Page 39

              6/1/2010 39
programs have received many applications for green infrastructure projects and have given out 1 millions of dollars in grants for green infrastructure project costs. We conclude that outreach and 2 education are critical elements of any program attempting to increase interest in, and use of, green 3 infrastructure practices, and we recommend that IEPA significantly increase the resources and 4 effort in this portion of its program. 5
With respect to the SRFs in general, historically they have been able to fund only about 10% of 6 estimated infrastructure project costs, nationally, and this number may be even lower in Illinois. 7 We recommend that IEPA use its current SRF prioritization policy effort to clarify that in the 8 future the majority of projects will not be funded from the SRFs. Instead of applicants putting off 9 necessary infrastructure upgrades because of the hope that someday they will be funded from the 10 SRFs, IEPA should encourage them to take several steps to ensure that they can cover their long-11 term infrastructure costs without the need for SRF funding. For example, municipalities should 12
a. engage in long-term planning to identify the “least-cost” methods of maintaining 13 their infrastructure; 14
15
b. establish alternative funding sources, such as fee programs and utilities to ensure that 16 there is a permanent, dedicated revenue stream for important infrastructure projects; 17 and 18
19
c. Develop prioritization policies that favor projects with multiple benefits and that have 20 the lowest life-cycle costs so that they are less likely to require additional outside 21 funding in the future. These projects will more likely be funded from the SRFs. 22
23
The Cost-Effectiveness of Green Infrastructure 24
If green infrastructure does work as intended, is it still affordable when compared to the costs of 25 the conventional technologies used to manage urban stormwater? To assess the cost-26 effectiveness of green infrastructure, we used a literature review, data from past research and a 27 green infrastructure economic model called the Green Values® Calculator, developed by the 28 Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) to compare different urban stormwater management 29 technologies – both green and conventional -- over their useful lives at various scales (municipal, 30 neighborhood and site) and in various settings (suburban and urban). 31
32
Cost-effectiveness is one of the driving forces behind increasing, widespread national adoption of 33 green infrastructure practices. In general, national and Illinois examples indicate that properly 34 scaled and sited green infrastructure can deliver equivalent hydrological management of 35 rainwater/stormwater at comparable or lower costs than conventional conveyance and treatment 36 infrastructure. Green infrastructure features also deliver a range of additional economic, social 37 and ecological benefits, contributing community health and vitality beyond their hydrologic 38 performance. 39
The following section examines evidence of green infrastructure’s cost and effectiveness. It 40 includes life-cycle cost and benefit comparisons of a sampling of individual green infrastructure 41 practices, which can be seen as the building blocks of a community scale green infrastructure 42 programs. Because green infrastructure practices tend to be designed in combinations to fit 43