Maintenance Program Overview
Local governments must make a multitude of decisions concerning the
construction, operation, and maintenance of their stormwater infrastructures. In
terms of maintenance practices, the questions include:





How does the local government define exactly what makes up the
stormwater system?
For which parts of the stormwater system should a local government be
responsible?
What services should a local government provide to various parts of a
stormwater system?
What are the cost implications of differing maintenance policies?
How does the local government balance cost, liability, and customer
satisfaction?
Click here for larger view
Stormwater System Components
An urban stormwater system is made up
of a number of components, depicted in
Figure 1. These components can be
categorized in a number of ways,
depending on the focus of the concern or
analysis. Ordinarily, differences in how
these elements are considered have to
do with location, category of water that
flows in them, regulatory mandates,
ownership, and type of structure or
system.
For example:




Conveyance components can be natural or manmade; underground or
surface; off, on, or crossing the right of way; ephemeral or perennial; state
or nonregulatory waters; large or small; containing public or only private
waters; with or without a recognized Federal Emergency Management
Agency floodplain; etc.
Storage and treatment components can be small or large, individual or
shared, for water quantity or quality or both, public or private, or hybrid.
Miscellaneous features including catch basins, junctions, weirs, grade
control structures, and flow monitoring stations must be considered.
Green" infrastructure such as buffers, riparian corridors, and filter strips
are also increasingly being considered a part of the stormwater system.
Maintenance Responsibility
In the past, stormwater responsibility was
defined in terms of location of the
stormwater conveyance structure—
normally inside or outside the public right
of way. In contrast, responsibility for other
similar systems that local governments
maintain—the water supply and sewer
systems—is defined not in terms of
location of the system (though most
systems are contained within easements)
but in terms of ownership of the pipe and
recognition that private citizens
Click here for larger view
(customers) are unable to maintain larger
shared systems. Figure 2 illustrates that,
increasingly, local governments are seeing and treating stormwater systems in a
manner similar to the other two water-related systems that serve most developed
parcels:


Water supply system : From the water meter to the structure is private and
is the responsibility of the property owner. From the meter outward is the
responsibility of the local government, and the property owner pays a fee
for treatment and delivery of water and construction and operation of the
shared system.
Sewer system : From the habitable structure to a sewer main is
considered private and is the responsibility of the property owner. From
the main outward is the responsibility of the local government, and the
property owner pays a fee for conveyance and treatment of sewage and
construction and operation of the shared system.
In a similar way, there is a private" stormwater system and a shared public
system. However, in a stormwater system there are some historical, physical,
and operational differences from water supply or sewer systems that complicate
the process of allocating and assigning maintenance responsibilities to property
owners and local governments. These differences include:




Much of the stormwater system is not manmade but consists of natural
surface streams.
Much of system is governed by state and/or federal regulations and
termed waters of the state" even though it conveys local stormwater runoff
(effluent").
There is no conveniently defined dividing line between the public and
private system in stormwater, such as a meter or main.
Private actions can often greatly impact the ability of the shared system to
function.





Easements and other information about the shared system are often
missing or unknown.
Stormwater maintenance programs, ownership, and responsibility have
been ill-defined, fragmented, and mostly reactionary in the past.
Because stormwater has not been contained organizationally within an
enterprise fund in the past [before Government Accounting Standards
Board (GASB) 34 impacts], there has been no impetus to define capital
value and depreciation, maintenance, operation, or management
programs.
In the past, the prevailing wisdom was that public work on private
property, regardless of the size of the system or flow it conveyed, was
somehow inappropriate, and was sometimes even legally defined as such.
Stormwater programs have been chronically underfunded.
To overcome these differences, local governments are adopting an
understanding of the stormwater system that is analogous to their understanding
of water and sewer systems, at the same time as they are implementing userfee-based funding and operational aspects of a comprehensively managed public
infrastructure system.
Extent and Level of Service
There are two main concepts or policies that, together, address consideration of
the features and management of a stormwater system: Extent of Service and
Level of Service . These combine to define the construction, operation, and
maintenance program. There are three major considerations that these two
policies combine to address: (1) local responsibility and customer satisfaction, (2)
liability and risk management, and (3) financial ability to fund programs.
Extent of Service
A drainage system, starting from the headwaters (and rooftops) and moving
downstream toward the mouth, carries incrementally larger and larger flows. The
Extent of Service policy seeks to define the type of structure or the point in this
dendritic system that serves as the dividing category or line between local
government and private ownership, operation, and/or responsibility. Extent of
Service focuses primarily on addressing liability and risk management and
customer satisfaction issues. The cost of such services is then modulated
through Level of Service policies.
How far into the system should a local government provide service? To satisfy
liability issues, it is important to consider that similarly situated systems must be
treated in a consistent manner. Thus, it is important to have a classification
system that makes sense and fits local management styles and approaches. One
system used by AMEC Earth and Environmental in a number of local government
maintenance enhancement studies, defining the Extent and Level of Service, is
described below.
The extent of responsibility for regulatory activities must go far beyond the rights
of way and easements to meet the local government's stormwater-quantity and quality control responsibilities that protect the general public health, safety, and
welfare.
For physical maintenance and operation, all of the drainage system can be
categorized according to location, conveyance, and legal standing:



Is inside or outside the public right of way
Does or does not contain significant public" water (i.e., street water or
water draining from other public properties)
Is or is not within a permanent dedicated drainage easement
Thus, there are four "Extent of Service policy" categories of drainage system:
1.
2.
3.
4.
In the right of way
Outside the right of way, carrying public water, and within an easement
Outside the right of way, carrying public water, but not within an easement
Totally private systems
Each of these system categories carries different legal liabilities and abilities to
service. The narrowest approach for a maintenance program to take in defining
Extent of Service responsibilities for stormwater systems would be to accept
responsibility only for publicly owned property. This would include the right of way
and any other publicly owned land such as local facilities and parks. With this
approach, a local government would not be involved with any stormwater
systems on private property, except for possible regulatory action.
Nearly every stormwater program surveyed claimed responsibility for stormwater
systems contained within the public right of way. Many provided little or no
service beyond this line. While this approach may seem most easily defined,
there are some significant drawbacks, most notably that the rest of the
stormwater system is not maintained.
A second drawback has to do with liability. Most local governments own a system
of streets, roads, and bridges, which are constructed, owned, and operated for
the public's benefit. The express power to grade and open streets implicitly
carries with it the power of local governments to establish a storm drainage
system. This power, however, does not include the right to redirect surface
waters onto adjacent private properties to the landowners' detriment. The owners
may sue the government for damages in such situations. Therefore, the duty on
the local government is twofold. It must adequately design and construct its
drainage system so as not to divert water onto private property in quantities more
than its natural flow so as to cause damage, and thereafter it must maintain the
drainage system so that its operation does not constitute a nuisance. Many
states are developing a body of case law indicating that if public water" (i.e.,
street runoff) causes a problem, the local government is most often found to be
liable for damages.
The Extent of Service or responsibility will almost certainly change over time with
experience and program maturation, in terms of both the local government's
policies and the application of those policies. For example, for routine
maintenance of the systems, the extent of responsibility might consistently be
limited to those components within rights of way and easements that allow
adequate access to the facilities. But rights of way and easements will be added
over the years, so the practical extent of responsibility will expand even if the
policy does not change. It may be that the local government will come to realize
that the whole of the public system is a local government responsibility and will
take actions for suitable system definition, identification, and expansion.
The difficulty with expanding the responsibility of the local government is in
determining where to end local responsibility and how to fund the extra
responsibilities. These decisions must be made in a fair and equitable manner.
One example of this approach would be for a local government to accept
operation and maintenance responsibilities for all residential stormwater systems,
but not for any commercial or industrial systems. Similarly situated properties
must be treated in a legal and consistent manner. This consideration has led
many local governments to consider the public" drainage system as all parts of
the system that carry public water. They then moderate this policy through
recognition of availability of easements, and through suitably defined Level of
Service policies to control program cost, discussed next.
Level of Service
In addition to determining the Extent of Service a local government is willing to
assume, a decision must be made about exactly what services it is willing and
able to provide for which parts of the stormwater system. This decision
determines the Level of Service (LOS) that the system must achieve or that the
local government will provide. The LOS is defined two ways: performance Level
of Service and maintenance Level of Service.
The susceptibility to flooding or water-quality problems caused by stormwater
can be measured by assessing the performance Level of Service available. For
example, for flooding issues, a Level of Service can be expressed in terms of the
degree of roadway flooding and/or the extent of first floor flooding for a given
hypothetical storm event. For example, a level of roadway service may be
defined as no less than one open lane on evacuation routes during the largest
24-hour rain event with a 100-year recurrence interval. LOS definitions vary
considerably by community and are defined as a design frequency tied to a
specified condition (e.g., the 10-year storm design frequency for culvert
overtopping).
Compared to a flooding LOS, the concept of a water-quality Level of Service is
fairly new to some communities and consists variously of capture and treat
criteria, percent removals of key pollutants, effluent limits, and presumptive
standards for various kinds of controls. A water-quality LOS system might
promote land-use controls, followed by structural treatment measures, and might
penalize untreated discharge from urban areas.
A maintenance Level of Service is defined by the types of services a community
provides to different parts of the drainage system, by the priorities assigned to it,
or by the specific condition of the system. For example, within the right of way
and in critical areas highly susceptible to flood damages, the maintenance LOS
might include periodic inspection, priority cleaning, and the highest level of
emergency response. In similar right-of-way areas not susceptible to flooding, the
LOS for maintenance might be much lower. A community might perform
maintenance for residential structural stormwater controls but provide only
inspection and enforcement of maintenance agreements for structural controls
located on nonresidential parcels.
Maintenance Levels of Service can also be defined in terms of the inspected
condition of the system. Channel mowing might take place when the grass is
greater than 8 inches high, or culverts might be cleaned out when they are, on
average, 25% blocked with sediment. In these cases, inspection-derived work
orders, rather than flooding complaints, drive maintenance actions.
Extent and Level of Service Matrix
The Extent of Service responsibility and maintenance Level of Service combine
to define the remedial capital project program, the operation and maintenance
program, and each program's priorities, as illustrated in Figure 3. The four
categories of Extent of Service are given in parallel columns and three Levels of
Service (high, medium, and low) are defined in the rows. The intersection of
columns and rows defines nine stormwater maintenance policy decisions.
For example, it might be that outside the right of way where there is no
easement, a local government is only willing, and only has the resources, to
perform emergency response services and to give technical advice. But in the
high-priority public right-of-way areas and similar areas where there has been a
donated and accepted easement, the local government might provide a much
higher Level of Service. In order to qualify for such service, a property owner who
would not otherwise qualify must donate an easement and then be reassigned to
another column.
Thus, the matrix in Figure 3 can be
developed into a comprehensive
stormwater maintenance policy approach.
Each segment of the drainage system
can, over time and through inventory, be
classified and placed in a given column
and row. Differing LOSs can be defined
for each box within the matrix or group of
boxes based on a community's
willingness and ability to provide specific
services. LOS 1 might be reserved for
Click here for larger view
those segments of the drainage system
that, for example, would cause flooding of habitable structures, flood roads to a
depth of more than 6 inches, or undermine stream crossing structures through
bank and channel erosion. LOS 2 might be for less critical flooding conditions,
and so on. The goal is that similarly situated properties are treated in a similar
and consistent manner.
Approaches to Maintenance
The approaches to maintenance, or types
of maintenance that a stormwater
maintenance program might perform, fall
naturally into four categories as shown in
Figure 4. Each community balances
these four types of maintenance and
blends them into a coherent program—
with due regard to the strengths and
weaknesses of each approach.

Reactive maintenance involves
emergency and complaint
response. It involves the assumption that damage has already occurred
prior to maintenance activity. In the past, many maintenance programs
have conducted only reactive maintenance due to funding shortages and
lack of a coherently developed public infrastructure program.
Periodic maintenance involves routine, periodic maintenance activities
driven by a predetermined schedule (such as mowing three times in the
growing season, cleaning catch basins twice a year, and so on). The
success of this type of maintenance depends on having sufficient data and
experience to manage the system without inspections or complaints.
Periodic maintenance can be very efficient if the data and understanding
of the system are good, or it can be inefficient if the cyclic periods do not
match the need.
Predictive maintenance is driven by an inspection report or work order; an
inspector periodically checks portions of the drainage system using
metrics designed to catch problems before they either become overly
Click here for larger view



expensive to fix (for example, a ditch over 33% full will trigger a cleaning
work order) or cause damage to adjacent property. The goal of this type of
maintenance is to find the knee in the infrastructure aging curve when
repairs are most cost-effective, done by balancing repair frequency and
cost against the risk of damage if maintenance is deferred.
Proactive maintenance is the practice of using study and background
research to define the root causes of chronic problems. It might involve
changing a development policy, a design standard, an equipment type, or
a maintenance procedure. For example, the use of a certain pipe material
may be banned after a study shows that it has poor performance or a
short life span. This proactive step then saves the local government
thousands of dollars in pipe replacement costs. Or an erosion control
program may be enhanced to reduce sediment buildup in systems.
Proactive maintenance establishes design standards and specifications as
an adjunct to levels of service.
Figure 5 depicts a typical mix of these
four maintenance approaches for both an
immature stormwater program and one
that has achieved a greater maturity in
maintenance management. As a
stormwater program matures, and as an
expanding program gains control of its
stormwater system, there is a shift toward
inspector-generated work orders and
away from reactive maintenance where
Click here for larger view
damage-driven complaints generate often
efficient reaction and field response.
Such reactive maintenance can never, and should never, be eliminated, because
this is a system dependent on the vagaries of nature. There will always be a
bigger storm. However, when services become consistent and responsive, we
have seen a great reduction in politically driven reactionary maintenance and an
increase in customer understanding and satisfaction.
Some communities are finding that, when they have real-time rainfall data and
models of systems, they have a powerful tool to assess whether flooding
complaints are the legitimate result of a poorly designed or maintained system or
simply the result of a storm event in excess of the design Level of Service of the
system in question. Such data serve to limit unnecessary capital construction, to
focus priority construction and rehabilitation programs, and to fend off pressure to
do something" unnecessary. The data also provide significant support in the
event of post-flood-event legal action.
Life-Cycle Maintenance
Given these four basic types of maintenance, another way to understand a
stormwater maintenance program is to consider the life cycle of physical assets,
including stormwater assets. In this model there are three types of activities for
any element of the stormwater infrastructure: routine maintenance, remedial
maintenance, and capital construction (replacement).



Routine maintenance simply cleans what's there. It can be complaint-,
schedule-, inspection-, or research-driven.
Remedial maintenance (often called remedial or minor construction) fixes
what's there, restoring it as nearly as possible to its original capacity or
condition.
Capital construction involves planning, design, and replacement of the
system, usually resizing it for current or future conditions or improved
design criteria standards.
Figure 6 shows the typical program
response to a condition assessment of,
say, a culvert or catch basin.



When the system component is
rated excellent" or good" by
inventory or inspection information,
the maintenance approach is
routine maintenance.
When the condition eventually
deteriorates to poor," the response
is to rehabilitate the system using
the remedial maintenance
program.
Finally, when the segment
deteriorates to an unacceptable"
Click here for larger view
rating, either through physical
deterioration or increased demand on the system that renders it
undersized, it is placed into the capital improvement program—either as
part of a system- or neighborhood-wide plan, or as a priority using pay-asyou-go funding.
Program response is actually a continuum of activities from routine to remedial to
capital replacement, though various funding sources, manpower resources, or
technical assessment approaches are used.
From a life-cycle perspective, the
operation and maintenance of the
infrastructure looks something like Figure
7. The infrastructure goes through
several cycles of repeated routine
maintenance and one or more
rehabilitations until its useful life is gone
or its effectiveness is compromised, and
upgrading through replacement is the
only option. This approach lends itself
nicely to the alternate approach under
GASB 34 requirements when paired with
a condition inventory of the system, a
Click here for larger view
computerized infrastructure management
system, and a coherent set of
maintenance management policies through the matrix approach described
above.
National Maintenance Survey
To get a snapshot of the maintenance extent and Level of Service that local
governments are providing to their stormwater systems, an online survey was
conducted in partnership with Forester Communications, the publisher of
Stormwater magazine. The following sections describe the methodology used to
conduct the survey and the results and conclusions derived from the survey
responses.
Methodology: Stormwater professionals nationwide were invited to participate in
the survey via e-mail, and the survey reached both public and private sector
professionals. The survey is available online at
www.sw0509_municipal_survey.html as Figure A.12 in the Survey Results
section. In addition to several demographic questions about the local
government, respondents were asked to complete a matrix, similar to the one in
Figure 4. Each component of the stormwater system (pipes, culverts, ditches,
streams, catch basins and inlets, detention ponds, and stormwater-quality
structures) was divided into categories indicating Extent of Service: public right of
way (public water), in easement (public water), not in an easement (public water),
and residential and nonresidential (private water). Respondents indicated the
Level of Service they provide (none, emergency, complaint-driven, inspector/work-order-driven, or routine-/calendar-driven) for each category of service
extent for each type of structure. For each infrastructure element, respondents
indicated each Level of Service driver for their programs.
For instance, for streams in the right of
way, respondents could indicate if
maintenance is performed on an
emergency and a complaint basis. For
the purposes of this survey and data
analysis, the levels of service are
regarded as follows: Low Levels of
Service are none" (the lowest Level of
Service) and emergency" (a higher level
than none"). The medium Level of
Service is complaint-driven." The high
Click here for larger view
Levels of Service are work-order/inspector-driven" and routine-/calendar-driven" (see Figure 8).
Survey Responses : There were 282
usable surveys received from across the
United States and Canada (Figure 9):
178 municipal governments, 84 county
governments, and 29 other agencies or
governments from 41 states and two
Canadian provinces. Although the survey
was intended for municipal and county
governments, an unintended result of the
wide distribution of the survey was that
other governmental agencies and entities
that perform stormwater system
maintenance, but that are not
Click here for larger view
municipalities or counties, responded to
the survey. For instance, survey information was received from army bases and
state departments of transportation (Figure 10).
Limitations : The survey results give a
clear picture of the level at which
responding governments and agencies
conduct stormwater maintenance.
Because many of the qualities of the
sample are unknown, including the
sample size, the extent to which the
survey analysis can be generalized to
other governments is also unknown.
Survey Findings
The survey responses show every
combination of Extent and Level of
Service within the Extent and Level of Service matrix. The answers ranged from
local governments that provide no maintenance to those that provide routine
Click here for larger view
maintenance on most of the public and even some of the private systems. For
the group of respondents, several general trends could be identified:
1. As the Extent of Service increases, from structures carrying public water
to structures carrying private water, survey respondents, as a whole, offer
lower Levels of Service.
2. Complaint-driven maintenance is the Level of Service offered by the
greatest number of respondents on public rights of way and on structures
in easements.
3. More municipal governments than counties offer the higher Levels of
Service, assuming that work-order-driven and routine maintenance are
considered higher Levels of Service.
Table 1 shows the responses to the Extent and Level of Service matrix survey
questions for all of the respondents. Many respondents indicated that their
government offers multiple levels of service on each type of structure for each
Extent of Service. For instance, some governments offer both complaint-driven
service and work-order-driven service on catch basins in residential
neighborhoods, because they respond to complaints about clogged inlets but
also generate work orders for cleaning as crews go out on regular inspections of
the stormwater system. Thus, each Extent of Service category for each structure
often had multiple answers, which explains why the percentage of governments
offering maintenance in each category, such as pipes carrying public water in
easement, adds up to more than 100% in Table 1.
The survey responses indicate that as the Extent of Service goes from public to
private facilities, the Level of Service decreases. The first row in Table 1 shows
the percent of respondents that offer no service (none") on pipes. The percent of
governments that offer no service on pipes in the public right of way is very low,
5.1%, but as you move across the table to the right, the percent of governments
offering no service increases, up to 71% for pipes carrying private water in
nonresidential areas. Almost three-quarters of governments offer no service to
this part of the stormwater system. In addition, it is clear that a majority of
respondents provide no maintenance on private systems. The two right-hand
columns in Table 1 show that for each type of structure, a majority of
respondents offer no service on private residential and nonresidential structures.
In the case of detention ponds and stormwater-quality structures, a majority
offers no service on commercial structures. The survey shows that many local
governments do not extend maintenance activities to private systems, although
the survey does not tell us whether it is a deliberate policy decision or whether,
as for programs that are just developing, it is an issue that has not been
addressed or resolved.
The survey data also indicate that complaint-driven maintenance is the Level of
Service conducted by the greatest percentage of respondents for all structures
located in the rights of way, except for detention structures. More respondents
indicated that they conduct complaint-driven service than any other Level of
Service. For instance, in Table 1, examine the row marked with an arrow: 53.6%
of respondents conduct complaint-driven maintenance on culverts in the right of
way, and 61.6% conduct complaint-driven maintenance on culverts in
easements. However, for culverts with no easement, the percent of respondents
offering complaint-driven maintenance drops to 31.3%, and for private residential
and private nonresidential culverts, the percent of complaint-driven maintenance
drops even lower to 15.8% and 14.3%, respectively. What do these numbers tell
us? It is likely that for structures with public water, a large percentage of local
government not only receives stormwater complaints but also chooses to
respond to the complaints. Many governments draw a distinction between their
responses to complaints about structures in rights of way and easements and
their responses to complaints about other structures.
Tables 2 and 3, data from municipal governments and county governments,
show that while the general trends discussed previously are true for both groups,
county governments tend to have lower Levels of Service overall than
municipalities. For instance, notice that for structures in rights of way, a greater
percentage of counties than municipalities offer the lower Levels of Service
denoted as none" and emergency."
The discussion above is based on the survey results in a raw form. Another way
to analyze the survey responses is to arrange the levels of service on a scale
and assign values to the levels: none, emergency, complaint-driven, work-orderdriven, and routine-driven (see Figure 8). Work-order-driven and routine-driven
levels do not fit perfectly into this scale because they are similar proactive
approaches. However, this scale is useful insofar as it allows us to examine the
respondents' average Level of Service." Table 4 shows the results when
responses are arranged on this scale. Each respondent is assigned a single
Level of Service: the highest" Level of Service marked by the respondent in the
Extent and Level of Service matrix. The trends described earlier, lower Levels of
Service on private systems and the frequency of complaint-driven maintenance,
can also be seen here. (See Survey Results, Figures A.1 and A.2, for Municipal
and County Percentages online at www.sw0509_municipal_survey.html.)
Click here for larger view
Grouping local government respondents
and comparing municipal with county
respondents, we can average their
responses using this same scale, rather
than just looking at whether they
answered yes or no to a question. When
the responses are averaged, we arrive at
an average Level of Service for a group.
For instance, if all of the counties offer
work-order-driven" maintenance on
stormwater-quality structures in the right
of way, their average Level of Service would equal four (work-order-driven),
which would indicate that on average, counties offer a high Level of Service on
those particular structures. It is most helpful to look at the average Level of
Service in terms of high, medium, or low service since the scale does not
account for the parity between work-order" and routine" levels of service. For
example, Figure 11 shows the average Level of Service for all respondents on
structures in the public right of way. The maintenance Level of Service for all of
the structures is high. The complete table of average, or mean, Levels of Service
can be found online in the Survey Results, Figure A.11, at
www.sw0509_municipal_survey.html.
When we compare municipal and county data as noted above, the data continue
to support the finding that municipalities offer a higher Level of Service, on
average, than counties (see Survey Results, Figure A.3, at
www.sw0509_municipal_survey.html ). When we look at the differences between
groups, it is important not only that our sample shows that they are different but
also that we can predict the same result for other respondents in that same
group. Based upon the survey responses, for several structures (pipes in the
public right of way, in easements, and not in easements; and culverts in the
public right of way, in easements, and not in easements) it is likely that
municipalities would conduct a higher Level of Service than counties (see Survey
Results, Figure A.4, at www.sw0509_municipal_survey.html ). That is, the
difference is statistically significant. This is important because one can begin to
ask what factors influence municipalities to offer higher Levels of Service on
average than counties do on these structures. For example, more municipalities
than counties might conduct pipe and culvert maintenance on a work-order or
routine basis because they own the majority of the roads within their jurisdiction,
they own fewer roads within their jurisdiction, or they have stable and dedicated
funding requiring a higher Level of Service.
Municipal Population and LOS : Using the same idea that was used to compare
municipalities to counties, we can look at the relationship between municipal
Levels of Service and their population. Because municipalities that fell under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase I regulations
were required to develop stormwater programs in the early 1990s, years before
Phase II municipalities, we can gauge the differences between older and larger
stormwater programs versus newer stormwater programs. The responding
municipalities were divided into two groups based on population: municipalities
that likely fell under Phase II [small" municipal separate storm sewer systems
(MS4s)] and ones that likely fell under Phase I regulations (medium and large"
MS4s). These groups serve as a proxy for NPDES Phase I and Phase II
communities, because the survey did not ask respondents for this information.
The difference in the average Levels of Service for these two groups was quite
small. However, for water-quality structures, the average Level of Service
difference was statistically significant between smaller (assumed to be Phase II)
and larger (assumed to be Phase I) municipalities. (See Survey Results, Figures
A.5 through A.8, at www.sw0509_municipal_survey.html ). The Phase II"
communities offer a higher average Level of Service on stormwater-quality
structures in the public right of way. The more mature programs could have
adopted a more proactive maintenance approach to these structures, while
Phase II" programs are still developing their stormwater-quality programs.
Program Funding and LOS : Finally, the
survey data were analyzed to determine
whether there was a relationship between
the respondents' type of program funding
and the Level of Service offered. Figure
12 shows maintenance program funding,
broken down by type of funding: 32.8% of
programs were funded by utilities (90
programs), 49.6% of programs were
funded through general funds (136
programs), and 17.5% of programs were
Click here for larger view
funded by other sources (48 programs).
Among the programs that used other sources of funding were state departments
of transportation, which relied on state and federal highway funds (eight DOTs of
11 listed state and federal funds). The mean Level of Service offered by the three
programs was different among the groups. (See Survey Results, Figure A.9, at
www.sw0509_municipal_survey.html ).
The differences among the programs were statistically significant for pipes (in
rights of way, in easements, and in nonresidential areas), culverts (in rights of
way, in easements, and in nonresidential areas), catch basins in nonresidential
areas, detention ponds in general residential areas, and water-quality structures
(rights of way, homeowners' association, general residential, and shared
commercial). (See Survey Results, Figure A.10, at
www.sw0509_municipal_survey.html ). It is interesting to note that for pipes,
culverts, and catch basins/inlets, programs with utilities as their funding sources
had a lower average Level of Service on infrastructure that carried private water
(nonresidential) than did general fund programs. It might be expected that utilityfunded programs would offer a higher average Level of Service on structures
carrying private water than programs funded by the general fund, because
utilities offer a predictable, dedicated funding source. However, it could be
postulated that utilities offer a lower Level of Service on private structures, not
because they lack funds, but because the formation of a utility demands a more
rigid maintenance policy structure, to which the local government adheres.
Developing Maintenance Policy
Although the purpose of this article is to review maintenance approaches and to
take a snapshot of national practice, several observations on bringing about
enhancement to local maintenance practices are included in closing.
Local governments should consider it a priority to develop and articulate
consistent maintenance program policies. Maintenance program policies help
ensure the long-term stability of maintenance programs and provide a measure
of defense against both legal challenges and outside pressures to perform
services not in line with written policy. Decisions about how a stormwater system
maintenance program is conducted must be purposefully thought through and
defined rather than happen by default. For a maintenance program to be
effective, the roles for each responsible party and for each stormwater system
component must be clearly defined by local governments. Infrastructure falls into
disrepair when it is unclear who owns and is responsible for the component parts
of the system.
A local government must determine which combination of Extent and Level of
Service best suits its capabilities, both physically and financially. The program
must sustain the stormwater infrastructure while staying within the local
government's resources. The process a local government follows is to define and
follow an orderly path of transition from an understanding that stormwater is
essentially a private responsibility in which it intervenes only in emergency
situations to one where stormwater is considered a public infrastructure
management program with both public and private responsibility.
Implementation of the maintenance policy starts with identification of critical
systems and implementation of a high-priority maintenance program to keep
these systems functional or to restore flow capacity. Through a process of adding
information and prioritization based on past history, and/or field inspection and
supplemental modeling, certain segments are moved into appropriate categories
and priorities.
Any new policy will require time to implement, and will change as experience is
gained. The following steps are recommended to help ensure the new
maintenance policies are successful and gain public support:
1. Perform an inventory of the drainage system, collecting necessary
information for the defined uses of the inventory data. Specific information
might include size, type, location, condition, connectivity, ownership, and
maintenance category.
2. Place the inventory information into a geographic information system with
sufficient programming to allow, at a minimum, for simple queries and
searches of the information. Develop an ability to generate maps of areas
easily.
3. Over time, define the drainage system, dividing it into the categories
contained in the matrix.
4. Implement a work-order system integrating the inventory information as
applicable.
5. Ensure that the local government has the manpower and equipment and
the institutional, legal, and financial resources necessary to fully
implement the policies. For example, set inspection schedules in
accordance with available resources.
6. Develop written policies for each of the matrix blocks. Ensure they are
legal.
7. Train inspectors and maintenance crews in the different responsibilities
and how to articulate them to citizens.
8. Develop a complaint-response procedure that incorporates the policies.
9. Develop policy brochures to support the maintenance policies. For
example, develop a brochure that tells citizens what their and the local
government's responsibilities are for a given drainage system type.
10. Advertise the new policies to political leaders, stakeholders, and the
general public.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Beth Chesson of AMEC for her assistance with this paper,
Steve Di Giorgi of Forester Communications for making the distribution of the
survey possible, and Nadia English for developing the online survey form.
Andrew J. Reese, P.E., is vice president and Henrietta H. Presler is public
relations coordinator with AMEC Earth and Environmental Inc. in Nashville, TN.