FLOOD03407

• County: Statewide
• Community: State of Colorado
• Basin: Statewide
• Title: Stormwater Management in the United States - A Study of Intsitutionl Problems, Solutions and Impacts
• Date: 9/1/1980
• Prepared By: Office of Water Research and Technology
• Floodplain - Doc Type: Educational/Technical/Reference Information

I

Masterplanning

I
I

Public officials in many areas are attempting to develop masterplans for storm-
water management. Because of other municipal priorities and needs, financing such
plans has usually not been practical. Also, some officials are of the opinion that
masterplanning should be withheld until financing is available to implement the plan.
Metropolitan Denver, Fairfax County, Virginia and Cook County, Illinois are notably
advanced in masterplanning and implementation of stormwater management plans. Addi-
tional information on progress being made in these places is given in this report
under the respective case-study reports.

I

Organizational and Administrative Patterns

A report(l) published by the American Public Works Association (APWA) concerning
management and administrative practices in urban drainage and flood protection char-
acterizes stormwater agencies. It was based upon information supplied by 627
cities, towns villages and urban counties across the United States and Canada. The
data was collected in a questionnaire-survey conducted by the APWA through its Urban
Drainage Committee. The balance of this chapter contains some statistical information
from that report as well as information collected during this study. Although the
survey data is somewhat dated, more recent data representative of the United States
could not be found.

I

Organizations Responsible

I
I
I
I
I
I

The organization for providing drainage in urban areas may vary considerably
from place to place to adapt to the variations in physical, historical, legal, polit-
ical or financial conditions. Usually there is some accountability to a superior
jurisdiction, often a state agency, to assure some degree of compatibility among
areas where there may be consequential effects of one's actions upon another, as in
a river drainage basin. For coastal communities draining directly to the ocean,
such an integrating agency may be unnecessary. Within urban limits, the responsi-
bility for drainage ordinarily descends upon the local government which is usually
specifically empowered by state law to make provision for collecting and disposing
of storm waters. This duty may be discharged in part or in whole by the establish-
ment of special districts or authorities, constituted and created under state law,
which may sometimes have other responsibilities, such as sanitary sewage disposal.

I

Regardless of whether or not there is a special storm drainage district, or
authority, the local extensions of drainage systems nearly always are the direct
responsibility of the local government. Thus, the providing of urban drainage in
a given area may fall under the jurisdiction of more than one governmental agency.
Provision of the local drainage facilities involves several activities, with a
choice of organizational pattern. Planning, financing, design, construction, regu-
lation, operation and maintenance are all involved. The responsibilities for drain-
age and methods devised by local governments to meet their responsibilities are
variable. Often, a number of approaches are used simultaneously in different parts
of a geographical area.

I
I

I

46

I
I
I
I

Enabling Legislation

Because watersheds and drainage basins are rarely coterminous with political
boundaries of urban areas, intergovernmental cooperation is required to provide
satisfactory solutions. Most states have provided local governments with as many
options as possible for organizing drainage management. One such option is found