Using Triple Bottom Line Benefits Scoring to Prioritize Infrastructure Spending in Baltimore

In June 2012 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a potentially historic guidance document that encouraged municipalities to use an Integrated Planning Framework (IPF) approach to maximize infrastructure improvement dollars through an appropriate sequencing of work. Municipalities had long been lobbying through groups such as the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA), the Water Environment Federation (WEF) and others to convince EPA to consider the many water-related financial obligations municipalities were facing to meet the myriad of Safe Drinking Water and Clean Water Act requirements. In the IPF guidance, the EPA began to acknowledge the regulatory pressures on municipalities, particularly those municipalities with consent decrees under the Clean Water Act.Under the IPF guidance, municipalities are allowed to develop an approach to prioritize capital funding of those projects that generate the most environmental benefits. The approach encourages “sustainable and comprehensive solutions, including green infrastructure” that meet regulatory requirements, but may require re-structuring of existing enforcement actions or modification of discharge permits. Municipal participation in the IPF approach is voluntary, but EPA Headquarters has committed to working with all Regions and State agencies to identify appropriate opportunities for implementing the IPF approach.The City of Baltimore, Maryland, is one of the first municipalities in the country to develop an IPF approach. The City is facing significant challenges in funding all of the regulatory agency mandates for each of their utilities. The Water Utility must cover finished drinking water reservoirs under the Long Term Enhanced Surface Water Rule (the LT2 Rule). The Wastewater Utility is under a 2002 Consent Decree that requires costly improvements for both capacity improvements and proactive operation and maintenance to eliminate sanitary sewer overflows. The newly formed Stormwater Utility is faced with stringent Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit requirements. Both the Wastewater and Stormwater Utilities will have to meet ever more stringent Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) allocations for discharges to the Chesapeake Bay.Under the new IPF, the City developed a system to maximize improvement dollars through an appropriate sequencing of work in accordance with EPA guidance provisions. Different infrastructure configuration scenarios are developed to evaluate prioritization and scheduling alternatives. These scenarios range from regulatory compliance having the most importance to local stakeholder concerns having the most importance. Financial constraint parameters for the amount of water utility, wastewater utility and stormwater utility funding availability are then overlaid on the scenarios so that implementation sequences can be compared to evaluate funding scenarios versus benefit generation curves for each scenario. These benefit generation curves are based on qualitative and quantitative scores for each of 21 economic, environmental and social criteria.The City is currently negotiating a revised compliance schedule under the existing consent decree for the City’s wastewater consent decree with the EPA founded on the IPF implementation sequences and related benefits curves.This presentation will discuss the City’s consensus building process to develop a scoring system for triple bottom line (TBL) benefits and will describe the resulting integrated prioritization for the City’s water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure improvement projects.