Chapter 4: Barriers to Overcome

As awareness grows about urban runoff’s negative impacts on groundwater, rivers and streams, stormwater management is changing in cities and towns in Oregon and throughout the country. As described in section III of this report, many communities are taking steps to implement more sustainable stormwater management by promoting low impact development and working to reduce the pollution that enters our water via urban runoff. However, many barriers still exist that prevent or impede sustainable stormwater management from becoming standard practice.

The Stormwater Solutions Team sought to identify those barriers and develop recommendations for overcoming them. OEC worked with the team to conduct an online survey of government staff, stormwater engineers, landscape architects, developers, industrial facility representatives, and environmental advocates to identify barriers to sustainable stormwater management. Over 150 people participated in the non-scientific survey. See the appendix for detailed survey responses. Following is an overview of the most commonly identified barriers, including some anonymous quotes from the survey responses.

1. Limited land and site-specific challenges

“Many sustainable systems require a lot of valuable land.”

“Density can be problematic when it comes to having enough space for resources and effective stormwater management.”

“If land is available, there are poor soils for infiltration.”

“We need good, workable designs for our specific area.”

Whereas traditional systems in urban areas convey stormwater via underground pipes, green infrastructure systems that allow stormwater to infiltrate into the ground on-site may require some land area. This can present a challenge when designing a new development or retrofitting existing facilities. It is in developers’ financial interest to maximize the amount of buildable land, and they must meet certain density requirements. Setting aside space for stormwater facilities can sometimes compete with these other goals. Space limitations can also present a challenge when installing stormwater facilities in the right-of-way along public streets. There are multiple demands for space in the right of way, including stormwater treatment, bicycle lanes, sidewalks, utilities, parking and traffic lanes.

There are also significant differences in climate and geology across the state that can pose challenges to using green infrastructure. While much of the Portland metro area and the Willamette Valley have soils with favorable infiltration rates and precipitation that falls primarily in light showers, Washington County and Portland’s West Hills have tight, clayey soils with low infiltration rates and many steep slopes. In Central Oregon, soils are porous with high infiltration rates, and a significant portion of the precipitation falls as winter snow. In some parts of the state, a high water table increases risks of groundwater contamination. Steep slopes with grades greater than 5% also pose a challenge that requires adapting green infrastructure practices to the site.

The challenges posed by space limitations and unique site characteristics can and have been overcome. Stormwater facilities, such as planter boxes, can be designed to fit into small spaces. They can also be integrated into the site design so that they serve multiple uses, such as a grassy swale that also meets landscaping or open space requirements. Center or shoulder medians and parking strips may be used as stormwater treatment areas for streets. Green infrastructure projects have been effectively implemented on tight soils and steep slopes; amending the soil with compost and providing an overflow mechanism for large storms can help. Engineered filtration devices provide an alternative when there is not space for natural systems. Sharing information about the design of successful projects can help overcome these challenges.

2. Time is money

“A lot of LID techniques have to be customized for each site, which takes time, whereas a pipe does not.”

“The process of building outside of current code is time-consuming and expensive.”

“There is tremendous inconsistency of application from project to project within a jurisdiction and even more inconsistency between jurisdictions.”

“Costs need to be documented to show that sustainable stormwater practices are cheaper than or at least competitive with traditional approaches.”

Implementing a practice that is not currently the norm naturally takes more time. For developers and business people, time is money. Delays in design and permitting can derail a project financially. When trying to implement sustainable stormwater management, developers often have to invest more in design consultants than they would for a conventional system. They may receive different answers from various staff within a local government about what they can and cannot do; they are expected to adapt to the various requirements of multiple jurisdictions within a region; and their attempts to do the right thing may be thwarted by permitting delays and redundant, unclear or conflicting requirements. In many cases, the actual costs of LID may be equal to or less than conventional gutter and pipe stormwater systems, especially when long-term performance is considered. But if a local government requires developers to install redundant conventional stormwater systems in addition to LID, those cost savings cannot be realized and the developer will have a disincentive for using LID.

These barriers could be overcome by offering technical guidance for designing green infrastructure systems, priority processing of permits for LID projects, and improved consistency within and across local jurisdictions. Providing financial incentives and recognition to developers and property owners who implement LID can also help overcome these barriers. When local governments seek to promote green infrastructure, in addition to developing public education programs, they need to also ensure that their staff understand the program well and that their permitting system is conducive to making green infrastructure projects easier to implement than conventional systems that do not protect water quality.

3. Barriers in codes and rules

“Old techniques that do not achieve intended results should be phased out of use by permitting agencies.”

“Our standards mandate bad behavior.”

“The biggest challenge is getting the codes requiring new solutions in place.”

“Code review goes through an extensive process in cycles, and it takes a tremendous amount of effort and coordination to get everyone on the same page.”

In some instances, “green” developers may be interested in using low impact approaches to stormwater management, but existing codes and rules at the local or state level get in the way. Many local governments simply have not yet taken the step of updating their development codes and ordinances to allow and promote green infrastructure. Codes may still require the installation of curbs and pipes to convey stormwater, and they sometimes do not include provisions for permeable concrete or pavers, to name a few common examples of local code barriers. Some governments have conducted a review of their development codes, often employing the services of a private consultant to develop recommendations, and then deciding which of those changes to include in their code revisions.

Some people believe the state plumbing code also poses a challenge to installing green infrastructure and rainwater harvesting systems. However, these practices have been legally implemented in Oregon and the barrier lies primarily in how local jurisdictions interpret the state plumbing code.

4. Lack of government staff capacity and resources

“Small municipalities do not have the time and energy to keep their codes and requirements on the cutting edge.”

“There are not enough technical staff available for extended public outreach services.”

“We keep running out of funding once we start building improvements in a neighborhood.”

“Lack of money to improve streets. There isn’t enough money to maintain the streets out there now.”

“Bring the funding and it will be done, no problem. No funding, big problem.”

Updating development codes, learning about green infrastructure, educating builders and developers, educating the public about how they can reduce stormwater pollution, and inspecting and maintaining stormwater facilities all require government staffing and funding. Local governments and state agencies have limited resources for reducing stormwater’s impacts. But these services need to be provided, or the public will continue to pay the greater costs of restoring degraded streams, recovering endangered species such as salmon and steelhead, and cleaning up polluted water and river bottoms.

Some local governments, recognizing the costs involved in providing stormwater management services, have created a stormwater utility that is funded by a fee. In most cases the fee is small. The stormwater utility fee can become an incentive for on-site stormwater management if a fee reduction is offered. The City of Portland, for example, has an unusually high stormwater fee due to the high costs of installing the “Big Pipe” to reduce Combined Sewer Overflows. But the city offers a stormwater fee discount for on-site stormwater management through its “Clean River Rewards” program.

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality oversees the state’s stormwater program. This agency has been underfunded and understaffed for several years, hampering its ability to review stormwater management plans, perform inspections and offer technical assistance, and coordinate programs related to stormwater in a logical and effective way. The outlook improved somewhat this year when the legislature increased funding for DEQ’s stormwater program, authorizing 14 new permanent staff and 5 new limited duration staff. The increase brought DEQ’s stormwater budget for the 2007-09 biennium up to $2,680,000, with about half coming from fees and half from the general fund. This is still $500,000 short of what DEQ requested to implement the stormwater program.

The legislature also approved a new fee to support Oregon’s Underground Injection Control program, adding six new positions to the one existing position. This will allow Oregon to have the basics of a functioning UIC program, rather than returning the program to the federal EPA, as DEQ had proposed last year due to lack of funding.

Oregon’s stormwater program is less than half the size of Washington’s, which has a budget of about $5,440,000 for the 2007-09 biennium. In addition, the 2007 Washington State Legislature appropriated $20 million for municipal stormwater projects. This fall, Washington cities may begin applying for the grants to implement Low Impact Development projects that protect hydrology and water quality. Oregon has no comparable program. Funding for this program came primarily from Washington’s Toxics Control Accounts, which contain funds generated by a Pollution Tax that was passed in 1988. The tax is imposed on the privilege of possession of hazardous substances in the state, at a rate of 0.7% of the wholesale value of the substance. The Toxics Control Accounts have grown in recent years due to increased gas prices.

5. Maintenance

“Our maintenance staff is already too busy.”

“The long-term maintenance and overall performance is not guaranteed.”

Like conventional stormwater systems, green infrastructure facilities require some periodic maintenance. Maintenance requirements vary depending on the facility, and they may be as simple as weeding a vegetated swale and removing debris from curb cuts. It is important to ensure that the plants are healthy and the facility is functioning properly and not getting clogged. Conventional systems require maintenance as well. Pipes eventually need to be repaired or replaced, and stormdrains must be cleared of debris to prevent them from backing up. Limited resources can make maintenance of public facilities a challenge. The unique maintenance challenge posed by green infrastructure facilities is that because they are designed to be on-site, as close to the source as possible, they are often on private properties and it is difficult for public agencies to ensure that proper maintenance is occurring. Sometimes stormwater facilities are even filled in or removed during landscaping projects by private owners who are not aware or don’t care that the facility is an important part of a stormwater management system..

Many local governments are developing maintenance programs for green infrastructure facilities within their jurisdiction and determing the best way to provide that service. As more facilities are installed on private property, there is a need to educate private owners of green infrastructure facilities about their maintenance responsibilities, the benefits of their facility and how it functions.

6. Resistance to change

“Conservative public officials and production home builders are unwilling to deviate from the standard approach.”

“Some developers are reluctant to change their practices, but others are not.”

“City engineers will not deviate from the old ways.” “No one wants to make a mistake that may affect public safety.”

“If the direction to change comes from the top, it’s more likely to occur.”

“The end buyer, or homeowner often has a hard time accepting the idea of these facilities being near their property.”

“One challenge is changing the old system of thought that ‘if I can’t see it, it is not my problem’.”

Changing the standard way of doing something is difficult no matter what the issue is, and stormwater management is no exception. Among all the people involved in the process, including elected officials, planners, engineers, inspectors, developers, contractors, designers, customers and the general public, there are some individuals who embrace the shift toward more sustainable practices and others who either don’t understand it or are resistant to change for one reason or another. Education, communication, and demonstration of effectiveness are the keys to building acceptance of the new way at all levels.