by Jeff Seltzer
Rock Creek and the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers are beloved environmental treasures. However, District residents and visitors cannot fully enjoy our local waterbodies as they routinely fall below water quality standards established to protect people and natural habitat.
The degradation of the District’s waters occurred over several centuries as the traditional methods of development didn’t respect water as a vital natural resource. Nearly 43 percent of the land area in the District is covered with paved surfaces such as rooftops, roads, and driveways that were designed to convey stormwater runoff to the nearest waterway as quickly as possible. This stormwater runoff erodes streambanks, topples trees, buries aquatic habitat with sediment, and carries harmful pollutants like pet waste, oil, fertilizers, metals sediment and litter into our rivers and streams. Water quality monitoring has found organic pollutants, pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs) in Soapstone Creek.
Historically, 90 percent of the District rain events have produced less than 1.2 inches of rainfall. With climate change we are experiencing larger storm events more frequently. This will only exacerbate the environmental problems associated with stormwater runoff.
The Department of Energy and Environment (DOEE) is working hard to improve the quality of the District’s waterbodies and is a national leader in policies and programs to more effectively manage stormwater runoff. A key component of these efforts is to retrofit paved surfaces with green infrastructure (GI) to capture and filter stormwater runoff.
The use of GI also has ancillary benefits including a reduced heat island effect, improved air quality, additional habitat, neighborhood beautification and the creation of green jobs. Types of GI that are commonly used in the District include the installation of green roofs, rain gardens and roadside bio-retention, which involves the removal of paved surfaces and planting trees.
Importantly, the use of GI is also a federal mandate for the District under the Clean Water Act’s stormwater permitting program. Between June 2018 and June 2023, the District must effectively retrofit over 1,000 acres of paved surfaces with GI practices that retain stormwater in areas served by the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4 – see graphic below).
This mandate is a collective obligation for District residents and requires the use of our public space (such as roads, schools and parks) where possible to manage runoff.
To meet this goal, DOEE enforces regulations that require public and private projects to install GI and leverages federal grants to fund retrofits. (Explore this map to see where and what types of GI have been installed throughout the District.) Most regulated projects are required to capture stormwater runoff from a 1.2-inch rain event using GI.
There is an ongoing project close to Forest Hills in DC’s Barnaby Woods neighborhood: the Oregon Avenue Watershed Green Streets (one of the projects listed here). Its objective is to manage stormwater with a series of GI installations in the public right of way. The techniques include installing roadside bio-retention and repaving with pervious pavers.
The Oregon Avenue watershed project was designed to retain 84,044 gallons of stormwater runoff and treat another 61,444 gallons. The retained water is held by the materials and plantings in bioretention areas and dispersed through evapotranspiration. The treated runoff filters through soil media and ultimately flows to an underdrain.
As Deputy Director for the Natural Resources Administration at the Department of Energy and Environment (DOEE), Jeff Seltzer is responsible for programs that conserve, protect, and improve the water, soil, and living resources of the District of Columbia. Jeff is a Professional Civil Engineer with over 25 years of experience in environmental restoration, transportation and construction management. Jeff lives in the District with his wife and two children and looks forward to the day when his family and other residents can safely swim in the District’s rivers.
Livia Bardin says
Intrigued by the possibilities suggested in this story, I hunted unsuccessfully on the DOEE web site for information applicable to condominiums and apartment houses about the DOEE “regulations that require public and private projects to install GI and leverages federal grants to fund retrofits.” Eligibility for RiverSmart Homes grants is restricted to single family residences. RiverSmart Communities grants seem to apply to 501(c)(3) organizations like schools and churches. Can Mr. Seltzer tell us where to find this important information for apartment houses and condominiums?
Alex says
Ms. Bardin,
You are correct that neither RiverSmart Communities nor RiverSmart Homes apply to multi-family buildings. The DOEE RiverSmart Communities program is now directed at only houses of worship and NGOs. For businesses, institutions and multi-family buildings, DOEE offers a different program- a Permeable Surface Rebate program. Single family home owners can also apply. The RiverSmart websites could be clearer about this; interested applicants should contact the Alliance for the Bay rep listed on the DOEE website for the program.
Livia Bardin says
Thank you, Alex. For those who are interested, I found the RiverSmart Permeable Surface Rebate program at https://doee.dc.gov/service/permeablesurfacerebate . Although condominiums and apartment houses are eligible, the program’s limits — currently a maximum area of 300 square feet (less than two parking spaces) and maximum grant of $3,000 — mean that it’s not likely to be useful to owners of multifamily housing.
Alex says
My pleasure. The limits you cite apply in some circumstances but not all. For example, the maximum grant of $3000 applies in CSO areas of the District; there is no limit in MS4 areas. Much of Ward 3 is MS4, including Forest Hills. And there is eligibility for large projects beyond 300 sq feet.
I suggest contacting Laura Todd at the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay for guidance. DOEE needs to rewrite their website to make this program clearer. One shouldn’t need to read through several applications to understand the program’s basic requirements.
Green Eyeshades says
The author did not reveal the arguments raised by the DC government in opposition to the EPA’s enforcement action which is forcing the DC government to separate its storm sewer system from its human sewer system. The EPA’s lawsuit against the DC government resulted in a consent decree which is the “federal mandate” the author refers to. A consent decree is a judgment by the court imposing duties on various parties, but the parties negotiate what the consent decree will require before they “consent” to it. The history of that consent decree litigation is extremely important context to understand who inserted a particular “federal mandate” into that consent decree with the EPA under which the DC government is separating its two sewer systems.
In the middle of this post, the author writes “the use of GI [green infrastructure] is also a federal mandate for the District under the Clean Water Act’s stormwater permitting program. Between June 2018 and June 2023, the District must effectively retrofit over 1,000 acres of paved surfaces with GI practices that retain stormwater ….”
Based on extensive news coverage years ago, it is quite clear that the goal of one thousand acres of green infrastructure was not a goal added by EPA. The EPA consent decree requires the District to build a second and third massive underground tunnel to capture storm water (known as the “Potomac” and “Rock Creek” tunnels, respectively). The “Potomac” tunnel will be bored under Georgetown. (The first massive tunnel is now in operation along the Anacostia River on the west bank of that estuary.)
In order to dodge the EPA’s demand for the second and third underground tunnels to hold stormwater, the District government claimed that one thousand acres of Green Infrastructure could accomplish significant stormwater diversion and allow reduction in size of the Potomac tunnel, and even possibly eliminate the need for the Rock Creek tunnel.
This is how that experiment is described in the press release issued by the U.S. Dept. of Justice in 2015:
“Using green infrastructure to retain the first 1.2 inches of rainwater on 365 acres in the Rock Creek area and 133 acres in the Potomac watershed.
“Potentially eliminating the Rock Creek storage tunnel and significantly decreasing the size of the Potomac tunnel depending upon the success demonstrated by green infrastructure.”
[snip]
“In November 2011, DC Water proposed to EPA to incorporate green infrastructure into its overflow control strategies for the Potomac and Rock Creek watersheds. As part of the request, DC Water submitted analysis demonstrating that modified CSO [combined sewer overflows] controls in the Potomac and green infrastructure in Rock Creek could provide equivalent pollution reductions to those in the original plan and were economically feasible.”
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/strategy-reduce-district-columbia-s-sewer-overflows-will-include-green-infrastructure
That language from the U.S. Justice Dept. makes it quite clear that Green Infrastructure is an EXPERIMENT, not proven science. There is no proof that one thousand acres of green roofs, rain gardens, pervious paving, and other substitutes will in fact divert as much stormwater as the second and third underground tunnels.
The Post reported in April 2018 that the first underground tunnel along the Anacostia diverted 170 MILLION gallons of combined sewage and stormwater during a flash flood:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/heavy-rain-monday-was-seen-as-testing-first-leg-of-new-storage-tunnel-system/2018/04/18/0412b3dc-42cd-11e8-ad8f-27a8c409298b_story.html
A local blog reported that, despite trapping 170 million gallons, the Anacostia tunnel was unable to prevent 10 to 20 million gallons of combined sewer overflows from being discharged into the Anacostia River:
https://www.popville.com/2018/04/stormwater-anacostia-river/
There is no proof that Green Infrastructure can substitute for two new underground tunnels that could capture millions of gallons of stormwater. The main post is misleading in failing to include this context of the consent decree litigation in advertising the benefits of Green Infrastructure. Green Infrastructure is the District’s experimental attempt to AVOID building a third tunnel and to REDUCE the size of its second tunnel to comply with EPA requirements, not a good-faith effort to ensure separation of stormwater from the municipal separate storm sewer system (MSSSS or “MS4”).
Alex says
In my view, you are conflating two different concepts- Dc Water’s consent decree with the EPA and the District’s NPDES permit from the EPA. Mr. Seltzer’s article describes some of its programs designed to comply with the federal mandate within the NPDES permit. There are many others- for an exhaustive list, refer to the District’s MS4 annual reports.
Putting aside the fact that Mr. Seltzer is not trying to describe DC Water’s requirements under the consent decree, I happen to agree that green infrastructure is not a simple replacement for tunnels to capture combined storm and sanitary fluids. It’s a complex subject with several angles- the timing of reductions, cost to ratepayers, maintenance of green infrastructure, other benefits of GI such as jobs and neighborhood cooling, and likelihood of success in our age of climate change. I do not agree, however, that green infrastructure is an experiment. It has been demonstrated to reduce runoff and is being used across the country and the world. It’s a simple concept and one that has many additional benefits. The question is whether DC Water will be able to successfully retrofit and maintain sufficient acreage to meet the requirements of the consent decree.
Green Eyeshades says
The NPDES permit that you refer to is a standard element of consent decrees entered into by the Dept. of Justice to enforce the Clean Water Act. The courts that have jurisdiction over the consent decrees get their jurisdiction from the Clean Water Act and the NPDES permits issued under that Act.
So the NPDES permit and the consent decree are not “two different concepts.” The consent decrees are based on court complaints filed by the Dept. of Justice alleging that the combined sewer overflows in particular areas are VIOLATIONS of those areas’ NPDES permits. The NPDES permit is part and parcel of most consent decrees. The consent decrees act as extensions or amendments to the NPDES permits, to rectify the alleged violations occurring because of raw sewage being combined with stormwater and overflowing into waters governed by the federal Clean Water Act.
Unfortunately, the DOJ website for the Environment and Natural Resources Division does not provide easy access to the actual consent decree in place between the District of Columbia and the EPA concerning CSOs. However, a similar consent decree is available on that website.
In a case involving Combined Sewer Overflows in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, a consent decree was entered into in 2015, the same year as DC’s modified consent decree described in the press release that I linked to in my first comment, above. In the Delaware County case, the Dept. of Justice issued a press release, which is here:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/pennsylvania-water-utility-reduce-sewage-discharges-delaware-river-and-local-creeks
And at the bottom of that press release, the Dept. of Justice provided a link to the actual consent decree filed in that case, which is here:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/761531/download
In that consent decree, this is the text of the first “Whereas” paragraph on page one:
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs, the United States of America {“United States”), on behalf of the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), and the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Department of EnvironmenaI Protection (“PADEP”) filed a Complaint in this matter against Defendant Delaware County Regional Water Quality Control Authority, (“Defendant” or “DELCORA”) seeking injunctive relief and civil penalties, and alleging, inter alia, that DELCORA violated the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1387, Sections 201, 202 and 401 of the Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law, 35 Pa. Stat. Ann. §§ 691.201, 691.202 and 595.401, and certain terms and conditions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System {“NPDES”) permit last issued by PADEP as NPDES Permit No. PA0027103, effective on or about May 1, 201.3 and amended on or about December 17, 2013 (effective January 1, 2014), issued to DELCORA pursuant to the CWA relating to the municipal wastewater treatment
plant and collection system owned and operated by DELCORA (“Complaint”) ….
Alex says
The NPDES permit that Mr. Seltzer refers to is independent of the consent decree between DC Water and the EPA. It’s easy enough to find on the DC Govt website (NPDES Permit No. DC0000221). The agreement to modify the consent decree between DC Water, DC Govt and EPA is available on the EPA website.
I agree that DC Water was found to be in violation of its NPDES permit. Please note that DC Water has its own NPDES permit since it discharges from a point source into the waters of the U.S. (NPDES Permit No. DC0021199). For those who are not familiar with such permits, in general, if one discharges pollutants from a point source into the waters of the U.S., one needs a NPDES permit- issued from the EPA.
The point of this was to correct the impression that Mr. Seltzer was somehow misleading the reader by not going into detail about DC Water’s obligations under the consent agreement. I maintain that Mr. Seltzer was simply trying to explain GI and describe some DOEE and DDOT programs- visible to the public- to meet their obligations under the Clean Water Act and their NPDES permit. Perhaps a DC Water rep could write a separate article about their programs!
Green Eyeshades says
You cited two different NPDES permits. You wrote that DC Water has its own permit (ending in 21199) and you imply that the second permit (ending in 221) was issued to the DC government separately from DC Water. You also accept that DC Water was in violation of its NPDES permit. Are you trying to imply that the DC government was NOT in violation of its separate NPDES permit, even though DC Water was in violation of its NPDES permit? My understanding is that the DC government is bound by a consent decree with the EPA and the Dept. of Justice just like DC Water is bound. The DC govt websites are not easily searchable because they use primitive search technology which give hundreds of useless answers for each relevant answer.
I have not searched the EPA website but if you know where “the agreement to modify the consent decree” is located on the EPA website, please share that link.
Green Eyeshades says
I found this link on the EPA website with a blizzard of NPDES permits issued in the District of Columbia. There is a plethora of detail about the MS4 permits but the chronology appears to end in 2012. Is the link you are referring to somewhere on this page?
https://www3.epa.gov/reg3wapd/npdes/dcpermits.htm
There is a separate page of PDF documents relating to DC’s MS4 permits which includes a handful of documents dated in 2018. Is anything relevant to the modified consent decree listed on this page?
https://www.epa.gov/npdes-permits/dc-municipal-separate-storm-sewer-system-ms4
This link purports to provide a 19 megabyte PDF document of over 700 pages constituting the “first amendment” to DC WASA’s consent decree, but it is undated so it is not apparent from the face of this link whether this is the relevant amendment to the consent decree that was adopted in 2015:
https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/first-amendment-district-columbia-water-and-sewer-consent-decree
There are other “draft modifications” and “comments on draft modifications” and “administrative record” documents relating to DC’s MS4 permits all over those EPA links, but I could not find the 2015 modified consent decree in that blizzard of information.
Green Eyeshades says
The link labeled “first-amendment-district-columbia-water-and-sewer-consent-decree” above does in fact include the September 2015 modified consent decree. The first 58 pages of that enormous PDF file appear to be the actual court order modifying the consent decree. The PDF file is at this link, but please do NOT click on this link because it will download a 19 Megabyte PDF file directly into your computer:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-05/documents/firstamendment-dcwasa-cd.pdf
Green Eyeshades says
The NPDES permit ending in 21199 is here:
https://www3.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf_npdes/Wastewater/DC/DC0021199BluePlainsFinalpermit.pdf
It is a 62-page document, probably several dozen megabytes.
It was signed in August 2010, became effective September 30, 2010, and expired September 30, 2015. It covers only the Blue Plains water treatment plant, from a quick skim. It became effective long before the 2015 amendment to the consent decree that we are looking for. It seems irrelevant to this post.
ralph brafford says
A new product called Permavoid is the answer to this issue. The patented system was designed for multiple uses. It depends on your needs. It was designed so that you can store water. You can pave over the product in roadways and parking lots. It is used in green/blue roofs. You capture the rainwater. If you want it to infiltrate naturally in the groundwater you install it one way. If you want to reuse the water then you install it another way. You can add wicking cones to the system to water the plant life above. The root systems develop more quickly and can survive longer because the water is underneath the vegetation so the roots go deeper instead of staying close to the surface because that is where the water comes from. It uses less than half the water to do the same thing. The water can also be stored on roofs of buildings to support the vegetation instead of being dumped into the sewers.
Many cities are planting trees to help with the environment. What they are doing is creating Tree Coffins. The trees they are planting are dead in a few years due to several issues. One of which is making sure the trees have water even in dry conditions.
The ABTdrains.com website has additional information