IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i7p1913-d218505.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stormwater Utility Fees and Credits: A Funding Strategy for Sustainability

Author

Listed:
  • Jerry Zhirong Zhao

    (Humphrey School of Public Affairs- University of Minnesota, 301 19th Ave S, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
    Current address: Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs, 301 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Camila Fonseca

    (Humphrey School of Public Affairs- University of Minnesota, 301 19th Ave S, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
    Current address: Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs, 301 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Raihana Zeerak

    (Humphrey School of Public Affairs- University of Minnesota, 301 19th Ave S, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
    Current address: Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs, 301 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

Abstract

Lack of stable and dedicated funding has been a primary challenge for municipalities in the United States to implement effective stormwater management programs. Stormwater utility fees (SUFs), as user fees, are an alternative dedicated revenue source to fund stormwater management. When complemented with stormwater utility credits or discounts, SUFs provide greater flexibility to adopting best management practices and reducing stormwater runoff at a lower overall cost to the community. While SUFs have been increasingly used, there is little systematic research on this topic. This paper reviews literature on how SUFs work, discusses the mechanisms for setting the fees, and provides examples of different rate structures from across the U.S. Then, we use the findings of the literature to evaluate SUFs as a funding strategy for stormwater management based on four revenue evaluation criteria of efficiency, equity, revenue adequacy, and feasibility. Overall, the literature indicates that stormwater utility fees are a more efficient and environmentally sustainable source of revenue that allows for long-range planning of capital improvements and operations, but their high political visibility and legal obstacles can affect their effective implementation. However, more empirical research is needed to assess these propositions. There is a lack of literature on effective SUF designs, equitable fee types, the extent to which SUFs lead to change in public behavior and their impact on business and stormwater management investments in a municipality.

Suggested Citation

  • Jerry Zhirong Zhao & Camila Fonseca & Raihana Zeerak, 2019. "Stormwater Utility Fees and Credits: A Funding Strategy for Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-15, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:7:p:1913-:d:218505
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/7/1913/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/7/1913/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Carlos Novaes & Rui Marques, 2022. "Stormwater Utilities: A Sustainable Answer to Many Questions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-15, May.
    2. Kelsey Peterson & Emily Apadula & David Salvesen & Miyuki Hino & Rebecca Kihslinger & Todd K. BenDor, 2020. "A Review of Funding Mechanisms for US Floodplain Buyouts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-20, December.
    3. Jim Lee & Hua Zhang & Yuxia Huang, 2024. "Toward a more socially equitable stormwater management fee: The case of Corpus Christi in Texas, USA," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 51(4), pages 939-953, May.
    4. Joanna Boguniewicz-Zabłocka & Andrea G. Capodaglio, 2020. "Analysis of Alternatives for Sustainable Stormwater Management in Small Developments of Polish Urban Catchments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-19, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:7:p:1913-:d:218505. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.