From Rooftop to River: The Legal and
Administrative Basis for Managing
Stormwater Through Low-Impact
Development
Thomas Ruppert, J.D.
UF IFAS & UF Levin College of Law’s
Conservation Clinic
Outline
6 Legal Framework
6 Current Situation
6 Legal and Administrative Options
UF Water Inst. Symposium, Feb. 27, 2008 | 2
Legal Framework
6 Federal:
Š “Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems”
Š TMDL
Š Delegated to State
6 State Environmental Resource Permits
Š 80-95% reduction or post ≤ pre
6 Local gov’t regulation
6 Implementation by design criteria
UF Water Inst. Symposium, Feb. 27, 2008 | 3
Current Situation: Water Quality Violations
St. Johns River 2005
UF Water Inst. Symposium, Feb. 27, 2008 | 4
LID Adoption in
Other Jurisdictions
6 Prince George’s
Cty., MD
6 Portland, OR
6 Island Cty, WA
UF Water Inst. Symposium, Feb. 27, 2008 | 5
Current Situation: Stormwater Permitting
6 Permits to individual lots:
Š Too many permits
Š Operation and maintenance maybe not reliable
with individuals
Š Monitoring more resource intensive
Š Enforcement against individuals unpopular
UF Water Inst. Symposium, Feb. 27, 2008 | 6
Legal & Administrative Options
6 Condominium development model
6 Modified HOAs incorporating an
independent third party
6 Community Development Districts (CDDs)
UF Water Inst. Symposium, Feb. 27, 2008 | 7
Legal & Administrative Options:
HOAs and LID
6 HOA Advantage:
Š Control uses of private property
6 Disadvantages:
Š Internal politics, disorganization sometimes
render HOAs ineffective
Š WMDs hesitant to accept as legal entity for
assurance of long-term O&M for LID
UF Water Inst. Symposium, Feb. 27, 2008 | 8
Legal & Administrative Options:
Modified HOAs
6 Modified HOA governing documents
Š Require contract with 3d party
Š Require assessments for contract
Š Specify fines
Š Permitting authority may fine HOA for
violations on individual parcels
Š Educational component funding and structure
Š Incorporate design plan of LID structures and
detailed easements
UF Water Inst. Symposium, Feb. 27, 2008 | 9
Legal & Administrative Options:
6 Community Dev. Dist. advantages:
Š Express statutory authority
Š Must have a board of supervisors and district
manager
Š Many of the powers of local governments
Š Financial: bonds, special assessments assessed
as part of tax rolls
Š Expressly authorized to deal with “water
management”
UF Water Inst. Symposium, Feb. 27, 2008 | 10
Legal & Administrative Options:
CDDs
6 CDD disadvantages:
Š Expensive to create
Š A 2000 case found that CDDs lack the authority
to enforce CCRs
Š Case gave rise to legislation
UF Water Inst. Symposium, Feb. 27, 2008 | 11
Legal & Administrative Options:
CDDs
6 Use detailed easements based on water
plan in conjunction with an HOA
Š Easements based on engineering drawings
Š Recorded in favor of CDD and local gov’t/ WMD
Š Forbids property owner from interference with
LID element; owner must pay for damage
Š CDD obligated to monitor, maintain and repair
6 HOA CCRs limit impervious area
6 HOA or CDD responsible for education
UF Water Inst. Symposium, Feb. 27, 2008 | 12
Conclusion
6 TMDLs and water quality violations forcing
adoption of LID techniques
6 LID presents unique issues for long-term
operation and maintenance
6 Larger homeowners’ associations may be
designed to offer maintenance & operation
6 Community Development Districts offer
potential for large developments
6 Any plan must include an educational
component
UF Water Inst. Symposium, Feb. 27, 2008 | 13
QUESTIONS?
Thomas Ruppert
Assistant in Environmental Law
UF IFAS & UF Levin College of Law’s
Conservation Clinic
[email protected]
UF Water Inst. Symposium, Feb. 27, 2008 | 14