international approaches to the hydraulic control of

a Corresponding author: [email protected]

International approaches to the hydraulic control of surface water runoff in mitigating flood and environmental risks

Bridget Woods Ballard 1, Helen Udale-Clarke 1,a, Richard Kellagher 1, Vivian Dou 2, David Powers 3, Aurélie Gerolin 4, Anthony McCloy 5 and Theo Schmitt 6 1HR Wallingford Ltd, Howbery Park, Wallingford, OX10 8BA, UK 2HR Wallingford Ltd, China 3 HR Wallingford Ltd, USA 4 Cerema, France 5 McCloy Consulting, UK 6 University of Kaiserslautern, Germany

Abstract. This paper compares and contrasts a number of international approaches to the hydraulic control of surface water runoff from new development and redevelopment, known as sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) or low impact development (LID). The paper provides a commentary on the progress and current status of national standards for SuDS in the UK to control the frequency, flow rate and volume of runoff from both frequent and extreme rainfall events, and the best practice design criteria presented in the revised UK CIRIA SuDS Manual, published in November 2015. The paper then compares these design criteria and standards with those developed and applied in China, USA, France and Germany and also looks at the drivers behind their development. The benefits of these different approaches are assessed in the context of flood risk mitigation, climate resilience and wider environmental protection objectives, including water quality, morphology and ecology. The paper also reviews the design approaches promoted by the new SuDS Manual and internationally for delivering additional benefits for urban spaces (such as recreation, visual character, education and economic growth) through multi-functional urban design.

1 Introduction Approaches to the management of surface water

runoff from urban development are undergoing a period of significant change. The efficacy and sustainability of traditional piped solutions is being questioned as climate, population and environmental pressures put the economics of such an approach in question. The need to take a more integrated approach to water management – maximising its value through all stages in the water cycle - has never been more important and surface water runoff is a crucial element of this.

Global water shortages mean that the intrinsic ‘value’ of runoff from rainfall is becoming increasingly understood and recognised in decision-making. Drivers for the use of runoff to meet non-potable supply needs (including toilet flushing, landscape and horticulture, building cooling water, vehicle cleansing etc) increase as the availability and security of water resources decrease and the costs rise. The heat stress associated with dense urban areas is being exacerbated by rising global temperatures and, with the density of urban populations rising rapidly, urban designers are looking to vegetated surfaces and water storage zones to provide essential cooling to ensure urban ‘liveability’ and community health under future climatic conditions.

In many places, more intense rainfall is another outcome of observed climatic changes and, combined with increasing urban impermeability levels (often described as ‘urban creep’), leads to the design standard of service of existing sewerage infrastructure often being lower than expected and the risk of surface water flooding therefore higher. The cost of enhancing capacity of this infrastructure is often prohibitive, so new solutions to reducing surface water loadings from existing areas and minimising loadings from new development zones are needed. The adaptability of systems, in the face of climate and urbanisation change, is also a key attribute (Ashley et al, 2015).

International environmental protection regulations (eg EU Water Framework Directive) have developed in response to recognition of the urgent need to reverse the deterioration in quality of surface waters and protect their functionality now and for future generations. Urban diffuse pollution has been identified as a significant influence on quality and morphology – principally resulting from the uncontrolled discharge of surface runoff (normally contaminated with a suite of urban surface pollutants) and spills from combined sewer overflows.

These drivers exist for both developed and developing countries and have triggered the need to

�

DOI: 10.1051/, 6E3S Web of Conferences e3sconf/201

FLOODrisk 2016 - 3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management 7 071200412004 (2016)

© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

consider draimpact of threduce the riintense rainfasource of wadischarge; asewage; and and biodivers

This papeapproaches toare changingobjectives annumber of dif

2 UnitedThe followingindustry guidaenvironment iare also a numstatutory) inclBSEN 752: 2

2.1 The n(Woo

The new systems) Manin the UK,recommendedindependentlylocal requirem2007 version ‘drainage syssustainable ddescription iopportunities water manage

Water

quantity

Water

quality

Amenity

Biodiversity

inage systemhe developmeisk of urban fall events; uater, trap and

avoid mixingdeliver and

sity assets wither reviews a ro surface wateg; and takes nd design critefferent countri

d Kingdomg sections desance, and thenin each of the

mber of relevaluding BS858008that provid

new edition ds Ballard eedition of the

nual was publ, will suppod national sty by the devoments specifien of the Manustems developdevelopment’.is ‘systems and benefits

ement’.

1. Use sur2. Support

catchme3. Protect 4. Preserve5. Drain th6. Manage7. Design

change

1. Supportsurface

2. Design

1. Maximi2. Enhance3. Deliver 4. Support5. Maximi6. Support

1. Support2. Contribu3. Contribu4. Create d

m designs thant on runoffsurface water

use runoff asd/or treat po

g surface wenhance highhin developmerange of curreer managemena look at th

eria for drainies.

mcribe the univn the regulatorregions of the

ant British Sta82: 2013, BS 8de additional

of the UK Set al, 2015) e SuDS (sustaished in Noveort the imptandards and olved administed by planningual, SuDS weped in line wi In the 20designed to we can secu

De

face water runot the managementmorphology ane and protect nahe site effectivee on-site flood r

system flexibi

t the managemewaters and grousystem resilien

ise multi-functie visual charactsafe surface wa

t development rise legibility t community en

t and protect naute to the delivute to habitat codiverse, self-sus

Table

at mitigate tf characteristir flooding fros a non-potabllution prior ater with fo

h value amenents. ent internationnt and how thhe drivers, nenage design in

versally adoptery and policy e UK. There ndards (non-

8515: 2009 ansupport.

uDS Manua

ainable drainaember 2015 anplementation

regulations trations and ag bodies. In tere described ith the ideals 15 version, t

maximise ture from surfa

esign criteria

off as a resourcement of flood

nd ecology in reatural hydrologelyriskility/adaptabilit

ent of water quaundwaters ce to cope with

onality terater managemenresilience/adapt

nvironmental lea

atural local habiery of local bioonnectivity staining and res

e 1 Design criter

theics;ombleto

oul nity

nal heyewn a

ed

nd

al

agend,of

set any the asof

thethe ace

bededebrquineain

Mshwthsuthanot

erisk in the r

eceiving surfacegical systems on

ty to cope wit

ality in the rece

h future change

ent systems tability to future

arning

itats and speciesodiversity objec

silient ecosystemria for SuDS (W

The guidancenefits that cependent onevelopment croadly into fuality, amenitn the Manual ach of these pin Figure 1.

Figure 1 Th

In order toManual suggeshould be cons

water quantity he main desigupported by sthe system. Hond biodiversityther required p

receiving

e waters n the site

th future

��

�

�

�

iving ��

e change

stives

msWoods Ballard e

ce recognises an be achiev

n the site ontext and lofour categoriy and biodiveas the four p

illars has a de

he design objectet al, 2

o deliver thets a number osidered at eveand water quagn drivers antandards (exp

owever, maximy criteria will planning outco

Des

Control runofControl runofControl peak significance tControl peaksignificance fDesign drainaof service Manage exceedrainage systeControl runofTreat runoff t

et al, 2015)

s that the typeved by any sy

specific cocal objectiveies: water quersity. These pillars of SuDesign objective

tives of SuDS (2015)

ese design oof key design ery site (see ality criteria and these willpected levels omising delivel often deliveromes/objectiv

sign standards

ff volumes for fff volumes for erunoff rates for

to morphologicak runoff rates fofor flood risk mage system to a

edance flows frem to mitigate ff volumes for fto mitigate pollu

es and scale oystem will becharacteristicses but will fiuantity, wateare referred to

DS design ande, as presented

(Woods Ballard

objectives, thecriteria whichTable 1). The

are likely to bel normally beof service) foery of amenityr on a range oves for the site

frequent eventsextreme eventsr events of al protection

or events of management

fixed standard

rom the flood risk frequent eventsution risks

ofes,iterodd

d

eheee

ory

ofe.

�



2

It is emphasized that many of these criteria are inter-dependent or cross-cutting, and that in order to maximise opportunities and the associated benefits, the criteria should be considered at an early stage and fully integrated into the surface water management and urban design process. In so doing, it is then possible to ensure that the scheme is truly multi-functional and delivers the highest return for the developer and for the community who will live there.

2.2 England: Drivers and Policy The independent review into the causes of the 2007

floods (Pitt, 2008) concluded SuDS were an effective way to reduce the risk of surface water flooding and recommended that the government implement measures to increase uptake of SuDS alongside the removal of the automatic right of connection of developers to the local sewerage network. Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 made the delivery of SuDS to meet a set of statutory National Standards a requirement for all new development, and established SuDS Approving Bodies within Lead Local Flood Authorities to approve and adopt the systems post construction. After two phases of consultation, this approach raised too many challenges for the English Government and a decision was made instead to incorporate SuDS delivery within the planning process (DCLG, 2014) and to include non-statutory policy standards (Defra, 2015) within the National Planning Practice Guidance (DCLG, 2015). The proposed benefits of the revised approach are: • the strengthening of the planning regime - enabling

decision-makers to give increased weight to the provision and maintenance of SuDS as a material planning consideration alongside e.g. transport infrastructure, density of development etc;

• the alignment of drainage delivery with development design facilitating and promoting joined up approaches to the management and use of surface water on developments - between urban and landscape designers, architects and building engineers, ecologists and drainage designers;

• improved efficiency and reduced delivery risks associated with approvals from multiple bodies within the local authority system.

However, there are a significant number of risks to widespread SuDS implementation, yet to be addressed: • there is now no standard body responsible for taking

ownership of SuDS in perpetuity. This is contrary to Pitt s recommendations regarding the benefits of ownership by either the local authorities or water companies both offering integrated surface water management benefits above and beyond service management;

• the automatic right to connect for developers remains (although is being re-debated at the time of publication);

• the set of non-statutory standards within the planning guidance address only hydraulic control of surface water discharges (peak flow control for 1 and 100 year return period events; volume control for the 100 year, 6 hour event; pumping only in exceptional

circumstances); the standard of service and management of risk of flooding from the drainage system itself; and structural integrity of the system and adjacent or connected infrastructure - leaving the planning authority to make any requirements for water quality protection, amenity or biodiversity a site-specific condition of planning;

• the associated guidance (Lasoo, 2015) requires SuDS only where they are not more expensive than meeting current (i.e. traditional) drainage requirements.

2.3 Wales: Drivers and Policy On 5 January 2016 the Welsh Government published recommended non-statutory standards for SuDS in Wales (Welsh Government, 2016). In contrast to the English standards, the standards for Wales deal with the runoff destination hierarchy (recommending that rainwater harvesting is given early consideration), the control of runoff for frequent rainfall events to protect the quality and morphology of receiving surface waters, and the objectives of maximising amenity and biodiversity benefits for the development site and wider environment – as well as the objectives of hydraulic control and on-site flood risk management, constructability, maintainability and structural integrity.

The Welsh Government has recognised that a SuDS approach to surface water drainage will contribute to the realisation of the well-being goals within the framework of the Future Generations (Wales) Act – by supporting a more prosperous, resilient, healthier, cohesive and globally responsible Wales into the future. The Welsh Government has stated that their next steps will be to work with stakeholders to identify the best way to embed the SuDS approach in all new developments in Wales, as set out in their Water Strategy published in 2015 – possibly by commencing Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 for Wales independently of England. This would require new developments to manage surface water using the SuDS approach, with systems designed and built in accordance with a set of statutory standards and it would also provide a framework for their approval, adoption and ongoing maintenance.

2.4 Scotland: Drivers and Policy In many ways, the development and application of

SuDS in Scotland has led the way for the rest of the UK, with enabling legislation in place at an earlier stage than in England and Wales – although the primary focus in Scotland has been water quality protection. In 2003, the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act (WEWS) was implemented to deliver the requirements of the EU’s Water Framework Directive. This was followed in 2005 by the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) Regulations under which there is a generalrequirement for new developments (except for single dwellings or discharges to coastal waters) with surface water drainage systems discharging to the water environment that such discharges will pass through SuDS with all reasonable steps being taken to ensure protection of the water environment. SEPA’s guidance on designing drainage systems to meet the regulatory requirements for water

�



3

quality protec(SEPA, 2014new provisionthe Seweragconstruction (WRc, 2015) by Scottish sewerage, Requirementsrunoff are ngenerally seSustainable Urecently publAssessment Ghelp guide thodrainage infthrough the permissions hydraulic requmirror those e

2.5 NorthIn Norther

the rate and vinferred by Plit is stated thmust not caupractice this greenfield runincrease runorates of discadvice from trunoff rates sh

Where theto NI Water,Adoption Noprovision muchange factorrainfall intensto be contronetwork has cof the NI sedriving more significantly asites. NI Watedocument to Sewerage Sereceive RoyaincorporatesSuDS structrequirements volume or fre

The NI Framework undertaken foImpact Statemon the water proposed to ma result. Stapublished in adequately mdrainage usin

ction are set 4). The WEWns into the W

ge (Scotland)standards (spand owndershWater of pr

including s for the hydrnot regulated et by local Urban Drainaglished the WaGuide (SUDSWose involved frastructure (

necessary and comply uirements are established by

hern Irelandrn Ireland (NI

volume of runlanning Policyhat ‘new devse increased rmeans that g

noff rates andoff rates fromcharge. For gthe DARD Rhould be fixede drainage sch, the requiremorthern Irelanust be mader which is defsities. Flow ra

olled to a ratcapacity for. Aewerage syststrict implem

attenuate flower is currentlyreflect the re

ervices (NI) Bal Assent ina new sectiontures. There set out by re

equency of runEnvironmen

Directive (or schemes wment where th

environmentmanage the quanding advice

April 2015 smanage construng SuDS featu

out in their rWS regulationWater (Scotlan

) Act 1968 ecified in Sewhip conditionrivately cons

drainage, raulic control like water authorities.

ge Scottish Water AssessmeWP, 2016)). Tin the installa(both new

stages to with standar

specified in ty the SuDS Ma

: Drivers anI), requiremen

noff from newy PPS15 (NI Dvelopment andrisk of floodigreenfield sited redevelopmem the pre-redgreenfield sitivers Agencyd at 10 l/s/ha. heme is offerements specifiend (WRc, 2

e to accommfined as the adates for surfacete which the At present, a stems are alre

mentation of thw rates of surfay in the procesecent changesBill, which w

n March 201n on the adop

are currenegulatory bodnoff. nt Agency (WFD) asse

which require ahere is the pot, and SuDS uality of surface for Develostates “If it iuction or operures, consent t

egulatory mets also introdud) Act 1980

dealing wwers for Scots for the adoptructed water

infrastructof surface wquality and However,

Working Partyent and DrainThis is intendeation of water and retrofittobtain rele

rds and policthis documentanual.

d Policy nts for control

w developmentDoE, 2014) wd re-developmng elsewherees must mainent sites must

development ptes, the standis that allow

ed up for adoped in Sewers2010) apply modate a climddition of 10%e runoff also n

recieving seignificant num

eady at capahe requiremenace runoff leavss of updatings to the Watewas scheduled6. This reviption of selec

ntly no specdies to control

require Wessments to an Environme

otential for imwill generallyce water runoopers which s not possiblrational phaseo discharge un

thod uced and

with tlandptionr or ture.

waterare the

y has nage ed to r and ting)

evant cies; t and

llingt are

where ment’. In ntain t not peakding

wable

ption s for

andmate % to need ewer mber acity,nt to

aving g the er & d to ision ctive cificl the

Waterbe

ental mpact

y be ff as was

le to e site under

the may

ameof rof pform

3

desrequrequTheofbuilpipeare

incrurbdemdiscraispubeveout terma joimpMa

Fi

r

urbbasdevaddinclTheprepflowrecefor,surfnatu

terms of they then be requAny requiremenity benefitsrequirements wpublication, armed regional c

GermanyIn Germanyign of urban uirements essuirements proe level of flooflood frequenlt-up area (rued sewerage salso specifiedIn relation reases in sevan flooding

mand more flecussion. At thse awareness blic of the rents. Germany

in the Europems of deliverinoint communplement the nagement (see

igure 2 Objectirisk managemen

Based on thean drainage” ed stormwate

velopment is dition, the neludes strict se regulationsparation) willw in terms eiving water’, the type anface runoff baural water bod

e Water (Noruired.” ment for SuDS

would be dewithin local arre undergoingcouncils.

yy, the regula

drainage sysentially followovided by Euod protection rncy) is relatedural, residentisystems, maxid.to climate c

vere rainfall events, ada

exibile drainae same time, mamongst bothesidual risks

y is followingean Flood Risng successful ity task force

concept oe Figure 2).

ves, elements ant for urban dra

DWA 20

e regulations (DWA, 200

r managemenstrongly recoew German specifications s DWA-A l require the of its polluts needs. Thisnd the level ased on the rdies.

rthern Ireland

S to deliver bielivered throuarea plans whig development

ations coveristems and flow the recommuropean Standrequired (specd to land useial, commercimum surchar

change and intensities a

aptation requage solutions measures are h decision m

posed by eg the specific sk Managemenurban flood p

e has been sof ‘Pluvial

and functions ofainage systems 015a)

“Guidelines 6), the conce

nt and water sommended in

Water Act related to s

102 (DWA,evaluation of

tion load ands includes the

of treatmentrisk of damag

d) Order 1999

iodiversity andgh embeddingich, at the timet by the newly

ing hydraulicood protection

mendations anddard EN 752cified in terme and type o

cial area). Foge frequencie

the potentiaand associateduirements thaare still undebeing taken to

makers and theextreme storm

guidelines sent Directive inprotection, andset up to help

Flood Risk

f pluvial flood (according to

for integratedept of sourcesensitive urban Germany. In(WHG 2009urface runoff 2015b) (in

f wet-weatherd impacts one requirementt for polluted

ging effects on

9

dgey

cnd

2.msofors

aldateroe

metndpk

de-nn

9)f.nr-ntsdn

�



4

The requdevelopment matching the of the undevwater balancevaporation, post-developmdeveloped to paved areas, site characteri

Figure 3 Locabenchmar

In terms (i.e. particulaestablished astormwater ruuse (roof aretraffic intensicategories: mpollution loadof surface runwaters. By ppollution loadcategories, thderived for aarea type. Agtreatment are stormwater irestrictions toon the pollutio

For combof providing flow in ordernow been adparameter AFstrongly recomload and disschemes. Thecombined sewwater treatme

uirements aof systems twater balance

veloped state ce must be binfiltration anment scenaricharacterize depending o

istics.

al water balancerk for water sen

of pollution ate matter, pas a major runoff is ratedea, traffic areaity etc.) and cminor (I), mod. For areas onoff is requireproviding numd for the paramhe required eany compositigain, source-bfavoured as th

is tolerated fo the type of on load and th

bined sewer systorage and

r to reduce coapted to take

FS63. Long-temmended to ccharge to rec

ese simulationwer flow on ent plant.

are aimed that have the e of developed(Figure 3). T

based on annnd surface runios. Coefficidifferent typen local hydro

e of vegetated, nsitive drainage

control, the pparticles < 63reference po

d in terms of ta, residential/

classified into oderate (II),

of category II ed before dischmeric estimatmeter AFS63

efficiency of ion of differebased measurehe best solutiofor categorieinfiltration fa

he local situatystems, the etreatment of

ombined sew account of t

erm pollution compute the rceiving waterns should incluthe performa

at driving overall targe

d areas with thThe proof ofnual estimatesnoff for pre-ents have b

es of built-up ological data

unpaved areas (DWA, 2006)

parameter AF3 µm) has bint. Pollutionthe area type /commercial aone of three and heavy

and III, treatmharge into surtes of the lifor the three treatment can

ent land uses es of storrmwons. Infiltratios I and II wacility, dependion. xisting procedcombined se

er overflows,the new refereload simulatioresulting pollurs from propoude the effect

ance of the w

theet of hose f the s of and

been andand

as a

FS63 been n of

andarea,load (III)

mentrface ikely load n be and

wateron of withding

dure ewer has ence on is utionosed ts of

waste

comquaparaDiraddsubandinto

4

wercenprivInstortypedistActrespwhilimarearesuwatTerintrbec

critreso‘autThethatadjagreathrothencaseoptiprodisc

quaencHowbacthe meaauthapp(Ceeve

The regulatiomplemented bality criteria. ameters proviective, where

dition, temporbstances as wd abiotic critero account.

FranceIn France, s

re first introdntury but onlyvate owners (a

general, lormwater manaes of roads tricts or nationt (Loi n° 92ponsibility incich define (i) ait soil impervas where stormult of the poters (article L2rritoriales). Toroduced (in 2come a dedicatIn addition, eria defining ources must thorisation’ pe criteria relat if the area oacent areas dater than 1 hough a declaran it goes thres, the contrions for stortect water recharges, and rFrench nation

antitative critcourage local wever, practic

ck to the 1970sizing of sew

asures for a 1horities and pr

proaches, leveertu, MEDD, ents (Figure 4)

ons described ay regulationsThese criter

ided by the Ebiodiversity

ral concentratwell as minimria (stream mo

stormwater mduced by they in relation article 640, 64

ocal authoritagement in urwhich come nal State serv

2-3 du 3 jancludes the defareas where mviousness andmwater has tollution it mig2224-1 of Codo reinforce thi2006) the leted stormwatethe Water A

whether a progo through

rocess managtes to stormwof the proposdischarging rha, then the ative process, ough an authacting authorrmwater manesources (inclunoff volumenal regulationteria for hyd

prescription ces from olders remain commer networks a0-year return roject holders

el of services 2003), to de

).

are discharges related to reria are direc

European Watis one impor

tions of harmmum oxygen orphology etc

management e Civil Law

n to the resp41 and 681 oties are resrban areas, ex

under the jvices. Since thnvier 1992 sufinition of ‘dr

measures haved stormwater o be stored anght cause to de Général deis role, Frenchegal basis ofer utility frameAct 1992 aloject that affech a ‘declaraged by local water dischargsed developmrunoff onto tcontracting a and (ii) greathorisation prority has to pnagement areluding water es).ns do not cudraulic contr

on a case br technical gui

mmon such as -and stormwate

period. To ens to develop m

were definedeal with a ran

-based and areeceiving watectly linked toter Frameworktant aspect. In

mful and toxicconcentration.) are all taken

considerationin the 19t

onsibilities oof Civil Code)sponsible foxcept for someurisdiction o

he 1992 Wateur l'eau), thirainage zonese to be taken toflows and (ii

nd treated as athe receiving

es Collectivitéh national lawf what mighework. so introducedcts local wateation’ or anState servicesges and stateent site + anythe site is (iauthority goeter than 20 haocess. In bothprove that thee the best to

quality, peak

urrently defineol but ratheby case basisidelines dating- for instance er managemenncourage loca

more integratedd in the 2000nge of rainfal

eeroknc

nsn

nsth

of).ore

ofers

s’oi)ags

wht

derns.syi)s

a,heok

eers.g-

ntaldsll

�



5

Figure 4 G

National gbe issued in different leveis sometimesselect approplocal on-site aregulations apLille has undappropriate lemanagement p

Figure 5

French nastormwater government (years, placedmeasures and(Ministry ofquantitative municipalitiesFlow limitati2012; Le Nomanage and pis now gaininParis and Lybenefits and biodiversity

Graduated level

guidelines (M2016) do no

els of service s made), butpriate standardand downstreapply (see Figu

dertaken signifevels of servipolicy (LMCU

Demonstrationthe Ci

ational regulatdischarge

(and pioneer lod significant d - more recf the Envi

regulations s and numerion is a very

ouveau et al., prevent dischang greater at

yon areas. Att- more recbenefits (

PollutRespect

s of service for

MEDD, Certu, ot give the r(although ref

t require projds with full kam constraintsure 5). For insficant work inice in its cityU, 2012).

n of rainwater zity of Paris

tions do not cdestination. ocal authoritieemphasis on

cently - infilironnement,

are definrous guideliny common cr

2014) but tharge from smttention (Nezetention is alsocently - on Cerema, 20

LeveFreque

ev

tion managemeof water balan

stormwater maDG

2003; ASTEEeturn periodsference to ENject designerknowledge ofs, unless any lstance, the Citn order to spe-wide stormw

zoning specified

urrently priorHowever,

es) have,for mn source conltration meas2013). Spec

ned by les are availariterion (Petruhe requiremen

mall rainfall eveys, 2013, e.o put on ame

the delivery015). Rainw

el N1ent rain

vent

entnce

Runoff mana

Minor syst(sewers, Su

anagement systGALN et al., 20

E, to s for N752rs to f the localty of ecify water

d by

ritizethe

manyntrol sures cific localable. ucci,nt to vents g in

enity y of water

harva sproadddraiet a

5

regudiveinteFloaridecowhefram

chapracstorwheof tgovAgeintrlim

movmosSysmilsystapp770appnumreguofconcomprevdoe

Level N2Medium rain

event

agement

Flood

temuDS)

ems (translated014).

vesting (RWHspecial 'dischgress to make

dress the integinage and sto

al., 2013).

USAStormwater ulated at theerse needs ofense tropical rida, compare

d regions of tonomic, sociaether or notmework and thRegulating b

aracteristics hctices in the Urmwater is geereas combinethe benefits o

vernmental utiency (EPA) roduction at ited regulatoryOne area in wve practice tost significantlstem (MS4) pitary bases, ettems (i.e. d

proximately 70 CSS) in theply to significamber of comulations. WhMS4 program

nducts regularmmunities thventing pollut

es have regu

Level NStrong ra

event

d management

M(publi

d and adapted fr

H) and use canharge destinae the integratiograted level oformwater man

management e local, state,f different stat

rainfall in Hed to the strainthe southwestal, and polit

individual he content of aboth quantityas led to wi

US. One barrienerally reguled sewer systeoccur) are typilities. The Uhas strongly the turn of ty authority to which the EPoward LID isly the Municipermits for mtc., which ma

do not drain7500 regulatee US. (Capacant urban area

mmunities thahile the adminms is delegatr audits, resulhat are deemted runoff. Aulatory autho

N3raint

LeExt

Major systemic spaces, roa

Crisis manag

rom Certu, MED

n now also beation'. Guideon of RWH mf services to bnagement sys

in the Uni, and federates (e.g the mHouston, Texin on water ret) and the vatical drivers states adopt any such reguy and qualiidespread adoier to implemelated by locaems (CSS) (fopically regula

US Environmeny supported Lthe century, compel the u

PA does haves through Feipal Separate municipalitiesaintain separatn to CSS). ed MS4 comcasa, 2015). Tas, and represat have implnistration of ated to the stalting in finesmed to be

Another area wority is for

evel N1treme rain event

mads...)

gement

DD, 2003 andin

e considered aelines are inmore formal tobe provided bystems (Gerolin

ited States il level. The

management oxas and Southesources in thearious regiona

all influencea regulatory

ulations. ity of runofoption of LIDentation is tha

al governmentor which manyated by quasintal ProtectionLID since itbut has very

use of LID. e the ability toderal PermitsStorm Sewe

s, universitieste storm sewe

There aremunities (andThese permitsent the largeslemented LIDa large numbeates, the EPA for regulated

inadequatelywhere the EPAdischarges to

n

asnoyn

se

ofhe

aley

ffDatt,yi-ntsy

os,ers,eredtsstDerAdyAo

�



6

j

“Waters of th1972 (CWA)jurisdiction. Combined Seseries of consuse combinedfor hydraulicregulations arhave requirempost-developerates. This isperiods, and return periodregional authrequirements.

Stormwateaddressed usithe quality ovolume reduc1990’s whermechanisms wof particulatevegetative upcommonly reis an expectarainfall will amount of runat the 90th per(MDE, 2000,often specifiepollutant of ctotal phosphTherefore, antotal volumereduction of tvolume.

6 ChinaOver the

China that itson the envireventually, bNew UrbanisCouncil of thurbanisation transformatioat the expepollution andReport at the(Jin, 2012) pcivilisation’ ccities’ as a ke

The ‘sponprioritises thpurification oresilient and awater for usewater resourcterminology Developmentdevelopments

he US,” as de), for which This allowewer Overflosent orders fod sewer systec control ofre variable thments for theed peak rates often requirein some case

d (MDE, 200horities may. er quality coing two mechaof the runoff, ction. This wre the primwere retentioe matter, andptake of dissoferred to as ruation that a pbe removed

noff reductionrcentile rainfa CSN, 2011).

ed to achieve aconcern (e.g.

horous - TPny practice thae is assumedthe pollutants

alast few yea

rapid urbanisronment and e unsustainabation Plannin

he PRC, 2014must enter a n, ensuring th

ense of natud ecological de 18th Commpromotes a reconcept – witey component.nge city’ is he natural

of stormwater adaptable, thae and in so doces and enhaused to de

t (LID)’ and s are presented

efined by the the federal

ws the EPA ows (CSO) aor the older Uems. In termsf runoff from

hroughout the e detention of

are reduced ed for the 2- ans for as much

00), although y also have

ontrol in the anisms. The fwithout spec

as the approaary water q

on ponds for d aquatic benolved nutrientsunoff reductioportion of the

from the run varies widelall, or around The regulatio

a certain percetotal suspend

P, or total nat can removed to have acof concern as

ars, it has besation has plac

natural resoble and self-lg Guidance (2

4) clearly setsnew stage o

hat developmeural resourcesdegradation.

munist Party oequirement foth the constru.defined as dattenuation, runoff – using

at absorb (andoing reduce f

ance ecologicscribe this the design obd in Figure 6.

Clean Water government

jurisdiction oand has led tUS cities that s of requiremm the site,US. Most st

f runoff such to pre-develo

nd 10- year reh as the 100-

many local more strin

US is typicfirst is to imprcifically targech throughoutquality treatmincreased sett

nches to facils. The seconon, whereby te total volumunoff total. ly, but is often25 mm of rainons in the USent removal ofded solids - Tnitrogen - Te a portion ofchieved a 10ssociated with

een recognisedced huge presources and mimiting. Chi2014-2020) (Ss out that Chif quality-orie

ent does not os, environme

The Confereof China congor an ‘ecologuction of ‘spo

development infiltration

g systems thatd can then releflood risk, proal systems. is ‘Low Imbjectives for s

Act has

over to a still

mentsthe

tates that

oped eturn-year

andngent

callyrove eting t the menttling litatend is there

me of The

n set nfall

S are f the TSS, TN).f the 00%

h that

d in ssure may, ina’s Stateina’sented occur ental ence gress gicalonge

that and

at are ease) otectThe

mpactsuch

stagconbuilwatmusobjeandrecoinve

CityHouobje•

•

•

•

remmaigronegdev

Figure 6

Develo

New cities ages in their ntrol with publlding design,ter supply infst set LID oectives, hydro

d both technommended toestment’ for thSponge city py Constructiousing, PRC 2ectives (see alTotal Annuaproportion ofinfiltrated, usthe primary cregionally. Peak FlowOutdoor Dra(Mouhurd, 2drainage systeRainwater Hashould be hneeds.Runoff Pollutsolids removaSupporting

mediation of laintenance anundwater lev

gative urban velopment.

6 Diagram showopment (LID) C

re now requidevelopment

lic and privatetransportatio

frastructure. Rbjectives and

ology, weathenical and e

o ensure that he region. projects need ton Technical2014) which slso Figure 7): al Runoff Vof the total rainsed or otherwiriteria, with a

Control rinage Design

2006) for floem standard oarvesting tharvested to m

tion Control al rates of 40-6

objectivesand adjacent tnd protectionvels, and theheat island

wing China’s LoControl Objecti

ired to consid– integratin

e space designon networks, Regional pland criteria thater, land use coeconomic opsolutions pro

to comply witl Guidance” specifies the

olume Contronfall volume t

wise retained oa target of 60-9

requiring comn Specificationood risk manof service desihe proportion omeet local w

LID delivery60%. include th

to natural watn of stablee alleviationeffects result

ow Impact ives

der LID at alng stormwaten, architectura

drainage andnning controlt reflect locaonditions etc –ptimisation ivide ‘efficien

th the “Sponge(Ministry o

following key

ol Rate - thethat should be

on site. This i90%, specified

mpliance withns (GB50014nagement andign. of rainfall tha

water resource

y of suspended

e ecologicater bodies, thee long term

of potentiating from the

lleralds

al–s

nt

eofy

eesd

h4)d

ate

d

ale

male

�



7

Figure

7 DiscuThis pape

surface waterreference to sthe devolved

7 Diagram shoobj

ssioner provides a sr managementstrategies, poli

administratio

owing the LID hjectives

summary of ht are shifting iicies and reguons in the UK

Fi

hydraulic contro

how approacheinternationallyulations in eacK, in France

gure 8 Gener

ol

es to y, by ch of

and

Ger

certrecoreguThistrethe throhav

the floounivbiolandthe supEngprim

flooevebothconsitenongainFra

ric comparison

rmany, and in In all countrtain environmommended anulation; howeis variation messes in the co

way in whichough time andve responsibiliMitigating threceiving wat

od risks assoversal goal; wlogical quality

d requirementsfocus for Su

pporting wategland, the emmarily on hydThe managem

od risk manents supports th the groundw

ncept of volume (retaining onn-potable use ening momentunce, German

n of the criteria

China and acies, the manamental and nd in some cever the specimay be due ountry or regioh regulations d the prioritieity for drainage impact of deterbody and th

ociated with with the protey being mores. In Scotlan

uDS/BMPs/LIer quality pro

mphasis in the raulic control ment of largeagement; thethe hydrologicwater and surfme control by n site, infiltraetc.) from a spum – with reqny, USA, C

a

cross the USAagement of rusocial objeccountries it iific objectivesto specific

on, or may beor policies ha

es of the orgage or its regulaevelopment ohe effective mthe drainage

ection of the e variable in and, the USA ID has very mrotection. Ine official SuD for flood proe rainfall evee managemencal and ecologface water catpreventing ru

ating, collectipecified depthquirements seChina, Engla

A.unoff to meetives is nowis required bys vary widelyenvironmentae a function oave developedanisations thaation. n flood risk in

management oe system is a

chemical andits importanceand Germany

much been onn contrast, in

DS guidance itection. ents is key tont of smallegical health otchments. Theunoff from theing runoff foh of rainfall it in regions o

and (only in

etwyy.alofdat

nofadeynns

oerofee

ors

ofn

�



8

guidance) and Wales (in their non-statutory Standards). A criterion for matching average annual runoff volumes for pre- and post-development states (Germany, China) reflects an awareness of the benefits of trying to replicate the natural hydrological response from sites across all scales of rainfall. The new UK SuDS Manual prioritises infiltration and use of runoff wherever appropriate, and sets as standard the retention of 5mm of the majority of rainfall events on site (‘Interception’) and limiting runoff volumes for the 1:100 year, 6 hour event to the pre-development equivalent. A generic comparison of the criteria is provided in Figure 8.

8 Conclusions Drainage criteria are continuing to evolve, with a

greater focus on their integration within a more holistic approach to environmental management. If effectively implemented, regulated and monitored, these steps should bring about significant benefits in terms of mitigating the impact of development on the water environment, reducing urban flood risk, and securing greater social and environmental value from surface water – a valuable and an increasingly scarce resource for many.

Aiming for a more natural runoff response from our developed areas is laudable and legislation and regulation aimed at delivering this requirement will support urban planners in promoting development that has higher levels of ‘permeability’ The resultant intrinsic properties of such development should deliver drainage systems that are more adaptable to our changing climate, should help provide access to an alternative supply of non-potable water where required, and should help improve the resilience and liveability of our urban areas. Developing and supporting suitable economic drivers for these changes is, however, still highly challenging. Green space is not currently a financial commodity, and developing ways of aligning long-term positive societal benefits with short-term business interests are not often obvious.

However, from a technical perspective at least, learning from others is crucial. Reviewing the methods adopted by other countries provides us with an opportunity to explore how we can use more sustainable surface water management measures to most efficiently protect our natural environment, mitigate the impacts of development on natural hazards, and support future urban quality of life. In the UK, decision makers should consider the potential benefits of a more volumetric approach to runoff control. Lessons also need to be learnt from cities such as Copenhagen regarding future city design strategies to deliver resilience to the types of extreme intense rainfall events that have caused widespread damage (e.g. Hull, 2007, Copenhagen, 2011, Germany, 2013) and are likely to become increasingly common into the future. Integration is crucial, not only in delivering on environmental objectives, but across disciplines – with drainage design meshing seamlessly with the planning and design of the built environment, and the landscaping of our urban space.

9 References Ashley R, Walker L, D’Arcy B et al (2015) UK

sustainable drainage systems: past, present and future. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Civil Engineering 168(3): 125-130

ASTEE (to be issued in 2016). Mémento pour la conception et le dimensionnement des systèmes de gestion des eaux pluviales et de collecte des eaux usées, technical guidance.

Capacasa, J. (2015), Urban Stormwater: A Perfect Storm for Change, CBP3 Sustainable Stormwater Infrastructure Summit, 7 December 2015, Philadelphia, USA.

Cerema (2015). Milieux humides et aménagement

urbain.Dix expériences innovantes, recueil d'expériences. Certu, Ministère de l’Ecologie et de Développement

Durable (MEDD) (2003). La ville et son assainissement : principes, méthodes et outils pour une meilleure intégration dans le cycle de l’eau. Ed. Certu, CD-rom.

Chesapeake Stormwater Network (CSN) (2011), Technical Support for the Bay-Wide Runoff Reduction Method (v.2.0), 2011, Ellicot City, Maryland, USA.

Department for Communities and Local Government (2014) Written Statement (HCWS161)

Department for Communities and Local Government (2015) National Planning Practice Guidance, Updated April 2015

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2015) Sustainable Drainage Systems - Non-statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage systems, March 2015.

Department of the Environment, Northern Ireland (DoE NI) (2014) Revised Planning Policy Statement 15: “Planning and Flood Risk”. PPS 15. Belfast, September 2014.

DGALN (2014), Cerema, Agences de ltils pour uneProcN, Cerema, Agences de ltils pour une me des

projets d, Agences de ltils pour une meilleure intégration

dans le cycle de l’eau.n des projets d, A. Repprojets d, A.ences de ltils pour une meilleure int, on-line.

DWA (2006): Guidelines for integrated urban drainage (Leitlinien der Integralen Siedlungsentwässerung), DWA-Regelwerk, Arbeitsblatt A 100, Hennef, Dezember 2006.

DWA (2015a): Risk Management in Urban Flood Precaution – Analysis of Flood Hazards and Damae Potentials to Evaluate Flood Risks (Risikomanagement in der kommunalen Überflutungsvorsorge – Analyse von Überflutungsgefährdungen und Schadenspotenzialen zur Bwertung von Überflutungsrisiken). Technical Bulletin DWA-M 119 (‘Merkblatt‘), DWA-Regelwerk, Hennef (Draft July 2015).

DWA (2015b): Wet weather flow in urban areas – emission-based regulations for stormwater management. (Niederschlagsbedingte Siedlungsabflüsse – Emissionsbezogene Regelungen zum Umgang mit Regenwetterabflüssen). DWA-Regelwerk, Arbeitsblatt A 102 (in preparation).

Gerolin A., Le Nouveau N., de Gouvello B. (2013). Rainwater harvesting for stormwater management:

�



9

example-based typology and current approaches for

evaluation to question French practices, Novatech 2013 Jin T, Hu (2012), Conference Report, The 18th

National Congress of the Communist Party of China, Beijing, Nov. 8,2012

Lasoo (2015) Non-statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage: practice guidance (lasoo.org.uk)

Le Nouveau N., Deroubaix J-F., Gerolin A., Kerloc’h B., Ramier D., Gradel O., Ruperd Y., Ménétrieux C., Le Mitouard E., Correa E., Dulac E., Hautbois O., Ganne M., Soyer M., Tardivo B. (2014). Towards territorial policies for managing urban stormwater: analysis of regulation of twenty local authorities in France, IWA World Water Congress and Exhibition, 21-26 September 2014, Lisbon

Lille Métropole Communauté Urbaine (LMCU) (2012). Guide de gestion durable des eaux pluviales.

Fiches techniques, on-line. Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE),

Maryland Stormwater Design Manual, 2000 (Revised May 2009), Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development - the People’s Republic of China (2014) Technical Guidelines for the Construction of Sponge City - Construction of Stormwater System Based on Low Impact Development (Trial), October 2014.

Ministry of the Environment (2013). Internet portal on stormwater management : http://assainissement.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/pluvial.php

Nezeys A. (2013). A Rainwater Zoning for Paris: reinstate the urban stormwater into the great water cycle, Novatech 2013

Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, Northern Virginia BMP Handbook: A Guide to Planning and Designing Best Management Practices in Northern Virginia, 6 November 1992, Annandale, Virginia, USA

Petrucci G. (2012). La diffusion du contrr Paris:

reinstate the urban stormwater into the great water

cycle,enty local authorities in France,ur pHD in planning. Paris : Université Paris-Est, 2012, 329 p.

Pitt, M (2008) Learning lessons from the 2007 floods (The Pitt Review), June 2008.

SEPA (2014) WAT-RM-08 Regulatory Method for Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS or SuD Systems), SEPA, v5.2, August 2014.

State Council of the P.R.C, (2014), China’s New Urbanisation Planning Guidance (2014-2020), Beijing, 2014

SUDS Working Party (SUDSWP) (2016) Water Assessment and Drainage Assessment Guide.

Welsh Government (2016) Recommended non-statutory standards for sustainable drainage (SuDS) in Wales - designing, constructing, operating and maintaining surface water drainage systems, January 2016.

Welsh Government Water Strategy (2015) Woods Ballard, B, Wilson, S, Udale-Clarke, H,

Illman, S, Scott, T, Ashley, R and Kellagher, R (2015) The SuDS Manual, C753, CIRIA, London, UK. http://www.ciria.org/Resources/Free_publications/SuDS_manual_C753.aspx

WRc (2015) Sewers for Scotland, 3rd Edition. WRc (2010 Sewers for Adoption Northern Ireland

Standards and Statutes

BS 8582:2013 Code of practice for surface water management for development sites.

BS 8515(2009)+A1(2013): Rainwater harvesting systems. Code of practice

BS EN 752: 2008Drain and sewer systems outside buildings

Drainage (Northern Ireland) Order 1973. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and

of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy

Directive 2007/60/EC of the Europeann Parliament and of the Council on the assessment and management of flood risks

EN 752 Drain and Sewer Systems outside buildings (CEN, 2008)

Flood and Water Management Act 2010 French Water Act (Loi n° 92-3 du 3 janvier 1992 sur

l'eau German Water Act (WHG 2009) Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968 USA Clean Water Act 1972 Water (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland)

Order 2006 Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland)

Act 2003. Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland)

Regulations 2011. Water (Scotland) Act 1980. Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015.

�



10

international approaches to the hydraulic control of

Documents