Case study
CoNstraiNts faCiNg tHe
implemeNtatioN of tHe greater
New orleaNs urBaN water plaN
Annabel Visschedijk en Frans van de Ven*
On September 6th of last year the Greater New Orleans Urban Water Plan
(UWP) was presented. A comprehensive plan which addresses flooding caused by heavy rainfall and soil subsidence caused by excessive drainage. Every year parts of the Greater New Orleans Area flood due to severe rainfall events in spring and summer. New Orleans receives an average annual rainfall of approximately 1600 mm. As illustrated in figure 1 the amount can be distributed very unevenly over the area. The drainage system is not able to cope with such events. This is made increasingly difficult by the ongoing subsidence in New Orleans. Due to excessive freeboard in the drainage system in combination with the soft, peaty marshland soils, the land dries out and subsides. The major goals of the UWP are to increase flood safety, provide economic opportunity, and improve quality of life. These goals can be achieved by taking a new approach to water management in New Orleans: by reintroducing water into the city, making use of best management practices as pervious pavement and subsurface storage and introducing multiple lines of flood defense.1 The project area of the UWP includes St. Bernard Parish
and the east banks of Orleans and Jefferson Parish.
* Ir. Annabel visschedijk (TU Delft, thans Witteveen en Bos); Dr. ir. Frans van de ven (TU Delft, Deltares).
The next step is to implement the UWP. In literature several constraints can be found when wanting
to implement such integrated urban storm water management plans. Most of these constraints have been acknowledged for some time and are found to be more socio-institutional rather than technical in nature. For example, Brown & Farrelly (2009)2 discovered 12
constraint types after analyzing 53 different studies in the field of integrated urban water management and other similar fields. Uncoordinated institutional framework, limits of regulatory framework, and unclear, fragmented roles and responsibilities were a few of the more common constraints found. In this paper the results are presented of a systematic scan to identify the constraints facing the implementation of the UWP. First the approach and methodology to conduct this research will be presented. The identified constraints will be given and discussed, followed by a discussion on potential ways to overcome these constraints.
methodology
staKeholder analysisand
organizational structure
The first step was to identify the organizational structure for drainage and pluvial flood protection by making a stakeholder analysis. As a first step, the most important stakeholders were interviewed. The first interviews were conducted with stakeholders identified from reports, news articles, documents and websites. Other relevant stakeholders were identified with a snowballing process, by asking the interviewees who they also considered important for the implementation of the Urban Water Plan and why. With the data from the documents and interviews a complete representation of all the departments and entities that are or could be related to the implementation of the UWP was made.
The organizational structure in the project area turned out to be rather complex, with entities at local, regional and state level. The responsibility of the drainage
system is organized differently in each parish. Jefferson Parish has the Drainage Department which is part of the Department of Public Works. In Orleans Parish the Sewerage and Water Board and the Department of Public Works both have responsibilities towards the drainage system. The Sewerage and Water Board is responsible for drainage pipes with a diameter larger than 80 cm and all the pumps, while the Department of Public Works is responsible for all other components. In St. Bernard Parish the drainage system is the
responsibility of the regional Lake Borgne Basin Levee District which is part of the South East Louisiana Flood Protection District. This flood protection authority also has sub-districts in East Jefferson and Orleans, but they are not responsible for the drainage system there. The organizational structure which is responsible for all the different aspects of the UWP contains even more entities and departments than the ones mentioned here.
chain model
In the partly structured interviews stakeholders were asked about their role and position in the implementation process and which constraints needed consideration. The constraints that were identified were put in the analytical framework of the chain model. The chain model is a tool developed by the Dutch Ministry of Public Works and Water Management to develop a new way of policy making, since this was becoming more and more integrated and complex3.
The model consists of a chain of five elements: policy, legislation, implementation, maintenance and control, and organization, including the organization of funding for the plan; see also figure 2. Basically, what the policymakers decide in the first component influences the work of all the stakeholders in the next components. The idea of the chain model is that
different stakeholders from each of these components should be involved in policy development from the very beginning.
This chain model framework however seem applicable as a framework for analysis; all components of the chain should be sufficiently covered to successfully implement a plan such as the UWP. A weakness in any of the five chain model components seriously threatens a successful implementation of any plan. Interviews with stakeholders and thorough review of local documents are ways to find weaknesses in this coverage. The advantage of interviews over a mere document review is that both factual, formal barriers and weaknesses are recorded as well as emotional or presumed ones.
During the interviews it became clear that there was another initial obstacle that was not yet covered by the chain model, namely the fact that political decision makers have not yet adopted the UWP as to wanting to implement it. Their active involvement was limited, though they supported the development of the plan. A regional economic development alliance called Greater New Orleans Inc. was the commissioning entity. The plan was received enthusiastically by the local authorities, but a formal political approbation was never foreseen. Therefore there is another component that should be taken into consideration in our evaluation framework: politics. The plan first has to go through a political approval process before it can become formal policy. Politics comes with its own constraints, which should be overcome before the plan can be implemented.
results & Discussion
The results of the document analysis and interviews are shown in table 1. It shows all the 15 interviewees
Figure 1:
Rainfall event in
New Orleans on 8 May 1995,
a 1 in 100 year event
and the constraints they identified. The recorded constraints are organized by the chain model.
politics
Getting buy-in from the local politicians, the neighborhoods and the general public has been identified as a constraint by most of the interviewees, as well as getting buy-in from the public officials. Public buy-in was considered most important since the public officials or local politicians will only support this plan explicitly when there is enough buy-in from the general public. According to the interviewees this requires a paradigm shift at all levels, a new way of thinking about the way drainage is done.
Some interviewees mentioned that an education component was very important to get needed buy-in and to acquire the paradigm shift. In order to see how well the general public was informed on topics such as water management, urban drainage and subsidence, and how willing they are towards the UWP, a small survey was conducted in the Lakeview neighborhood in Orleans Parish. 19 unselected participants were asked about what they knew on water management and subsidence and were also asked to rate several strategies of the UWP. About half of the participants knew what water management and subsidence meant. But more importantly, all the strategies scored higher than 4 out of 5 points. This shows that it might be relatively easy to get the general public on board. The question probably should be how much buy-in do you actually need to get political support for the UWP?
policy & legislation
A lack of both policies and legislation was identified as a constraint. Policies and legislation were said to be needed as incentive to implement measures from the UWP. Examples could be that all new developments need to retain their drainage water surplus on their property.
At a federal level the only legislation on water is the Clean Water Act, but this piece of legislation focuses on water quality, not on water quantity. The EPA is currently busy with more progressive legislature to reduce storm water discharges on new and redeveloped sites. This rulemaking also has a focus towards water quality instead of water quantity and flood protection. At a parish level there are codes and ordinances on for example zoning and planning. Orleans Parish is currently working on the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, legislation that oversees land use in the parish, both publicly and privately owned. This Ordinance includes requirements on retaining storm
water on site. Jefferson and St. Bernard Parish don’t have these kind of regulations or incentives.
implementation & maintenance
Problems with proposed reconstruction measures being on private property and on very developed land was a frequently mentioned constraint, since real estate acquisition would be a huge challenge. A lot of the interviewees also have health and safety concerns with the measures in the UWP. New Orleans is notorious for vector borne diseases like West Nile and vegetation grows very fast due to the climate. Therefore the general public may not be that supportive of storm water retention areas. There are concerns that the rain gardens and bioswales as proposed in the UWP will overgrow and become mosquito breeding sites. Interviewees did not know whose responsibility maintenance of the new drainage facilities would be. Is it the individual property owner, the nearest commercial property owner, a neighborhood association, the parish government and if so, which department of the parish government or another entity? Some departments have bad experiences with rain gardens in the past, due to a lack of
maintenance. And there is also the belief that the UWP measures require more maintenance than the current infrastructure.
Some of these comments show that the interviewees are not familiar with the UWP. For example, a lot of the strategies require reconstruction of streets and parks, but there are no areas in the plan where houses or other buildings will be demolished or real estate acquisition is needed. Also, a general rule that has been applied in the UWP is to keep wet places wet and dry places dry, meaning that retention areas should be emptied within 48 hours to prevent mosquitoes from breeding. Moreover the relation between drainage and land subsidence is not commonly recognized. Subsidence is responsible for a lot of maintenance costs, due to the damages it causes to roads and utilities.
organization
Since drainage and pluvial flood protection of the project area has a rather complex organizational structure, it is bound to cause some constraints for implementation of the UWP. Unclear is what the role is going to be of each of these entities and what their jurisdiction should be in order to make the Urban Water Plan implementable. Currently, there is no entity responsible for groundwater monitoring and land subsidence. Expertise on these issues is hardly available in the managing organizations. And then there is
Politics
Get buy-in from the people from the general public Get buy-in from civic groups in neighborhoods
Get buy-in from the public officials
Paradigm shift
Policy
Different policies of entities or parishes
Lack in policy
Commitment to policy (enforcement)
Legislation
Lack in legislation
Implementation
Less talk, more action
Problems with projects areas: on private property;
very developed/availability of land; underground utilities Health and safety concerns: access to water for kids;
pollutants in the water; mosquito breeding
Maintenance and Control
Responsibility of maintenance and control
Lack of maintenance
More maintenance needed
Practical issues: getting material on the right location;
no mosquito problem
Organization
Responsibility of the different aspects of the UWP Structural changes within the city due to change of mayor
Fragmentation (local/regional)
Coordination
Regional plan, local responsibility
Cooperation and agreement between entities and parishes
Funding
Thomas Strategies, LL
T. Arcadis Regional Planning Committee U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Water and Sewer Division of St. Bernard Parish Department of Public W
orks of St. Bernard Parish Lake Borgne Basin Levee District General Superintendents Office of the SWB of Orleans Parish Executive Directors Office of the SWB of Orleans Parish Department of Environmental Affairs of the SWB of Orleans Parish
Department of Public W
orks of Orleans Parish Department of Parks and Parkways of Orleans Parish Mosquito, Rodent and T
ermite Control of Orleans Parish DPW of Jefferson Parish Department of Environmental Affairs of Jefferson Parish
funding, the most frequently mentioned constraint. Each of the entities has limited budgets for operation, maintenance, reconstruction and redevelopment of the drainage system.
The UWP needs a regional effort if it wants to succeed in achieving the goals. Large scale aspects of the plan, such as a circulating system with connected canals throughout the project area and projects that cross parish boundaries, will require coordination between parishes. Due to the fragmented responsibilities in the parishes this will be difficult. Adaptations proposed in the UWP can roughly be divided into four key components, the mayor drainage system, the minor drainage system, groundwater and green infrastructure. In for example Orleans Parish the first is the responsibility of the Sewerage and Water Board, the second of the Department of Public Works and the third and fourth are not any entity’s jurisdiction. Apart from funding of implementation of the UWP, also a secure long term funding for maintenance needs to be found. This could require a raise in taxes or millages. However, the last time the Sewerage and Water Board requested a raise, this was denied since there is distrust in proper spending of these budgets by public entities.
conclusion
Quite a lot of constraints to a successful
implementation of the UWP have been identified. Even though some of these constraints can easily be overcome, implementation will be a big challenge. It will first have to start with changing the mindset of politicians and public officials, who set the priorities in the parishes, and the entities responsible for drainage and pluvial flood protection. A shift from a “pumps and pipes” drainage system to a more natural way of dealing with storm water is required. There are a lot of questions that still need to be answered to be able to continue with implementation of the plan. For many stakeholders it is mainly questions about responsibilities. Who is responsible for the different components of the Urban Water Plan like monitoring of subsidence and long term maintenance? Are local stakeholders willing to join forces to for example create a regional entity that will be responsible for urban drainage in the whole project area. Structural changes in policy, legislation and the organizational structure seem necessary to insure implementation and maintenance afterwards. Assigning responsibilities to some entities, making policies and legislation that incentivize implementation of the Urban Water Plan, enforcing this legislation and coming up with a secure long term funding scheme are actions to create institutional conditions for implementation. A way must be found to get stakeholders and political decision makers around the table and discuss these components. Creating commitment is the first step in the challenge to implement the Greater New Orleans
Urban Water Plan. M
1 Waggonner & Ball Architects. (2013). Greater New Orleans Urban Water Plan – Vision. New Orleans: Waggonner & Ball Architects.
2 Brown, R. R., & Farrelly, M. A. (2009). Delivering sustainable urban water management: a review of the hurdles we face. Water Science & Technology 59, 839-846. 3 Adviesunit Resultaatgericht Beleid van het Ministerie
van Verkeer en Waterstaat. (1997). Resultaatgericht Beleid. Advies bij Beleidsontwikkeling, Communicatie en Samenwerking. Den Haag: Drukkerij Deltadruk.
SAmEnvAttInG
In september 2013 is het Greater New Orleans Urban Water Plan (UWP) gepresenteerd. Een masterplan met als doel om de kansen op overstromingen door neerslag te verkleinen en het verzakken van New Orleans te beperken. De volgende stap is om het UWP daadwerkelijk te implementeren. Een veel voorkomend probleem bij de implementatie van dergelijke masterplannen is het overwinnen van institutionele barrières als een onduidelijke organisatiestructuur, gefragmenteerde rolverdelingen en verantwoordelijkheden en beperkte of niet bijpassende regelgeving. In dit artikel is onderzocht wat de barrières zijn in New Orleans die de implementatie van het UWP tegenhouden. Barrières zijn gevonden binnen alle componenten van het ketenmodel van Rijkswaterstaat: beleid, regelgeving, implementatie, controle en onderhoud en organisatie. Daarnaast bleek ook politiek een cruciale rol te spelen voor de implementatie van het UWP, er zal eerst draagvlak gecreëerd moeten worden onder de bevolking en de lokale politici. Deze en andere barrières, zoals het verdelen van (nieuwe) verantwoordelijkheden, een andere manier van omgaan met water door de verantwoordelijke organisaties en zorgen voor financiering op de korte en lange termijn, zullen de implementatie van het UWP tot een grote uitdaging maken.
