Urban stormwater programs provide mandated and discretionary public services of convenience, security, and environmental enhancement. Due to their increasing complexity and funding needs, they have become more complex to organize and finance. Competing visions for them are common and how communities value these services creates a challenge to measure effectiveness and levy charges. Usually, two organizational models compete, the tax-supported public works model and the fee-based utility model. Taxpayer revolts led to the utility model, which creates new revenue streams and has been widely accepted but not universally. State laws provide the legal structure for stormwater finance, and research showed the utility model to be accepted commonly in the West Coast and Mountain regions, in Florida and along the southern part of the East Coast, as well as in parts of the Central region of the United States. The public works model is prevalent in much of the Northeast, the noncoastal Southeast, and parts of the Central region, where programs vary from state-to-state. Prospects for stormwater programs indicate more experiments with program organization and finance as communities seek to balance responsibilities. The competing views of stormwater program organization and finance s will join larger issues of local government roles in solving social and environmental problems and outcomes will be a bellwether of commitment to sustainable and livable communities.
Albuquerque Metropolitan Arroyo Flood Control Authority. (2011). About us. Retrieved from http://www.amafca.org/
2.
American Public Works Association. (1981). Urban stormwater management (Special Report No. 49). Chicago, IL: Author.
3.
Apogee Research. (1994). Benefits of storm water management: Case studies of selected communities. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA Water Policy Branch, Office of Policy Analysis, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation.
4.
BeadenkopfE.WorleyC. (2008, October23). The basics of stormwater utilities (Maryland Association of Floodplain and Stormwater Managers. 2008 Conference). Retrieved from http://mafsm.org/conferences.php?id=0000000028&year=2008
BuehlerR.JungjohannA.KeeleyM.MehlingM. (2011, October). How Germany Became Europe’s green leader: A look at four decades of sustainable policymaking. Solutions for a sustainable and desirable future, 2(5). Retrieved from http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/981
7.
CampbellC. W. (2011). Western Kentucky University 2011 Stormwater utility survey. Bowling Green: Western Kentucky University. Retrieved from http://wku.edu/engineering/civil/fpm/swusurvey/
Center for Urban Policy and the Environment at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis. (2011). An Internet guide to financing stormwater management. Retrieved from http://stormwaterfinance.urbancenter.iupui.edu/
Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District. (2011). Welcome to the Fresno metropolitan flood control district web site! Retrieved from http://fresnofloodcontrol.org/
36.
GoldfarbW. (1988). Water law. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.
KeeleyM. (2007). Using individual parcel assessments to improve stormwater management. Journal of the American Planning Association, 73, 149-160.
41.
MelosiM. V. (2008). The sanitary city: Environmental services in urban America from colonial times to the present. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
TuckerS. (2007, December). Stormwater financing for a new era: General legal considerations. Paper presented at the Stormwater Financing for a New Era workshop of the University of Maryland Environmental Finance Center and National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies at Anne Arundel Community College, Arnold, MD.
52.
VaughanR. J. (1983). Rebuilding America. Vol 2. Financing public works in the 1980s. Washington, DC: Council of State Planning Agencies.
