An article in a Michigan paper last week highlighted the potential benefits of a watershed-based stormwater program, the sort of thing the National Research Council recommended nearly two years ago.
The city of Holland, Michigan, with a population of around 35,000, is trying to limit phosphorus in stormwater runoff to Lake Macatawa just to its west. However, even as the city is updating its stormwater program, implementing new ordinances, and working on public education, city officials say that adjacent agricultural areas and townships aren’t playing by the same rules and are to some extent cancelling out the city’s efforts. (A Michigan Supreme Court ruling in 2007 exempted some townships from following state and federal stormwater rules.)
The article quotes a stormwater specialist for the Macatawa watershed as saying the townships are committed to cleaning up the lake even though they have no legal obligation to abide by the stormwater regulations. Yet their efforts are largely voluntary; as one watershed coordinator comments, there is “no stick” to make them comply.
The National Research Council’s 2008 report, Urban Stormwater Management in the United States, recommended that a watershed-based permitting system—rather than the current system based on political boundaries—would be more effective in protecting water quality. It also suggested, among other things, that a lead municipality in each region should have responsibility and authority for the watershed-based permit and should work in partnership with other municipalities to implement it.
EPA has been studying the report and is moving toward some changes to the overall stormwater program, and is seeing how some of the recommendations might be put into action in areas like the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Do you think watershed-based permitting is a more feasible alternative to a system based on political boundaries and jurisdictions?