Stormwater Utility Fees and Credits: A Funding Strategy for Sustainability

Round  1

Reviewer 1 Report

See attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attached file for the point-by-point response. 

Thanks,

Jerry

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In the article “Stormwater Utility Fees and Credits: A Funding Strategy for Sustainability” the authors survey existing research and information on stormwater utilities. As noted by the authors, much of the work in this area is not peer-reviewed. The authors attempt to organize the public policy, finance, and administrative aspects of the state of knowledge on SWUs from a more academic perspective.

The topic is useful and the collection of sources surveyed is appropriate. In the reviewer’s opinion, however, not enough scrutiny is given to sources in evaluating information to make the article authoritative.

Of importance, the article mixes concepts of utilities and fees throughout. At the outset, the title notes the article's topic of stormwater utility fees and credits, but the text soon dives into the concept of stormwater utilities. These are sometimes confused and subject to loose language in grey literature, but fees and utilities are different. Utilities are the designated entity with authority to raise funds through sources such as fees and organize stormwater management activities. A municipal department in charge of a stormwater program may use a utility to generate funding through tax/fee authority. Throughout the article, the presentation confuses stormwater utilities and the fees they may enact (see lines 123-130, for instance). Better clarity is required.

The article does not adequately differentiate its contribution to existing literature. In areas where it could, such as the review of efficiency, equity, sustainability, and feasibility, there are confusing or inaccurate statements (some notes are below). It is not clear what new knowledge is being generated. For instance, section 3.1 summarizes results of another survey, which were mentioned in the literature review.

Finally, the article has typos and grammatical errors throughout.

In summary, while the article has potential, it is not recommended for publication in its current form.

- Line 47-48 reads awkwardly

- Lines 54-57 are repeated from the introduction.

- Lines 100-106- missing word and several typos (increase >> increases)

- Lines 119-122 are again a repeat of presented information and not actually findings of this study, but instead findings from a previous study with actual data collection

- Lines 123-130- This paragraph is confusing. For instance, SWUs are not user fees. They may be used to collect user fees. One purpose of setting up an SWU is to have access to line-item funding as part of a suite of revenue sources. The line, “In particular, several communities allocate these funds for stormwater infrastructure and stormwater management - operations and maintenance” is not correct. Nearly all communities with SWUs would be doing this to some extent.

- Lines 131-142 could be much more robust and actually provide information for the readers of this journal not familiar with such structures.

- Line 158- There are several *potential* parameters

- Lines 164-166- there is an issue with the presentation of some of the rate structures. ERU’s for instance… Lines 164-165 are accurate. Lines 165-166 do not read accurately.

- Lines 176-179 is not an original thought and requires one or more citations, including:
http://neefc.org/files/docs/water/StormwaterUtilityFeeReport.pdf

- Lines 226-271- While noted that this discussion draws on research framings from public administration literature, it reads oddly. In some instance, the purpose of fees may be to change behavior. But it could also be argued that they are primarily generating revenue to address an environmental issue (small-scale flooding, water quality) that has always been an issue in cities and likely will not go away.

- Lines 274-289 do not address the mixed fee structures noted earlier.

- Lines 320-322 are not an accurate statement when the rates are indexed to inflation or have another mechanism for growing.

Author Response

Please see the attached file for a point-by-point response. 

Thanks,

Jerry

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper consistently addresses a topic of great topicality and increasing importance. It is an important issue for many countries, but the paper is devalued because it focuses only on the reality of the US and seems to have been written only for readers of this country (for example, on line 23 should be “U. S. Congress” and not just “Congress”...)

In some European countries, for example, there is a strong trend towards joint management of wastewater and stormwater. We think that the authors should also include a reflection on this hypothesis.

There seems to be a contradiction between lines 23 (“In response to the impacts from stormwater runoff…”) and 25 (“… but did not specifically address stormwater.”). It is suggested to the authors a clarification of this paragraph.

Author Response

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 19.0px; font: 13.0px 'Helvetica Neue'; color: #000000}

Please see the attached file for a point-by-point response.

Thanks,

Jerry

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

This article is presented such as a review. I found some problems in the structure:

- In abstract, the Objective is not showed with precision. Results need a better description and in the Conclusion, description say: "Stormwater utility fees are a more efficient and environmentally sustainable source of revenue that allow for long-range planning of capital improvements and operations. "

How you conclude that?

- Material and Methods is generalized and do not have description of instruments

- Results have two parts, first related with an addition of literature review, and second with and analysis of data from literature or institutional results. In the first case, the results do not have an analysis of SWUs related to funding strategy, in the reason of describe the method for this proposal.

- Conclusion, in this section authors mention that "Compared to traditional stormwater funding", so, this article has a proposal of "compared"?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attached file for a point-by-point response.

Thanks,

Jerry

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round  2

Reviewer 1 Report

See attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attached response. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has been improved. A few remaining items can be addressed:

- Lines 31-33: Given the source the authors cite (WKU report), this statement does not read correctly. Please cite a source or remove.

- Line 86- what costs are associated with SUFs?

- Line 110: for the municipal service of stormwater management, not the resident’s use of the stormwater system.

Author Response

Please see the attached response. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Author,

This version is presented with a new structure and more details in the analysis.

Minor changes in conclusion with the academic language.

Suggestion in the text.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attached response. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx