A Potential Flood


A Potential Flood

With the November 6 election date fast approaching, this year’s ballot will include an interesting question that would amend the Virginia Constitution:

“Should a county, city, or town be authorized to provide a partial tax exemption for real property that is subject to recurrent flooding, if flooding resiliency improvements have been made on the property?”

Virginia’s query is well-timed. Flood awareness in the Commonwealth is undoubtedly high after many Virginia communities, and much of the southeastern U.S., have endured several recent flood events. Virginia’s rainy spring and summer seasons gave way to an active Atlantic hurricane season that has seen two tropical systems impact most of the state within weeks of one another (remnants of Hurricanes Florence and Michael). As of this writing, the Richmond area alone has already received 125 to 150% of its average rainfall, year-to-date.

As Virginia experiences more frequent and severe rainfall events, along with increased tidal and coastal flooding, more properties face flood risks, causing significant, and often repetitive, damage. Flood damage will only increase as storm frequencies and severity increase. Coupled with anticipated sea level rise along Virginia’s tidal shores, the state has recognized the need to look for additional, long-term flood mitigation solutions. This ballot initiative seeks to incentivize private property investment in flood mitigation and resiliency measures by allowing Virginia localities to provide partial real estate tax exemptions for properties that do so.

As with many proposed solutions that sound straightforward on paper, the necessary details can often prove complex — and this initiative is no exception. Virginia’s constitution already enables a similar, real estate tax-based incentive program for “real estate whose improvements, by virtue of age and use, have undergone substantial renovation, rehabilitation, or replacement…” [Article X, Section 6 (h)]. This currently enabled real estate tax incentive for rehabilitation of existing properties assists community efforts to stabilize, and often increase, the local tax base. However, the dynamic nature of flooding and flood damage in Virginia, from both a geographic and hydrologic perspective, challenges the efficacy of a constitutional change that would require consistent statewide implementation. To that end, the actual text of the proposed constitutional amendment, below, does leave room for addressing these challenges. As currently drafted, it reads:

Article X, Section 6 “(k) The General Assembly may by general law authorize the governing body of any county, city, or town to provide for a partial exemption from local real property taxation, within such restrictions and upon such conditions as may be prescribed, of improved real estate subject to recurrent flooding upon which flooding abatement, mitigation, or resiliency efforts have been undertaken.” (Emphasis mine.)

As colleagues have recently reminded me, if the ballot measure passes, the Virginia General Assembly will need to introduce a bill (or bills) in the 2019 session to define the initiative, including the restrictions and conditions noted above. If voters approve the proposed amendment on November 6, Virginia localities would be prudent to watch this process carefully, as the details will impact the physical, philosophical, and political realities localities must navigate.

Virginia’s geographic diversity adds the first potential complication. While sea level rise and the associated tidal flooding components from coastal storms certainly warrant attention in tidewater Virginia, not all of the state’s recurrently inundated properties are flooded by tidal sources. Interior stream and riverine flooding across Virginia have wreaked havoc in 2018, causing multiple flooding events in the Roanoke and Dan River basins, for example. With the proposed amendment applicable statewide, the flood mitigation alternatives available for tidal and riverine settings often differ, and the “restrictions and conditions prescribed” will need to account for those differences through establishment of applicable mitigation metrics.

One potential model for tidal metrics comes from the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (HRPDC), which recently adopted a resolution encouraging its member localities to plan for sea level rise. The region identified, and agreed to, local land use planning policy scenarios that included 1.5 feet of sea level rise for near-term decisions (2018-2050), 3 feet for medium term decisions (2050-2080) and 4.5 feet for long-term decisions (2080-2100)[1]. Could a similar scale of increasing flood resiliency over time be used to further define “flooding abatement, mitigation, and resiliency” measures for property subject to recurrent tidal flooding? How should the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and associated Flood Insurance Studies (FIS) factor into tidal flooding mitigation standards?

For riverine flooding, the ballot measure’s needed definition also proves challenging. While FEMA FIRMs do provide floodplain definition and location, not all provide a Base Flood Elevation (BFE), or the computed water surface elevation of the so-called “100-year flood” (the flood that has a 1% chance of occurring in any given year). Other recurrently flooded properties may not even be in a FEMA-mapped floodplain. As such, even riverine flood mitigation requirements of BFE plus 1 foot or more may not provide the mitigation value anticipated over time, or be applicable to all flooded properties. The calculated 1% flood elevation is just that, a calculation based on historical rainfall data and established hydrologic curve numbers at the time of the study. As our hydrologic history — the period for which we have accurate rainfall records — lengthens, those numbers will change over time. Indeed, as The Pew Charitable Trusts’ flood-prepared communities initiative recently noted, 2018’s Hurricane Florence was the 12th 1,000-year rainfall event (or event that has a 0.1% chance of occurring in any given year, emphasis mine) in the U.S. since the beginning of 2016[2]. More frequent, significant rain events mean that flood elevations and metrics for effective mitigation remain a moving target, a concept reflected in the scaled planning targets in the HRPDC initiative.

Finally, in addition to these moving targets for establishing the effectiveness of specific mitigation measures, localities will also need to account for the vast range of property values subject to recurring flooding. With some exceptions, tidal and waterfront property is more valuable than non-waterfront property precisely because of its proximity to the ocean, bays, and waterways it borders. However, waterfront properties are not the only properties that flood repeatedly. Would a local policy to provide for a partial tax exemption for flood mitigation measures on inland properties be seen as more equitable than providing the same for more valuable waterfront property? As a local initiative, that partial tax exemption would come from the community’s local tax base as opposed to other sources from which traditional mitigation dollars flow. Based on the diversity of properties recurrently flooded, the answer will likely be “it depends,” impacting a locality’s ability to apply programming consistently.

We should applaud Virginia’s effort to identify and implement additional flood resiliency and mitigation tools to reduce the physical, financial, and emotional damage that recurrent flooding inflicts on the Commonwealth, and which may only get worse moving forward. While this brief examination of the ballot question cannot cover all of the potential policy, implementation, and philosophical questions that passage would introduce (e.g., further defining eligible mitigation practices, need to address existing FEMA regulation that differentiates allowable mitigation measures between residential and non-residential properties, local implementation consistency and oversight, etc.), it may highlight some of the complexities embedded in what looks like a simple question, and — if the measure passes — help those charged with defining its parameters avoid the creation of one of the more common laws we all experience from time to time: the law of unintended consequences.

About the author:
Doug Moseley is the Director of Water Resources Policy & Planning for GKY & Associates, Inc. He can be reached at dmoseley@gky.com.

[1] McFarlane, Benjamin, “Region Adopts Sea Level Rise Planning Policy”, Hampton Roads Planning District Commission Planning News, October 24, 2018.

[2] Fuchs, Matthew, “House Joins Senate in Effort to Improve U.S. Flood Readiness”, The Pew Charitable Trust, October 18, 2018.

By |Articles, Uncategorized|Comments Off on A Potential Flood

Proposed MS4 General Stormwater Permit Open for Public Comment

MS4 operators should pay attention to the latest news from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). The department has published the proposed regulations for renewing the General VPDES Permit for Discharges of Stormwater from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (proposed 2018 MS4 General Permit) in the Virginia Register of Regulation.

The proposed 2018 MS4 General Permit contains the conditions that MS4 operators must comply with between July 1, 2018 and June 30, 2023. The proposed general permit contains numerous modifications, as DEQ has attempted to address the requirements of the 2016 federal MS4 General Permit Remand Rule.

Doug Fritz, GKY’s permit specialist, explained that government clients “have to be aware of these upcoming changes and be able to address them.” Otherwise, they may be caught off guard by some of the permit’s wording or stipulations.

Importantly, DEQ has drafted language that inserts the enforceable components of MS4 programs into the proposed 2018 MS4 General Permit itself. Other documents, such as the MS4 Program Plan and TMDL Action Plans, will be considered planning documents and not enforceable.

Of course, this type of permit is not new. Doug has been helping clients comply with MS4 General Permits ever since the first version was issued in 2003. Every five years, the state authorizes a new edition of the permit. The current version is set to expire on June 30, so the 2018 permit should be in full effect by July 1.

It’s not clear when the final version of the permit will be ready. DEQ will wait for public comments before making any lasting changes to the regulations.

Still, it’s important that affected organizations pay attention now, to make sure they are ready for the new regulations this summer. Doug said that groups may face financial penalties or may even have to apply for costly individual permits, if they don’t comply with the conditions in the proposed 2018 MS4 General Permit.

What does Doug recommend as next steps for municipal organizations? Find out more about the proposed permit, and ask for help from experts. You can also send in public comments about the proposed regulations right now as DEQ is accepting comments until March 9.

“We want clients to be aware that it’s out there for public comment, to make sure that nothing surprises them, or if there’s something that they’re concerned about, they can submit their comments to DEQ during the public comment period,” Doug said.

He also recommends that MS4 operators take their time to really think through their plans for compliance. Registration statements are proposed to be due 30 days before the expiration of the current permit, instead of the typical 90 days. So, organizations have more time than usual to formulate their responses.

Though the timeline is a little longer, Doug still wants everyone to be prepared. “Registrations have to be in by June 1, and GKY can assist with the process,” he said.

You can find out more information about the proposed 2018 MS4 General Permit and the associated public comment period at the Virginia Regulatory Town Hall.

Contact Us!
If you have any questions or need assistance with MS4 compliance, please feel free to contact us!

By |Uncategorized|Comments Off on Proposed MS4 General Stormwater Permit Open for Public Comment

MS4 Project Managers, Your Nightmare is Over

Four Steps to Better SWPPPs, SOPs, and Staff Training

Everyone has office horror stories. You know those moments of chaos and confusion that derail the simplest projects. Those missteps that make you want to bury your head in your chest and pretend no one can see you.

Everyone has these terrors. MS4 managers are no exception. An MS4 manager assists with permits and regulations for municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s).

If you’re an MS4 manager, we feel your pain. We know what it’s like when EPA and DEQ inspections go wrong. We know how it feels when a field staff member dumps extra herbicide mix into wash water with live vegetation. When someone washes equipment over a storm drain. When someone places a full bucket of oily waste behind the maintenance building.

Why do these horrible ‘gotcha’ moments happen repeatedly? How can we prevent them in the future? At GKY, our planners can help answer these tough questions. We want to save you from any more MS4 horror stories with these four steps.

1. Start with Strong SOPs

The first step in preventing problems is having the right plans in place. Of course, that’s easier said than done. Old habits die hard. Stormwater is not a day-to-day priority for most organizations. Regulators know what to look for, and they can easily catch you off guard.

Still, with the right procedures in place, anything is possible. You need to develop pollution prevention standard operating procedures (SOPs), stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs), and employee training programs. Many MS4 operators have already taken these important steps.

For effective MS4 programs, you need to focus on long-term goals rather than short-term projects. To achieve your long-term goals, MS4 programs need to be consistent, built from the ground up, unambiguous, fully integrated into daily activities, and positively reinforced.

2. Mind Your Messaging

All elements of your program should be consistent. You want to make sure everything works together seamlessly. You also want to reinforce consistent messages about everything you do.

Consistency among your SOPs, SWPPPs, and training programs is key. For example, procedures for vehicle fueling should be identical whether in a SOP or a SWPPP. Training should reinforce those same messages.

MS4 managers also need to rethink the way these messages and procedures are developed. In the past, SOPs and SWPPPs were developed first, and training materials were developed second to reflect the language in those documents.

Perhaps it is time to reverse this direction. What are the behaviors and actions that we want staff to employ? How can we work these into SOPs and then by default into SWPPPs?

You should focus on staff behavior first and procedures second. That way, the SOPs and SWPPPs will be more likely to support an effective MS4 program. The key to success is the human element, not what is written on paper.

With this in mind, directions also have to be unambiguous. For instance, it’s not enough to write that materials will be “disposed of in accordance with local state and federal requirements.” You should write step-by-step how to responsibly and legally dispose of the materials. Messages and procedures should be clear, simple and understandable. Clear messaging means less room for human error and fewer horror stories in your future.

3. Have the Right Tools

Now that you have your plans and your messages in place, it’s time to act. You should make sure the SOPs are fully integrated into daily activities.

To make this possible, you need to have the right tools. Even the best SOP will fail if you don’t have the materials you need to get the job done. Say the SOP requires you to clean up spilled fuel cans, sweep up the mess and dispose of it in the dumpster. If you don’t have spill-dri, you can’t clean up the spill. If you don’t have a broom, you can’t sweep up the spill-dri.

Without the right tools, there’s no way to follow the SOP. If the proper materials are provided and staff are encouraged to follow SOPs during daily activities, these procedures will become commonplace.

4. Repeat, Reinforce, Repeat again

Last but not least, SOPs need to be reinforced. You can’t walk on a construction site without seeing a “Danger: Hard Hats Required in this Area” sign. Behaviors and actions taught as part of staff training and incorporated into SOPs and SWPPPs must be reinforced.

If possible, you should post these reminders around the job site. Signs such as “Clean up Spills” should be posted near the spill-dri containers.

Positive reinforcement, that conveys expectations rather than prohibitions will also make your methods more effective. “Dump no waste, drains to river” is a catchy message that certainly gets the point across. But that does not help the employee who still has to empty the mop bucket of dirty, sudsy water.

If mop water has to be emptied into the sewer, that is what your sign should say. You should reinforce behaviors and actions with clear, descriptive statements. Tell employees what they should do, rather than what they should not do.

Now what?

These steps should help you reach your MS4 program goals. Effective programs focus on solid plans, positive behaviors, clear messages, integrated procedures and daily reinforcement. With all of this in place, your projects will be smooth, and your stories will be happy, instead of horrifying.

Contact Us!
Need help with your MS4 program? GKY’s team of experienced planners can help. Give us a call, and we can make sure your program has the SOPs, SWPPPs and staff training it needs to succeed. Get in touch with GKY experts today!

By |Articles, Uncategorized|Comments Off on MS4 Project Managers, Your Nightmare is Over