Tucker-Talkby L. Scott Tucker
Timely Comments from the District's Executive Director
Tucker-Talk
by L. Scott Tucker
Timely Comments from the District's Executive Director
The Urban Drainage and Flood Control District is now in its 28th year of activity, and 1996 has been another active year as one can see from the various articles in this newsletter. The District has five areas of program activity consisting of the Master Planning Program, Design and Construction Program, Maintenance Program, Floodplain Management Program, and the South Platte River Program. There are six counties located within the District and 32 incorporated jurisdictions. The District works with all of these local governments in its five program areas. Our approach is to enter into partnership arrangements with the local governments both in terms of funding projects as well as managing and developing the actual work. Most District projects are multi-jurisdictional and we work very closely with the local governments.
The five program areas are mutually supportive and interdependent. Master Planning is important because it sets a basis for future work in a watershed. In undeveloped portions of a watershed it provides guidance as development occurs. In developed parts of a watershed where there may be flooding problems it provides recommendations for addressing those problems. The Design and Construction Program is the basic implementing activity of the District. In order for a project to be addressed it must be a part of an approved master plan. Also, not all projects need to be structural. For example, a recent project with the City of Arvada included the acquisition of approximately 100 mobile homes located in the Ralston Creek floodplain. The mobile homes have all been relocated and the floodplain and creek will be restored.
Maintenance can never be neglected and is a critical component of a long-term program. The policy of the District is not to own drainage and flood control facilities which are instead owned by local governments. Therefore, the District's Maintenance Program is oriented towards providing maintenance assistance to the local governments. Maintenance includes routine work consisting of trash and debris pick-up and mowing, restoration work which includes bank stabilization and erosion control, and rehabilitative projects which are larger in nature and include projects such as large grade control structures. Maintenance is critical even in drainageways that have been left alone by development. We find erosion begins to occur as a watershed area urbanizes and this needs to be addressed as well as trash and debris pick-up and control.
Our Floodplain Management Program is oriented more toward the non-structural arena. Important functions in this program include the review of proposed developments that will impact the floodplain. This is important if we are to prevent unwise development in floodplain areas. Another important function in the Floodplain Management Program is flood forecasting and warning. The District has developed a general flood warning activity for the entire district area as well as specific warning plans for watersheds with high potential for loss of life and heavy property damage.
While the South Platte River is not a very big river by many standards, its the biggest river we have in the Denver metropolitan area. As such we have a program that addresses the specific needs along the 40 miles of the South Platte River that run through the District. There is a dedicated funding source which enables the District to plan for the future, implement improvements along the South Platte River, and maintain the river on a regular basis. All of these program activities are important and it is a case where the sum of the parts add up to more than the total of the individual components.
Last year I discussed the establishment of a federal advisory committee by EPA to advise them on how to address Phase II storm water discharges. This committee was created pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act and is called the Phase II FACA Committee.
In the way of background, Phase I stormwater sources are being addressed through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. Phase I stormwater discharges include cities over 100,000 population and most large industrial sites. Anything that is not in Phase I is considered to be a Phase II stormwater source. This includes potentially seven million sites ranging from incorporated jurisdictions and counties less than 100,000 in population to a myriad of small and light industrial and commercial sites.
The Phase II FACA Committee is comprised of approximately 35 individuals representing different interest groups including industry, environmental, state, tribal, federal, cities, and counties. The charge of the committee was to reach a consensus recommendation regarding how EPA should address the task of regulating Phase II stormwater discharges. EPA is on a tight schedule and has to have a proposed regulation ready for publication by September, 1997. In order for EPA to meet that deadline and all the internal reviews including the Office of Management and Budget, they needed recommendations from the FACA Committee by August, 1996. The committee was unable to reach a consensus recommendation by that time so EPA by necessity started writing the regulation. EPA did consider and utilize the committee input as they developed their proposed regulations. The Phase II FACA Committee role is now to react to EPA proposals and to provide input as EPA develops the regulation and guidelines.
The current recommendations being considered and debated would define Phase II municipalities as an incorporated place, county or other governmental entity located in an urbanized area and not already required to get a municipal separate storm sewer permit under Phase I of the NPDES stormwater program. In addition, any other incorporated place, county or governmental entity can be designated by the permitting authority which will either be a state or EPA. An urbanized area, by definition, consists of 50,000 or more population. It could be one town of over 50,000 or it could be several smaller towns combined that are over 50,000 in population. EPA's draft proposal would require all municipalities in urbanized areas to develop a minimum stormwater program consisting of public involvement/education and outreach on stormwater impacts, illicit connection and discharge detection and elimination, construction site sediment and erosion control, post-construction stormwater management in new development and re-development, and pollution prevention/good housekeeping of municipal operations. Municipalities that fall under the permit requirements will have to either apply for an individual permit or seek coverage under a general permit or seek coverage under a general permit if one is available in the state. EPA's proposal would simplify the application process vis a vis Phase I applications.
The big picture is that EPA expects that first round municipal permits will be issued by the year 2002 with municipalities implementing the five minimum measures discussed above. Second round permits would be issued about five years later in the year 2007. Permits might be stepped up in terms of requirements of municipalities depending on whether or not water quality standards were being achieved. Third round permits would be issued about 2012. Again, requirements might be stepped up even further depending on compliance with water quality standards.
The EPA is looking at watershed management approaches to help determine what needs to be done in the future. At this point in time the process known as Total Maximum Daily Load Analysis (TMDL) is undergoing a great deal of change and scrutiny. Current law requires that wherever a water body is not meeting its designated use the state must conduct a TMDL study that identifies the source of the pollutants causing the problem, identifies potential solutions, and allocates the responsibility to reduce pollutant loads. The studies are very complex to develop at this point in time and EPA has created another FACA to recommend how they might approach the TMDL issue. The bottom line is that more emphasis will be directed toward watershed analysis which would include evaluating the contribution of point and non-point sources to receiving waters. This means that municipal stormwater discharges will be involved along with the classic point source contributors such as treatment plants and non-point contributors such as the farming community.
There is a lot of popular support for clean water and municipalities along with industries are aware of this and are willing to implement programs that are reasonable in nature. However, as the future unfolds and the screws continue to be tightened there might be a point where that support starts to crack. Time will tell.
An emerging issue is one of controlling the rate and volume of stormwater runoff
through the NPDES permit system. Some on the FACA committee have indicated they feel that
impervious surfaces in urban areas should be limited to 10 to 15 percent increase over
historical values. So far, the NPDES program has been limited to control and regulation of
stormwater quality and not quantity. Putting the regulation and control of stormwater
quantity under the NPDES regulatory program would put the federal government directly in
the land use regulation business. Local governments for many years have been requiring
detention to reduce the impact of stormwater flows, but the notion of putting this under
federal control is of great concern. The FACA committees have yet to fully debate this
difficult issue.
Table of Contents
| Return to UDFCD Home Page