Smart Growth 

Protecting Water Resources with 

Photo courtesy of USDA NRCS. 
Acknowledgements


The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) extends thanks to the people and organizations who contributed insights and comments on this document as it was being developed: 

Chester Arnold, University of Connecticut; David Batchelor, Michigan Department of 

Environmental Quality; Sue Beede, Organization for the Assabet River; Victoria Binetti; Jessica 

Cogan, Smart Growth Leadership Institute; Thomas Debo, Georgia Institute of Technology; 

Robert Goo; Joel Haden, Tennessee Valley Authority; Chris Hathaway, Lower Columbia River 

Estuary Program; John Jacob, Sea Grant Marine Advisory Service, Texas; Jamal Kadri; John 

Kuriawa, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean and Coastal 

Resource Management; Tim Lawrence, Ohio State University Extension; Loretta Lohman, 

Colorado State University Cooperative Extension; Sylvia Malm; Philip Metzger; Jay Michaels, 

Minnesota Soil and Erosion Control Agency; Brian Miller, Purdue University, Illinois-Indiana Sea 

Grant College Program; Scott Millar, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management; 

Milt Rhodes, North Carolina Smart Growth Alliance; Evan Richert, Maine State Planning Office; 

Chris Rowe, Colorado Watershed Network; John Rozum, University of Connecticut; Duane 

Sands, Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation; Claire Schary; Gene Schiller, Southwest Florida Water 

Management District; Dave Skellie, Pennsylvania State University Cooperative Extension System; 

Julie Westerlund, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources; and Don Witherall, Maine 

Department of Environmental Protection. Additional thanks is extended to EPA staff from the 

following offices: Office of Water, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, EPA Region 1, 

EPA Region 6, and EPA Region 10. Finally, special thanks are extended to the staff at the 

Development, Community, and Environment Division and its two interns: Madelyn Carpenter 

and Marianne Difatta. 

ICF Consulting produced parts of this document under EPA contract 68-W-99-054 for the 

Development, Community, and Environment Division, U.S. EPA Office of Policy, Economics, 

and Innovation. Eastern Research Group edited and designed the report. EPA staff member Lynn 

Richards managed this project. 

To request additional copies of this report, contact EPA’s National Center for Environmental 

Publications at (513) 891-6561 and ask for publication number EPA 231-R-04-002. 

To access this report online, visit <www.epa.gov/smartgrowth> or <www.smartgrowth.org>. 
Table of Contents


Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5


SECTION I: Protecting Water Resources at the Regional Level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

ENCOURAGING DEVELOPMENT IN STRATEGIC AREAS............................................................................................11


Policy 1. Conduct watershed planning............................................................................................................12


Policy 2. Develop a regional comprehensive plan ......................................................................................13


Policy 3. Implement watershed-based zoning districts ............................................................................14


Policy 4. Designate special development districts ......................................................................................16


Policy 5. Coordinate development and conservation plans....................................................................17


Policy 6. Allow higher densities..........................................................................................................................18


Policy 7. Use density averaging ..........................................................................................................................19


Policy 8. Preserve open space, including critical environmental areas................................................20


Policy 9. Direct development through transferable development rights ..........................................22


Policy 10. Coordinate development planning with sewer and water authorities .............................23


Policy 11. Limit development on land near public wells.............................................................................24


Policy 12. Consider the cumulative and secondary impacts of development in the floodplain ...25


Policy 13. Update combined sewer and sanitary sewer systems in downtown areas .....................26


Policy 14. Develop infill sites..................................................................................................................................27


Policy 15. Redevelop brownfields ........................................................................................................................28


Policy 16. Redevelop greyfields ............................................................................................................................29


Policy 17. Maximize transportation choices.....................................................................................................30


FUNDING AND FEE STRUCTURES....................................................................................................31


Policy 18. Create a stormwater utility .................................................................................................................31


Policy 19. Use wastewater fees to fund watershed-level planning .........................................................33


Policy 20. Vary sewer hookup fees for existing and suburban fringe locations .................................33


Policy 21. Direct infrastructure spending to designated growth areas .................................................34


Policy 22. Differentiate development fees based on location of the development .........................35


Policy 23. Use compensation fees to address high-priority water quality problems .......................36


Policy 24. Charge for water usage on an incremental basis.......................................................................37


Policy 25. Use Clean Water State Revolving Funds for smart growth initiatives ................................38


Policy 26. Improve oversight of onsite treatment systems.........................................................................40

Policy 27. Provide a stormwater fee credit for redeveloping existing impervious surfaces ..........41


Policy 28. Tie bonds to performance measures..............................................................................................42


Policy 29. Use private activity bonds to finance projects that protect water resources .................43


Policy 30. Allocate a portion of highway and transit funding to meet water quality goals...........44


Policy 31. Establish a community preservation fund....................................................................................45


Policy 32. Establish a clean water management trust fund .......................................................................45


Policy 33. Offer incentives for adopting land use changes under a 


TMDL implementation plan ...............................................................................................................46


ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY INNOVATIONS (INCLUDING VOLUNTARY INCENTIVES) ..............................47


Policy 34. Create performance-based standards............................................................................................47


Policy 35. Consider future growth when developing TMDLs ....................................................................48


Policy 36. Make adequate water a prerequisite of additional growth ...................................................49


Policy 37. Incorporate smart growth into stormwater management plans.........................................50


Policy 38. Incorporate smart growth into pollution trading programs .................................................52


Policy 39. Use smart growth to vigorously pursue CWA antidegradation policy ..............................53


Policy 40. Create a sliding scale of mitigation requirements based on level of density..................54


Policy 41. Modify facility planning area process to support smart growth..........................................55


EDUCATION ...............................................................................................................................58


Policy 42. Create partnerships to improve water quality ............................................................................58


Policy 43. Educate local officials on the water quality impacts from development .........................59


Policy 44. Develop a model town to demonstrate how and where polluted runoff flows ............61


Policy 45. Create a program to certify developers, builders, and other industry


professionals responsible for implementing BMPs ...................................................................61


Policy 46. Provide municipalities with sufficient data to make better land use decisions .............62


SECTION II: Site-Level Protection and Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

SITE PLANNING ..........................................................................................................................70


Policy 47. Consider cumulative site-level development-related impacts .............................................71


Policy 48. Provide incentives to encourage specific development practices ......................................72


Policy 49. Minimize stormwater runoff through construction site design ...........................................73


Policy 50. Use conservation site design .............................................................................................................73


Policy 51. Minimize stormwater runoff through traditional and 


non-traditional BMPs ............................................................................................................................75


Policy 52. Designate smart growth site design as a BMP............................................................................75


Policy 53. Allow green building points for infrastructure repair ..............................................................76

Policy 54. Allow offsite mitigation .......................................................................................................................77


Policy 55. Adopt model development principles...........................................................................................78


Policy 56. Allow developers to pool stormwater management efforts .................................................79


SITE-LEVEL STRATEGIES AND TECHNOLOGIES ..................................................................................80


Policy 57. Maximize use of existing impervious cover .................................................................................80


Policy 58. Design open space areas to minimize stormwater runoff......................................................81


Policy 59. Preserve and enhance green areas in existing neighborhoods ...........................................82


Policy 60. Use green practices to manage rooftop runoff ..........................................................................83


Policy 61. Use low impact development techniques....................................................................................84


Policy 62. Construct narrow, walkable, well-connected streets ................................................................85


ORDINANCES AND CODES ............................................................................................................87


Policy 63. Adopt stormwater ordinances ..........................................................................................................87


Policy 64. Adopt ordinances for source water protection ..........................................................................88


Policy 65. Adopt water-saving landscaping ordinances..............................................................................90


Policy 66. Adopt tree ordinances .........................................................................................................................91


Policy 67. Implement ordinances and standards to better manage 


development along waterways ........................................................................................................92


Policy 68. Reduce lot sizes through zoning and setback requirements ................................................93


Policy 69. Minimize parking requirements .......................................................................................................94


EDUCATION ...............................................................................................................................95


Policy 70. Provide resources to educate developers and local staff on LID techniques..................95


Policy 71. Create a statewide educational program for local experts ....................................................96


Policy 72. Notify homebuyers of future water availability and cost........................................................97


Policy 73. Educate citizens and businesses to help protect water resources ......................................98


Policy 74. Train teachers on smart growth issues ..........................................................................................99


Policy 75. Encourage information-sharing among developers concerning 


smart growth designs that protect water resources ..............................................................100


Appendix A: Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Appendix B: Additional Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104


Appendix C: Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Photo courtesy of David Cooper. 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 5 

INTRODUCTION


How are zoning codes and building designs related to standards 

established by the Clean Water 

Act? How do transportation choices or 

the mix of uses in a district affect the 

quality and quantity of stormwater 

runoff? How are development patterns 

associated with protecting the nation’s 

water resources, including lakes, rivers, 

streams, and aquifers? 

As studies have shown, growth and 

development can have profound effects 

on our water resources.1 Storm sewer 

overflows and polluted runoff from nonpoint sources are a major reason that 

some water bodies do not meet Clean 

Water Act (CWA) standards. One factor 

related to persistent water pollution 

problems is our development patterns, 

particularly patterns of highly dispersed 

development that have been common 

since the end of World War II. The more 

woodland, meadowland, and wetland 

areas disappear under impermeable 

cover, and the more miles and vehicles 

we drive and park on impermeable 

roads and highway surfaces, the more 

difficult protecting the quality and quantity of our water supplies becomes. 

In response to these current trends, local 

governments are developing smarter 

approaches to growth. They are looking 

for, and using, policies and tools that 

enhance existing neighborhoods, 

improve schools, protect drinking water, 

and provide solid housing and transportation choices. These communities 

are seeking smart growth—a development approach characterized by 10 

smart growth principles (see Figure 1). 

These principles support economic 

development and jobs; create strong 

neighborhoods with a range of housing, 

commercial, and transportation options; 

and achieve healthy communities and a 

clean environment.2 
6 Introduction 

WANT MORE 

INFORMATION? 

The Smart Growth 

Network and Smart 

Growth America have 

posted information, tools, 

and resources on all 

aspects of smart growth 

on their Web sites: <www. 

smartgrowth.org> and 

<www.smartgrowth 

america.org>. 

Protecting Water Resources with 

Smart Growth is intended for audiences already familiar with smart 

growth, who now seek specific ideas 

on how techniques for smarter growth 

can be used to protect their water 

resources. This document is one in a 

series of publications on smart growth 

produced by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA). Earlier publications, such as EPA’s Our Built and 

Natural Environments, or the 

International City/County Management 

Association’s Getting to Smart Growth: 

100 Policies for Implementation, Why 

Smart Growth, and Best Development 

Practices, provide basic background on 

smart growth and a broad range of smart 

growth techniques. 

Figure 1: Smart Growth Principles 

1.	 Mix land uses. 

2.	 Take advantage of compact building design. 

3.	 Create a range of housing opportunities and choices. 

4.	 Create walkable neighborhoods. 

5.	 Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong 

sense of place. 

6.	 Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and 

critical environmental areas. 

7.	 Strengthen and direct development towards existing 

communities. 

8.	 Provide a variety of transportation choices. 

9.	 Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost 

effective. 

10. Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration 

in development decisions. 

Smart growth principles provide a foundation—a basic springboard—for the 75 

policies described in this report. The 

majority of these policies (46) are oriented to the watershed, or regional level; 

the other 29 are targeted at the level of 

specific development sites. 

Section I of this report describes how 

communities have used smart growth 

techniques at the regional level to minimize the impacts of new development 

on their water resources. Communities 

have been successful by implementing 

policies to preserve critical regional 

watershed areas, and strategically directing development to existing communities to minimize runoff from impervious 

surfaces such as roadways, driveways, 

and rooftops. 

Section II discusses site-level techniques 

that local governments have used to further mitigate the impacts of development. When used in combination with 

regional techniques, these site-level techniques can prevent, treat, and store 

runoff and associated pollutants at the 

site. Many of these practices incorporate 

some elements of low-impact development techniques (e.g., rain gardens, 

biorention areas, and grass swales), 

although others go further to incorporate smart growth principles such as 

changing site design practices. 

Incorporating these techniques can help 

localities not only to meet their water 

quality goals, but also to create more 

interesting and livable communities. 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 7 

The examples provided in both sections 

are drawn from communities across the 

country. Many policies are supplemented 

by “practice tips” that illustrate their 

application or identify additional 

resources to aid communities with 

implementation. In addition, several 

policy descriptions include “issues to 

consider,” which highlight potential 

complications or other concerns associated with implementing a policy. The 

experience of local governments has 

shown that regional and site-specific 

policies will be most effective when 

implemented together; addressing the 

regional or site level alone might not be 

effective in achieving lasting changes in 

water quality. 

1

The National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report to 

Congress identified urban runoff as one of the leading 

sources of water quality impairment in surface waters. 

Of the seven pollution source categories listed in the 

report, “urban runoff/storm sewers” was ranked as the 

fourth leading source of impairment in rivers, third in 

lakes, and second in estuaries. See U.S. EPA. National 

Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report to Congress. 

<www.epa.gov/305b>. In addition, see Beach, D. 2002. 

Coastal Sprawl: The Effects of Urban Design on Aquatic 

Ecosystems in the United States. Pew Oceans 

Commission, Arlington, VA. 

2

U.S. EPA. Development, Community, and Environment 

Division. April 2001. “What is Smart Growth?” EPA 

231-F-01-001A. 
Photo courtesy of USDA NRCS. 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 9 

SECTION I: 

Protecting Water Resources at the Regional Level 

T

he amount of land consumed by 

development has grown dramatically in recent decades, accelerating especially in the 1990s. Between 

1954 and 1997, developed land area has 

almost quadrupled, from 18.6 million 

acres to about 74 million acres in the 

contiguous 48 states.3 In 1997, developed land totaled about seven percent of 

the nation’s nonfederal land area; however, from 1992 to 1997, the national 

rate of development more than doubled. 

During this five-year period, more land 

was developed (nearly 16 million acres) 

than during 1982 to 1992 (about 13 

million acres). The newly developed 

land came mostly from forestland, pasture and range, and cropland.4 

The growth of developed areas has led 

to an increase in impervious surfaces— 

including rooftops, roads, parking lots, 

sidewalks, patios, and compacted soil. 

Research has shown a strong inverse 

relationship between impervious cover 

and water quality. Studies have demonstrated that areas with as little as 10 percent impervious surface5 within a watershed can impair water resources.6 Water 

resources are impacted by activities associated with the construction and use of 

impervious surfaces. Runoff from the 

construction of buildings, roads, and 

sidewalks; emissions generated by travel; 

and the use of chemicals for landscaping 

all negatively impact water quality. In 

addition, byproducts of these activities—such as lawn fertilizers and oil and 

other waste products from motor vehicles—can combine with runoff and 

enter stormwater drains, contributing 

substantially to water pollution. For 

watersheds, the 10-percent imperviousness threshold can serve as an indicator 

of the cumulative impacts of these contributing factors. 
10 Section 1: Protecting Water Resources at the Regional Level 

Photo courtesy of USDA NRCS. 

Although the 10-percent threshold is an 

indicator of likely impairment at the 

watershed level, it does not translate 

well as an indicator at the site level. 

Some communities have applied the 10-

percent threshold figure at the site level, 

however, with the belief that less imperviousness at the site level will protect 

water quality. Such applications of the 

threshold have led some communities to 

limit population densities to protect 

water quality. A common approach is 

the use of zoning to limit housing density to one unit per one, two, or even five 

acres. This approach attempts to minimize hard surfaces at the site level and 

therefore preserve absorbent surfaces. 

WANT MORE INFORMATION? 

EPA’s Office of Water developed a “Growth and Water Resources” 

fact sheet that discusses the interaction between development 

and water quality. It suggests the following guidelines for building communities that protect water resources: 

■	 Establish community goals for water resources in the watershed. 

■	 Direct development where most appropriate for watershed 

health. 

■	 Minimize adverse impacts of development on watershed 

health. 

■	 Promote opportunities for restoration. 

■	 Assess and prevent unintended consequences of federal, 

state, or local decisions affecting watershed health. 

■	 Plan for safe, adequate, and affordable water supplies as an 

integral part of growth. 

■	 Consider the cumulative impacts of growth management 

decisions on the watershed. 

■	 Monitor and evaluate the success of initiatives. 

More information is available online at: <www.epa.gov/water/ 

yearofcleanwater/docs/growthwater.pdf>. 

This building site in Dallas County, Iowa, represents 

many low-density development practices. 

Low densities at the site level can 

increase imperviousness at the watershed level, however, leading to worse 

overall water quality. This effect is due to 

the fact that the infrastructure and housing footprint requirements for low-density development at the site level can 

increase the rate at which land within 

the watershed is developed. As previously undeveloped land is converted to 

developed uses, pervious open space 

and naturally absorbent land is converted to roads, houses, shopping malls, 

businesses, and other uses. The compacted lawns that typically accompany 

this style of development function much 

differently than natural green space. In 

addition, such development also 

requires greater amounts of transportation-related impervious infrastructure, 

such as roads, driveways, and parking 

lots. Finally, if a development is entirely 

auto-dependent—which is generally the 

case with low-density development—it 

can increase vehicle miles traveled and 

associated air pollution, which also 

impacts water quality through air-towater deposition. 

On the other hand, smart growth 

approaches—such as reusing previously 

developed land; regional clustering; and 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 11 

developing traditional towns, villages, 

and neighborhood centers—can accommodate the same activity on less land. In 

turn, this approach reduces overall 

imperviousness at the watershed level, 

thus maintaining watershed functions. 

As stated in EPA’s 2003 Draft Report on 

the Environment, higher population densities in concentrated areas can reduce 

water quality impacts from impervious 

surfaces by accommodating more people 

and more housing units on less land.7 

Regional efforts are often needed to 

effectively coordinate local approaches to 

development and achieve better watershed-wide results. Regional planning is 

the process of evaluating potential 

impacts and formulating approaches for 

growth in an area that often extends 

beyond local jurisdictional boundaries. 

The planning might be carried out by a 

watershed commission, metropolitan 

region, county, or other multi-jurisdictional organization. In particular, regional cooperation and planning can be 

helpful for implementing smart growth 

approaches such as: 

■	 Minimizing imperviousness at the 

watershed level rather than the site 

level. 

■	 Identifying and preserving critical 

ecological areas and contiguous open 

space areas. 

■	 Making maximum use of existing 

infrastructure and previously developed sites. 

Successful regional approaches, like 

those that follow, can reduce overall levels of pollution and still achieve local 

economic and community goals. The 

policies featured in the remainder of this 

section are divided into four issue areas: 

1) encouraging development in strategic 

areas, 2) funding and fee structures, 3) 

regulatory innovations, and 4) educational efforts. 

ENCOURAGING DEVELOPMENT 

IN STRATEGIC AREAS 

Communities should determine areas 

where they want growth to occur and 

areas they want to preserve. When such 

areas are clearly defined, development is 

encouraged on land with less ecological 

value, such as previously developed 

areas (e.g., brownfields, greyfields) and 

vacant properties. Land with higher ecological value, such as wetlands, marshes, 

and riparian corridors, is then preserved 

or otherwise removed from the pool of 

“developable land.” 

The policies in this section focus on 

regional planning practices that can lead 

to substantial water quality benefits. For 

the most part, these policies support 

Smart Growth Principles #6, “Preserve 

open space, farmland, natural beauty, 

and critical environmental areas,” and 

#7, “Strengthen and direct development 

towards existing communities.” The 

policies help communities protect water 

quality by determining which lands have 

the highest environmental value, and 

then establishing provisions to preserve 

or limit development on those lands. 

Development is directed to areas identified as most appropriate for growth and 

where potential runoff impacts can be 

minimized. 
12 Section 1: Protecting Water Resources at the Regional Level 

Policy 1. Conduct watershed planning


Watershed planning is a decisionmaking framework that considers water resources 

and land uses within an entire watershed area (defined by hydrological boundaries) 

when planning for growth and development. This type of planning allows each 

watershed to identify specific assets, goals, challenges, and needs that affect the area, 

yet cross jurisdictional lines. By identifying priority areas for preservation and development at the watershed level, watershed planning helps communities develop policies and incentives to accommodate growth while minimizing impact. Watershed 

planning requires cooperation from a variety of stakeholders, such as state and local 

governments, homeowners, environmental organizations, and industry. 

Issues to Consider: Managing water resources at the broader watershed scale is 

likely to require inter-jurisdictional cooperation. Overlapping jurisdictions might 

require that a new entity be formed to coordinate, manage, and/or enforce the 

policies generated by the watershed coalition of localities. Such an entity could 

be invested with advisory authority only, or it might be given authority to enforce 

watershed-wide policies in member jurisdictions. 

Practice Tip: The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) 

recognized that watershed pollutant loads, water withdrawals, and various land 

uses were creating new management issues that could not be addressed by regulatory programs alone. NJDEP created a watershed management process to 

address these issues. NJDEP and the New Jersey Water Supply Authority developed a partnership to implement this process in the Raritan River Basin, which 

provides potable water for nearly 1.2 million people and offers a host of recreational opportunities, habitats for aquatic life, and aesthetic benefits to nearby 

residents.8 The goal of this collaborative planning effort was to involve all stakeholders, including farmers, developers, watershed groups, and communities to 

develop a watershed management plan for the Raritan River Basin. The resulting 

watershed management plan supports development of target pollutant load 

reductions, determines where and how development will occur, and identifies 

specific actions for restoring certain watershed functions. 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 13 

Policy 2.Develop a regional comprehensive plan 


A comprehensive plan (also known as a master plan or general plan) illustrates a 

community’s vision for future growth and development. Most often completed by 

cities or counties, comprehensive plans project population growth, economic activity, land uses, and other related issues for five-, 10- or 20-year periods into the 

future. In some cases, states might review the plans to ensure compliance with state 

guidelines for growth and/or with federal guidelines for certain types of funding. 

Comprehensive planning is equally valuable at the regional level, which is typically 

multi-jurisdictional. Absent a state law to mandate regional comprehensive planning, a region can build a coalition to manage growth by voluntarily establishing a 

comprehensive planning approach. The state could support the effort by offering 

incentives to regions to initiate this process. The comprehensive planning process— 

although sometimes laborious and difficult—can be an effective way for different 

groups to discuss common regional goals and understand each other’s priorities. 

WANT MORE 

INFORMATION? 

Natural Resource-Based 

Planning for Watersheds: 

A Practical Starter Kit,a 

simple booklet that 

explains NEMO’s watershed planning approach, 

is available online at: 

<www.nemo.uconn.edu/ 

publications/index.htm>. 

Such an effort might be best initiated by focusing on a specific aspect of regional 

growth, such as an area’s natural resources and their relationship to future land use. 

To achieve water quality goals, comprehensive planning could focus on watersheds 

and be used to create plans to direct development to encourage sustainability of the 

region and protection of the region’s water resources. Such a method could build on 

an approach taught by the Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO), 

which focuses on completing natural resource-based inventories as a type of comprehensive plan. Recognizing that lands have different ecological value, NEMO recommends identifying three categories of land: 1) land that has been developed or 

otherwise is not in circulation, 2) land that contains critical natural resources that 

must or should be preserved in perpetuity (e.g., wetlands), and 3) land that is 

developable (e.g., brownfield, infill, and greyfield sites). This process allows planners to take a larger, regional view of available land and 

natural resources and combine this knowledge with current development and growth trends. This planning 

approach, if implemented consistently across the watershed, can produce a realistic, implementable plan to 

guide development at the regional level. 

NEMO demonstrates 

its natural resourcebased planning for a 

local watershed group. 

Photo courtesy of the NEMO program and the University of Connecticut. 
14 Section 1: Protecting Water Resources at the Regional Level 

Practice Tip: In August 2000, in Denver, Colorado, five counties and 25 

municipalities representing more than 75 percent of the region’s population 

adopted the Mile High Compact, the nation’s first voluntary city- and county-led 

effort to guide growth. The compact is an intergovernmental agreement, through 

which cities and counties agree to develop comprehensive plans or master plans 

that support Denver’s Metro Vision 2020, the region’s long-term plan for growth. 

Growth consistently ranks in citizen surveys as the region’s top concern, and the 

compact demonstrates that local elected officials are responding to and managing growth. Many mayors, city council members, and county commissioners 

officially committed themselves and their communities to the process of planning for growth by attending a symbolic signing ceremony to kick off the Mile 

High Compact. Adopted in 1997, Metro Vision 2020 has six core elements: 1) 

urban growth areas; 2) a balanced, multi-modal transportation system; 3) 

preservation of open space; 4) urban centers; 5) free-standing communities; and 

6) clean air and water for the region.9 

Policy 3. Implement watershed-based zoning districts


Local governments are most often the jurisdictions responsible for implementing 

ordinances or regulations—including zoning—that govern land use. These regulations are sometimes consistent with those of neighboring jurisdictions or with water 

quality protection principles. Land use planning for water protection is most effective 

when it covers all land that affects the waterbody in question. Therefore, establishing 

watershed-based zoning districts can support a comprehensive management approach. 

Watershed-based zoning involves defining existing watershed conditions, projecting 

potential future impervious cover, and redistributing future growth and development through plans and zoning to those areas that would have the least impact on 

stream or lake water quality. To assist in this effort, zoning districts can be established to set an overall impervious cover threshold or limit for the district. 

Watershed-based zoning implies that some portions of a watershed will be developed more intensely than others, but the overall goal is to reduce impervious cover. 

Specifically, a watershed-based zoning approach should include the following steps: 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 15 

1. Conduct a comprehensive stream inventory. 

2. Measure current levels of impervious cover. 

3. Verify impervious cover/stream quality relationships. 

4. Project future levels of impervious cover. 

5. Classify subwatersheds based on stream management “templates” and current 

impervious cover. 

6. Modify master plans/zoning to correspond to subwatershed impervious cover targets and other management strategies identified in subwatershed management 

templates. 

7. Incorporate management priorities from larger watershed management units such 

as river basins or larger watersheds. 

8. Adopt specific watershed protection strategies for each subwatershed. 

9. Conduct long-term monitoring to periodically assess watershed status.10 

Practice Tip: Holliston, Massachusetts, experienced unprecedented growth that


began to affect regional water resources and the natural systems that support


them. As a result, the Charles River Watershed Association developed an envi-


ronmental zoning approach with five components: 


1.	 Comprehensive wastewater management planning. 

2.	 Assessment and prioritization of environmental resources and their 


function, and hydrology.


3.	 A water budget to meet the town’s current and future needs. 

4.	 Stormwater management practices. 

5.	 Land use tools to protect and enhance Holliston’s drinking-water resources. 

The association is working with the Holliston Bylaw Committee to develop envi-


ronmental zoning bylaws to protect the town’s water resources.11 Once these


bylaws are in place, developers will have increased predictability as to where


and how they can develop and what, if any, additional mechanisms need to be


implemented to protect the community’s water resources. 

16 Section 1: Protecting Water Resources at the Regional Level 

Brownfield or infill 

properties, such as this 

one, are perfect areas 

to designate as special 

development districts. 

Special development districts (also known as special zoning districts) 

are created to achieve comprehensive planning and urban design 

objectives within a specified area of a community. The special district 

allows a community to augment existing zoning regulations (if present) 

with targeted development criteria to achieve a special, geographically 

focused goal. The process might also facilitate a more comprehensive 

approach to zoning in areas where no development regulation formerly 

existed. Special development zones can offer incentives to encourage development 

in the targeted area that complies with the district goals. For example, a transit-oriented zoning district might feature compact, mixed-use zoning along key corridors, 

and offer financial incentives or density bonuses to encourage development that 

supports a greater use of public transit. Other examples include main street revitalization districts, historic districts, and brownfields targeted for redevelopment. 

Special development districts can be used to achieve water goals by encouraging 

development in targeted areas best able to mitigate potential water quality impacts. 

For example, to reduce stormwater runoff, a community can use districts to encourage development that incorporates site-level filtration features or to absorb higherdensity development that represents a lower per capita imperviousness rate than 

would be the case on the urban fringe. When special development or zoning districts are successful in absorbing development that would otherwise take place on 

the urban fringe, the pressure to develop open space is reduced and water quality 

benefits result. Even those districts that aim primarily to achieve other objectives 

might yield water quality benefits. For example, transit-oriented districts might 

reduce vehicle emissions and exhaust deposits that pollute water resources through 

air deposition. 

Issues to Consider: Some local governments use impervious surface zoning districts, which generally set maximum levels for the amount of impervious surface 

within a zone or, more commonly, on a parcel. For example, no more than 20 percent of a parcel can be covered with impervious surfaces, such as rooftops, driveways, or accessory buildings. Although intended to address overall imperviousness within the watershed, application of maximum levels of imperviousness on a 

parcel-by-parcel basis through a surface district might not help meet stormwater 

objectives, and could in fact exacerbate water quality problems, particularly on a 

watershed scale, by encouraging low-density scattered development. From a 

smart growth perspective, special districts are best used to achieve water quality 

improvements by creating incentives for infill or more compact, transit-oriented 

growth, thereby relieving pressure on open spaces; applying imperviousness limits on a parcel-by-parcel basis can be counterproductive. 

Policy 4. Designate special development districts

Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 17 

Policy 5. Coordinate development and conservation plans


Protecting critical natural resources and planning for future development are often 

handled as two separate planning processes. For example, a regional environmental 

authority might be responsible for designating areas for preservation and establishing a plan that reflects those priorities. As a separate effort, a local planning authority might create a plan that describes where and what type of future development 

will take place. Coordinating these two types of efforts can help protect critical 

water resources such as wetlands and riparian barriers. 

The independence of each process is most evident when planning commissioners 

face vocal opposition to a proposed development, such as claims that a proposed 

development will destroy the “last” or the “most productive” wetland in the community. Planning commissioners and their staffs might not have access to the type of 

ecological information they need to determine the validity of these claims. By ensuring access to information about local plans for growth and regional or state plans for 

conservation, communities can improve the preservation of sensitive lands and 

increase predictability within the development process. These two different planning 

efforts can be shown by overlaying maps to highlight potential conflicts in the two 

plans and to identify areas of commonality in which local development policies can 

reinforce regional conservation efforts. 

Issues to Consider: Some local governments maintain several development and 

conservation plans; some could have overlapping geographic areas, but others 

might not. Identifying these different plans and ensuring that the same areas are 

analyzed can be a challenge, but well worth doing. 

Practice Tip: A handful of communities in Southern California have streamlined the planning process to ensure that local development and regional conservation plans support one another. Orange, Riverside, and San Diego counties 

integrate special area management, habitat conservation, and local development 

plans with each other. Overlaying and comparing the plans represented the first 

step in determining potential areas of agreement and disagreement about where 

development should be directed, and where land should be preserved. This 

activity resulted in fruitful negotiations during which developers and landowners set aside areas for development, areas for endangered species habitat, and 

areas that support critical watershed functions. By better coordinating the two 

types of plans, urban planners and conservationists are better able to protect 

water resources and habitat by considering development patterns at the watershed level.12 
18 Section 1: Protecting Water Resources at the Regional Level 

Photo courtesy of U.S. EPA. 

WANT MORE 

INFORMATION? 

EPA maintains a policy 

database on innovative 

zoning ordinances online 

at: <cfpub.epa.gov/ 

sgpdb/sgdb.cfm>. 

Policy 6. Allow higher densities


A community that allows higher densities can accommodate 

more housing, business, and commercial uses on a smaller 

footprint than is possible with lower densities. For example, a 

community that needs to accommodate 100 houses will disturb 10 acres if the allowed density is 10 units per acre, as 

compared to 100 acres if the allowed density is one unit per 

acre. A smaller development footprint means less overall 

impervious cover and less disturbed land, both of which will 

better protect regional water resources. In addition, higher 

densities contribute to more vibrant neighborhoods. 

Zoning can be modified to encourage higher densities in exist- King Farm, a development 

in Montgomery County, ing communities and in greenfield developments. For example, Maryland, allowed higher when Montgomery County, Maryland, encouraged higher den- densities in order to presities in its greenfield development, the first suburban new serve open space, such as 

urbanist development, Kentlands, was born. More than 2,100 this riparian buffer. 

residential units and 2 million square feet of commercial and 

retail uses were accommodated on 236 acres, resulting in a net density of approximately nine units per acre. This level of density was considerably higher than the 

surrounding community, which had densities in the range of two to four units per 

acre. If the same 2,100 residential units were accommodated at two units per acre, 

the development would have required an additional 814 acres of previously undeveloped land. Preserving large, continuous areas of open space and sensitive ecological areas is critical for maintaining watershed services. 

Another way to think about higher densities is to imagine that Manhattan, which 

accommodates 1.54 million people on 14,720 acres (23 square miles),13 had been 

developed not at its current density, but at one or four housing units per acre. At 

one house per acre, Manhattan would need approximately 1.525 million more acres 

or an additional 2,283 square miles to accommodate its current population. That is 

approximately twice the size of Rhode Island. At four houses per acre, Manhattan 

would need approximately 370,000 more acres or an additional 578 square miles. 

Higher densities reduce the amount of land developed and, therefore, overall 

regional impervious cover. 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 19 

Practice Tip: New Jersey’s State Plan calls for increasing densities in the state by 

directing development to existing communities and existing infrastructure. 

Researchers at Rutgers University analyzed the water quality impacts from current development patterns versus the proposed more compact development pattern. The study found that the proposed development would save 122,000 acres 

of developable land. This savings translates into significantly less water pollution 

than current development for all categories of pollutants.14 The reductions 

ranged from more than 40 percent for phosphorus and nitrogen to 10 percent 

for lead. Moreover, the proposed development would reduce runoff by 30 percent.15 These conclusions supported findings from a similar statewide study, 

completed in 1992, that concluded that compact development would result in 

30 percent less runoff and 40 percent less water pollution than a sprawl scenario would.16 

Policy 7. Use density averaging 


Calculating density requires a community to consider the appropriate level of development for a particular area, given the character, neighborhood context, amenities, 

and anticipated use of the area. In previous efforts to limit impervious cover, some 

communities have lowered their desired density, thereby dispersing the same 

amount of development across a wider geographic area. As a better alternative, jurisdictions can use “density averaging” when setting acceptable limits of development, 

thereby targeting growth to some areas and away from other areas. 

Density averaging aids in the preservation of critical ecological areas by helping to 

direct growth pressures elsewhere. It can provide an option for communities wanting to increase densities in central areas, for example, while limiting growth in more 

outlying areas. In fact, this practice acts as an informal trading system within a 

watershed, redirecting growth to areas that can best absorb it and away from areas 

where it poses the greatest threat. Density averaging allows for the most efficient use 

of space within areas that might be the most expensive as well. 

Density averaging calculates the number of units that could be constructed on a parcel based on existing zoning policies and transfers all or some portion of those units 

to a separate, non-contiguous parcel. 

WANT MORE 

INFORMATION? 

North Carolina encourages 

density averaging through 

its watershed management efforts. For more 

information and a copy of 

the guidelines, contact the 

Water Quality Committee 

of the Environmental 

Management Commission 

at (919) 773-5083, ext. 566. 
20 Section 1: Protecting Water Resources at the Regional Level 

Policy 8. Preserve open space, including critical 

environmental areas 

WANT MORE 

INFORMATION? 

The Center for Watershed 

Protection offers additional water quality information on critical environmental areas at: 

<www.cwp.org/aquatic_ 

buffers.htm> or <www. 

stormwatercenter.net>. 

Preserving and maintaining riparian buffer 

areas are critical for 

ensuring water quality. 

Planning for growth requires that land be identified to accommodate residential, 

commercial, and industrial needs. In addition, regional planning efforts must consider community needs for open space that provide recreational, aesthetic, and natural functions. An open landscape helps preserve the geographical distinction of an 

area, thereby fostering a strong sense of place. Indeed, preserving open space is considered so central to successful communities pursuing smart growth strategies that it 

is listed as the sixth Smart Growth Principle, “Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas.” 

Preserving open space is critical to maintaining water quality at the regional level. 

Large, continuous areas of open space reduce and slow runoff, absorb sediments, 

serve as flood control, and help maintain aquatic communities. In most regions, 

open space comprises significant portions of a watershed, filtering out trash, debris, 

and chemical pollutants before they enter a community’s water system. Open space 

provides a number of other benefits, including habitat for plants and animals, recreational opportunities, forest and ranch land, places of natural beauty, and important 

community space. 

In addition, preserving land that serves strategic ecological functions (e.g., wetlands, 

buffer zones, riparian corridors, floodplains) is critical for regional water quality. For 

example, buffer strips decrease the amount of pollution entering the water system. 

Tree and shrub roots hold riverbanks in place, preventing erosion and resulting sedimentation and turbidity. River and lakeside grasses slow the flow of runoff, giving 

the sediment time to settle and water time to percolate, filter through the soil, and 

recharge underlying groundwater. Wooded buffers offer the greatest protection; for 

example, according to one study, when soil conditions are ideal, a 20- to 30-footwide strip of woodland can remove 90 percent of nitrates.17 By slowing and holding 

water, wetlands and buffer zones increase groundwater recharge, directly reducing 

the potential for flooding. 

Communities are developing open space conservation programs that target the most critical areas for preservation, 

working with public or nonprofit organizations to acquire 

lands outright, purchase them, or arrange for conservation 

easements, which restrict future development. Conservation 

easements, for example, provide a more economical means to 

preserve open space than an outright purchase. A conservation 

Photo courtesy of USDA NRCS. 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 21 

easement is a legally binding agreement that limits or prohibits certain uses from 

occurring on a property that would interfere with its conservation. Although they 

restrict development, such voluntary easements often allow for land uses—such as 

limited forest harvesting, limited residential development, or agriculture—that yield 

financial returns to the property owner and are consistent with the long-term health 

of the watershed. 

Issues to Consider: Acquisition of land or permanent limits on development can 

be costly, particularly if the targeted open space is in an area under growing 

development pressure. Privately owned farmland, forests, and other “green space” 

often represent the lifetime savings of family farmers. As such, any successful 

attempt to acquire the lands for future public benefit will require an expenditure 

that closely matches its market value for development. Further, although the community benefits from such open space are numerous, they tend not to be widely 

understood by the general public, so public outreach and education might be 

necessary. 

Land preservation efforts must be conducted in a comprehensive and consistent 

manner to ensure that the most critical environmental areas are preserved in 

their entirety and connected to other areas through greenways or riparian corridors, as appropriate. Without taking a comprehensive approach, land preservation 

can occur in a scattered manner, effectively eliminating or significantly reducing 

natural ecological functions. Finally, efforts to preserve land in some areas must 

also correspond with plans to accommodate development in other areas, ensuring that overall growth is not restricted, but redirected. 

Practice Tip: In the face of declining water quality, Hillsborough County, 

Florida,18 decided to take a proactive approach to managing development. With 

the help of Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company, Hillsborough town planners 

mapped out areas that were currently developed by “blacking out” those areas 

on a county map; they likewise marked currently preserved or protected areas. 

County planners, local officials, and citizens then discussed the use of the 

remaining areas through a series of public meetings and visioning sessions. The 

process resulted in the identification of additional areas to preserve because of 

their environmental value, such as riparian buffers and wetlands, or because of 

their social or recreational value. As a result of this collaborative process, 

Hillsborough dramatically increased the amount of its open space, thereby better 

protecting its water resources, and increased predictability for developers, who 

now have a much better sense of which lands are ripe for future development. 

WANT MORE 

INFORMATION? 

The Trust for Public Land 

developed Greenprints for 

Growth, a step-by-step 

guide for identifying, 

purchasing, and managing community open 

space. It is available 

through its Web site at: 

<www.tpl. org>. 
22 Section 1: Protecting Water Resources at the Regional Level 

Policy 9. Direct development through transferable 

development rights 

Existing zoning, in most cases, prescribes the type and quantity of use that is allowable on a given piece of land. There are few exceptions, such as variances and spot 

zoning changes, that are likely to result in a different use than that predetermined in 

the zoning code. A transfer of development rights (TDR) program offers property 

owners more flexibility in how they use their land and provides communities with a 

means to redirect growth away from areas most likely to impact a region’s water quality. 

A TDR program allows landholders in sensitive areas to transfer their development 

rights to other, more appropriate locations, such as less sensitive areas, or areas 

where infrastructure already exists. TDR ordinances establish a sending (or preservation) area and a receiving (high-density growth) area. Landowners in the sending 

area receive credits equivalent to their development rights under current zoning 

guidelines. They can then sell these credits in exchange for not developing their 

land (administered through deed restrictions on the sending area parcels) or developing it at a far lower density (administered through zoning restrictions). Real estate 

developers can purchase these development-right credits and use them to increase 

existing or planned densities on parcels in receiving areas. By providing an economic incentive for preserving undeveloped land, TDRs allow a community to preserve 

important open space resources while permitting owners of property in targeted 

areas to recoup the value of the property’s development potential. 

Issues to Consider: Some states do not have legislation in place to support such 

transfers. If the statutory authority does not exist, the aid of state legislators will 

be required to create an appropriate legislative environment to support the 

development of local TDR programs. 

Practice Tip: In 1980, Montgomery County, Maryland, downzoned agricultural 

land from a maximum density of one house per five acres to one house per 25 

acres. The county also designated this land as a Rural Density Transfer Zone (the 

TDR sending area), allowing landowners to sell one development right per five 

acres. The county established an initial receiving area, which could accommodate up to 3,000 development rights. Each development-right purchase entitled 

receiving area landowners to build one more housing unit per acre than otherwise would have been allowed. By the end of the 1997 fiscal year, the program 

had accommodated the same amount of overall units, but protected 39,180 

acres that would have otherwise been developed. By transferring rights to develop, Montgomery County directed development to previously developed, more 

appropriate areas, and protected areas that could be more sensitive to development or likely to impact water quality.19 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 23 

Policy 10. Coordinate development planning with sewer and 

water authorities 

Often plans for water and sewer service expansion are more heavily influenced by 

utilities’ projections for future demand than by a community’s growth priorities. 

Once water and sewer expansions are approved and constructed, development frequently follows, whether or not it supports other community goals for targeted and 

directed development. 

Sewer and water authorities can play a major role in directing a region’s growth by 

determining when and where new infrastructure investment will occur. Well-drafted 

facility planning areas can direct growth by providing sewer service in areas least 

likely to impact water resources. Decisions on how and where to provide sewer 

service, as described in a facility planning area, affect not only the quality of wastewater treatment available to residents but also where open land can be developed. 

Planning/infrastructure coordination is easier if extensions of existing facility planning areas require the approval of the regional or state environmental agency or 

planning agency.20 In this way, facility planning areas can be a strong tool to determine how and where a community will grow. 

For example, the state of Wisconsin uses planned sewer service areas as a tool to 

integrate wastewater infrastructure and local planning efforts. As a rule, Wisconsin 

automatically excludes environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, steep 

slopes, and floodplains from consideration for current or future service extensions. 

The development of these areas must correspond with the goals of the local comprehensive plan, and not depart from any other ordinances directing growth and 

resource protection. The state estimates that these efforts to protect natural areas and 

incorporate land use planning can prevent the loss of millions of dollars due to the 

destruction of habitats, impairment of water quality, and cleanup associated with 

failing wastewater treatment methods.21 

Issues to Consider: Critics of planned sewer areas argue that by directing growth 

towards designated communities and regions, sprawl and degraded water quality 

can result. Others dispute the potential role of the state or regional agency in considering local plans for growth. In addition, facility planning areas can cause 

neighboring municipalities to argue about the placement of sewer service in an 

effort to attract growth to their own jurisdictions and boost property taxes and 

other revenues. These conflicts must be addressed and resolved to achieve the 

maximum beneficial results planned sewer service can provide. 
24 Section 1: Protecting Water Resources at the Regional Level 

Practice Tip: In Ohio, the city of Columbus’ Division of Sewerage and Drainage 

plays a critical role in shaping the growth of the region. The division has developed a facilities plan update that calls for centralized wastewater treatment services to be provided within the facility planning area boundary. The city will not 

extend its sewerage services beyond this boundary—strongly encouraging development within the boundary. In addition, recognizing the role that sewer infrastructure plays in regional growth patterns, the facilities plan articulates the following goals22: 

■ Protect critical water resources, especially in the Darby Watershed 

■ Maximize existing infrastructure investments 

■ Incorporate watershed planning 

■ Mitigate stormwater impacts from urban development 

■ Curb urban sprawl 

Policy 11. Limit development on land near public wells


Traditional zoning practices often do not take into account the location of drinking 

water sources, and as a result might permit growth near public wells. This practice 

can impact the quality and supply of drinking water sources. Fertilizers, for example, when used on agricultural lands or sites with extensive landscaping (e.g., golf 

courses) can mix with runoff water and contaminate groundwater sources. Most 

zoning practices focus on the designated use of a zoned area and do not consider 

the location of drinking water sources or the impacts development can have on 

these sources. 

Some municipalities have chosen to restrict or prohibit development near drinking 

water sources using approaches such as zoning or ordinances. Others require the 

use of best management practices to limit water quality impacts. Limiting development near public wells helps direct development to existing communities, including 

infill and brownfield sites. 

Issues to Consider: Limiting development near drinking water sources can be 

controversial and require collaboration with potential developers and other 

stakeholders. Water quality ordinances can help provide flexibility for developers 

willing to take adequate measures to protect water resources. Unfortunately, limiting development near wells will not completely prevent contamination of 

groundwater. Contaminants can enter groundwater at areas distant from the 

wells, particularly in recharge areas, and travel with groundwater flow. 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 25 

Policy 12. Consider the cumulative and secondary 

impacts of development in the floodplain 

Most state and local governments require only existing development to 

be included on floodplain maps; however, these maps should also include 

future development and infrastructure in and out of the floodplain to 

ensure that floodplains continue to serve their natural functions. 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requires local governments to 

delineate floodplains. In most cases, designated floodplains are subject to local or 

federal development restrictions, which can range from requiring flood insurance to 

incorporating flood mitigation measures. Although local governments must examine 

current and future development in the floodplain, they do not always consider secondary impacts from that development. For example, local governments might not 

evaluate future residential development stemming from a new road, but the cumulative impacts of these secondary impacts can be significant, such as increased runoff 

and peak flow rates from the increase in impervious cover—both of which can 

expand the floodplain. In Charlotte, North Carolina, for example, impervious surfaces such as parking lots and roads have made it more difficult for water to be 

absorbed into the ground and, in turn, have expanded the 100-year flood area. 

To better protect regional water resources, the cumulative and secondary impacts of 

development in the floodplain should be considered before development occurs. By 

better representing where and how future development will occur, and incorporating these findings into flood zone maps, communities can ensure that growth is 

directed away from environmentally sensitive areas where the floodplain areas could 

be impacted by development, thereby protecting water resources. Communities 

can further prevent development in flood-prone areas by directing growth to less 

hazard-prone, more highly developed areas. 

Practice Tip: To improve its ability to identify flood-prone areas, and avoid a 

repeat of the devastating effects of Hurricane Floyd, the state of North Carolina 

revamped its process of developing floodplain maps by expanding the areas to 

be included. Charlotte became the first community in the country to include 

future development on its floodplain maps. The new maps are incorporated into 

local decisions about where to allow construction, and are used to enforce more 

stringent regulations for growth in and out of the floodplains. Furthermore, new 

construction in a regulated floodplain requires a special permit. Charlotte estimates that the new maps will keep more than 1,500 new structures out of the 

floodplain during the next 30 years, saving Charlotte citizens more than $330 

million in possible losses.23 

Not considering the 

cumulative and 

secondary impacts of 

development can 

have disastrous 

consequences. 
26 Section 1: Protecting Water Resources at the Regional Level 

Policy 13. Update combined sewer and sanitary sewer 

systems in downtown areas 

Outdated water and wastewater systems can limit development or redevelopment in 

some areas of the United States. To encourage development in these areas, municipalities and states are advised to upgrade and expand the sewer and water infrastructure in existing communities. For those areas where systems are at or near 

capacity, but where the municipality still wants to direct development to them for 

planning reasons, a matching funds program could be made available to developers 

to mitigate the high costs of sewage repair and replacement. 

Expenditures to correct overflow problems and address other lagging maintenance 

and repair issues could be targeted to redevelopment areas to help revive urban economic vitality, especially in cities that are restoring waterfronts as part of downtown 

revitalization efforts. Public expenditures on infrastructure, such as streets, highways, water and sewer systems, lighting, and schools and other civic buildings, constitute a significant share of public expenditures each year. Whether they intend to 

or not, local and state governments are essentially defining locational priorities for 

new development when they allow infrastructure in existing neighborhoods to 

decay while investing in new infrastructure in edge communities. By not addressing 

problems with the older infrastructure, the local government creates a larger fiscal 

problem each year that the maintenance issues are not evaluated. 

Issues to Consider: System retrofits can be costly and can result in increased 

rates. Higher rates can deter businesses that otherwise would have developed in 

the city and lead them to relocate in areas where rates are lower. 

Practice Tip: In Richmond, Virginia, combined sewer overflows (CSOs) were 

creating an unsightly and smelly environment that was inhibiting the redevelopment and orientation of tourism surrounding the James River. The city decided 

to address the CSOs as an aesthetic and environmental problem affecting the 

city’s waterfront. To help solve the city’s CSO problem, the Virginia Department 

of Public Utilities embarked on a $117 million CSO control program. The city 

identified overflow discharge points in recreational and other public areas and 

redirected flow to a retention basin. This program also corresponded with the 

restoration of the historic canals and revitalization of the downtown riverfront.24 

Now the city can promote a more visible riverfront as a civic amenity. 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 27 

Policy 14. Develop infill sites


Numerous sites in cities across the United States remain underutilized or vacant; in 

some communities, the number of such properties is growing. For example, in 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, an average of 1,348 properties were abandoned each 

year from 1984 to 2000.25 Abandoned properties decrease the value of surrounding 

properties, pose fire hazards, and attract crime. Therefore, the redevelopment of 

these properties not only helps revitalize existing communities, but also serves to 

reduce development pressure on land critical to maintaining water quality. 

Infill development means reusing underutilized or vacant land located in an existing 

neighborhood. Infill development promotes water quality by accommodating 

growth on sites that could already be impervious, thus eliminating the need for any 

new impervious cover and the need to disturb new land during construction. 

Developing infill sites can reduce pressure for development on open land providing 

critical water functions (such as infiltration or source water supply) on the urban 

fringe. When they are redeveloped at higher densities, infill sites also provide local 

governments an opportunity to ensure that more people are located in areas with 

existing infrastructure, housing choices, and transportation choices. 

Infill development might also represent an underutilized resource for communities 

that otherwise feel that new growth and development can be accommodated only 

on undeveloped land at the urban fringe. A recent analysis completed by King County, 

Washington, for example, demonstrated that vacant property eligible for redevelopment in the county’s growth areas could accommodate 263,000 new housing units— 

enough for 500,000 people.26 Redeveloping these assets represents a significant 

opportunity for new growth without degrading water quality. Additional onsite landscaping methods or development techniques that mimic the predevelopment site 

hydrology can further promote water quality benefits. Communities can encourage 

infill development through funding incentives or flexible regulations and zoning. 

Practice Tip: Clark County, Washington, adopted an ordinance in 2002 that 

encourages infill development and recognizes the stormwater benefits associated 

with it. The ordinance applies to selected districts as well as lots less than two 

acres in size that adjoin existing development and are served by existing infrastructure. Two types of infill development are allowed: 1) detached single-family 

housing with lot sizes smaller than under regular zoning, and 2) attached and 

detached single-family housing, duplexes, and multi-family housing. Lot coverage can be up to 60 percent, or 70 percent with a variance. Developers might 

also receive density bonuses, plus infill projects are exempt from stormwater 

regulations if they create less than 5,000 square feet of new impervious surface.27 

WANT MORE 

INFORMATION? 

Smart Growth America, 

the International 

City/County Management 

Association, the National 

Trust for Historic 

Preservation, and the 

Local Initiatives Support 

Corporation recently 

launched the National 

Vacant Properties 

Campaign. Details are 

available at: <www. 

vacantproperties. org>. 
28 Section 1: Protecting Water Resources at the Regional Level 

Policy 15. Redevelop brownfields 

WANT MORE 

INFORMATION? 

EPA information on how 

to remediate, market, and 

develop brownfields is 

available at: <www.epa. 

gov/swerosps/bf/index. 

html>. 

New apartments and 

an urban park replace 

an industrial brownfield 

in the Pearl District, 

Portland, Oregon. 

Brownfields are abandoned, idled, or underused industrial and commercial facilities 

where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental 

contamination. Although brownfields can serve as valuable infill development opportunities, many communities require additional mitigation measures, such as best management practices or upgraded sewer pipes, to redevelop an urban brownfield site. 

Unfortunately, these additional measures can serve as a deterrent to redevelopment. 

When brownfield sites are reused, not only is their former environmental threat 

removed (e.g., leaking oil tanks from previous industrial uses), but their redevelopment can yield other environmental benefits. By absorbing development that would 

otherwise be directed to greenfield sites on the urban fringe, brownfield redevelopment helps preserve open space located elsewhere in the region. A recent George 

Washington University study found that for every acre of brownfield that is redeveloped, more than four acres of open space are preserved.28 In addition, the redevelopment of brownfield sites can also be used to treat, store, and manage stormwater 

runoff. For example, the cleanup of a brownfield site might not be sufficient for residential development, but it could be clean enough for stormwater runoff mitigation 

measures, such as creating rain gardens or large grass swales. Using a brownfield site 

in this manner can also provide habitat opportunities for birds and other species. 

In many cases, redevelopment activities can utilize the existing infrastructure that 

surrounds the site. Residential and commercial development that would have otherwise required new impervious roads and parking lots to be constructed to service 

the new site can instead use existing resources, thus reducing the overall level of a 

community’s imperviousness. 

Brownfield redevelopment can be encouraged through tax or other financial incentives, or regulatory incentives. For example, by recognizing the water quality benefits that brownfield redevelopment provides, communities could apply less stringent 

runoff standards that would reduce the required level of stormwater runoff mitigation 

measures, making the project less costly for the developer. This 

policy does not suggest any loss in water quality for the community, but instead recognizes the importance of development location 

for water benefits. Several communities have already adopted or are 

considering this approach. Fairfax County, Virginia, is one community that has reduced the runoff requirements for redevelopment of 

existing properties.29 Oshkosh, Wisconsin, is considering such an 

approach after observing the high cost of compliance with newer, 

more stringent stormwater regulations for properties in redevelopment areas. Jackson Kinney, Oshkosh’s director of community 

Photo courtesy of U.S. EPA. 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 29 

development, noted, “In a redevelopment site [in contrast to a greenfield development] you’re really not changing the stormwater drainage dynamics from what previously existed.”30 

Practice Tip: Atlantic Station, a redevelopment project on a former industrial 

site in Atlanta, Georgia, illustrates the water quality benefits achieved by redeveloping a brownfield site. The centrally located, mixed-use site design accommodates approximately 3,100 residential units and 7 million square feet of 

retail, office, and hotel space on 138 acres. If these same housing units and 

commercial space were constructed elsewhere in the region at densities typical 

for the region, the same development would require almost 1,200 acres. By 

using less land for development, less soil is disturbed during construction, 

decreasing soil erosion. In addition, modeling results suggest that the compact 

nature of the Atlantic Station site generates approximately five times less runoff, 

four times fewer total suspended solids, six times less total nitrogen, and 16 

times less total phosphorus than the low-density alternative site designs.31 

Policy 16. Redevelop greyfields 

Greyfield sites are abandoned, obsolete, or underutilized properties, such as regional 

shopping malls and strip retail developments. Although typically not viewed by 

communities as potential sites for residential land uses, these properties often have 

significant redevelopment potential because of their large size, existing infrastructure, and established community presence. 

Like other infill development, greyfield redevelopment can absorb growth that 

might otherwise convert green space on the urban fringe. Redeveloping greyfield 

properties provides a range of economic and social benefits, including the opportunity to bring new life to blighted commercial spaces, locate new services and amenities in close proximity to existing transit networks, and maximize a community’s existing investments in water, sewer, 

and road infrastructure. 

Communities can reap many benefits by converting these 

large, vacant, or underused shopping areas into new mixeduse neighborhoods. Also, by incorporating smart growth features—such as compact development, the provision of open 

space, and reduced parking requirements—greyfield redevelopment can yield significant environmental benefits. For 

instance, redevelopment can actually reduce a site’s impervious 

Market Common, a development in Arlington, 

Virginia, that includes 

stores, apartments, townhomes, single-family houses, parking garages, and a 

one-acre public park, was 

built on a former Sears 

store and parking lot. 

Photo courtesy of U.S. EPA. 
30 Section 1: Protecting Water Resources at the Regional Level 

WANT MORE 

INFORMATION? 

In 2002, the Congress for 

the New Urbanism published Turning Greyfields 

into Goldfields: Dead Malls 

Become Living 

Neighborhoods, available 

for purchase online at: 

<store.yahoo.com/ 

cnuinfo/greyingoldea. 

html>. 

cover by converting parking areas to pocket parks or buffer zones. By allowing for 

some natural stormwater infiltration, the site’s net stormwater runoff is decreased. 

Finally, as with brownfield redevelopment, greyfield redevelopment reduces development pressures at the urban edge. Many of the same techniques used to encourage brownfield redevelopment can be applied to greyfield redevelopment as well. 

Practice Tip: Redeveloped on the site of a former shopping mall, Mizner Park 

in Boca Raton, Florida, is an example of a greyfield reborn as a mixed-use development. Redesigned from its original pattern of a large retail structure surrounded by surface parking lots, the 29-acre site now includes 272 apartments and 

townhouses, 103,000 square feet of office space, and 156,000 square feet of 

retail space. Most parking is accommodated in four multistory parking garages. 

Designed as a village within a city, the project has a density five times higher 

than the rest of the city and a mix of large and small retailers, restaurants, and 

entertainment venues.32 More significantly, the final buildout of Mizner Park 

decreases overall impervious surface by 15 percent compared to the former 

shopping mall, through the addition of a central park plaza, flower and tree 

planters, and a large public amphitheater. 

Policy 17. Maximize transportation choices 

The range and quality of transportation choices available to people not only have a Well designed sidewalks and roads pro- direct impact on where and what type of development is likely to occur, they also 

vide opportunities for exert both an indirect and direct effect on water quality. Where motor vehicle travel 

walking, biking, driv- is the only practical form of transportation, little incentive exists to depart from the 

ing, and transit. conventional, low-density development designed to accommodate vehicular traffic. 

Furthermore, air emissions from vehicles, through air-to-water 

deposition of pollutants, are a major contributor to poor water 

quality and can undermine other efforts to improve the quality 

of a region’s water. For example, in the metropolitan 

Washington, D.C. region, mobile sources (e.g., cars, buses, 

trucks) are a primary cause of harmful ground-level ozone.33 

The resulting smog not only affects air quality, but it also compromises water quality as pollutants end up in water bodies, 

through deposition or stormwater runoff. For example, EPA 

estimates that 35 percent of the nitrogen entering the 

Chesapeake Bay is from mobile sources.34 Increasing the viability of alternative transportation can decrease air deposition of 

pollutants into water resources. 

Photo courtesy of U.S. EPA. 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 31 

Communities can employ a range of strategies to maximize transportation choices. 

For example, they can use zoning and tax incentives to create more walkable communities, characterized by mixed land uses, compact building, and inviting pedestrian corridors. Local governments can zone for a mix of uses to develop stores, 

schools, and restaurants within walking distance of each other. Or they could provide tax incentives to encourage residential development in downtown areas that are 

dominated by offices. 

By providing people choices on how to get to the places they want to go, such as 

fast, reliable buses and trains; bike paths; or walking routes, air emissions from 

mobile sources can be reduced. By providing amenities such as bus shelters and 

bike racks, governments can increase the likelihood that the public will use these 

alternative transportation methods. Allowing individuals to substitute walking, bicycling, or other modes of transportation for trips that once required a car can reduce 

congestion and traffic and improve water and air quality. 

FUNDING AND FEE STRUCTURES 

Monetary incentives and disincentives are powerful tools for influencing, directing, 

or altering growth patterns to minimize their water quality impact. Fees can be 

structured to encourage desired outcomes, such as better stormwater control. Fees 

can be calculated to reflect the true cost of water degradation resulting from development. Plus, fees and service charges are among the most direct means available to 

communities to demonstrate development and environmental priorities. 

The appropriate and even-handed use of fees can augment public loans and other 

funding resources and provide a needed source of capital for communities to invest 

in upgrades, expansions, and other enhancements to their water infrastructure systems. Low-interest loans, grants, and other resources are available through federal 

and state governments, as well as some private and nonprofit sector partners, to 

help communities improve their water systems through smart growth approaches. 

This subsection provides examples of funding sources that can be used to improve 

water quality through smart growth. 

Policy 18. Create a stormwater utility


Fees to address stormwater issues are generally raised by a local utility through permit fees, water and sewer fees, and any fines levied against a permit violator. These 

local utilities generally use the funds raised within the locality to address problems 

or issues in that same area. 

WANT MORE 

INFORMATION? 

EPA developed the Smart 

Growth Funding Resource 

Guide, a list of funding 

resources for local and 

state governments, communities, and non-governmental organizations 

that are addressing the 

varied aspects of smart 

growth. It is available at: 

<www.epa.gov/smart 

growth>. 
32 Section 1: Protecting Water Resources at the Regional Level 

WANT MORE 

INFORMATION? 

The Center for Urban 

Policy and the 

Environment at Indiana 

University-Purdue 

University Indianapolis 

has extensive information 

on how to create and 

manage stormwater utilities. Details are available 

at: <stormwaterfinance. 

urbancenter.iupui.edu>. 

A stormwater utility, however, is a special district created to generate a stable funding 

source for stormwater management across a specific region. Funds are generated 

through user fees and generally used for system upgrades or other stormwater runoff 

mitigation efforts. The stormwater utility approach provides revenue and a flexible 

means of implementation applicable under many different state laws and across environmentally diverse areas. Stormwater utilities can also motivate partnerships and support a more regional approach to at least one aspect of water resource management. 

Various methods are currently used by stormwater utilities to determine user fees. 

Many base their fees at least in part on the percentage of impervious cover of developed land, sometimes at the parcel level. Many use the parcel-level calculation only 

for commercial properties, however, and simply charge a flat rate for residential 

properties. Some municipalities employ more sophisticated residential user fee calculations that also consider fees for nearby public roads. 

As of late 2000, more than 400 municipalities nationwide had created some form of 

stormwater management utility.35 Although this approach is still being shaped and gaining momentum, it offers a way to create incentives for smart growth developments, 

especially as user fee calculation increases in sophistication. For example, waivers or 

fee reductions could be given for compact construction and high-density development. 

Issues to Consider: Calculating utility fees can be challenging and contentious. 

Many cities have determined that the most equitable approach to calculating utility fees is based on the amount of impervious area on each property. Other factors, such as property size, can also be considered in determining fees. Other communities have determined that a more convenient means to assess fees is to 

charge a flat rate. Although charging a flat rate could be more cost-effective in the 

shortrun for residential properties, doing so fails to reflect the benefits of compact, mixed-use development, and thus encourages dispersed, detached development. A compounding factor is that the user fee amount is usually quite small (e.g., 

$2.95 per house); therefore, it is unlikely to drive alternative site design choices, 

either by homebuyers or developers. Stormwater utilities typically require enabling 

legislation at the state level (if statutory authority does not already exist) to be 

established, as they levy taxes to finance operations and capital improvements. 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 33 

Policy 19. Use wastewater fees to fund watershed-level 

planning 

Wastewater fees are typically used for wastewater treatment, capacity upgrades, and 

ongoing operation and maintenance costs. Some communities might also want to 

consider using some portion of wastewater fees to fund regional watershed-level 

planning, particularly if lack of funding is an obstacle to watershed-level planning. 

Most municipalities have only enough resources to address planning issues within 

their own jurisdictions. Using a portion of the wastewater fees to support watershed-wide planning will not only support cross-jurisdictional planning, but might 

also help create a coalition of interested parties. Fees collected through wastewater 

assessments can be used to fund partnerships or authorities involved in watershed 

planning. In particular, resources can be used to support pilot projects, technological innovations, infrastructure improvements, or the planning for development in 

and around a watershed. 

Practice Tip: The Cherry Creek Basin Water Quality Authority, a regional water 

authority created by Colorado’s legislature in 1985, operates under state law to 

undertake various water quality and capital projects and assess fees for the 

Cherry Creek basin. The Authority is funded through a portion of local wastewater treatment fees (approximately $1.5 million per year) assessed and collected by the authority.36 

Policy 20. Vary sewer hookup fees for existing and suburban 

fringe locations 

In most communities, sewer hookup fees are calculated 

and assessed by localities without regard to location, so 

the same fee applies in suburban as well as central city 

locations. A more strategic approach is to vary hookup 

fees by site location, reflecting the distance-dependent 

costs associated with sewer service and encouraging 

development in central locations. 

Developments like 

Metro Square in 

Sacramento, California, 

are eligible for reduced 

sewer hookup fees 

because of their high 

density and central 

location. 

Photo courtesy of Local Government Commission. 
34 Section 1: Protecting Water Resources at the Regional Level 

WANT MORE 

INFORMATION? 

The state of Maryland 

provides information on 

its priority funding area 

program, including models and guidelines, online 

at: <www.mdp.state.md. 

us/smartgrowth/pdf/PFA. 

PDF>. 

Many municipalities assess the cost of sewer hookup fees on an average-cost basis, 

which fails to reflect the true cost of system expansion and can serve to support dispersed, low-density development. Conventional approaches to hookup fee assessments treat all new developments equally, regardless of location, compactness, or 

dispersion. To further direct development and encourage infill, municipalities 

should consider assessing variable rates for sewer hookup based on location, charging lower hookup fees where growth is to be encouraged, or incorporating design 

elements that improve water quality impacts in new projects. 

Practice Tip: In Sacramento, California, regional sewer officials recently 

approved plans to dramatically reduce sewer hookup fees in existing neighborhoods and raise fees on the urban fringe. The change is part of a series of 

planned rate hikes needed to finance a $1.3 billion network of large new 

pipelines necessitated by rapid suburban growth. It is the first time in the 

Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District’s 25-year history that different 

rates will be charged based on location. Previously, the district operated on the 

principle that everyone would pay the same amount to hook up to the sewer 

system, regardless of location. Under the new plan, the connection fee for a 

house in a new neighborhood is $5,255; on the other hand, the fee for a new 

house in an existing urban area is $2,314. Commercial fees are handled the 

same way. The plan received endorsements from a wide array of supporters, 

ranging from the Sierra Club to the Sacramento County Taxpayers League.37 

Policy 21. Direct infrastructure spending to designated 

growth areas 

State and local governments often use infrastructure funding in accordance with 

multi-year capital investment plans that determine priority areas for growth and 

construction, among other needs. State and local governments can direct infrastructure spending to designated growth areas in existing communities as one way of 

encouraging development activity in areas where private and public investments 

have already occurred. 

Across the country, water and sewer infrastructure is aging, and municipalities are 

faced with choices on where—and according to what priorities—to invest in their 

water and sewer infrastructure. Their allocations could be based on projected tax 

revenues from new development supported by the current infrastructure or on infrastructure in greatest need of repair. Strategically targeting infrastructure resources to 

direct development to designated growth areas in existing communities is another 

approach for prioritization. For example, the state of Maryland created its “priority 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 35 

funding areas” effort in 1997. Since then, the state has provided infrastructure funds 

for roads, sewer, water, and schools only in those communities targeted for new 

development based on their existing resources, such as transit facilities, infrastructure, or infill opportunities. Any development that occurs outside the priority funding area does not receive state financial support. 

Other states have prioritized the use of infrastructure funds for repair and maintenance before funding new construction—another way to direct infrastructure funds 

to existing areas designated for future growth. For example, in 2002, New Jersey 

announced its Smart Growth Infrastructure Tax Credit program, directing limited 

state resources to support areas with existing infrastructure. This $10 million program will provide tax incentives to encourage builders and developers to invest in 

neighborhoods that have existing or already planned infrastructure. Administered by 

the New Jersey Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency in consultation with the 

State Planning Commission, the program offers tax credits to eligible residential, 

commercial, and mixed-use retail projects. Such projects are developments located 

in municipal (urban) aid areas, municipalities with designated centers, or municipalities with plans endorsed by the State Planning Commission.38 

Practice Tip: Vermont’s Agency of Natural Resources encourages communities 

to direct growth to downtown and other planned growth centers, while managing growth in the surrounding countryside. The agency gives priority to ensure 

that older, failing wastewater treatment facilities receive needed improvements, 

rather than directing resources to newer plants that would support development 

on the urban fringe. The agency is currently revising its rules to implement this 

“fix-it-first” approach to help communities consider the relationship between 

infrastructure planning and land use planning during the earliest project planning stages, thereby avoiding permitting conflicts.39 

Policy 22. Differentiate development fees based on location 

of the development 

Studies have shown that infrastructure costs increase when development takes place 

beyond the local service area.40 The higher costs incurred are due to the necessity of 

providing longer trunk lines and connecting roads for more distant and dispersed 

development. These costs tend to increase based on the distance from the urban 

core and from other housing units. Although they have generally not done so in the 

past, local governments have the option of charging fringe-area developers the full 

costs for providing infrastructure. 
36 Section 1: Protecting Water Resources at the Regional Level 

Some localities assess developers only partial fees for infrastructure costs for services 

such as water, sewer, roads, and schools.41 They do this in order to attract development. This is a costly practice, however, because new residential development costs 

municipalities more than the revenue it generates. The negative impact on local government budgets is often not readily apparent because of the timing of evaluating 

the actual costs and revenues. Early on, during construction, building activity provides attractive tax revenues to the local government. At the same time, residents do 

not yet occupy the houses, so they are not yet demanding services. After the residents move in, they routinely demand services in excess of their property taxes, 

such as roads, schools, and sewer and water infrastructure. This pattern is becoming 

especially problematic in rural areas as residents increasingly demand services comparable to urban areas. 

In contrast, this dynamic does not apply with infill or redevelopment projects 

because in most cases, the water, sewer, and road infrastructure is already in place, 

schools are built, and the level of services have been established. In addition, infill 

or redevelopment projects are typically built at higher densities, which cost less than 

their lower-density counterparts. For example, the cost of providing services (streets 

and utilities) to a townhouse at 10 units per acre is less than $10,000 but is more 

than $32,000 for a house at one unit per acre.42 

Communities can better reflect the costs of new development and the public infrastructure investment that it requires by requiring new urban fringe development to 

pay for the full cost of providing services to those areas. Some municipalities that 

are experiencing rapid growth and development are already assessing full fees to 

developers to cover projected expenses for roads, schools, sewer, and water infrastructure. In doing so, state and local governments provide an incentive for development in existing communities where infrastructure already exists. 

Policy 23. Use compensation fees to address high-priority 

water quality problems 

Some government agencies are using compensation fees when developers or homeowners have difficulty fully meeting a regulatory requirement, such as reducing the 

quantity or the strength (concentration) of a particular pollutant. Typically, a costeffective amount of the pollutant is cleaned up, and a fee is assessed for the remaining amount. Then, the state or locality can use funds from the compensation fees to 

address high-priority water quality issues elsewhere. 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 37 

For instance, some communities face significant water quality problems in their 

urban centers. These issues could be related to failing infrastructure, insufficient 

capacity, point sources, or other past performance problems that cannot be linked to 

a responsible party. Such water quality issues could prevent a community from redeveloping its brownfield sites, converting surface parking lots to mixed-use developments, or otherwise increasing densities. 

Practice Tip: The Maine Department of Environmental Protection established a 

nonpoint source reduction program to allow an applicant to pay a compensation fee in lieu of meeting certain phosphorus reduction requirements. This program was designed to provide assistance to homeowners and smaller developers 

who are required to reduce phosphorus loadings from their site. In many cases, 

the cost of reducing the loads to the required level was not cost-efficient for the 

amount of phosphorus that would be removed. The compensation fee program 

permits owners and developers to pay a fee proportional to the level of phosphorus they are unable to remove. The state then can assess where the most 

urgent phosphorus removal issues are and address those issues using program 

funds.43 This program gives the state resources to address the most serious phosphorus problems, which are often found in dense urban centers. As a result, 

Maine has the tools to direct development to existing communities and mitigate 

its potential environmental impact. 

Policy 24. Charge for water usage on an incremental basis 


Research has indicated that residential water users do not pay the entire cost of 

water and its delivery. In most cases, the local government jurisdictions pay the difference. Therefore, the more water used, the greater the subsidy. Charging for water 

use on an incremental or block-pricing basis reduces this subsidy. 

The latest annual water pricing study conducted by an advisory committee in Fort 

Worth, Texas, found that residential users were paying nearly eight percent less than 

the true cost of delivering water.44 Failure to represent the true cost of delivery is 

particularly marked in lower-density areas far from central treatment plants, where 

both water delivery and system expansions are typically subsidized. The cost of 

delivering water depends both on transmission costs, which increase with distance, 

and operation and maintenance costs, which increase with the length of systems. 

Pressure requirements to meet fire codes, for example, are more expensive to maintain across longer, more dispersed networks. As such, average costs often grow as 

systems cover larger geographic areas, requiring longer system components. 
38 Section 1: Protecting Water Resources at the Regional Level 

Furthermore, research has demonstrated that more compact communities use less 

water than lower-density communities, largely as a result of the difference in outdoor water use; homeowners with larger lawns use more water than those with 

smaller lawns. A 1995 Rutgers University study on New Jersey infrastructure estimated that the cost of providing water to households in conventional dispersed 

developments was roughly 13 percent higher than the cost of doing so in a more 

compact context.45 

Rates that base the per unit cost of water on the consumer’s incremental use can 

encourage conservation and decrease the local government subsidy for lower-density 

developments. For example, block pricing applies lower per unit costs to base 

amounts of water use sufficient to meet basic household needs, and incrementally 

higher rates for additional blocks of water (e.g., the next 5,000 gallons consumed). 

Such a rate basis would reward homeowners in more compact communities and 

decrease local government subsidies for water delivery. 

Issues to Consider: Decisionmakers must be attentive to the impact of increased 

water rates by volume on commercial, agricultural, and industrial users and the 

potential impact that higher rates could have on economic development efforts. 

Practice Tip: In North Carolina, a recent drought spurred local water officials in 

Charlotte to consider whether the imposition of a penalty for excess water consumption would reduce demand. In 2001, after its analysis, Charlotte adopted 

new fees for residential, multifamily, and commercial water users. Since lawns 

can be responsible for as much as 60 percent of water usage in some areas, 

Charlotte’s revised pricing system, in effect, lessened the appeal (and value) of a 

large lawn and landscaping. The county estimates that the average Charlotte household uses 1,100 cubic feet of water per month—approximately 74,800 gallons 

(equivalent to filling two swimming pools). The new tiered system takes effect 

once the household use reaches 1,700 cubic feet per month—the rate increases 

from the base of $1.09 per hundred cubic feet to $1.82 per unit. At 3,200 cubic 

feet per month, the rate increases again to $3.70 per hundred cubic feet.46 

Policy 25. Use Clean Water State Revolving Funds for smart 

growth initiatives 

Traditionally, Clean Water State Revolving Funds (SRF) are used to construct and 

upgrade infrastructure to maintain water quality. As another option, states use SRF 

funds for other efforts likely to impact water quality, such as comprehensive plans or 

open space preservation. 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 39 

The SRF is a widely available financing source used to fund 

municipal wastewater treatment and drinking-water projects, 

as well as nonpoint source pollution control and estuary protection projects. The states disburse the federal SRF funds to 

eligible localities and projects in the form of low-interest, 

long-term loans. Despite the fact that the projects eligible for 

SRF funds are typically capital expenditures for compliance 

with national primary drinking-water regulations or projects 

funding wastewater treatment, the program is flexible enough 

to allow a portion of the funds to be used for some of the 

principles of smart growth, such as open space preservation 

or infill development. For example, the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts actively limits the use of SRF funds to support new growth. 

Collection systems projects are eligible only if 75 percent of the flows existed as of 

April 1995. Thus, no more than 25 percent of the capacity of a project can be used 

for new growth.47 

Since SRF funding decisions can affect development patterns, states can coordinate 

their management of SRF loans with emerging smart growth policies and initiatives. 

States can leverage smart growth benefits out of existing SRF resources by granting 

additional funds for smart growth enhancements to traditional projects or providing 

technical assistance on smart growth to project applicants. States could also require 

long-term comprehensive growth plans, or encourage limits on sewer connections 

or capacity for new growth in designated areas.48 Funds also could be used to support and create incentives for comprehensive planning and maintenance of existing 

water infrastructure.49 

Issues to Consider: SRF program officers must understand the program and its 

potential connections to smart growth in order to coordinate the management of 

SRF funds with broader growth initiatives. SRF program managers might first 

want to consider whether the use of SRF funding has encouraged growth in areas 

where growth should instead be discouraged. For example, has SRF funding provided wastewater treatment capacity enabling growth in a source water protection area? Or has SRF-funded wastewater treatment capacity made it more economically attractive for developers to build in areas that might be better left as 

open or green space? If communities find that the answers to the above questions are cause for concern, SRF managers can be educated to better consider 

what role their programs could play in supporting smart growth initiatives. At a 

minimum, the SRF must ensure that projects receiving funding meet the environmental review requirements of the CWA, but it might also hold the potential to 

achieve other, broader growth objectives at the same time. 

Photo courtesy of USDA NRCS. 

SRF funds can be used 

to preserve open space 

and to create recreational spaces. 

WANT MORE 

INFORMATION? 

EPA developed guidelines 

for using state revolving 

funds to support smart 

growth activities. Details 

can be found at: <www. 

epa.gov/owmitnet/cw 

finance/cwsrf/smartgro. 

pdf>. 
40 Section 1: Protecting Water Resources at the Regional Level 

WANT MORE 

INFORMATION? 

For more information on 

Iowa’s Drinking Water SRF 

program, visit: <www. 

state.ia.us/epd/wtrsuply/ 

srf/srf.htm>. 

Practice Tip: In 2002, Iowa created the Smart SRF for Iowa Clean Water program. 

This program allows the use of the state’s drinking water SRFs for smart growth 

initiatives, including brownfields cleanup, watershed management, low-impact 

development practices, and riparian land conservation. The Iowa Finance 

Authority and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources launched the initiative 

to change the state’s nonpoint source protection plan and the SRF statute to 

allow the use of SRF funding for smart growth projects. At the time of this publication, the city of Des Moines was exploring the option of using SRF funding 

for the redevelopment of a 1,200-acre brownfield along the Des Moines River.50 

Policy 26. Improve oversight of onsite treatment systems 


Onsite waste treatment systems (also known as septic systems) are underground 

tanks that collect, treat, and disperse small volumes of wastewater, traditionally from 

an individual house. Historically, houses in rural areas distant from sewer collection 

and treatment systems have been served by septic systems, except in areas with sensitive groundwater or where soils do not allow the treated waste to percolate down. 

According to a July 2003 report,51 decentralized systems are used in 25 percent of 

all homes in the United States and in 33 percent of new developments. Yet, improperly managed onsite systems can pose environmental challenges. More than half of 

the existing systems were installed 30 or more years ago, and each year, at least 10 

percent of all systems fail. States report failing septic systems as the third most common source of groundwater contamination. Therefore, EPA, states, and localities are 

increasing efforts to control failure rates through aggressive outreach and, in some 

cases, permitting programs. The focus in all of these programs is improved and 

effective maintenance and operation. 

Decentralized systems can support smart growth in rural areas, or in mountain and 

coastal areas experiencing growth in the number of second homes. In areas where 

clustering homes and conservation subdivision design are growth tools, localities are 

likely to experience better operation and maintenance in onsite systems, as several 

homes are responsible for and dependent on their functioning. These designs can 

also conserve open space and reduce the amount of other infrastructure needed to 

serve new development. 

WANT MORE 

INFORMATION? 

EPA provides information 

on creating management 

districts to oversee onsite 

systems. Details are available at: <www.epa.gov/ 

owm/mtb/decent/down 

load/guidelines.pdf>. 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 41 

Issues to Consider: Without careful planning, the use of onsite wastewater systems can foster low-density, dispersed development patterns. The decision to 

install onsite systems must take into account a variety of factors, such as soil conditions, development repercussions, and the likelihood of appropriate maintenance practices. Decentralized systems often occur in rural areas where few development regulations exist. Because of this, local governments might need to 

increase the type and level of oversight to include permitting, inspections, and 

operation and maintenance agreements. Otherwise, onsite systems could encourage a lower-density and high land consumptive development pattern.52 

Policy 27. Provide a stormwater fee credit for redeveloping 

existing impervious surfaces 

Most state and local water quality requirements do not take into consideration the 

condition of a site before development or redevelopment. By considering pre-development conditions, state and local governments have an opportunity to provide pollution credits or otherwise recognize redevelopment sites as smart choices for preserving water quality. Doing so might provide a greater incentive to redevelop previously developed sites, such as brownfields or greyfields. 

In many cases, redeveloping a brownfield or greyfield site will not increase the net 

contribution to stormwater runoff. A 50-acre parking lot generates the same, if not 

more, stormwater runoff before it is redeveloped than afterward. For example, 

Mizner Park in Florida is a former shopping mall that was redeveloped into a 

mixed-use community. Redesigned from its original pattern of a large retail structure 

surrounded by surface parking lots, the 29-acre site now includes 272 apartments 

and townhouses, 103,000 square feet of office space, and 156,000 square feet of 

retail space. Before redevelopment, the site was 100 percent impervious cover. After 

redevelopment, impervious cover decreased by 15 percent. 

The redeveloped site now includes a long, wide plaza that 

runs the length of the development and includes grass, trees, 

and other native landscaping, reducing impervious area. In 

addition, the developer incorporated numerous small areas 

for landscaping and trees throughout the site. Stormwater 

runoff decreased accordingly. Additionally, the redevelopment of brownfield and greyfield properties maximizes 

return from existing water infrastructure, roads, transit, and 

other services. Redevelopment of previously developed land 

also reuses already compacted, disturbed, or impervious soil 

rather than impacting other soils. 

Photo courtesy of USDA NRCS. 

Existing impervious 

surfaces, such as parking lots, can be transformed into pathways, 

community gardens, or 

other neighborhood 

amenities. 
42 Section 1: Protecting Water Resources at the Regional Level 

Taking pre-development conditions into account, states could develop specific criteria for waiving or reducing current stormwater requirements under certain pre-construction conditions (e.g., redevelopment of an existing surface parking lot). This 

approach could encourage redevelopment of underutilized properties and maximize 

the use of existing impervious cover, already degraded soils, and existing infrastructure. Such a waiver could be incorporated into a stormwater ordinance, a state’s 

stormwater management guidance manual, a municipality’s public facility manual, 

or local permitting requirements. 

Policy 28. Tie bonds to performance measures 


Developers are required to meet certain short-term water quality requirements during and after construction, such as reducing sediments and runoff leaving the site. 

But there is no mechanism in place for accountability if the developer fails to meet 

those water quality requirements. Because enforcement of water quality requirements is often carried out by random spot checks, some problems, such as lakes or 

streams becoming clogged with sediments, are not identified until after construction 

is completed. As a remedy, communities could require developers to purchase 

bonds or set aside money to be used to clean up or otherwise comply with water 

quality requirements, if a regulatory authority discovers within a fixed period of 

time that those requirements were not met. 

States or municipalities could provide developers with incentives to ensure that 

water quality on their sites is protected through the use of performance bonds. 

Similar to the approach used for heavily polluting industries, in which businesses 

are required to purchase surety bonds to cover the costs of future cleanups (should 

they occur), developers could be required to purchase a bond that is linked to performance measures that monitor water quality impacts on nearby waterways. Under 

this type of performance bond system, the developer would profit if the water quality is maintained or improved. However, if water quality deteriorates as a result of 

site-level features, such as large volumes of polluted construction runoff, then the 

bond money would be spent on cleanup. Given a stake in the future performance of 

the development’s water quality, developers would have more incentive to incorporate cost-effective, long-term water quality protection methods into a project. Such 

methods could include design elements that rely on natural processes for water 

quality management, such as buffers or reduced impervious surface areas. 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 43 

Practice Tip: Officials in Columbus, Ohio, are evaluating the adoption of performance measures for the city’s streams and holding area developers responsible for maintaining the streams’ water quality. In this scenario, the municipality 

would create a performance standard for the waterbody. During the permitting 

process, the developer would be required to put a set amount of money into an 

account for five to 10 years. This money would be returned to the developer if 

the stream continues to meet water quality standards at the end of that period. 

Policy 29. Use private activity bonds to finance projects that 

protect water resources 

Many local governments issue private activity bonds to private parties in a partnership to finance capital improvements. Such bonds can be a cost-effective way of 

financing infrastructure projects that protect water resources. Local governments 

could prioritize projects that receive such financing to encourage projects that will 

improve existing infrastructure, rather than financing projects that create new infrastructure and growth on the fringe. For example, Florida issues private activity 

bonds for projects upgrading existing drinking-water and wastewater facilities to 

encourage additional development where infrastructure already exists.53 

Issues to Consider: Drinking-water and wastewater facilities generally are 

exempt facilities under private activity bond regulations and therefore are eligible 

for tax-exempt status. However, there are federally mandated caps on the amount 

of tax-exempt private activity bonds that can be issued in a state. States can prioritize the allocation of bonds so that projects that implement smart growth strategies and water infrastructure are more likely to receive bond financing. 

Practice Tip: Florida’s Growth Policy Act, adopted in 1999, recognizes infill 

development and redevelopment as important to promoting and sustaining 

urban cores. Florida’s definition of urban infill and redevelopment areas 

includes those where public services such as water and wastewater, transportation, schools, and recreation are already available or are scheduled to be provided within an adopted five-year schedule of capital improvements. A local government with an adopted urban infill and redevelopment plan may issue revenue bonds and employ tax increment financing for the purpose of financing 

the implementation of the plan. Areas designated by a local government as 

urban infill and redevelopment areas are given priority in the allocation of private activity bonds.54 By giving infill projects priority over other projects (such 

as greenfield development), the use of existing impervious surface is maximized 

rather than using bonds to fund development in undeveloped areas. 
44 Section 1: Protecting Water Resources at the Regional Level 

Policy 30. Allocate a portion of highway and transit funding 

to meet water quality goals 

Water quality conditions are generally not included in transportation funding criteria. Given the numerous connections between transportation-related infrastructure 

and water, however, states might want to consider water quality criteria when determining funding for proposed transportation-related projects. 

The links between transportation, development, and water quality are numerous. 

Not only do transportation projects influence surrounding development, but the 

transportation-development nexus also affects runoff pollution in the watershed. 

Deposition of mobile air emissions into nearby waterbodies is also part of the close 

relationship between transportation networks, development patterns, and their 

many impacts on natural resources. 

In areas where air quality violates one or more Clean Air Act standards, “conformity” rules require that transportation plans, programs, and projects must not produce 

new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of 

Clean Air Act standards. Under conformity, transportation projects cannot be 

approved, funded, or implemented unless metropolitan planning organizations 

(MPOs) provide a transportation investment plan that will result in conforming air 

quality. The MPO’s transportation investment plan must conform to its air quality 

plan, so that when transportation projects are completed, they will not contribute to 

unacceptable air quality. Similarly, MPOs could include in their analysis of transportation projects a demonstration of how current and projected water quality conditions comply with state and local water quality requirements. 

If water quality standards are currently not met and the proposed transportation 

project would add more pollution to already polluted waters, the MPO could deny 

transportation funding on that basis. However, the analysis would have to include a 

comparison of the alternatives in terms of risks to regional water and air quality 

goals. For example, a proposed transportation project in a highly developed area 

that supports infill or brownfield redevelopment could reduce total miles driven and 

subsequently minimize air emissions when compared to alternative development 

scenarios that have the potential to place the development further out in the metropolitan area and away from transit choices. Or, the same proposed transportation 

project might increase site-level runoff, but less so than other transportationdevelopment scenarios. 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 45 

Policy 31. Establish a community preservation fund


Communities might want to consider setting up a fund to specifically target 

resources to preserve open space, both to improve water quality and to encourage 

development in an existing community, rather than on its outskirts. 

Capital for preserving open space can be generated or set aside by localities through 

a community preservation fund. Revenue for the fund would come from property 

taxes and could be matched by a dedicated state fund. By creating such a fund, 

communities would be taking steps to protect water resources by preserving areas 

that provide important natural processes, such as filtering pollutants, for maintaining healthy water quality. 

Practice Tip: In September 2000, Massachusetts passed the Community 

Preservation Act, which allows communities to create a local Community 

Preservation Fund in the municipality funded by a surcharge of up to three percent of the real estate tax levy on real property. Once adopted locally, the act 

would require at least 10 percent of the money raised to be distributed to three 

categories: historic preservation, open space protection, and low- and moderateincome housing. The act also annually creates a significant state matching fund 

of more than $25 million, which will serve as an incentive to communities to 

take advantage of the provisions of this legislation.55 As of May 2003, 61 of the 

109 communities that held ballot votes passed the act.56 

Policy 32. Establish a clean water management trust fund


WANT MORE 

INFORMATION? 

In 2003, the National 

Association of Local 

Government 

Environmental 

Professionals, the Trust for 

Public Land, and Eastern 

Research Group published Smart Growth for 

Clean Water: Helping 

Communities Address the 

Water Quality Impacts of 

Sprawl, which describes 

land conservation, watershed management, 

brownfields redevelopment, and other smart 

growth tools as key 

strategies for achieving 

water quality goals. The 

document is available at: 

<www.nalgep.org/ 

publications>. 

Funds for community water management come from many federal, state, and local 

funding sources. Communities can set up a fund to target resources to manage 

water runoff and encourage development within the existing community, rather than 

on the outskirts. 

Trust funds can provide additional funding needed to finance smart growth projects 

that will help protect water resources. Money from a clean water management trust 

fund, for example, can go towards smart growth development projects such as 

acquisition of greenways, towards interest on loans for downtown redevelopment 

projects, or to encourage development on existing impervious surfaces, such as 

brownfields, rather than developing on green space.57 
46 Section 1: Protecting Water Resources at the Regional Level 

Parkland and natural vegetation buffer 

an urban stream at Fairview Village in 

Portland, Oregon. 

A trust fund can be created by state assemblies, 

municipalities, nonprofit organizations, or others 

using revenues from fines, penalties, user fees 

(e.g., tax on water use), lottery proceeds, taxes 

on pollution sources, or general assembly appropriations. For example, the Nebraska 

Environmental Trust Fund receives 49.5 percent 

of the profits of the Nebraska Lottery after the 

first $500,000 awarded. These proceeds have 

annually generated roughly $8.5 million for 

grant assistance.58 Photo courtesy of U.S. EPA. 

Practice Tip: The North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund, created


in 1996, provides grants to local governments, state agencies, and conservation


nonprofits to help finance projects that specifically address water pollution


problems. The fund is supported by appropriations from the General Assembly.


At the end of each fiscal year, 6.5 percent of the unreserved credit balance in


North Carolina’s General Fund (or a minimum of $30 million) goes into the


fund. The 18-member independent Board of Trustees has full responsibility for


the allocation of resources from the fund and approved more than $31 million


in grants in 2003. Grants are provided for projects that enhance or restore


degraded waters, protect unpolluted waters, and/or contribute toward a network


of riparian buffers and greenways for environmental, educational, and recre-


ational benefits. Projects funded include greenway and open space acquisition,


improvements to wastewater treatment facilities, stormwater management,


removal of septic tanks, and wetlands and stream restoration.59


Policy 33. Offer incentives for adopting land use changes 

under a TMDL implementation plan 

States are required to develop an implementation plan for Total Maximum Daily 

Loads (TMDLs), but are not required to execute it, as most activities outlined in the 

implementation plan are completed at the local level. As part of a TMDL implementation plan, states could offer incentives to communities that adopt land use changes 

that foster smart growth. 

Sometimes there are barriers to fully executing the implementation plan at the local 

level. Obstacles could take the form of industry backlash at the cost of pollutant 

removal strategies, unexpected increases in pollutant loads due to development, or 

several years of unusually wet weather, causing unusually high runoff and associated 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 47 

pollutant loads. States can increase the chances of implementation, however, by 

including a provision in their TMDL requirements that requires full execution of the 

plan. In addition to this requirement, states can provide guidance and recommendations to communities on how they can support and advance the implementation 

process. For example, communities that take steps to mitigate the water quality 

impacts—both at the site and regional level—of their growth decisions would go a 

long way towards achieving target loadings of some TMDLs. States could detail what 

land use changes they would like to see implemented, such as more compact site 

designs, transit-oriented development, larger riparian corridors, or larger areas of 

open space incorporated into the urban and suburban fabric. To encourage communities to act, states could offer these communities “bonus” points on any applications for CWA Section 319 or SRF funding, or other state-allocated funding sources. 

Although the bonus points would not guarantee a successful application, they 

would give an advantage to those communities that implemented the land use mitigation measures over those communities that did not. 

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY INNOVATIONS (INCLUDING 

VOLUNTARY INCENTIVES) 

The CWA sets national goals for water quality and process requirements for attaining them. EPA issues federal regulations as part of its role in administering the CWA 

and delegates specific authority to states and tribes as to how they will attain and 

enforce federally established standards. For those states and tribes that do not have 

delegated authority, EPA regions are responsible for establishing, implementing, and 

enforcing state standards and requirements. 

Within this federal-state-local framework for implementing the CWA, there are a 

number of opportunities to use smart growth approaches to meet state and local 

water quality goals. The following policies describe opportunities for communities 

to leverage smart growth approaches to meet current water quality regulations. 

Policy 34. Create performance-based standards


Many water quality standards are technology-based. For example, a regulation might 

call for a detention pond of a particular size, according to the lot size. To provide 

developers with more flexibility in meeting water quality standards, policymakers 

may consider the use of performance-based standards that set target goals—such as 

a 40 percent reduction in stormwater runoff—but leave it to the developer to determine the means by which this goal is achieved. This approach shifts the focus from 

technologies to the actual reduction of pollutants, and it might encourage implementing land use and zoning policies to achieve water quality goals. 
48 Section 1: Protecting Water Resources at the Regional Level 

For example, performance-based measures would allow leeway for revised zoning 

codes or regional plans to redirect development to achieve water quality improvements. These measures might consider the stormwater runoff benefits associated 

with higher-density development that leads to an overall lower level of imperviousness. Regulations can be supplemented with performance-based standards to provide more flexibility and encourage innovation. 

Issues to Consider: Flexible codes might require a significant shift in how government agencies operate. Governments might need to educate the review staff 

on the principles of adaptive management—identifying and adapting policies 

based on modeling, monitoring, and other research and analysis efforts. In addition, the adoption of performance-based standards will require the sound use of 

scientific information to set desired levels of performance and measure the 

capacity of participants to achieve them. 

Practice Tip: Lacey, Washington, passed an ordinance encouraging “zero effect 

drainage discharge” and “zero effective impervious surface” by revising its building code to specifically encourage and allow development that yields these 

impacts. It is the first such ordinance in the United States. Under the ordinance, 

a zero effective impervious surface means “impervious surface reduction to a 

small fraction of that resulting from traditional site development techniques, 

such that usual manmade drainage collection systems are not necessary.”60 The 

ordinance allows prescribed stormwater control requirements to be waived 

when project design uses alternative techniques to reduce stormwater runoff. 

Possible design approaches allowed under the ordinance include: replacing all 

driveway and parking areas with pervious materials, planting native landscaping 

with greater capacity to slow runoff and take up the water, allowing for smaller 

rooftop exposures and/or rooftop gardens, or constructing narrow roadways 

with substantial vegetative berms.61 

Policy 35. Consider future growth when developing TMDLs 


States are responsible for establishing water quality standards for their waterbodies, 

including TMDLs for pollutants when a waterbody or water segment is impaired. 

This process might consist of guidance for local governments on how to comply 

with the federal TMDL requirements, or the development of new state standards for 

developing and/or reviewing TMDLs to ensure that the regulations are followed. 

Often, future growth is not considered or specified in state guidance on TMDLs. 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 49 

Allocating impacts from future growth is currently not required at the federal level; 

however, some states require the inclusion of future growth in TMDL calculations. 

As such, their guidance documents represent an opportunity to include current and 

future land use decisions within the TMDL process. States may include additional 

TMDL component requirements that would ultimately help them achieve the final 

target loading. In this context, for example, states could require that the development-related impacts from future growth be considered when developing TMDL 

allocations. The inclusion of future growth would help states meet their TMDL targets and favor less-polluting smart growth development options. 

Practice Tip: Georgia, as part of its TMDL process, requires any locality asking 

the state for an environmental permit that facilitates growth and development 

(e.g., wastewater or water withdrawal permit) to conduct a watershed assessment. These assessments provide additional information on point and nonpoint 

pollution sources. Applicants must identify pollution sources, model future land 

use scenarios, and provide solutions to water quality problems.62 

Policy 36. Make adequate water a prerequisite of additional 

growth 

Local permitting and approval processes for development often do not explicitly 

consider available water supplies when evaluating potential development. 

Incorporating provisions to do so can help communities ensure that future development will not overburden existing water resources. 

Local decisionmakers may want to assess potential impacts on future water supplies 

and quality prior to permitting new developments. Such assessments could provide 

early warnings if a new development will likely have an unacceptable impact on 

water quality and water supply. These assessments will be most effective if completed early in the planning process, by connecting water supply plans to comprehensive plans, as well as at the point of permitting, when the impact of a specific proposed development can be estimated. By making such analysis a routine part of 

planning for large-scale growth, decisionmakers can help ensure that future water 

supplies will be adequate, and that water quality will not be compromised by growth. 
50 Section 1: Protecting Water Resources at the Regional Level 

Moving in this policy direction, the Charles River Watershed Association completed 

an environmental assessment for a zoning plan in the town of Holliston, 

Massachusetts, that could link future growth to sustainable water supplies. The 

assessment used geographic information systems (GIS) to map areas of developable 

land that are critical for replenishing aquifers. The association calculated a “water 

budget” for the town, showing the impact of various levels of development on water 

resources. Such planning can prevent future water supply shortages and ensure that 

new developments have the necessary water infrastructure.63 

Practice Tip: A new California state law, effective January 2002, requires all 

developers of proposed projects of 500 or more homes to demonstrate that 

ample water supplies exist prior to construction.64 Cities and counties are prohibited from issuing permits for the construction of projects unless the local 

water agency verifies that it has enough water to serve the new growth at least 

during the next 20 years.65 This process allows water suppliers to refuse to serve 

additional houses to prevent shortages that could affect existing customers. In 

some cases, it could require developers to help find and pay for new water 

sources. Although the bill does not directly encourage the use of compact development, it does so indirectly because more compact development usually consumes less water on a per household basis. In addition, the bill offers a waiver 

for projects in infill areas, where projects are most likely to incorporate compact 

building techniques. As a result, the new law has the potential to indirectly 

reduce household water demand and site runoff. Additional provisions might be 

necessary, however, to ensure that developers do not evade the law by proposing 

499-unit projects when water supply is in doubt. 

Policy 37. Incorporate smart growth into stormwater 

management plans 

Communities are mandated to develop stormwater management programs under the 

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirement. Some components of a regional smart growth program can be used to meet or enhance a community’s requirements for a stormwater management program.66 For communities that 

have already adopted smart growth plans, recognizing the water benefits of those plans 

and making them part of the stormwater water plan submission can be a low-cost way 

to meet some of the stormwater management program requirements. In addition, 

communities that have not yet adopted smart growth plans might want to investigate smart growth approaches that can help them meet stormwater management 

program responsibilities and meet other community goals with the same investment. 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 51 

In response to the 1987 amendments to the CWA, EPA developed 

Phase I of the NPDES Stormwater Program in 1990. The Phase I program addressed sources of stormwater runoff that had the greatest 

potential negative impacts on water quality. Under Phase I, EPA 

required NPDES permit coverage for stormwater discharges from 

medium and large municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) 

located in incorporated places or counties with populations of 

100,000 or more, and for construction sites that disturb 5 or more 

acres. The Phase II Final Rule requires NPDES permit coverage for 

stormwater discharges from small municipal separate storm sewer systems and for 

construction sites that disturb between 1 and 5 acres. A stormwater management 

program requires six minimum control measures (MCMs), including: 

1. Public education and outreach 

2. Public participation/involvement 

3. Illicit discharge detection and elimination 

4. Construction site runoff control 

5. Post construction runoff control 

6. Pollution prevention/good housekeeping 

A community’s smart growth plan can help fulfill many of these minimum control 

measures. For example, the Washington State Department of Ecology developed a 

model permit for communities that must comply with EPA’s Stormwater Phase II 

regulations. The permit lists infill development policies as a creditable policy to mitigate post-construction stormwater volumes.67 In addition, an effective smart growth 

planning process will necessarily involve public outreach and involvement on future 

growth areas, and that discussion should involve water quality impacts. Thus, smart 

growth planning helps fulfill MCMs One and Two. As discussed in the sections 

above, smart growth effectively reduces development footprints for a given amount 

of development, reducing runoff both during and after construction, further fulfilling MCMs Four and Five. 

Practice Tip: Jackson County, Michigan, has been able to take advantage of the 

smart growth and Phase II interactions. In 2003, local officials created the 

Upper Grand River Watershed Initiative. Even though the initiative was created 

to address Phase II requirements, the plan architects recognized the smart 

growth benefits of this plan. For example, although education and public awareness are a large part of the plan, it will likely touch on issues such as land use, 

urban sprawl, brownfield, redevelopment, wetlands preservation, and zoning 

regulations.68 

Photo courtesy of USDA NRCS. 

Public education and 

outreach are required 

under Phase II and can 

help support a community’s revitalization 

goals. 
52 Section 1: Protecting Water Resources at the Regional Level 

WANT MORE 

INFORMATION? 

The World Resources 

Institute developed a 

trading Web site to provide a simple way for buyers and sellers to connect. 

It is located at: <www. 

nutrientnet.org>. 

Policy 38. Incorporate smart growth into pollution trading 

programs 

Trading allows a community to use a market-based approach to maintain its water 

quality. Trading is based on the idea that different sources face different costs to control the same amount of a given pollutant. Trading therefore allows the sources, 

such as facilities or nonpoint sources, facing higher pollution control costs to meet 

their required reductions by purchasing equal (or better) reductions from another 

source.69 Trading then achieves the same water quality improvements at an overall 

lower cost. Trading might also benefit impaired urban waterways where reaching 

healthy levels is difficult. In 2003, EPA announced a new Water Quality Trading 

Policy, which is designed to further reduce industrial, municipal, and agricultural 

discharges into waterways.70 The policy provides guidance to states and tribes on 

how trading can occur under the CWA and its implementing regulations. 

Numerous opportunities to incorporate smart growth approaches into a trading 

framework exist. At the state level, for example, where trading policies are determined, states can consider calculating pollutant loads on a per housing unit basis 

rather than the more conventional per acre basis. By being able to calculate loads on 

a housing-unit basis instead of on an acre basis, communities are better able to 

account for the water quality benefits of higher-density developments. In addition, 

the current trading policy allows states to consider disturbed land in addition to or 

instead of overall percent impervious cover. Under this option, communities will be 

able to give credit to developers who use a compact site design and disturb less land 

than a typical low-density development. 

Given the potential water quality benefits of better site design, this trading policy 

could provide some communities with relief. For example, if a community has several sources for which it is costly to further reduce loadings, the point source can 

“buy” credits from a developer who is considering a compact site design. The funds 

provided by the point source can then be used for design assistance to further 

enhance those site design practices that achieve smart growth. This type of relationship might provide incentives for additional developers to implement better site 

design practices when they realize the water quality “savings” are marketable. 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 53 

Practice Tip: The Cherry Creek Reservoir Watershed Phosphorus Trading 

Program in Denver, Colorado, is an example of an innovative point/nonpoint 

source trading program.71 The goal of this program is to allow point source discharges to increase within a TMDL cap. To help reach this goal, point and nonpoint controls have been implemented to reduce phosphorus loadings in the 

watershed. Municipal facilities must now optimize controls, comply with permit 

limits, and implement best management practices (BMPs) for urban runoff 

before a trade is approved.72 Credits generated from nonpoint source pollutant 

reduction facilities can be used to offset growth when a need is demonstrated. 

Development and credit use must be consistent with a basin plan established by 

the Cherry Creek Basin Water Quality Authority under legislative mandate. 

Furthermore, permits issued by the state must also be consistent with the basin 

plan and use of credits approved by the Authority. 

Policy 39. Use smart growth to vigorously pursue CWA 

antidegradation policy 

The CWA requires states to have antidegradation policies and implementation methods in place to maintain the health of waterbodies. Antidegradation is part of a larger 

process of protecting waterbodies that involves setting water quality standards. States 

or EPA must first designate uses for targeted waterbodies, then develop water quality 

criteria to protect those uses, and finally place the better quality streams into higher 

antidegradation tiers: Tier II for high-quality waterbodies and Tier III for exceptional 

value or outstanding waterbodies. Discharges into these waterbodies will be more 

tightly controlled, wetlands and natural habitats will be preserved, and stormwater 

will be recharged into the ground instead of eroding stream banks. Development 

can occur, but only if the quality of waterbodies and wetlands are maintained. 

Although antidegradation goals and requirements are clearly stated in the 

CWA, many states and communities are still formulating their specific 

responses to antidegradation. A smart growth approach can facilitate compliance in several ways. First, by accommodating the same amount of growth 

on less land than conventional low-density development, smart growth 

allows certain areas of a watershed, which might otherwise be developed, to 

be set aside to preserve existing water quality. Second, where portions of a 

watershed will be developed, antidegradation policy requires cost-effective 

controls, and smart growth offers a highly cost-effective approach to 

minimizing the amount of degradation. Smart growth reduces the cost of 

Photo courtesy of USDA NRCS. 

Antidegration 

measures can help 

preserve pristine 

waters. 
54 Section 1: Protecting Water Resources at the Regional Level 

infrastructure (e.g., roads, water, sewer) compared to conventional lower-density 

development, and can also substantially reduce nonpoint runoff from a given 

amount of development. Finally, antidegradation policy allows a certain amount of 

degradation, if necessary, for “economic development.” In spite of the fact that most 

residential development fails to support itself from a tax-revenue perspective, smart 

growth developments can substantially lower municipal cost burdens, making it an 

economical way to grow and still comply with the policy. 

Policy 40. Create a sliding scale of mitigation requirements 

based on level of density 

Stormwater regulations typically do not recognize the benefits that can result from 

denser developments, particularly those in existing communities. Required runoff 

reduction is traditionally based on acreage and applied to all development projects— 

regardless of location within the region or the density of the development. Thus a 5-

acre, high-density redevelopment of a parking lot accommodating 100 units is often 

required to reduce the same amount of runoff as a 5-acre, low-density development 

accommodating five units. Instead, communities can implement a sliding scale for 

stormwater mitigation based on the development’s density level. This approach will 

recognize the stormwater benefits that can result from more compact developments. 

More compact, mixed-use developments generally require less land and cause fewer 

water quality impacts than their conventional, less dense counterparts. When compact 

developments are located in existing communities—thereby reducing the pressure 

for development of sensitive ecological areas such as headwaters, wetlands, riparian 

corridors, and floodplains—their stormwater benefits are greater still. As a result, 

these compact developments in existing communities reduce the need for stormwater 

mitigation that otherwise would have been required with conventional developments. 

Communities can encourage compact development by reducing mitigation requirements based on density. This approach provides a financial incentive for higherdensity (more compact) development that will further reduce a community’s overall 

needs for stormwater mitigation. For example, a state or municipality can set a pollutant reduction target for new development that incorporates a sliding scale according to the project’s density (see Figure 2). The higher the density, the less stringent 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 55 

pollutant reduction requirements would be. Residential, commercial, business, or 

mixed-use redevelopment at any density could be credited the full amount of pollutant removal, thereby waiving responsibility for any additional mitigation efforts as a 

result of new development. As the requirements for removal efficiency increase with 

lower-density projects, so do the costs of mitigation, thus providing financial incentive for higher-density projects. 

Figure 2: Example of Possible Land Use Water Quality Credits 

0 

Land Use Density 

(housing units/acre) 

BMP Removal 

Credit (%) 

Redevelopment (post-redevelopment 

imperviousness = current imperviousness) 

at any density 

Single-family residential (1 to 5 units per acre) 

Residential (5 to 10 units per acre) 

Medium-density residential (11 to 25 units 

per acre) 

High-density residential (> 25 units per acre) 

50 to 75 

15 to 20 

25 to 35 

35 to 50 

Policy 41. Modify facility planning area process to support 

smart growth 

Facility planning areas (FPAs), authorized by the CWA, call for states to integrate 

and coordinate planning for wastewater systems to better protect water quality. The 

provision seeks to manage the placement and timing of wastewater system expansion or construction, and evaluate any potential environmental impacts. When planning for wastewater services, the FPA provision requires water and sewer providers 

to forecast future population growth (and therefore development and water infrastructure), due to its direct and significant impact on the community’s capacity to 

manage land use planning to reduce water demand. In addition, a state or its designated agent can deny wastewater system expansions through the FPA approval 

process, giving states a clear role in managing growth. 
56 Section 1: Protecting Water Resources at the Regional Level 

The FPA process also highlights an important role for states in managing water. 

Historically, the primary environmental concern of facility planning was the effect of 

non-regulated wastewater systems on water quality. Now a larger environmental 

concern is the effect of the rapid dispersion of people and jobs to outlying areas. 

The conversion of land from open space to development creates nonpoint source 

pollution and endangers water resources once thought secure from pollution threats.73 

Facility planning area processes can better account for these impacts through explicit provisions that support the expansion of wastewater systems—and therefore 

future growth—in existing communities or those characterized by compact development. Communities (usually municipalities or sanitary districts) are required to 

identify geographic areas currently served by wastewater systems, as well as those in 

need of service within the next 20 years. States can, in addition, require these FPAs 

(also known as sewer service areas or sewerage service agencies) to comply with 

local plans that encourage reinvestment in existing areas. In addition, FPAs must 

apply to the state or their designated agent for approval of amendments to or expansions of their existing service areas. 

States could further support communities by using evaluation standards that favor 

plans to expand sewer service to areas slated for compact, rather than dispersed, 

development. All these policy innovations build on current requirements for states 

to consider the environmental impacts of wastewater system expansions. The innovations recognize the potential water benefits (both in terms of quantity demanded 

and system efficiency) associated with more compact growth. In so doing, they serve 

as an opportunity for states to fulfill their water management duties and simultaneously support communities’ attempts to achieve smart growth. 

Issues to Consider: Illinois’ recent experience highlights some of the more difficult issues that can arise from the FPA process and some dramatic changes that 

might result. The FPA process in Illinois had, over time, resulted in a great deal of 

frustration—some municipalities considered the state role in their growth planning to be inappropriate; developers claimed that the process added time and 

expense to their efforts; and some “no growth” advocates claimed that the FPA 

process did too little to manage growth, particularly in sensitive environmental 

areas. In 1998, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) announced 

plans to discontinue the FPA process, citing, among other reasons, a growing incidence of inter-jurisdictional battles that it was forced to mediate. In effect, the 

environmental agency had become an arbiter of community boundaries.74 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 57 

Subsequently, after receiving feedback from a range of parties, IEPA reversed 

course in 1999, announcing plans to retain the FPA process. This decision was 

based in part on a comprehensive evaluation of the FPA program by the 

Openlands Project. This evaluation concluded that, although the program had 

many flaws, it should be retained and improved. IEPA responded in a September 

2002 report, concluding again that the FPA process should be eliminated. Among 

the principal problems cited by IEPA was the fact that the agency’s mediation role 

(between communities over boundaries and borders) was beyond the purview of 

the agency. The following month, the IEPA director dismissed the conclusions as 

final policy, instead inviting public comment on how to resolve ongoing problems 

with the state FPA process so that it could be retained and improved.75 By 

September 2003, IEPA had begun efforts to phase in “a watershed-based 

approach that will ultimately phase out reliance on the more narrowly focused 

Facility Planning.”76 Undoubtedly, the state’s plans for managing water through 

coordinated wastewater planning efforts will continue to evolve, providing a lesson for those who would attempt to create an FPA process without many of the 

difficulties of the Illinois experience. 

Practice Tip: The Northeastern Ohio Area Coordinating Agency (NOACA) 

offers a unique perspective on the potential to link growth and water planning 

through the FPA process. The agency is designated by the state as the entity 

responsible for area-wide planning under Section 208 of the CWA—the same 

act that established the FPA process. In addition to the requirements for wastewater treatment issues, NOACA also considers the nonpoint source pollution 

impacts associated with growth. Its Clean Water 2000 report establishes the 

basis for evaluating sewer plans and is guided by principles that seek to “optimize use of existing investment in infrastructure, not encourage public investments in new infrastructure.”77 Such objectives support the goals of the NOACA 

board to “encourage efficient, compact land use development that facilitates 

mobility, saves infrastructure costs, preserves environmentally sensitive and agricultural lands, and enhances the economic viability of existing communities 

within the region.”78 

Finally, the unique dual role of NOACA as the area’s metropolitan planning 

organization charged with the distribution of and planning for transportation 

resources demonstrates an even more critical connection—the opportunity to 

connect wastewater and transportation infrastructure planning. Together, both 

issues exert tremendous influence on how a community grows. NOACA seeks 

to integrate the two efforts through seven planning strategies that include technical information sharing, the development of models that would generate 

results useful for both efforts, and uniform standards for use in county comprehensive planning.79 
58 Section 1: Protecting Water Resources at the Regional Level 

EDUCATION 

The impact of development on water resources is so vast that regulations alone are 

insufficient to improve the quality of a community’s water resources, hence the 

importance of education. Local officials, residents, business owners, developers, and 

other stakeholders might need education on the many ways their actions affect the 

community’s water resources. In particular, given the vast body of federal and state 

legislative action on water, education can also help stakeholders better understand 

the goals and objectives of environmental agencies, and the ways in which they can 

provide assistance to localities and residents. 

Opportunities abound for states and localities to incorporate smart growth principles 

into their program implementation efforts—where education plays an important 

role. Incentives, best practices, and other approaches to encourage growth in existing communities all work best if communities are educated about needs and goals 

so that overall runoff is minimized and high-value ecological lands are preserved. 

Policy 42. Create partnerships to improve water quality


Municipal responsibility for water resources is often spread throughout several different agencies and departments. In addition to government agencies, the public, 

developers, construction companies, and others also affect water resources. Partnerships 

are therefore crucial to ensure a comprehensive and effective approach to smart 

Partnerships, including growth and maintaining water quality. Partnerships can leverage funding, coordinate schools, can help planning across a region, and share knowledge to better protect water resources. advance a community’s


smart growth and


water quality goals. Development decisions are enhanced when localities engage residents and other 

stakeholders on how to accommodate growth while still protecting the community’s 

valued water resources. Partnerships between nonprofit organizations, such as land trusts, and governments can be effective 

in identifying, prioritizing, and eventually acquiring critical 

parcels for preservation that are under threat of development 

within watersheds. Educational partners, such as universities 

and research institutions, can be involved in the development 

of technology to estimate the potential impacts of development 

on sensitive water resources. Other partnerships, such as those 

with foundations or state or federal environmental agencies, 

can yield important new sources of funding, technology, 

or technical assistance for localities. Partnerships and ad hoc 

affiliations of affected groups not only coalesce ideas and 

energy for water preservation, they also serve to educate all 

Photo courtesy of USDA NRCS. 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 59 

members on the many ways in which water resources can be used, abused, and 

eventually protected. 

Issues to Consider: Assembling and maintaining an interagency team and 

including outside stakeholders can be challenging and time-consuming. Without 

a clear source of funding, resource considerations can make it difficult for an ad 

hoc group, for example, to organize and distribute necessary work among members to achieve its objectives. Partnerships of volunteer members or agencies can 

succeed, however, if efforts are focused on coordinating and achieving discrete, 

well-defined tasks; enabling each group to contribute in ways related to its 

strengths; and educating member organizations on the priorities and resources 

that others bring to the table. 

Practice Tip: Rapid, dispersed, low-density development in north central Texas 

prompted various federal agencies to form the Interagency Stream Team to help 

communities and developers understand the effects of rapid growth and development on open space, habitat, and streams. Comprised of volunteer engineers, 

city planners, hydrologists, and other specialists from agencies such as EPA, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, North Central Texas Council of Governments, Texas 

Parks and Wildlife, and FEMA, the team provides advice on environmentally 

friendly ways to manage and restore streams and riparian corridors. The team’s 

project reviews and field visits provide expertise and recommendations concerning project design to municipalities and developers to protect open space, water 

quality, and habitat. The partnership has provided significant technical support 

and advice on development, and its guidance and recommended policies are 

raising the general awareness of maintaining safe and sound aquatic ecosystems 

throughout the region.80 

Policy 43. Educate local officials on the water quality 

impacts from development 

Local officials exert a powerful influence over land use development decisions, but 

might not fully understand the impacts of their decisions on water quality. A decision, for example, to site a new office park on developed land at the urban fringe 

might seem attractive for fiscal reasons. However, to be able to analyze all aspects of 

the project, officials need to consider the total cost of expanding water and sewer 

lines to the new development, the impacts of potential stormwater runoff from the 

site’s large surface parking lots, and the deposition of emissions from commuting 

office workers into nearby waterways. Training local officials responsible for development decisions, as well as water quality staff, on smart growth and its water quality 
60 Section 1: Protecting Water Resources at the Regional Level 

WANT MORE 

INFORMATION? 

NEMO maintains a Web 

site that contains fact 

sheets, reports, presentations, and additional 

information to educate 

local officials on the water 

quality impacts from different land uses. These 

resources can be 

accessed at: <www.nemo. 

uconn.edu>. 

Photo courtesy of the NEMO program and the University of Connecticut. 

benefits can help encourage collaboration, 

resulting in the use of practices and policies that better support mutually shared 

goals for growth and water protection. 

Given the many aspects of growth that 

elected officials must consider—such as 

economic impact, job creation, physical 

design, and cultural and historical 

resources—some water quality educators 

approach water quality through a broader framework of community assets. The 

experience of Nonpoint Education for 

Municipal Officials (NEMO), suggests that A town meeting in East Haddam, 

Connecticut, develops strategies to the concepts of smart growth and commu- address local water quality issues. 

nity character are often more appealing and 

tangible to communities than are the water 

quality aspects of development. Administered by the University of Connecticut, 

NEMO is a network of local leaders that provides training in watershed management 

and land use planning to local officials throughout the country.81 NEMO’s approach 

to education highlights the numerous benefits—including water quality—that smart 

growth development has to offer. 

Practice Tip: The National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education at 

the University of Maryland runs a program providing smart growth information 

to federal, state, and local officials, as well as nonprofit and private firms. The 

Maryland Smart Growth Leadership program focuses on community development, environmental systems and management, leadership principles, and infrastructure planning, as well as social, economic, and environmental effects.82 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 61 

Policy 44. Develop a model town to demonstrate how and 

where polluted runoff flows 

Many local government officials, planners, and residents are not fully aware of how 

development contributes to water quality problems. Theoretical understanding of 

nonpoint source pollution is as important as understanding how the flows of specific local and regional waterways will be impacted by current and proposed developments. One simple way to demonstrate pollution flows from development is to 

develop a model town. 

For example, in Northglenn, Colorado, the local government built a model of the 

town, which they dotted with food coloring. Water was then sprayed on the model 

to show how the unfiltered pollutants, as shown with the food coloring, washed 

over the landscape and through the drainage system into the local stream. The 

model continues to help educate stakeholders on how different development scenarios impact the environment. It also provides an opportunity to discuss the details 

and implications of better development models, such as improving housing layouts 

and designs, creating more compact communities, reducing the footprint of parking 

lots, and planning for open space for stormwater benefits. Finally, by using small 

sponges, the model can show residents in older, built-out neighborhoods how they 

can mitigate the impacts of stormwater on their property. The sponges act as lawns 

and gardens and are used to show how directing rainwater from the rooftop onto 

these areas, instead of into the street, decreases pollutants and water that flow into 

nearby streams. 

Policy 45. Create a program to certify developers, builders, 

and other industry professionals responsible for 

implementing BMPs 

Best management practices (BMPs) provide useful examples to developers, residents, 

and other stakeholders on how to improve water quality, but they are only as effective as the quality of their implementation. For example, despite the fact that a 

biorention or a grass swale serves as a BMP for reducing stormwater runoff, its success can be hampered if it is not well-placed (i.e., if it is located over soils that do 

not percolate well), not well-designed (i.e., it fails to catch significant site runoff), or 

not well-maintained (i.e., if trash is allowed to collect and accumulate). 
62 Section 1: Protecting Water Resources at the Regional Level 

WANT MORE 

INFORMATION? 

EPA has a variety of water 

quality information available at: <www.epa. 

gov/waters>. 

One way to ensure that BMPs are effective is to certify contractors who have demonstrated a capacity to construct, implement, and/or manage them well. Such a program provides potential BMP users greater assurance that the maximum benefits will 

be achieved. It also serves to build a demand for the skills required to attain certification among contractors. Local or state agencies could administer the certification 

program and provide subsequent random inspections to ensure that the contractors’ 

work is yielding the water quality benefits expected from a BMP. 

Practice Tip: Construction activities are known to produce significant nonpoint 

source pollution as a result of site erosion and runoff. The state of Maine has 

taken steps to mitigate these impacts by certifying developers who successfully 

demonstrate the use of techniques for erosion control. Under its Erosion Control 

Law, Maine’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) offers this voluntary, incentive-driven certification program to broaden the use of effective erosion control techniques. Contractors are first taught erosion and sedimentation 

control practices; then, one of their construction sites is inspected to demonstrate their hands-on understanding of erosion control principles. Once this 

activity is completed, the contractor is certified. As an incentive, the certification 

program provides free marketing for developers and permits a certified contractor to advertise as a “DEP Certified Contractor.”83 

Policy 46. Provide municipalities with sufficient data to 

make better land use decisions 

Land use data—such as data from remote sensing or mapping technologies—might 

not be easily accessible to localities making decisions on where to direct development. Increased coordination of the use and sharing of information, technology, and 

models between localities and sources collecting the data can help communities 

make more informed land use decisions. 

Environmental agencies, research institutions, and federal agencies collect and analyze a great deal of data and information, but do not necessarily make it easily 

accessible to localities. Providing municipalities with this information—and the 

technical capacity to use it to its full benefit—can help local officials and residents 

make decisions about the long-term impacts of the development decisions they 

make today. Tools such as GIS and remote sensing are particularly important in the 

early stages of the planning process (e.g., creating or revising comprehensive plans) 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 63 

when the foundation is laid for growth that will occur during the next several years. 

For example, remote sensing data that show the growth in sediment throughout 

time at the base of a river or in a lake as a result of upstream erosion caused by 

development of previously forested lands can be an incentive to better direct future 

growth to mitigate impacts. Also, GIS maps can succinctly illustrate the nexus 

between critical environmental resources and encroaching development pressures, 

thereby highlighting areas in need of protection. 

Practice Tip: Maine’s Beginning with Habitat program is a habitat-based landscape approach to assessing wildlife and plant conservation needs and opportunities. The goal of the program is to maintain sufficient habitat to support all 

native plant and animal species currently breeding in Maine. It accomplishes 

this by providing GIS data to municipalities. These maps can then be overlaid 

on town maps to highlight areas where protection efforts should be focused. 

The maps provide communities with information to guide conservation of valuable habitats and thereby protect water resources.84 

WANT MORE 

INFORMATION? 

EPA Region 5 and Purdue 

University developed an 

online tool, the LongTerm Hydrologic Impact 

Assessment model, to 

help planners measure 

the water quality impacts 

associated with land use 

changes. The model is 

located at: <danpatch. 

ecn.purdue.edu/~sprawl/ 

LTHIA7/Index.html.> 
64 Section 1: Protecting Water Resources at the Regional Level 

3

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research 

Service, Natural Resources and Environment Division. 

1997. National Resources Inventory. 

4

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research 

Service. “Major land use changes in the contiguous 48 

states.” Agricultural Resources and Environmental 

Indicators (AREI), 1996-97. Agriculture Handbook 

No.712, July 1997. 

5

The 10 percent figure is not an absolute threshold. 

Recent studies have indicated that in some watersheds, 

serious degradation may begin well below 10 percent. 

However, the level at which watershed degradation 

begins is not the focus of this paper. For purposes of 

this analysis, the 10 percent threshold will be used as 

an average figure. 

6

See, for example, Montgomery County Department of 

Environmental Protection. 2000. Stream Conditions 

Cumulative Impact Models for the Potomac Subregion; 

Caraco, Deb. 1998. Rapid Watershed Planning HandbookA Comprehensive Guide for Managing Urban Watersheds. 

Ellicott City, MD: Center for Watershed Protection; 

Schueler, Tom. 1994. “The Importance of 

Imperviousness.” Watershed Protection Techniques. 1.3: 

100-111. Ellicott City, MD: The Center for Watershed 

Protection. <www.stormwatercenter.net/Practice/1-

Importance%20of%20Imperviousness.pdf>. Arnold, 

C.L. and C.J. Gibbons. 1996. “Impervious Surface 

Coverage: The Emergence of a Key Environmental 

Indicator.” Journal of the American Planning Association. 

62.2: 243-258. 

7

U.S. EPA. June 2003. EPA’s Draft Report on the 

Environment Technical Document. EPA 600-R-03-050. 

<www.epa.gov/indicators>. 

8

New Jersey Water Supply Authority. Raritan Basin 

Project Description. <www.raritanbasin.org/ 

Description.htm>. 

9

Denver Regional Council of Governments. “Local governments united on guiding growth: Mile High Compact 

signed.” Regional Report. <www.drcog.org/pub_news/ 

releases/RR%20Mile%20High%20Compact.pdf>. 

10U.S. EPA, Office of Water. Watershed Academy Web 

site. <www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/wacademy/ 

acad2000/protection/r3.html>. 

11U.S. EPA, Region 1. Region 1 Smart Growth Web site. 

<www.epa.gov/region01/ra/sprawl/grants1999.html#10>. 

12Henry, Natalie. June 13, 2003. “SoCal Counties 

Combining Habitat Conservation Plans with Clean 

Water Permits.” Land Letter. E&E Publishing, LLC. 

<www.eenews.net/Landletter.htm>. 

13U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Population 

Projections Program. 2000. Annual Projections of the 

Total Resident Population as of July 1: Middle, Lowest, 

Highest, and Zero International Migration Series, 1999 to 

2100. Washington, D.C. <www.census.gov/population/ 

www/projections/natsum-T1.html>. 

14Rutgers University. 2000. The Costs and Benefits of 

Alternative Growth Patterns: The Impact Assessment of the 

New Jersey State Plan. Center for Urban Policy and 

Research. New Brunswick, NJ. 

15Ibid. 

16Pollard, Trip. 2001. “Greening the American Dream?” 

Planning. 67 (10): 110-116. 

17Trust for Public Land. 1997. Protecting the Source: Land 

Conservation and the Future of America’s Drinking Water. 

San Francisco, CA: Trust for Public Land. 

18Hillsborough County, FL. Hillsborough Greenways 

Program. <www.hillsboroughcounty.org/pgm/ 

community/greenways_program.html>. 

19Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning 

Commission, Montgomery County Department of 

Park & Planning. Community Based Planning. 

<www.mc-mncppc.org/community>. 

20Openlands Project. October 2001. Protecting Illinois’ 

Environment through a Stronger Facility Planning Process. 

<www.openlands.org/reports/FPA%20Report.pdf>. 

21Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 

Wisconsin’s Sewer Service Area Planning Program. 

<www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/wm/glwsp/ssaplan>. 

22City of Columbus Division of Sewerage and 

Drainage. November 3, 2000. Facilities Plan Update. 

<ci.columbus.oh.us/plan>. 

23North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program. 

<www.ncfloodmaps.com/pubdocs/ 

NCFPMPHndOut.htm>. 

24McElfish, James M. Jr. and Susan Casey-Lefkowitz. 

2001. Smart Growth and the Clean Water Act. NortheastMidwest Institute. <www.nemw.org/SGCleanWater.pdf>. 

25Temple University Center for Public Policy and 

Eastern Pennsylvania Organizing Project. 2001. Blight 

Free Philadelphia: A Public-Private Strategy to Create and 

Enhance Neighborhood Value. <www.temple.edu/CPP/ 

content/reports/BlightFreePhiladelphia.pdf>. 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 65 

26Pryne, Eric. May 20, 2002. “20 Years’ Worth of County 

Land?” Seattle Times. 

27Ibid. 

28Deason, Jonathan, et al. September 2001. Public 

Policies and Private Decisions Affecting the Redevelopment 

of Brownfields: An Analysis of Critical Factors, Relative 

Weights and Area Differentials. Prepared for U.S. EPA, 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 

Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University 

<www.gwu.edu/~eem/Brownfields/project_report/ 

report.htm>. 

29Fairfax County Public Works and Environmental 

Services. 2001. 2001 Public Facilities Manual. Fairfax 

County, VA. 

30Ebert, Karl. August 2002. “New stormwater rules 

eyed: Proposal calls for easing of regulations in city 

redevelopment areas.” Oshkosh Northwestern. Oshkosh, 

WI: Northwestern. 

31U.S. EPA. Development, Community, and 

Environment Division. June 2003. Minimizing the 

Impacts of Development on Water Quality [Draft]. 

32Cooper, Carry. Projects - Mizner Park. 

<www.coopercarry.com/4/4e1c.html>. Also, City of 

Boca Raton, FL. Downtown Redevelopment. 

<www.ci.boca-raton.fl.us/econ/downtown.cfm>. 

33Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, 

Metropolitan Washington Air Quality Committee. 

August 13, 2003. Plan to Improve Air Quality in the 

Washington, DC-MD-VA Region. <www.mwcog.org/ 

environment/air>. 

34Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay. 1997. “Air Pollution 

in the Chesapeake Bay.” Baltimore, MD. 

35Kaspersen, Janice. November/December 2000. “The 

Stormwater Utility: Will it Work in Your Community?” 

Stormwater, The Journal for Surface Water Quality 

Professionals. 

36Cherry Creek Basin Water Quality Authority. Home 

page. <www.cherrycreekbasin.org>. Also, Cherry 

Creek Stewardship Partners Web site. Cherry Creek 

Stewardship Partners. Home Page. <cherry-creek.org>. 

37Vellinga, Mary Lynne. January 31, 2002. “Sewer Fee 

Plan to Limit Sprawl Gains Approval.” Sacramento Bee. 

<www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/1555934p1632412c.html>. Also, Sacramento Regional County 

Sanitation District. Rates and Fees. <www.srcsd.com/ 

costs.html>. 

38State of New Jersey, Smart Growth Infrastructure Tax 

Credits Web site. 2002. <www.state.nj.us/budget02/ 

smarttax.html>. 

39Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Department of 

Environmental Conservation, Water Quality Division. 

February 2001. Management of Stormwater Runoff in 

Vermont: Program and Policy Options. Prepared for the 

Vermont General Assembly. <www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/ 

waterq/stormwaterWIP.htm>. 

40ICMA. 1998. Why Smart Growth: A Primer. 

41U.S. EPA. Our Built and Natural Environments. EPA 

231-R-01-002. January 2001. 

42ICMA. 1998. Why Smart Growth: A Primer. 

43Maine State Legislature, Office of the Revisor of 

Statutes. 2003. Title 38: Waters and Navigation. 

Chapter 3: Protection and Improvement of Waters. 

<janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/38/title38sec420-D.html>. 

44Fort Worth Water Department. September 2002. 

Recommendation of the 2002 Informal Water and 

Wastewater Retail Rate Advisory Committee. 

<www.fortworthgov.org/water/Reports/ 

2002ratereportEnglish.pdf>. 

45Burchell, R.W. and D. Listokin. 1995. Land, 

Infrastructure, Housing Costs and Fiscal Impacts Associated 

with Growth: The Literature on the Impacts of Sprawl 

Versus Managed Growth. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers 

University, Center for Urban Policy Research. As summarized in The Technological Reshaping of Metropolitan 

America, Office of Technology Assessment. OTA-ETI-643. 

46City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County 

Government. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities. < 

www.charmeck.org/Departments/Utilities/Home.htm>. 

47U.S. EPA, Office of Wastewater Management. October 

2000. Potential Roles for Clean Water State Revolving Fund 

Programs in Smart Growth Initiatives. EPA 832-R-00-010. 

<www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/smartgro.pdf>. 

48Ibid. 

49U.S. EPA. Development, Community, and 

Environment Division. Table of Contents, Introduction. 

Smart Growth Projects by Statutory Program. 

<www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/pdf/sg_at_work.pdf>. 

50National Association of Local Government 

Environmental Professionals, The Trust for Public Land, 

and Eastern Research Group. 2003. Smart Growth for 

Clean Water: Helping Communities Address the Water 

Quality Impacts of Sprawl. 
66 Section 1: Protecting Water Resources at the Regional Level 

51U.S. EPA, Office of Water. March 2003. Voluntary 

Guidelines for Management of Onsite and Cluster 

(Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems. EPA 832-

B-03-001. March 2003. <www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/ 

decent/download/guidelines.pdf>. 

52U.S. EPA, Office of Wastewater Management. October 

2000. Potential Roles for Clean Water State Revolving Fund 

Programs in Smart Growth Initiatives. EPA 832-R-00-010. 

<www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/smartgro.pdf>. 

53Shiller, Gene. Southwest Florida Water Management 

District. June 27, 2003. Interview by Lynn Richards, 

U.S. EPA, Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation. 

54South Florida Community Development Coalition. 

Home page. <www.floridacdc.org/policy/tif2.htm>. 

55State of Massachusetts Executive Office of 

Environmental Affairs. Community Preservation Act 

Web site. <commpres.env.state.ma.us/content/cpa.asp>. 

56Trust for Public Land. Massachusetts Community 

Preservation Act. <www.tpl.org/tier2_rp2.cfm?folder_ 

id=1045>. 

57Rhodes, Milt. North Carolina Smart Growth Alliance. 

Email communication with Madelyn Carpenter, U.S. 

EPA, Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation, June 

27, 2003. 

58Nebraska Environmental Trust. Home page. <www. 

environmentaltrust.org/index1.htm>. 

59Clean Water Management Trust Fund. North Carolina 

Clean Water Management Trust Fund. <www.cwmtf. 

net>. 

60Lacey, WA. Ordinance No. 1113. Municipal Research 

and Services Center of Washington. <www.mrsc.org/ 

ords/L32o1113.aspx >. 

61McElfish and Casey-Lefkowitz. 2001. 

62Ibid. 

63Charles River Watershed Association. Home page. 

<www.crwa.org>. 

64State of California Legislative Counsel. Senate Bill No. 

221, Chapter 642. <www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/01-02/ 

bill/sen/sb_0201-250/sb_221_bill_20011009_ 

chaptered.pdf>. 

65Sanchez, Rene. December 23, 2001. “New California 

Water Law Seeks to Curb Runaway Sprawl: Big 

Developments Must Show Ample Supply.” Washington 

Post. 

66U.S. EPA. Development, Community, and 

Environment Division. February 2003. Using Smart 

Growth Policies to Help Meet Phase II Storm Water 

Requirements [Draft]. 

67Washington State Department of Ecology. Stormwater. 

State of Washington. <www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/ 

stormwater/index.html>. 

68Overeiner, Paul. September 2, 2003. “Officials develop 

initiative to improve Grand River.” Jackson Citizen 

Patriot. 

69U.S. EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and 

Watersheds. 2003. Fact Sheet, Water Quality Trading 

Policy. <www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/trading/ 

2003factsheet.pdf>. 

70Ibid. 

71Environmental Trading Network Web site. 

<www.gltn.org/programs/cherry/cherry.htm>. 

72Paulson, C.L. 1997. Testimony on the Cherry Creek 

Basin Water Quality Authority before the Water Quality 

Control Commission of the State of Colorado. 

73Northeastern Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency. 

Clean Water 2000: 208 Water Quality Management 

report Plan for Northeast Ohio. <www.noaca.org/ 

Chapter-01__6017e_.pdf>. 

74Openlands Project. October 2001. Protecting Illinois’ 

Environment through a Stronger Facility Planning Process. 

<www.openlands.org/reports/FPA%20Report.pdf>. 

75Campaign for Sensible Growth. October 2, 2002. Press 

Release. “Illinois EPA Preserves Facility Planning Areas.” 

<www.growingsensibly.org/archive/archiveDetail.asp? 

objectID=1150>. 

76Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. September 

25, 2003. Press Release. “Advisory Group Selected to 

Oversee Pilot Testing for FPA Overhaul.” 

<www.epa.state.il.us/news-releases/2003/ 

2003-074-fpa-overhaul.html>. 

77Northeastern Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency. 

Clean Water 2000 Plan. <www.noaca.org/ 

Chapter-01__6017e_.pdf>. 

78Northeastern Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency. 

Clean Water 2000 Plan. p. 16. <www.noaca.org/ 

Chapter-11__6011e_.pdf>. 

79Northeastern Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency. 

Clean Water 2000 Plan. p. 11-4. <www.noaca.org/ 

Chapter-11__6011e_.pdf>. 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 67 

80Hernandez, Bobby. U.S. EPA Region 6. May 20, 2002. 

Interview by Lynn Richards, U.S. EPA, Office of Policy, 

Economics, and Innovation. 

81Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials. Home 

page. <nemo.uconn.edu>. 

82The National Center for Smart Growth Research and 

Education. Education & Training. <www.smartgrowth. 

umd.edu/education/default.htm>. 

83For contact information and a list of contractors certified in erosion control practices in Maine, see <www. 

maine.gov/dep/blwq/training/ccec.htm>. 

84Maine Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife. 

Beginning with Habitat. <www.beginningwithhabitat. 

org>. 
Photo courtesy of USDA NRCS. 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 69 

SECTION II: 

Site-Level Protection and Mitigation Measures 

Where and how communities 

grow—directly and indirectly—affects water quality. As 

discussed in Section I, conventional 

postwar development patterns have had 

adverse effects on U.S. waterways. To 

help ensure the health of our watersheds, it is important to manage where 

growth occurs from a regional perspective. It is equally important to discuss 

how development should take place on 

targeted sites to reduce potential negative effects—the subject of this section. 

In addition to regional water impacts 

caused by low-density, dispersed development, a number of site-level practices 

are detrimental to water resources. 

Setback and minimum lot size requirements maximize the amount of impervious surfaces around and between homes. 

Parking standards for shopping and office 

centers (as required either by localities or 

lenders) result in the vast parking lots that 

often characterize strip-shopping development. Zoning that separates uses (e.g., 

residential, commercial, office) often 

makes walking between destinations 

impractical, requiring use of vehicles that 

release emissions and toxic particulates 

that find their way to waterways through 

air deposition or polluted stormwater 

runoff. Some density restrictions forbid 

the construction of multi-story buildings 

or accessory units that could accommodate more units on less land. 

Smart growth techniques provide a 

range of options for communities that 

seek a different approach to growth. 

Beyond the regional planning and coordination discussed in Section I, communities have also used smart growth 

approaches to improve site-level development. They have encouraged the 

development of existing impervious surfaces, in the form of infill development 

and brownfield and greyfield redevelopment. They have adopted a mixed-use, 

compact approach to site development 

that uses less land, and makes walking 

and other modes of environmentally 
70 Section II: Site-Level Protection and Mitigation Measures 

friendly transportation feasible again. 

Communities have found that design 

considerations can not only improve the 

aesthetic quality of developments, but 

also their environmental quality. Finally, 

some communities are finding that 

smart growth techniques can actually 

provide greater flexibility for innovative 

developers. With this flexibility, developers are creating new construction and 

design that make sound economic and 

environmental sense, but are difficult or 

impossible to achieve under current laws. 

EPA and other organizations, such as the 

Center for Watershed Protection, have 

written extensively about numerous 

BMPs and low-impact development 

techniques that reduce site- or development-specific stormwater runoff and 

associated pollutants.85 When used in 

combination with regional techniques, 

these site-level techniques can prevent, 

treat, and store runoff and associated 

pollutants at the site. Many of these 

practices incorporate some elements of 

low-impact development techniques, 

such as rain gardens, biorention areas, 

and grass swales; many go further to 

incorporate smart growth principles, 

such as changing site design practices. 

Incorporating these techniques will not 

only help localities meet their water 

quality goals, but will also help create 

more interesting and livable communities. As with many development decisions, implementing these approaches 

could require communities to balance 

site-level impacts with regional benefits 

to achieve water quality improvements. 

State and local governments can support 

improved site-level protection and mitigation measures through the policies 

discussed in the next four subsections: 

site planning, site-level technologies, 

ordinances and codes, and education. 

For the most part, policies described in 

this subsection support Smart Growth 

Principle #5: Foster distinctive, attractive 

communities with a strong sense of 

place. As in the previous section, issues 

to consider and practice tips are provided for many of the policies discussed. 

SITE PLANNING 

Local governments can direct development to specific areas within their communities. In addition, they can help plan 

for how that development occurs. This 

subsection focuses on planning 

approaches that help ensure development that is consistent with a community’s smart growth and water quality goals. 

For example, stormwater runoff varies 

substantially depending on a site’s land 

use and design. Smart growth approaches 

can help communities prevent and manage their stormwater runoff and its effect 

on water quality and quantity. Overall 

site design considerations can have a 

dramatic impact on reducing stormwater 

runoff and associated pollutants. 

In addition, critical ecological characteristics, such as steep slopes and permeable soil, also must be addressed when 

considering optimal site design to ensure 

that the design meets ecological and 

regional planning goals. Design and 

development practices that take into 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 71 

account the site’s natural features can benefit water quality and support water quality improvements in the local watershed. Site design features, such as drainage and 

vegetation patterns, can increase onsite filtration of pollutants and minimize the 

impacts of site runoff on water quantity and quality. 

Policy 47. Consider cumulative site-level developmentrelated impacts 

In most jurisdictions, only site-level impacts are considered in proposals for new 

developments. A more accurate assessment of development impacts, however, would 

consider the impacts from the current proposal as well as those of future planned 

and probable developments. Throughout time, the impacts from increased development across a region can have a compounding effect on regional water sources. 

For example, limiting impervious cover at the site does not take into account the 

transportation-related infrastructure, such as roads and parking lots, or the retail 

venues that generally go along with development. Ten 100-acre sites that have 10 

percent impervious cover will not simply translate into 1,000 acres with 10 percent 

impervious cover; the net increase in impervious cover will be much greater. 

A better understanding of the cumulative water quality impacts of site-level regulation is necessary to ensure healthy regional water quality. Such an assessment would 

consider direct and indirect impacts, as well as short-term and long-term effects, 

resulting from current and proposed development. Having this cumulative information would allow local governments to better plan site-level development activities. 

For example, instead of limiting impervious cover at the site, they might wish to 

limit the total impervious cover within their jurisdiction. 

Practice Tip: North Carolina’s Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources developed a guidance document on cumulative and secondary impact 

assessment on aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources and water quality. This 

document is intended to help local governments calculate the secondary and 

cumulative water impacts associated with public projects. The recommendations 

feature information on forested buffers, stream and wetland resources, infrastructure locations, floodplains, impervious surfaces and stormwater treatment, 

and erosion and sediment control. In addition, the guidance manual supports 

the development of model codes to further guide future construction.86 These 

recommendations apply to new public developments and existing ones undergoing significant modifications or expansion. 
72 Section II: Site-Level Protection and Mitigation Measures 

Policy 48. Provide incentives to encourage specific 

development practices 

A number of tools are available to communities to encourage development practices 

that serve smart growth and water quality goals. In addition to regulations mandating certain types of development, incentives can help shape development practices 

through voluntary changes. Incentives such as density bonuses, streamlined permitting, and decreased fees are all ways to reward development that incorporates features that improve water quality and enhance smart growth goals. 

For example, a density bonus allows a developer to construct a building at a size 

and scale beyond that allowed by conventional zoning, thereby offering more 

opportunity for profit on the same amount of land. It is typically provided to developers as a reward or incentive when they provide a public amenity, such as parks, 

plazas, or affordable housing; stormwater benefits could also be included in the list 

of eligible public amenities. Municipalities also can offer decreased development fees 

for developments that include features to minimize impacts on waterbodies. Such 

features could include the use of pervious materials or landscaping that reduce 

runoff and treat water onsite. Bonuses or reduced fees can also be provided to developers who agree to replace older water and sewer infrastructure serving the project. 

This type of approach yields multiple stormwater benefits. More projects are likely 

to incorporate features that mitigate runoff, and the increased density allows more 

development to occur on less land, leading to more efficient use of existing roads, 

sidewalks, and water and sewer systems. 

Local governments can create incentives to encourage 

landscaped setbacks and 

sidewalk medians. These 

features not only reduce 

runoff, but also improve the 

community’s character. 

Photo courtesy of Local Government Commission. 

Practice Tip: The city of Portland, Oregon, was the first in the nation 

to offer significant private sector incentives, in the form of density 

bonuses for developments that incorporate green roofs, to reduce 

runoff. In 2001, with a large concentration of new development along 

the Willamette River, the city approved the Floor Area Ratio bonus 

option for developments that include the use of landscaped rooftops to 

retain and filter rainwater. The program offers a sliding scale of density 

bonuses based on the size and relative scale of the green roof; developers can earn as much as three square feet of additional floor area for 

each square foot of green roof area.87 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 73 

Photo courtesy of USDA NRCS. 

Policy 49. Minimize stormwater runoff through 

construction site design 

Construction activities are a major source of polluted runoff, especially 

sediments. Rainfall during the site development process leads to erosion from areas of bare soil left after vegetation is cleared and the site is 

leveled. Designing construction sites with sediment and erosion control in mind can minimize water quality impacts during construction. 

A key characteristic of smart growth communities is accommodating 

more residences, business, transportation, and retail uses on less land. During actual 

construction, using less land yields additional economic and environmental benefits 

for the simple reason that less land is required for the development; consequently, 

less soil is disturbed during construction, decreasing soil erosion and the costs for 

mitigating it. Further, the need for and expense of soil and erosion techniques, such 

as silt fences, are based on the number of acres disturbed. Building on fewer acres 

will save the developer money on soil and erosion technology. For example, a 1-acre 

site requires far less silt fencing than a 10-acre site, which calls for the same fence to 

be installed around its perimeter. If 10 residences are built on both sites, the per 

unit cost of erosion mitigation drops dramatically on the smaller site, demonstrating 

the cost savings that can be reaped through development of more compact sites. 

Policy 50. Use conservation site design 


Sediment in the street 

in Des Moines, Iowa, 

after a rain. Measures 

were not taken to 

protect the soil from 

erosion during 

development. 

Conventional site design typically divides available land into equal lots. In conservation design, lot division instead responds to the site’s natural features, preserving 

large sections as open space and dividing the remaining land into smaller-sized lots 

for construction. 

In its simplest form, conservation design (also known as cluster development) is 

development of a particular parcel in a manner that respects the site’s natural and 

cultural features. Conservation design is usually applied to new residential developments in rural or suburban settings, where specific features—such as mature woodlands or existing trout streams—are preserved through a careful arrangement of new 

buildings and roads. These assets and other designated open spaces are often set 

aside for permanent conservation; building design and infrastructure concurrently 

take maximum advantage of these features (either as views or recreational sites). 

WANT MORE 

INFORMATION? 

The Minnesota Land Trust, 

with the University of 

Minnesota, developed 

a conservation design 

portfolio that highlights 

creative development 

options. It can be viewed 

at: <www.mnland.org/ 

programs-consplanning. 

html>. 
74 Section II: Site-Level Protection and Mitigation Measures 

©2003 Regents of the University of Minnesota 

All Rights Reserved. Used with the permission of Design Center for American Urban Landscape. 

Available data demonstrate that conservation design in greenfield 

areas and in centrally located, compact, mixed-use developments has 

fewer environmental impacts because less land is required to accommodate the same number of units and commercial space than in 

low-density, dispersed developments. Conservation design benefits 

water quality by ensuring that large portions of new developments 

remain as permeable surfaces, with their ecological features intact. 

For example, open space preserved on the site can reduce runoff and 

allow infiltration of water to underground aquifers. Compact development techniques, such as clustering homes and buildings, reduce 

impervious surfaces. 

The homes at the Communities can encourage conservation design through open space zoning provi- Fields of St. Croix are sions that require developers to cluster density (e.g., residential units) on a site away clustered in blocks 

allowing 60 percent of from environmentally sensitive areas. Conservation easements could then be used to 

the site to remain as preserve the retained open space. Open space zoning is supplemental to convenpermanent open space. tional zoning and can be applied as an overlay district.88 

Issues to Consider: Conservation subdivisions have become a popular tool to 

preserve open space. However, they should be used with care as they could lead 

to further separation of uses and increased dependence on automobiles. In some 

cases, conservation subdivisions can spur leapfrog development. In the context of 

a larger vision for the community, conservation subdivisions can play a vital role, 

but they should be avoided as a piecemeal tool or solution. 

Practice Tip: The Jackson Meadow development in Minnesota incorporates typical conservation design principles. Located on a 145-acre parcel of high ground 

in open meadows and wooded hills overlooking the St. Croix River Valley, Jackson 

Meadow uses a cluster-housing model, preserving more than 70 percent of the site 

as open space. Housing and street patterns reflect existing models in the nearby 

town of Marine, and the development is organized topographically with neighborhoods oriented toward a central green. In lieu of typical suburban streets, 

each neighborhood block shares a pedestrian way located between the fronts of 

houses. The site is connected to Marine through a series of walkways and pedestrian corridors linked to the central green. Each pedestrian way connects directly to more than 5 miles of walking and cross-country skiing trails. From these 

trails, residents of Jackson Meadow are within a 10-minute walk of the local elementary school and Marine’s downtown village center. This new neighborhood 

highlights the importance of walking, sustainability, and diversity, and designating the best land as open space for community interaction and recreation.89 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 75 

Policy 51. Minimize stormwater runoff through traditional WANT MORE


and non-traditional BMPs INFORMATION?


While BMPs are accepted practices to reduce stormwater runoff, numerous opportunities exist within the BMP framework to employ “non-traditional” smart growth 

practices to reduce stormwater runoff and associated pollutants. 

Communities can expand the concept of BMPs by incorporating “non-traditional” 

approaches into their environmental management practice to reduce stormwater 

runoff to its lowest possible levels. These approaches might include using compact 

site design, preserving open space, incorporating street trees into a site design, 

requiring planters within plazas, or improving comprehensive planning. Such strategies not only reduce runoff but also foster distinctive, attractive communities. This 

type of multi-objective approach is central to smart growth. 

Practice Tip: The state of Maryland has developed the Maryland Stormwater 

Design Manual, which includes both design standards and environmental incentives. The manual aims for better stormwater management by relying less on 

standard BMPs for all development projects and more on an approach that 

mimics existing hydrology through site design policies. The goal is to protect 

the state’s waters from adverse impacts of stormwater runoff, provide design 

guidance on the most effective structural and non-structural BMPs for development sites, and generally improve stormwater management practices on development sites in the state.90 

Policy 52. Designate smart growth site design as a BMP


EPA provides a menu of onsite BMPs to reduce stormwater runoff.91 As discussed in 

the previous policy, a number of non-traditional BMPs help reduce runoff, decrease 

associated pollutants, and enhance the look and feel of a neighborhood. Designating 

a smart growth site design deserves special mention in an expanded policy toolbox 

because of its potential to minimize development-related water quality impacts. 

The Center for Watershed 

Protection maintains a 

Web site with information 

and resources for people 

involved in stormwater 

management. The site is 

located at: <www. 

stormwatercenter.net>. 
76 Section II: Site-Level Protection and Mitigation Measures 

To designate a site design, regulators should identify and define criteria for numerous design principles, including density levels, the number of uses the site accommodates, percentage of open space—including plazas, social gathering areas, or 

other public amenities—and the range of transportation and housing choices available. Individually and collectively, these design features reduce overall land consumption and impervious surface compared to more conventional development 

designs.92 Designating smart growth site design as a BMP is an option at the state or 

municipal level, providing another tool for developers to use to reduce stormwater 

runoff and associated pollutants. 

At the state level, smart growth site design could be designated as a BMP where land 

use controls are explicitly stated, such as within the state’s general permit, any 

stormwater management guidelines, or model stormwater ordinances. In addition, 

although general permits in most states do not include specific suggestions on how 

localities can manage their stormwater runoff, they do include sections that require 

minimum control measures. States could include a section on reviewing or considering site designs within the permit approval process, recognizing the importance of 

site design in managing stormwater runoff. 

At the municipality level, several opportunities are available for specifying smart 

growth site design as a BMP. A municipality can adopt a stormwater ordinance that 

includes smart growth or modify existing ordinances to ensure that they allow 

developers to use a smart growth site design as a BMP or to receive some other type 

of water quality credit. In addition, municipalities can designate a smart growth site 

design BMP as part of their public facilities manual, which provides a blueprint for 

developers on how to implement ordinances and other local requirements. By defining and establishing specifications for a smart growth site design within this manual, 

the municipality supports developers with the information they need to design and 

build smart growth communities. 

Policy 53. Allow green building points for infrastructure 

repair 

Green buildings are growing more popular as localities realize the benefits of buildings 

that use less energy, contain better materials, and treat stormwater on the site. In older 

cities and suburbs, however, site constraints such as the existence of legacy pollutants, 

sewer and water pipes that are failing or in disrepair, and expensive land often limit 

or prevent a developer’s ability to follow standard green building practices for infiltrating stormwater on the site. A certified green building program could award points 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 77 

for infrastructure repair. These infrastructure repairs can encourage 

additional development activity in areas needing revitalization. 

For older cities, water and sewer pipes in disrepair can be a significant water quality issue. During heavy rains, overtaxed sewer lines 

back up into homes and streets with stormwater and sewerage. 

Leaky water pipes mean that cities pay for water that seeps into the 

ground rather than being delivered to customers. A city with a green 

building scorecard could add a category for developers who want to 

replace or repair the failing water and sewer infrastructure serving, 

or proximate to, their projects. These “innovation points” would 

have to be tied to the project and be awarded based on repair of an 

identifiable source of water problems. 

Policy 54. Allow offsite mitigation


WANT MORE 

INFORMATION? 

The Green Building Council sponsors the 

Leadership in Energy and Environment 

Design (LEED) scorecard, which is a popular tool for localities that want to reward 

developers who follow green building 

designs. Information on LEED standards 

can be found at: <www.usgbc.org/LEED/ 

LEED_main.asp>. 

Current approaches to stormwater management generally require onsite practices, 

such as detention ponds. These approaches might not always be practical, however, 

in higher-density areas or in compact, mixed-use communities. Another approach to 

ensuring that stormwater is effectively managed is to allow offsite mitigation. 

Offsite mitigation allows a developer to treat stormwater runoff at another location, 

specified by the local government, in lieu of treating runoff at the development site. 

Localities must approve the project in advance and ensure that it conforms to existing building and zoning regulations and provides for long-term site maintenance. 

Offsite mitigation provides an opportunity to strategically locate mitigation facilities 

where they can better address existing or potential water quality issues.93 For example, 

Nashville, Tennessee’s stormwater ordinance states, “if it is unfeasible to implement 

onsite stormwater BMPs, then the development could design a system that controls 

quality for an equivalent portion of runoff entering from the watershed above.”94 

In return for offsite mitigation, jurisdictions may increase allowable densities in 

downtown and designated areas, for example, and then assume responsibility for 

maintaining water quality in that particular area. This strategy allows developers to 

build communities that integrate residential, commercial, and transportation uses— 

and the resultant runoff flow—into the community and offset their water impacts 

elsewhere, thereby ensuring overall regional water quality. 
78 Section II: Site-Level Protection and Mitigation Measures 

WANT MORE 

INFORMATION? 

More information about 

the CWP’s Roundtable 

series, smart site practices, and better site 

design techniques, is 

available at: <www.cwp. 

org/smartsites.pdf>. 

Policy 55. Adopt model development principles


Sometimes development strategies that preserve open space and minimize impervious cover are practiced in some municipalities but not others nearby, undermining 

efforts to improve overall regional water quality. Communities or organizations can 

support more widespread adoption of improved development by adopting model 

development strategies that minimize impact on water resources. 

Existing planning and zoning regulations prescribe many of the features of conventional development, such as large surface parking lots and dispersed, low-density 

developments that adversely affect water quality. Using alternative development 

design often requires time to obtain a zoning or other regulatory exemption—a 

time-consuming and costly process. As a practical matter, widespread implementation of development strategies that preserve open space and minimize impervious 

cover requires fundamental changes in the framework that determines how and 

where land is developed. Such fundamental change requires a comprehensive community approach that identifies key priorities and coalesces in a shared vision of the 

type of future growth that is desirable. Clear policy guidance, in the form of model 

development principles, could be drafted and adopted by local jurisdictions to help 

the community achieve its goals. 

In 1996, the Center for Watershed Protection (CWP) began a project that provides 

an example of how to carry out this process. Recognizing the link between site 

design and watershed health, the CWP initiated a “Site Planning Roundtable” to 

encourage better design at the site level. In the first phase of this national-level project, a roundtable group consisting of planners, engineers, developers, attorneys, fire 

officials, environmentalists, and transportation and public-works officials from 

nationally recognized organizations came together to develop and endorse a set of 

national model land development principles. Meant to promote economically viable 

and environmentally sensitive site planning, these principles include the following95: 

■ Shorter, narrower streets 

■ Smaller parking lots 

■ Increased stormwater treatment practices 

■ More community open space 

■ Increased vegetated buffers 

■ Enhanced native vegetation 

■ Limited clearing and grading 

Arlington County, 

Virginia, decided in 

the mid-1980s to 

encourage highdensity development 

around transit stops in 

order to maintain the 

neighborhood feel of 

surrounding lowerdensity communities. 

Photo courtesy of U.S. EPA. 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 79 

Starting with these principles, numerous communities have since conducted their 

own site planning roundtables, in which local stakeholders review the CWP template and adapt it to include the principles that make sense for their own communities. These roundtables aim to provide communities with a technical and economic 

framework to rethink their zoning and subdivision ordinances, planning processes, 

and individual site development decisions. By strategically helping communities 

revise their planning and zoning ordinances and incorporate model development 

principles, such projects provide local governments with the tools to promote more 

environmentally sensitive development across the entire region. 

Practice Tip: The Frederick, Maryland, roundtable project adapted design principles developed at the national level for local application. The Frederick 

County Site Planning Roundtable was initiated partly as a result of conversations 

between the county’s planning and zoning staff and CWP staff. Employees of 

CWP had observed that the county was rapidly developing using conventional 

practices because many of the county’s codes actually prohibited more innovative 

development strategies that would reduce impervious cover. Using a consensusbuilding process, the project identified local codes and ordinances that prohibited 

or impeded better site designs. Roundtable members representing a wide range 

of professional backgrounds were invited to participate in a nine-month process 

to review the county’s existing subdivision and zoning codes. The roundtable 

reviewed the model development principles to identify which modifications 

were needed for application to Frederick County and summarized its findings in 

Recommended Model Development Principles for Frederick County, Maryland. 

Policy 56. Allow developers to pool stormwater management efforts 

Traditionally builders or developers are responsible for stormwater management 

efforts only on their particular sites. Smart growth suggests another approach— 

allowing developers to work together and pool resources and strategies for joint 

stormwater management efforts. Such joint efforts can yield better environmental 

results and can also achieve cost savings. Moreover, allowing developers to pool 

stormwater management efforts can provide more flexibility for the developers 

working in space-limited areas, such as infill sites. To encourage urban revitalization 

efforts, infill development, and other development scenarios that might be spacelimited, communities could implement more flexible regulations for site-level mitigation that would permit developers to work together and pool resources for handling stormwater. 

WANT MORE 

INFORMATION? 

Frederick County summarized its findings in 

Recommended Model 

Development Principles for 

Frederick County, 

Maryland, available at: 

<www.cwp.org/ 

Frederick.pdf >. 
80 Section II: Site-Level Protection and Mitigation Measures 

Practice Tip: San Diego, California, has introduced flexible regulations to allow 

the developers of multiple properties within infill development areas to pool 

their resources for handling stormwater. Rather than requiring each property to 

implement BMPs, the new rules allow developers to contribute to larger basinwide controls that serve a cluster of redeveloped properties. This method is 

called the “localized equivalent area drainage” method. The city believes treatment systems with a larger capacity serving a cluster of properties can remove 

the same amount of pollutants as individual devices, such as filters placed 

where water enters storm drains. By pooling resources, the city estimates that 

developers will save up to $40,000 per acre.96 

SITE-LEVEL STRATEGIES AND TECHNOLOGIES 

The previous subsection focused on site planning approaches that communities can 

implement to ensure development consistent with their smart growth and water 

quality goals. This subsection describes strategies and techniques for the site design 

process of a particular development. These strategies can help communities achieve 

their goals based on how they want their neighborhoods to look, act, and connect 

with other neighborhoods and still meet water quality objectives. 

Policy 57. Maximize use of existing impervious cover 


Redevelopment of previously developed sites provides water quality benefits by 

reducing the need to accommodate growth on undisturbed, open land. These benefits increase when the redevelopment of a site maximizes the use of already impervious cover by modifying it to serve multiple uses. 

It is well known that the amount of impervious cover in a watershed directly affects 

the volume of runoff, contributing to higher pollutant loads, more frequent flooding, and the degradation of stream channels. As discussed previously, redevelopment 

of brownfield or greyfield properties can decrease runoff. The logic behind this phenomenon is simple: a parking lot that was previously 100 percent impervious cover 

will have close to 100 percent runoff. Changing the use of that land by adding 

houses, apartments, retail, or pocket parks will not increase runoff, but will, in most 

cases, decrease it. In addition to brownfield and greyfield opportunities, many communities might have smaller sites of existing impervious cover that could accommodate redevelopment activity. These more common opportunities include vacant and 

abandoned buildings, land that held property that has since been torn down, under-
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 81 

utilized retail areas such as declining strip malls, or out-of-business gas stations. 

Identifying and marketing these properties as potential places for redevelopment 

will not only help revitalize neighborhoods, but will reduce the need to accommodate growth on undisturbed land. 

In addition, many impervious surface areas can be redesigned to capture runoff or 

otherwise made to serve more than one use. By assessing and taking advantage of 

such possibilities, communities can reduce runoff from impervious surfaces, such as 

parking lots and rooftops. For example, rooftops that previously contributed to 

runoff volume could be redesigned to capture and direct water to landscaping uses. 

Plazas that serve as gathering places for lunchtime workers might, for example, 

serve double duty as overflow parking lots for evening or weekend area visitors. 

Underground parking, shared parking, and multi-purpose parking lots (including 

those that serve as sites for markets or recreational facilities in off-hours) all serve to 

eliminate the redundancy of facilities and reduce the need for construction of additional impervious surfaces. 

Policy 58. Design open space areas to minimize stormwater 

runoff 

Incorporating small areas of open space, such as plazas or pocket parks, within 

compact developments can serve a number of critical functions: as a gathering place 

for residents, as a focal point for the development, as a tool to encourage privacy and 

division of spaces, and as an environmental resource. With some strategic design 

modifications, these valuable open space resources can often be used to reduce Lawns can be modified 

to capture and treat stormwater runoff and still serve to create more attractive, distinctive communities. 

runoff. 

Many redevelopment and infill projects use open spaces, courtyards, 

and plazas to provide a community focal point, encourage community 

interaction, and offer opportunities for recreation. Often they consist of 

large areas of impervious surface, such as great swaths of concrete or 

large circulating fountains. Others are comprised of landscaping features that support infiltration and water retention. Communities can 

reduce overall imperviousness by encouraging developers to expand 

their use of landscaping and alternative covers—such as pavers, bioretention areas, or planting boxes—that allow for water infiltration. 

These materials can often support the same functions as their impervious counterparts and also serve to store, filter, or treat rainfall to reduce 

the impact of runoff on water resources. Photo courtesy of USDA NRCS. 
82 Section II: Site-Level Protection and Mitigation Measures 

Practice Tip: The Buckman Heights residential development in Portland, 

Oregon, captures and filters rooftop runoff through a centralized courtyard featuring two gardens of native and ornamental plants. A third vegetated channel is 

located adjacent to the parking lot. The soil and plants in these gardens act as a 

natural filter and reduce stormwater runoff. In addition, narrower driveways 

and the use of a back-up dry well reduce the amount of runoff generated. These 

combined efforts allowed the site to be built without connection to the 

stormwater system and ensured that the development will not contribute to the 

city’s stormwater treatment needs.97 

Policy 59. Preserve and enhance green areas in existing 

neighborhoods 

In many cases, vegetated areas remain in existing neighborhoods, community parks, 

abandoned properties, or natural areas such as non-recreational streams or lakes. 

Such areas make positive contributions to a community’s water quality through infiltration or reduced imperviousness, but they are often fragile assets, small and fragmented, and strongly influenced by adjacent uses. Often they are susceptible to 

compaction, dumping, and invasive plant species from adjacent developed sites. 

Careful management of fragile or damaged green areas will encourage revegetation 

and soil restoration and contribute to more attractive communities with a strong 

sense of place. In approaching these publicly owned or abandoned sites, communities are advised to consider the type of vegetation most likely to improve water quality. For example, grass-covered sites are less likely to filter water and mitigate runoff 

from neighboring sites than those with native vegetation. Lawn grass is generally 

compacted during its installation and remains so during maintenance (e.g., continual mowing). Communities must balance the need for water quality improvements 

with the specific requirements called for by the site and its surrounding residents 

and uses. In addition, thoughtful planning and zoning for developed uses in the 

vicinity of these sites can also help to mitigate impacts upon these resources and 

ensure that they provide important community and water quality benefits far into 

the future. 

Conservation easements, donations of public land-to-land trusts, and innovative 

partnerships for the care of land (such as between a nearby association or school 

and the local jurisdiction) are among possible long-term solutions for financing and 

maintaining these sites. By whatever mechanism they are managed, attractive and 

well-maintained green spaces can serve as community assets, spurring more investment and redevelopment of the surrounding areas. 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 83 

Rooftops are by necessity built with impervious materials such as asphalt, metal, 

shingles, and other tiled materials. They can still provide an effective means of 

reducing runoff from sites, however, particularly in higher-density areas, if practices 

such as rooftop gardens and other green infrastructure practices are used. 

Rooftop runoff can be managed through the storage, reuse, and redirection of runoff 

for stormwater management and other environmental benefits. Green roofs, in 

which some or all rainwater is absorbed and redirected to other uses (such as 

rooftop gardens), can be used to reduce the volume of rooftop runoff. Gutter systems can be designed to direct runoff from roofs into rain barrels, which subsequently provide a “grey water” resource for landscaping and thereby reduce water 

demand. Runoff volume can also be reduced through improvements in the design of 

rooftops and site layout, so that the reduced flow from less sloped roofs is directed 

onto pervious surfaces instead of into stormwater systems. 

Such techniques are useful in lower-density development, yet they also 

have particular significance in higher-density, compact developments 

where marginal per unit decreases in runoff become significant when 

multiplied by the greater number of units located onsite. These cumulative effects might be great enough that they eliminate the need for detention ponds or other mitigation efforts that might otherwise interrupt the 

flow and feel of a compact community. In addition, such mitigation 

efforts can help communities avoid hotspot effects. Further, any effort to 

reduce the pressure on an overtaxed stormwater infrastructure means 

that more growth must be accommodated in existing neighborhoods, so 

that open land on the urban fringe can be preserved. 

Policy 60. Use green practices to manage rooftop runoff WANT MORE 

INFORMATION? 

Photo courtesy of USDA NRCS. 

Practice Tip: The 26th Street Gateway in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was previously a post-industrial wasteland of neglected spaces, crumbling asphalt, and 

short-dumping sites. In 1989, the organization Philadelphia Green joined with 

public and private organizations (including the Pennsylvania Department of 

Transportation and Philadelphia’s Department of Streets) to rehabilitate the 

stretch of roadway. Natural areas were preserved, and native vegetation was 

planted. Now this 1-mile stretch of land covering 25 acres is a meadow of native 

trees, grasses, and wildflowers.98 

ponds. 

Increasingly, cities, private 

industry, and residents are 

installing environmentally 

friendly roofs. A wide variety of case studies, information, and technical 

resources are available at: 

<www.greenroofs.com> 

and <www.cleanriverspdx.org/clean_rivers/ 

ecoroof.htm>. 

Rooftop runoff can be 

directed to backyard 
84 Section II: Site-Level Protection and Mitigation Measures 

Issues to Consider: Specially trained architects must be employed to design systems that do not overwhelm the structural capacity of the roof, and to ensure that 

the appropriate types of vegetation are used in a manner that is both cost-effective and protects the rooftop’s sustainability and its stormwater management 

capabilities.99 

Practice Tip: Completed in the spring of 2001, Chicago’s City Hall rooftop garden covers approximately 20,300 square feet and contains a variety of grass, 

shrub, vine, tree, and other plant species. The roof’s water storage slows down 

and reduces direct discharge into storm sewers, resulting in less pressure on the 

sewer system and improved water quality. The green roof is cost-effective, generating direct energy savings through a combination of shading, evapotranspiration effects, and insulation.100 

Policy 61. Use low impact development techniques 


Low-impact development (LID) techniques are those that mimic the predevelopment site hydrology to store, infiltrate, evaporate, and detain runoff. They are a natural complement to smart growth approaches that seek to reduce runoff through an 

improved approach to regional development and site design. Although smart growth 

approaches applied at the site level reduce the volume of runoff, the use of LID 

techniques adds to the potential gains by mitigating the effects and pollution levels 

of the site’s stormwater runoff. 

LID techniques are usually associated with new development sites, such as subdivisions, parking lots, or other large uses with a high level of imperviousness, and 

where the hydrological and topographical aspects of the site can easily be determined. Some aspects of the LID approach, however, are equally applicable to and 

potentially beneficial for infill development. For example, vegetated buffers can be 

located next to sensitive areas such as streams to slow the movement of runoff and 

filter sediment and pollutants. Level spreaders are site features that convert concentrated runoff (such as that from a pipe that carries runoff from a number of impervious surfaces) to sheet flow that can be more evenly dispersed across a slope, thereby 

causing less erosion than a single, high-volume stream.101 

The potential for using LID techniques for urban infill areas is 

increasing. Ongoing research is being conducted to evaluate the 

impact of LID techniques in urban settings, as compared to their 

Jordan Cove, a low 

impact development 

in Waterford, 

Connecticut, uses rain 

gardens between 

houses. 

Photo courtesy of the NEMO program and the University of Connecticut. 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 85 

traditional application in rural and suburban contexts. More research is needed to 

better understand the quality and quantity of runoff under various redevelopment 

approaches and the potential economic savings to be gained by using LID to capture 

stormwater flow before it enters a system that is at or over capacity. 

Issues to Consider: Communities must resolve the question of how to pay for LID 

features on a site. Given that reduced and/or improved stormwater runoff can 

mitigate the need for treatment cost and system expansion, it might be appropriate to offset the costs borne by private developers who incorporate LID through 

some financial incentive, such as reduced fees. It might also be determined that 

the aspects of LID that serve to reduce conventional site development costs— 

such as clearing and grading—might be sufficient to offset any higher costs for 

constructing features such as those discussed above. Further, the long-term cost 

savings (in terms of turf and pavement maintenance and replacement) that are 

generated by LID features could convince private developers that the additional 

investment in stormwater mitigation site technology is worthwhile. 

Practice Tip: In the Puget Sound area of Washington State, King County officials have merged their LID program with the community’s larger smart growth 

initiative to develop comprehensive planning and implementation for stormwater management. The Puget Sound Action Team, comprised of community leaders, local governments, tribes, and businesses, oversees water quality protection 

in the sound by setting up work plans and implementation goals for involved 

groups. Projects to date include a LID CD-ROM with materials from the LID in 

Puget Sound Conference, and an Alternative Futures project with the public to 

test alternate land use scenarios with hydrologic and habitat models.102 

Policy 62. Construct narrow, walkable, well-connected 

streets 

Many development sites today are connected by wide streets made of large quantities of impervious surface. The increased street width is not needed in all instances 

and can make unpleasant, inconvenient, and at times unsafe places to walk. 

Impervious surface can be reduced and walking can be encouraged if site design 

incorporates narrower, walkable, well-connected streets for both vehicles and pedestrians to use. As a result, runoff can be reduced and air and water quality improved 

through the reduced need for vehicular transportation. 

WANT MORE 

INFORMATION? 

The Low Impact 

Development Center 

offers a range of technical 

information, resources, 

and tools at: <www.low 

impactdevelopment.org>. 
86 Section II: Site-Level Protection and Mitigation Measures 

Photo courtesy of U.S. EPA. 

Communities can express their preference for 

reduced runoff from narrower streets that are 

better connected and use less impervious surfaces through design guidelines. Site design 

guidelines might also call for alleys or rear lanes 

that serve multiple functions, such as utility and 

service areas, thus better maximizing the use of 

existing impervious surfaces. Some counties and 

metropolitan planning organizations have clarified their objectives for street design in formal 

street design guidelines. Others have stated a 

maximum level of impervious surface for a par- Downtown Annapolis, Maryland, 

ticular parcel or watershed, and then give devel- demonstrates that narrow streets can 

opers and designers flexibility to meet runoff still provide on-street parking, which 

reduction requirements using a variety of tech- serves as a buffer for pedestrians. 

niques, including open space, narrow roads, 

parking structure design, and reduced building footprint. North Carolina’s 

Department of Transportation, for example, approved street design guidelines to 

make it easier for local governments to implement traditional neighborhood street 

networks in new developments. The guidelines specify street width and require 

bicycle and pedestrian facilities, which support improved water quality as well.103 

Issues to Consider: One critical component of a community’s transportation system is effective emergency response; fire, ambulance, and police officials need to 

respond to calls quickly. To meet this need, roads are built to accommodate large 

fire trucks with large intersections for faster turns. In some instances, communities 

have abandoned plans for smart growth road and transportation improvements, 

such as multi-use streets or engineering techniques to calm traffic, after fire chiefs 

testify against the plans based on faster response times. Some emergency 

response officials have pointed out, however, that the wider streets and turns 

actually produce more safety problems than they solve, since they allow for higher speeds for all traffic. Others note that residential street designs, such as cul-desacs and limited access points for private communities, also impede effective 

response times. To achieve safer street networks, local governments should consult emergency responders during the design phase of a road improvement project, rather than at the end of the process. They should identify street and traffic 

solutions that work well for everyone. 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 87 

Practice Tip: The city of Columbus, Ohio, has developed a stormwater ordinance that supports the reduction of impervious surface—including narrower 

street widths that conform to the standards found in the Traditional 

Neighborhood Development code—to lessen the impacts from runoff. Other 

strategies include a reduction in commercial parking and the preservation of 

open space, including agricultural lands and riparian areas.104 

ORDINANCES AND CODES 

Ordinances and codes are means by which a community can express its goals and 

objectives for development. Ordinances and codes help shape the type and placement of development in a community and manage its natural resources. As such, 

they can be used to promote standards to better manage how and where development takes place. 

nances at: <www. 

Policy 63. Adopt stormwater ordinances stormwatercenter.net>. 

WANT MORE 

INFORMATION? 

The Center for Watershed 

Protection maintains a 

Web site containing 

model stormwater ordiLocal governments are currently not required to have stormwater ordinances in 

place. Adopting such an ordinance, however, is advisable because it lets communities effectively enforce development and mitigation guidelines that protect water 

quality by reducing the quantity or improving the quality of stormwater runoff. 

Stormwater ordinances give local governments the legal authority to shape development and better protect water quality. The adoption of enforceable stormwater ordinances is critical to implementing new and innovative ways to prevent or control 

stormwater runoff. Such ordinances can require developments to conduct regular 

maintenance activities. For example, local governments can set surface runoff limits 

for post-construction stormwater runoff volumes and identify allowable nonstructural 

and structural stormwater practices. The ordinances can also include language regarding onsite stormwater requirements, and whether offsite treatment is an option. 

State and regional governments can support communities by developing model 

ordinances that can be customized to a locality’s conditions and preferences. The 

model ordinance developed by the Twin Cities Metropolitan Council in Minnesota, 

for example, includes design standards for stormwater ponds, BMPs for protecting 

water quality, and shoreline regulations.105 
88 Section II: Site-Level Protection and Mitigation Measures 

WANT MORE 

INFORMATION? 

EPA offers a range of tools 

and examples of 

stormwater ordinances 

on its Web site at: <www. 

epa.gov/owow/nps/ 

ordinance/stormwater. 

htm>. 

Issues to Consider: Stormwater ordinances are most effective when they clearly 

identify the entity responsible for long-term maintenance and build in a requirement for regular inspection visits. Ordinances might call for the use of BMPs; they 

should also provide supporting information, such as maintenance agreements and 

inspection checklists, to ensure that they result in the desired water quality impacts 

and perform efficiently during the long term. In addition, ordinances must be 

comprehensive enough to ensure that regional water benefits are achieved, but 

specific enough to reflect the needs of particular areas. Older urbanized areas, for 

example, will face different stormwater issues than new developments. 

Practice Tip: Grand Traverse County, Michigan’s Stormwater and Sediment and 

Erosion Control Ordinance is an example of an ordinance specifying operation 

and maintenance provisions for stormwater, erosion, and sediment control. The 

ordinance specifies actions property owners must take, including certification that 

construction has been completed in accordance with the approved soil erosion 

and stormwater runoff control plan, inspection procedures, and other compliance 

and enforcement actions regarding stormwater, sediment, and erosion control.106 

Policy 64. Adopt ordinances for source water protection


Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), all states are required to complete 

assessments of their public water systems that delineate areas that feed groundwater 

and surface water supplies, and identify potential pollution risks. Additionally, to further ensure water quality, a limited number of communities have ordinances in place 

to protect source water. Communities should consider developing ordinances that 

protect source waters, such as aquifers and watersheds, by adopting ordinances that 

protect the most critical recharge or contribution areas, nearest to wells and intakes. 

The purpose of source water protection is to prevent pollution from reaching the 

groundwater, lakes, rivers, and streams that serve as local communities’ drinkingwater sources. Ordinances can be developed to protect water sources and help safeguard community health by reducing the risk of contamination of water supplies. 

Wellhead protection zones and aquifer protection areas are two examples of source 

water protection ordinances that help protect groundwater sources. Water supply 

watershed districts and lake watershed overlay districts are examples of local management tools that provide protection to surface water supplies by restricting land 

uses around a reservoir used for drinking water. In all cases, communities can develop 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 89 

an ordinance that applies to a specified area surrounding the water source in question. Such ordinances are most effective when they provide clear guidance on the 

allowable uses, water quality measures required during construction or in existing 

developments, and other practices to help protect and ensure the quality of the 

community’s drinking-water sources. 

Issues to Consider: Source water planning should be conducted on a scale that 

ensures protection of the entire recharge zone for that particular water source. It 

is unlikely that communities will be able to protect, or perhaps even define, entire 

recharge zones, as these zones can be very large and could include substantial areas 

outside of a community’s jurisdictional boundaries. For surface waters, communities 

might wish to create overlay zoning districts that have boundaries large enough 

to protect the source water resource, tributaries, and the contributing streams. 

WANT MORE 

INFORMATION? 

A new EPA source water 

protection rule, Long 

Term 2 Enhanced Surface 

Water Treatment, allows 

treatment credit for 

watershed protection 

actions. Details are available at: <www.epa.gov/ 

ogwdw/lt2/index.html>. 

For groundwater protection, communities can consult with the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) to ensure that their overlay zoning district encompasses the entire 

area that recharges an aquifer. In addition, communities could contact the state 

agency responsible for source water assessment. Many states have completed a 

comprehensive effort to delineate and characterize critical wellhead protection 

and surface water contribution areas for every public water system. 

In addition, an ordinance should include specific information on the allowable 

and prohibited land uses within the source water protection zone. For example, 

many source water protection ordinances limit or forbid the storage of hazardous 

materials and place restrictions on the location of businesses that use these materials within the district. An ordinance should include procedures for the review of 

proposed projects within a source water protection district to verify that the project is consistent with the ultimate goal of the ordinance. These procedures might 

include requiring applicants to submit geotechnical and hydrological analyses to 

determine the potential impacts to water quality, and the submission of spill control plans for businesses performing potentially contaminating activities. Finally, 

the ordinance should include language explaining the mechanisms for enforcement of the ordinance, including the civil and criminal penalties that could apply 

for failure to obey. Local governments might wish to review state statutes and 

regulations governing municipal land use and talk with public health authorities, 

to assure consistency and avert concerns regarding state preemption. 
90 Section II: Site-Level Protection and Mitigation Measures 

WANT MORE 

INFORMATION? 

EPA’s Office of Water has 

numerous resources on 

planning and implementing source water protection programs, including 

financial assistance, case 

studies, and model ordinances available, at: 

<www.epa.gov/safe 

water/protect/sources. 

html>. 

Practice Tip: The New York City Watershed Agreement provides a dramatic 

example of communities taking steps to protect their source water. In 1997, EPA 

and New York City, along with more than 70 towns and eight counties, signed 

an agreement to support an enhanced watershed protection program for the 

New York City drinking-water supply. Through the multi-year, $1.4 billion 

agreement funded by the city, a multi-faceted approach is being implemented, 

including the purchase of 80,000 acres within the watershed to protect drinking-water sources. This plan allows the city to avoid the construction of filtration facilities estimated to cost between $6 billion and $8 billion. 

This agreement created a blueprint for protecting the watershed during the next 

10 to 15 years and established a land use pattern intended to protect the future 

of the city’s water supply. The city has clearly demonstrated a commitment to 

the protection of the watershed through the provision of green infrastructure in 

established villages, economic development aid to bolster a healthy rural economy and working landscape, and support for various planning studies.107 These 

efforts serve to correct existing water quality problems, prevent development in 

important ecological areas, promote pollution prevention, and create and 

strengthen organizations and local governments in their ability to manage 

growth and protect water quality. 

Policy 65. Adopt water-saving landscaping ordinances


In addition to its many environmental benefits, smart growth fosters the development of distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place. 

Landscaping ordinances adopted at the local level can serve this function and provide water quality benefits when they encourage the use of water-saving landscaping 

or xeriscapingTM. 

Communities can foster distinctive places and achieve water quality benefits by 

adopting ordinances that call for the use of native species, especially perennials, in 

landscaping. Such plants can reduce water use because they are well adapted to the 

climate and therefore require less water and maintenance. An ordinance might 

encourage the expanded use of xeriscaping—an approach to landscaping that relies 

on the use of plants and landscaping techniques that explicitly reduce water use. 

This type of landscaping approach tends to provide more permeable surfaces than 

conventional landscaping, thus further reducing stormwater runoff. 

Issues to Consider: Some planned communities use neighborhood covenants to 

regulate the type of landscaping in their community to ensure consistency in 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 91 

appearance. In extreme cases, they might ban xeriscaping and prescribe the use 

of a specific, water-thirsty type of groundcover, such as Kentucky bluegrass. One 

community is seeking to remove these bans by opposing a proposed law that 

would forbid new subdivisions in Denver, Colorado, from requiring landscaping 

and banning the use of xeriscapes. Denver officials want more homeowners to 

consider landscaping techniques that feature plants that require less water, but 

sometimes are viewed as unappealing by neighbors.108 

Practice Tip: Florida’s water management district rules require that all local 

governments consider adopting a xeriscape ordinance as a water conservation 

measure. The Florida DEP prepared a model landscape ordinance that minimizes irrigation and uses landscaping to protect water quality. The ordinance 

would apply to all new construction and sites undergoing renovation that 

require a local building permit.109 

Policy 66. Adopt tree ordinances 

Tree ordinances are among the many ways localities can foster distinctive, attractive 

communities that also achieve water quality benefits. By encouraging communities 

to plant more trees, tree ordinances help achieve these dual goals. 

The stormwater benefits that trees provide are often not fully recognized. Trees 

intercept and slow the fall of rainwater, helping the soil to absorb more water for 

gradual release into water sources. This cycle prevents flooding, filters out toxins 

and impurities from the water, releases water into the atmosphere, and reduces 

stress on the stormwater system. Based on these various benefits, developers and 

residents should be encouraged to plant and maintain trees. 

Tree ordinances are most effective when they specify the goals of a community’s tree 

program, its methods of enforcement, and evaluation procedures. In addition, they 

should provide clear guidelines and rules on how to plant and manage new and 

existing trees on new development sites and along public streets. For example, street 

tree ordinances can explain the practice of planting and removing trees within the 

public right-of-way. They might also specify planting requirements for parking lots, thereby mitigating the effects of their 

imperviousness. Smart growth projects and developments can 

be designed to maximize the preservation and use of trees to 

help improve the quality of a community’s water resources. 

Photo courtesy of USDA NRCS. 

Volunteer programs, 

such as AmeriCorps, 

can assist in implementing a community’s tree ordinance. 
92 Section II: Site-Level Protection and Mitigation Measures 

can help establish a baseline tree canopy and esti- Policy 67. Implement ordinances and standards to better 

mate the dollar value of manage development along waterways the services provided to a 

WANT MORE 

INFORMATION? 

American Forests developed a software package 

called “CITYgreen,” which 

Issues to Consider: Different trees have different absorption rates, growing condition needs, growth rates, and lifespans. Policymakers should consult an expert 

to determine which trees will provide the most water quality benefits for the 

community. In addition, planners should ensure that the trees’ future needs are 

met by ensuring that tree planters are large enough to support tree growth in the 

coming years. 

community by its tree 

cover. Garland, Texas, used 

CITYgreen to measure the 

cost savings associated 

with its tree canopy and 

learned that its trees provide 19 million cubic feet 

in avoided stormwater 

storage space, saving the 

city an estimated $2.8 

million annually in construction costs for a 

stormwater facility. This 

tool is available at: <www. 

americanforests.org/gray 

togreen/stormwater>. 

Waterbodies are particularly sensitive to the uses that surround them. Polluted runoff, 

construction sediment, and the elimination of natural features that filter water can 

have a dramatic effect on the quantity and quality of water resources. Communities 

can develop and implement riparian standards and buffer ordinances to protect 

zones along and around waterbodies. Furthermore, by preserving and maintaining 

the land surrounding waterbodies, the community’s character can be enhanced. 

Riparian standards can help minimize the impact development has on riparian zone 

functions by better directing and managing development. To be effective, standards 

should consider the particular characteristics of the riparian zone and waterbody 

being protected. For example, a small spring-fed creek will have different requirements for protection and accommodate different nearby uses than will a man-made 

lake. Riparian areas have high ecological value, and standards designed to protect 

them are critical to ensure that future development does not pose further threats. 

Buffer ordinances, which protect water quality and aquatic habitat, regulate activity 

in the strips of native vegetation along streams and other water resources. These areas 

provide wildlife habitat, protect water quality, and serve as natural boundaries between 

local waterways and existing development. Buffers help protect water resources from 

the impacts of development by filtering pollutants, sediment, and nutrients from 

runoff. Other benefits of buffers include flood control, stream bank stabilization, 

stream temperature control, and room for lateral movement of the stream channel. 

Ordinances can specify the size and management of the stream buffer. 

Issues to Consider: To provide the functions necessary to protect water 

resources from the impacts of development, buffer ordinances should require 

that buffer boundaries be clearly marked on local planning maps. In addition, language should restrict vegetation and soil disturbance during maintenance, tables 

should illustrate buffer width adjustment by percent slope and type of stream, 

and direction should be provided on allowable uses and public education. 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 93 

Practice Tip: The state of Maine created a Mandatory Shoreland Zoning Law 

that requires municipalities to protect shoreland areas by zoning land within 

250 feet of coastal waters, lakes, and rivers, and within 75 feet of second-order 

perennial streams. These zoning ordinances provide guidance on the types of 

activities that can occur by establishing zones for resource protection, general 

development, residential, and other uses, and by specifying building size and 

setbacks for those areas in which development will occur. In addition, Maine’s 

revised Natural Resources Protection Act (NRPA) regulates development activity 

within 75 feet of any mapped stream. To receive an NRPA permit, applicants 

must demonstrate that the proposed activity will not cause unreasonable erosion 

of soil or sediment or prevent naturally occurring erosion; unreasonably interfere with the natural flow of any surface or subsurface waters; lower water quality; or cause or increase flooding. Together, these two legislative acts create standards for improved management of Maine’s oceans, lakes, and streams.110 

Policy 68. Reduce lot sizes through zoning and setback 

requirements 

WANT MORE 

INFORMATION? 

EPA maintains a database 

of model ordinances to 

protect local water 

resources. It is accessible 

at: <www.epa.gov/owow/ 

nps/ordinance/buffers. 

htm>. 

Much of the low-density, dispersed development apparent today is the result of zoning requirements and building codes that specify how and where growth can occur. 

As discussed throughout this document, communities can improve the quality of 

their water resources through efforts that direct development to targeted areas and 

encourage more compact development that consumes less land for growth. Revised 

zoning and setback requirements are one way to achieve these goals. 

Density bonuses encourage more growth on less land, reducing the total level of 

imperviousness for a community—just like guidelines that permit buildings to be 

constructed with smaller setbacks or less parking. Zoning codes, subdivision standards, and setback requirements all directly impact the amount of land that will be 

consumed by specifying minimum lot size. Communities can provide more choices 

to residents—and achieve water quality benefits—by revising 

zoning codes and subdivision standards. This action will allow 

development on smaller lots and lower the requirements for the 

distance that a building must be set back from its lot line. For 

example, instead of requiring a minimum of a quarter-acre for 

residential lots, as many current codes do, new codes could 

allow development on smaller lots or more units to be built on a 

quarter-acre parcel. Reduced setback requirements for front, 

side, and rear yards allow homes and commercial buildings to be 

built closer together and leads to shorter driveway and roadway 

lengths to reduce total imperviousness. 

Shared driveways are 

another mechanism to 

reduce lot size while 

not compromising on 

living space. 

Photo courtesy of the NEMO program and the University of Connecticut. 
94 Section II: Site-Level Protection and Mitigation Measures 

WANT MORE 

INFORMATION? 

A forthcoming revision to 

Parking Alternatives: Making 

Way for Urban Infill and 

Brownfields Redevelopment 

expands on how localities 

can balance parking with 

broader community goals 

with more case studies and 

new proven techniques. 

This summer 2004 publication, Parking Spaces/ 

Community Places: Finding 

the Balance through Smart 

Growth Solutions, will available at: <www.epa.gov/ 

smartgrowth/ 

publications.htm>. 

The current version can be 

accessed at: <www.smart 

growth.org/pdf/PRKGDE04. 

pdf>. 

Market Common, a 

mixed-use development in Arlington, 

Virginia, has reduced 

parking requirements 

because of its proximity to transit 

and surrounding 

neighborhoods. 

Policy 69. Minimize parking requirements


Parking lots are a highly visible and significant share of a community’s impervious 

surface cover; they are sizable contributors to stormwater runoff. The size and 

design of parking lots are currently dictated by a combination of zoning and building regulations implemented by localities, building features required by lenders, and 

the conventional practices of builders and developers. Communities can directly 

encourage smaller and more structured parking that reduces imperviousness 

through revised parking requirements and other supportive policies, and indirectly 

through education of developers and lenders. 

A revised approach to parking can result in a number of water quality benefits. 

First, smaller parking lots and structured parking can significantly reduce the extent 

of imperviousness on a building site. This approach reduces the total footprint of a 

development, allowing more of the site to remain undeveloped or capable of absorbing additional, compact growth. Consequently, pressure to develop undisturbed 

land for new development is lessened, and more pervious surface is retained. In 

addition, a smaller parking footprint reduces the area on which pollutants can be 

deposited and stormwater collected, thereby reducing polluted runoff. 

Also, allowing on-street parking can reduce the need for parking lots and improve 

walkability by helping to calm passing traffic. Montgomery County, Maryland, 

encourages structured parking by charging a special parking assessment on new 

development near the Bethesda Metro station; the money collected supports the 

construction and maintenance of public, multi-story parking lots in the area. The 

county’s approach to privately constructed parking lots for offices is designed to 

support the use of transit, thus reducing overall parking need. The county also provides carpool and vanpool spaces in specific facilities to encourage ridesharing and 

tries to minimize the use of land devoted to parking by encouraging the mixed-use 

development of sites.111 Other policies, such as market pricing for parking, providing only a limited amount of parking, eliminating parking subsidies, and using 

shared parking, can also encourage the use of transit, ride sharing, bicycling, and 

walking, and help reduce the demand and need for parking. Finally, communities 

can require that a percentage of spaces used for overflow parking be constructed 

with pervious or otherwise porous materials. 

Finally, communities can encourage private-sector partners, such as 

developers and lenders, to adopt reduced onsite parking by ensuring 

that public transit systems are responsive to the transportation needs 

of potential building users. Communities can also provide information to developers and lenders on the extent to which public transit

Photo courtesy of U.S. EPA. 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 95 

can reduce the need for parking. Although this practice can deviate from the conventional approach by lenders and developers, thorough and well-substantiated 

information can encourage them to reduce the amount of onsite parking provided in 

both residential and commercial developments. 

Practice Tip: Olympia, Washington, conducted a study of the stormwater volume benefits associated with reduced impervious surfaces in new development, 

redevelopment, and parking lots. The city found that reducing commercial 

parking acreage by 20 percent could lower the impervious surface on the site by 

11 percent. The city then surveyed commercial establishments to determine 

whether they perceived that they would be able to reduce parking by 20 percent 

without affecting business. In spite of the fact that business owners did not 

think they had excess parking, Olympia determined that the typical occupancy 

rate in parking lots was only 46 to 67 percent—a level clearly supportive of a 

20 percent reduction. Eighteen of 31 representative sites had less than 75 percent occupancy rates during the busiest peak hours surveyed.112 

EDUCATION 

Encouraging developers and communities to consider changes in how and where 

growth occurs requires widespread education on smart growth alternatives and their 

benefits. Through outreach, training, and information sharing on new development 

approaches and innovative site-level construction techniques, state and local governments and water quality practitioners can help encourage smart growth practices 

that improve water resources. 

Policy 70. Provide resources to educate developers and local 

staff on LID techniques 

Low impact development (LID) techniques are a natural and valuable complement 

to a smart growth approach to achieve water quality benefits. Because they represent 

a significant deviation from the standard approach to development, communities 

can encourage their wider use by making resources available to educate developers, 

local staff, and others on LID techniques. 

A number of resources are available to communities to support their efforts to educate staff and private-sector citizens. EPA provided support to the Low Impact 

Development Center to create a number of tools for communities. For example, the 

LID Integrated Management Practices Standards and Specifications tool helps public-works agencies design and implement their own LID standards. Another tool, the 

WANT MORE 

INFORMATION? 

The Low Impact 

Development Center provides various community 

tools at: <www.low 

impactdevelopment.org/ 

EPA03.htm>. 
96 Section II: Site-Level Protection and Mitigation Measures 

LID Planning Process for Urban Areas, includes guidance for urban planners and 

landscape architects on how to incorporate LID into master plans. The LID Training 

Program for Linear Transportation is an interactive training program for federal, 

state, and local transportation agencies. Finally, the LID Sustainable School Project 

includes materials to help schools implement and monitor their own LID approaches as a learning tool. 

Communities can achieve significant pollution prevention benefits by combining the 

techniques of smart growth and LID. Improved education will ensure that both 

approaches are used in a complementary manner to achieve the maximum possible 

benefits for water quality. 

Practice Tip: Cherry Creek Watershed Partners in Colorado is providing 

resources to educate developers and staff by hiring a “Phosphorus Broker” as a 

way to promote better development approaches surrounding Cherry Creek. The 

Phosphorus Broker will identify LID techniques (such as constructed wetlands, 

riparian buffers, and onsite stormwater retention techniques), encourage developers to adopt these approaches, facilitate approval in the regulatory process, 

coordinate outreach and education on the benefits of these approaches, and promote wider implementation of these practices. This strategy serves as a contrast 

to the common approach in which local regulatory compliance is assessed only 

after construction begins.113 

Policy 71. Create a statewide 

educational program for local 

experts 

the University of Connecticut. Photo courtesy of the NEMO program and 

Statewide programs to educate local experts about 

new practices and techniques can build valuable 

support for local water quality efforts. Such programs also can serve as a way for water professionals to network and share ideas. Well-educated resident 

experts can help guide and support local decisionmakers on development options that will have a significant 

water quality impact. These educational programs can 

also be used to encourage more general smart growth 

practices and create a deeper understanding among water 

experts on the relationship between growth, development, 

and water. 

NEMO continues its education 

program for its national network 

of water quality and land use 

experts. 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 97 

Practice Tip: The state of Indiana’s Planning with POWER program is based on 

education and outreach.114 In Indiana, all extension agents (university-based 

community leaders) are voting members of local zoning commissions, and are 

therefore in a strong position to educate other commissioners about the impacts 

of development on water quality. Through this program, extension agents essentially create a technical advisory committee on natural resources and water quality, comprised of local representatives from the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service, the Indiana Soil Conservation District, and the Indiana Department of 

Environmental Management. The teams hold monthly meetings and bring technical resources into the planning and zoning process. 

Policy 72. Notify homebuyers of future water availability 

and cost 

Individuals are often not fully aware of the impacts that their personal actions have 

on their local watershed. For example, the cumulative purchases by homebuyers of 

large-lot homes have a direct and significant effect on the community’s overall 

demand for water. 

Although it is not currently a common practice, local authorities, realtors, and 

lenders could help raise homeowner consciousness concerning water issues by educating potential homebuyers on the probability of future water limitations. Rural 

communities are increasingly trying to educate potential homebuyers on the realities 

of rural living. For example, the Planning Department in Ottawa County, Michigan, 

a predominately agricultural community, created a “scratch and sniff” brochure that 

provides future homeowners a strong whiff of how their community smells.115 The 

point was simple: we are a farming community and want to stay a farming community. 

Information on state water supply projections, local growth and population estimates, and anticipated policy changes (such as higher rates for excess water use), for 

example, could be also provided to future homebuyers. As a result, they would be 

better equipped to assess the likelihood that affordable water will be available in the 

future, which should be an important consideration when purchasing a home. Such 

knowledge of future water supply issues might encourage buyers to reconsider the 

personal and public financial impacts of large lots and the environmental effects that 

could result. 

WANT MORE 

INFORMATION? 

Extension agents are university-based community 

educators. Originally 

based in land grant colleges and universities, the 

extension program has 

since been expanded to 

include wide-ranging programs such as growth 

and development, water 

resources, and disaster 

mitigation. Information 

on Sea Grant programs 

can be found at: 

<www.sga.seagrant.org> 

and information on the 

Land Grant programs is 

available at: <www. 

reeusda.gov/1700/ 

statepartners/usa.htm>. 
98 Section II: Site-Level Protection and Mitigation Measures 

Photo courtesy of USDA NRCS. 

Policy 73. Educate citizens and businesses 

to help protect water resources 

Small efforts can have a lasting impact on water quality if 

many participate. Oftentimes, those interested in helping 

maintain or improve the quality of the water are at a loss 

about how to contribute to the effort. When informed 

about behaviors that are detrimental to the environment, 

many individuals and businesses are likely to want to learn 

what they can do to help. Creating programs, educational 

opportunities, and incentives for behaviors that improve 

water quality can make a major difference in preventing 

additional degradation. 

Schools and local civic organizations can co-sponsor spe- Tree seedlings given to chilcial programs on how to contribute to cleaner water. dren who walk to school for 

a week is an excellent oppor- Educational opportunities can be created through formal tunity to educate the next workshops or training seminars, or informal means such as generation about their envifact sheets and Web-based resources. Incentives can be ronmental decisions and to 

offered to encourage desired behavior. For example, tree enhance the beauty of their 

school. seedlings could be given to children who walk to school 

for a week instead of riding in a car. Special communitywide events can be organized by local governments to highlight and demonstrate the 

impacts of individual behavior. For example, a local government could designate a “no 

fertilizers” month, in which homeowners and commercial buildings agree not to use 

fertilizers on lawns or plants. The resulting water quality impacts could then be measured and presented to the community as evidence of their successful contributions. 

Efforts to educate the public about how smart growth can improve water quality, 

encourage more individuals to get further involved with community planning projects, and demonstrate how water-efficient technologies and designs that impact 

water quality are likely to result in improved behavior. Small changes in behavior 

will eventually translate into higher water quality on a regional basis. With a greater 

understanding of their individual impacts on development, communities and residents are likely to express greater support for smart growth initiatives. 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 99 

Practice Tip: Portland, Oregon, implements several programs to educate individuals and businesses about their role in water quality. Programs include initiatives to disconnect rain gutters from the storm sewer system (instead directing 

rainfall to absorbent flowerbeds and surfaces), promote native landscaping practices, and support community-based and K-12 projects that involve hands-on 

activities such as tree planting and monitoring projects on school grounds to 

educate children about stormwater management.116 

Policy 74. Train teachers on smart growth issues


Due to the increased development of environmental education programs (such as 

“reduce, reuse, recycle”) during the last few decades, many children are increasingly 

aware of and sensitive to environmental concerns. Few, however, have an understanding of how their communities are created and shaped, and the impacts that 

they, as residents, have on the environment. Municipal officials and water management districts can work with local schools to incorporate smart growth issues into 

their curricula. 

Teachers can be supported to educate their students on these connections through 

programs that provide them with greater capacity and resources on the issues of 

watershed protection, land use and development, and the principles of smart growth. 

As these ideas are incorporated into school curricula, children will have access to 

knowledge that will enable them and their families to better protect water resources. 

Practice Tip: The Southwest Florida Water Management District created Project 

WET (Water Education for Teachers) to help build capacity in local teachers on 

environmental issues. The Project WET Curriculum and Activity Guide is a collection of more than 90 innovative, interdisciplinary activities that are hands-on, 

easy to use, and fun. These curriculum guides are available to teachers through 

free workshops that prepare them to educate children in K-12 about their local 

watershed and how to make informed decisions about water resources. The district’s Growth and Development newsletter for high-school students provides 

information on how growth and development can impact natural resources. The 

district also provides mini-grants for classroom projects on watersheds, water 

quality, and alternative sources of water and conservation.117 
100 Section II: Site-Level Protection and Mitigation Measures 

WANT MORE 

INFORMATION? 

The Trust for Public Land’s 

publication, Economic 

Benefits of Open Space, 

comprehensively details 

the stunning economic 

benefits of open space. It 

is available at: <www.tpl. 

org/tier3_cdl. cfm? 

content_item_id=1145& 

folder_id=727>. 

Policy 75. Encourage information-sharing among 

developers concerning smart growth designs that protect 

water resources 

Communities supportive of smart growth approaches have realized there is a market 

segment demanding neighborhoods with vitality and diversity—with stores, parks, 

and businesses within walking distance of their homes. Often one barrier to building better communities is the lack of awareness from the development community. 

Some developers have recognized this growing market segment, in part because 

developments with smart growth characteristics command a market premium, yet 

some developers are still unaware of how to address the permitting, construction, 

and design issues that many smart growth developments face. 

To address this barrier, more developers with a working knowledge of smart growth 

approaches are needed. Information-sharing among developers, through venues 

such as the National Association of Home Builders, about their experiences with 

smart growth can be a step toward meeting these needs. Because developers have 

intimate knowledge of the development process, they can provide valuable information on how to implement many of the ideas discussed in this section. Developers 

can therefore be strong advocates for techniques that protect water quality, save 

them money, and build better neighborhoods. 

Practice Tip: The Builders for the Bay project is a unique partnership between 

the development and environmental communities. The Center for Watershed 

Protection, the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, and the National Association of 

Home Builders have agreed to hold local roundtables in the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed to help local jurisdictions incorporate more environmentally sensitive 

site designs into existing subdivision codes and ordinances. Currently, many 

localities require a special exception process for developers to utilize these techniques. Adoption of the regulations developed through these roundtables would 

provide more flexibility in the development process, help preserve natural areas, 

reduce stormwater runoff, and achieve cost savings. Roundtable participants 

include local government planning and zoning departments, watershed organizations, developers, landowners, and other community stakeholders.118 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 101 

85National Stormwater Best Management Practices 

Database. <www.bmpdatabase.org>. Also, Center for 

Watershed Protection. The Stormwater Manager’s 

Resource Center. <www.stormwatercenter.net>. 

86North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 

August 2002. Guidance Memorandum to Address and 

Mitigate Secondary and Cumulative Impacts to Aquatic and 

Terrestrial Wildlife Resources and Water Quality. 

<216.27.49.98/pg07_wildlifespeciescon/ 

pg7c3_impacts.pdf>. 

87The Green Roof Infrastructure Monitor. 2001. 

“Portland Provides Incentives for Green Roof 

Implementation.” The Green Roof Infrastructure Monitor. 

3:1. <www.greenroofs.ca/grhcc/GRIM-Spring2001.pdf>. 

88Florida Departments of Community Affairs and 

Environmental Protection. November 2002. Protecting 

Florida’s Springs: Land Use Planning Strategies and Best 

Management Practices. <www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/DCp/ 

publications/springsmanual.pdf>. 

89Jackson Meadow. Home page. 

<www.jacksonmeadow.com>. 

90Maryland Department of the Environment. Maryland 

Stormwater Design Manual, Volumes I & II (Effective 

October 2000). <www.mde.state.md.us/Programs/ 

WaterPrograms/SedimentandStormwater/ 

stormwater_design/index.asp>. 

91U.S. EPA, Office of Water. “National Menu of Best 

Management Practices for Storm Water Phase II.” 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES). <cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/ 

menuofbmps/menu.cfm>. 

92U.S. EPA. Development, Community, and 

Environment Division. June 2003. Minimizing the 

Impacts of Development on Water Quality [Draft]. 

93Maupin, Miranda and Teresa Wagner. 2003. “Regional 

Facility vs. On-site Development Regulations: 

Increasing Flexibility and Effectiveness in Development 

Regulation Implementation.” Presented at the National 

Conference on Urban Stormwater: Enhancing Programs 

at the Local Level. Chicago, Illinois. February 17-20, 

2003. U.S. EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and 

Watersheds. <www.epa.gov/owow/nps/ 

natlstormwater03/22Maupin.pdf>. 

94Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson 

County. Metro Stormwater Management Manual. 

<www.nashville.gov/stormwater/non_discharge_ 

policy_directive.htm>. 

95Brown, Whitney. 1998. Better Site Design: A Handbook 

for Changing Development Rules in Your Community. 

Ellicott City, MD: Center for Watershed Protection. 

<www.cwp.org>. 

96U.S. EPA. Development, Community, and 

Environment Division. February 2003. Using Smart 

Growth Policies to Help Meet Phase II Storm Water 

Requirements [Draft]. Also see City of San Diego. 

Appendix G: LEAD Method As Proposed by the City of 

San Diego. <www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dpw/docs/ 

AppendixGLeadMethod.pdf>. 

97Portland Development Commission. 1999. Building 

for the Future: Sustainable Development in Portland. 

<www.fish.ci.portland.or.us/pdf/pdc1.pdf>. 

98Pennsylvania Horticultural Society. February 1999. 

Impact 2000 - Public Landscapes. <www.pennsylvania 

horticulturalsociety.org/impact2000/Feb99.html>. 

99Chicago Department of Environment. Rooftop Gardens 

and Green Roofs. <www.ci.chi.il.us/Environment/ 

AirToxPollution/UrbanHeatIsland/heatisland6.html>. 

100Chicago Department of Environment. City Hall 

Rooftop Garden. <www.ci.chi.il.us/Environment/ 

rooftopgarden>. 

101Prince George’s County Department of Environmental 

Resources. January 2000. Low Impact Development 

Design Strategies: An Integrated Design Approach. 

102Puget Sound Action Team. Low Impact Development. 

<www.psat.wa.gov/Programs/LID.htm>. 

103U.S. EPA. Development, Community, and 

Environment Division. Smart Growth Policy Database. 

<cfpub.epa.gov/sgpdb/sgdb.cfm>. 

104City of Columbus. 2003. Planning Overlay, 33 

Columbus City Codes, ch. 3372, §701-10. 

105Metropolitan Council. January 2000. Model Storm 

Water Management Ordinance. <www.metrocouncil.org/ 

environment/Watershed/model_sw_ord.pdf>. 

106Grand Traverse County Department of Public Works. 

Stormwater and Sediment and Erosion Control 

Ordinance: Operation and Maintenance. <www.epa. 

gov/owow/nps/ordinance/documents/D2a-Grand 

Traverse.pdf>. 

107New York City Department of Environmental 

Protection. New York City’s Water Supply System. 

<www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/agreement.html>. 
102 Section II: Site-Level Protection and Mitigation Measures 

108U.S. Water News Online. “Proposed Denver law nurtures xeriscape growth.” <www.uswaternews.com/ 

archives/arcconserv/2proden4.html>. 

109Florida Departments of Community Affairs and 

Environmental Protection. November 2002. Protecting 

Florida’s Springs: Land Use Planning Strategies and Best 

Management Practices. <www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/DCp/ 

publications/springsmanual.pdf>. 

110Witherall, Don. Maine Department of Environmental 

Protection. Email communication with Lynn Richards, 

U.S. EPA, Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation. 

June 19, 2003. Also see: <www.state.me.us/dep/ 

blwq/stand>. 

111Montgomery County Department of Public Works 

and Transportation Parking Services. Public Parking 

District Overview. <www.dpwt.com/parking/ 

Overview.htm>. 

112City of Olympia, Public Works Department. 

Impervious Surfaces Study. <www.ci.olympia.wa.us/ 

publicworks/images/pdf/ipds.pdf>. 

113Cherry Creek Stewardship Partners. Home Page. 

<cherry-creek.org>. 

114Planning with POWER. Home page. <www.planning 

withpower.org>. 

115Ottawa County Planning Department. October 2003. 

“If You Are Thinking About Moving to the County You 

Want to Consider This...” Ottawa County, MI. 

116Hottenroth, Dawn, C. February, 2003. “Using 

Incentives and Other Actions to Reduce Watershed 

Impacts from Existing Development.” Presented at the 

National Conference on Urban Stormwater: Enhancing 

Programs at the Local Level. Chicago, IL. February 17-

20, 2003. U.S. EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and 

Watersheds. <www.epa.gov/owow/nps/ 

natlstormwater03>. 

117Southwest Florida Water Management District. Project 

WET. <www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/infoed/educators/ 

wet.htm>. (Accessed July 30, 2003). 

118Center for Watershed Protection. Builders for the Bay. 

<www.cwp.org/builders_for_bay.htm>. 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 103 

Appendix A: Acronyms


BMP Best management practice 

CSO Combined sewer overflow 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CWP Center for Watershed Protection 

DEP Department of Environmental Protection 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FPA Facility planning area 

GIS Geographic information systems 

IEPA Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (Green Building Rating System) 

LID Low Impact Development 

MCM Minimum control measures 

MPO Metropolitan planning organization 

NEMO Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials 

NOACA Northeastern Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

NRPA Natural Resources Protection Act 

SRF State revolving fund 

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act 

TDR Transfer of development rights 

TMDL Total maximum daily load 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

WET Water Education for Teachers 
104 Appendix B: Additional Resources 

Appendix B: Additional


Resources 

GENERAL SMART GROWTH 

International City/County Management 

Association and Smart Growth Network. Why 

Smart Growth: A Primer. <www.epa.gov/ 

smartgrowth/publications.htm>. 

Smart Growth America. 

<www.smartgrowthamerica.org>. 

Smart Growth Network. 

<www.smartgrowth.org>. 

Smart Growth Network and International 

City/County Management Association. Getting 

to Smart Growth: 100 Policies for 

Implementation. <www.epa.gov/ 

smartgrowth/publications.htm>. 

Smart Growth Network and International 

City/County Management Association. Getting 

to Smart Growth II: 100 More Policies for 

Implementation. <www.smartgrowth.org/pdf/ 

gettosg2.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Smart 

Growth Policy Database. <cfpub.epa.gov/ 

sgpdb/sgdb.cfm>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Smart 

Growth Web site. <www.epa.gov/smartgrowth>. 

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 

American Forests. CITYgreen software. 

<www.americanforests.org/graytogreen/ 

stormwater>. 

National Stormwater Best Management 

Practices Database. <www.bmpdatabase.org>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Urban 

Stormwater Best Management Practices Study. 

<www.epa.gov/ost/stormwater>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

National Menu of Best Management Practices 

for Storm Water Phase II. <cfpub.epa.gov/ 

npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/menu.cfm>. 

BROWNFIELDS 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Brownfields Initiative. 

<www.epa.gov/docs/swerosps/bf/index.html>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Smart 

Growth and Brownfields Initiative. 

<www.epa.gov/smartgrowth>. 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 105 

EDUCATION/TRAINING 

Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials. 

<nemo.uconn.edu>. 

National Association of Conservation Districts. 

<www.nacdnet.org>. 

Sea Grant Coastal Communities and 

Economies. <www.iisgcp.org/team/index.htm>. 

FUNDING 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Potential Roles for Clean Water State 

Revolving Fund Programs in Smart Growth 

Initiatives. <www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/ 

publications.htm>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Smart 

Growth Funding Resource Guide. 

<www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/topics/ 

funding.htm>. 

GREYFIELDS 

Congress for the New Urbanism. Greyfields into 

Goldfields: Dead Malls Become Living 

Neighborhoods. <www.cnu.org>. 

LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT 

The Low Impact Development Center. 

<www.lowimpactdevelopment.org>. 

Low Impact Development Urban Design Tools. 

<www.lid-stormwater.net>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Low 

Impact Development Web page. 

<www.epa.gov/owow/nps/lid>. 

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT/UTILITIES 

Pioneer Valley Planning Commission. How to 

Create a Stormwater Utility. <www.pvpc.org/ 

docs/landuse/pubs/storm_util.pdf>. 

Stormwater Manager’s Resource Center. 

<www.stormwatercenter.net>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Model 

stormwater ordinances. <www.epa.gov/owow/ 

nps/ordinance/stormwater.htm>. 

World Resources Institute. Credit Trading Web 

site. <www.nutrientnet.org>. 

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Watersheds. <www.epa.gov/owow/watershed>. 

Center for Watershed Protection. 

<www.cwp.org>. 

Trust for Public Land. Greenprints for Growth. 

<www.tpl.org>. 
106 Appendix C: Bibliography 

Appendix C: Bibliography


Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay. 1997. “Air 

Pollution in the Chesapeake Bay.” Baltimore, MD. 

American Water Works Association. 1996. 

WATER:\STATS Database Summary. <www.awwa.org/ 

Communications/h20stats/ratebar.cfm>. 

Arlington County, VA. February 26, 2003 Press 

Release. “Arlington County One of the First in the 

Nation To Adopt ‘Main Street’ Form Based Code.” 

Arlington County, VA. <www.co.arlington.va.us/ 

NewsReleases/Scripts/ViewList.asp>. 

Arlington County, VA. Planning Division Land Use 

Studies, Reports, and Other Documents. 

<www.co.arlington.va.us/cphd/planning/docs/ 

index.htm>. 

Arnold, C.L. and C.J. Gibbons. 1996. “Impervious 

Surface Coverage: The Emergence of a Key 

Environmental Indicator.” Journal of the American 

Planning Association. 62.2: 243-258. 

Arnold, Chet. Nonpoint Education for Municipal 

Officials. December 18, 2001. Interview by Lynn 

Richards, U.S. EPA, Office of Policy, Economics, 

and Innovation. 

Beach, D. 2002. Coastal Sprawl: The Effects of Urban 

Design on Aquatic Ecosystems in the United States. 

Pew Oceans Commission, Arlington, VA. 

Brown, Whitney. 1998. Better Site Design: A 

Handbook for Changing Development Rules in Your 

Community. Ellicott City, MD: Center for Watershed 

Protection. <www.cwp.org>. 

Burchell, R.W. and D. Listokin. 1995. Land, 

Infrastructure, Housing Costs and Fiscal Impacts 

Associated with Growth: The Literature on the Impacts 

of Sprawl Versus Managed Growth. New Brunswick, 

NJ: Rutgers University, Center for Urban Policy 

Research. As summarized in The Technological 

Reshaping of Metropolitan America, Office of 

Technology Assessment. OTA-ETI-643. 

Bureau of Environmental Services. Clean River 

Incentive and Discount Program Update. City of 

Portland, OR. <www.cleanrivers-pdx.org/ 

get_involved/stormwater_discount.htm>. 

Campaign for Sensible Growth. October 2, 2002. 

Press Release. “Illinois EPA Preserves Facility 

Planning Areas.” <www.growingsensibly.org/ 

archive/archiveDetail.asp?objectID=1150>. 

Caraco, Deb. 1998. Rapid Watershed Planning 

Handbook-A Comprehensive Guide for Managing 

Urban Watersheds. Ellicott City, MD: Center for 

Watershed Protection. 

Center for Watershed Protection. About Builders 

for the Bay. <www.cwp.org/builders_for_bay.htm>. 

Center for Watershed Protection. Aquatic Buffers. 

<www.cwp.org/aquatic_buffers.htm>. 

Center for Watershed Protection. Home page. 

<www.cwp.org>. 

Center for Watershed Protection. The Stormwater 

Manager’s Resource Center. 

<www.stormwatercenter.net>. 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 107 

Charles River Watershed Association. Home page. 

<www.crwa.org>. 

Charles River Watershed Association. Water Resource 

Planning for Environmental Zoning: Sustaining 

Resources through Growth Management. 

<www.epa.gov/region01/ra/sprawl/grants1999. 

html#10>. 

Cherry Creek Basin Water Quality Authority. Home 

page. <www.cherrycreekbasin.org>. 

Cherry Creek Stewardship Partners. Home Page. 

<cherry-creek.org>. 

Chesapeake Bay Program. A Glance: Bay Water 

Quality Restoration. <www.chesapeakebay.net/ 

restoringwater.htm>. 

Chicago Department of Environment. City Hall 

Rooftop Garden. <www.ci.chi.il.us/ 

Environment/rooftopgarden>. 

Chicago Department of Environment. Rooftop 

Gardens and Green Roofs. <www.ci.chi.il.us/ 

Environment/AirToxPollution/UrbanHeatIsland/ 

heatisland6.html>. 

City of Boca Raton, FL. Downtown Redevelopment. 

<www.ci.boca-raton.fl.us/econ/downtown.cfm>. 

City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County 

Government. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities. 

<www.charmeck.org/Departments/Utilities/ 

Home.htm>. 

City of Columbus. 2003. Planning Overlay, 33 

Columbus City Codes, ch. 3372, §701-10. 

City of Columbus Division of Sewerage and 

Drainage. November 3, 2000. Facilities Plan 

Update. <ci.columbus.oh.us/plan>. 

City of Griffin Stormwater Department. 

Stormwater Utility. <www.griffinstorm.com/ 

StormwaterUtility.htm>. 

City of Indianapolis Department of Public Works. 

October 22, 2001. Stormwater Credit Manual. 

<www.indychamber.com/BusinessAdvocacy/ 

watercredit.html>. 

City of Olympia, Public Works Department. 

Impervious Surfaces Study. <www.ci.olympia.wa.us/ 

publicworks/images/pdf/ipds.pdf>. 

City of San Diego. Appendix G: LEAD Method as 

Proposed by the City of San Diego. 

<www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dpw/docs/AppendixGLeadM 

ethod.pdf>. 

City of Santa Monica Environmental & Public 

Works Management. Home page. 

<epwm.santa-monica.org/epwm>. 

Clean Water Management Trust Fund. North 

Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund. 

<www.cwmtf.net>. 

Cooper, Carry. Projects—Mizner Park. 

<www.coopercarry.com/4/4e1c.html>. 

Deason, Jonathan, et al. September 2001. Public 

Policies and Private Decisions Affecting the 

Redevelopment of Brownfields: An Analysis of Critical 

Factors, Relative Weights and Area Differentials. 

Prepared for U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response. Washington, D.C.: The 

George Washington University. <www.gwu.edu/ 

~eem/Brownfields/project_report/report.htm>. 

Denver Regional Council of Governments. “Local 

governments united on guiding growth: Mile High 

Compact signed.” Regional Report. 

<www.drcog.org/pub_news/releases/ 

RR%20Mile%20High%20Compact.pdf>. 
108 Appendix C: Bibliography 

Doll, A., P. Scodari, and G. Lindsey. 1999. “Credits 

as Economic Incentives for On-Site Stormwater 

Management: Issues and Examples.” National 

Conference on Retrofit Opportunities for Water 

Resource Protection in Urban Environments: 

Proceedings. Cincinnati, Ohio: U.S. EPA. 

EPA/625/R-99/002. 

Downing, Bob. May 27, 2002. “Stream Rules Cause 

Ripples.” The Beacon Journal. Page E1. 

Duany Plater-Zyberk. Transect. 

<www.dpz.com/transect.htm>. 

Ebert, Karl. August 2002. “New stormwater rules 

eyed: Proposal calls for easing of regulations in city 

redevelopment areas.” Oshkosh Northwestern. 

Oshkosh, WI: Northwestern. 

Engdahl, J. 1999. Impacts of Residential Construction 

on Water Quality and Quantity in Connecticut. Storrs, 

CT: University of Connecticut. 

<www.canr.uconn.edu/jordancove>. 

Environmental Trading Network. Trading Programs. 

<www.envtn.org/programs/programs.htm>. 

Environmental Trading Network Web site. 

<www.gltn.org/programs/cherry/cherry.htm>. 

Fairfax County Public Works and Environmental 

Services. 2001. 2001 Public Facilities Manual. 

Fairfax County, VA. 

Federal Transit Administration. New Starts. 

<www.fta.dot.gov/library/policy/ns/whatisns.htm>. 

Florida Department of Community Affairs, 

Division of Community Planning. Rural Land 

Stewardship Areas Program. <www.dca.state.fl.us/ 

fdcp/dcp/RuralLandStewardship/rural_lands_ 

stewardship_areas_pr.htm>. 

Florida Departments of Community Affairs and 

Environmental Protection. November 2002. 

Protecting Florida’s Springs: Land Use Planning 

Strategies and Best Management Practices. 

<www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/DCp/publications/ 

springsmanual.pdf>. 

Florida Yards and Neighborhoods. Home page. 

University of Florida. <hort.ufl.edu/fyn/object.htm>. 

Ford Motor Company. Rouge Renovation. 

<www.ford.com/en/goodWorks/environment/ 

cleanerManufacturing/rougeRenovation.htm>. 

Fort Worth Water Department. September 2002. 

Recommendation of the 2002 Informal Water and 

Wastewater Retail Rate Advisory Committee. 

<www.fortworthgov.org/water/Reports/ 

2002ratereportEnglish.pdf>. 

Frederick County Roundtable. Recommended 

Model Development Principles for Frederick 

County, MD. Center for Watershed Protection. 

<www.cwp.org/Frederick.pdf> 

Gallagher, Megan. April 18, 2003. “New Land Trust 

Hosts Conservation Easement Workshop.” Eastern 

Shore Bulletin. <www.billybarton.biz/bulletin/ 

april18_2003.htm>. 

Graham, Maureen. August 20, 2002. “Developers 

drawn into well troubles.” The Philadelphia Inquirer. 

<www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/2002/08/20/news/ 

local/states/new_jersey/counties/gloucester_county/ 

3899875.htm>. 

Grand Traverse County Department of Public 

Works. Stormwater and Sediment and Erosion 

Control Ordinance: Operation and Maintenance. 

<www.epa.gov/owow/nps/ordinance/documents/ 

D2a-GrandTraverse.pdf>. 

Greenroofs.com. North American Case Studies. The 

Greenroof Industry Resource Portal. 

<www.greenroofs.com/north_american_cases.htm>. 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 109 

Henry, Natalie. June 13, 2003. “SoCal Counties 

Combining Habitat Conservation Plans with Clean 

Water Permits.” Land Letter. E&E Publishing, LLC. 

<www.eenews.net/Landletter.htm>. 

Hernandez, Bobby. U.S. EPA Region 6. May 20, 

2002. Interview by Lynn Richards, U.S. EPA, Office 

of Policy, Economics, and Innovation. 

Hillsborough County, FL. Hillsborough Greenways 

Program. <www.hillsboroughcounty.org/pgm/ 

community/greenways_program.html>. 

Hopper, Kim, ed. 2002. Local Greenprinting for 

Growth: Using Land Conservation to Guide Growth 

and Preserve the Character of Our Communities, 

Volume 1. San Francisco, CA: Trust for Public Land 

and the National Association of Counties. 

Hottenroth, Dawn, C. February, 2003. “Using 

Incentives and Other Actions to Reduce Watershed 

Impacts from Existing Development.” Presented at 

the National Conference on Urban Stormwater: 

Enhancing Programs at the Local Level. Chicago, 

IL. February 17-20, 2003. U.S. EPA, Office of 

Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. 

<www.epa.gov/owow/nps/natlstormwater03>. 

Hunt, William F. 2002. Stormwater BMP CostEffectiveness Relationships for North Carolina. North 

Carolina State University. 

ICMA. 1998. Why Smart Growth: A Primer. 

Washington, DC. 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 

September 25, 2003. Press Release. “Advisory 

Group Selected to Oversee Pilot Testing for FPA 

Overhaul.” <www.epa.state.il.us/news-releases/2003/ 

2003-074-fpa-overhaul.html>. 

Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land 

Stewardship Field Services Bureau. February 10, 

2003. Iowa Water Quality/Watershed Protection 

Project Application, Winterset Municipal Water 

Supply, Cedar Lake. <www.state.ia.us/epd/wtrq/ 

wqnews/soilwater.htm>. 

Iowa Water Quality Bureau. Iowa’s Drinking Water 

State Revolving Fund (SRF) Program. 

<www.state.ia.us/epd/wtrsuply/srf/srf.htm>. 

Jackson Meadow. Home page. 

<www.jacksonmeadow.com>. 

Kaspersen, Janice. November/December 2000. “The 

Stormwater Utility: Will it Work in Your 

Community?” Stormwater, The Journal for Surface 

Water Quality Professionals. 

Kauffman, Gerald J., Tammy Brant, and Anne 

Kitchell. The Role of Impervious Cover as a Watershed 

Zoning and Land Use Planning Tool in the Christina 

River Basin of Delaware. <www.wr.udel.edu/ 

publications/apaimperviouspaper.pdf>. 

Lacey, WA. Ordinance No. 1113. Municipal 

Research and Services Center of Washington. 

<www.mrsc.org/ords/L32o1113.aspx>. 

Lawrence, Tim. Extension Agent May 17, 2002. 

Interview by Lynn Richards, U.S. EPA, Office of 

Policy, Economics, and Innovation. 

Maine Department of Environmental Protection. 

Contractors Certified in Erosion Control Practices. 

<www.maine.gov/dep/blwq/training/ccec.htm>. 

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife. 

Beginning with Habitat. 

<www.beginningwithhabitat.org>. 
110 Appendix C: Bibliography 

Maine State Legislature, Office of the Revisor of 

Statutes. 2003. Title 38: Waters and Navigation. 

Chapter 3: Protection and Improvement of Waters. 

<janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/38/ 

title38sec420-D.html>. 

Maine State Planning Office. Great American 

Neighborhood Sewer Extension Loan Program. 

Program Statement. <www.state.me.us/spo/anduse/ 

finassist/sewer.php>. 

Maryland Department of the Environment. Maryland 

Stormwater Design Manual, Volumes I & II (Effective 

October 2000). <www.mde.state.md.us/Programs/ 

WaterPrograms/SedimentandStormwater/ 

stormwater_design/index.asp>. 

Maryland Department of the Environment. What 

makes MDE’s new offices so special? 

<www.mde.state.md.us/AboutMDE/mp_special.ASP>. 

Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning 

Commission, Montgomery County Department of 

Park & Planning. Community Based Planning. 

<www.mc-mncppc.org/community>. 

Maupin, Miranda and Teresa Wagner. 2003. 

“Regional Facility vs. On-site Development 

Regulations: Increasing Flexibility and Effectiveness 

in Development Regulation Implementation.” 

Presented at the National Conference on Urban 

Stormwater: Enhancing Programs at the Local 

Level. Chicago, Illinois. February 17-20, 2003. U.S. 

EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. 

<www.epa.gov/owow/nps/natlstormwater03/ 

22Maupin.pdf>. 

McElfish, James M. Jr. and Susan Casey-Lefkowitz. 

2001. Smart Growth and the Clean Water Act. 

Northeast-Midwest Institute. <www.nemw.org/ 

SGCleanWater.pdf>. 

McGregor, F. Robert. September 10, 2001. “Water 

Quality Incentives for Development Community.” 

Memorandum to NALGEP, Cherry Creek. 

Mehan, G. Tracy, III. January 7, 2003. “WatershedBased NPDES Permitting Policy Statement.” 

Memorandum to Water Division Directors, Regions 

I-X. U.S. EPA. <www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/ 

watershed-permitting-policy.pdf>. 

Metro. 2002. Green Streets: Innovative Solutions for 

Stormwater and Stream Crossings. Portland, OR. 

<www.metro-region.org/article.cfm?ArticleID=262>. 

Metropolitan Council. January 2000. Model Storm 

Water Management Ordinance. 

<www.metrocouncil.org/environment/Watershed/ 

model_sw_ord.pdf>. 

Metropolitan Government of Nashville and 

Davidson County. Metro Stormwater Management 

Manual. <www.nashville.gov/stormwater/ 

non_discharge_policy_directive.htm>. 

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, 

Metropolitan Washington Air Quality Committee. 

August 13, 2003. Plan to Improve Air Quality in the 

Washington, DC-MD-VA Region. <www.mwcog.org/ 

environment/air>. 

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. 

Water Quality Trading.<www.michigan.gov/deq/ 

0,1607,7-135-3313_3682_3719---,00.html>. 

Miller, Brian. Purdue University May 16, 2002. 

Interview by Lynn Richards, U.S. EPA, Office of 

Policy, Economics, and Innovation. 

Minnesota Land Trust. 2001. Conservation Design 

Portfolio: Preserving Minnesota Landscapes 

Through Creative Development—An Introduction. 

St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Land Trust. 

Montgomery County Department of Environmental 

Protection. 2000. Stream Conditions Cumulative 

Impact Models for the Potomac Subregion. 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 111 

Montgomery County Department of Public Works 

and Transportation Parking Services. Public 

Parking District Overview. 

<www.dpwt.com/parking/Overview.htm>. 

Municipal Research and Services Center of 

Washington. Ordinances and Resolutions. 

<www.mrsc.org/ords/g-l/L32o1113.htm>. 

National Association of Local Government 

Environmental Professionals, The Trust for Public 

Land, and Eastern Research Group. 2003. Smart 

Growth for Clean Water: Helping Communities Address 

the Water Quality Impacts of Sprawl. 

National Center for Environmental Innovation. 

State Innovation Grants Solicitation. U.S. EPA. 

<www.epa.gov/innovation/stategrants/sig2002.htm> 

National Stormwater Best Management Practices 

Database. <www.bmpdatabase.org>. 

National Vacant Properties Campaign. Home page. 

<www.vacantproperties.org>. 

Nebraska Environmental Trust. Home page. 

<www.environmentaltrust.org/index1.htm>. 

New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection. Fact Sheet for the Draft Tier B 

Municipal Stormwater General Permit. 

<www.state.nj.us/dep/dwq/pdf/tier_b_fact.pdf>. 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 

May 19, 2003. “Land Use Management: Water 

Monitoring And Standards. Surface Water Quality 

Standards N.J.A.C. 7:9B.” <www.state.nj.us/dep/ 

rules/adoptions/042203a.pdf>. 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 

Municipal Stormwater Regulation Program. 

<www.state.nj.us/dep/dwq/municstw.html>. 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 

The Big Map Blueprint for Intelligent Growth. 

<www.state.nj.us/dep/antisprawl/map.html>. 

New Jersey Water Supply Authority. Raritan Basin 

Project Description. <www.raritanbasin.org/ 

Description.htm>. 

New York City Department of Environmental 

Protection. New York City’s Water Supply System. 

<www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/agreement.html>. 

Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials. Home 

page. <//nemo.uconn.edu>. 

Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials. 

Waterford Subdivision. Jordan Cove National 

Urban Monitoring Project. <nemo.uconn.edu/ 

case_studies/jordan_cove_ct_cs.htm>. 

North Carolina Department of Environment and 

Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. 

Winter 2002. “The 10/70 Development Option of 

the Water Supply Watershed Protection Program.” 

Streamlines, A Newsletter for North Carolina Water 

Supply Watershed Administrators. 

<h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wswp/SL/back.html>. 

North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program. 

<www.ncfloodmaps.com/pubdocs/ 

NCFPMPHndOut.htm>. 

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 

August 2002. Guidance Memorandum to Address 

and Mitigate Secondary and Cumulative Impacts to 

Aquatic and Terrestrial Wildlife Resources and 

Water Quality. <216.27.49.98/pg07_ 

wildlifespeciescon/pg7c3_impacts.pdf>. 

Northeastern Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency. 

Clean Water 2000: 208 Water Quality Management 

Plan for Northeast Ohio. <www.noaca.org/ 

Chapter-01__6017e_.pdf>. 
112 Appendix C: Bibliography 

Openlands Project. October 2001. Protecting Illinois’ 

Environment through a Stronger Facility Planning Process. 

<www.openlands.org/reports/FPA%20Report.pdf>. 

Oregon Department of Land Conservation and 

Development. Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals 

and Guidelines (Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic 

and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces). OAR 660-

015-0000(5). <www.lcd.state.or.us/goalhtml/ 

goals.html>. 

Ottawa County Planning Department. October 2003. 

“If You Are Thinking About Moving to the County 

You Want to Consider This...” Ottawa County, MI. 

Overeiner, Paul. September 2, 2003. “Officials 

develop initiative to improve Grand River.” Jackson 

Citizen Patriot. 

Paulson, C.L. 1997. Testimony on the Cherry Creek 

Basin Water Quality Authority before the Water 

Quality Control Commission of the State of Colorado. 

Pennsylvania Horticultural Society. February 1999. 

Impact 2000—Public Landscapes. 

<www.pennsylvaniahorticulturalsociety.org/ 

impact2000/Feb99.html>. 

Philadelphia Green. Home page. 

<www.pennsylvaniahorticulturalsociety.org/phlgreen/ 

index.html>. 

Planning with POWER. Home page. 

<www.planningwithpower.org>. 

Pollard, Trip. 2001. “Greening the American 

Dream?” Planning. 67 (10): 110-116. 

Portland Development Commission. 1999. Building 

for the Future: Sustainable Development in Portland. 

<www.fish.ci.portland.or.us/pdf/pdc1.pdf>. 

Prince George’s County Department of 

Environmental Resources. January 2000. Low 

Impact Development Design Strategies: An Integrated 

Design Approach. 

Prince William County Department of Public 

Works. Environmental Services. 

<www.co.prince-william.va.us/pworks/ 

env_services/fee.htm>. 

Pryne, Eric. May 20, 2002. “20 Years’ Worth of 

County Land?” Seattle Times. 

Pryne, Eric. October 2, 2001. “New customers to 

pick up 95% of tab for new sewers.” Seattle Times. 

Puget Sound Action Team. Low Impact 

Development. <www.psat.wa.gov/ 

Programs/LID.htm>. 

Rhodes, Milt. North Carolina Smart Growth 

Alliance. February 20, 2002. Email communication 

with Lynn Richards, U.S. EPA, Office of Policy, 

Economics, and Innovation. 

Rhodes, Milt. North Carolina Smart Growth 

Alliance. June 27, 2003. Email communication 

with Madelyn Carpenter, U.S. EPA, Office of Policy, 

Economics, and Innovation. 

Rhodes, Milt. North Carolina Smart Growth 

Alliance. July 11, 2003. Email communication with 

Lynn Richards, U.S. EPA, Office of Policy, 

Economics, and Innovation. 

Rutgers University. 2000. The Costs and Benefits of 

Alternative Growth Patterns: The Impact Assessment of 

the New Jersey State Plan. Center for Urban Policy 

and Research. New Brunswick, NJ. 

Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District. 

Rates and Fees. <www.srcsd.com/costs.html>. 

Saginaw Bay Watershed Initiative Network. Home 

page. <www.saginawbaywin.org>. 

San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development 

Board. Metropolitan Transit System Fact Sheets. 

<www.sdcommute.com/agencies/mts/mtdb/ 

factsheets.asp>. 
Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 113 

Sanchez, Rene. December 23, 2001. “New 

California Water Law Seeks to Curb Runaway 

Sprawl: Big Developments Must Show Ample 

Supply.” Washington Post. 

Schneider, Keith. October 23, 2002. “Ford Gives 

River Rouge a Green Coat.” New York Times. 

Schueler, Tom. 1994. “The Importance of 

Imperviousness.” Watershed Protection Techniques. 1.3: 

100-111. Ellicott City, MD: The Center for Watershed 

Protection. <www.stormwatercenter.net/Practice/ 

1-Importance%20of%20Imperviousness.pdf>. 

Shapiro, Neil. 2003. “The Stranger Amongst Us: 

Urban Runoff, The Forgotten Local Water Resource.” 

Presented at the National Conference on Urban 

Stormwater: Enhancing Programs at the Local Level 

in Chicago, Illinois. February 17-20, 2003. U.S. 

EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. 

<www.epa.gov/owow/nps/natlstormwater03>. 

Shiller, Gene. Southwest Florida Water 

Management District. June 27, 2003. Interview by 

Lynn Richards, U.S. EPA, Office of Policy, 

Economics, and Innovation. 

Sobel, Lee, et al. 2002. Greyfields into Goldfields: 

Dead Malls Become Living Neighborhoods. San 

Francisco, CA: Congress for the New Urbanism. 

South Florida Community Development Coalition. 

Home page. <www.floridacdc.org/policy/tif2.htm>. 

Southwest Florida Water Management District. 

Project WET. <www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/infoed/ 

educators/wet.htm>. 

State of California Legislative Counsel. Senate Bill 

No. 221, Chapter 642. <www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/ 

0102/bill/sen/sb_0201-250/sb_221_bill_ 

20011009_chaptered.pdf>. 

State of Massachusetts Executive Office of 

Environmental Affairs. Community Preservation 

Act Web site. <commpres.env.state.ma.us/ 

content/cpa.asp>. 

State of New Jersey. Smart Growth Infrastructure 

Tax Credits Web site. <www.state.nj.us/budget02/ 

smarttax.html>. 

Summit Soil and Water Conservation District. May 

29, 2002. “The Summit County Riparian Setback 

Ordinance: A Fact Sheet.” Cuyahoga Falls, OH. 

<www.summitswcd.org/riparianfactsheet.pdf>. 

Sussex County Division of Environmental 

Resources Planning. Sparta Township, NJ Standards 

for Individual Commercial, and Light Industrial 

Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems and 

Groundwater Protection From Comprehensive 

Land Management Code. <epa.gov/OGWDW/ 

protect/gwpos/nj/allordnj>. 

Temple University Center for Public Policy and 

Eastern Pennsylvania Organizing Project. 2001. 

Blight Free Philadelphia: A Public-Private Strategy to 

Create and Enhance Neighborhood Value. 

<www.temple.edu/CPP/content/reports/ 

BlightFreePhiladelphia.pdf>. 

The Green Roof Infrastructure Monitor. 2001. 

“Portland Provides Incentives for Green Roof 

Implementation.” The Green Roof Infrastructure 

Monitor. 3:1. <www.greenroofs.ca/grhcc/ 

GRIM-Spring2001.pdf>. 

The National Center for Smart Growth Research 

and Education. Education & Training 

<www.smartgrowth.umd.edu/education/ 

default.htm>. 
114 Appendix C: Bibliography 

The South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, 

U.S. EPA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, South Carolina Department of 

Health and Environment, Town of Mount Pleasant. 

1995. The Belle Hall Study: Sprawl vs. Traditional 

Town: Environmental Implications. South Miami, FL: 

Dover, Kohl, and Partners. 

Trust for Public Land. 1997. Protecting the Source: 

Land Conservation and the Future of America’s Drinking 

Water. San Francisco, CA: Trust for Public Land. 

Trust for Public Land and the National Association 

of Counties. 2002. Volume 1: Local Greenprinting for 

Growth: Using Land Conservation to Guide Growth 

and Preserve the Character of Our Communities. 

Trust for Public Land. Massachusetts Community 

Preservation Act. <www.tpl.org/tier2_rp2.cfm? 

folder_id=1045>. 

U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, 

Population Projections Program. 2000. Annual 

Projections of the Total Resident Population as of July 1: 

Middle, Lowest, Highest, and Zero International 

Migration Series, 1999 to 2100. Washington, D.C. 

<www.census.gov/population/www/projections/ 

natsum-T1.html>. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service. “Major land use changes in the 

contiguous 48 states.” Agricultural Resources and 

Environmental Indicators (AREI), 1996-97. 

Agriculture Handbook No.712, July 1997. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. July 2003. Urbanization and 

Development of Rural Land. 2001 Annual National 

Resources Inventory. <www.nrcs.usda.gov/ 

technical/land/nri01/nri01dev.html>. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research 

Service, Natural Resources and Environment 

Division. 1997. National Resources Inventory. 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit


Administration, Office of Planning. The


Environmental Process. <www.fta.dot.gov/office/


planning/ep>. 


U.S. EPA. June 2003. EPA’s Draft Report on the


Environment Technical Document.


EPA 600-R-03-050. <www.epa.gov/indicators>.


U.S. EPA, Chesapeake Bay Program Office. The


Chesapeake Bay Program Office in Philadelphia.


<www.epa.gov/r3chespk>. 


U.S. EPA, Development, Community, and


Environment Division. April 2001. “What is Smart


Growth?” EPA 231-F-01-001A.


U.S. EPA, Development, Community, and


Environment Division. February 2003. Using Smart


Growth Policies to Help Meet Phase II Storm Water


Requirements [Draft].


U.S. EPA, Development, Community, and


Environment Division. January 2001. Our Built and


Natural Environments. EPA 231-R-01-002.


U.S. EPA, Development, Community, and


Environment Division. June 2003. Minimizing the


Impacts of Development on Water Quality [Draft].


U.S. EPA, Development, Community, and


Environment Division. Smart Growth Policy


Database. <cfpub.epa.gov/sgpdb/sgdb.cfm>.


U.S. EPA, Development, Community, and


Environment Division. Table of Contents,


Introduction. Smart Growth Projects by Statutory


Program. <www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/pdf/


sg_at_work.pdf>.


U.S. EPA, Long Island Sound Office. “EPA Takes


Action To Control Nitrogen Pollution In Long


Island Sound.” Region 2 News & Speeches.


<www.epa.gov/region02/news/2001/01026.htm>.

Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth 115 

U.S. EPA, Long Island Sound Office. Long Island 

Sound Study Online. <www.epa.gov/region01/eco/ 

lis/index.htm>. 

U.S. EPA, Office of Brownfields Cleanup and 

Redevelopment. Brownfields Cleanup and 

Redevelopment. <www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/ 

index.html>. 

U.S. EPA, Office of Policy, Economics, and 

Innovation and Smart Growth Funding Resource 

Guide. Smart Growth Network. 

<www.smartgrowth.org/pdf/funding_resources.pdf>. 

U.S. EPA, Office of Wastewater Management. 

October 2000. Potential Roles for Clean Water State 

Revolving Fund Programs in Smart Growth Initiatives. 

EPA 832-R-00-010. <www.epa.gov/owm/ 

cwfinance/cwsrf/smartgro.pdf>. 

U.S. EPA, Office of Wastewater Management. 

Voluntary National Guidelines for Management of 

Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater 

Treatment Systems. <www.epa.gov/OWOWM. 

html/mtb/decent/management.htm>. 

U.S. EPA, Office of Water. Basic information: 

Antidegradation policy. Water Quality Standards. 

<www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/about/ 

adeg.htm>. 

U.S. EPA, Office of Water. “Great Lakes Initiative.” 

Water Science. <www.epa.gov/waterscience/GLI>. 

U.S. EPA, Office of Water. “National Menu of Best 

Management Practices for Storm Water Phase II.” 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES). <cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/ 

menuofbmps/menu.cfm>. 

U.S. EPA, Office of Water. September 1999. 

Stormwater Technology Fact Sheet-Bioretention. 

EPA 832-F-99-012. <www.epa.gov/owm/ 

mtb/biortn.pdf>. 

U.S. EPA, Office of Water. Watershed Academy 

Web site. <www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/ 

wacademy/acad2000/protection/r3.html>. 

U.S. EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and 

Watersheds. 2000. National Water Quality 

Inventory: 2000 Report to Congress. 

<www.epa.gov/305b>. 

U.S. EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and 

Watersheds. 2003. Fact Sheet, Water Quality 

Trading Policy. <www.epa.gov/owow/ 

watershed/trading/2003factsheet.pdf>. 

U.S. EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and 

Watersheds. April 2002. Review of Statewide 

Watershed Management Approaches. Final Report. 

<www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/approaches_fr.pdf>. 

U.S. EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and 

Watersheds. Aquatic Buffers. Model Ordinances to 

Protect Local Resources. <www.epa.gov/ 

owow/nps/ordinance/buffers.htm>. 

U.S. EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and 

Watersheds. Case Studies. Trading. 

<www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/hotlink.htm>. 

U.S. EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and 

Watersheds. Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization 

Amendments Section 6217. Polluted Runoff 

(Nonpoint Source Pollution). <www.epa.gov/ 

owow/nps/czmact.html>. 

U.S. EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and 

Watersheds. “Draft Trading Update-December 

1996, Cherry Creek Basin, Colorado.” 

<www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/trading/cherry.htm>. 

U.S. EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and 

Watersheds. Erosion and Sediment Control. Model 

Ordinances to Protect Local Resources. 

<www.epa.gov/owow/nps/ordinance/erosion.htm>. 
116 Appendix C: Bibliography 

U.S. EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and 

Watersheds. Fact Sheet, Water Quality Trading 

Policy. <www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/ 

trading/2003factsheet.pdf>. 

U.S. EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and 

Watersheds. January 1993. Guidance Specifying 

Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint 

Pollution in Coastal Waters. EPA 840-B-93-001c. 

U.S. EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and 

Watersheds. Miscellaneous Ordinances. Model 

Ordinances to Protect Local Resources. 

<www.epa.gov/owow/nps/ordinance/misc.htm>. 

U.S. EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and 

Watersheds. Ordinances and Supporting Materials. 

Model Ordinances to Protect Local Resources. 

<www.epa.gov/owow/nps/ordinance/osm7.htm>. 

U.S. EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and 

Watersheds. Site Development Management 

Measure. Polluted Runoff (Nonpoint Source 

Pollution). <www.epa.gov/nps/MMGI/ 

Chapter4/ch4-2c.html>. 

U.S. EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and 

Watersheds. Source Water Protection. Model 

Ordinances to Protect Local Resources. 

<www.epa.gov/owow/nps/ordinance/ 

sourcewater.htm>. 

U.S. EPA, Project XL. Atlantic Steel. 

<www.epa.gov/projectxl/atlantic>. 

U.S. EPA, Region 1. Region 1 Smart Growth Web 

site. <www.epa.gov/region01/ra/ 

sprawl/grants1999.html#10>. 

U.S. EPA, Stormwater Program. <cfpub.epa.gov/ 

npdes/home.cfm?program_id=6>. 

U.S. Water News Online. “Proposed Denver law nurtures xeriscape growth.” <www.uswaternews.com/ 

archives/arcconserv/2proden4.html>. 

Vellinga, Mary Lynne. January 31, 2002. “Sewer 

Fee Plan to Limit Sprawl Gains Approval.” 

Sacramento Bee. <www.sacbee.com/content/ 

news/story/1555934p-1632412c.html>. 

Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Department 

of Environmental Conservation, Water Quality 

Division. February 2001. Management of 

Stormwater Runoff in Vermont: Program and Policy 

Options. Prepared for the Vermont General 

Assembly. <www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/ 

stormwaterWIP.htm>. 

Vermont Department of Environmental 

Conservation. Home page. State of Vermont. 

<www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/dec.htm>. 

Washington State Department of Ecology. 

Stormwater. State of Washington. 

<www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/ 

index.html>. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 

Wisconsin’s Sewer Service Area Planning Program. 

<www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/wm/glwsp/ 

ssaplan>. 

Witherall, Don. Maine Department of 

Environmental Protection. June 19, 2003. Email 

communication with Lynn Richards, U.S. EPA, 

Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation. 

<www.state. me.us/dep/blwq/stand>. 

United States 

(1807-T) Official Business 

2

1EPA

Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460 Penalty for Private Use $300 EPA 231-R-04-002 May 2004 www.epa.gov/smartgrowth 

Recycled/Recyclable--Printed with vegetable oil based inks on 100% (minimum 50% postconsumer) recycled paper.