FLOOD09481

• County: Statewide
• Community: State
• Stream Name: All
• Basin: Statewide
• Title: Practices in Detention of Urban Stormwater Runoff
• Date: 1/1/1974
• Prepared For: American Public Works Association
• Prepared By: American Public Works Association
• Floodplain - Doc Type: Educational/Technical/Reference Information

CHAYfER 2
ATTITUDES AND OPINIONS

The introduction of any new method or
procedure is greeted by varying degrees of
skepticism and acceptance. Stormwater
detention, although not practiced intensively
in past years, is not a new method of
stormwater runoff management. Stormwater
detention facilities have been used for 15
years or more in some places in the United
St a tes. Although the concept of on-site
detention of runoff is new in many areas of
the country, its use is relatively widespread.
Attitudes and opinions on the use of on-site
detention were obtained through activities
connected with this project including surveys
of public agencies and engineering firms, three
symposia (conducted in Denver, Chicago, and
Fairfax, Virginia) and engineering studies of
drainage system alternatives.
Surveys were. made by the APWA
Research Foundation. Questionnaires were
sent to about 500 public agencies and 130
engineering firms in the United States and
Canada. Sample questionnaires are included
in Appendix A, Questionnaires Used.

APW A Survey
It was evident from the APW A survey
that on-site detention of stormwater runoff
for many jurisdictions had not been considered
Out of the 230 responses, 86 indicated no
awareness of on-site detention. Only 71
responded that the concept was not new to
them, while 73 did not answer the question.
When asked their opinions as to the
worthiness of on-site detention, 118
responded that the idea was worthy of
consideration, while only 24 said that the idea
waS not worthy of consideration. Seventy-two
jurisdictions replied that the concept was
being implemented in their respective areas,
while 65 responded that the concept was
being considered, or had been considered, but
had not been implemented. On-site detention
was viewed as too difficult to implement and
enforce by 42 respondents while 69
respondents did not share this opinion.
The use of on-site detention of

stormwater runoff was considered to have
corollary benefits as well as disadvantages.
The major corollary benefits seen were
improvement of area aesthetics and provision
of recreational opportunities and facilities.
The biggest disadvantages were viewed as the
nuisance problems of algae growths, mosquito
breeding and the poor aesthetics of empty
detention basins located on ground surfaces in
populated areas.
The survey of engineering firms did not
seek attitudes and opinions as much as did the
public agency survey; however, some
questions were included concerning possible
adverse factors. The engineering firms
responded that problems of maintenance and
operation would be the major adverse factor,
although there also would be problems of
safety, nuisance and administrative control.

A Regional Evaluation
The Northeastern Illinois Planning
Commission (NIPC) in 1972 conducted a
survey and conference to determine
approaches to solve the area's stormwater
management problems. Appendix B, NIPC
Conference, describes the extensive program
which was conducted. Out of the study
procedure came a strong recommendation
that on-site stormwater detention be used
widely. It was also recommended that state
legislation be enacted to define which public
agencies have responsibility for stormwater
drainage and flood control. The need for
greater funding aid for flood hazard reduction
and the importance of accurate information
concerning flood plains were also reflected in
the high-priOrity list of recommendations.

Symposia
As a part of this study, three symposia
were held during 1972 on the subject of
on-site detention of stormwater runoff. The
symposia, which were conducted in Chicago,
lllinois, Denver, Colorado, and Fairfax County
Virginia were convened for the purpose of
obtaining information concerning experiences

9