Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Howard County DPW highlights stormwater priorities, tensions over stream restoration and credits
Summary
The Department of Public Works outlined storm drainage and stormwater priorities for FY26 including pond and outfall repairs, a new green-streets initiative and continued stream-stabilization work. Council members pressed staff on the scale of stream-restoration projects and how the county calculates credits under the MS4 permit.
Department of Public Works Director Yosef Gabeta and DPW bureau chiefs presented the storm drainage and stormwater elements of the FY26 capital program and answered extended council questions about stream restoration, credits and the county pproach to green-streets projects.
DPW described recurring pond-repair work performed under the storm-drainage program (D1177), noting the county inspects ponds and selects 7— projects per year for rehabilitation. Gabeta said the department is pursuing a "green streets" pilot and is working with a consultant to identify locations and tools (bio-retention, curb extensions, tree plantings) that can be used where site conditions allow. "We do not have any projects completed just yet," he told the council while showing example treatments used elsewhere.
Council members repeatedly pressed DPW on the county pproach to stream-restoration projects. Councilmember Young raised concerns that some previous, large-scale restorations had appeared destructive in execution and asked whether the county could achieve MS4 permit credit by prioritizing other actions such as impervious-area reduction, street sweeping, septic hookups and targeted maintenance.
DPW and bureau chiefs said priorities have shifted in recent years from large linear restorations to smaller, targeted repairs and "strategic strikes" that address exposed utilities, failing outfalls or immediate risks to private property. Mark DeLuca (stormwater) described recent work that limited dewatering of ponds to minimize wildlife impacts and said the department maximizes credits across a menu of activities used by the state (street sweeping, septic connections, pond/stream projects), rather than relying solely on stream-bank restorations.
Why it matters: under the county—urrent MS4 regulatory framework and crediting rules, the county must show a portfolio of improvements. Council members noted the high cost and neighborhood impacts of some restorations and urged DPW to emphasize green infrastructure, impervious-area reduction and other lower-impact solutions where feasible.
On Program Open Space funding and federal grants: DPW and Recreation & Parks staff told the council they are seeing reduced Program Open Space funding compared with the recent elevated "catch up" period because POS is tied to state transfer tax receipts. Mooneyhan told the council that some state bond requests were partially funded and that the department was submitting congressional earmark requests in some cases.
Council dialogue and next steps: council members requested updated, near-term lists of planned work and credits. DPW said the county reports credit activity to state regulators and will supply the council with updated program summaries; staff also said they would consider consultant support to speed delivery if requests continue at the current rate.
No formal decisions or votes on stormwater policy were recorded during the work session. DPW staff emphasized that while the county will continue to use stream-stabilization as an available tool, future projects will emphasize minimizing tree loss, reducing limits of disturbance and working with communities on site-specific construction approaches.
