Water Resources Coordinating Council_HF756 Position StatementTHE CITY OF Dubuque
-~.,
~j T~ ~ NhMN:ricaCiht
~J , ~'
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
2007
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
SUBJECT: City Position Statement on Water Resources Coordinating Council
Recommendations Regarding HF 756
DATE: September 29, 2009
The Water Resources Coordinating Council (WRCC) has been meeting to discuss
changes to floodplain and stormwater management in Iowa. A WRCC subcommittee
was created to address the requirements of HF 756, which require the WRCC to submit
funding and policy recommendations to the Governor and Legislature by November 15,
2009. The funding and policy recommendations are intended to reduce the impact of
flooding on residents, businesses and water quality within the State of Iowa.
HF 756 directs the WRCC to examine additional flood plain regulations, wetlands,
statewide stormwater management standards, conservation easements and other land
management, agricultural conservation practices, pervious pavement, bioswales, and
other urban conservation practices, and permanent or temporary water retention
structures.
Planning Services Manager Laura Carstens requests City Council approval of the City's
Position Statement on State proposals for floodplain and stormwater management in
regard to HF 756. City staff will then attend one of the public input sessions being held
by the Water Resources Coordinating Council to share the City's position.
I concur with the recommendation and respectfully request Mayor and City Council
approval.
Michael C. Van Milligen
MCVM:jh
Attachment
cc: Barry Lindahl, City Attorney
Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager
Laura Carstens, Planning Services Manager
Dubuque
'THE CITY OF
DUB E i -"~CeC i
~I
Masterpiece on the Mississippi m
zoos
TO: Michael Van Milligen, City Manager
FROM: Laura Carstens, Planning Services Manager °-~~
SUBJECT: City Position Statement on WRCC Recommendations regarding HF 756
DATE: September 29, 2009
INTRODUCTION
This memo transmits a recommended City position statement on State proposals for
floodplain and stormwater management in regard to HF 756. This position statement
was developed by Planning, Engineering, and Public Works staff.
BACKGROUND
The Water Resources Coordinating Council (WRCC) has been meeting to discuss
changes to floodplain and stormwater management in Iowa. A WRCC subcommittee
was created to address the requirements of HF 756, which requires the WRCC to
submit funding and policy recommendations to the Governor and Legislature by
November 15, 2009. The funding and policy recommendations are intended to reduce
the impact of flooding on residents, businesses and water quality within the state of
Iowa. The WRCC Subcommittee recommendation summaries dated September 18,
2009 are enclosed.
HF 756 directs the WRCC to examine additional flood plain regulation, wetlands,
statewide stormwater management standards, conservation easements and other land
management, agricultural conservation practices, pervious pavement, bioswales, and
other urban conservation practices, and permanent or temporary water retention
structures.
DISCUSSION
City staff has reviewed the proposed funding and policy recommendations and has the
following comments regarding the proposed changes. The WRCC is holding public
input sessions and City staff will attend one of these meetings to present the City of
Dubuque's position on the proposed recommendations.
WRCC Recommendations HF 756
September 29, 2009
Page 2
The recommendations developed by the WRCC subcommittee are divided into four
work groups that include:
1. Floodplain management and regulation
2. Lowland focus
3. Upland focus
4. Stormwater
Work Group 1: Floodplain Management:
Work Group 1 focuses on floodplain management. The primary recommendation
impacting communities is the first one listed. Recommendation #1 is to change the
regulatory floodplain from the 100-year floodplain to the 500-year floodplain (0.2%
flood). The comments of the work group indicate that it realizes that expanding the
regulatory floodplain to the 500-year floodplain will have serious implications for the
citizens of Iowa. The City of Dubuque's primary concern should be the shift to the 500-
yearfloodplain. The National Flood Insurance Program, since its inception, has used
the 100-year floodplain as the regulatory floodplain. Citizens have made decisions
about the location of their homes and businesses based on this regulatory floodplain.
To change this regulatory floodplain at this point in time will have extremely significant
impacts on local communities.
The City's current flood insurance rate maps (FIRM) for the Mississippi River and
Catfish Creek branches indicate the area inundated by a 500-year flood as Zone X
includes the entire Kerper Boulevard and Kerper Court industrial area, the 12th Street
Peninsula where Peavey Grain and Koch Materials are located, as well as the north and
south Ports of Dubuque. There are some 500-year floodplain areas shown on the City's
branches of the Catfish Creek, but these generally are confined to the undeveloped
stream valleys themselves.
The City of Dubuque should propose that rather than expand the regulatory floodplain to
the 500-year flood event, the State should first look at the effectiveness of regulation
within the 100-year floodplain. If 40 years of regulating the 100-year floodplain have not
been effective in reducing flood damage, how does expanding these same regulations
to the 500-year floodplain improve matters? It is important to note that whether you
regulate the 100-year flood or the 500-year flood, current rules allow development within
a floodplain as long as it's not in a floodway. A floodway is the portion of the floodplain
where flood waters are typically flowing swiftly. Therefore, recommendation #2 reflects
current requirements.
The problem is that even if a structure is not structurally damaged by flood water, the
cost of rehabilitating the structure often exceeds the financial capability of many
property owners. The City of Dubuque should recommend that before the State
expands the regulatory floodplain beyond the 100-year flood, that a thorough analysis
f:\users\mrettenb\wp\council\wrcc hf756 mvm memo..doc
WRCC Recommendations HF 756
September 29, 2009
Page 3
be completed regarding the success of regulating property within the 100-year
floodplain.
Recommendation #3 would restrict fill in the floodplain to three (3) feet. What is the
rationale for this height? It appears to be arbitrary.
Recommendation #4 would exempt areas protected by a certified levee from the 500-
yearfloodplain. City staff support this recommendation, as it exempts our protected
riverfront.
The other recommendations of Work Group 1, numbers 5-11, are reasonable in their
approach, in terms of flood control levees, the provision for grant programs to help in
regulating floodplains, and flood risk education.
Recommendation #12 requires that new Class 1 Critical Facilities should be located
outside the 500-year floodplain whenever practical. Class 1 Critical Facilities as defined
by the Federal Government include: hospitals, fire and police stations, water and
wastewater treatment facilities, and utilities. This is a sensible approach that should be
expanded to include other important community assets, such as schools.
Work Group 2: Lowland Focus
Work Group 2 was charged with a lowland focus addressing wetland protection,
restoration and reconstruction, conservation easements, and other land management
practices. The recommendations in the planning and coordination, non-structural,
projects, and educate and inform categories are reasonable. These recommendations
would help the State of Iowa to understand the impact of land use on flooding statewide.
Work Group 3: Upland Focus
Work Group 3 was charged with an upland focus that deals with watershed level
planning, agricultural practices, land development, and soil and water conservation.
The recommendations were found to be appropriate, and if applied, would have a
positive impact on flooding through an upland focus, calling for perennial ground cover
and other agricultural conservation and water retention practices.
Work Group 4: stormwater
Work Group 4 was charged with looking at stormwater, and specifically, promulgation
and implementation of state-wide stormwater management standards, including
pervious pavement, bioswales and other urban conservation practices.
Work Group 4 divided its recommendations between stormwater education, stormwater
regulation, and financing. The recommendations for stormwater education appear
reasonable and would help in controlling stormwater and flooding in the state.
f:\users\mrettenb\wp\council\wrcc hf756 mvm memo..doc
WRCC Recommendations HF 756
September 29, 2009
Page 4
Recommendation #40 is that the State should require all cities and counties to
implement stormwater management practices consistent with the Iowa stormwater
Management Manual (ISMM). They already do through the MS4 NPDES permits.
Dubuque's MS4 NPDES Permit required the City to pass an ordinance that, "requires
water quality and quantity components be considered in the design of new construction
and implemented when practical." The ordinance also must "promote the use of
stormwater detention and retention, grass swales, bioretention swales, riparian buffers
and proper operation and maintenance of these facilities." These are some of the same
practices outlined in the ISMM.
Recommendation #41 would require new and amended NPDES MS4 permits to include
BMPs as outlined in the ISMM. The comments on Recommendation #40 above would
apply here as well.
Recommendation #42 suggests the State of Iowa should demonstrate its commitment
to water quality issues by requiring construction on State property, and any project
utilizing State funds to use best practices to retain at least the first inch of rain that falls
on the property. The City of Dubuque should support this as an important step that the
State of Iowa lead by example and require that best management practices be followed
during and for all State projects.
Recommendation #43 is to support and enhance existing funds currently available for
stormwater projects. The two funds are the SRF program and the WIRB funds. ISSUE:
These funds are limited to water quality projects. There are no grantor loan funds
available for strictly flood mitigation projects. The City of Dubuque should
recommend that stormwater and flood mitigation projects be eligible for these funds, or
create a new fund.
Recommendation #44 is to give cities authority to establish a connection fee for
stormwater drainage system utility districts based on SF 458. The City should further
research how this recommendation could be implemented if this measure passes.
Recommendation #45 gives cities authority to establish a fee system and credit
program based on the amount of impervious surface installed. The City of Dubuque
already has such a system through its stormwater management utility. City staff's
concern here is that there is no mention of how this would be applied - is this a state-
wide utility fee program or are they just promoting the establishment of these types of
utility fee programs on a City and County level?
Recommendation #46 would expand the authority of the Soil and Water Conservation
Districts by allowing them to create watershed districts. As part of this recommendation,
the watershed districts would be given the authority to levy taxes to create a sustainable
funding source. Of concern is that this action would create a new taxing body, with very
little in this recommendation about what authority the watershed districts would have
f:\users\mrettenb\wp\council\wrcc hf756 mvm memo..doc
WRCC Recommendations HF 756
September 29, 2009
Page 5
and how this would apply across existing jurisdictional boundaries. For instance, would
the watershed districts pre-empt local jurisdiction control, whether it is City or County?
The health of a watershed can best be managed by a watershed board that has
jurisdiction over an entire watershed. The City should advocate for a watershed board
concept, where this board assumes responsibilities now placed on MS4 cities for
managing stormwater and health of a watershed.
The City of Dubuque should recommend the equitable application and enforcement any
additional regulations mandated as a result of the WRCC recommendations. Too often
cities are "islands of regulation in a sea of unenforcement." The City of Dubuque should
stress to the WRCC, the importance of developing regulations and enforcing those
regulations equally in populated and rural areas. The standards for development and
enforcement are often times higher in cities than in rural communities and
unincorporated areas. This puts cities at a disadvantage and consequently promotes
sprawl, poor stormwater management and flooding. Regulation often occurs in
populated areas, but rural development and farms contribute significantly to local,
regional and state stormwater problems and flooding. Responsibility and enforcement
needs to be shared by all, not just the larger cities who already are implementing best
management practices similar to those outlined in the ISMM.
REQUESTED ACTION
City staff plans to attend one of the public input sessions being held by the WRCC to
share the City's position, and requests that the City Council review and concur with
staff's position.
Enclosure
Prepared by: Kyle L. Kritz, Associate Planner
cc: Gus Psihoyos, City Engineer
Don Vogt, Public Works Director
Deron Muehring, Civil Engineer II
Kyle Kritz, Associate Planner
f:\users\mrettenb\wp\council\wrcc hf756 mvm memo..doc
9/18/09: Includes Changes from 9/15/09 WRCC Subcommittee Meeting
Subcommittee of the Water Resources Coordinating Council
To Focus on Recommendations required by HF756
(WRCC Established under Iowa Code Chapter 4668)
RECOMMENDATION SUMMARIES
2009 Iowa legislation, HF 756 ,requires the state's Water Resources Coordinating Council (WRCC to submit policy
and funding recommendations that promote "a watershed management approach to reduce the adverse impact of
future flooding on this state's residents, businesses, communities, and soil and water quality:' At its meeting on
June 12, 2009, the WRCC named a subcommittee to work on recommendations. Subcommittee members include:
University of Iowa -- IIHR- Hydroscience & Engineering, Iowa Flood Center: Larry Weber
Iowa State University- Leopold Center: Jerry DeWitt, alternate Jeri Neal
University of Northern Iowa -Center for Energy and Environmental Education: Kamyar Enshayan
Homeland Security: Tom Oswald, alternate Steve Zimmerman
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Jerry Skalak
IDOT: Scott Marler, alternate Dave Claman
NRCS: Rich Sims, alternate Marty Adkins
IDNR: Bill Ehm, alternate Sharon Tahtinen
IDALS: Chuck Gipp
IDED:lessica Montana
RIO: Ken Tow, alternate Susan Judkins
USGS:Rob Middlemis-Brown, alternate Kaylene Carney
The subcommittee met on July 13, 2009, and identified four work groups to work on components of the
recommendations required by HF 756. Work groups had a diverse representation, including members from groups
outlined in HF756 that should be consulted, including "hydrological and land use experts, representatives of cities,
counties, drainage and levee districts, agricultural interests, and soil and water conservation districts, and other
urban and regional planning experts." The work groups include:
#1: Flood Plain Manaeement and Regulation, chaired by Chuck Corell, DNR (See Exhibit 1, Page 10)
#2: Lowland Focus: Wetland protection, restoration and construction; and conservation easements and other land
management, chaired by Marty Adkins, NRCS (See Exhibit 1, Page 11)
#3: Upland Focus: Perennial ground cover and other agricultural conservation practices; and permanent or
temporary water retention structures, chaired by Tom Oswald, HSEMD (See Exhibit 1, Page 12)
#4: Stormwater: Promulgation and implementation of statewide stormwater management standards; and pervious
pavement, bioswales, and other urban conservation practices, chaired by Jessica Montana, IDED (See Exhibit 1,
Page 13)
Their recommendations were considered by the subcommittee on September 15, 2009. They were edited slightly
and presented for consideration 9/18/09 by the Water Resources Coordinating Council, authorized the
subcommittee to solicit public input on these draft recommendations atpublic meetings as follows:
9/29/09 Mount Pleasant Civic Center, 307 East Monroe Street, 2-4 PM
West Branch, Hoover Library and Museum, 210 Parkside Drive, 6-8 PM
10/6/09 Ankeny, Public Services Building, 220 W. 1st Street, Conf. Room A. 10 AM-Noon
Waverly Civic Center, 200 E. 1st St. NE, 5-7 PM
10/8/09 Lewis, Wallace Foundation Learning Center, Armstrong Research Farm, 10 AM-Noon
Storm Lake, Sunrise Pointe Municipal Golf Course, 4-6 PM
Recommendations and related exhibits follow.
9/18/09: Includes Changes from 9/15/09 WRCC Subcommittee Meeting
WORK GROUP 1: FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT
FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS
#1: The 0.2% flood should be the regulated flood plain instead of the 1% flood. This change should be
phased in as the 0.2% flood plains and floodways are identified on maps approved by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency. (See Exhibit 2 for diagram of 100- and 500-year flood plain).
#2: The state should prohibit development (structures, fill and other restrictions to flood flows) in the
floodway ofthe regulated flood plain. Reconstruction of substantially damaged structures already
located in the floodway should also be prohibited.
#3: The use of fill to elevate new or reconstructed structures (excluding levees) in the flood plain
should be restricted to no more than three vertical feet. Other means of elevating structures should
be allowed. Structures in the regulated flood plain but outside the floodway should be constructed in
a manner that will reduce the damage caused by the 0.2% flood. These restrictions should be phased
in as the 0.2% flood plains are identified on maps approved by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency.
FLOOD CONTROL STRUCTURES (LEVEES)
#4: Areas on the landward side of a flood control levee recognized by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency as protecting against the 0.2% flood should not be considered as in the 0.2%
floodplain and should not be subject to the regulations for the 0.2% flood plain.
#5: Flood control levees should primarily be used to protect areas with existing development if there
are no practical alternatives for mitigating damage from floods.
#6: The governor should support and endorse Alternative H in the "Upper Mississippi River
Comprehensive Plan -Final Report June 2008 (Revised Aug 14, 2008)" prepared by the Army Corps of
Engineers. This alternative would improve the existing levee system to provide protection from the
0.2% flood along the Mississippi River (not the tributaries). [Note: The Army Corps of Engineers
employees participating in the work group did not endorse any alternative.]
#7: The state should create a grant program to help entities bear the cost of certifying existing flood
control levees.
#8: The state should create a grant program to assist entities with improving existing levees as one
way to meet the new 0.2% flood regulations.
PLANNING
#9: The state should create a grant program to support local planning entities for developing local
flood plain management plans. Preference should be given to planning activities that benefit a region
or watershed. The goal of these flood plain management plans should be to reduce the flood exposure
to people and property and thereby reduce flood damages.
9/18/09: Includes Changes from 9/15/09 WRCC Subcommittee Meeting
FLOOD RISK EDUCATION
#10: The legislature and the governor should support the formation of a local chapter of the
Association of State Flood Plain Managers in Iowa that would provide a vehicle for local managers and
planners to discuss flood plain issues and learn from each other.
#11: The Iowa State University Extension Service should be tasked with and appropriated funds for
educating the general public about flood plains, flood risks and basic flood plain management
principles. The ISU Extension Service already has a network of educators across Iowa and should
develop materials and programs in consultation with flood plain experts.
CRITICAL FACILITIES
#12: New Class I Critical Facilities should be located outside the 0.2% flood plain whenever practical.
New Class I Critical Facilities should also be designed and located as to maintain their function during a
0.2% flood whenever practical.
OTHER OPINIONS EXPRESSED:
Whenever possible, the workgroup tried to reach consensus on the statements and recommendations.
When consensus was reached it was rarely unanimous. Below are the viewpoints of those that did not
necessarily agree with the statements and recommendations above.
• Government should not impose restrictions on the use of property. Many citizens that live in a
flood plain are aware of and have accepted the risks and do not expect any help from the
government.
Flood control structures are not reliable enough to be used extensively in flood plain management.
Any flood plain management strategy that uses structural flood controls in lieu of removing or
flood proofing structures in the 0.2% flood plain is incomplete and will fail eventually. Structural
controls do have their place-to protect existing development that cannot be mitigated in other
ways. However, in many instances, structural controls are used because they are less intrusive and
less costly and more effective mitigation measures.
• The geographic boundaries and the economic impacts of delineating the 0.2% flood plain area as
the regulated flood plain are currently unknown. A mapping project has been recently initiated
that will produce flood maps for the entire state but it will not be completed and approved by
FEMA for another five to seven years. The delineation of the 0.2% flood plains and floodways
should be completed in order to educate property owners and local communities and to make an
informed policy decision. Some in the workgroup believe that the policy decision to move to a 0.2%
regulated flood plain should wait until delineation of the 0.2% flood plains and floodways is
completed and the impacts of this change analyzed before making a policy decision which will
have an impact on the property rights of many Iowans including the value of their property and
risk of flood damage.
The workgroup realizes that the expanded or new policy recommendations made here have serious
implications to the citizens of Iowa. Many residences and other buildings will have to be moved from the
9/18/09: Includes Changes from 9/15/09 WRCC Subcommittee Meeting
0.2% flood plain after being damaged rather than being rebuilt in their current location. New
development in the 0.2% flood plain, while not prohibited by these recommendations, will be more
difficult and expensive than it is now. But the goal of these recommendations is to reduce the damage
caused by flooding and that cannot be accomplished without changes in how we manage our flood
plains.
Many of the workgroup members are representatives of different public interest groups. While the
representatives participated with the full knowledge of the groups they represent, it should not be
assumed that the groups or their representatives fully endorse the recommendations or statements
made herein.
WORK GROUP 2: LOWLAND FOCUS
PLANNING & COORDINATION:
#13: Provide funding for watershed project planning and the implementation and maintenance of
high priority flood damage reduction projects.
#14: Provide interagency assessment and project planning to support and inform infrastructure /
easement /land purchase investment decisions in floodplain areas.
#15: The WRCC should move more quickly from information sharing to actual interagency program
coordination.
NON-STRUCTURAL:
#16: Reconnect streams and rivers to their flood plains and floodways. This practice involves the
modifications of levees, roads, channels and diversions. The State of Iowa should consider levee
district buyouts when they are needed in order to accomplish stream-floodplain reconnections.
#17: Provide authority for the purchase of easements in upland areas that are part of planned flood
risk reduction projects. The easements would stipulate the use of water infiltration practices that
are appropriate for each situation. Practices might include contour farming, strips of perennial
vegetation, ponds, wetlands, no-till, and other measures.
#18: Provide a means of indemnification that would allow levees to be modified or removed and
floodplains to be farmed with the agreement that if there is flooding the land will be used for back
up and holding water.
PROJECTS:
#19: Integrate multi-purpose wetlands into watersheds with drainage districts or larger drainage
systems. Systems would be retrofitted to enable nutrient trapping and treatment; more water
infiltration and evapotranspiration; greater retention of run-off; and habitat to support biodiversity.
Maintain a holistic view of watershed management and targeting funds and programs within those
watersheds.
#20: Drainage Water Management to allow for the seasonal retention of water in the drained fields
should be supported technically. This practice is most easily adopted in very flat landscapes. (w~
Priority 6)
9/18/09: Includes Changes from 9/15/09 WRCC Subcommittee Meeting
#21: Develop, implement, monitor and document a watershed project that has as a primary goal
high infiltration of rainfall under non-saturated soil moisture conditions in both rural and urban
areas.
#22: Enhance WRP, EWP, FRPP, and CRP programs with state matching funds.
#23: Conduct a cooperative pilot project for the evaluation of strategies for reducing severe scour
erosion and sand deposition by floodwaters under various soils/geology conditions. Strategies
would include but are not limited to levee and road modifications, reforestation and grassland
seeding. This project should be part of an overall watershed plan at the HUC 8 scale or larger.
EDUCATE & INFORM:
#24: Include floodplain or alluvial soils information as part of the disclosure form used as part of
real estate transactions.
#25: "I-Farm" is a farm resource management and business planning tool developed at ISU. I-Farm
could help farmers plan and create infiltration systems to accommodate one inch rainfalls. I-Farm
should be used by ISU Extension and other agencies to support conservation and business planning.
WORK GROUP 3: UPLAND FOCUS
PRIOR STUDY HAS YIELDED GOOD RECOMMENDATIONS THAT SHOULD BE RECONSIDERED
#26: Highlights from prior flood plain-related recommendations brought forward by water resources
task forces in 2001, 2003 and 2007 should be reconsidered (See EXHIBIT 3, Page 15, incorporated by
reference into this recommendation)
PILOT/DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
#27: Fund apilot/demonstration project involving a "hybrid" of both implementation and research,
implementing best practices as well as hydrologic studies at the Iowa Flood Center (U of I) and
management for flood reduction
o Includes a "distributed storage" system including upland retention structures
o Site selected based on criteria including isolated community (at top of watershed)
impacted in 2008, impaired waters (for funding), willingness of watershed stakeholders,
geographic MLRA, flexibility to expand to larger scale, visible and quantifiable results,
take advantage of other ongoing research (e.g. Iowa/Cedar Basin), input from
stakeholder groups including agriculture community, livestock groups, cities, state
agencies, universities, water interests (water, waste water and rural water), ability to
collect soil moisture data, an area with a gaging station or recommend installation of a
gage in the area
o Multi-jurisdictional effort and funding, leverage one program with another (multi-
programmatic)
o Funding sources ranging from individual to all levels of government, private sector
including commodity groups
#28: Manage existing water resources programs to address flood risk management
5
9/18/09: Includes Changes from 9/15/09 WRCC Subcommittee Meeting
EDUCATION
#29: The Iowa State University Extension Service should be tasked with and appropriated funds for
educating the general public about flood plains, flood risks and basic flood plain management
principles. The ISU Extension Service already has a network of educators across Iowa and should
develop materials and programs in consultation with flood plain experts. (Same as Work Group #1,
recommendation #11)
#30: Conduct a hydrological tiling study to determine the impact the drainage has on infiltration,
surface runoff, and flooding. (Same as Work Group #4, recommendation #48) Consider impacts of
potholes, wetlands and water retention structures.
#31: Develop a soil moisture monitoring network through the Iowa Water Center and Leopold
Center, both at ISU
#32: Make extensive use of the NRCS Soil Conditioning Index tool. Conservation and agronomic
practices that are matched to the need of the land and objective of the landowner will improve
sustainability over the long term, potentially increasing profitability, reducing impacts of flooding,
and improving water quality. One example of a best practice is use of perennial ground covers. An
improved Soil Conditioning Index score is an indication of good agronomic and conservation
practices.
#33: A media campaign is needed to let Iowans know we are all affected by, and have an impact on,
watershed issues. Landowner/tenant issues should be considered as part of this campaign.
#34: Storm frequency needs to be analyzed for accuracy of predictions (i.e. basis fora "ten-year
storm")
#35: Reassess criteria for conservation practices because of changing climate.
o NRCS Field Office Technical Guide (conservation criteria)
o NRCS Engineering Field Manual (design criteria)
RESOURCES
#36: Recommend increased funding for staff at research and field levels for public and/or private
sector. Watershed level planning requires effort at the research level to actual watershed level
down to the field level working with individual farmers. Current staffing levels would not be
sufficient to provide the technical expertise needed.
#37: Recommend multi-year state funding for the Iowa Flood Center
#38: Recognize that voters may approve a 2010 referendum question amending Iowa's Constitution
to provide that if the state raises the sales tax in the future, 3/8ths of the increase will go to a new
protected account for natural resources projects, including soil and water conservation; aone-
pennyincrease would generate about $150 million annually which could serve as a funding source.
6
9/18/09: Includes Changes from 9/15/09 WRCC Subcommittee Meeting
#39: A tax Dedicate the sales tax currently collected by public water supplies for drinking water, add
sales tax on bottled water sales, and/or collect a redemption fee on bottled water similar to pop
bottles, could serve as additional funding sources.
WORK GROUP 4: STORMWATER
STORMWATER REGULATION:
#40 - Utilize a Phase-In Approach to Implement Statewide Stormwater Standards Consistent with the
Iowa Stormwater Management Manual
The State should require all cities and counties to implement Stormwater management practices
consistent with the Iowa Stormwater Management Manual (ISMM). They should be given the
opportunity todevelop aphased-in approach to allow sufficient time to secure necessary technical and
financial assistance for effective implementation.
The ISMM presents planning and design guidelines for the management of Stormwater quality and
quantity in the urban environment, and encourages the use of enhanced design practices for
Stormwater management, including best management practices and low impact development (LID).
Iowa-specific and part of the Iowa Statewide Urban Designs and Specifications (SODAS) Manual, the
ISMM outlines eleven minimum standards as community development guidelines. Statewide
Stormwater management standards should be applicable to new development, retrofits,
redevelopment, and improvements to property.
One phased-in approach to consider could begin with:
• The 43 communities and three universities with municipal separate storm sewer systems
(MS4s)
• Communities over 10,000 and counties greater than 20,000 in population
• Communities under 10,000 and counties under 20,000 in population
Before a city or county is required to implement statewide Stormwater standards, they should be
directed to the educational resources for Stormwater management (Recommendation 8). Additionally,
enhanced funding and mechanisms for raising those funds are needed (Recommendations 4-7).
#41-Require New and Amend Renewal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
M54 Permits to Include Stormwater Best Management Practices as Outlined in the Iowa Stormwater
Management Manual.
Require new and amend renewal NPDES permits to include Stormwater best management practices as
outlined in the ISMM. Other states are requiring statewide standards be included in a community's
NPDES Phase II permit. Similarly, the ISMM section 2A-1 recommends "non-structural best
management practices to be implemented to reduce pollutant sources and to reduce the transfer of
urban pollutants to runoff before more expensive structural controls are instituted."1
1 Iowa Stormwater Management Manual, www.ctre.iastate.edu/PUBS/Stormwater/index.cfm
9/18/09: Includes Changes from 9/15/09 WRCC Subcommittee Meeting
#42 -Increase State Government's Utilization of the Iowa Stormwater Management Manual
The State can demonstrate its commitment to effective Stormwater management by requiring
construction of vertical infrastructure, pursuant to 2009 Iowa Code chapter 8.57 and in suit with
Recommendation 1, on State property or projects funded in full or in-part by State funds to use
Stormwater best management practices described in the ISMM. This commitment would provide
demonstration projects to serve as an example for city and county officials and developers.
FINANCIAL:
#43 -Support and Enhance Existing Stormwater Funds; Establish a New Fund Similar to the Property
Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program
Support and enhance the existing funds currently available for Stormwater projects. Two existing funds
exist: 1) the State Revolving Loan Fund provides funds for Stormwater quality projects with low-interest
loans to cities, counties, non-profits, developers, businesses and individuals, and 2) the Watershed
Improvement Review Board (WIRB) awards competitive grants for local watershed improvements
through the Watershed Improvement Fund to -ocal watershed improvement committees, soil and water
conservation districts, public water supply utilities, cities and county conservation boards. Additional
funds should be made available for implementation of Stormwater best practices as defined by the
ISMM. The funds should also target high-growth counties because these areas typically produce more
impervious surfaces, thus increased runoff.
A new funding mechanism for Stormwater projects could mimic the Property Assessed Clean EnergyZ
(PACE) Program. APACE bond is a bond where the proceeds are lent to commercial and residential
property owners to finance energy retrofits (efficiency measures and small renewable energy systems)
and who then repay their loans over 20 years via an annual assessment on their property tax bill.3 PACE
bonds can be issued by municipal financing districts orfinance companies and the proceeds can be
typically used to retrofit both commercial and residential properties.
#44 -Give Cities Authority to Establish a Connection Fee for Stormwater Drainage Utility Systems
Give cities authority to establish a connection fee for Stormwater drainage system utility districts for
purposes of funding construction of Stormwater infrastructure. Senate File 458 (SF 458) accomplishes
this goal and should be supported. SF 458 passed the Senate 32-18 on a primarily partisan vote in 2009;
however, it ended in the House Ways & Means Committee. It remains alive for discussion in 2010.
#45 -Give Cities and Counties Authority to Establish a Fee System and Credit Program Based on the
Amount of Impervious Surface Installed°
Fee Svstem
z Property Assessed Clean Energy Prorgram, www.pacenow.org
a Environmental Protection Commission, publication intended to assist local Stormwater managers understand the alternatives
available to fund their Stormwater program.www.epa.~ov/npdes/pubs/re~ion3 factsheet fundina.pdf
8
9/18/09: Includes Changes from 9/15/09 WRCC Subcommittee Meeting
Cities and counties should be given the authority to establish a fee system that is based on the amount
of impervious surfaces installed. For the purpose of this recommendation, impervious surface includes a
surface not connected to potable water, or non-metered customers. This could include, but is not
limited to, a parking lot, driveway, rights-of-way, and rail lines.
Credit Pro;?ram
The goals of stormwater credit programs are to reduce or mitigate imperviousness, promote on-site
stormwater management, reduce runoff volume, and promote or direct use of specific stormwater best
management practices. The mechanism for fee reduction could include percent fee reduction or water
quantity and water quality credits.
#46 -Allow Soil and Water Conservation Districts to Create Watershed Districts
Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD) should be allowed to create watershed districts to develop
integrated water management plans. Watershed districts could utilize 28E Agreements to work across
county boundaries and collaboratively with local governments. The Watershed Districts could create a
sustainable funding source by leveraging taxes. Iowa Code 161A would need to be amended to
implement this recommendation.
STORMWATER EDUCATION:
#47 -Support and Enhance Existing Educational Efforts
stormwater education should include and reach all parties, including, but not limited to, State, county
and city officials, engineers, planners, realtors, and developers, and consider the various needs and
circumstances of residential and commercial and industrial properties. stormwater education should
focus on stormwater best management practices as outlined in the ISMM, including issues of water
quality, water quantity and the potential for environmental impact and damage to cities and counties.
Current programs that exist within the State include the Iowa stormwater Partnership, Iowa stormwater
Education Program, Urban Conservationists, RainScaping Iowa Initiative, and the Council of
Governments. These programs' efforts should be supported and enhanced to reach a larger audience
and provide more technical assistance as stormwater standards are phased-in and stormwater best
management practices are implemented (Recommendation 1).
#48 - Conduct a Hydrological Tiling Study
There is a general lack of understanding of how the drainage functions. Some think more the drainage
means more flooding; while others think it is unlikely that the flow alone could cause out of control bank
flows and might even reduce peak flows by helping the landscape infiltrate more rainfall and shed less
runoff. A scientific hydrologic study is needed to determine the impact of the drainage on infiltration,
surface runoff, and flooding.
9/18/09: Includes Changes from 9/15/09 WRCC Subcommittee Meeting
EXHIBIT 1-WORK GROUPS
Water Resources Coordinating Council
Floodplain Subcommittee -Regulation Work Group #i
Contact List
' "'Na e =~
Chuck Corell, Chair T'r ~~'~'Uepa ent: ~
Iowa Department of Natural Resources ai ~ r ~.. ~~
chuck.corell@dnr.iowa.gov - P ode # _ .~
515-281-4582
Angel Robinson Iowa Insurance Division angel.robinson@iid.iowa.gov 515-281-4038
Bill Cappuccio Iowa Department of Natural Resources bill.cappuccio@dnr.iowa.gov 515-281-8942
Brian Schoon INRCOG Bschoon@inrcog.org 319-235-0311
Chris Gruenhagen Iowa Farm Bureau Federation cgruenhagen@ifbf.org 515-225-5528
Dave Claman IDOT David.Claman@dot.iowa.gov 515-239-1487
Jeff Hanan Southeast Iowa Regional Planning
Commission jhanan@seirpc.com 319-753-5107
Jerry Skalak Corps of Engineers, Rock Island District Jerry.A.Skalak@usace.army.mil 309-794-5605
Jessica Harder Iowa League of Cities jessicaharder@iowaleague.org 515-244-7282
Josh Cox HSEMD josh.cox@iowa.gov 515-251-3675
Julie Tallman Iowa City Building Dept. Julie-Tallman@iowa-city.org 319-356-5132
Kamyar Enshayan Center for Energy & Environmental
Education kamyar.enshayan@uni.edu 319-273-7575
Kay Mocha Pottawattamie County Zoning kay.mocha@pottcounty.com 712-328-5792
Kim Johnson Buena Vista County Zoning kjohnson@co.buena-vista.ia.us 712-749-2555
Marty Ryan Cedar Falls City Planner marty.ryan@cedarfalls.com 319-273-8606
Mike Raes HSEMD michael.raes@iowa.gov 515-725-3273
Nathan Young Iowa Flood Center nathan-young@uiowa.edu 319-384-1732
Susan Dixon Rebuild Iowa Office susan.dixon@rio.iowa.gov 515-238-4537
Ted Corrigan Des Moines Water Works Corrigan@dmww.com 515-283-8751
Vicki Stoller Two Rivers Levee & Drainage Assoc. Rivers@mepotelco.net 319-937-6667
10
9/18/09: Includes Changes from 9/15/09 WRCC Subcommittee Meeting
Water Resources Coordinating Council
Floodplain Subcommittee -Lowland Work Group #2
Contact List
a
Martin Adkins, Chair i De art en
USGS - NRCS ~ E ai r
Martin.Adkins@ia.usda.gov o e
515-577-0904
Annette Mansheim Rebuild Iowa Office Annette.Mansheim@rio.iowa.gov 515-242-5544
Dennis McAllister Des Moines Water Works dmcallister@dmww.com 515-283-6230
Derryl McLaren Farmer Derryl@derrylmclaren.com 515-669-4652
Duane Sand Iowa National Heritage Foundation dsand@inhf.org 515-288-1846
Jean Eells, PhD E Resources Group jceells@wmtel.net 515-297-0701
Jennifer Filipiak The Nature Conservancy jfilipiak@TNC.org 515-244-5044
Jerry DeWitt Leopold Center jdewitt@iastate.edu
MarkAckelson Iowa National Heritage Foundation mackelson@inhf.org
Nate Bonnett Iowa State Association of Counties nbonnett@iowacounties.org 515-244-7181
Rob Middlemis-Brown USGS Iowa Water Science Center rgbrown@usgs.gov 319-358-3600
Scott Marler Iowa Department of Transportation Scott.Marler@dot.iowa.gov 515-239-1520
Steve Zimmerman Homeland Security & Emergency
Management Dept
Steve.zimmerman@iowa.gov
515-725-3275
Todd Bishop Iowa DNR Todd.Bishop@dnr.iowa.gov 515-238-6461
Tom Oswald Homeland Security & Emergency
Management Dept thomas.oswald@iowa.gov 515-729-4593
11
9/18/09: Includes Changes from 9/15/09 WRCC Subcommittee Meeting
Water Resources Coordinating Council
Floodplain Subcommittee -Upland Work Group #3
Contact List
Tom Oswald, Chair D a
Iowa HSEMD
tom.oswald@iowa.gov P o e;#~ ~'•
~~r
515-729-4593
Susan ludkins Josten Rebuild Iowa Office susan.judkins@rio.iowa.gov 515-242-5503
Cathie Graves -DALS cathie.graves@iowaagriculture.gov 515-281-5853
Hillary Olson Iowa Water Center holson0l@iastate.edu 515-294-7467
Jennfer Puffer Des Moines Water Works puffer@dmww.com 515-323-6218
Jeri Neal Leopold Center for Sustainable
Agriculture
wink@iastate.edu
515-294-5610
Jim Gillespie IDALS jim.gillespie@iowaagriculture.gov 515-281-7043
John Goode Monroe County Engineer jgoode@monroecoia.us 641-932-7123
John Myers NRCS john.myers@ia.usda.gov 515-323-2223
Kelly Smith DNR Private Lands Coordinator kelly.smith@dnr.iowa.gov 515-281-6247
Ken Tow Rebuild Iowa Office Kenneth.tow@rio.iowa.gov 515-281-4005
Kirk Siegle Producer/Iowa Corn Growers ksiegle@louisacomm.net 319-766-2509
Larry Weber University of Iowa tarry-weber@uiowa.edu 319-335-5597
Leah Maass Producer fammaass@netins.net 515-836-4781
Linda Kinman Des Moines Water Works kinman@dmww.com 515-283-8706
Paul Assman Crawford County Engineer cracoeng@frontiernet.net 712-263-2449
Rick Cruse Iowa Water Center rmc@iastate.edu 515-294-7850
Rick Robinson Iowa Farm Bureau Federation rrobinson@ifbf.org 515-225-5432
Steve Hopkins Iowa DNR stephen.hopkins@dnr.iowa.gov 515-281-6402
Witold F. Krajewski Iowa Flood Center Witold-krajewski@uiowa.edu 319-355-5231
12
9/18/09: Includes Changes from 9/15/09 WRCC Subcommittee Meeting
Water Resources Coordinating Council
Floodplain Subcommittee -Storm Water Work Group #4
Contact List
. ~ Na e ~ De artment .,
p~:. E"I
. ~P'~o ems', .~
.
Jessica Montana, Chair IDED Jessica.montana@iowalifechaing.com (515) 725-3124
Aaron Todd RIO Aaron.Todd@iowa.gov (515) 242-5299
Annette Mansheim RIO Annette.Mansheim@rio.iowa.gov (515) 242-5299
Bill Ehm IDNR William.ehm@dnr.iowa.gov (515) 281-4701
Chris Whitaker IARC cwhitaker@regionl2cog.org (712) 775-7811
Diane Foss IDED Diane.Foss@iowalifechanging.com (515) 725-3016
Doug Adamson RDG dadamson@rdgusa.com (515) 473-6373
Emily Piper IRWA emily80@mchsi.com (515) 202-7772
Hank Manning IDED Hank.manning@iowalifechanging.com (515) 725-3071
James Wiese HSEMD James.Wiese@iowa.gov (515) 725-3247
Jamie Cashman IGOV Jamie.cashman@iowa.gov (515) 281-0130
Jeff Berckes IDNR Jeff.Berckes@dnr.iowa.gov (515) 281-4791
Jeff Geerts IDED Jeff.geerts@iowalifechanging.com (515) 725-3069
Jennifer Welch SWCD jennifer.welch@ia.nacdnet.net (515) 964-1883
Jessica Harder Iowa League of Cities jessicaharder@iowaleague.org (515) 974-5312
Joe Griffin IDNR Joe.griffin@dnr.iowa.gov (515) 281-7017
John Peterson American Planning
Association, Iowa
Chapter jpeterson@ankenyiowa.gov (515) 963-3550
Julie Smith J.A. Smith Law jasmithlaw@mchsi.com 515-210-6616
Kay Mocha Pottawattamie County Kay.mocha@pottcounty.com (712) 328-5792
Mark Nahra Woodbury County mnahra@sioux-city.org (712) 279-6484
Megan Osweiler Iowa League of Cities meganosweiler@iowaleague.org (515)822-1314
Pat Sauer IAMU psauer@iamu.org (515) 289-1999
Patterson, Craig Professional
Developers of Iowa craig@ialobby.com (515) 554-7920
Scott Ralston RDG sralston@rdgusa.com (515)208-0713
Tom Drzycimski County tdrzyci@co.cerro-gordo.ia.us (641) 421-3075
TonyToigo IDALS Tony.Toigo@lowaagriculture.gov (515) 281-6148
Wayne Gieselman IDNR Wayne.Gieselman@dnr.iowa.gov (515) 281-5817
Wayne Peterson IDALS Wayne.Petersen@lowaagriculture.gov (515) 281-5833
13
9/18/09: Includes Changes from 9/15/09 WRCC Subcommittee Meeting
EXHIBIT 2
itlUYear Flt~odpEain
100Yfear i{bOY~r
Uner+ct++ed ` ~ Encroached
'Q_ __
v -
Floody sta~iout ~ ~ 1 5t~tidn
Fringe
F1oCdwdY _~ Frings
(a) cuss section
(b) Plari4r'et~w
14
"+ Fringe
Fringe
9/18/09: Includes Changes from 9/15/09 WRCC Subcommittee Meeting
EXHIBIT 3 -RECOMMENDATIONS PRIOR TO 2008 DISASTERS
This document is a compilation of the recommendations made by the Iowa Watershed Task Force in
2001, the Iowa Water Summit in 2003 and the Iowa Watershed Quality Planning Task force in 2007.
Recommendations are incorporated into Recommendation #1 of WRCC Work Group 3.
************************************************************************************
IOWA WATERSHED TASKFORCE. 2001
Goal: Develop a Framework for Enhanced Cooperation and
Coordination
Recommendations
1. Establish an on-going coordinating body to continue to address the watershed issues identified by this
task force. Include similar representation from state, federal, and local agencies, nonprofits and
commercial interests, as on the Watershed Task Force.
Create a "home" for coordinating entity within the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land
Stewardship -Division of Soil Conservation.
Specific services and/or functions provided by the water resources coordination body
will include:
• serving as a liaison and point of contact on watershed issues with key resource and service providers
linking state and federal agencies with local watershed interests;
• facilitating the connection and integration of programs/strategies currently done independently
(example: wellhead protection and hazard mitigation);
• collaborating on opportunities for watershed-related training, development of a watershed
clearinghouse of information and resources and development of Geographic Information System
resources;
• building consensus on watershed issues among state, federal and local authorities; and
• developing an annual update on watershed programs, reporting on the progress to address the
recommendations in this Watershed Task Force and other priorities established by the coordinating
body.
2. Conduct a statewide needs assessment, in cooperation with appropriate local and federal entities, to
identify and quantify water resource problems and funding needs. Base on each 11-digit HUC watershed
in the state. Parameters for the inventory will include: land use, water uses, population, major point 43
and non-point sources of pollutants, floodplain management issues, identification of drinking water
sources, existing water resource management practices and costs of estimated remediation practices.
Goal: Increase State Support for Watershed Protection
Recommendations
1. Establish a legislative study committee to explore in more detail the specific needs for financial
support for watershed-related programs and sources of funding that could be utilized beyond the state's
General Fund. Higher levels of funding for water-related programs are critical to achieve the basic goals
identified in this Task Force report, and to take better advantage of opportunities to leverage funds
available from federal and other sources. Creative options that should be considered include additional
mechanisms to charge fees based on polluting products or activities, credit trading, ausage-based tax
added to water and sewer bills, a fraction of a percentage sales tax such as in Missouri, or aloes-interest
revolving loan fund similar to the Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund that is now used for sewer
infrastructure projects.
15
9/18/09: Includes Changes from 9/15/09 WRCC Subcommittee Meeting
2. Encourage state agencies with responsibilities for programs that impact the landscape, including the
departments of transportation and economic development, to provide more active leadership and
accountability in conducting programs consistent with principles of sound watershed and floodplain
management. Positive examples at the state level will set the stage for positive actions by local
governments and individuals. First steps should be to assist staff with additional training and to review
laws and authorities that relate to watershed and floodplain management activities, identifying
needed readjustments or changes so that watersheds become a primary organisational focus for doing
business ratherthan an add-on issue.
3. Establish an ongoing, staffed watershed clearinghouse for data and grant information. All government
programs that fall under the umbrella of watershed management would provide detailed project
information to the clearinghouse, based on an established, consistent format (see Appendix 4: Program
Description Template for a Watershed Clearinghouse). The recommended location for the
clearinghouse would be Iowa State University Extension, based on the model of the Missouri Watershed
Information Network.
Practical tools for regional and local contacts and groups could include
information such as:
• GIS maps of watershed units at different hydrologic scales
• Model of assessment, planning and evaluation worksheets
• Examples of watershed action plans from Iowa or the region
• Models for convening a group of representative stakeholders, with examples
of different types of facilitation and surveys for landowner and residents
• Template news releases for publicity
• Data on water quality and quantity, and other issues identified by state coordination group
• Lists of technical and financial assistance for watershed efforts
4. Support the statewide water quality monitoring plan, developed by the Iowa Department of Natural
Resources (IDNR), with additional resources to move forward to finalize the plan and achieve priority
goals, including meeting legislative requirements to provide credible data (see discussion in Section
IV: Essential Tools for Watersheds).
5. Continue funding for GIS programs, as described by the Iowa Water Quality Initiative, and insure that
local watershed organizations have free access and training to use computerized landscape information
managed by the IDNR, the Iowa Geographic Information Council and other entities. Adequate staffing is
critical to help people who do not have GIS technical resources or staff capacity. Establish a repository
for GIS data produced for completed and on-going watershed projects, and link to the watershed
clearinghouse.
6. Develop a sustainable, smart growth development initiative to address watershed goals, or consider
expanding existing efforts like IDNR's "Rebuild Iowa" program that currently works with local
communities primarily to address energy efficiency issues.
Goal: Build Local Capacity for Watershed Initiatives
Recommendations
1. Encourage and assist development of local watershed councils by providing state support and
technical assistance. Local soil and water conservation districts will be the focal point for assistance,
providing leadership and a point of contact for local watershed initiatives.
2. Revise current state watershed grant program guidelines to better support local watershed-oriented
planning and implementation initiatives. Provide structure while allowing flexibility. Establish an ad-hoc
committee that includes local watershed project coordinators to review procedures and consider items
16
9/18/09: Includes Changes from 9/15/09 WRCC Subcommittee Meeting
such as development of standard evaluation format and/or procedures that will provide a "base" set of
reporting requirements to reduce paperwork, improve consistency and allow more effective
quantification of results and comparisons between projects.
3. Increase the emphasis on watershed planning in grant programs. Make resources available to build
local capacity in communities or regions for planning-related activities, such as problem assessment,
outreach and group facilitation. Groups may also benefit from legal assistance to utilize opportunities
for organizing under existing "subdistrict" legislation that applies to lake and water districts, sanitary
districts or soil and water conservation districts.
Goal: Emphasize the Role of Watershed Efforts in Flood Hazard
Mitigation
Recommendations
1. Work cooperatively with all levels of government to fund development and periodic updating of a
system of floodplain mapping that is standardized and available on geographic information systems so
that information on flood hazards is available in every community.
2. Fund increased floodplain education for local governments. Provide incentives for county government
to better enforce existing floodplain laws and to develop tighter restrictions on new development in
floodplain areas that are particularly hazard-prone.
3. Strengthen procedures for conducting environmental review of economic development funding when
projects are proposed in flood-prone areas. Appropriate, low-impact development should be
encouraged, and commercial and/or residential development discouraged in those areas. Guidelines
should be established by the statewide coordination body that include a reporting procedure to
document review process and resulting decisions.
4. Continue working to strengthen coordination between planning efforts in the areas of hazard
mitigation, economic development and watershed protection.
Goal: Encourage Citizen Involvement
Recommendations
1. Initiate a public outreach and marketing campaign to build on existing and past efforts to increase
awareness and appreciation of watershed issues. Work closely with local and regional watershed
leaders to develop.
2. Continue to encourage involvement by diverse stakeholders in developing and leading watershed
projects. Include nonprofit organizations, commercial interests and interested individuals, along with
representatives of state, local and/or federal agencies. Where appropriate, provide financial assistance
to
bring in neutral facilitators skilled in community development to help build capacity for citizen
leadership and decision-making. Also, provide additional training for state and local agency staff in
working effectively with the public and encouraging citizen participation.
3. Support education efforts with youth and adults that heighten awareness, develop understanding and
support local engagement on watershed issues. Effective programs to support include the Iowa
Envirothon and aquatic education programs for youth, and the IOWATER citizen water quality
monitoring and Adopt-a-Stream programs that primarily involve adults.
4. Increase the emphasis on addressing local social and economic issues in watershed programs.
17
9/18/09: Includes Changes from 9/15/09 WRCC Subcommittee Meeting
IOWA WATER SUMMIT. 2003
RECOMMENDATION
-Develop a plan for building local capacity for watershed councils using principles set forward in the
Watershed Task Force Report
-Utilize existing authority under Iowa Code for watershed improvement. Optimize the ability to leverage
additional resources at the local level. The Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Soil
Conservation Districts should provide the leadership to develop a funding coordination plan. (Drainage
districts, watershed sub-districts, storm water utilities, 28E agreements, etc.)
RECOMMENDATION
Dedicated and sustainable state funding to protect water quality in Iowa by:
-Increased priority ranking of Environment First Fund,
-Re-direct sales tax collected on drinking and bottled water,
-Utilize revenues from the lottery and develop an unending dedicated game focusing on Iowa's natural
resources,
-All fees and fines used to re-capture costs and reinvest in water quality in the affected area, and,
-Expand remediation role of the Iowa Underground Storage Tank Fund to better protect groundwater
and surface water.
RECOMMENDATION
-To receive Tax Increment Financing (TIF) or economic development grants the applicant must assure
water quality protection and improvement where possible.
RECOMMENDATION
-Municipal wastewater permit fees should at least cover the cost of program administration.
RECOMMENDATION
-Accelerate research and demonstration projects for alternative methods of management and
improvement of aging drainage infrastructure systems emphasizing agronomic, economic and water
quality issues. Recommend the Governor appoint a state university to lead this effort and appoint an
advisory board of stakeholders to develop a plan identifying work elements, time frames and costs.
RECOMMENDATION
-Streamline the SRF loan process and implement a continuous loan process for the Clean Water and
Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) by putting an experienced lending entity in charge of
loans.
-Appoint a permanent SRF advisory committee of stakeholders to assess the efficiencies and
effectiveness of the program and make recommendations for processing reform and financing terms.
-Maximize the leverage of EPA's capitalization grants. Loan programs should generate sufficient income
to fund administration of the loan program and contribute to clean water programs.
-Increase use of Clean Water SRF for non-point source programs
-Increase use of Drinking Water SRF set-aside for source water protection
-Assist Sponsored Projects (1J for watershed improvement under the Clean and Drinking Water SRF.
RECOMMENDATION
-The Governor has the leadership responsibility to coordinate funding, staff and programs to improve
the effectiveness of all state programs with water resource related responsibilities. Therefore, the
18
9/18/09: Includes Changes from 9/15/09 WRCC Subcommittee Meeting
Governor through Executive Order should insist on cooperation and coordination between all state
agencies. The Governor should issue invitations to local, federal and public agencies, non-profit
organizations and businesses to participate in addressing any resource impacting water quality and
watershed management.
-Once ordered the Governor with input from a stakeholder group will initiate, oversee, and implement a
needs assessment and a clean water action plan.
-Improve results based targeting of state resources for water quality. (The best outcome for the dollars
invested.)
RECOMMENDATION
-The Governor, legislature and Iowa's Congressional Delegates have a responsibility to work for changes
in federal funding and policy issues to better target Midwestern states water quality issues.
-Develop a multi state coalition to lobby for changes in current and future federal water quality funding
and policies
-Work with appropriate federal agencies to accelerate technical and financial assistance for water
quality issues in the Midwest.
-Seek a special designation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Dept. of
Agriculture to act as a pilot project for water quality enhancement and improvement programs. The
pilot project would include access to federal funds to target measurable, results-based watershed
projects to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus in Iowa.
-Within the Conservation Title of the current Farm Bill use all appropriate funding tools such as the
Conservation Security Program to improve water quality.
19
9/18/09: Includes Changes from 9/15/09 WRCC Subcommittee Meeting
WATERSHED QUALITY PLANNING TASK FORCE, 2007
1. Creation of a Water Resource Coordinating Council. The WRCC under the direction of the
Governor is recommended with a common goal to develop an integrated approach to water
resource management, and which recognizes the insufficiency of current approaches, programs,
practices, funding and utilization of current funding programs. This approach seeks to overcome
old polarities such as quantity versus quality, land versus water, the chemical versus the physical
and biological, supply versus demand, political boundaries versus hydrologic boundaries and
point versus non-point. This approach seeks to manage water comprehensively rather than
compartmentally. The purpose of this recommendation is to coordinate programs, not to
duplicate or supersede agency authorities and responsibilities. Funding Recommendation:
None
2. Develop a Water Quality Research and Marketing Campaign. The task force recommends a
marketing campaign be undertaken by public agencies and other organizations to rekindle the
conservation ethic in all Iowans. Surveys indicate citizen's desire for improvement in water
quality. Other surveys show that citizens don't understand the problems with local water
quality. Funding Recommendation: $1 million for year one development
3. Larger (Regional) Watershed Assessment, Planning and Prioritization. The state should
support creating, publishing and updating periodically a Regional Watershed Assessment (RWA)
program at a larger watershed scale, such as the Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC - a federal term
that delineates watersheds) 8 scale. There are approximately 56 HUC 8 size watershed units
delineated in Iowa. A goal is to assess 11 HUC 8 size watersheds per year for 5 years to
eventually cover the entire state. The Rapid Watershed Assessment tool used by Iowa NRCS, for
example, is one assessment process that may be used. A regular review and update of these
assessments should also be planned. Funding recommendation: $5 million annually
4. Smaller (Community-Based) Watershed Assessment, Planning, Prioritization and
Implementation. Once a regional watershed assessment is completed at the HUC 8 scale,
planned projects of a manageable scope can be implemented. Priority sub-watersheds at a HUC
12 or smaller scale can reasonably be recruited and provided more resources for planning. A
sub-watershed plan should include objectives, a thorough local assessment of the physical,
social, and financial resources of the watershed, an analysis of the alternatives, and an
implementation plan that includes an evaluation process to measure results. Funding
Recommendation: $5 million annually.
Support for Smaller (Community-Based) Watershed Monitoring and Measurement. In
addition to current support for water monitoring, the state should provide technical and
financial support for locally-based watershed monitoring and measurement. This monitoring
would be custom designed to provide information on essential water resource questions facing
the community. Local communities would first be able to use this information to support
enhanced planning, local data collection, and thus helping them identify priority areas to target
limited resources. Funding Recommendations: $2.5 million annually.
20
9/18/09: Includes Changes from 9/15/09 WRCC Subcommittee Meeting
6. Wastewater and Stormwater Treatment Infrastructure. We all live in a watershed. Impacts to
water quality come from a variety of sources, including both rural and urban, nonpoint and
point sources. Challenges for point sources and communities can have a significant impact on
watershed conditions from storm water and wastewater. Aging wastewater and combined
sewer/storm water infrastructure issues are having negative impacts on water quality. Also,
compliance with current and future water quality standards may be cost-prohibitive for many
communities. Funding Recommendation: None.
21
9/18/09: Includes Changes from 9/15/09 WRCC Subcommittee Meeting
EXHIBIT 4
PRELIMINARY LIST: STATUS OF PRIOR FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT-RELATED LEGISLATION
Compiled by Legislative Services Agency:
2002
SF 2145/hf2469 Water Qualtiy Improvements -- passed but not floodplain
HCR 106 Water Quality Interim Study Resolution --water quality interim committee resolution but didn't
pass
SF 2213 Clean Water Revolving Loan --not floodplain and did not pass
2003
HF 525 Environmental Oversight Council -- passed house not senate and created a new Committee
HF 495 Flooding Prevention Act --introduced in Local Government Committee but never passed
2004
HF 2120 Water Quality Interim Study --Did not pass
HF 2104 Watershed Districts --Created a watershed task force. Did not pass
2005
HF 200 Clean Water Standards--WIRE was established and projects can included in floodplain
SF 329 Water Quality Program --didn't pass
HF 291 Water Qualtiy Protection Fund --didn't pass
2006
SF 2363 Water Quality Standards -- passed
2007
SF 495 Water Quality Inititiave --didn't pass
SF 600 Water quality Program --didn't pass
HF 626 Water Quality annual assessment -didn't pass
2008
HF 2672 Water Resource Management Appropriations Bill --didn't pass
2009
SF 367 --Floodplain Urban Standards --didn't pass
HF 742 Flood Recovery Bill --didn't pass
HF 268 Floodplain Map Plan ---didn't pass
HF 759--Flood Insurance for Cities & Counties -- passed
SSB 1069 -- Flood Impact Prevention --didn't pass
SF 370 -- Flood Center Basin Study --didn't pass
SF 458 -Storm Water Fees -didn't pass
HF 756 -Floodplain Management Recommendations -passed
22