Tuesday, October 13th, 2009

A Better Road to Clean Water Act Compliance

I’ve noted before that the astronomical cost of Clean Water Act compliance for our cities was a killer. Most older cities are also struggling with deteriorated street infrastructure that would require another massive dose of spending to correct. Also, in the Midwest, most cities have street networks that are not even right in their very conception for the modern day anyway. And, they need to make major investments to create a more green city as well. A plan out of Philadelphia shows the way to kill three birds with one stone.

With the most ambitious program of its kind in America, Philly is looking to remediate its combined sewer overflow problem with a massive program of green building designed to prevent the problem in the first place.

Philadelphia has announced a $1.6 billion plan to transform the city over the next 20 years by embracing its storm water – instead of hustling it down sewers and into rivers as fast as possible.

The proposal, which several experts called the nation’s most ambitious, reimagines the city as an oasis of rain gardens, green roofs, thousands of additional trees, porous pavement, and more.

All would act as sponges to absorb – or at least stall – the billions of gallons of rainwater that overwhelm the city sewer system every year.

The plan’s complex funding formula would raise rates somewhat but also attract grants and encourage private investment.

Further, the Water Department says the city’s greening would result in more jobs, higher property values, better air quality, less energy use, and even fewer deaths – from excess heat.

For those who aren’t familiar with the term, a combined sewer is where storm water runoff and sewage from buildings is carried in the same pipes. This was how sewers were built back in the day and were a huge improvement in public sanitation at the time. However, in heavy rains, the storm water runoff overwhelms the capacity of the treatment system, and the rest backs up in basements, pools on the streets, or is simply dumped into a nearby river, contaminating the environment with untreated sewage. Cities are being forced to largely eliminate these combined sewer overflows as part of the Clean Water Act.

The typical solution to this is to spend a few billion dollars building a “deep tunnel”. This is a huge storage pipe bored into bedrock deep underground, which holds excess sewage until after the storm when the treatment plant can process it.

There are a few problems with deep tunnels:

  • They are ridiculously expensive. Washington, DC is spending $2.2 billion on one, Indianapolis $1.6 billion, Cincinnati $3.5 billion, and Cleveland $5 billion – or thereabouts. The prices seem to vary depending on the source you read, but the operative term is always “billion”.
  • Like all projects designed to deal with peak of the peak capacity, it will be un-utilized or under-utilized 90% of the time. It’s mostly wasted capacity. If you can, it is generally better to use demand management techniques to smooth out demand spikes, such as congestion pricing for roads.
  • It’s a hack. We’re still basically taking clean water (well, not entirely clean, but that’s another post), combining it with raw sewage, and creating even bigger amount of, well, sewage. That doesn’t sound too smart.
  • It adds zero to the city. What does your city get for a deep tunnel no one can see? Not much. The environmental benefits will never generate a rational economic or recreational ROI and no one even attempts to justify it on that basis. We are simply doing this because we’ve decided it is the right thing to do.

The cost of this will add yet another incentive for people to move to suburban or exurban districts that are not part of the combined sewer zone to escape paying the sky high bills that will result. Those newer areas were built from the ground up with separate storm water and sanitary sewer systems. Sewer bills in Indianapolis are on their way to over $100 per month – triple suburban rates. This will certainly hurt low income people and make them look even more strongly at the collar counties.

Philadelphia is showing a better way to tackle this problem. Instead of building a deep tunnel for billions and getting more or less no return, it is looking to spend money at get something for it in terms of improved street and green infrastructure and more trees and greenery – while preventing the creation of billions of gallons of contaminated water in the first place. In short, exactly the type of demand management solution we should be looking at. There’s no guarantee the EPA will go along with them. Cincinnati floated this idea and it got shot down. But given the potentially huge benefits, it ought to be pushed with full vigor.

Consider the possibilities. Instead of a place like Indianapolis tripling sewer rates to dig a deep tunnel, then having to turn around and sell its water utility (a moving Cincinnati is also looking at) to raise funds to repave streets that, even if fixed up, still are not relevant to reinvigorating the urban core for the 21st century, why not instead do something like this? I was thinking about it just the other day walking past a construction zone on the Cultural Trail and seeing the rain gardens being built there. Why not use the billions for sewers to rebuild the streets with rain gardens, new curbs and sidewalks, bike lanes, new permeable pavements, trees and native grasses, etc? This would not be gold plated a la the Cultural Trail, but just what the new basics of a thriving urban environment today ought to look like. Think of the possibilities:

  • CSO overflows fixed
  • Streets re-imagined and upgraded
  • New state of the art green infrastructure built

That’s called a trifecta. Any city that hasn’t already built a deep tunnel should launch a full court press on this – even it has already reached a settlement with the EPA. There are certainly challenges to overcome – I hear permeable asphalt can’t be salted, for example, a problem in a region with lots of snow – but technology is getting better every day and where there’s a will, we can find the way.

Cities that don’t do this, and go with the old school approach, face the serious of risk of building the civic equivalent of the new Comiskey Park. That is, the last of the 70’s style stadiums that were obsolete as soon as they opened as a new era of fan friendly ballparks debuted. Don’t be that city. Kudos to Philadelphia for really leading the charge.

President Obama is bringing a new focus on cities to the White House. If I could pick only one area he could make a huge difference in for our cities, it is in changing the game on Clean Water Act compliance. If he pressed the EPA to embrace a forward looking vision of using this type of green infrastructure program, it could be a huge force in increasing the attractiveness of our urban cores in an era when that is more critical than ever. And if the feds picked up the cost of this – and nothing would help cities more since it would remove a huge financial disincentive to live in the city – it would be the ultimate urban game changer. I’d urge the President to make this happen and our city leaders to go all out for it on their end.

Topics: Public Policy, Strategic Planning, Sustainability, Technology
Cities: Indianapolis, Philadelphia

7 Responses to “A Better Road to Clean Water Act Compliance”

  1. K Hansen says:

    Porous asphalt can be salted for snow and ice conditions. These pavements will require less salt than conventional pavement. The University of New Hampshire reports that they require zero to 25 percent of the normal salt application. They should not be sanded since the sand will clog the pores reducing their permeability.

  2. Indy Rock says:

    Perhaps your best post in a long time Aaron. I couldn't have said it better myself. What I suggest you do is see if you can get a hold of Indy or the Office of Sustainability. Maybe they'll be willing to give you a listen? Good luck!

  3. Anonymous says:

    Couldnt agree more. Deep Tunnels seem like a very 60's/70's-esque response to problems…heavily engineering/construction oriented, expensive, and labor intensive. Theyve been working on the tunnel here in Chicago for over 30 years, and it still wont be fully wrapped up until sometime later in the next decade.

    And of course as you mentioned, they really dont do anything to get at the root of the problem, which is runoff. Thrilled to see that Philadelphia appears to "get" it. Maybe someone can shed some light on this, but why have so few places even attempted to give permeable pavers a try? Is their cost really that high?

  4. Ray Garrigan says:

    Cheers Aaron for this excellent post. Of course the Philly approach is the way to go. The answer should be a combination of reducing runoff, creating wetlands and water gardens to naturally cleanse the water, and helping to replenish the watertable and thus prevent falling watertables and drying up streams due to urban development, and in doing so creating habitat and green spaces for the city. The approach you outline solves a problem and creates an asset for the city.

    Deep tunnels reminds me of pumping carbon dioxide in underground storage in an attempt to create green coal. Rather than following the sensible approach of reducing carbon emissions through efficiency and conservation and renewable energy, we throw money at a dubious technonlogy so we don't need to reform our oil addiction (or wasteful water use addiction, or building our cities without proper storm water runoff engineering.)

  5. David says:

    Great Post, but you make it sound more like it is these cities' fault. None of the cities would be considering this if it weren't for court orders brought by to us by the EPA and often environmental legal defense funds – Sierra Club was active in the Cincy case. This entirely the fed's fault (as you note in Cincy's attempt to avoid building one). I agree that the Philly model is the way to go, but the cities don't have agency in this situation.

  6. The Urbanophile says:

    Thanks for the comments.

    David, I agree that cities are in a weak position. That's why we need the President to step in (or some enlightened advisor). The EPA is the lead agency in this. It seems to me that if we move the fight to the political arena (including involving members of Congress) towards an idea is that actually about actually making the environment event better (not just clean water, but also reduced CO2 emissions from encouraging urban development and new greenscape), we should be able to get somewhere.

    Maybe it will work, maybe not, but the fight is worth fighting.

  7. Anonymous says:

    What this plan needs is people behind it. Someone needs to form a grassroots organization of people willing to devote their time to drawing up sketches and schematics to not only convice the city but the rest of the public as well. If this organization can get the public support behind it, maybe the politicians will start listening (think property tax protests). The group can emphazize the positives, especially the money that stands to be saved. It sounds like Philadelphia plans to cover their whole system in the amount it is costing Indy to build one tunnel. That is likely to be the most important factor to the general populace. The next most important thing to point out is that it will fix the streets because that is a hot topic these days. After that, the other asthetic benefits can be pointed out as a "free" side effect of the cost savings and street improvements. Philly's plan needs some serious consideration in Indy as it has the chance to leapfrog our inner city ahead of a lot of the things plaguing it.

The Urban State of Mind: Meditations on the City is the first Urbanophile e-book, featuring provocative essays on the key issues facing our cities, including innovation, talent attraction and brain drain, global soft power, sustainability, economic development, and localism. Included are 28 carefully curated essays out of nearly 1,200 posts in the first seven years of the Urbanophile, plus 9 original pieces. It's great for anyone who cares about our cities.

About the Urbanophile


Aaron M. Renn is an opinion-leading urban analyst, consultant, speaker, and writer on a mission to help America’s cities thrive and find sustainable success in the 21st century.

Full Bio


Please email before connecting with me on LinkedIn if we don't already know each other.



Copyright © 2006-2014 Urbanophile, LLC, All Rights Reserved - Click here for copyright information and disclosures