Local Environment

The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability

ISSN: 1354-9839 (Print) 1469-6711 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cloe20

Open data and stormwater systems in Los

Angeles: applications for equitable green
infrastructure

Erik Porse

To cite this article: Erik Porse (2018) Open data and stormwater systems in Los Angeles:
applications for equitable green infrastructure, Local Environment, 23:5, 505-517, DOI:
10.1080/13549839.2018.1434492

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2018.1434492

Published online: 06 Feb 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 23

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cloe20
LOCAL ENVIRONMENT, 2018
VOL. 23, NO. 5, 505–517
https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2018.1434492

Open data and stormwater systems in Los Angeles: applications

for equitable green infrastructure
Erik Porsea,b
a
Office of Water Programs, California State University, Sacramento, CA, USA; bInstitute of the Environment and
Sustainability, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Urban stormwater systems traditionally used “grey” infrastructure to Received 27 May 2016
manage runoff. Contemporary designs now incorporate “green” Accepted 23 January 2018
infrastructure, which offers additional potential benefits such as urban
KEYWORDS
amenities and health. Understanding how green and grey infrastructure Urban drainage; low-impact
investments are distributed across urban areas is important for new goals development; environmental
of promoting environmental justice in planning. In California, for instance, justice; big data; California
public investments increasingly require a percentage of funds to be spent
in disadvantaged communities. Recent advancements in the availability of
high-detail geographic data in cities can support prioritising investments
to fulfil these multiple benefits. This paper analyses the distribution of
stormwater infrastructure in Los Angeles (LA) County in relation to design
criteria, urban structure and sociodemographic information. It
demonstrates an approach for identifying projects that simultaneously
address engineering needs and promote equity. Statistical analysis of
high-detail sewer locations reveals geographic correlations with key local
design parameters, urban characteristics and sociodemographic indicators.
Watershed areas in LA County were identified that support multi-benefit
projects, meeting dual criteria for infrastructure improvements and
disadvantaged community status. As stormwater systems are increasingly
designed for multi-benefit outcomes, new design frameworks can
emphasise both performance and social equity.

Introduction
Cities have highly altered landscapes that change the timing, duration, magnitude and velocity of
runoff from rainfall and irrigation (Hollis 1975; McCuen 1979; Duncan 1995a; Zoppou 2001; Shuster
et al. 2005). This leads to increased pollution in urban watersheds (Ellis 1986; Duncan 1995b;
Zoppou 2001; Brabec, Schulte, and Richards 2002; Howard 2010). Traditional stormwater systems
used pipes and gutters, so-called grey infrastructure, to quickly convey runoff to local watersheds.
In response to regulatory and fiscal pressures, urban stormwater planners increasingly look to
“green” infrastructure approaches such as swales and local retention basins to cost-effectively
improve water quality (Low Impact Development Center 2000; Shuster et al. 2005; Dietz 2007;
Bedan and Clausen 2009). Doing so offers the potential to justify projects based on multi-benefit cri-
teria, as well as privatise some improvement costs to land developers and property owners (Sedlak
2014; SWRCB 2015). Figure 1 illustrates examples of stormwater management infrastructure, includ-
ing emerging green infrastructure.

CONTACT Erik Porse [email protected] Office of Water Programs. California State University- Sacramento, 6000 J St.,
Sacramento, CA 95819, USA
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
506 E. PORSE

Figure 1. Examples of green and grey infrastructure for managing stormwater: (a) Street conveyance to storm sewers (Los Angeles,
CA); (b) Concrete culvert underlying a bridge (California State University Sacramento); (c) Rio Hondo Spreading Grounds in Los
Angeles for capturing and infiltrating stormwater; (d) Streetside infiltration swale (Portland, OR) (Source: Author photographs).

Among potential benefits, green infrastructure may contribute to improved ecosystem services in
cities (Bolund and Hunhammar 1999; MEA 2003; Oberndorfer et al. 2007; Lundy and Wade 2011;
Moore and Hunt 2012; Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2013; Jose, Wade, and Jefferies 2015). Such services
can include pollution reduction, carbon sequestration, groundwater recharge, recreation and aquatic
species diversity. Stormwater systems are one of many large-scale, complex urban infrastructures that
facilitate urban life and are the products of past decisions (Tarr 1984; Hughes 1993). Large reconfi-
gurations of infrastructure systems, which also require wide bureaucratic innovations, are often incre-
mental and have unintended consequences (Tarr et al. 1984). For stormwater, building newly hybrid
systems that not only reduce urban flood risk, the historic goal, but also provide additional ecological
and social benefits such as pollution mitigation, requires better land-use planning and monitoring of
actual ecological processes over time (Pataki et al. 2011; Porse 2013; Miguez, Rezende, and Veról
2014). Many stormwater planning assessments have limited incorporation of broader ecological
benefits (Visitacion, Booth, and Steinemann 2009).
For multi-benefit projects, future stormwater designs should also strive to include sociodemo-
graphic considerations alongside ecology and engineering criteria, maximising the multi-benefit out-
comes. For instance, the construction of urban stormwater controls is influenced by social attitudes
 LOCAL ENVIRONMENT 507

and contemporary design techniques, as well as economics such as land prices (Tarr 1979; Tarr et al.
1984; Sample et al. 2003; Thurston 2006). The rise of the environmental justice (EJ) movement, which
first identified how lower income and minority communities often face disproportionate exposure to
environmental hazards, provides rich additional criteria for evaluating success. EJ researchers and
practitioners advocate for more equitable distribution of built infrastructure to mitigate exposure
risks, increase access to amenities, improve public health and promote sustainable communities
(Bullard and Johnson 2000; Bullard 2007; Wolch, Byrne, and Joshua 2014).
Such equity considerations are seeping into actual planning guidance and funding (EPA 1998). For
instance, in California, Senate Bill 535 and Assembly Bill 1550, passed in 2012 and 2016, require that
25% of funds spent on sustainable community projects through the state’s Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Fund (Cap and Trade) occur in disadvantaged communities (De Leon 2012; Gomez
2016). In support, the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment (CalEPA OEHHA) developed a ranked index of environmental risk for California
communities, CalEnviroScreen (OEHHA 2016). CalEnviroScreen provides a rich compilation of data to
investigate geographic aspects of environmental hazard mitigation.
But empirical investigations of equitable infrastructure planning have not fully embraced the use
of large, integrated data analysis. Merging the sociodemographic and environmental risk data con-
tained in CalEnviroScreen and similar sources with data for existing infrastructure placement can
inform municipal investments in green infrastructure. It also provides an opportunity to understand
the outcomes of past infrastructure development, including evident factors that influenced where
existing infrastructure is currently located, along with how the infrastructure may have shaped
urban development. This paper presents an analysis of the distribution of stormwater infrastructure
in Los Angeles (LA) County and the correlation with sociodemographic trends and the built environ-
ment. It examines factors that correlate with the location of current grey infrastructure. Looking
forward, it demonstrates a procedure for integrating EJ considerations into stormwater planning
with green infrastructure by ranking communities with high potential for improving both equity
and infrastructure performance through new stormwater investments. The paper presents maps
for LA showing communities with high potential for multi-benefit investments. It concludes with a
discussion of relevant findings and insights for future planning. The case study for LA offers
methods that can be applied to other cities.

Methods
The LA Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), covering LA and Orange counties, has a total population
of nearly 13 million people across 4850 square miles (Census 2013). The study area used for this analy-
sis focused on the urbanised region of LA County south of the Angeles and San Bernardino National
Forests, which includes more than 9 million residents.
The study used compiled datasets to support two analytical procedures. First, linear regression
with Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) was used to investigate correlations between: (1) a response vari-
able for density of stormwater infrastructure in a sub-watershed and (2) explanatory variables includ-
ing design parameters (runoff coefficient, density of buildings) and sociodemographic indicators
(land value, median income, percent of rental households, percent of multi-family households and
population density) for small watershed areas. These variables are listed in Table 1. The OLS model
was developed to test the hypothesis that density of existing grey stormwater infrastructure corre-
lates with both design parameters and urban form characteristics, such as building density. The
outcome of the procedure helps understand factors that correlate with existing stormwater infra-
structure, correlations that may be either intentional (by design) or unintentional.
Second, a ranking procedure was used to prioritise watersheds according to potential for multi-
benefit green infrastructure projects. Specifically, indices quantified values of the density of existing
grey stormwater infrastructure (sewers) and status as an environmentally at-risk community based on
the CalEnviroScreen data set. The sections below describe the data and procedures in further detail.
508 E. PORSE

Table 1. Explanatory and response variables investigated through linear regression models for stormwater infrastructure in LA
County.
Variable Description Unit Source
Explanatory variables
Length of sewers Total length of sewers in a sub-watershed, based Ft LA County Department of Public Works
on length (calculated) of gravity main sewer shapefile, accessible through the LA
pipes County geospatial library
Length of surface Total length of surface channels, both natural and Ft LA County Department of Public Works
channels engineered in a sub-watershed as reported by shapefile, accessible through the LA
LA County. Area is based on length (calculated) County geospatial library
of channels
Area of sewers Total area of sewers in a sub-watershed, based on Ft2 LA County Department of Public Works
length (calculated) and width (estimated or shapefile, accessible through the LA
reported) of sewer pipes County geospatial library
Area of surface Total area of surface channels, both natural and Ft2 LA County Department of Public Works
channels engineered in a sub-watershed as reported by shapefile, accessible through the LA
LA County. Area is based on length (calculated) County geospatial library
and width (estimated or reported) of channels
Response variables
Unit land cost Cost of an acre of land in a sub-watershed, $ per acre LA County property tax geospatial
including land value and improvements. The database
value is calculated by correlating the value of a
building and parcel with its geographic location
in a watershed using a unique identifier
Average runoff Average coefficient of runoff in the sub-watershed n/a LACDPW WMMS Database
coefficient
Building density The number of buildings in a watershed Buildings/ LA County parcel geospatial database
(determined using polygon-point analysis in GIS) acre
divided by the total watershed area
Population Population density within a sub-watershed, Persons per US Census
density calculated as the mean of population densities sq-mi
among census tracts comprising the sub-
watershed
Percent rental Percent of households in a sub-watershed that n/a US Census
households rent, calculated as the mean number of total
rental households divided by the mean number
of total households across census tracts
Percent multi- Percent of multi-family households in a sub- n/a US Census
family watershed, calculated as the mean number of
households total multi-family households divided by the
mean number of total households across census
tracts

Data sources
High-resolution geographic data for land cover, groundwater recharge, sewer pipe networks and
topography are essential components of stormwater analysis (Lai et al. 2007; DHI 2014). The Water-
shed Management Modeling System (WMMS) from the LA County Department of Public Works
(LACDPW) is a comprehensive hydrologic model for LA County. Its database delineates 2655 small
watersheds across the county, ranging in size from 3 to 11,500 acres (LACDPW 2013). The WMMS
model database contains values in each sub-watershed for urban design characteristics that are
key parameters of stormwater system design, including the percent of impervious surfaces,
average runoff coefficient to estimate the amount of precipitation that runs off a property, watershed
land area and design storm rainfall used to estimate the required volume of stormwater infrastructure
(Table 1). From the full WMMS database, we used 2230 sub-watersheds for which sociodemographic
and other factors could be identified through calculations. When merging spatial datasets, some
areas may not be calculable because data do not exist or spatial discontinuities prevent direct attri-
bution across layers of different geographic boundaries.
Locations of stormwater sewers and surface channels, which can both convey stormwater, were
derived from the LACDPW’s shape files of stormwater infrastructure locations (LACDPW 2012). The
 LOCAL ENVIRONMENT 509

sewer shape file includes both smaller “lateral lines” that convey stormwater from small areas and
larger “gravity mains” in which stormwater from many lateral lines collects and flows to treatment
plants or discharges to rivers and oceans. Statistical models tested the response variable of sewer
length as both the combined (lateral lines and gravity mains) and separate.
Estimates of building density, number of buildings and land costs were derived from the 2008 LA
County Tax Assessor’s database. Property tax records provide the value of land and improvements for
all parcels in the county, along with additional building characteristics such as recorded square-
footage and age (LA County Office of the Assessor 2008). Property boundaries and associated build-
ing locations were derived from the LA Region Imagery Acquisition Consortium’s imagery-derived
data (LARIAC 2012).
Additional sociodemographic indicators, including median income, percent of rental households,
percent of multi-family households and population density, were derived for census tracts in LA
County from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) database (ACS 2014).
This database is compiled from a statistically representative sample of households located within a
Census Block group, which can be aggregated to census tracts. The time period for the collected
sociodemographic information corresponds to the period ranging from 2010 to 2014.
Finally, the numerical index of environmental risk in an area was derived from the CalEnviroScreen
rankings, which quantifies risks of California residents to many sources of pollution at a small geo-
graphic scale (OEHHA 2016). CalEnviroScreen ranks all census tracts in California into percentiles,
with high percentiles values (85–100%) corresponding with at-risk communities.

Compiling data
The open-source Geographic Information System (GIS) software QGIS was used to calculate statistics
for each sub-watershed (QGIS Development Team 2014). The LA County GIS database provides a
shape file with stormwater pipe and channel locations, along with pipe and channel widths for
some, but not all, line segments. The length of stormwater pipes and channels was determined
using the Sum Line Lengths function in QGIS to calculate the linear distance of line segments in a
sub-watershed. The surface area of pipes and channels, which is the area only associated with the
pieces of grey infrastructure (not the collection basin area), was estimated by multiplying: (1) the
length of sewer and channel line segments in a watershed and (2) an assumed or noted width. In
cases where the width was not identified or infeasible in the database, the analysis estimated
2-foot diameter pipes, a reasonable assumption for engineering practice and 100-foot wide channels,
based on analysis of available data in the LA stormwater shape file. The area of channels is the esti-
mate land surface area, while for sewer pipes it would be an estimate of sub-surface area.
Average statistics for sociodemographics, building characteristics and environmental risk in sub-
watersheds were determined using the Join Attributes by Location function, which calculates
summary statistics of features within each polygon of a target layer. The analysis procedure calcu-
lated the number of buildings, summary characteristics for buildings (average square-footage and
average building age) and average unit costs of land in a watershed based on the LA County Tax
Assessor’s database and LARIAC data. Sociodemographic values were aggregated from ACS census
tract data to sub-watersheds by first determining centroids of census tracts to place them within a
sub-watershed, and then calculating the mean value of a variable, such as population density, in
all the census tracts comprising a sub-watershed.
For summary calculations of property and building characteristics in a watershed, buildings had to
be placed within a watershed. Addresses were associated with the parcel shape file using a common
parcel identifier, which allowed for connecting home values from the LA County Tax Assessor and
spatially distinct building polygons from the LARIAC data. In total, there were approximately 2.4
million records. The total value (land and improvements) of all buildings in a watershed was
summed and divided by the area of that sub-watershed, which yielded average land value per
acre. Building locations were pinpointed within in a single sub-watershed by creating centroids of
510 E. PORSE

building polygons that retained the full attribute list. Sociodemographic indicators and the CalEnvir-
oScreen scores were attributed to the watershed areas using a spatial join procedure. For instances
where the census tract boundary was larger than a watershed, the attributes associated with the
largest tract were given to a watershed.

Linear regression
Linear regression was performed using the open-source statistical package R (R Core Team 2014).
Tests for multicollinearity among dependent variables were performed and a linear model was fit
to test statistically significant relationships between response and explanatory variables. Explanatory
variables with multicollinearity or lacking statistical significance were removed using a backward
stepwise procedure to improve model fit. Two statistical models tested relationships between a
response variable (length or area of sewers/channels) and explanatory variables of: (1) design
factors and property characteristics, including runoff coefficient, imperviousness, building density,
number of buildings, land costs, maximum elevation change and average building age or (2) socio-
demographic factors including median household income, percent of renters and owners, percent of
single-family and multi-family households, population, population density and percent of families
above and below the poverty line. Reported models included statistically significant variables.

Ranking watersheds for multi-benefit investments

Once the spatial database for sub-watershed characteristics was compiled, including attributes for
existing stormwater infrastructure density, sociodemographic factors, and property and building
characteristics, all the LA County sub-watersheds with statistics (2203) were ranked according to
scores for existing stormwater infrastructure and environmental risk. Sub-watersheds of high interest
for potential multi-benefit investments were identified as those in both: (1) the top 15th percentile of
average CalEnviroScreen ranking and (2) the bottom 15th percentile of existing stormwater infrastruc-
ture coverage, calculated as the ratio of stormwater sewer length divided by population density.
Mapping showed the 30 watersheds in LA County where the two chosen score rankings of interest
corresponded. In these areas, communities are potentially at risk from both environmental hazards
(not necessarily hydrologic) and limited existing stormwater systems that could exacerbate flood
risk and water quality impacts. These would be candidates for future stormwater investments
using contemporary methods for green infrastructure.

Results
Based on analysing geospatial data from the LA County Department of Public Works, there are over
4604 miles of sewers and 835 miles of surface channels designated for stormwater conveyance in LA
County. This does not count any roads designed to convey water during large rainfall events. The dis-
tribution of sewer pipes and surface channels varies throughout the metropolitan region (Figure 2(a,
b)). Sewer pipes are prominent in urbanised areas, especially in downtown LA, coastal cities, and
along major thoroughfares of the coastal plain. Surface channels are more dispersed in the outskirts
and the Upper San Gabriel Valley, as well as in less urbanised areas of northern LA County. The length
estimated using GIS is greater than the recorded length estimated of underground storm drains
(3300 miles) and open surface channels (481 miles) per the LA County Management Maintenance
System, potentially due to the GIS layer including additional municipal stormwater sewer infrastruc-
ture systems that are not directly maintained by LA County (LACDPW 2015).
A general linear model by OLS revealed statistically significant relationships for the response vari-
able length of sewers, which is the length of gravity main sewers in a sub-watershed (R 2 = 0.67). Vari-
ables that were statistically significant and positively correlated to sewer length included average
runoff coefficient (β = 1.063e4), building density (β = 3.43e2) and percent impervious area (β = 5.69e1).
 LOCAL ENVIRONMENT 511

Figure 2. Geographic distribution of sewers and channels in LA County small watersheds defined by the LA County WMMS model.
Darker areas indicate a greater length of (a) sewer pipes and (b) channels.

Unit land costs were not statistically significant. Replacing the explanatory variable of building density
with the number of buildings increased the goodness of fit further for the model (R 2 = 0.75). Using the
response variable of estimated area of sewers, statistically significant relationships with the same
explanatory variables are preserved (R 2 = 0.46). If both gravity main and lateral line sewers are
included in the length of sewers, statistically significant relationships remain among the three posi-
tively correlated variables but the goodness of fit reduces (R 2 = 0.44). For a response variable of
length of surface channels, however, the same explanatory variables resulted in a linear model with
poor fit (R 2 = 0.09). Table 2 lists the model parameters and statistical levels of confidence for compar-
able models of infrastructure area. Topography, determined as the maximum elevation change in a
sub-watershed, was not a statistically significant predictor.
The geographic distribution of storm sewers and channels reflects findings from the statistical
analysis of urban and design factors. Many areas with more buildings, including downtown LA

Table 2. Results from linear regression models to assess relationships between: (1) explanatory variables for building
characteristics, design criteria and sociodemographic indicators and (2) response variables for density of storm sewer and
channel infrastructure.
Explanatory variables Coefficient Standard error t-value
Response variable: length of sewers (gravity mains) in sub-watershed (R 2 = 0.74)
Intercept*** −5.020e3 1.282e3 −3.92
Unit land cost −3.049e−5 3.079e−5 −0.991
Average runoff coefficient*** 6.570e3 1.585e3 4.15
Number of buildings*** 3.550e0 1.437e−1 24.71
Impervious area*** 3.446e1 1.220e0 28.25
Response variable: length of surface channels in sub-watershed (R 2 = 0.09)
Intercept 3.411e3 4.994e2 6.83
Unit land cost −5.546e−6 1.209e−5 0.65
Average runoff coefficient** −1.760e3 6.231e2 −2.82
Building density*** −2.435e2 2.943e1 −8.27
Impervious area*** 4.068e0 3.11e-1 13.08
Response variable: length of sewers (gravity mains) in sub-watershed (R 2 = 0.20)
Intercept*** 4.809e3 7.35e2 6.54
Population density*** 1.535e0 9.16e−2 16.75
Percent rental households*** −2.230e4 4.04e3 −5.52
Percent multi-family households*** 1.944e4 33.47e3 5.61
***Significant at <0.001 level, **significant at 0.01 level.
512 E. PORSE

and coastal areas, also have more sewers. Visually, areas with more surface channels inversely corre-
late with buildings, though the statistical model of this relationship fit poorly.
Sociodemographic indicators were less correlated with stormwater infrastructure in sub-water-
sheds (R 2 = 0.20). Population density and percent of multi-family households were positively corre-
lated and statistically significant, while the percent of rental households was negatively correlated.
Median household income, home ownership rates and percent of households above and below
the poverty line were not statistically significant.
For the multi-benefit prioritisation procedure, 30 sub-watersheds were identified as being in both
the highest 15th percentile for average CalEnviroScreen scores and the lowest 15th percentile for the
ratio of storm sewer length to population density. The areas were primarily located east of downtown
LA, with many in the San Gabriel Valley that comprises most of the area overlying the “Upper”
groundwater basins. In these upstream areas, water accumulates from urban streets and mountain
runoff, and is conveyed to several main rivers that have been hardened with concrete channels to
control floods. Mapping the districts shows clustering of priority areas (Figure 3).
Most clusters of identified priority watersheds for multi-benefit projects are located in areas along
the region’s channelised rivers and creeks, including the LA River, San Gabriel River, Luguna Channel
and Rio Hondo. This result is intriguing and may stem from historical urban development patterns.
The rivers in LA County have highly seasonal flows. In summer and early Fall, river channels would
be nearly empty in the absence of urbanisation given the region’s long dry summers. Most flow is
likely anthropogenic, related to runoff from irrigation (Manago and Hogue 2017). The LA River was
rare in retaining flow year round, leading to its use as an early source for drinking and irrigation
(Davis 1993; Desfor and Keil 2000; Gandy 2006). But all regional rivers can quickly swell and flood
during the handful of winter rainstorms, collecting runoff from upstream and sending it towards
the ocean. The advent of imported water to the region reduced the perceived value of regional
water sources, which instead became flood control liabilities. In the face of regular destructive flood-
ing, the Army Corps of Engineers and LA County embarked on a massive, decades-long building

Figure 3. Mapping sub-watersheds with high average CalEnviroScreen scores (top 15%) and low ratios of stormwater infrastructure
to population density (bottom 15%). Prioritised areas are highlighted in circles, along with corresponding local rivers.
 LOCAL ENVIRONMENT 513

campaign to harden rivers using concrete channels and underground tunnels (Desfor and Keil 2000;
Gandy 2006). Riverfront property was not an amenity, instead often dedicated to industrial zones or
working class communities only after hardening the channels (Desfor and Keil 2000).
Continued urbanisation created new flood risks in the 1970s and 1980s as more imperviousness
created even larger peak flows. The regional conversations, however, changed, slowly moving from
an engineering-dominated perspective of flood protection through built reinforcements, to one of
broader ecological restoration and multi-use land planning (Desfor and Keil 2000; Gumprecht
2001; Gandy 2006). The many instances of at-risk communities located along concreted rivers and
drainage channels are a legacy of past practices emphasizing channelization of rivers and land rede-
velopment, which was driven by political processes (Desfor and Keil 2000). Urban expansion built up
to the edges of channelised rivers, which was useful land but not prime real estate. As a caveat,
however, the prominence of priority investment communities alongside rivers could stem instead
from the index of storm sewer density that was one-half of the ranking procedure. More detailed
site investigations, or a broader index with more variables, would be useful for operationalising
the method further. But balancing site-specific knowledge and broad geographic analysis is a consist-
ent tradeoff when studying trends in cities.
The identified areas that rank highly for both environmental risk and limited existing infrastructure
are distant from the coast and its many affluent communities. Several are located in unincorporated
areas outside of chartered city boundaries where LA County is a primary service provider for infra-
structure and public programs. But the areas of East LA are quickly gentrifying, as soaring regional
property values drive existing and new residents inland in search of more affordable housing. The
long effort in recent decades to redevelop the LA River, too, is leading to the massive development
and land speculation. With increased growth and higher land values, influxes of new residents will
likely drive infrastructure improvements. For stormwater, this likely means local projects based on
green infrastructure, especially given a countywide ordinance to promote new buildings to
capture and infiltrate on-site up to a uniquely high volume of stormwater (LA RWQCB 2016).

Discussion
The ranking procedure used to identify priority areas for investments is demonstrative. Adapting it to
other regions would require a survey of available data and regional goals. In practice, for a given
region or watershed, developing a ranking procedure would necessarily include stakeholders such
as government agencies, non-profits, community organisations and others in devising an agreed-
upon procedure for identifying how to evaluate potential projects in the face of many needs and
limited funds. Data availability in LA and California is also unique. Los Angeles is a highly modelled
urban basin with excellent open-source data for land use, hydrology and infrastructure. The
CalEnviroScreen tool provides an important resource for standardising rankings of sociodemographic
information from the US Census and more difficult to compile data on environmental hazards and
pollution. But, most urban areas have some sort of model to support regional stormwater planning,
and US Census data are easily available in high detail. Thus, performing a similar analysis for other
major metropolitan areas and sectors of infrastructure planning, tailored to support planning
needs, is quite feasible. Improving open-source data availability and municipal expertise in basic stat-
istical and geospatial analysis would significantly improve metropolitan planning capacity to
promote EJ and equity.
Interpreting results requires contextual understanding. Stormwater systems are intuitively related
to design parameters such as runoff coefficient. These parameters would result from both human
actions to change landscapes and natural features such as topography. For instance, humans increase
runoff coefficients by creating impervious surfaces, but more water will run off of hilly areas. Storm-
water systems that correlate with building density also make sense, as urban development requires
more engineered infrastructure of all types, including stormwater mitigation, to augment natural
capacities that are altered or diminished through urbanisation.
514 E. PORSE

Curiously, however, only underground sewers, and not surface channels, yield a model with a
strong fit for design parameters and characteristics of buildings and land use. This could imply
that past stormwater infrastructure decisions predominantly emphasised underground sewers,
while surface conveyance channels were built by augmenting natural drainage channels. Indeed,
many of the stormwater system outflows (for large storms) are natural channels that have been har-
dened, indicating how natural environments intimately influenced the development of urban infra-
structure and morphology.
Environmental risks, such as living beside a natural flood channel that fills during large storms, are
inherently tied to landscapes, even in urban areas. Risks can be mitigated, though not entirely pre-
vented, through infrastructure. Decisions regarding placement of infrastructure are critical to creating
equitable cities. As stormwater systems evolve, they will slowly change from centralised systems,
relying primarily on runoff conveyance, to hybridised systems with green and grey infrastructure
that emphasise on-site retention and infiltration to reduce large flows. During the investments
that drive this shift, equity considerations will become even more important. Who controls, funds
and maintains stormwater systems are critical. Municipalities facing budget constraints hope to
offload some portion of stormwater management costs to the private sector through building
codes, wrapping construction costs into long-term amortised mortgages that are paid off over
decades. Yet, system maintenance costs are significant. Households and commercial building
owners may not have financial resources or expertise to maintain landscapes. If on-site systems
fall into disrepair, environmental degradation and flood risks ensue. Thus, distributing costs and
responsibilities for stormwater system management can have unintended consequences for individ-
ual property owners, as well as localities that must meet stormwater management regulatory targets.
Planning processes that address EJ in locating distributed stormwater infrastructure can help mitigate
risks, but only through thoughtful involvement by municipalities and regulatory agencies.
The statistical analysis identified positive correlations between building density and sewer length,
but not economic indicators such as land costs. This may have several explanations. The analysis used
tax assessment data, which can be less accurate than actual real estate sales data (Sample et al. 2003;
Thurston 2006). In addition, building density and land values are only moderately correlated in the
region (Spearman’s correlation: 0.55). Economic efficiency, i.e. building underground sewers in
areas of high land costs, does not entirely explain the locations of storm sewers in LA County.
Instead, standardised engineering practices likely emphasised sewers as the modern industrial
metropolis expanded. As cities update stormwater systems with green infrastructure, however,
land costs are often a major component of design discussions, especially comparing costs of
green and grey designs.

Conclusions
An analysis of stormwater infrastructure in over 2000 sub-watersheds of LA County revealed expla-
natory variables correlated with storm sewer density and identified priority areas for multi-benefit
stormwater investments. Statistically significant correlations exist between storm sewer infrastructure
locations and hydrologic design parameters, land use and buildings, and sociodemographic indi-
cators. Stormwater system design variables were intuitively a strong predictor of stormwater infra-
structure locations. But sociodemographic variables were statistically significant though with lower
R 2 values. Together, results imply that while engineering and hydrologic parameter estimates are
strong factors in stormwater planning, sociodemographic variables, which are not often considered
designing urban stormwater controls, also influence resultant systems. The analysis was limited in
using estimates of design parameters based on empirical model inputs from the LA County
WMMS model, which delineates small watersheds and associated hydrologic and land cover
parameters.
The procedure for prioritising multi-benefit stormwater project investments revealed high-detail
watershed areas with strong potential for multi-benefit outcomes that include reducing
 LOCAL ENVIRONMENT 515

environmental risks faced by residents, both flooding and exposure to pollutants. Analysis with GIS
identified small watersheds in LA County with high exposure to environmental risks but limited exist-
ing stormwater infrastructure. Several areas in central and eastern LA County have clusters of small
watersheds that meet these criteria. Targeted implementations of green infrastructure designs and
technologies could help reduce the risk of exposure to certain environmental hazards, making pro-
jects both equitable and economic.
The analysis framework can be extended by using more detailed rainfall-runoff modelling
to identify areas of high flood risk, not just low presence of stormwater infrastructure, which correlate
with areas of high exposure risk to pollutants. Broader, multi-disciplinary approaches such as
these will be increasingly necessary as design goals for more sustainable stormwater infrastructure
expand beyond reducing flood risks to include urban amenities, ecosystem services and social equity.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation, Water Sustainability and Climate Program under Grant
number 1204235.

References
ACS. 2014. American Community Survey. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office: U.S. Census Bureau.
Bedan, Erik S., and John C. Clausen. 2009. “Stormwater Runoff Quality and Quantity from Traditional and Low Impact
Development Watersheds.” JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association 45 (4): 998–1008. doi:10.
1111/j.1752-1688.2009.00342.x.
Bolund, Per, and Sven Hunhammar. 1999. “Ecosystem Services in Urban Areas.” Ecological Economics 29 (2): 293–301.
doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00013-0.
Brabec, E., S. Schulte, and P. L. Richards. 2002. “Impervious Surfaces and Water Quality: A Review of Current Literature and
Its Implications for Watershed Planning.” Journal of Planning Literature 16 (4): 499–514. doi:10.1177/
088541202400903563.
Bullard, Robert D. 2007. “Growing Smarter: Achieving Livable Communities, Environmental Justice, and Regional Equity.”
In Urban and Industrial Environments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bullard, Robert D., and Glenn S. Johnson. 2000. “Environmentalism and Public Policy: Environmental Justice: Grassroots
Activism and Its Impact on Public Policy Decision Making.” Journal of Social Issues 56 (3): 555–578. doi:10.1111/0022-
4537.00184.
Census. 2013. 2010 Census of the United States of America. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office: U.S. Census
Bureau.
Davis, Margaret Leslie. 1993. Rivers in the Desert: William Mulholland and the Inventing of Los Angeles. 1st ed. New York, NY:
HarperCollins Publishers.
De Leon, Kevin. 2012. An Act to Add Sections 39711, 39713, 39715, 39721, and 39723 to the Health and Safety Code,
Relating to Climate Change.
Desfor, Gene, and Roger Keil. 2000. “Every River Tells a Story: The Don River (Toronto) and the Los Angeles River (Los
Angeles) as Articulating Landscapes.” Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 2 (1): 5–23. doi:10.1080/738552351.
DHI. 2014. MIKE URBAN (version Release 2014). Hørsholm, Denmark.
Dietz, Michael E. 2007. “Low Impact Development Practices: A Review of Current Research and Recommendations for
Future Directions.” Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 186 (1–4): 351–363. doi:10.1007/s11270-007-9484-z.
Duncan, H. P. 1995a. A Review of Urban Stormwater Quality Processes. 95/9. Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment
Hydrology.
Duncan, H. P. 1995b. A Bibliography of Urban Stormwater Quality. 95/8. Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment
Hydrology.
Ellis, Harry C. 1986. “Pollutional Aspects of Urban Runoff.” In Urban Runoff Pollution, NATO Advanced Research Workshop on
“Urban Runoff Pollution.”, edited by J. Marsalek and Michel Desbordes, 1–38. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
EPA. 1998. Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice in EPA’s NEPA Compliance Analysis. Washington, DC:
Environmental Protection Agency.
516 E. PORSE

Gandy, Matthew. 2006. “Riparian Anomie: Reflections on the Los Angeles River.” Landscape Research 31 (2): 135–145.
doi:10.1080/01426390600638471.
Gomez, Jimmy. 2016. An Act to Amend Section 39713 of the Health and Safety Code, Relating to Greenhouse Gases.
Gómez-Baggethun, Erik, Åsa Gren, David N. Barton, Johannes Langemeyer, Timon McPhearson, Patrick O’Farrell, Erik
Andersson, Zoe Hamstead, and Peleg Kremer. 2013. “Urban Ecosystem Services.” In Urbanization, Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities, edited by Thomas Elmqvist, 175–251. Dordrecht: Springer. http://
link.springer.com/10.1007/978-94-007-7088-1_11.
Gumprecht, Blake. 2001. The Los Angeles River: Its Life, Death, and Possible Rebirth. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Hollis, G. E. 1975. “The Effect of Urbanization on Floods of Different Recurrence Interval.” Water Resources Research 11 (3):
431. doi:10.1029/WR011i003p00431.
Howard, Sandy. 2010. Focus on Toxic Chemicals in Puget Sound. 08-10-097. Seattle, WA: Washington Department of
Ecology.
Hughes, Thomas. 1993. Networks of Power : Electrification in Western Society, 1880-1930. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Jose, Roshni, Rebecca Wade, and Chris Jefferies. 2015. “Smart SUDS: Recognising the Multiple-Benefit Potential of
Sustainable Surface Water Management Systems.” Water Science & Technology 71 (2): 245. doi:10.2166/wst.2014.484.
LA County Office of the Assessor. 2008. Los Angeles County Property Assessment Database. Los Angeles: LA County Office
of the Assessor.
LA RWQCB. 2016. Order No. R4-2012-0175 as Amended by State Water Board Order WQ 2015-0075 and Los Angeles Board
Order R4-2012-0175-A01. NPDES Permit No. CAS004001. Los Angeles, CA: California Regional Water Quality Control
Board, Los Angeles Region.
LACDPW. 2012. Los Angeles County Storm Drain System Shape Files (eGIS_Hydro). Los Angeles: LA County Department of
Public Works.
LACDPW. 2013. Los Angeles County Water Management Modeling System (WMMS). Los Angeles: Los Angeles County
Department of Public Works.
LACDPW. 2015. “Personal Correspondence with Lee Alexanderson,” June 25.
Lai, F., T. Dai, J. Zhen, J. Riverson, K. Alvi, and L. Shoemaker. 2007. “SUSTAIN: An EPA BMP Process and Placement Tool for
Urban Watersheds.” Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation 2005 (7): 946–968.
LARIAC. 2012. “Countywide Buildings Outlines Shapfile.” GIS. Los Angeles: Los Angeles Region Imagery Acquisition
Consortium.
Low Impact Development Center. 2000. Low Impact Development (LID): A Literature Review. EPA-841-B-00-005.
Washington, DC: US EPA and Low Impact Development Center.
Lundy, L., and R. Wade. 2011. “Integrating Sciences to Sustain Urban Ecosystem Services.” Progress in Physical Geography
35 (5): 653–669. doi:10.1177/0309133311422464.
Manago, Kimberly F., and Terri S. Hogue. 2017. “Urban Streamflow Response to Imported Water and Water Conservation
Policies in Los Angeles, California.” JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association 53 (3): 626–640. doi:10.
1111/1752-1688.12515.
McCuen, Richard. 1979. “Downstream Effects of Stormwater Management Basins.” Journal of the Hydraulics Division 105
(11): 1343–1356.
MEA. 2003. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework for Assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC: Millenium
Ecosystem Assessment.
Miguez, Marcelo Gomes, Osvaldo Moura Rezende, and Aline Pires Veról. 2014. “City Growth and Urban Drainage
Alternatives: Sustainability Challenge.” Journal of Urban Planning and Development 141 (3): 04014026. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000219.
Moore, Trisha L.C., and William F. Hunt. 2012. “Ecosystem Service Provision by Stormwater Wetlands and Ponds – A Means
for Evaluation?” Water Research 46 (20): 6811–6823. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2011.11.026.
Oberndorfer, Erica, Jeremy Lundholm, Brad Bass, Reid R. Coffman, Hitesh Doshi, Nigel Dunnett, Stuart Gaffin, Manfred
KöHler, Karen K. Y. Liu, and Bradley Rowe. 2007. “Green Roofs as Urban Ecosystems: Ecological Structures,
Functions, and Services.” BioScience 57 (10): 823. doi:10.1641/B571005.
OEHHA. 2016. CalEnviroScreen v 3.0. Sacramento, CA: California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.
Pataki, Diane E, Margaret M Carreiro, Jennifer Cherrier, Nancy E Grulke, Viniece Jennings, Stephanie Pincetl, Richard V
Pouyat, Thomas H Whitlow, and Wayne C Zipperer. 2011. “Coupling Biogeochemical Cycles in Urban
Environments: Ecosystem Services, Green Solutions, and Misconceptions.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
9 (1): 27–36. doi:10.1890/090220.
Porse, Erik. 2013. “Stormwater Governance and Future Cities.” Water 5 (1): 29–52. doi:10.3390/w5010029.
QGIS Development Team. 2014. QGIS Geographic Information System (version 2.4.0-Chugiak). Open Source Geospatial
Foundation Project. http://qgis.osgeo.org.
R Core Team. 2014. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical
Computing. http://www.R-project.org/.
 LOCAL ENVIRONMENT 517

Sample, David J., James P. Heaney, Leonard T. Wright, Chi-Yuan Fan, Fu-Hsiung Lai, and Richard Field. 2003. “Costs of Best
Management Practices and Associated Land for Urban Stormwater Control.” Journal of Water Resources Planning and
Management 129 (1): 59–68. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2003)129:1(59).
Sedlak, David L. 2014. Water 4.0: The Past, Present, and Future of the World’s Most Vital Resource. Yale University Press.
Shuster, W. D., J. Bonta, H. Thurston, E. Warnemuende, and D. R. Smith. 2005. “Impacts of Impervious Surface on
Watershed Hydrology: A Review.” Urban Water Journal 2 (4): 263–275. doi:10.1080/15730620500386529.
SWRCB. 2015. Proposition 1 Storm Water Grant Program Guidelines. California State Water Resources Control Board.
Tarr, Joel. 1979. “The Separate vs. Combined Sewer Problem: A Case Study in Urban Technology Design Choice.” Journal
of Urban History 5 (May): 308–339.
Tarr, Joel. 1984. “The Evolution of the Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries.” In Perspectives on
Urban Infrastructure. Committee on National Urban Policy, National Research Council, 4–66. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.
Tarr, Joel, James McCurley, Francis McMichael, and Terry Yosie. 1984. “Water and Wastes: A Retrospective Assessment of
Wastewater Technology in the U.S., 1800-1932.” Technology and Culture 25 (2): 226–263.
Thurston, Hale W. 2006. “Opportunity Costs of Residential Best Management Practices for Stormwater Runoff Control.”
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 132 (2): 89–96. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2006)132:2(89).
Visitacion, Bernadette J., Derek B. Booth, and Anne C. Steinemann. 2009. “Costs and Benefits of Storm-Water
Management: Case Study of the Puget Sound Region.” Journal of Urban Planning and Development 135 (4): 150–
158. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2009)135:4(150).
Wolch, Jennifer R., Jason Byrne, and P. Newell Joshua. 2014. “Urban Green Space, Public Health, and Environmental
Justice: The Challenge of Making Cities ‘Just Green Enough.’.” Landscape and Urban Planning 125 (May): 234–244.
doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017.
Zoppou, Christopher. 2001. “Review of Urban Storm Water Models.” Environmental Modelling & Software 16 (3): 195–231.
doi:10.1016/S1364-8152(00)00084-0.