New Report: How Stormwater Reform Could Lower Housing Costs 

Federal runoff mandates add thousands to development costs while delivering limited environmental benefits

NEW YORK, NY – In elections, policy debates, and news headlines, discussions of the affordability crisis overwhelmingly focus on housing. Although housing policy is largely determined at the local level, rising costs have affected Americans nationwide and led federal officials, including President Trump and members of both parties in Congress, to seek ways to lower prices despite the federal government’s limited control over housing. 
 
In a new Manhattan Institute report, senior fellow Judge Glock proposes reforming one area that the federal government does control directly to reduce housing costs: stormwater regulation. The Clean Water Act forces cities and developers to take expansive efforts to limit stormwater runoff and prevent water pollution. However, Glock explains that urban stormwater runoff represents a relatively small share of overall water pollution, while compliance with federal regulations imposes significant costs on local governments and housing development. 
 
Glock finds that, depending on the region, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stormwater mandates can add anywhere from a few thousand dollars to tens of thousands annually to the cost of new housing. For local governments, the mandates can include everything from higher installation costs for roads and sidewalks to mandated stormwater “education” campaigns, which can add billions of dollars in budgetary expenses for some cities. 
 
Far more cost-effective methods exist to control runoff pollution than those required under current regulations, Glock argues. For example, runoff controls in agricultural areas can achieve comparable pollution reductions at as little as one one-hundredth the cost of urban controls. 

Glock argues that reducing or reforming federal stormwater mandates could significantly lower costs for developers and municipalities with minimal, if any, environmental impact. In addition to EPA-specific recommendations, he proposes: 

• Shifting primary regulatory authority to states and localities: Congress should consider relieving the EPA of primary oversight and allowing states to address the rare instances where stormwater has impacts beyond localities. 

• Expanding state and local flexibility: At minimum, the EPA can allow states and cities to have greater discretion in how they design and administer stormwater policies, rather than operating under a single federal regulatory baseline that encourages ever more costly requirements. 

Click here to read the full report.