Water Quality
Healthy water is fundamental to the wellbeing of the region’s residents, economy, and ecosystems. Steps should be taken now to protect the quality of the region’s surface and ground waters for future generations. Nonpoint source pollution poses the biggest threat to water quality. This is especially true in the built environment, where polluted runoff flows off streets and lawns and through stormwater sewers directly into local waterways.
The impacts of runoff on water quality can be lessened by reducing both the pollutants contained in runoff and the volume of runoff. Ideally, stormwater should flow primarily through green infrastructure, which alleviates the demands placed on traditional stormwater systems by allowing water to infiltrate the soil. This protects water quality by reducing the amount of runoff and filtering out many pollutants through natural processes. Green infrastructure should be coupled with improvements to grey infrastructure that manages remaining stormwater flows to protect water quality. This type of stormwater management also provides a degree of flood mitigation.
Watershed Planning
Municipalities and their partners should take a watershed approach to water quality, pursuing EPA 319 Grants to assist in limiting non-point source pollution where possible.
Stakeholders’ involvement will help to ensure the adoption and success of watershed plans. Involvement should be diverse, wide-spread, and meaningful and should include farmers, industry, residents (both urban and rural) and the conservation community. Stakeholders should inform the plan and drive its implementation.
Current water quality metrics should be measured and serve as a baseline. Locally determined, measurable goals for water quality improvements and key metrics to track progress should be established.
Goals should include water quality targets for source waters, sediment control, nutrient runoff, and stakeholder priorities. Target levels should line up with federal, state and local standards.
On-going data collection should be used to track progress, make scientifically based decisions, and ensure progress toward water quality goals. This will require that the resources for regular monitoring be secured.
Institutional capacity for monitoring and implementation should be considered before establishing goals and monitoring protocols.
Records should be kept of the water quality protections applied and the resulting impact on water quality to build upon successes. Adjustments and further investments should be made accordingly. This will rely on regular monitoring of key metrics.
Watershed plans should aim to include and facilitate cross-community projects lead by diverse groups.
Plans should be reviewed annually and adjusted to capitalize on what works and to omit what does not work. Community organizations and leaders should be involved in the review process and updates provided to key stakeholders.
Municipal laws and policies affecting water quality, as well as implementation and enforcement mechanisms, should be reviewed. The review should include land use, transportation systems, and zoning ordinances. Policies, regulations and enforcement mechanisms should be strengthened, abandoned, and/or introduced based on this review.
Potential jurisdictional issues should be identified and addressed through intergovernmental agreements between states, counties, or municipalities. This should include source water identification and monitoring and address both water quality and water availability.
Point Source Pollution
Local government should establish or enforce existing industrial pollution limits, pollution offsetting programs, and fines. They should further ensure that the resources and mechanisms to enforce these regulations are in place.
Well-functioning wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) are vital to public health and clean water. The age and condition of WWTPs should be assessed along with the need for and timing of critical upgrades. Municipalities should plan in advance to secure the necessary resources for plant upgrades. Low interest revolving loans from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) may help with this. https://www2.illinois.gov/epa/topics/grants-loans/state-revolving-fund
Local government should identify, monitor, and plan to proactively address possible sources of contamination, such as brownfields, superfund sites, aging pipes, microplastics, and PFAs, all of which can threaten public health and the environment.
Non-Point Source Pollution
Urban and developed lands are significant contributors of non-point source pollution because the impervious nature of roads, parking lots, etc. result in exceptionally high volumes of runoff. Increasing the proportion of pervious surfaces in the built environment will have a profound effect on water quality and should be a priority of urban and suburban centers across the region.
Residents and commercial properties should be encouraged through outreach, education, and public ordinance to responsibly irrigate, fertilize, and mow lawns. Other contributors to poor water quality that may need to be addressed, depending on local behaviors, include pet waste, pesticides, and leaf litter disposal.
Outreach should target HOA’s, landscapers, and golf courses. Recognition or certification of some sort should be given to those following best practices.
Ageing and poorly designed and maintained septic systems are not only a contributor to poor water quality but also pose a health hazard. Programs should be developed, reviewed, and strengthened to reduce or eliminate septage contributions to ground and surface waters.
Naturally occurring water contaminants, such as arsenic, fluoride, and radium pose a risk to human health and should be monitored, particularly in groundwater supplies tapped by private wells.
Although not part of the developed landscape, agricultural areas form a significant portion of many watersheds. There are those in the agricultural community (at all levels) that are working aggressively to reduce nutrient inputs from farm fields to waterways. Avenues for urban residents and farmers to work cooperatively to address runoff and pollution within their shared watersheds should be explored and pursued.
Efforts to improve the water holding capacity of urban soils (parks, yards, roadsides) by rebuilding soil health should be promoted and supported. Soils that hold water reduce runoff, nutrient loss, and help to limit flooding. Some of the soil health practices being used by farmers could be employed in urban areas.
Stormwater
Stormwater management should prioritize water quality alongside flood control and begin to frame their work as a public and environmental health service.
Municipalities might consider creating a stormwater utility that collects fees to fund stormwater management programs. Fees should be scaled relative to the control and treatment of stormwater (properties producing more runoff pay more in fees).
Combine sewer overflows (CSO) are a public health hazard and contribute to poor water quality. Where CSO’s are a problem, an evaluation of possible controls and their current and future impact on the environment should be completed. Sewer separation should be pursued where appropriate and other CSO controls where it is not. While sewer separation will likely eliminate CSOs it can be costly and have a negative impact on water quality once stormwater is no longer treated before being released into local waterbodies.
Daylighting capped infrastructure, physically uncovering and restoring buried streams particularly in the built environment, reduces polluted runoff, limits flash flooding and keeps water out of combine sewer systems thereby limiting CSOs. It reduces maintenance costs and those associated with flooding. In addition to improved water quality, daylighting also creates wildlife habitat and connectivity. And, because it generally improves aesthetics, daylighting can also boost community and economic vitality.
Green Infrastructure
The Green Values Stormwater Calculator, http://greenvalues.cnt.org/, can help municipalities perform a cost/benefit analysis and make a case for green infrastructure. Green infrastructure reduces the need for grey infrastructure investments and is itself more cost effective than traditional infrastructure.
Municipal lands like roadways, schools, parks and city buildings should incorporate green infrastructure.
Green infrastructure can contribute to the greening of urban communities and combat the formation of urban heat islands. Green infrastructure investments should prioritize communities that lack access to green space and are likely to suffer most the effects of climate change.
IEPA Clean Water State Revolving Fund can be used to help municipalities with the cost of green infrastructure projects. https://www2.illinois.gov/epa/topics/grants-loans/state-revolving-fund.
Tax incentives, zoning, and unified development ordinances should encourage green infrastructure in new residential, commercial, and industrial developments.
Where stormwater fees exist, creation of a stormwater fee credit program to incentivize green infrastructure should be considered.
Unified Development Ordinances should encourage native landscaping which has far greater infiltration rates than traditional landscaping and functions as green infrastructure.
Green infrastructure retrofits in the built environment should be encouraged through policy and tax incentives to improve stormwater management and return some degree of ecosystem service to these lands.