Making Stormwater Work for Housing—and Water Quality

The recent Executive Order on housing affordability has reignited a familiar debate: are stormwater regulations driving up the cost of new homes? Critics argue that compliance adds thousands of dollars per unit with unclear benefit. Defenders respond that these requirements protect waterways, reduce flooding, and provide long-term value. Both perspectives contain truth—but neither fully addresses the underlying issue.

The real problem is not that we regulate stormwater. It’s that we too often lack a clear, consistent link between what we require and the outcomes we achieve.

If affordability is the goal, the path forward is not to weaken stormwater protections. It is to make them more accountable, more targeted, and more cost-effective.

Today’s framework leans heavily on prescriptive design. We require certain practices—bioretention, infiltration, detention—based on the assumption that they will deliver water quality benefits. In some cases, they do. In others, performance varies widely depending on design, construction, and maintenance. Yet once installed, many systems are rarely evaluated to confirm whether they are actually working as intended.

That disconnect matters. It undermines public confidence, invites criticism, and makes it difficult to defend the cost of compliance.

There is a better way.

First, we should prioritize performance verification. Using established field testing protocols like TAPE or lab protocols like NJDEP we can link specific stormwater treatment technologies to measured pollutant removal outcomes under defined conditions. Incorporating performance verification standards for all stormwater control measures into permits and manuals will ensure that results are delivered rather than assumed. It will also encourage innovation that improves the delivery of water quality benefits per dollar invested.

Second, we should refocus on operation and maintenance of existing infrastructure. Billions of dollars have already been spent installing stormwater controls, but too often those systems are neglected after installation. Maintaining or restoring their intended functionality is one of the highest-return investments available.  Collecting accurate O&M information is also critical for estimating life cycle costs of stormwater controls and can inform design decisions that help us avoid expensive surprises later on.

Third, we should better align tools with objectives. Not every site requires the same solution. Where the goal is pollutant removal, innovative treatment systems may achieve equal or better results with a smaller footprint and lower cost than conventional controls, even if they don’t provide the same volume reduction benefits. Where hydrologic impacts matter, retention and infiltration remain essential. Recognizing this distinction allows for more efficient and context-sensitive design.

Fourth, we should look upstream. A significant portion of nutrient loading and sediment comes from sources that are often less regulated than urban development, including agriculture and certain industrial activities. Addressing these contributors more directly can reduce the pressure placed on new housing to carry a disproportionate share of the burden.

Finally, we should streamline permitting and reduce unnecessary complexity. Predictable, performance-based pathways can shorten approval timelines and reduce soft costs without sacrificing environmental outcomes.

The choice before us is not between affordable housing and clean water. It is between a system that relies on assumptions and one that delivers measurable results.  If we take this opportunity to modernize stormwater regulation—focusing on verified performance, proper maintenance, and targeted application—we can achieve both.