David Dickson, Chester Arnold, Michael Dietz, Manon Lefevre, Kerrin Kinnear,and Mark Boyer. 2018. The Status of Low-Impact Development (LID) Adoption in Connecticut. Watershed Science Bulletin. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD. 9 pages.
Connecticut, LID, Low-impact, NEMO, Stormwater
The comprehensive plans and land use regulations of 85 of Connecticut’s 169 municipalities were reviewed for language related to low-impact development (LID) during the spring and summer of 2016. The assessment, based on a framework developed by the University of Connecticut’s Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials Program, was performed to check progress toward LID adoption prior to the 2017 implementation of new statewide Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (commonly known as MS4) rules that include a much stronger emphasis on LID than in the past. Follow-up telephone interviews were then conducted with 78 individuals involved in the land use planning process in 74 of these towns to gain insight into specific obstacles and motivations influencing LID adoption. It is clear that LID had established a presence in the state prior to any statewide regulatory requirement. All 85 towns have integrated some form of LID, as broadly defined, into their plans and regulations, although in many cases the practices identified were conservation practices (e.g., tree conservation, open space preservation) not specifically focused on stormwater management. Almost every interviewee (76) noted that at least some support for LID existed in their communities. By far the most common motivation cited for the adoption of LID policies was the work of either staff or land use commission “champions.” This was followed by general concern for protecting the environment and addressing stormwater issues. The most common obstacles to implementing LID were the perceived higher costs of LID practices and a lack of educational opportunities. Recommendations from community officials for furthering LID in Connecticut included more learning opportunities, economic incentives, stronger state regulations, and improved local interdepartmental communication.
