Funding Green - Amazon Simple Storage Service · Pennsylvania Clean Water Program American Rivers ... ing institutions are quickly adapting to finance green ... water infrastructure

Funding Green Infrastructure in Pennsylvania

Funding the Future of Stormwater Management

Written by Liz GarlandWith support from the William Penn Foundation

TO ACCESS THIS REPORT:

http://www.americanrivers.org/pennsylvaniafunding

FOR MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT:Liz Garland, Associate Director

Pennsylvania Clean Water ProgramAmerican Rivers

355 N. 21st St., Suite 309Camp Hill, PA 17055

(717) [email protected]

THE COMPLETION OF THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN MADE POSSIBLE WITH

THE EFFORT, SUPPORT, AND GUIDANCE OF MANY INDIVIDUALS INCLUDING:

• The staff at American Rivers, notably the Clean Water Program

directed by Katherine Baer, and editorial review by Carolyn Bausch,

Emily Deardorff, and Angela Dicianno,

• Colleagues working on behalf of Pennsylvania’s water resources includ-

ing Campaign for Clean Water members, and

• Various helpful local, regional and state agency personnel including:

DEP’s Ken Murin, Barry Newman and Sabrina Stanwood, and

Paul Marchetti and Brion Johnson at PENNVEST.

Front cover image credit: Kevin Perry, City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services.

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................2

Introduction ......................................................................................................................3

Background: The Mechanics of Stormwater ..............................................................3

Pennsylvania’s Stormwater Challenge ..........................................................................4

Green Infrastructure Solutions ........................................................................................4

The Institutional Framework for Stormwater Management ..................................7

Regulation, Policy and Planning ......................................................................................7

Funding for Green Infrastructure ....................................................................................9

Agencies and Programs Funding Stormwater Management in Pennsylvania ....12

PENNVEST..............................................................................................................................12

Department of Environmental Protection: Coastal Zone Management ........16

Department of Environmental Protection: Planning Program Grants ............18

Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED) ..................19

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) ..........................21

Rural Utility Services (RUS)—USDA ............................................................................22

Growing Greener ................................................................................................................23

Conclusion and Recommendations ..........................................................................25

Appendix: Resources for Innovative Stormwater Managers ..............................28

Funding Sources ................................................................................................................28

More on Stormwater and Green Infrastructure ......................................................28

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE IN PENNSYLVANIA: FUNDING THE FUTURE OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE IN PENNSYLVANIA:Funding the Future of Stormwater Management

A twist on a familiar adage amongst water managersis “when it rains, it drains.” While not unique toPennsylvania, in suburban and urban municipalities,centuries of strong growth, including recent decadesof sprawl, have transformed much of the state’s nat-ural land cover into extensive impervious surface. As a result, instead of soaking into soils and ground-water, stormwater drains directly into rivers andstreams contributing to—and often exacerbating—flooding and pollution.

The ideal approach to resolving the adverse impactsof stormwater would be to return the landscape to itsnatural cover. A highly cost-effective, efficient, andviable solution is to adopt “green” infrastructurepractices that protect, restore, and replicate nature’streatment of stormwater. Green infrastructure in-cludes low-impact development practices at new andre-developing sites, and the incorporation of featuressuch as rain barrels, green roofs, and permeable pave-

ment on already-developed sites. Green infrastructureis becoming widely understood and accepted, and isbeing implemented on the ground in cities across thenation, including Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.

The challenge to broader implementation in smallermunicipalities throughout the Commonwealth is en-suring that regulatory, management, and fundinginstitutions work in concert to promote the use ofgreen infrastructure. To begin with, Pennsylvania ischallenged by historical patterns of funding watermanagement that have prioritized wastewater treat-ment and drinking water delivery over stormwatermanagement. Traditionally, funding also has favoredhard structural solutions to management (known as“gray” infrastructure) rather than nonstructural or“green” practices that address the problems associ-ated with runoff at its source. Further, regulation ofstormwater management has failed to sufficiently integrate greener solutions and to promote nonstruc-tural practices in the management of Pennsylvania’swater resources.

The unfortunate result is that Pennsylvania has received a failing grade for its management ofstormwater. In 2009, the Chesapeake StormwaterNetwork ranked Pennsylvania last of five ChesapeakeBay states on its Baywide Stormwater Scorecard.With an overall grade of “D” for implementing astormwater program that meaningfully protects andrestores the Bay, Pennsylvania received an “F” withregard to its funding of stormwater managementneeds to address the 21st century challenges posed byaging and deteriorating infrastructure, increasing de-mands on water use, and impacts of a changing climate.1

Today, Pennsylvania has an unprecedented andtimely opportunity to transform its water infrastruc-


page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A highly cost-effective,efficient, and viable solution is to adopt

“green” infrastructurepractices that protect,

restore, and replicate na-ture’s treatment of

stormwater.

ture. Following federal guidance, state regulations

are being revised to incorporate greener approaches

to stormwater management. Also, suggestions to

adopt innovative management practices, including

green infrastructure and conservation measures, are

evolving from stakeholder discussions. Finally, fund-

ing institutions are quickly adapting to finance green

infrastructure, catalyzed in part by the passage of the

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

(ARRA) which includes investments in green infra-

structure and water efficiency advocated for by

American Rivers. In 2009, $44.6 million in federal

stimulus funds directed toward Pennsylvania for

water infrastructure has leveraged more than $66

million in spending the state describes as “green.”2

It is imperative to seize this chance to make progres-

sive and institutional “green” investments to avert

“pouring money down the drain.” Pennsylvania’s

rivers and communities depend upon clean water

and require a swift remedy to current infrastructure

woes. “Green” solutions have the added benefit of

facilitating the resilience rooted in nature that com-

munities need to adapt to the impacts of climate

change on vital freshwater resources.

Towards those ends, American Rivers has investigated

the capacity of Pennsylvania’s funding institutions to

support efficient and cost-effective green infrastructure

practices to enhance sustainable water management

over the long term. Our findings highlight several rec-

ommendations for formalizing funding for green

infrastructure that will help Pennsylvania municipali-

ties achieve clean and abundant supplies of fresh water

for healthy communities and future generations.

Recommendations for formalizing funding for

green infrastructure that will help Pennsylvania

municipalities achieve clean and abundant

supplies of fresh water for healthy communi-

ties and future generations include:

1. Foster a collaborative relationship

and consistent approach amongst

stormwater management planning,

regulation, and funding institutions

to promote and advance the adop-

tion and implementation of green

practices;

2. Establish principles for investment in

green solutions for stormwater man-

agement that will guide funders and

applicants toward natural infrastruc-

ture alternatives;

3. Diversify funding sources for Pennsyl-

vania’s water infrastructure needs to

maximize the benefits of green prac-

tices instead of, or in conjunction with,

traditional hard infrastructure; and

4. Improve outreach so that those re-

sponsible for local implementation

of stormwater management prac-

tices know where to find technical

and financial resources that support

sustainable green practices.

These recommendations will facilitate efficient andcost-effective green practices to address Pennsylva-nia’s stormwater management challenges. The resultswill yield benefits in the form of reduced tertiarytreatment costs, decreased flood damages, andhealthier ecosystems and communities throughoutPennsylvania that are also better prepared to adapt toa changing climate.


page 2

Background: The Mechanics ofStormwaterWhen land is covered with a natural mix of grasses,plants, and trees, on average only 10% of rainfall willrun off the surface and flow directly into a stream orriver. The remainder will evapotranspire or infiltratethe ground, nourishing plant life and restoringground water levels. But when natural land cover isdeveloped, impervious surfaces such as rooftops,pavements, and sidewalks will change the hydrologicbalance. When impervious cover exceeds 75% of aland area, as it does in most urban communities, in-filtration is reduced and surface runoff will deliver asmuch as 55% of rain directly to rivers and streams.3

Once development occurs, precipitation that previ-ously soaked into the ground runs off pavement andother hard surfaces, carrying contaminants, includingoil, grease, lawn chemicals, heavy metals, hydrocar-

bons (combustion by-products), bacteria, and sedi-ment. These pollutants can harm fish, wildlife, andnative vegetation. Community drinking water supply,as well as recreational activity, can become unsafe.

In highly urbanized areas, development and in-creased impervious surfaces strongly correlate toincreases in flooding. Highly impervious urban areascan generate five times the runoff that results fromsimilarly-sized forested land. Floods regularly in-crease in frequency and severity with the expansionof impervious surfaces.

Flooding and high-volume stormwater flows result instreambed and bank erosion, causing habitat loss andthreatening infrastructure. High-volume flows and ero-sion also mobilize sediment, which buries aquatichabitats, reduces water clarity, increases drinking watertreatment costs, and delivers excessive phosphorus and


page 3


page 3

INTRODUCTION

Development runoff into Conococheague Creek.

Photo: Jamie Mierau

nitrogen into rivers, streams, and lakes. Additionally,erosion and high-velocity, high-volume flows exposeand undermine infrastructure such as bridge columns,sewer and water pipes, pier supports, roadways, andhistoric sites. Further, flooding costs billions of dollarseach year in the United States. In the near future, cli-mate change will bring more intense and morefrequent storms, magnifying the burdens of flooding.

Pennsylvania’s Stormwater ChallengeOnly an approximate 20% of waterways in the east-ern U.S. are healthy, and stormwater is the secondleading cause of impairment (streams and rivers fail-ing to meet clean water standards).4 In Pennsylvania,4,000 of the state’s river miles are impaired bystormwater5 and siltation contributes to 51% of allimpaired river miles.6 Stormwater contributes pollu-tants, such as sedimentation, unhealthy bacterialevels, deposition of metals, and excessive nutrientssuch as phosphorus and nitrogen.7 Stormwater alsocontributes to Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) vi-olations, which are expansive and costly problemsfor Pennsylvania’s mid- and large-size cities.

As an example, the Susquehanna River basin, coveringapproximately one-third of Pennsylvania, is the Chesa-peake Bay’s single largest watershed. Stormwater runoffin the basin contributes 11% of the nitrogen and 15%of the phosphorus polluting the Bay; a major issue be-cause nutrient pollution reduction is the foremostchallenge to Bay clean-up efforts.8 Likewise, throughoutPennsylvania, polluted stormwater runoff is one of thelargest challenges for water resource managers.

Green Infrastructure SolutionsGreen infrastructure is quickly becoming accepted asan appropriate and, even more important, a prioritysolution to water resource management needs acrossthe country. Broadly defined as an approach to watermanagement that controls the volume and velocityof stormwater runoff at its source; green infrastruc-ture reduces the occurrences of sewer overflows andminimizes flooding.

It accomplishes these goals by protecting, restoring,and essentially replicating the natural landscape andcorresponding hydrology.9 Examples of green infra-structure include vegetated river buffers, bankstabilization, tree plantings, permeable pavement inparking lots and driveways, vegetated roof surfacesor “green roofs,” and catchments such as rain barrelsconnected to downspouts on buildings. These practices capitalize on natural solutions to al-


page 4

Green infrastructure protects

existing floodplains, restores

floodplain and wetland functions,

and mimics natural features by

retaining and filtering runoff,

reducing the need for costly

new wastewater treatment

plants, flood control structures,

and the extensive network of

pipes to direct stormwater.

Stormwater contributes toflooding in highly urbanizedareas. Photo: Adam Kuban.

leviate stormwater pollution and flooding. They aregenerally less expensive and more effective over thelong term than traditional hard infrastructure solu-tions. Green infrastructure protects existingfloodplains, restores floodplain and wetland func-tions, and mimics natural features by retaining andfiltering runoff, reducing the need for costly newwastewater treatment plants, flood control struc-tures, and the extensive network of pipes to directstormwater. For instance, vegetated rooftops cancapture a typical one-inch rain and intercept pollu-tants, minimizing the load on urban waterinfrastructure systems.10

Investments in green infrastructure also can createjobs. Developing and installing vegetated cover for aslittle as 1% of large roof surfaces in all medium andlarge U.S. cities would generate greater than 190,000jobs,11 while reducing overloaded sewer infrastruc-ture, flooding impacts, and polluted runoff.

In addition, recent studies support the theory thatgreen infrastructure investments provide greater eco-nomic benefit than traditional hard infrastructure.An August 2009 report prepared for Philadelphia’sOffice of Watersheds assigned $122 million in bene-fit to traditional, hard infrastructure approaches toCSO management compared to $2,846.4 million ofbenefit for approaches that incorporated solutionsusing green infrastructure.12

Cities around the country are reaping the benefits ofgreen infrastructure practices.13 Philadelphia, Chicago,Portland, Seattle, Milwaukee, and other cities are

stimulating interest in these cost-effective techniquesthat manage stormwater on-site, reduce the need forexpensive, hard infrastructure projects and stretchscarce budget dollars. Many localities have developedstrong municipal regulation supporting green infra-structure to manage stormwater. Both North Carolinaand New Jersey created stormwater permits withgreen infrastructure requirements to mitigate the im-pacts of land-disturbing activity. And, the VenturaCounty, California Municipal Separate Storm SewerSystem (MS4) permit encourages green infrastructureby reducing the allowable area of impervious surfaceto less than 5% of any new or redevelopment site.14

In Pennsylvania, Philadelphia is leading the way in in-tegrating green infrastructure into city planning toreduce combined sewer overflows and stormwater pol-lution and increase green space. The city has launcheda bold plan, Greenworks, to utilize a broad array of en-ergy efficiencies, conservation practices, and


page 5

Curb cut feeds Philadelphia area parking lot run-offtoward bioinfiltration. Photo: by Nancy Arazan

Green roof on the Friend Center. Photo: Nancy Arazan

Curb cut feeds Philadelphia area parking lot run-offtoward bioinfiltration. Photo: by Nancy Arazan

environmental and economic improvements, whichinclude the incorporation of green infrastructure tocombat the costs of treating water impaired bystormwater. “Green infrastructure solutions are emerg-ing as a way for the city to manage its water, primarilystormwater. ‘Back to the Future’ technologies likegreen roofs, undeveloped land, rain gardens and treeplantings acknowledge the natural links between landand water that can provide Philadelphia with socialbenefits that so called ‘grey’ infrastructure cannot.”15

Bolstered by the recent economic analysis supportinggreen infrastructure practices within CSO manage-ment, in September 2009 Philadelphia submitted aLong-Term Control Plan to the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) that proposed extensive greeninfrastructure implementation.16 Similarly, the Pitts-burgh suburb of East Liberty has determined that greeninfrastructure practices such as pervious pavement,street tree plantings, and infiltration beds are cost-effec-tive means to reach the goal of 85% capture of CSOs.17

Green infrastructure features such as bioretention,swales, wetlands, forest buffers, and vegetated stripshave been implemented to reduce pollution andbenefit municipalities responsible for pollution reduction programs, particularly within the Chesa-peake Bay watershed. These features improvenitrogen loads ranging from 10% to 68% and totalphosphorus reductions from 20% to 63%.18 TheSusquehanna River Basin Commission demonstrated48%-81% reduction in sedimentation by employinggreen infrastructure practices. Other studies havequantified the reduction of metals such as copper,zinc, and lead by as much as 95%-97%.19

EPA’s Green Infrastructure Initiative20 and formalrecognition by EPA of the validity of using green in-frastructure techniques to meet regulatoryrequirements for CSOs and stormwater managementunder the Clean Water Act (CWA) are further fuelingthis surge in interest from cities, towns, and countiesacross the nation.21 Highlighting the agency’s supportfor change, EPA refers to traditional hard infrastruc-ture approaches as a “mid-twentieth century approachto stormwater management to dispose of stormwateras quickly as possible using engineered systems ofcurbs, gutter, pipes, and open channels, resulting inunexpected consequences for water quality.”22


page 6

Green infrastructure features such as bio -

retention, swales, wetlands, forest buffers,

and vegetated stripshave been implementedto reduce pollution andbenefit municipalities

responsible for pollutionreduction programs,

particularly within theChesapeake Bay

watershed.

Implementing sustainable stormwater projects is con-tingent upon strong regulatory, planning, andoversight agencies and supporting finance mecha-nisms, which all vary from state to state. InPennsylvania, the sheer numbers of localities involvedin stormwater management—67 county governmentsand 2,567 municipalities—complicate the state’stask. These municipalities often share water resourceswith multiple bordering localities and yet must com-pete for technical and funding resources.Consequently, Pennsylvania is challenged to delivereffective regulation, management, and funding to thecommunities responsible for ensuring that local solu-tions result in clean water for healthy communities.

Regulation, Policy, and Planning While funding is central to promoting smartstormwater management, a combination of regula-tion, policy, and planning requirements are alsomotivating factors for most municipalities to addresspolluted stormwater runoff. On-the-ground solutionsare implemented locally but are driven by a policystructure initiated at the federal level and adminis-tered at the state level. These drivers currently providea fragmented framework for stormwater manage-ment. Regulation, policy, planning, and funding

must work in unison to enable Pennsylvania’s manymunicipalities to adopt progressively greener ap-proaches to address stormwater runoff problems.

The foundation of most clean water regulation is theCWA, which seeks to “restore and maintain the chem-ical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’swaters.”23 Stormwater regulation evolved slowly underthe CWA after courts and Congress rejected EPA’s ef-forts to exempt stormwater runoff from coverageunder regulations governing point source discharges.By 1992 the federal stormwater program addressed in-dustrial and large municipal stormwater discharges.Construction sites and small “Phase II” municipal(urban areas typically characterized by population to-tals between 10,000 and 100,000 people andpopulation densities of at least 1,000 people per squaremile) discharges were added to regulation in1999. Thefirst Phase II permits were issued in March 200324 andare now being revised to reflect developments instormwater control. These federal requirements arelargely implemented by state agencies.

Similar to federal regulation, Pennsylvania’s imple-mentation of stormwater regulation has developedslowly. The Clean Streams Law authorizes the Penn-sylvania Department of Environmental Protection(DEP) to require municipal drinking water providersand entities discharging sewage to maintain or im-prove necessary water infrastructure.25 As acomplement to the Clean Streams Law, stormwatermanagement is addressed by the Stormwater Man-agement Act of 1978 (known as Act 167).26 Act 167requires counties to develop stormwater manage-ment plans and submit updates every five years toDEP. After more than 30 years, some counties haveyet to submit first plans.


page 7


page 7

THE INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR STORMWATERMANAGEMENT

To accelerate stormwater planning, DEP finalizedthe Comprehensive Stormwater Management Policyin September 2002 to assert existing authority andintegrate all stormwater management programs, in-cluding construction activity runoff, industrialpermitting, and municipal discharges. The policyemphasized “the reduction of stormwater runoffgenerated by development and other activities by en-couraging the minimization of impervious cover, useof low impact development designs, and the use ofinnovative stormwater best management practices(BMPs) that provide infiltration, water quality treat-ment, and otherwise more effectively manage thevolume and rate of stormwater discharges.”27

While an important policy goal, it has unfortunatelynot been applied to specific regulatory programs. InDecember 2006, DEP completed the PennsylvaniaStormwater Best Management Practices Manual (BMPManual)28 that guides the Comprehensive StormwaterManagement Policy with specific prescriptive practices.Yet this manual is not fully integrated in Pennsylvania’sstatewide stormwater permits, including the draft re-vised National Pollution Discharge EliminationSystem Stormwater Discharges from Small MunicipalSeparate Storm Sewer Systems General Permit (PAG-13).29 Until regulatory frameworks are strengthened tofully integrate the principles of green infrastructurewidespread, improvements will be limited.

Municipalities are authorized to perform land use andlimited water resource planning.30 Pennsylvania’s

stormwater program requires municipal ordinances thatreflect county stormwater plans developed under Act167. To assist localities, DEP drafted a model ordinancefor stormwater management in 2008.31 The model or-dinance offers guidance to municipalities responsiblefor implementing sound stormwater management andincludes green infrastructure principles, yet it has neverbeen finalized. Until DEP fully endorses the model or-dinance, municipalities cannot be motivated to enforceits green infrastructure principles.

Since 2005, state supported activity was supposed toadhere to the Keystone Principles and Criteria forGrowth, Investment and Resource Conservation,which should align well with green infrastructure.32

The Keystone principles are: redevelopment first, ef-ficient infrastructure, sustainability, andenvironmental enhancement and restoration throughpreferential criteria. The Keystone criteria include:improvement of existing water and sewer capacitywhile designing new water, storm, and sewer facili-ties utilizing best management practices thatemphasize recharge and infiltration and the use ofpermeable surfaces. Additional preferential criteriasuggest green building standards and developmentpractices that incorporate natural resource features.While these strong principles could broadly influ-ence the adoption of green infrastructure practiceswithin water management, implementation of theprinciples are left to the discretion of each agencywithout specific requirements to emphasize the envi-ronmental priorities.


page 8

Development increases impervious surfaces, accelerating stormwater runoff.© 2010 Photos.com

Similar to federal programs, the state’s seemingly pro-gressive policies are rarely institutionalized within stateregulation and municipal practice. Taxpayers for Com-mon Sense described Pennsylvania’s waterinfrastructure regulation as “well intended, but frag-mented and often ineffective.”33 One recommendationfor effective water resource management is to requireimplementation of the best pieces of Pennsylvania pol-icy such as the BMP Manual, draft model ordinance,and Keystone Principles. Collectively, these promoteeffective practices including green infrastructure, yeteach is currently applied inadequately. Each must befirmly established within regulatory and funding insti-tutions to ensure municipalities comply with andprioritize the state’s smart management policies.

Funding for Green InfrastructureThe gap between existing and needed funds forwastewater and drinking water infrastructure capitalexpenses in Pennsylvania has been estimated at$36.5 billion over the next 20 years,34 complement-ing the 2009 report by the American Society of CivilEngineers that rated the nation’s wastewater infra-structure their lowest grade of D-.35

The need to reinvest in repairing and replacingthe nation’s water infrastructure is significant, butthe approach to funding water infrastructure mustwisely adopt a definition that encompasses thebuilt and natural environment.36 As described ear-lier, to protect clean and safe water for the future,any water infrastructure funding should encour-age smart, 21st century approaches, such as greeninfrastructure and water efficiency, to enhanceand extend the life of traditional infrastructure. Successful institutionalization of green infrastruc-

ture practices within state policy and regulation isa critical accompaniment to the necessary financialsupport. Both federal and state funding programscan provide money for sustainable stormwaterpractices. Unfortunately, many of these sources areunderutilized because the trend toward greenerpractices occurring across the nation and heraldedby EPA has not been institutionalized in Pennsyl-vania. To ensure sustainable water management,reduce the funding gap, and improve the nation’sinfrastructure grade, funding priorities must beclearly redirected to fund sustainable infrastruc-ture. Recommendations for change are includedwith the analysis of each funding source (see Agencies and Programs Funding Stormwater Management, p. 12) and at the end of this report.

Sustainable Infrastructure Funding in PennsylvaniaThe recommendations of recent studies and policy state-ments recognize the need to transform Pennsylvania’swater infrastructure; however, corresponding actionsrequired to achieve these ideals are lacking. Thisshortcoming is illustrated by Governor Rendell’swell-intended leadership in Building America’s Fu-ture and his introduction of “Re-invest in Pennsylvania’sInfrastructure,” two efforts that missed the opportu-nity to advance sustainable water infrastructure.

Building America’s Future is a coalition that advo-cates for increased federal funding to rebuild aginginfrastructure, including water infrastructure,37 buthas not mobilized efforts to leverage smarter, sustain-able, green infrastructure practices for watermanagement. The initiative, Re-invest in Pennsylva-nia’s Infrastructure, spearheaded two appropriationbills in 2008 totaling $1.2 billion for infrastructureimprovements,38 including water projects, withoutprioritizing innovative projects that demonstrate sus-tainable management. Of the $800 million allocatedto the Commonwealth Financing Authority,stormwater projects received only $15.5 million forstormwater separation from sewer systems.39 Gover-nor Rendell’s commitment to infrastructureinvestment instead focused primarily on transporta-tion or traditional water infrastructure, including


page 9

Parking lot along the Schuylkill Riverin Philadelphia includes a vegetatedinfiltration area. Photo: Abby Hall

structural flood protection, wastewater treatment,and drinking water delivery.

To his credit, the Governor also created a SustainableWater Infrastructure Task Force and directed theTask Force to report financing solutions including“recommendations for more efficient water infra-structure management that could gradually eliminatethe gap” between needs and resources. From thefinal report, the recommendations most relevant tosustainable water infrastructure are:40

1. Asset management requirements because fewwater management infrastructure facilitieshave sufficiently planned for full operation andmaintenance costs. Asset management wouldrequire an assessment of facility condition, aplan for upgrades or repairs, and creation of afund that adequately budgets for asset needs,including CSO compliance and stormwatermanagement to minimize facility burdens.

2. Efficient operations to reduce wasteful man-agement of water within the system. The useof innovative technologies is encouraged.These include: water reuse, conservationmeasures, inflow, and infiltration reductionand energy audits.

3. Regionalization or right-sizing acknowledgesthat the municipal structure may not be themost cost effective for managing water re-sources that cross political boundaries. Thus,the Task Force recommended flexibility topermit decentralized or on-site water man-agement systems, and aggregation ofresources amongst multiple municipalitieswithin a region. Such flexibility would allowconsolidation or elimination of non-viable orless efficient systems, and would offer a vari-ety of incentives for right-sizing. Althoughright-sizing is traditionally directed at waste-water management, the Task Force advocatedfor multi-municipal approaches to stormwa-ter and permitting of stormwater authorities.

4. Maximization of non-structural and conserva-tion measures. The Task Force recognized thatencouraging or even mandating the use ofnon-structural solutions would reduce theoverall cost of maintaining and upgradingwater infrastructure. Principally the TaskForce recommended increased focus onstormwater management and the use ofgreen infrastructure.

Although the Task Force implicitly supported greeninfrastructure as part of the solution toward sustain-able water resource management practices withineach of the above suggestions, it failed to list specificincentives or funding practices to implement greeninfrastructure. Instead, the Task Force concludedthat a broad and diverse array of funding sources andapproaches would be necessary to meet Pennsylva-nia’s water infrastructure management goals. TaskForce suggestions must be detailed and supported bylegislation so that communities can be assured af-fordable and sufficient clean water in the future.


page 10

Rain barrel installed in Delaware Co., PA.Photo by Debbie Lamborn, CAADC

Another state effort that may be influential in mov-ing the state towards innovative water managementis the State Water Plan, adopted in 2008 by DEP asthe result of a five-year study to assess and protectcritical water supply throughout the Common-wealth.41 The plan has no regulatory capacity but canprovide guidance to resource management agenciesabout the need for innovative and green practices tomanage critical water resources.

Additionally, Pennsylvania can examine the inde-pendent efforts of communities across the statewhere green infrastructure has been valued andadopted. This includes the Greenworks model,Philadelphia’s assessments of green infrastructurebenefits, and corresponding planning proposals.

On the federal level, the strongest driver for greeninfrastructure is the new funding pool for green infrastructure and water efficiency within the State Revolving Fund (SRF) administered by thePennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority(PENNVEST) and established in the American Re-covery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.42 Describedin detail below, this funding has forced the state toseriously solicit green projects and consider how bestto evaluate and support such projects over the longterm. PENNVEST specifically adopted the prioritiesdefined in the Sustainable Water Infrastructure TaskForce Report within its ranking criteria for thisGreen Project Reserve spending of federal stimulusfunds awarded in July 2009.43

The Commonwealth is at an important juncture,poised to move from theory to reality by building onprogress made in spending stimulus dollars and in-corporating into practice the principles found in thecollective of policy studies. The following analysis ofavailable funding sources provides a roadmap towardrealizing sustainable practices by investigating theability of state programs to incorporate necessarychanges to funding approaches for water manage-ment that will carry Pennsylvania through fiscalcrisis and enable the state’s water infrastructure toadapt to the impacts of climate change.


page 11

The Commonwealth is at an important juncture,

poised to move fromtheory to reality by

building on progressmade in spending

stimulus dollars and incorporating into

practice the principlesfound in the collective

of policy studies.

Although there are a variety of state funding sources,Pennsylvania’s water supply, wastewater treatment,and stormwater infrastructure continues to befunded by significant federal dollars administeredthrough state agencies. While the State RevolvingFunds (SRF), administered by PENNVEST, are thelargest single source of water infrastructure fund-ing,44 PENNVEST administers other sources andseveral other agencies are responsible for smaller in-vestment programs in Pennsylvania’s watermanagement systems. These include the Departmentof Community and Economic Development(DCED), Department of Conservation and NaturalResources (DCNR), DEP, and Rural Developmentunder the U.S. Department of Agriculture (RUS-USDA). Each of these programs is described ingreater depth below. Collectively, they remain themost viable solutions to close the gap between available financial resources and infrastructure needs,yet each requires smarter strategies to be successful,including greener investments.

PENNVEST Through administration of the SRF and othersources, PENNVEST makes available the largestamount of money for water infrastructure in Penn-sylvania. Wastewater treatment plants are theprimary beneficiaries of this money. While stormwa-ter projects are eligible for funding, a summary of allprojects awarded since authorization of PENNVESTreveals that less than two percent have gone tostormwater specific projects.45 Even fewer of thestormwater projects that have been funded could bedefined as “green.” Fortunately, signs of change areevident as a result of the requirement placed onstates to set aside green investments in order to re-ceive stimulus funds. In April 2009, PENNVESTawarded a green loan of $30 million to Philadelphia

for citywide sustainable infrastructure develop-ments.46 PENNVEST must build on these first stepsand continue to develop capacity to improve tradi-tional projects with green solutions, createinnovative funding mechanisms to fund stand-alonegreen projects, and provide support to municipalitiesthat are hard pressed to repay loans.

State Revolving Fund—BackgroundThe Clean Water State Revolving Fund was createdin 1987 to replace the grant program that was re-sponsible for the construction of wastewatertreatment plants around the country.47 The CleanWater SRF was complemented by a Drinking WaterState Revolving Fund in 1996.48 SRF funds allocatedto each state are distributed as subsidized loans atvery low interest rates. As loans are repaid, the rev-enue is returned to the state to restore the availableSRF funds available for new loans, thus creating a re-volving pool of funding for clean and safe water.49

States provide a 20% match to federal spending oncapitalization programs. States have the flexibility tooffer flexible loan financing including long terms for


page 12


page 12

AGENCIES AND PROGRAMS FUNDING STORMWATERMANAGEMENT IN PENNSYLVANIA

Through administrationof the SRF and othersources, PENNVESTmakes available thelargest amount of moneyfor water infrastructurein Pennsylvania.

repayment, zero interest rates, bond issuance, and a va-riety of attractive options that effectively leverageadditional funding potential and provide infrastructuresolutions to additional communities.50 While neitherSRF is targeted at funding polluted stormwater runoff,Clean Water SRF funds can be used to reduce pollutedstormwater runoff within areas covered by a stormwa-ter permit or managed by an estuary plan.51

Since 1988, the SRF has been administered by PENNVEST, an independent agency governed by a13-member Board of Directors that meets quarterlyto approve decision-making processes and projectawards.52 Projects are awarded utilizing SRF andother sources of money, although the DrinkingWater and Clean Water SRFs represent more than40% of the available funds for Pennsylvania’s invest-ment in water infrastructure administered byPENNVEST.53 Other sources of money for PENNVEST include various state referendumsources, revenue bonds, general funds, and a portionof the Environmental Stewardship Fund, known asGrowing Greener, as well as investment earnings.Applicants for SRF funds may be public or privateentities for projects associated with wastewater treat-ment or drinking water delivery, but must be publicfor stormwater management. PENNVEST will fundall aspects of a project: project design, construction,and rehabilitation.54

PENNVEST AdministrationPENNVEST administers the application process,beginning with applicant consultations. Applicantshave to demonstrate to PENNVEST an ability torepay any low-interest loan awarded and compliancewith state and federal fair business practice regula-tions. Prior to Board review and approval,applications undergo three reviews: 1) DEP priori-tizes applications based on their ability to meet waterquality objectives; 2) DCED assesses the economicbenefits of projects; and 3) PENNVEST determinesan applicant’s eligibility and proposed matchingcontribution for loan size and rate or, in limitedcases, grants awards.55

Projects submitted to DEP by PENNVEST for as-sessment of water quality improvements andprioritization will first be subjected to Uniform Envi-ronmental Review guidelines. These guidelines assurecompliance with environmental impacts of proposedprojects under the National Environmental PolicyAct, consistency with state plans such as sewage facil-ity plans (Act 537), and proper public participation.56

Next, DEP ranks projects based on a Project PriorityRating System Manual (Rating System) that assignsup to 108 points in the categories of public health,aquatic health, infrastructure health, communityhealth, and compliance.57 Point awards vary depend-ing upon a project’s capacity to: eliminate publichealth hazards caused by untreated sewage discharges;enhance aquatic environments; improve the effi-ciency and sustainability of treatment systemsincluding structural and managerial; upgrade compli-ance with federal and state regulations and standards;and encourage regionalization or consolidation of fa-cilities to benefit communities. Additional points arethen awarded by DCED and PENNVEST based onjob creation, investment protection, and service tocommunities identified as distressed or priority.Points also are awarded to projects supported by amunicipal comprehensive plan or serving sites de-fined as brownfields or infill development.

Although stormwater management projects are eligi-ble for PENNVEST funding, the Rating System doesnot value the water quality contributions of stormwa-ter reduction or treatment, placing these projects at adisadvantage from the outset. Further, stormwaterprojects are only accepted from municipalities cov-ered by a county stormwater management plan,required under Act 167, but not all counties haveadopted plans.58 While a county’s Act 167 plan mayprovide objectives appropriate for rating a project,this requirement excludes many communities fromaccessing PENNVEST funding. If a municipality isable to submit a stormwater project for funding, re-view of that project will be guided by PennsylvaniaCode that defines the following criteria59:


page 13

• Public health and safety including the elimina-tion of critical, chronic, or potential safety orhealth hazards, notably those associated withflooding;

• Environmental impact where an environmen-tal problem affecting a natural resource can beprevented or improved, especially in areas de-fined by karst topography;

• Economic development including project ben-efits for distressed communities, opportunitiesto capitalize on other state development pro-grams, and job creation or retention;

• Compliance or improvement toward achievingcompliance with rules and regulations; and

• Adequacy and efficiency where a project servesa single municipality of less than 12,000 peo-ple, involves multiple municipalities, ormaximizes facility efficiency with regionaliza-tion or consolidation of part or all of thefacility’s function, operation, or maintenance.

Unfortunately, these criteria are not matched with aranking process comparable to the Rating System forwastewater and drinking water projects, making itmore difficult for a stormwater project to competewith a traditionally funded type of project. And, neither the Rating System nor Pennsylvania’s codedefining criteria for stormwater projects explicitlyrates or encourages green infrastructure or water efficiency despite their ability to contribute cost-effective and efficient solutions to water manage-ment problems. In summary, there are a number ofadministrative hurdles that contribute to the limitednumber of stormwater applications for funding thatshould be improved.

Nonetheless, PENNVEST does use a very small por-tion of their funding for stormwater. By example, astormwater project awarded to Lewisburg, Pennsylva-nia was a multi-generational fitness park incorporatingstormwater solutions on a site that was previously un-

usable because of flooding.60 This investment providedan innovative opportunity to manage stormwaterrunoff from residential neighborhoods, reduce the ef-fects of flooding downstream, and create a communityamenity. Although this project is commendable, theminimal number of stormwater projects funded byPENNVEST is not. Further, the Lewisburg projecthighlights the need for PENNVEST, with the techni-cal expertise at DEP, to increase their outreach tocommunities and promote green infrastructure solu-tions. Additional benefits from the project could havebeen achieved by a more comprehensive approach thatincluded features such as porous pavement for theplayground and parking areas.

New Directions—PENNVEST2009 has been the “year of change” for PENNVEST.Influenced by a failing national economy, new lead-ership in Washington, DC, the Governor’s drive tosupport infrastructure, and specific advocacy byAmerican Rivers, for the first time PENNVESTawarded funds to projects on their green merits. Tostimulate the nation’s failing economy, the new ad-


page 14

As a result of AmericanRivers’ efforts, the StateRevolving Fund appro-priations included a 20% set aside for GreenReserve Project invest-ments in greeninfrastructure, water efficiency, innovativemanagement, and energy efficiency.

ministration passed ARRA, which included appro-priations to the SRF. As a result of American Rivers’efforts, the SRF appropriations included a 20% setaside for Green Reserve Project investments in greeninfrastructure, water efficiency, innovative manage-ment, and energy efficiency. ARRA also required50% of the distributions to be administered asgrants,61 which served to maximize the green infra-structure component and encourage greenstormwater management solutions.

This critical funding opportunity has been a chal-lenge for some states to administer due to the tighttimelines for everything from grant application toconstruction and the fact that green approaches arenew to some states. Thus Pennsylvania, as moststates, defined fundable projects with the infusion ofstimulus dollars as those “ready to go,” meaning per-mits in hand, designs developed, and ready to bid.Although the awarded projects were not always thebest or even the greenest, they were a clear step to-ward achieving water quality improvements throughgreen infrastructure.

In February 2009, PENNVEST awarded the City ofPhiladelphia a $30 million low-interest loan forgreen projects throughout the city. This was the firstset of projects reviewed as green and included prac-tices such as permeable pavement and street treeplantings. The loan was awarded without the con-straints of the stimulus timeline to permitPhiladelphia adequate project administration andcost recovery time, and so the entire $44.6 million,for Pennsylvania’s share of the Green Reserve, wasdistributed along with SRF awards to 38 projectsacross the state in July 2009.62

A sample of green projects awarded include:

• $185,000 to Luzerne Conservation District toeliminate stormwater runoff from its site byconstructing a rain harvest system, an infiltra-tion trench, and 8,200 square feet of porouspavement;

• $85,600 to Factoryville Borough to install agreen parking lot and reduce potential con-tamination to an Exceptional Value stream;and

• $1.8 million to Chester County ConservationDistrict to reduce stormwater contaminationof local streams with 34 separate activities in-cluding riparian buffers, rain gardens, andstormwater basins.

Some awards demonstrate that good projects mayhave been funded in some cases when the best proj-ects couldn’t meet the fast tracked needs of thestimulus program:

• $5,945 to reduce stormwater by planting 20trees along two streets in SusquehannaCounty; and

• $51,075 for West Rockhill Township to re-place culverts, stabilize roadside swales, andhaul away sediment prone to contaminate astream during wet weather events.

Other projects may not be appropriate uses of theGreen Project Reserve and SRF dollars, as describedby EPA, despite their water quality benefits:

• $131,044 to grade and resurface roads in LakeTownship to reduce sediment runoff; and

• $870,642 to similarly refurbish roads subjectto runoff during heavy rains in SullivanCounty.

Although the application of Green Reserve funds hasnot been an easy process nor perfectly applied, it hasencouraged PENNVEST to broaden their outreach,solicit green projects, and adapt the application andadministration process for funding to accommodatesmaller and greener projects. PENNVEST will com-plete their assessment in spring 201063 after theARRA dollars have been allocated and projects willbe near completion.


page 15

RecommendationsThere are several potential areas where change maybenefit infrastructure management by facilitatinggreener approaches and more funding for stormwater.

First, although the amount of funds for water man-agement as a whole is insufficient to meet all needs,many can be met more efficiently by funding stand-alone green projects, comprehensive municipality orwatershed-wide green plans, and prioritizing applica-tions for traditional hard infrastructure projects toinclude complementary green practices. Immediatefocus on greening the gray projects will avoid manyadministrative hurdles.

Second, the administrative hurdles must be clearedto encourage non-traditional applicants, allow newtypes of projects, and broaden funding strategies.Working closely with DEP, PENNVEST should de-velop ranking criteria that acknowledges the value ofstormwater management and green infrastructure to-ward meeting water quality goals. DEP should beavailable to advise PENNVEST applicants and po-tential applicants about technological advances toachieve more sustainable infrastructure, and moreimportantly, more sustainable water resources forPennsylvania’s communities. And, PENNVESTmust explore a variety of funding mechanisms thatwill maximize the awards to municipalities that can-not manage the standard loan structure withoutexcessive financial or administrative burden.

Although the requirement for applicants of stormwaterprojects to demonstrate adherence to a county’s Act167 plan is a laudable attempt to support soundstormwater management, the requirement is an administrative hurdle. Some leniency should be accepted for projects developed in counties where plan-ning is at least underway. Until funding for the Act 167stormwater program is restored, and tech nical supportfrom DEP is available, leniency is especially important.

Finally, PENNVEST must closely examine the GreenProject Reserve awards granted in July 2009 and de-termine how best to solicit and award grants to more

of the best examples and eliminate spending preciousfunds on projects that do not clearly meet the intentof the SRF or achieve notable water quality improve-ments as dictated by PENNVEST objectives.

PENNVEST has demonstrated in the past a great ca-pacity to be receptive to positive changes, including theagency’s rapid response to the funding opportunity af-forded by the economic stimulus. Change in each ofthe areas mentioned above will result in a greening ofgray projects, more applicants for stand-alone greenprojects, and greener planning across municipalities orwatersheds that will have a broad and lasting impacton the health of Pennsylvania’s waterways.

Department of Environmental Protection: Coastal Zone Management In addition to providing technical review of PENNVESTapplications, Pennsylvania’s DEP directly administersthree notable programs that fund stormwater man-agement and green infrastructure practices. Theseinclude the federal Coastal Zone Management(CZM) Program of the National Oceanic and At-mospheric Administration (NOAA) and two smallprograms that support planning (see DEP: PlanningGrants Program, page 18). The CZM is an effectiveprogram that embraces green infrastructure solutionsand understands the importance of stormwater man-agement. Yet, it is hampered by a slow federal awardprocess, a 50% match requirement and a very narrowgeographic scope.

The Coastal Zone Management Act authorizedNOAA to distribute funds to states through a state-appointed management agency. States have primacyto develop comprehensive plans to manage and bal-ance competing uses for coastal resources. NOAAprovides oversight and coordination with other fed-eral agencies.64 In Pennsylvania, the CZM programis administered by the DEP Water Planning Officefor the Delaware River Estuary and Lake Erie. Theprogram has provided more than $50 million tocoastal resource management projects in Pennsylva-nia since the plan’s approval in September 1980.65


page 16

Its priorities follow:

• Integrate coastal issues into a comprehensiveagenda for watershed management and eco -system protection;

• Expand the use of planning tools such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS);

• Catalogue wetlands and monitor degradations;and

• Emphasize stormwater management in theDelaware River estuary coastal zone.66

CZM has funded innovative projects utilizing greeninfrastructure for stormwater management despiteits limited geographic scope. The program awardsmatched grants up to $50,000 to municipalities, au-thorities, state or local agencies, and non-profitgroups to cover activities from planning and designto land acquisition and construction. In Pennsylva-nia, annual awards range from $1 million to $1.5million.67 The emphasis is on restoration within thecoastal interface, although the contribution of landactivities to coastal zone management is recognized.Stormwater projects in the Delaware River zonefunded by NOAA through DEP include:

• Stormwater Inventory and Prioritization:$40,000 in 2004 for Pennridge area;

• Stormwater Wetlands Monitoring: $50,000 toVillanova University to produce field studiesthat measure metal removal efficiency at theuniversity’s stormwater wetland;

• Stormwater Retrofit Technical Assistance:$48,300 in 2004 to the Pennsylvania Environ-mental Coalition and partners to educate andassist municipal officials, and create ten retro-fits to traditional stormwater retention basinsand six parking lots in the Neshaminy water-shed; and

• Springfield Township Stormwater Manage-ment BMP Park: $42,100 applied to thedesign and bidding of BMP stormwater solu-tions at a 13-acre municipal site.68

Eligibility language for the CZM grants issuedthrough DEP does not encourage or specify thatstormwater management projects be non-structural,but the language freely allows submission of suchprojects because emphasis is placed on low-cost solu-tions, explicitly stating that “construction mustprovide the requisite connection to the land/waterinterface.”69

The narrow geographic application of this fundingprogram remains its most notable drawback as a toolto improve the application of funds to green infra-structure solutions for stormwater management. Theprogram is one of the few funding options in Penn-sylvania through which innovative stormwatermanagement is categorically accepted and does re-ceive funds. The geographic scope is particularlytroublesome since the awards made annually by DEPand NOAA prioritize projects that directly serve thecoast, despite eligibility criteria that define the prior-ity zone to include tributaries within the coastal zone.

New Direction: DEP CZM ProgramState and federal budgets and guidance and regula-tion are the external factors currently influencing thecapacity of these fund sources to support non-struc-tural stormwater practices.

There is no indication that CZM funds from NOAAwill be eliminated or reduced, but announcement re-garding awards from the 2009-10 CZM applicationare now months overdue. Recent, although againlater than normal, solicitation by DEP applicationsto the 2010-11 CZM program indicates continuityof the program. The program again includes oppor-tunities to fund stormwater management and bestmanagement practices.


page 17

The new eligibility criteria also include prioritizationof required plans and the development of planning:

“Support development, implementation, or enforce-ment of Act 167 stormwater management plans,implement water quality improvement/enhancementprojects recommended in the Act 167 plan, or im-plement innovative structural or non-structural BMP demonstration projects.”70

CZM funds could significantly enhance planninggrants offered through DEP to Pennsylvania’s fewcounties within the coastal zone.

RecommendationsIt may be unlikely and unreasonable to suggest that theCZM program issue awards more expeditiously or witha lesser match requirement. But, a quicker applicant re-view and award process, and a more affordable matchwould be beneficial to applicant planning. Similarly, thegeographic boundaries of the program are unlikely tobe altered. Yet, the geographic influence of the programcan be strengthened. To maximize the program’s capac-ity to fund green practices, DEP and NOAA mustapply rankings equally for land-based projects interfac-ing significant tributaries within the coastal zone as wellas those interfacing the actual coastline.

Department of Environmental Protection: Planning Program GrantsThese two small grant programs support the plan-ning efforts of counties and municipalitiescomplying with state stormwater management pro-grams. Each is a promising resource that could bebetter utilized by localities if the state’s stormwatermanagement program were more fully integrated,promoted, and enforced.

Through this program, the Bureau of WatershedManagement at DEP provides grants, technical assis-tance, and reimbursements to municipalities andcounties for stormwater planning activities. Pennsyl-vania’s Stormwater Management Act was amendedin 1985 to provide for the award of grants up to75% of allowable costs in two programs:71

Stormwater Management Planning and Implemen-tation. Awards are reimbursements to counties forpreparing or revising stormwater plans requiredunder Act 167. The average award is $200,000.

Enactment and Implementation of Stormwater Or-dinances. Municipalities are reimbursed for costsincurred to prepare, administer, enforce, implement,and revise ordinances required by county stormwatermanagement plans. On average, these grants distrib-ute $1,400 to each municipal applicant.

The programs allow for reimbursement of mostcosts directly related to stormwater managementplanning including: consulting fees, inspections andmonitoring, technical and legal services, and admin-istrative costs associated with public meetings andmileage. Municipalities may only request reimburse-ment of ordinance development after a county planhas been approved. Furthermore, municipalitiesmay not request reimbursement for costs offset byincome from any permit or review fees imposed bythe municipality.72

Through the first 15 years of the program, countiesreceived nearly $7 million in reimbursements forplanning, and municipalities were reimbursed justover a quarter of a million dollars.73 The programserves a valuable role. Helping communities preparestormwater plans and regulation opens fundingdoors for localities. For instance, counties with com-pleted Act 167 plans were eligible for theunprecedented water resource management fundsavailable in 2009 through ARRA. Some project ap-plicants never applied for stimulus dollars becausetheir county lacked approved stormwater planning.

Today, the program remains underutilized, consis-tent with slow compliance by localities to adoptstormwater management planning. Even with thisfunding option, compliance has been hard to influ-ence because the state’s corresponding programguidance is poorly promoted and enforced by DEP.


page 18

New Directions: DEP Planning GrantsThe underlying state guidance tied to the use of thesefunding programs are the Pennsylvania StormwaterBMP Manual and the Pennsylvania Model Stormwa-ter Management Ordinance. This is problematic asthe 2006 BMP Manual is currently being updatedand the Model Ordinance has never been officiallyreleased as final. Both are expected to be completeand referenced in Pennsylvania’s 2010 revised urbanstormwater permit. However, the draft permit is notstrongly tied to the BMP Manual, and creates a disin-centive for communities to adopt strong ordinancesas a more complex permit application is required forany locality that develops an ordinance different fromthe state’s unofficial model. Until state guidance andregulation are reconciled, finalized, and promoted,full use of the planning grants will not occur.

These funding sources could help promote green in-frastructure practices by relying on the guidancedocuments that include an array of non-structuralsolutions to complement structural approaches.

Changes to regulation and guidance proposed forcompletion in 2010 provide the best opportunity forthese funding programs to increase the use of greeninfrastructure solutions within local planning.Change will be most relevant to more than 900 smallurban municipalities because planning supported bythese funds is required under the urban stormwaterpermits and the revised permit is expected to institu-tionalize green infrastructure practices to somedegree. Unfortunately permit updates will be twoyears overdue, delaying these positive changes.

Regrettably, the grant program received no fundingfrom the state budget passed in October 2009.74 Al-though it has been difficult to envision how thesefunding programs for planning could succeed at sup-porting sustainable stormwater approaches under aseemingly broken management program, it is moredifficult to see the management program improvingwithout resources to support local compliance toplanning requirements.

RecommendationsThese recommendations are made assuming the pro-gram will be restored in the state budget in the2010-11 fiscal year.

It is critical that DEP improve, complete, and pro-mote all aspects of its stormwater program.Regardless of lagging regulatory efforts, DEP can stillstrengthen the applicability of these funding pro-grams. As demonstrated by the new language in theeligibility criteria for the CZM program, DEP is ac-tively promoting Act 167 planning. The agency mustsimilarly promote the funding program to assist local-ities with planning. Further, the agency shouldsystematically support these efforts with training andtechnical resources. Training and resources should in-clude green infrastructure practices. Because thesepractices are cost effective, promoting them throughthe funding program will in turn add fiscal efficiencyto local planning efforts. As a move to capitalize onthe grant program, DEP should prioritize applica-tions from localities wanting to upgrade plans toincorporate new and sustainable BMPs.

Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED) DCED is responsible for a host of grant and loanprograms to serve communities in Pennsylvania.None of these programs is explicitly designed to fundstormwater management, but several support waterinfrastructure and indirectly fund stormwater. Todaythese programs play an important role in helping sus-tain water resources for Pennsylvania’s communities.Because the 2009 state budget severely cut environ-mental programs, agencies such as DCED must findways to make up the difference by strengtheningfunding programs that provide cost effective water in-frastructure that employ green practices.

DCED programs that fund water infrastructure include:75

Appalachian Regional Commission Grant Program.Supplemental grants to municipalities, authorities,and public or private organizations for construction


page 19

of water or sewer systems including treatment plants.These funds have supported separation of stormwa-ter from sewer within built systems.

Community Development Block Grants and SmallMunicipality Entitlement and Competitive GrantProgram While only a small percentage of the pro-gram goes toward water management, the totalinvestment is significant and can result in $40 mil-lion to $50 million invested annually in drinkingand wastewater. Again, stormwater resources havebeen directed at structural collection systems to sepa-rate stormwater from wastewater.

Floodplain Management Program These funds sup-port municipalities with technical and financialassistance to complete requirements associated withthe National Flood Insurance Program and Pennsyl-vania Floodplain Management Act. Funds aredirected at planning and mapping activity. Supportfor stormwater activity is limited to localities devel-oping progressive flood reduction measures.

Infrastructure Development Program These grantsor loans must support infrastructure necessary for in-dustrial, agricultural, manufacturing, or researchbusiness development that will generate jobs. Proj-ects sponsored by local governments receive up to$1.25 million. Amongst other activities, these proj-ects may fund drainage systems and water systems.

New Communities—Elm Street and Main StreetPrograms These provide funding for revitalization ofdowntowns and major arteries that radiate fromdowntowns. The Elm Street program is a RendellAdministration initiative that includes a requirementto plan for green improvements in revitalizing neigh-borhoods. The Community Action Agency ofDelaware County developed a revitalization plan forthe Delaware County Lansdowne-Yeadon commu-nity that prioritized stormwater management as apart of its green objectives.

DCED has a number of programs focused on com-munity revitalization. The capacity of these programs

to serve communities with sustainable infrastructurethat delivers clean water would increase if staff wereencouraged to promote and fund green infrastructure.

New Directions—DCEDDCED programs were not exempt from budget cuts.Until Pennsylvania’s budget woes improve dramati-cally, DCED will likely fund less and less stormwatermanagement despite greater need resulting fromsimilar cuts to DEP and DCNR budgets.

While many DCED staff members do not recognizetheir agency’s ability to fund stormwater, they do rec-ognize the role DCED has funding waterinfrastructure projects for Pennsylvania’s communi-ties. The Commonwealth Financing Authority, anindependent board housed under DCED, currentlyadministers a priority of Governor Rendell’s author-ized by the 2008 legislature and known as H2O PA.76

In 2009, this funding program distributed $46.6 mil-lion in grants to improve high-hazard dams, $13.6million to flood control projects, and $490.8 millionfor 286 wastewater treatment and drinking waterprojects.77 Some of these projects managed stormwa-ter by separating stormwater from wastewater flowsbut none appeared to incorporate cost effective non-structural solutions. Because projects must be at least$500,000 to receive grants, it is unlikely that any ofthe remaining $249 million will be awarded to stand-alone green projects. With the current eligibilityguidelines, the remaining funds will most likely sup-port traditional, gray infrastructure, projects.

RecommendationsDCED should encourage applications to H2O-PA forgray infrastructure projects to incorporate green solu-tions, particularly because the eligibility requirementspromote integrated approaches to water managementand system operation. Specifically, green solutions thatsupport gray projects should be prioritized, promoted,and awarded by any DCED program directed towater infrastructure management.

Additionally, DCED promotes the concept of re-useand rebuilding in its revitalization programs as pre-


page 20

scribed by the Keystone Principles.78 Green infra-structure practices and planning are a natural fit forrevitalizing urban areas where maximizing the effi-ciencies of land use is important. Therefore DCEDshould be the first agency to employ enhanced Key-stone Principles that promote “green first” inaddition to “re-use first.”

Department of Conservation andNatural Resources (DCNR)

DCNR is poised for potential transformation from apurely land resource agency to one touting the state’smost progressive plan to green its funding programs,including green approaches to manage stormwater.

DCNR is the land management agency that distrib-utes funding to communities and awards contractsfor work on public lands. Traditionally the land andwater interface represented the point at whichDCNR stopped support of projects aimed at en-hancing ecological functions and transferredresources to support aesthetic or recreational activi-ties such as river access points.

In more recent years, DCNR has professed the goal to“assist communities in building green infrastructureand greenway connections.”78 Yet, aside from the no-table DCNR Tom Ridge Environmental Center atPresque Isle State Park in Erie, which has receivedLeadership in Energy and Environment Design GreenBuilding Rating System (LEED)80 certification,DCNR green investments have been primarily in theform of tree plantings and open space preservation.

More focused on water resources, DCNR established a

River Towns initiative to help communities pursue

economic revitalization and new mixed-use develop-

ment with resources directed at design of greenway

enhancement or redevelopment. Unfortunately, the

River Towns program lacks dedicated staff resources

and thus has been slow to develop and may never fully

get off the ground.


page 21

A sampling of greener projectsfunded by DCNR includes:81

Brownsburg and Lookout Parks,Bucks County. A 37.6 acre park onthe Delaware River with ball fieldsand trails that utilize a wetland infiltration basin;

Open Space Preservation Plan, Cumberland County. Using KeystoneGrant Funding, one of several DCNRprograms, the agency awarded$93,000 to produce the county’sopen space and smart growth plan;

Darby Creek Greenway, DelawareCounty. Funding supports the water-shed conservation plan to developan urban “ribbon of green” includingriparian buffers, open space, andstream corridor restoration;

Lawrence County Greenway andOpen Space Plan. Funds preserva-tion and reclamation of naturalfloodplains; and

Williamsport City Parks Master SitePlan, Monroe County. Funding is focused toward reinvestment inurban areas to establish sustainableand attractive communities.

New Directions—DCNRThe green programs goals of DCNR will be reflectedwithin the programs DCNR funds. Again, this as-sumes the agency is able to sustain the state’s severebudget cuts. If that hurdle is overcome, DCNR willapply a new strategy to its funding application re-views with the assistance of an EnvironmentalScorecard for Grant Applicants. The scorecard is theresult of a “Greening the Grants” study finalized byDCNR during summer 2009.82

The scorecard is a self-evaluation form for applicantsintended to help them complete the “green criteria”section of the grant narrative, which is then usedduring application review. The scorecard includes83

four sections: 1) connecting people to nature, 2)green design and construction practices, 3) naturallandscapes and trees, and 4) water resources. Eachsection contains a check list of green activities. Dur-ing self evaluation, applicants can credit projects thatpropose practices described on the list. For instance,the check list suggests “site design will include fea-tures to build awareness and educate site users onvarious sustainable management practices.” A pro-posed project with outreach activities that teach thebenefits of green practices may “take credit” for thisitem on the scorecard’s list. Similarly, the green in-frastructure practices within U.S. Green BuildingCouncil LEED certification can be applied to newbuildings or renovations. And notably, the scorecardencourages rain barrels, rain gardens, and permeablepavement to minimize use of potable water, promoteground water infiltration, and reduce runoff. Thescorecard institutes one requirement: principles con-sistent with stormwater permitting for constructionsites and post-construction activity.

This is a laudable effort to green funding activity. Ifthe forthcoming budget cycle allows DCNR theability to distribute grants, the scorecard will be ap-plied for the first time in 2010, providing theopportunity to evaluate the outcomes. If DCNR issuccessful in recruiting greener applications and/orapplying greener ranking criteria to the eligibilitycriteria during project review, the resulting projects

will demonstrate green practices over a wide area andin highly visible, public locations.

RecommendationsTo ensure success, the “Greening the Grants” strat-egy must be accompanied by significant outreachand education to potential applicants and contain astrong prioritization and evaluation methodology.

To further increase the likelihood of success, DCNRshould employ the self-evaluation scorecard measuresas criteria to rank the sustainability quotient of pro-posed projects. Whether or not DCNR successfullyimplements the scorecard, the concept should be amodel for other state agencies.

Rural Utility Services (RUS)—USDA Rural Development within the U.S. Department of Agriculture is committed to building strong andvibrant rural communities and therefore supports essential water infrastructure in communities withless than 10,000 people. The capacity to fund greeninfrastructure practices is unrealized but, if instituted,RUS would be the only program in Pennsylvania fo-cused on greening water infrastructure in rural areas.

In 2003, Rural Development structured its offices tooffer local support through Rural Utility Servicefunding programs including:84

• Water and Environmental Loans to develop,improve, and repair water, sewer, and stormdrain systems;

• Water and Disposal Grants to reduce the costsof water and waste disposal; and

• Solid Waste Management Grants intended to re-duce or eliminate water pollution.

In 2008 Pennsylvania received about $69 million: $55million in low-interest loans, $13.8 million in waterand disposal grants, and $400,000 for solid waste proj-ects. Despite eligibility language authorizing fundingfor “Storm drainage—construct or improve stormdrains and related facilities,” few dollars have been di-


page 22

rected at stormwater management.85 Unfortunately,grant funds for municipal stormwater improvementsare becoming proportionately less as the need for watersupply and wastewater treatment is considered over-whelming in the rural and small cities served by RUS.

New Directions—RUSRUS continues to support traditional hard infrastruc-ture solutions, presented by applicants and supportedby DEP, rather than progressively transforming to-wards funding greener, sustainable solutions. Whileno greener movement is apparent, there is a shift inthe balance between loan and grant distributions.Over the last five years, the balance has tipped fromnearly 50/50 to almost 80% loan and 20% grant.86

This shift may adversely affect small communitiesthat already lack the resources for technical expertise.

RecommendationsRUS should evaluate the sustainability of the trendaway from grant awards for a program intended toprioritize and serve under-resourced localities. RUSmay better benefit Pennsylvania’s rural communitiesand rebalance loan and grant distributions by comple-menting gray project funding with cost effective smallgreen grants. By prioritizing small grants for green in-frastructure practices, dollars distributed by RUS willgo a long way toward sustainability of the entire in-vestment and better serve low-income communities.

Growing Greener The commonwealth’s flagship Environmental Stew-ardship and Protection Act is more commonly knownas “Growing Greener.” Admired by many states,Growing Greener may soon outgrow its purpose andits budget. If the legislature fails to renew this programsignificant political ill will from past beneficiaries mayresult. The programs’ many supporters hope thatthreat will help to spur reauthorization. If GrowingGreener is sustained, the program will have an oppor-tunity to improve its processes to fund trulysustainable water management projects.

The program grew from several environmental pro-grams, including Governor Casey’s community

recycling initiative designed to limit out-of-state trashin Pennsylvania’s landfills and allow the state to capi-talize on its own trash. Governor Ridge signed the Actin December 1999 directing the use of tipping fees, atonnage collection fee from municipal landfills.87

For the first five years, the Act provided $650 millionfor farmland preservation, open space, park mainte-nance, watershed restoration, abandoned mine landreclamation, and water and sewer infrastructure up-grades. The funds were distributed by four agenciesincluding DEP, DCNR, PENNVEST, and the De-partment of Agriculture as grants with a 15% matchrequirement. Awards were made to municipalities,counties, watershed groups, environmental non-prof-its, municipal authorities, and county conservationdistricts to address pollution through watershed-based planning, restoration, or protection.88

In June 2002 Governor Mark Schweiker increasedGrowing Greener appropriations to $1.2 billion andextended the program to 2012. Revenue shortfallsgreatly reduced actual spending which promptedGovernor Rendell to propose Growing Greener II.Voters approved $625 million for a six-year programin May 2005. Tipping fees remain the cornerstone ofdebt management for the program.89

Over time, the application criteria have developednarrower preferences and requirements often be-moaned by Conservation Districts and DEP regionalstaff as stringent or cumbersome. Criteria also havevaried year-by-year resulting in an inconsistent pro-gram that seemingly welcomes non-structuralstormwater solutions one year and not the next.

Currently the program identifies state and regional“priority watersheds” within which are eligible activ-ities. The current application prioritizes watershedswith pollutant load clean-up plans or those definedby DEP as impaired, in addition to specific water-sheds within each of six DEP regions. Statewideproject preferences include easements and openspace plans to support sustainable buffers, dam re-movals, water conservation by leak and loss control


page 23

or re-use, nutrient reductions through efficientBMPs, and technology to control invasive species.90

Each region defines priority activities that often encourage stormwater management and sometimesgreen infrastructure. For instance, the current north-west guidelines support “innovative or educationalstormwater BMPs” while the southwest more specifi-cally prioritizes “implementation projects to retrofitexisting stormwater systems with new BMPs orfloodplain reconnection.”91

The priorities tend to be well reflected by the projectsawarded. Growing Greener has funded many demon-stration projects for green infrastructure andcomprehensive projects on public lands. For instance,in 2003 Growing Greener distributed approximately$400,000 to projects that included porous pavementparking lots and wetland retention. In 2006, $1.4million was directed at design and construction ofprojects that incorporated green infrastructure com-ponents such as rain harvesting for non-potablere-use, rain gardens, green roofs, and porous pave-ment. Although 2007 priorities and criteria resultedin no awards defined as non-structural stormwater,the current criteria funded a significant number of ri-parian buffers and instream restoration projects, someBMP structural retrofits including retrofits to com-mercial and residential stormwater systems. The 2008awards (announced in February 2009) also includedthese green infrastructure projects:92

• $36,595 for rain gardens at Allegheny College’s Admission Center;

• $63,096 for bio-swales to reduce floodingfrom runoff in Springfield Township;

• $24,634 for a pervious gravel driveway to reduce erosion at a canoe launch; and

• $239,179 to comprehensively install stormwaterBMPs, water re-use practices, and on-site sewagetreatment facilities at Stroud Water ResearchCenter.

New Directions — Growing GreenerThe current Growing Greener appropriation is duefor reauthorization in 2012 and yet is expected to be‘spent out” as early as 2010.93 Advocates appealed tostate leaders to consider bolstering Growing Greenerwith new revenue from tax severances on the grow-ing oil and gas industry, but the tax severanceproposal did not survive the 2009 budget debates.94

Growing Greener has been a showcase program thatPennsylvania’s leadership is unlikely to willinglyabandon, but it is uncertain how it may evolve fromthe state’s budget crisis or from reauthorization lan-guage in the legislature.

RecommendationsThe future Growing Greener program needs a sustain-able funding source and needs to redistribute its fundsto sustainable projects. Sustainability should no longerbe measured as “lasting 20 years,” a concept that histori-cally described structural water management projects.Rather, the program must look toward funding manage-ment practices capable of water quality improvementsthat enhance resiliency in natural and built systems,thereby creating sustainable funding mechanisms andfostering long-term resource sustainability.


page 24

The 2008 awards (announced in February2009) also included these green infrastruc-ture projects:92

• $36,595 for rain gardens at Allegheny College’s Admission Center;

• $63,096 for bio-swales to reduce flood-ing from runoff in Springfield Township;

• $24,634 for a pervious gravel drivewayto reduce erosion at a canoe launch; and

• $239,179 to comprehensively installstormwater BMPs, water re-use practices,and on-site sewage treatment facilitiesat Stroud Water Research Center.

Well-integrated policy, planning, regulation, andfunding will create an enduring system for stormwa-ter management that institutes efficient, effective,and sustainable practices.

There is no doubt that Pennsylvania has some toughhurdles to overcome to secure sustainable watermanagement. These include an entrenched munici-pal structure with an enormous number ofmunicipalities; planning, regulatory, and fundingprograms that have strong traditions of supportinghard infrastructure while often ignoring the value ofmanaging stormwater at its source; and an over-whelming gap between available financial resourcesand the growing need to address and resolve aging,deteriorating, and over-stressed water infrastructuresystems.

Polluted stormwater runoff is a significant contribu-tor to the water management challengesPennsylvania faces reflected by the prevalence of im-paired waterways and increases in frequency andseverity of flooding attributable to this source.Meanwhile, a growing body of research and guid-ance across the nation points to green infrastructurepractices as viable tools to manage stormwater runoffand help minimize the overall impact on water infra-structure systems and communities. Pennsylvaniahas yet to fully institute green practices in stormwa-ter regulation, planning, and guidance. The result isthat the Chesapeake Stormwater Network ranksPennsylvania last amongst five Bay states on the2009 Baywide Stormwater Scorecard. With an over-all grade of ‘D,’ the state receives an ‘F’ with regardto its ability to provide financing to stormwatermanagement needs.

Indeed, a survey of attendees at Solutions for Mu-nicipalities Managing Stormwater, a workshophosted by American Rivers in January 2009, listed alack of local funding as the primary reason for fail-ure to comply with stormwater managementplanning and management requirements. The fol-lowing recommendations seek to advance theinstitutionalization of sound stormwater manage-ment practices in Pennsylvania.


page 25


page 25

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Well-integrated policy,planning, regulation, andfunding will create anenduring system forstormwater manage-ment that institutesefficient, effective, and

sustainable practices.

RECOMMENDATION 1: Foster a collaborativerelationship and consistent approach amongststormwater management planning, regulation, andfunding institutions to promote and advance theadoption and implementation of green practices.

• Improve Pennsylvania’s stormwater manage-ment program and corresponding grade:

• Integrate green infrastructure solutionsstrongly and consistently within the BMP Manual, Model Ordinance, and MS4 permit95.

• Provide intensive technical support throughoutreach for water infrastructure fundingapplicants to improve the quality of fund-ing proposals and projects.

• Through an ongoing stakeholder process, further develop state policy initiatives such asthe State Water Plan and the SustainableWater Infrastructure Task Force report thatpromote green practices in water managementand imbed these practices in regulation andfunding practice.

RECOMMENDATION 2: Establish principlesfor investment in green solutions for stormwatermanagement for all funding sources that willguide funders and applicants toward natural in-frastructure alternatives.

• The DCNR Environmental Scorecard has elements that offer a means to enhance andtransform or complement the Keystone Principles’ “re-use first” with “green first.”These green principles must be imbedded ineach agency’s funding application process.The PENNVEST ranking system would benefit from this model to facilitate consis-tency in the Ranking System to advancesound stormwater management.

• Integrate these principles in planning andfunding and incorporate consistent and well-defined accountability measures acrossagencies.

RECOMMENDATION 3: Diversify fundingsources for Pennsylvania’s water infrastructureneeds to maximize the benefits of green practicesinstead of, or in conjunction with, traditionalhard infrastructure.

• Follow Sustainable Water Infrastructure TaskForce discovery:96

• Assess needs and resources fully, includestormwater management at pipe andsources.

• Seek funding from an array of sources—federal, state, and local; incentives, fees,and taxes.

• Permit right-sizing of operations and man-agement for multi-municipalityfunctioning for stormwater management.

• Weigh the multiple benefits of green infra-structure before investing in hard structuralpractices.

• First fund water management planning thatembodies a “green first” approach.

• Prioritize distribution of DEP grants to lo-calities newly planning or updating plansto incorporate green infrastructure.

• Support municipal or watershed-wideplanning that includes comprehensivegreen practices such as the Philadelphiamodel, with long-term investment.


page 26

RECOMMENDATION 4: Improve outreach sothat those responsible for local implementation ofstormwater management practices know where tofind technical and financial resources that sup-port sustainable green practices.

Outreach recommendations are imbedded in the ac-tions of the prior three recommendations butdeserve emphasis. To successfully make the pivotalchange to sustainability, Pennsylvania’s water man-agement programs and investment principles andpractices must be fully accessible and usable by alllocal water resource managers.

Together, the four recommendations represent pro-gressive institutional changes that will help remedyPennsylvania’s current unsustainable water infra-structure funding system by intensifyingpolicymaker, agency, and public attention and focuson stormwater management that embraces green in-frastructure. More important, adoption of theserecommendations for funding and institutionaliza-tion of green infrastructure will help to ensurePennsylvania’s future as a vibrant economic engineand as a state where people want to live.

While there is no doubt that Pennsylvania has diffi-cult obstacles to surmount in greening both itsfunding and its water infrastructure, there is also nodoubt that clean water is among the Common-wealth’s most precious resources. The health of itseconomy and communities depend on the abundantsupply of clean, fresh water. Yet, Pennsylvania’s—and the nation’s water infrastructure—is seriouslyoutdated, posing imminent threats to both waterquality and supply. Like other cities across America,Pennsylvania’s drinking water, wastewater, andstormwater systems are aging, deteriorating, andunder increasing pressure from growing consumerdemands and from more frequent and more intenseflooding and drought.

The approaches employed for centuries in theUnited States will not solve the magnitude of today’swater challenges. The Keystone State is at a turningpoint and the choices its citizens and leaders make inthe coming months and years have the power to fun-damentally transform the way Pennsylvania managesits water.

A 21st century approach would

recognize “green infrastructure”

as an integral component of

water management design.

In fact, green infrastructure,

replicating nature’s treatment

of water, is the best, most cost-

effective, and most flexible way

for communities to address the

water resource challenges they

face. American Rivers encour-

ages Pennsylvania to accept the

challenge before it, to assert

its leadership role, and to help

establish models for green infra-

structure and funding that will

benefit Pennsylvania for decades

to come and that will advance

standards for sustainability for

other states nationwide.


page 27


page 27

Funding sources:PENNVEST—The Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority finances local clean water infrastructure by admin-istering state and federal resources.http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/pennvest/9242

DEP, Coastal Zone Management—Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection administers the National Oceanicand Atmospheric Agency’s funding program to protect and improve the state’s Delaware River estuary and Lake Erie coast.http://www.dep.state.pa.us/river/czmp.htm

DEP, Planning Grants—One program reimburses counties developing required stormwater plans and another reimbursesmunicipalities developing ordinances to enact stormwater management practices. http://www.dep.state.pa.us/grantscenter/ProgramSummary.asp?ID=7http://www.dep.state.pa.us/grantscenter/ProgramSummary.asp?ID=6

DCED—The Department of Community and Economic Development administers an entire suite of programs to sup-port the economic vitality and thus includes water infrastructure highly valued by communities.http://www.newpa.com/index.aspx

DCNR—Funding projects that occur on state-owned lands or promote natural resources within communities, the De-partment of Conservation and Natural Resources uses several funding programs. Check out the new EnvironmentalScorecard for Grant Applicants.http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/brc/grants/indexgreen.aspx

Rural Utility Service (RUS)-USDA—The Rural Service Utility program distributes funds for essential water infrastruc-ture projects to support rural localities and cities with a population of less than 10,000. http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/pa/

Growing Greener—Pennsylvania’s Environmental Stewardship and Protection Act now funds many environmental needsincluding water and sewer infrastructure upgrades.http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/growinggreener/site/default.asp

More on Stormwater and Green Infrastructure:EPAThe Environmental Protection Agency is the federal agency guiding stormwater management programs andapplying green infrastructure practices:http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/swbasicinfo.cfmhttp://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=298

DEPThe Department of Environmental Protection provides oversight to Pennsylvania’s stormwater management programs.http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/watershedmgmt/cwp/view.asp?a=1437&q=518682


page 28


page 28

APPENDIX: RESOURCES FOR INNOVATIVE STORMWATER MANAGERS

LID CenterThe Low Impact Development Center promotes technologies to protect pre-development hydrology of landscapes.http://lowimpactdevelopment.org/

VUSPThe Villanova Stormwater Partnership researches and demonstrates innovative BMPs. http://www3.villanova.edu/vusp/

CWPThe Center for Watershed Protection helps municipalities translate stormwater management goals from conceptto design and production.http://www.cwp.org

CSNThe Chesapeake Stormwater Network promotes more sustainable stormwater management in the Chesapeake Bay.http://chesapeakestormwater.net/

PA StormwaterThis internet forum is for Pennsylvania-specific stormwater management topics.http://www.StormwaterPA.org

American RiversAmerican Rivers promotes green solutions to water management practices so clean water is assured for thriv-ing communities.http://www.americanrivers.org/our-work/clean-water/

Learn More:• Green infrastructure creates a stronger job market.http://www.americanrivers.org/assets/pdfs/green-infrastructure-docs/green_infrastructure_stimulus_white_paper_final.pdf

• Green infrastructure solutions for Pennsylvania municipalities.http://www.americanrivers.org/our-work/clean-water/sewage-and-stormwater/developing-green.html

• Influencing local policy making.http://www.americanrivers.org/library/reports-publications/local-water-policy-innovation.html

• Assessing the State Revolving Fund.http://www.americanrivers.org/library/reports-publications/follow-the-money-an-agenda.html


page 29


page 30

1 Schueler, Tom. 2009. First Annual Bay-wideStormwater Performance Scorecard. ChesapeakeStormwater Network: Baltimore, MD.

2 Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Au-thority. 2009. Projects approved at the July 212009 Board meeting.http://www.pportal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/programs/9322/hide_loans_and_grants_approved (last accessed October 2009).

3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2003.Protecting Water Quality from Urban Runoff.EPA 841-F-03-003.

4 Estornell, Paula, American Rivers StormwaterWorkshop, Reaching Water Quality Goals. Pre-sented at Solutions for Municipalities ManagingStormwater. (2009)

5 Campbell, Harry, Roof Tops to Rivers: TheImproving Act 167 Plans. Presented at Solutionsfor Municipalities Managing Stormwater. (2009)

6 Newman, Barry, Department of Environmen-tal Protection: Planning to Protect WaterResources—Managing Stormwater Locally. Pre-sented at Solutions for Municipalities ManagingStormwater. (2009)

7 Campbell, Harry, Roof Tops to Rivers: TheImproving Act 167 Plans. Presented at Solutionsfor Municipalities Managing Stormwater. (2009)

8 Ibid.

9 Belan, Gary and Baer, Katherine, Green Com-munities for Clean Water, River Network, RiverVoices 18:1 (2008)

10 Molloy, J. and R. Albert, Managing WetWeather with Green Infrastructure. Presented atGreening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities.(2008)

11 American Rivers, 2008. Creating Jobs andStimulating the Economy through Investmentin Green Water Infrastructure.

12 Stratus Consulting, 2009. A Triple BottomLine Assessment of Traditional and Green Infra-structure Options for Controlling CSO Eventsin Philadelphia’s Watersheds. Prepared forHoward M. Neukrug, Director, Office of Wa-tersheds, City of Philadelphia. P. S-3.

13 See generally, American Rivers, Natural Secu-rity (2009) and NRDC, From Rooftops to Rivers:Green Strategies for Controlling Stormwater andSewer Overflows (2006)

14 U.S. EPA. Integrating Green Infrastructureinto Regulatory Programs.http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/greeninfrastruc-ture/regulators.cfm (last accessed October 2009)

15 The City of Philadelphia Mayor’s Office ofSustainability, Greenworks Philadelphia., p.36.http://www.phila.gov/green/greenworks/index.html (last accessed May 2009)

16 The City of Philadelphia, Office of Water-sheds, 2009. Green City, Clean Waters—The Cityof Philadelphia’s Program for Combined SewerOverflow Control: A Long Term Control Plan Up-date (LTCPU). www.phillywatersheds.org/ltcpu/(last accessed October 2009)

17 Cahill, T. and N. Wildfire (2008). TheGreening of Pittsburgh: Solving the CSO Prob-lem with Green Infrastructure. Presented at 3Rivers Wet Weather Sewer Conference.

18 Gavin, Andy, e-mail correspondence, AverageEfficiencies spreadsheet. (2009)

19 Bioretention research at the University ofMaryland, http://www.ence.umd.edu/~ap-davis/Bioongoing.htm (last accessed July 2009)

20 U.S. EPA, (2009) Managing Wet Weatherwith Green Infrastructure.http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?pro-gram_id=298 (last accessed October 2009)

21 U.S. EPA, Use of Green Infrastructure inNPDES Permits and Enforcement, EPA Memoto Regional Water Division Directors StateNPDES Coordinators, Aug. 2007.

22 U.S. EPA. 2008. Incorporating Environmen-tally Sensitive Development into MunicipalStormwater Programs. EPA 883-F-07-011.

23 33 U.S.C. Section 101

24 U.S. EPA. Stormwater Discharges from Mu-nicipal Separate Storm Water Systems (MS4s).http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/munic.cfm

25 The Clean Streams Law. P.L. 1987, Act 394of 1937, as amended (35 P.S. 691.1)

26 Pennsylvania Department of EnvironmentalProtection. 2007. Pennsylvania’s Storm WaterManagement Act (Act 167). A PA-DEP Fact Sheet.

27 Executive Summary, ComprehensiveStormwater Management Policy, DocumentNumber: 392-0300-002, September 2002

28 Pennsylvania Department of EnvironmentalProtection. 2006. Pennsylvania Stormwater BestManagement Practices (BMP) Manual, 363-0300-002.http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/watershedman-agement/cwp/

29 Public comment submitted by Liz Garland,American Rivers to Barry Newman, DEP, July6, 2009.

30 Land Use Planning, Executive Order No.1999-1. 4 PA. Code Ch.7, 29 Pa. B. 806.

31 Pennsylvania Model Stormwater Manage-ment Ordinance. March 2008 draft lastaccessed April 2009. October 2009: publicallyunavailable, under revision.

32 Pennsylvania Economic Development Cabi-net. 2005. Commonwealth of PennsylvaniaKeystone Principles for Growth, Investment andResource Conservation.http://www.newpa.com/find-and-apply-for-funding/keystone-principles/index.aspx

33 Taxpayers for Common Sense, Banking on theFuture: Investing in smart Water Strategies forPennsylvania and the Nation, July 2005, p. 35.

34 Creating a Sustainable Solution for Pennsylva-nia: Governor’s Sustainable Water InfrastructureTask Force Report, November 2008, p. 16.

35 American Society of Civil Engineers. (2009)Report Card for America’s Infrastructure.http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2009/grades.cfm(last accessed November 2009)

36 The Aspen Institute. (2009) SustainableWater Systems: Step One—Redefining the Na-tion’s Infrastructure Challenge, Pub. No.09-011. http://www/aspeninstitute.org (last ac-cessed November 2009)

37 Building America’s Future. (2008) Policystatement. www.bafuture.org/about (last ac-cessed August 2009)

38 Governor Edward G. Rendell (2008). “Muchof state’s infrastructure crisis is hidden” The Pa-triot News, Opinion, Feb. 5, 2008

39 H2O PA Water Supply, Sanitary Sewer andStormwater Projects, Commonwealth FinancingAuthority Approved Projects—H2O PA Pro-gram. July 2009. www.newpa.com (last accessedAugust 2009)

40 Governor’s Sustainable Water InfrastructureTask Force Report. (2008) Creating a Sustain-able Solution for Pennsylvania.

41 PA DEP. 2008. Pennsylvania Water Planning.www.pawaterplan.dep.state.pa.us/statewater-plan/docroot/default.aspx (last accessedNovember 2009)

42 U.S. EPA. 2009. Award of CapitalizationGrants with Funds Appropriated by P.L. 111-5,the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Actof 2009” Memorandum from James A. Hanlon,Director, Office of Wastewater Managementand Cynthia C Dougherty, Director, Office ofGround Water and Drinking Water.

43 PENNVEST. 2009. Clean Water SRF andDrinking Water SRF Prioritization, approved byPennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Author-ity Board, June 2009. Received July 2009 bye-mail from Brion Johnson, PENNVEST.


page 30

ENDNOTES

44 Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority. PENNVEST 2007/2008 Annual Report. P.9.


46 Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Au-thority. 2009. Projects approved at the April 20,2009 Board meeting.http://www.pportal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/programs/9322/hide_loans_and_grants_approved (last accessed October 2009).

47 Copeland, Claudia. 2000. 96-647: Water In-frastructure Financing: History of EPAAppropriations.http://www.cnie.org/NLE/crsreports/water/h2o-35.cfm (last accessed September 2009)

48 Otto, B. and G. Belan. 2004. Follow theMoney: An Action Agenda for Making SmarterClean Water State Revolving Fund Investmentsin the Great Lakes Region. http://www.ameri-canrivers.org/library/reports-publications/follow-the-money-an-agenda.html (last accessed No-vember 2009)

49 Taxpayers for Common Sense. 2005. Bankingon the Future: Investing in Smart Water Strate-gies for Pennsylvania and the Nation. p.41.

50 Ibid.

51 U.S. EPA. 2003. Cleaning Up PollutedRunoff with the Clean Water State RevolvingFund. Fact Sheet 832-F-03-004.

52 Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority Act, Act of 1988, P.L. 82, No. 16, updated 10/23/02. Section 4.(a).


54 PENNVEST. Financing Clean Water forPennsylvania. Fact sheet, p.2.

55 Ibid.

56 PA-DEP. 2003. Guidelines for the UniformEnvironmental Review Process in Pennsylvania.381-5511-111.

57 PENNVEST and DEP, Project Priority Rat-ing System Guidance Manual, April 2008.

58 Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Au-thority Act, Act of 1988, P.L. 82, No. 16,updated 10/23/02. Section 10 (b1)(2).

59 25 Pa. Code 963.9a. Stormwater project eval-uation criteria.

60 Henning, D. 2006. Multi-GenerationalPark a Hit in Lewisburg. PENNVEST- LiquidAssets., p.1.

61 U.S. EPA. 2009. Award of CapitalizationGrants with Funds Appropriated by P.L. 111-5,the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Actof 2009” Memorandum from James A. Hanlon,Director, Office of Wastewater Managementand Cynthia C Dougherty, Director, Office ofGround Water and Drinking Water, p.4.

62 Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Au-thority. 2009. Projects approved at the July 21

2009 Board meeting.

63 Conversation with Brion Johnson, PEN-NVEST. September 2009.

64 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 asamended through P.L. 104-150, The CoastalZone Protection Act of 1996. 16 U.S.C 1452.Section 303.

65 Background: Coastal Zone ManagementProgram. ww.dep.state.pa.us/river/about/back-ground.htm. (last accessed November 2009)

66 PA-DEP. 2008. Commonwealth of Pennsyl-vania Coastal Resources Management ProgramTechnical Guidance, Doc. 394-0300-001

67 Background: Coastal Zone ManagementProgram. www.dep.state.pa.us/river/about/back-ground.htm. (last accessed November 2009)

68 Funded Projects: Coastal Zone ManagementProgram. www.dep.state.pa.us/river/grants/prev-funded.htm (last accessed November 2009)

69 PA-DEP. 2009 Coastal Zone Project EligibilityCriteria. p.12.

70 PA-DEP. 2010 Coastal Zone Project EligibilityCriteria. www.dep.state.pa.us/river/grants/crm-grants/eligibility.htm (last accessed October 2009)

71 PA Code 25. Chap. 111. Stormwater Man-agement-Grants and Reimbursements. 1998.

72 Lathia, Durla. 2002. Pennsylvania Stormwa-ter Management Program., p.1

73 Lathia, Durla. 2002. Pennsylvania Stormwa-ter Management Program., p.2

74 Murin, Ken. Presentation October 2009,Bailing Out Stormwater, Villanova.

75 Funding. Pennsylvania Department of Com-munity and Economic Development.http://www.newpa.com/find-and-apply-for-funding.funding-and-program-finder/index.asp.(last accessed November 2009)

76 PA- Department of Community and Eco-nomic Development. 2009. H2O PA WaterSupply, Sanitary Sewer and Storm Water Proj-ects: Program Guidelines.

77 PA-Department of Community and EconomicDevelopment. Commonwealth Financing Au-thority Approved Projects—H2O PA Program.Approved July 14, 2009 by CFA Board.

78 PA-Department Of Community and Eco-nomic Development. Commonwealth ofPennsylvania Keystone Principles for Growth,Investment and Resource Conservation.http://www.newpa.com/find-and-apply-for-funding/keystone-principles/index.aspx (lastaccessed November 2009)

79 Pennsylvania Department of Conservationand Natural Resources. Shaping a SustainablePennsylvania: DCNR’s Blueprint for Action.

80 PA DCNR. 2006. Tom Ridge EnvironmentalCenter now open at Presque Isle in Erie.http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/news/resource/res2006/06-0607-trecpi.aspx (last accessed Novem-ber 2009)

81 PA DCNR. Find a Grant Project.http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/brc/Keystone/Fea-turegrant.aspx (last accessed September 2009)

82 PA DCNR. Introduction Green Principles.http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/brc/Keystone/in-dexgreen.aspx (last accessed September 2009)

83 PA DCNR. 2009. Bureau of Recreation andConservation. Environmental Scorecard forGrant Applicants.

84 USDA, Rural Development. 2008. ProgressReport. p.31 http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/pa(last accessed November 2009)

85 USDA, Rural Development. 2008. RuralDevelopment Financing Programs., p. 5.http://rurdev.usda.gov/pa/program_sum-mary_20080506.pdf (last accessed November2009)

86 USDA, Rural Development. 2008. Utilities:Award Summary.

87 PA Environment Digest. 2009. History ofGrowing Greener.http://www.growinggreener.com/index.php?op-tion=com_content&view=article&id=58&Itemid=64 (last accessed November 2009)

88 Ibid.

89 Pennsylvania Economy League. Issues PA:Growing Greener in Pennsylvania?http://www.issuespa.net/articles/13836 (last ac-cessed July 2008)

90 PA-DEP. 2008. Growing Greener Plus. Wa-tershed & Flood Protection: Grant ApplicationPackage. p. 8.

91 PA-DEP. 2008. Growing Greener Plus. Wa-tershed & Flood Protection: Grant ApplicationPackage. p. 9-11.

92 PA-DEP. 2009. Governor Rendell AnnouncesMore Than $21.5 Million Investment in 144Growing Greener Projects to Improve WaterQuality. http://www.ahs2.dep.state.pa.us/news-releases/default.asp?ID=5433&varQueryType=Detail (last accessed September 2009) and PA-DEP. Project Summary.www.dep.state.pa.us/grants/growgreen.asp (lastaccessed November 2009)

93 PA Environment Digest. 2009. ChesapeakeBay Foundation: Cuts Mean Potential Collapseof Environmental Oversight in Pennsylvania.http://www.paenvironmentdigest.com/newslet-ter/default.asp?NewsletterArticleID=13784 (lastaccessed November 2009)

94 Swift, R. Special Interests spared from statebudget cuts. CitizensVoice.com, October 18,2009. http://www.citizensvoice.com/news/spe-cial_interests_spared_from_state_budget_cuts(last accessed November 2009)

95 Garland, L. July 6, 2009. Public comment let-ter to Barry Newman, PA-DEP on NationalPollution Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) Stormwater Discharges from SmallMunicipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems(MS4s) General Permit (PAG-13) (draft permit)

96 Governor’s Sustainable Water InfrastructureTask Force Report. (2008) Creating a Sustain-able Solution for Pennsylvania.


page 31

ABOUT AMERICAN RIVERS

American Rivers is the leading conservation organization fighting for healthy rivers

so communities can thrive. American Rivers protects and restores America's rivers

for the benefit of people, wildlife and nature. Founded in 1973, American Rivers

has more than 65,000 members and supporters, with offices in Washington, DC

and nationwide, including Pennsylvania.

Photo: Middle Saluda River

1101 14th Street, NW, Suite 1400Washington, DC 20005877-347-7550 • AmericanRivers.org

Documents

Funding Green - Amazon Simple Storage Service · Pennsylvania Clean Water Program American Rivers ... ing institutions are quickly adapting to finance green ... water infrastructure