County warns stormwater program is underfunded; classified-dam assessments and costly retrofits looming

Department of the Environment (DOE) officials told the Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment committee that Prince George's County faces rising stormwater maintenance costs, regulatory obligations and aging infrastructure that together create a funding gap the county must address.

Jeff (DOE) summarized capital and program obligations tied to the county's stormwater portfolio and said project alignment in the stormwater CIP approaches $164,000,000. He noted permit requirements for impervious area restoration and reported the county was on track to meet permit‑cycle targets for the current cycle as presented.

Joanna Smith, who oversees stormwater inspections, said the county manages about 900 stormwater ponds and that maintenance and restoration needs outpace available funding: "On average, we're looking about 40 to 50 facilities [funded], and on average, we're getting anywhere between 50 and 70 facilities failing," she said, underscoring a recurring gap year to year.

DOE described a classified dams initiative created in 2024 to assess and address ponds that may be reclassified as higher‑hazard dams under state review. Jeff said the county's inventory of classified dams has increased from seven to "over 22" and that phases 2 and 3 of the program (countywide assessment and rehabilitation) will be multi‑year and potentially expensive. DOE staff warned that converting stormwater ponds to classified dams could carry "upwards hundreds of millions" in project costs and urged council attention to long‑term funding choices.

DOE also described a major local CIP project, the Calvert Hills drainage improvement (four parts A–D), with parts C and D under construction and parts A and B at 90% design; staff said they are pursuing a $10,600,000 grant from the Maryland Board of Public Works to supplement county funds.

On revenue, Jeff said the county has not raised its ad valorem stormwater fee since the program's inception in 1987 while the inventory of infrastructure has more than doubled, creating a structural deficit and compliance risk with state permits. DOE urged the council to consider revenue and policy options to avoid future consent‑decree risk and to keep up with maintenance and rehabilitation obligations.

Councilmembers thanked DOE, offered help to keep projects on schedule, and requested follow‑up materials on backlog, grant status and the existing solar/tax credit programs that link to climate and resilience work. DOE agreed to provide the committee the detailed responses in the virtual binder and to follow up on budget and program questions.

The briefing flagged both near‑term capital needs (Calvert Hills grant pursuit, inspection follow‑ups) and longer‑term structural choices about fees and program funding, with DOE urging prompt attention to avoid compounding liabilities.