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

administrative regulations. Some jurisdictions
used more than one legislative technique to
implement on-site detention storage.
A following question showed that a total
of 89 jurisdictions, or less than one-half of all
re spondents, exercised control over
requirements for on-site stormwater detention
facilities. Tab]e 2, Existence of Controls, gives
a tabulation of the responses.

Table 2
Existence of Controls by Local
Jurisdictions for On-Site Stormwater
Detention Requirements

Control Exercised
hv Means of:

Controls of Any Type
Permits
Local Ordinances
Incentives
Penalties

Source: 1972 Survey by APWA

No. of Agencies
Resl>Onding
Yes No
89 109
62 75
53 79
14 98
8 10]

Table 3, Responsibility for Administering
Controls, shows the office in which the
responsibility for control of detention was
placed. Most often the responsibility belonged
to the city Engineer.

Table 3
Responsibility for Administering Controls

Office or Department
Responsible

City Engineer's Office
Building Inspection Office
Flood Plain Zoning Office
Sewer and/or Water Dept.
Health Department
Zoning Enforcement Office
County Public Works Dept.
(or Engineer)
County Highway Engineer
Sanitary or Sewer District
Other Department

Source: 1912 Survey by APWA

No. of Agencies
Reporting
Yes No

86
51
34
26
22
18

39
15
l4
20

47
56
59
65
66
68

Forty-two of the responding public
agencies reported that their storm drainage
criteria incorporate requirements for
storm water detention.
Model Legislation: The development of
model ordinances and/or resolutions for the
control of excess runoff could serve as an aid
to loca] public agencies having responsibilities
for stormwater management. Although at
least one example of such model legislation
has been drafted, it is considered by its author
as preliminary and subject to revision.
The mode] ordinance was prepared as a
guide to municipalities and counties in the
State of Colorado. It is based upon providing
protection against the hazards of runoff from
the 100-year rainstorm event. The ordinance
would pertain to new construction and would
restrict peak runoff rates to those existing
prior to construction by means of the
provision of control structures for collecting,
storing and disposing of excess runoff. In lieu
of providing on-site facilities for detention of
runoff and control of the release of runoff,
the developer could pay a fee, as determined
by the public stormwater management
agency, based upon the amount that
anticipated runoff exceeds the historic runoff.
This fee would be used to pay for the
construction of necessary facilities to
accommodate the anticipated excess runoff.
The fee would be assessed by and paid to the
appropriate county assessor who would
spread the total fee over a 30-year time
period, or until the fee is satisfied.
Summary: Various forms of legislation
were found to be in use in different areas for
requiring and controlling facilities for on-site
detention of runoff. The most prevalent of
these is the use of ordinances governing
subdivision regulations. Provisions of local
building codes and zoning ordinances are also
used. In some areas, requirements for on-site
detention are specified by more than one
local ordinance.
Legislative controls and administrative
regulations may be enacted by special districts
or regional authorities, where such exist. In
most urban areas, the legislation and control
of stormwater drainage facilities and programs
is assumed by the local municipality. Where
special drainage districts or authorities are in
operation, legislation and controls imposed by

62
69
74
61

14