In my April editorial “Divining Rods”, I stated, “With a finite amount of water available, it’s important that we use what we have wisely, but it’s equally important to find untapped sources that can supplement our current supplies and allow us to efficiently meet growing demand.” In Philadelphia, PA, that search for new sources has hit pay dirt in the form of stormwater control. According to a recent article in the Philadelphia Inquirer the city plans to spend $1.6 billion to switch away from traditional stormwater management (essentially ushering rainwater downstream) and towards a reimagined urban landscape of green roofs, porous pavements, and rain gardens.
The plan success rests, in part, on participation by all members of the community. To that end, every time a city street is dug up for standard municipal repairs and projects, it will be repaved with porous asphalt (at a slightly higher cost). And under a city ordinance, large-scale commercial structures (15,000 square feet or more) must install rainwater catchment systems. Additionally, commercial water rates are now based not on how much water is used the facility, but by how much land is covered by impervious surface materials.
The plan sounds like a “win-win:” reduced demand on the city’s sewer system, reduced energy usage, even reduced deaths (from excess heat). Jon Capacasa, regional director of water protection for the EPA, is quoted in the article, saying, “This is the most significant use of green infrastructure I’ve seen in the country, the largest scale I’ve seen.”
So what do you think? Are large-scale plans like this feasible? And are the implementation costs justified by the results?