NEWS MAKERS: The Non-Point Man

Dov Weitman’s position with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is inherently contradictory: He’s the point man on non-point. More accurately, he’s the chief of the agency’s Non-Point Source Control branch and is charged with developing programs to reduce impacts from areas such as agriculture, forestry, grazing and, of course, urban runoff. But ultimately, his priority and passion is stream and watershed protection.

We caught up with Weitman – a Harvard-educated attorney and 30-year EPA veteran – following an October speech to the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA), where he suggested ways that designers and contractors can profit from the green movement in urban design.

In layman’s terms, define non-point source pollution.
Dov Weitman: We define it by what it isn’t. Point source gets discharged from a particular place: factories, sewage from homes, wastewater treatment, etc. It all comes from one point. In my program, we address things that are diffused over the land. There are a lot of things such as stormwater runoff that fall in the middle. Congress has decided that stormwater runoff – in larger cities – is considered point source and is regulated. Non-point pollution at the federal level isn’t a regulatory program. It’s more about outreach, education and funding for programs. 

When you think of our business – lawn care, golf, etc. – what issues jump to mind?
DW: The main overall issue is development. Lawns and urban landscapes are just a part of that pattern. We’re seeing that more land is becoming impervious or functionally impervious. In other words, it rains, and instead of the water doing the natural thing – replenishing groundwater – it now hits the ground and stays on the ground and runs off. It looks for the nearest sewer or flows into the nearest stream. It’s a tremendous volume of water and it physically destroys streams and watersheds. That’s the No. 1 problem. 

If you’re in an urban area and you go by a stream and see that brown water, that’s soil off the banks and the bed. You also see banks with roots sticking out and trees falling in. It’s a reflection of the force of the water. The streams in developed areas get wider and shallower. In a normal system where water infiltrates into the ground, that doesn’t happen.

So our main focus really comes down to groundwater recharge, loss of habitat and risk to groundwater.

That might surprise those in our industry who think the EPA just worries about lawn chemicals.
DW: In our group, we’ve always paid attention to those issues. We have a whole chapter on fertilizers and pesticides in our guidebook. We do consider it a problem. When we talk to ag producers about our concerns with their practices, they always point out that urban pollution is a factor, too.

There are certainly issues with fertilizers, pesticides and oil/gas spills from service stations. But those aren’t as serious as the simple volume of rain that runs off in urbanized areas, eroding our stream beds and our stream banks.

Talk about “dead zones” in the Great Lakes and other places. 
DW: The main dead zone over the last decade is the one in the Gulf of Mexico. It’s such a large area and so hard to study that it’s difficult to say how much pollution might come from lawns. The U.S. Geological Survey has models showing that the primary source of the pollutants – nitrogen and phosphorus – comes from fertilizers applied on agricultural lands and from animal waste.  

What kinds of practices or new regulation would you advocate to limit impact from urban practices such as lawn care?
DW:  We can talk about better practices – using less fertilizers and pesticides or using them more judiciously – but the theme I’d like to focus on is the business opportunity side of “green infrastructure,” or low-impact development. These are the kinds of practices needed to infiltrate water on the site. Things like rain gardens, infiltration, bio-filters, green roofs, porous pavers and such. We’re working quite closely with the ASLA because they believe that the aesthetic part can be compatible with our goals. There’s a huge opportunity here for the landscape contractors, particularly as more cities begin to require these types of construction.

Could you give us an example of green infrastructure?
DW: Imagine you’re landscaping a house with a decent-sized yard. Take a low-lying corner of that yard that’s maybe 150 square feet. Dig out a few feet of soil in that area and return a mix of soil and an amendment to increase porosity. You can use sand or peat or compost. You’re creating an area below the surface that returns rainwater to groundwater. You can make it aesthetically nice, but make sure to select the right plants that can handle lots of water or none. We have a bunch of rain gardens at EPA Headquarters that look gorgeous this summer. The whole idea within our division is to encourage more of this kind of simple solution. 

Green roofs are another example. The concept is probably new to most landscape contractors, but who’s more qualified to plant a lawn on a roof? Green roofs are going to grow into a lucrative thing as well. We’re seeing hundreds of them in cities such as Chicago, Portland and Washington, D.C. As I said, it’s an amazing business opportunity for contractors as they become more commonplace.

What was the focus of your ASLA speech last month?
DW: My focus was that you can help the environment and save money for your clients at the same time. We studied 17 cases, and in almost all of them, the developer used these types of practices and saved money. Hard infrastructure items such as big sewer pipes and sidewalks are very expensive. If you can reduce or eliminate these things, you can save a lot of money. There might be added expenses for a rain garden or a green roof, but the avoided costs are generally greater than the increased costs of doing them. It’s a business opportunity to embrace.

What’s your greatest fear about our watersheds?
DW: I live two blocks from Rock Creek Park in Washington, D.C. They close the roads on weekends and my wife and I love to walk through there because it goes into the heart of Washington. On one hand, we love to have the water there. On the other, it’s a textbook illustration of what’s wrong. Trees are falling in, the banks keep getting wider and there are no fish. When I witness this, it hurts. That’s my motivation. I came to EPA to make a difference. I want future generations to be able to appreciate the beauty of nature, and to have groundwater to drink and use.

Any last thoughts about the “green” movement?
DW: It’s growing rapidly, and I can’t emphasize enough that it means more business for people in your market. Cities and counties nationwide are pushing this and it’s growing phenomenally. Every day, I hear about more communities getting into it. Everybody’s totally jazzed about the progress we’re making and I think your readers should be, too.