Stronger Storm Water Standards Will Reduce Flood
Risks in Prince George’s County
Author: Victor O. Ukpolo; Clean Water Fund and Prince George’s County Clean Water Coalition
Flood Prone Communities
There are many flood prone structures located in the older, highly urbanized “inner beltway
communities” of Prince George’s County. Communities such as
Edmonston, Capitol Heights, Seat Pleasant, Wilburn, Fairmont
Heights, Colmar Manor, College Park, Hyattsville, Riverdale,
Riverdale Heights, Riverdale Hills, Crestwood, and Green belt
(Figure 1). Many of these structures are located on stream banks
that are downhill, or downstream of large developed areas that
were not built to retain storm water sufficiently. Thus,
downstream properties located in flood prone areas receive
greater risks from stream bank overflows causing floods.
According to the Association of Floodplain Managers, “our
society has transported runoff and flood waters through the
watershed by using structural interventions (such as concrete
lining, revetments, floodwalls, jetties, diversions, and dams and
reservoirs) that interrupt or negatively modify natural
environments. These structures change the natural movement
of water in one or more ways such as altering the speed,
restricting movement across the floodplain, and changing
sediment loads downstream. “Floodwalls and levees increase
flow discharge and elevation when they constrict high flows
into a narrow path.” (Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 2010) Developments that rely on these out dated
forms of “structural interventions” and do not utilize the natural
environment contribute to water quality and flooding issues
downstream.
Figure 1. Prince George’s County
Flood Prone Structures
Negative Community Impacts
Flooding impacts communities all across Prince George’s County. There is flooding which may
occur inside the Special Flood Hazard Area (100 year flood plain) and localized flooding which occurs
more often outside that area. In addition, many property owners outside the Special Flood Hazard Area
(100 year floodplain) do not have flood insurance and cannot receive assistance from standard home
owner’s insurance for flood damage (Prince George's County Department of Environmental Resources,
2011).They must purchase flood insurance, or deal with the costs of replacing, or repairing carpet, floor
panels, insulation, mattresses may have been damaged as a result of low storm water retention
upstream. Geographically, these property owners also are living in the low lying areas, downstream in
local watersheds.
According to FEMA, as a result of localized flooding, which often occurs outside the 100 year
flood plain, residents must tolerate the following:

Disrupted traffic patterns due to large water puddles (e.g. bridges crossing waterways)

Blocked driveways (including entrances to large commercial properties)

Blocked streets

Deteriorating buildings, damaged sidewalks and streets due to accelerate aging caused by water
damage. These infrastructure damages attribute to the negative appearances of communities,
commonly classified as urban blight.
These local flooding problems get worse overtime as development increases for lack of action to
retain more storm water onsite (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2005). The County must go
beyond minimum flood management standards by implementing stronger storm water retention
standards to eliminate downstream flooding.
County Costs
During the last 30 years, the federal government has allocated 2.8 billion taxpayer dollars to pay
claims associated with losses due to localized flooding (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2005).
These costs are expected to increase in communities that have not taken adequate action to reduce
flood risks (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2005). According to the Department of
Environmental Resources, “there are approximately 25
new drainage projects initiated each year as a result of
“More and more studies are showing
either homeowner complaints, referrals by other
that natural floodplain features can be
agencies, or requests by County Council Members”
more effective at controlling or
(Prince George's County Department of Environmental
Resources, 2011).
attenuating flooding and can be less
expensive over the long run than
Many drainage complaints are the result of properties
traditional human-made flood control
that have been identified as flood prone structures and
structures. These aspects
are an expensive management cost to the county. In
were reviewed by the Committee.”
addition, the Hazard Mitigation Plan for Prince George's
County and Laurel states that the damage risk from the
-- Federal Emergency Management
total 3693 flood-prone structures, including 2803 homes
Agency/Community Rating System. "Strategic
Evaluation: CRS Credit for Protecting Natural Functions
and 890 other buildings in the county was
(Draft)." Technical Report. August 2010.
$605,159,000, in 2005 (Prince George's County and The
City of Laurel Maryland, 2005). This cost does not even
include the resources dedicated by the County’s Environmental Services Group to investigate the 500
drainage complaints reported by residents every year (Prince George's County Department of
Environmental Resources, 2011). Prince George’s County can save money by requiring redevelopers to
build natural structures that eliminate the need for storm water ponds and sewer pipes, reduce storm
water overflow storage, and reduce hard infrastructure by building narrower streets, less sidewalk,
reduce storm water treatment devices, and avoiding the purchase land for ponds (Environmental
Protection Agency, 2009).
Taxpayer Costs
The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 and the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994
requires property owners receiving federal assistance to purchase homes, which are located in the
Special Flood Hazard Area (area with 1% chance of flooding during any year, or 100 year floodplain), to
receive flood insurance (Prince George's County Department of Environmental Resources). The National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which is managed by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency,
2005), provides federally backed flood insurance for jurisdictions (ex. Prince George’s County) that agree
to adopt flood management ordinances and reduce future flood risks.
Prince George’s County has participated in the NFIP since 1978 and currently has a Community
Rating of only 5 out of 10 (Prince George's County Department of Environmental Resources, 2011). The
NFIP’s Community Rating System (CRS) provides a benefit to communities by reducing flood insurance
premium rates for homeowners. According to FEMA, Prince George’s County must recertify each year
reporting its continued activities for reducing flood risks (Federal Emergency Management Agency,
2005). The County is currently undergoing the recertification process with the NFIP. Although, Prince
George’s County has an above average rating (top 3% of participating communities in the nation), it has
an opportunity to receive a higher future rating.
A higher CRS rating can be achieved through implementing the strongest storm water
regulations (storm water volume retention standards) thereby reducing localized flood risks (Prince
George's County Department of Environmental Resources, 2011). According to FEMA, the CRS
“encourages and provides credit for regulations that require developers to detain or retain excess
storm water runoff” (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2005). The CRS Storm water
Management activity’s section for a watershed master plan (WMP) provides forty points for
managing peak flows and volumes (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2010). The
program will be providing more points in the future for communities that are providing natural
functions or green infrastructure to reduce flooding and increase water quality (Federal Emergency
Management Agency, 2010). This is a cost benefit the county may take advantage of for
taxpayers.
Conclusion
Stronger storm water standards are not only good for the environment and human quality of
life, but they are also good for reducing the County’s administrative costs and taxpayers insurance
premiums. Local governments will increasingly receive credit for demanding development that has
multiple uses and solves multiple problems such as storm water runoff and flooding. In Reducing
Damage from Localized Flooding, FEMA clearly states that storm water standards include parking lot,
rooftop, and street designs that retain and release storm water runoff over time (Federal Emergency
Management Agency,2005). Although FEMA’s interest is clearly reducing damage caused from flooding,
the agency sees the benefits from dynamic structural designs using green infrastructure (See Figure 2).
Further, recent studies suggest that green infrastructure practices will have substantial local and
downstream economic benefits (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2010). “These practices can
be cheaper to construct and maintain and have a longer life-cycle cost than centralized storm water
strategies” (Federal Emergency Management Agency). The CRS points that the County can receive
through innovative storm water regulations are bound to rise, as FEMA continues to promote green
infrastructure techniques that return the largest bang for the buck.
Figure 2: Environmental Protection Agency. "Protecting Floodplains and Water Quality through LID."
Presented at ASFPM Conference, June 2009 by Dov Weitman, Chief, Nonpoint Source Control Branch.
n.d.
Works Cited
Association of State Floodplain Managers. "Natural and Beneficial Floodplain Functions:." White Paper.
2008.
Environmental Protection Agency. "Protecting Floodplains and Water Quality through LID." Presented at
ASFPM Conference, June 2009 by Dov Weitman, Chief, Nonpoint Source Control Branch. n.d.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. "Reducing Damage From Localized Flooding: A Guide to
Communities." Technical Report. June 2005. Chapters 1,2, & 3.
—. "Strategic Evaluation: CRS Credit for Protecting Natural Functions (Draft)." Technical Report. August
2010.
Prince George's County and The City of Laurel Maryland. "Hazard Mitigation Plan: Public Review Draft
2010 Update." Technical Report. 2010.
Prince George's County Department of Environmental Resources. "Flood Management ." Webpage.
http://www.princegeorgescountymd.gov/Government/AgencyIndex/DER/ppg/floodplains.asp?nivel=fol
dmenu(7). 2011.