Leaping Regulatory Hurdles

• Author: Kevin Shafer
• Position: Executive Director of the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District in Wisconsin
• Pages: 37-37

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2010 ❧ Page 37

Copyright © 2010, Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, D.C. www.eli.org.

Reprinted by permission from The Environmental Forum®, Sept./Oct. 2010

anoTher view

A 2007 stormwater utility sur-

vey conducted by Black & Veatch

showed 9 percent of respondents

using a combination of impervious

and gross area to set stormwater

fees. is fee structure meets the

required test that city service fees

must be linked to service costs. At

the same time, it creates incentives

for landowners to reduce use of

runof‌f-creating surfaces.

e City of Bellevue, Washing-

ton, links its stormwater fees to the

amount of impermeable surface

and total surface area and includes

credits for stormwater management

measures and wetlands. ese fees

help Bellevue pay for stormwater

infrastructure and operating costs.

But they are also a catalyst for con-

servation that reduces the quantity

of runof‌f and brings water quality

benef‌its by encouraging use of per-

meable surfaces.

Governance Challenges

Beyond public utility structures,

urban greening ef‌forts face other

governance challenges. Cities and

countryside could benef‌it from

ecosystem conservation and resto-

ration that transcends jurisdiction-

al boundaries and links what cit-

ies are doing with what the nation

and rural communities are doing

to restore ecosystems.

Recognizing that stormwater

is a major source of pollution in

southwestern Wisconsin, the area’s

Regional Planning Commission

began modeling six watersheds

for population growth, develop-

ment patterns, and other variables

as a precursor to exploring how

to better integrate municipal and

non-urban watershed manage-

ment. at initial ef‌fort resulted in

creation of a partnership involving

the six watersheds and two rivers.

e voluntary partnership pro-

vides a regional approach while

also developing actions that drill

down to the neighborhood level.

While stormwater management is

lenges to surmount. Silo thinking

continues to prevent watershed-

wide implementation. Green in-

frastructure is still an afterthought

when striving to address water

management issues.

To change this dynamic, an in-

tegrated watershed plan must be

developed and tied to an integrat-

ed regulatory approach that reach-

es beyond political jurisdictions.

To pave the way, work to change

the water resource culture must be

accomplished by providing good

information to decisionmakers.

To implement green infrastruc-

ture approaches, communities

should think of the hydrologic cy-

cle and apply that thought process

to the entire water-

shed. en, they must

use that same concept

to develop regulations

that bridge the silos

among urban storm-

water runof‌f, climate

change, energy con-

sumption, and sewer

overf‌low management.

Once these bridges are built, state

and federal regulators must recog-

nize green infrastructure as a viable

approach and integrate it into the

toolbox of water management op-

tions outlined in permits. is will

provide regulatory incentives for

communities to justify the invest-

ment in green approaches.

As the benef‌its of natural infra-

structure are recognized by regula-

tors, there will need to be a target-

ed funding approach that does not

simply carve green funding out

as a set aside from other funding

ef‌forts, but rather integrates infra-

structure funding under a sustain-

able umbrella of grey and green

approaches.

Kevin Shafer is Executive Director of the

Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District

in Wisconsin.

In Milwaukee, we have suc-

ceeded in meeting regulatory

requirements with construc-

tion of an extensive system of

pipes and water reclamation

facilities to collect and treat sewage

and stormwater. is system has

reduced annual combined sewer

overf‌lows by 86 percent. But it’s

not enough.

As the region plans for the fu-

ture, it is working to weave green

infrastructure into the fabric of the

urban setting. Green infrastruc-

ture is ef‌fective in dealing with

stormwater runof‌f and is, in many

cases, proven to be more cost ef-

fective than sewerage. Implement-

ing green infrastructure, however,

requires motivated part-

nerships and approach-

ing water management

issues in a new manner.

As our region has

learned, you must show

people that this dual

approach creates syner-

gistic benef‌its. e Mil-

waukee Metropolitan

Sewerage District started piloting

and implementing green infra-

structure projects because it knew

that it was the right approach, not

because it was required by regula-

tion. Regulation was actually, at

times, an obstacle.

During the course of imple-

mentation, MMSD discovered

multiple benef‌its of green in-

frastructure, including reduced

stormwater runof‌f, improved wa-

ter quality, long-term reduction in

energy costs and greenhouse gases,

and, most importantly, economic

benef‌its. rough complementary

implementation and education

programs, MMSD continues to

foster new relationships with many

dif‌ferent partners and is starting to

see real results.

As with anything worth doing,

Milwaukee still has many chal-

Leaping Regulatory Hurdles

Kevin Shafer