormwater Services on the costs of addressing these regulations range between $1.17 and $1.33 billion over the next twenty years. The fiscal demands of these rules threaten the continued efforts to revitalize Durham, as they may compel the city to redirect hundreds of millions of dollars in local revenue to achieve compliance with the rules. This could threaten the economic progress of downtown Durham by siphoning away resources which could be devoted to economic development or for essential services to the city’s poorer residents. Emerging trends in stormwater management may offer a solution to this dilemma. The burgeoning movement of green stormwater infrastructure uses engineered methods to mimic natural systems of water absorption and filtration. Green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) uses methods that either collect and use the stormwater where it falls; slow the flow of stormwater before releasing it into traditional, “gray” infrastructure; or infiltrate the water on the spot, filtering out unwanted nutrients and directing the water into groundwater sources rather than funneling it through man-made channels. POLICY QUESTIONS The policy questions for this masters project center around the applicability of green stormwater infrastructure to the situation in which Durham finds itself, with a focus on how this plan would interact with the economic development of downtown Durham. Therefore: • Can a green stormwater infrastructure plan in downtown Durham address Durham’s needs for stormwater nutrient reduction in a way that encourages continued economic development? • What might such a stormwater plan look like in terms of the stakeholders involved, viable infrastructure to install, and means to finance or incentivize its implementation? DETAILS OF PROBLEM Though the successful promotion of GSI in other cities has highlighted the benefits of this new stormwater framework, there are certain elements of Durham’s situation which make its applicability problematic. The issues fall under five categories: 1) The details of the two lakes’ rules: Because Durham’s stormwater system is constructed differently than the systems of other cities incorporating GSI, and because the lake rules target different water quality standards, GSI implementation strategies from other municipalities cannot be readily transferred to Durham. 2) The characteristics of Durham’s soils: The GSI options which would best address the lake rules’ requirements are those which would infiltrate stormwater on-site and direct it to groundwater sources. However, Durham’s dense soils make the implementation of those GSI options problematic at best. 3) The characteristics of Durham’s climate: Durham’s rain levels and temperatures could lead to mixed performance for some of the most common GSI options. 4) The nature of downtown Durham’s building stock: The density of buildings in downtown Durham limits the available GSI options and complicates the necessary processes for successful design and implementation. 5) The funding available for GSI implementation: Federal and state funding which Durham could normally target to incentivize GSI implementation is being cut at both levels of government. SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVES The following options will provide more information to policymakers on whether and how GSI could successfully be applied to the regulatory requirements facing Durham. 1) Produce a district-level or building-level audit of downtown Durham and target the appropriate GSI investments to specific districts or building types. 2) Increase local stormwater management fees and provide adequate credits for GSI implementation to incentivize owners to adopt GSI options. 3) Adopt mandates to require the inclusion of GSI in the construction or refurbishment of public buildings. 4) Develop a new Durham city oversight committee which coordinates the efforts of the water management, transportation, economic development, and planning departments to address cross-jurisdictional issues and ensure alignment of priorities. 5) Construct a public/private partnership with local developers to provide public seed investments to stimulate private spending on GSI. 6) Incorporate funding for GSI within the creation of a downtown business improvement district (BID). 7) Continue lobbying efforts with the state to approve the use more GSI options and to provide more credit for the options that encourage innovative stormwater management. 8) Continue data collection regarding nutrient loading and GSI performance to provide better targeting of GSI options. 9) Review and update Durham codes that may unknowingly be discouraging or blocking the implementation of GSI.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Innovative Financing for Green Stormwater Infrastructure: Lessons Learned from Energy Efficiency
    (2016-04-29) Starkman, Kendall
    Stormwater management can be a significant challenge in urban areas. As population density grows and impervious surface cover increases, the amount and intensity of stormwater runoff escalates correspondingly, placing added stress on water management systems and natural ecosystems. Green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) is increasingly being seen as a critical tool for addressing these challenges (Garrison and Hobbs 2011). Although a number of cities across the country have turned to GSI as a key component of their stormwater management system, oftentimes the scope is limited to public property. Since GSI is a distributed approach to stormwater management, programs must engage private property owners (Francis 2010). Energy efficiency programs have seen significant success engaging private property owners across the built environment despite experiencing many of the same challenges attracting investment in the face of high up-front costs and limited inherent collateral value (Palmer, Walls and Gerarden 2012). This project aims to better explain the key factors that influence the success of three types of energy efficiency financing programs in the United States and draw cross-sector parallels to GSI in order to inform a decision-making framework for GSI program design. This is accomplished through 1) a review of the existing literature on energy efficiency program design and the potential equivalencies between energy efficiency and green stormwater infrastructure, 2) an exploration of three financing mechanism case studies, and 3) the definition of decision criteria to provide initial direction for the evaluation of appropriate financing mechanisms in a specific case. In order to better understand the settings in which specific energy efficiency financing mechanisms would be most appropriate, this research evaluated three financing mechanisms: on-bill repayment, PACE financing, and performance contracting with Energy Services Companies (ESCOs). The data informing these case studies was gathered through research of secondary sources, a series of interviews of energy efficiency program administrators and energy and/or GSI industry experts, and a review of example programs. The case analysis informed a consideration of how each financing mechanism could be applied in the stormwater context. The findings reach beyond the existing literature to examine national level themes and provide a local-level decision making framework. Based on the findings of this report, a number of key factors exist that can direct decision-making around green stormwater infrastructure financing. First, a fundamental consideration is whether a stormwater fee structure exists to create the opportunity for savings. Assuming this requirement is met, the following criteria indicate the suitability of the three financing mechanisms for a specific jurisdiction: building stock of greatest concern, authorizing legislation, political buy-in, incentives, and regulatory requirements. The importance of each criteria varies for each financing mechanism. PACE programs are most appropriate in states with a history of PACE authorizing legislation, strong regulatory drivers for action and a wider range of target property sizes. Performance contracting is more appropriate in places with a high concentration of large-scale commercial building stock, limited legislative support and multiple available incentives. On-bill repayment programs are most applicable where there are more opportunities to pursue small-scale GSI and strong regulatory drivers for action. In addition, shared key factors that apply to all three of the case financing mechanisms will impact program viability and are important to consider in program design. These include the stormwater fee size and available margin, the potential to offer credit enhancements, the ability to leverage an economy of scale, the policy requirements affecting loan term stringency, and existing availability of financial partners. An applied analysis of how these findings impact Seattle, WA further illustrates the implications of these findings. The City has an itemized stormwater fee structure, an existing stormwater consent order and is actively investing in GSI. PACE financing is not possible in the state due to legislative restrictions. However, a stormwater credit already exists in the city and a commercial GSI program would target medium to large-scale commercial customers. Therefore, it is recommended that the City of Seattle explore performance contracting by supporting the development of a GISC. In order to make this possible, the City could create a public private partnership with local innovators and consider opportunities to provide credit enhancements. Secondarily, the City might also consider the potential to offer on-bill repayment for small scale projects. In both cases, the City will need to conduct further inquiry into the financial implications and political feasibility of these endeavors and create a framework for measurement and verification of stormwater savings.