The multibillion-dollar burden to fix the state?s Chesapeake Bay watershed is justified because of poor planning and high engineering and construction costs, experts say.
“It?s not a simple as filling in a hole,” said Jenn Aiosa, a senior scientist with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.
“These projects are heavily engineered and have to be maintained to perform the way they are designed.”
State lawmakers are grappling with creating a fund that would cover the more than $5 billion in damage to the watershed caused by impervious surface runoff. In Anne Arundel, the cost is estimated at $1.3 billion.
Officials and taxpayers were concerned about being taxed for stream restoration when so many other taxes and fees are collected by local and state governments to do just that.
The reason why so much money is needed is that fixing urban problems, mainly controlling storm runoff, requires extensive engineering and heavy construction.
About 80 percent of the urban area around the Bay was developed prior to modern stormwater management techniques, said Tom Schueler, an expert with the Chesapeake Stormwater Network. Engineering costs alone are twice as much in a retrofit project as they are in a new development.
“In a green field setting, you have all sorts of choices and space to work with,” Schueler said. “In urban areas, you?re more constrained by utilities, space and private property. It?s much cheaper to do [stormwater management] when developing the project rather than decades later.”
Another reason for high costs is that damage done to one small area has residual impact to the rest of the watershed.
“You need to do it in a certain order to make sure the project isn?t going be destroyed upstream by another problem ? otherwise, what?s the sense of fixing when you?re going be back again in a few years?” asked Ted Scott, founder of Hunt Valley-based Applied Stormwater, a consulting and engineering firm.
Costs could drop, as stormwater management firms grow and create competition during the bidding process.
The state?s proposed stormwater fund will generate $50 million.
“Compared to $5 billion, $50 million looks insignificant,” Aiosa said. “But the way we?re looking at it, $50 million is better than zero.”
AT A GLANCE
Stormwater management experts and engineers say pinpointing an “average” cost for projects is difficult, but to their best estimate, it can cost $3,000 to $25,000 per impervious acre treated for stormwater projects on new development, and up to $50,000 per impervious acre treated for retrofitting current urban development.
