Articles/Publications
Rebuilding for the Future....
A Guide to Sustainable
Redevelopment for
Disaster-Affected
Communities
U.S. Department of Energy
September 1994
NOTICE
This report was prepared as an account of work
sponsored by the United States Government. Neither the United
States nor the United States Department of Energy, nor any
of their employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors
nor their employees makes any warantee, expressed or implied,
or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,
completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus,
product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use
would not infringe privately owned rights.
Photographs by Kathy Fairchild
Photograph on page 22 by Eileen Schoville
Publication design and layout by Roberta F.
Stauffer
Rebuilding for
the Future...
A Guide
to Sustainable Redevelopment
for Disaster-Affected Communities
Written by
William S. Becker
U.S. Department of Energy
With the assistance of
Roberta F. Stauffer
National Center for Appropriate Technology
Table of Contents
Introduction
Chapter
One: Why Sustainability?
Chapter
Two: Soldiers Grove
Chapter
Three: How to Begin Planning
Chapter
Four: Citizen Involvement
Chapter
Five: Making a Master Plan
Chapter
Six: Sustainable Design Choices
Chapter
Seven: Financing Relocation
Chapter
Eight: Real Life Problems
Epilogue
Resources
Table of Contents
Chapter Seven: Financing
Relocation
In its long and often frustrating battle to win federal funding
for relocation, Soldiers Grove learned a great deal about the
difficulties a community is likely to confront as it tries to
accomplish a redevelopment project following a natural disaster.
Because the village did not have sufficient local resources
to do the job alone, it sought federal help. It found that because
relocation was largely uncharted territory, the federal government
was unused to, uncommitted to and often unorganized for lending
support to such projects.
This chapter describes the problems Soldiers Grove encountered
and suggests some solutions other communities can employ in seeking
funds.
Water Resource Funding
In the past, a community wanting help in preventing flood disasters
most often asked its congressional representatives to introduce
a bill authorizing and funding a flood control project. If the
bill eventually passed, the community waited for the Corps of
Engineers to carry out planning and design work, then waited some
more as the Corps returned to Congress each year to request money
for the next stage of work. Finally -- assuming the project survived
changing political climates, environmental reviews, budget cuts
and other hazards of modern government -- the project was constructed.
This approach is called water resource funding.
Communities are likely to encounter three principal problems
in funding from the traditional water resource agencies: long
delays, structural bias, and pork barrel politics. However, the
advantage of the traditional route is that through a Congressional
authorization, communities can acquire funding from a single agency
and obtain the technical help of the Corps. Overcoming the significant
barriers of the water resource funding route demands:
- Building local consensus to make the project as noncontroversial
-- and consequently, as politically safe for congressional representatives
-- as possible.
- Finding and working with at least one member of your congressional
delegation who will serve as your champion," making a committed
and sustained effort to push the proposal through Congress --
not only initially, but as each year's funding is sought.
- Thoroughly analyzing the many benefits of nonstructural measures,
and "quantifying" them in monetary terms as much as possible
to make a convincing case for the cost-effectiveness and political
attractiveness of your plan. Assess both direct and spinoff
benefits.
- Lobbying hard and following up persistently to minimize the
delays involved in water resource funding. Even with such effort,
however, delays are inherent in this funding route, particularly
when federal money is scarce.
Nontraditional Funding
Some programs of the U.S. Department of Interior, the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development and other agencies can fund flood
damage prevention projects, as well as other disaster-related
rebuilding projects, although those agencies are nontraditional
sources for such purposes. In the case of flood disaster recovery,
funds from nontraditional agencies can be used to supplement water
resource programs, or to replace them.
Nontraditional grant and loan programs have their own pitfalls.
Because relocation is complex and multi-faceted, seeking funding
from a number of federal and state programs, as well as tapping
local resources, may be necessary to accomplish all objectives.
That means a community -- particularly if it is seeking more money
than can be covered in a single year's grant application -- may
have to deal with many different agencies, many different grant
requirements and many different standards. This makes funding
complicated, spotty and time-consuming.
Other disadvantages of nontraditional funding programs are competition,
lack of coordination and uncertainty.
Competition. A community wishing to relocate or rebuild
will have to compete for funds against other municipalities across
the nation wishing to build parks, rehabilitate housing, construct
tennis courts, etc. The grant programs are highly competitive,
and unless your community offers dramatic evidence of need, you
may have a tough time winning funds.
Lack of coordination. Using many different funding programs
will require careful coordination. The timing of funding, the
various standards for different grant programs, questions like
what types of funds can be used for local matching dollars --
all of these demand coordination so that the many pieces of the
funding puzzle will fit together.
Each federal grant program has its own regulations and demands,
complicating the use of funds from a number of different agencies.
Yet no one at the federal level is assigned the job of coordinating
these many and sometimes conflicting requirements for a community
wanting to utilize the programs.
Uncertainty. For flood-affected communities, relying
on funding in lots of little pieces is far less certain than the
water resources route, where funding is authorized in a single
piece of legislation and the community works with a single agency.
Some communities may find, as Soldiers Grove did, that they must
begin their projects without assurance that all necessary funding
will become available. Funding agencies may argue that since there's
no guarantee the project will be finished, they do not want to
fund it (a Catch-22, since completion can't be guaranteed until
agencies fund it).
What To Do
Using funding from a number of different programs requires fund
"packaging." In other words, you may have to break your project
into its component parts and seek funding from appropriate agencies
for each.
For example, Soldiers Grove's relocation involved a number of
traditional community development activities: parkland acquisition,
sewer and water improvements, housing rehabilitation, urban development
and renewal. While the overall relocation approach was unusual,
its components were conventional, fundable community activities.
When your project is divided into component parts, it's easier
to identify appropriate funding programs for each. If possible,
each part should stand on its own as a legitimate development
activity. That way you can argue that whether or not the total
project succeeds, funding of subprojects is worthwhile and will
not be wasted. Building-by-building floodproofing is one such
modular activity.
At the same time, the fact that sub-projects are part of an
overall community development plan whose aim is to remove your
community from federal disaster assistance rolls can give your
project more appeal. Other communities competing for funds may
not be able to promise such a favorable "return" to the federal
government.
To handle coordination, your community may do what Soldiers
Grove did -- put a full-time local coordinator on the payroll
to become expert at federal funding options and requirements.
He or she should seek help from sympathetic state and federal
officials who know the ins and outs of funding, and from other
communities that have successfully accomplished similar projects.
Soldiers Grove found that Wisconsin officials were generous in
offering technical help to the community. Other states -- among
them Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Arizona -- have reputations for
actively assisting their communities.
Uncertainty is inherent in the nontraditional funding approach,
but in a well-designed project, each component will be worthwhile
in its own right. Your community should develop an implementation
plan listing subprojects in logical sequence, then proceed as
far down the list as possible using local, state and federal resources.
If you eventually are blocked by a lack of support from funding
agencies, you will at least have developed a comprehensive plan
and will have begun to implement it.
If another disaster occurs, funding agencies may be more inclined
to help, and you can convert your disaster prevention plan into
disaster recovery action. Whatever steps you've been able to accomplish
before a disaster will give your community a head start in making
a sensible and lasting recovery.
In building a funding package, rely as much as possible on local
and private resources. The larger part they play, the less your
project will be subject to the whims and pitfalls of far-away
decision makers who, distracted by other interests and pressures,
cannot be expected to give top-priority to your community's needs.
Local Financing Strategy
How did Soldiers Grove fund its project? In mid-1976, the village
used a $13,200 commu-
nity development grant from the state to hire a private consulting
firm (Laufenberg Research and Development Institute Inc., of Chippewa
Falls, Wisconsin) to propose how relocation could be imple-mented.
The grant funded only 80 percent of the study's cost, so Hirsch
collected the rest ($3,300) from increasingly committed floodplain
business owners. The consultants confirmed that relocation was
the only sensible choice, and they outlined the following financing
strategy:
The village would use government grants to pay fair-market value
for the floodplain homes and businesses, allowing property owners
to recover their equity and build on higher ground. Once owned
by the village, the floodplain land would become part of a municipal
riverside park suggested by the University of Wisconsin team.
The newly acquired open space would retain economic value as a
recreational facility for local residents and for Kickapoo River
canoeists who would stop at the village to camp, restock their
supplies or buy refreshments. The floodplain would remain strictly
zoned to prevent future construction of buildings easily damaged
by floods.
The village would use additional grant money to comply with
Wisconsin law requiring the payment of "relocation benefits" to
those displaced by government projects. State law required that
a municipality pay some or all of the difference between the purchase
price of a property, and the cost of replacing that building with
a "decent, safe and sanitary" facility of comparable size and
construction. The maximum payment was $50,000 for businesses and
$15,000 for homes. Thus, the village would offer the community's
marginal-income business people and homeowners substantial help
in reestablishing themselves, help that would be critical in making
the move financially possible and politically acceptable.
As an example, take the case of a business-owner needing $200,000
to construct a new building comparable in size to a floodplain
structure valued at $50,000. The municipality would purchase the
floodplain building for $50,000, then pay the owner the maximum
of $50,000 in relocation benefits. The owner, with $100,000 in
hand, would privately finance the balance -- $100,000 -- needed
for construction.
While such an arrangement most often would mean new indebtedness
for the business owners, it would allow them to recover their
equity from the old floodprone structures and obtain modern, new
facilities with substantial immediate equity. Thus, the most blighted
area of the village would be completely modernized; new tax base
would be created. While business people and homeowners would pay
part of the cost of the move through new indebtedness, there would
be sufficient financial incentive for floodplain property owners
to take part in the move willingly, thus minimizing the property
disputes which could complicate and delay the project.
Meanwhile, business owners could expect that the new buildings
would have minimal maintenance costs, and that maintenance savings
would help them pay their new mortgages. In addition, the modernization
of their facilities would help them compete better with the shopping
areas in the region's larger cities.
Finally, the business owners would be allowed to reorient their
retail operations to better serve the needs of customers. Thus,
downtown could be tailored to increase business in the community.
This financing plan made it clear that relocation could be not
only achievable, but beneficial. In December 1976, the Village
Board adopted a resolution formally declaring relocation a long-range
community development goal. The resolution was the first time
the board had gone on record firmly supporting the move; it was
a major milestone.
Financial Risk
Though committed to the move, the villagers still acknowledged
the reality that relocation meant three levels of financial risk
for them: risk for the community as a whole, risk for floodplain
building owners, and risk for the owners of homes in nonfloodplain
neighborhoods.
For the community, the major risk was that once the village
paid floodplain business owners for their property, they could
take the money and leave town, leading to a lethal loss of tax
base, service and jobs for the village.
Floodplain building owners were concerned that the village would
not offer fair prices for their properties, that business volume
at the new site would not support their new indebtedness, and
that the village would not receive all the funding necessary to
complete the move. If that happened, Soldiers Grove would end
up with two weak business districts, each cut off from the drawing-power
of the other.
Nonfloodplain homeowners feared the move would force an increase
in property taxes. Those closest to the old downtown were afraid
the value of their homes would drop once they became neighbors
to a municipal park.
In identifying solutions to these concerns, village leaders
looked for ways to minimize financial risks, and ways to practice
"risk management." They explained to citizens which risks were
real and which were imagined. They communicated that some risks
were inevitable, that relocation was something of a gamble, but
a worthwhile gamble.
Floodplain business owners were linked with University of Wisconsin
business counselors, and when necessary, with the Small Business
Administration for low-interest loans. Maintenance and energy
savings in the new buildings were stressed as ways to help owners
meet mortgage payments; the Highway 61 location was emphasized
as the best possible development site to increase business volumes.
Village officials designed local financing as much as possible
to keep the burden off homeowners outside the floodplain. They
worked to keep community spirits high about the move and the future,
while encouraging businesses to build in the village rather than
elsewhere.
Tax Incremental Financing
An important legal tool employed by the village to facilitate
the relocation was Tax Incremental Financing (TIF), a statutory
program in Wisconsin with corresponding programs in other states.
Normally in Wisconsin, a percentage of the property taxes collected
by a municipality is paid out to other taxing bodies -- public
school districts, vocational education districts, and counties.
Under TIF, the property taxes resulting from a new development
can be retained by the municipality to fund public improvements
at the development site.
In most development projects, sidewalks, sewers, and curbs are
charged to the building owner either by increasing the cost of
his or her lot (in the case of private development) or by special
assessments stretched over 10 years maximum (in the case of improvements
performed by a governmental unit). Under TIF, Soldiers Grove was
able to stretch property tax assessments against buildings over
19 years.
Table of Contents
Chapter Eight: Real Life
Problems
As sunny a future as Soldiers Grove created for itself, the
project did not evolve without a few clouds. Many such problems
will have to be faced by any disaster-affected community considering
a large-scale redevelopment project. Dams and levees carry high
environmental costs as they put the burden of change on rivers
and watersheds; nonstructural measures like relocation put the
burden of change on people. Project sponsors have to do as much
work mitigating social, psychological, political and economic
costs as dam builders have to do mitigating environmental costs.
The Human Factor
The problems associated with the human factor bear repeating.
Among them were biases, misinformation and the fear of the unknown
among the villagers. A strong citizen participation component
mitigated many of these attitudinal and psychological barriers.
The villagers were made to feel their biases were important. The
Community Development Office attempted to dispel those biases
based on erroneous assumptions through education and public information.
Those that remained, based on values, tradition or aesthetics,
were folded insofar as possible into the planning of the new business
district.
Planners minimized fear of the unknown with foresight and sensitivity.
In considering a wide range of alternative energy options as part
of the Argonne study, for example, the Village made clear that
it wished to avoid unproven or risky systems, even though the
relocation provided an unusual opportunity to try some of them.
This selectivity demonstrated respect for the need to minimize
villagers' risks, and inspired a degree of confidence in the planning
process. The eventual choice -- site-built passive solar married
with energy efficiency -- allowed the village to reduce its reliance
on fossil fuels in a relatively risk-free manner.
In the final analysis, Soldiers Grove found that respect for
the biases, the needs and the fears of project participants was
critical in an innovative development. It was of utmost importance
to invite participants to make their feelings known and to demonstrate
that suggestions and concerns were incorporated into planning
and design.
Asking the Wrong Questions
The village found that some old attitudes caused people to ask
the wrong questions when they considered sustainable development.
Typical was the emphasis by building owners on first-costs over
life-cycle costs. Prospective owners, struggling with cash flow
and financing, tended to ask "How much will it cost me now?" rather
than "How much will it save me in the long run?".
For example, while the integration of passive solar heating
systems in new buildings need not be a significant factor in the
costs of the structures, energy conservation measures often are.
Emphasizing first costs, building owners are likely to choose
less than optimum insulation levels and to cut costs by using
inadequate glazing. But when a building owner considers how much
money conservation measures will save over the lifetime of the
structure, those measures often make economic sense. Soldiers
Grove business owners found that triple glazing, superinsulation,
earth berming and insulated window coverings all were good investments.
It is important for building-owners to be made aware of the
"life-cycle" yardstick and to be encouraged to use it in determining
the economics of their investments.
Soldiers Grove had a unique experience with another form of
asking the wrong question. One of its businesses, a branch bank,
hired an architectural firm with little experience in solar. The
firm, responding to the village's desire to utilize solar heating,
planned to equip the bank's new building with active solar collectors,
a system which would have added an estimated $27,200 to the $250,000
structure. Although the system would provide 70 percent of the
building's heating needs, the bank balked at that size investment
and quietly dropped the solar system from its plans during construction.
When villagers noticed that the bank's south-facing roof was
being shingled over, the municipal zoning administrator confirmed
that the branch intended not to comply with the 50 percent solar
requirement and issued a citation of noncompliance. The bank decided
to appeal the citation to the Village Board of Appeals, claiming
the solar system would result in financial hardship.
But before the hearing was held, a spontaneous petition sprang
up within the community against the zoning variance. Villagers
objected to the bank's attempt at non-compliance. Village officials
realized that the bank was erroneously assuming that compliance
with the solar requirement meant a major dollar investment. The
bank had trapped itself into asking "How can we avoid using solar
and spending all this money?".
The Community Development Office contacted a solar housing specialist
in the Wisconsin Department of Local Affairs and Development to
request assistance in performing a solar need analysis of the
branch building. The specialist found that because the building
had been constructed with earth-berming, heavy insulation, and
well-placed windows, solar would already furnish about 25 percent
of its heating needs. With a few minor modifications, including
the installation of passive solar skylights, the bank could be
brought into compliance with the ordinance for no more than $4,000.
In view of this information and the petition, the Board of Appeals
voted unanimously to deny the variance. The bank's owner then
installed the skylights, bringing the building into compliance
with the solar code. The bank's question -- "How can we avoid
solar?" -- had been turned into "How can we incorporate solar
within our financial means?".
By shifting attitudes and asking the right question, a simple
and workable answer was found.
Resistance to Change
People don't like inconvenience. They also resist changing old
habits and losing comfortable old patterns. Relocation meant the
loss of familiar, well-worn social gathering spots along Main
Street in Soldiers Grove. It meant a disruption of familiar traffic
patterns, and the loss of people's physical links with the community's
past.
To address this problem, the community identified people's perceptions
of the move's inconveniences and discomforts in its public participation
programs. People and village officials worked together to find
solutions. In addition, the many gains of relocation were emphasized
over the few losses -- when people focused on the positives, the
negatives seemed more manageable.
In the case of floodplain communities, relocation efforts must
also fight against floodplain amnesia, or the tendency of flood
victims to forget the pain of flooding and be lulled into a false
sense of security that flooding won't happen again. Consequently,
community willingness to act to prevent another disaster can decrease
rapidly once the flooding has subsided and the clean-up phase
is completed.
Local officials in Soldiers Grove tried to counter floodplain
amnesia by designing the move as much more than a disaster avoidance
project. They stressed a community revitalization with benefits
well beyond eliminating flood damages. Thus, the move and its
tangential projects made sense whether or not the villagers believed
flooding was still a problem.
At their root, most local barriers are attitudinal, Soldiers
Grove found. By directing community attention carefully toward
the real benefits of a post-relocation or a nonstructural future,
the difficulties, gambles and adjustments inherent in moving grow
smaller and more acceptable. If a fault-finding mentality develops
in your community, replace it with a creative, can-do attitude.
In summary, the Soldiers Grove relocation project suggests a
succession of lessons valuable for future sustainable redevelopment
projects. They are:
Focus the responsibility of planning and coordinating
the project.
Give one individual or one office the responsibility of central
coordination, allocate the coordinator sufficient time and resources
to do the job, and make the existence of the coordinator known
both within and outside the community.
Get people affected by the project involved.
Let them make the decisions.
Encourage involvement from the start. Opportunities for citizen
participation can be structured or nonstructured. They should
include not only seeking input from citizens, but offering public
information and education.
Conduct a local energy assessment.
Assess renewable energy resources available to the community
as well as conventional fossil fuels. Note both price and availability.
Identify sources of technical help for direction-setting.
Government agencies, universities, and private firms are all
good sources of preliminary technical assistance. But remember
the shortcomings of cursory analysis and do not consider the findings
of such analysis gospel.
Identify technical assistance for detailed
planning.
Be sure to select and employ those experts with a willingness
to respond to local needs and with experience in the sustainable
technologies most likely to be a major factor in the development.
Allocate sufficient funds for top-quality, in-depth technical
help.
Develop a sustainable redevelopment master
plan.
In a sustainable community, individual buildings relate to overall
community design, and the overall community design relates to
its environment. Establishing these relationships requires cooperation
and a degree of choreography that can be assured by a master plan.
Involve citizens in this process every step of the way to facilitate
their understanding and support. Include in the master plan those
overview objectives and considerations which lead to sustainable
redevelopment practices.
Integrate sustainable redevelopment principles
in site and building design.
As demonstrated by Soldiers Grove, solar heating systems can
be tailored to the individual needs of owners and occupants.
Identify and creatively use legal tools to
facilitate the project.
A community's municipal powers can be used to encourage, leverage,
and smooth the way for sustainable redevelopment.
Overcome snags.
They are inevitable, but should not be discouraging. There is
virtually always a way to work them out.
Be patient and persistent.
While flexibility throughout the project is very important,
so is persistence.
This list represented for Soldiers Grove 10 steps into the solar
age. Use them as guidelines for development, but not as hard and
fast rules. Each community facing the task of recovering from
disaster must find its own definition of sustainable redevelopment
and its own path to recovery, tailored to its unique needs and
characteristics.
The Soldiers Grove Community Development Office offers three
other pieces of guidance based on hard experience:
Retain local control of the project's process and product;
Clarify the community's values and goals so you know what you
want to accomplish, and
Remain adaptive and innovative in realizing those goals.
Table of Contents
Books
Site Development
Sustainable Communities: A New Design Synthesis for Cities,
Suburbs and Towns, by Sim Van der Ryn and Peter Calthorpe,
1991. Available from Sierra Club Bookstore, 730 Polk St., San
Francisco, CA 94109; (415) 923-5500.
A Better Place to Live, by Michael Corbett, 1990. Available
from agAccess, 603 4th Street, Davis, CA 95616; (916) 756-7177.
Creating Successful Communities: A Guidebook to Growth Management
Strategies, by Michael A. Mantell, 1990. Available from Island
Press, Box 7, Covedo, CA 95428; (800) 828-1302.
Building Sustainable Communities: Tools and Concepts for
Self-Reliant Economic Change, by C. George Benello, 1989.
Available from the Bootstrap Press, 777 United Nations Plaza,
Ste. 9A, New York, NY 10017; (212) 972-9878.
Pedestrian Pocket Book, 1989. Available from Princeton
Architectural Press, 37 E. Seventh St., New York, NY 10003; (212)
995-9620.
Design for a Livable Planet: The Eco-Action Guide to Positive
Energy. Available from HarperCollins Pubs. Inc., 10 E. 53rd.
Street, New York, NY 10022; (212) 207-7000.
Design with Nature, by Ian L. McHang. Available from
Doubleday Publishing, 666 Fifth Ave., New York, NY 10103; (212)
765-6500 or (800) 223-6834.
Buildings
General Sustainability
An Approach to Sustainable Design and Sourcebook for
Sustainable Design. Available from the Architects for Social
Responsibility, St. John Russell Associates, 11 Hardy Rd., Swampscott,
MA 01907; (617) 596-1155.
Green Building Guide and Sustainable Building Sourcebook,
both published annually. Available from the Environmental and
Conservation Services Department, City of Austin, 209 E. 9th St.,
Austin, TX 78701.
Energy Efficiency/Building Materials
A Resource Guide to Recycled Construction Products and Energy
Efficiency, 1993. Available from the Integrated Solid Waste
Management Office, City Hall East, 200 North Main St., Room 580,
Los Angeles, CA 90012.
Environmental by Design: A Sourcebook of Environmentally
Aware Materials Choices, 1993. Available from Environmental
By Design, Box 34493, Station D, Vancouver, BC V61 4W4; CANADA.
G.R.E.B.E. Guide (Guide to Resource-Efficient Building
Elements), 1993. Available from the Center for Resourceful Building
Technology, P.O. Box 3413, Missoula, MT 59806; (406) 549-7678.
Environmental Resource Guide, 1992. Available from the
American Institute of Architects, AIA/ERG Project, 1735 New York
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20006; (202) 676-7331 (AIA Headquarters),
(800) 365-ARCH (AIA/ERG Project).
Conservation and Renewable Energy Technologies for Buildings,
May 1991. Available from National Technical Information Service,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161; (703) 487-4650 or
(800) 553-6847, DOE/CH10093- 85.
ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings Proceedings,
1990. Available from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy (ACEEE), 1001 Connecticut Ave. NW, Ste. 810, Washington,
DC 20036; (202) 429-8873.
Architect's and Engineer's Guide to Energy Conservation in
Existing Buildings -- Volume One: Energy Use Assessment and Simulation
Methods; Volume Two: Energy Conservation Opportunities, 1990.
Available from the National Technical Information Service, 5285
Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161; (703) 487-4650 or (800)
553-6847.
Residential Building Design & Construction Workbook --
Second Edition, by Ned Nisson, 1988. Available from Cutter
Information Corp., 1100 Massachusetts Ave., Arlington, MA 02174.
Construction Materials Recycling Guidebook. Available
from Innovative Waste Management, Minneapolis, MN, (612) 432-7083.
Directory of Recycled Content Building & Construction
Products and Recycled Products Directory. Available
from the Clean Washington Center, Dept. of Trade & Economic
Development, 2001 6th Ave., Ste. 2700, Seattle, WA 98121; (206)
587-5520.
Energy Tools. Available from the Environment Research
Program of the AIA/ACSA Council on Architectural Research, 1735
New York Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20006.
Solar in Buildings
Savings from the Sun: Passive Solar Design for Institutional
Buildings, June 1990. Available from the American Solar Energy
Society, 2400 Central Ave. B1, Boulder, CO 80301; (303) 443-3130.
Bright Ideas: Passive Solar Buildings, August 1989. Available
from the Passive Solar Industries Council, 1511 K Street, NW,
Suite 600, Washington, DC 20005; (202) 628-7400.
Active Solar Heating Systems Design Manual, 1988. Available
from the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning
Engineers, 1791 Tullie Circle, NE, Atlanta, GA 30329; (404) 636-8400.
The Homeowner's Handbook of Solar Water Heating Systems:
How to Build or Buy Systems to Heat Your Water, Swimming Pool,
Hot Tub, or Spa, 1983. Available from Rodale Press, Inc.,
33 E. Minor St., Emmaus, PA 18049; (215) 967-5171.
The Passive Solar Energy Book, Edward Mazria, 1979. Published
by Rodale Press, Inc., available from Annar Bookstore, 827 Linden
St., Allentown, PA 18101; (215) 433-5070.
Indoor Air Quality
Indoor Air Quality: Design Guidebook, 1991. Available
from The Fairmont Press, Inc., 700 Indian Trail, Lilburn, GA 30247.
Residential Ventilation: Achieving Indoor Air Quality,
1988. Available from the Drawing-Room Graphics Services, Ltd.,
Box 866267, North Vancouver, BC, CANADA V7L 4L2.
Healthy House Catalog, published annually. Available
from the Housing Resource Center, 1820 W. 48th St., Cleveland,
OH 44102; (216) 281-4663.
Pollution Prevention, Reuse, Recycling and Environmental
Efficiency. Available from the Air and Waste Management Association,
P.O. Box 2861, Pittsburgh, PA 15230.
Selected Articles
"Climate Responsive Commercial Buildings: Retrofit Possibilities,"
SunWorld, Volume 16, Number 2, June 1992.
"Passive Solar Use in Commercial Buildings: Conclusions of the
IEA Solar Heating and Cooling Program," SunWorld, Volume
16, Number 4, December 1992.
"Comparing Building Energy Analysis Software," Home Energy,
September/October 1989.
"Energy Analysis Software Review," Engineered Systems,
October 1993.
Infrastructure
Energy
Wind Power for Home and Business: Renewable Energy for the
1990s and Beyond, 1993. Available from Bergey Windpower Co.,
2001 Priestly Ave., Norman, OK 73069; (405) 364-4212.
The Almanac of Renewable Energy: The Complete Guide to Emerging
Energy Technologies, by Richard Gobb and Eric Brus, 1992.
Available from Henry Holt and Company, Inc., 115 West 18th St.,
New York, NY 10011; (800) 628-9658.
Sustainable Energy: A Local Government Planning Guide for
a Sustainable Future, Urban Consortium Energy Task Force,
1992. Available from Public Technology, Inc., 1301 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20004; (202) 626-2400.
Stand-Alone Photovoltaic Systems -- Handbook of Recommended
Design Practices, 1990. Available from the National Technical
Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal
Rd., Springfield, VA 22161; (703) 487-2564, Document order number:
SAND87-7023.
Solar Energy Planning, by P. Tabb, 1985. Available from
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY
10020; (212) 512-2000.
Water
Guide to Federal Water Quality Programs & Information,
1994. Available from Gordon Press Publications, P.O. Box 459,
Bowling Green Station, New York, NY 10004; (718) 624-8419.
Alternative Wastewater Treatment: Advanced Integrated Pond
Systems, (a factsheet) 1993. Available from the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory, 1617 Cole Blvd., Golden, CO 80401; (303) 231-7303.
Constructed Wetlands for Water Quality Improvement, 1993.
Available from Lewis Pubs, Inc., 2000 Corporate Blvd. NW, Boca
Raton, FL 33431; (407) 994-0555 or (800) 272-7737.
Landscape Plants for Western Regions: An Illustrated Guide
to Plants for Water Conservation, 1992. Available from Land
Design Publishing, 409 Harvard Ave., Claremont, CA 91711; (714)
621-2179.
Water Quality & Availability: A Reference Handbook,
1992. Available from ABC- CLIO, Inc., P.O. Box 1911, Santa Barbara,
CA 93116; (805) 968-1911 or (800) 422-2546.
Technologies for Upgrading Existing or Designing New Drinking
Water Treatment Facilities, 1991. Available from U.S. EPA,
Center for Environmental Research Information, Office of Drinking
Water Staff, Technomic Publishing Company, P.O. Box 3535, Lancaster,
PA 17604; (717) 291-5609 or (800) 233-9936.
Gray Water Use in the Landscape: How to Use Gray Water to
Save Your Landscape During Droughts, 1988. Available from
Edible Publications, P.O. Box 1841, Santa Rosa, CA 95402; (707)
874-2606.
Pipeline and Wastewater Treatment Information Exchange
(newsletters, published monthly). Available from the Small Wastewater
Flows Clearinghouse, c/o West Virginia University, Morgantown,
WV 26506; (800) 624-8301.
Waste
Recycling Entrepreneurship: Creating Local Markets for Recycled
Materials, 1990. Available from the Arcata Community Recycling
Center, Inc., 1380 Ninth St., Arcata, CA 95521.
Garbage Solutions: A Public Official's Guide to Recycling
and Alternative Solid Waste Management Technologies, 1989.
Available from the National Resource Recovery Association, The
United States Conference of Mayors, 1620 Eye St., NW, Washington,
DC 20006; (202) 293-7330.
The Solid Waste Handbook: A Practical Guide, 1986. Available
from John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 605 Third Ave., New York, NY
10158.
The Economic Benefits of Recycling and In-Depth Studies
of Recycling and Composting Programs: Designs, Costs, Results.
Available from the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 2425 18th
St. NW, Washington, DC 20009; (202) 232-4108.
Making Less Garbage: A Planning Guide for Communities.
Available from INFORM Inc., 381 Park Ave. S., New York, NY 10016;
(212) 689-4040.
Rural America: The Solid Waste Crisis Hits Home. Available
from the Center for Rural Waste Management, OCH 2B-K, 400 W. Summit
Hill Dr., Knoxville, TN 37902; (615) 632-8179.
Transportation
Transportation: The Grand Re*Design, 1992. Available
from IRT Publications, P.O. Box 10990, Aspen, CO 81612; (303)
927-3155.
Steering a New Course: Transportation, Energy, and the Environment,
1991. Available from Island Press, 1718 Connecticut Ave. NW, Ste.
300, Washington, DC 20009.
Videos
American Institute of Architects Video Series. Available
from the American Institute of Architects, 1735 New York Ave.
NW, Washington, DC 20006; (202) 626-7451.
#1 - Energy and Resource Efficiencies
#2 - Healthy Buildings and Materials
#3 - Sustainable Communities
#4 - Case Studies in Community Design
Audubon Society Headquarters, New York, NY
Rocky Mountain Institute, Snowmass, CO
Way Station, Frederick, MD
NMB Bank, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Mutual Insurance Headquarters, West Bend, WI
The Greening of Harlem, New York, NY
"River Town," a 28-minute video about the Soldiers Grove
relocation project, is available from its producer, Kathleen Iattarelli,
535 Science Dr., Ste. A, Madison, WI 53711; (608) 238-7575. The
video may also be borrowed from Soldiers Grove for a fee to cover
postage and handling. Contact Village Clerk Ardelle Knutson, P.O.
Box 121, Soldiers Grove, WI 54655; (608) 624-3264.
To arrange for a tour of Soldiers Grove, contact Ms. Knutson
at the above address as well.
Groups
American Forests
Cool Communities Program
P.O. Box 2000
1516 P St., NW
Washington, DC 20013
(202) 667-3300
This DOE-funded program encourages communities to undertake tree-planting
programs and to use light-colored roofing and paving materials
to eliminate the "urban heat-island" effect -- an effect in which
air temperatures are significantly higher in urban settings because
of human activity. This approach can lead to substantial reductions
in air-conditioning costs and energy consumption.
Electric Power Research Institute
Community Initiative
3412 Hillview Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
(415) 855-8912
Allied with the Urban Consortium, this project helps communities
design their electricity futures.
Florida Solar Energy Center
300 State Rd. 401
Cape Canaveral, FL 32920
(305) 783-0300
The Center, established in 1974, conducts research on alternative
energy technologies, ensures the quality of solar energy equipment
sold in Florida, and educates people about their energy options.
The Center conducts state, federal and industry-supported research
in solar water heating, photovoltaics, energy use in buildings,
affordable industrialized-housing, electrical end-uses, power
electronics, innovative air-conditioning systems, and the production
and use of hydrogen energy from renewables.
Geo-Heat Center
Oregon Institute of Technology
3201 Campus Dr.
Klamath Falls, OR 97601
(503) 885-1750
The Geo-Heat Center, established in 1974, provides technical/economic
analysis for those actively involved in geothermal development.
Because of its location, the Center can provide a unique opportunity
to view a geothermal direct-use system in complete operation.
The staff at the Center can provide assistance with engineering
and economic questions, as well as design and general information
inquiries.
International Ground-Source Heat Pump Association
101 Industrial Bldg.
Stillwater, OK 74078
(405) 744-5175
The Association's membership includes manufacturers, distributors,
installers, utilities, architects, contractors, educators, and
researchers who are interested in promoting the use of heat pumps.
Information available from the Association includes educational
materials, industry data, and marketing assistance. Through its
newsletter, The Source, members can keep informed of the
latest developments in the heat pump industry.
National Center for Appropriate Technology
P.O. Box 3838
Butte, MT 59702
(406) 494-4572
NCAT is a nonprofit organization founded in 1976. The Center
works primarily in the three main program areas of energy efficiency
and renewable energy, sustainable agriculture, and resource-efficient
housing. NCAT's focus is on information and technology transfer,
and its resource center contains one of the largest collections
of appropriate technology materials in the country.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
Exemplary Buildings Program
1617 Cole Blvd.
Golden, CO 80401
(303) 275-6034
This program provides design and monitoring assistance for passive
solar and energy efficiency features in new or remodeled non-residential
projects such as schools, government buildings, industrial, and
commercial buildings.
NREL's Solar Process Heat Program
1617 Cole Blvd.
Golden, CO 80401
(303) 231-7303
Under this program, Sandia National Lab and NREL help businesses
and government units determine whether solar heat technology can
be successfully applied to their needs. The program provides formal
engineering studies.
PLACE3S
Geothermal, Hydrothermal Programs
Washington State Energy Office
809 Legion Way, SE
P.O. Box 43165
Olympia, WA 98504
(206) 956-2016
PLACE3S (PLAnning for Community
Energy Environmental and Economic Sustainability)
is a joint project involving the state energy offices of Washington,
Oregon, and California. It provides technical assistance to help
communities achieve energy-efficient urban design and growth management.
Its tool kit consists of a guidebook on efficient design measures,
a CAD/SIG computer software program for simulating and measuring
the efficiency of different design options, a public involvement
guidebook, case studies and model ordinances and policies for
implementing energy-efficient design.
Rocky Mountain Institute
1739 Snowmass Creek Rd.
Snowmass, CO 81654
(303) 927-3851
RMI is an independent, nonprofit research and educational foundation.
Its mission is to foster the efficient and sustainable use of
resources, and to help build global security. Established in 1982
by energy analysts Amory and Hunter Lovins, the Institute promotes
energy efficiency, water conservation and quality, agriculture,
community economic development, and security as well as any topics
that cross these issues. The Institute operates a program that
consults with communities on economic renewal strategies, including
growing local businesses, finding new business opportunities in
local resources, stemming leaks in the local economy and attracting
outside companies. A variety of items are available from RMI including
books, journals, newsletters, and a model process for community
economic renewal planning.
Rural America
Community Transit Association of America
Rural Transit Assistance Program
725 15th St. NW, Ste. 900
Washington, DC 20005
(800) 527-8279
The members of this group work together to find ways to improve
the transit systems of American rural communities. Much of the
information gathered by Rural America is geared toward design
that reduces the need for mass transit as well as enhances community
life.
Sandia National Laboratories
Photovoltaic Design Assistance Center
P.O. Box 5800
Albuquerque, NM 87185
(505) 844-8065
This Center operates a special program called the Sandia Computerized
Utility Benefit Analysis for Photovoltaics program -- or SCUBAPV.
The program allows utilities to examine the economics of grid-support
photovoltaic systems. Users of the program must do their own up-front
work, identifying the specific location to be examined and obtaining
values from the utility for energy, construction, and capacity
costs.
Sandia's Renewable Energy Office
P.O. Box 5800
Albuquerque, NM 87185
(505) 844-8065
This office consists of a team of technical specialists in solar
thermal, photovoltaic, wind and geothermal energy systems. The
team facilitates partnerships with industry, arranges joint ventures
and cost-shared contracts and provides design assistance.
Small Business Administration
409 3rd St., SW, 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20024
(202) 205-6762
The SBA's Service Corps of Retired Executives
program provides free counseling to businesses. It might be useful
in helping a disaster-affected community's businesses adjust to
the management challenges of the move -- how to deal with new
construction loans, how to lay out new businesses, etc. The SBA
also offers several types of loan guarantee programs for small
companies. The General Business Loan Guarantee Program,
commonly called the "7a program," guarantees loans which businesses
can use for general capital purposes. The Small Business Energy
and Conservation Loan Program provides financing for small
companies engaged in engineering, manufacturing, distributing,
marketing, installing or servicing products designed to conserve
energy resources. Among eligible products are wind energy equipment,
solar thermal energy equipment, photovoltaic cells, hydroelectric
power equipment, wood and biomass energy equipment, industrial
cogeneration equipment, and energy efficiency equipment. The Small
Business Investment Companies provides debt or equity capital
to small companies. The Pollution Control Program helps
small businesses plan, design, or install pollution control facilities
and equipment.
Solar Energy Industries Association
777 North Capitol St. NE, Ste. 805
Washington, DC 20002
(202) 408-0660
SEIA is an association whose members are manufacturers of solar
equipment, solar power producers, solar energy consultants and
professionals, utilities, and others interested in the promotion
of the solar energy industry. Principal activities include government
affairs, public information, publications, international trade
promotions, and sponsorship of conferences and workshops. SEIA
produces a trade journal, the Solar Industry Journal, which
describes the latest developments in the solar energy industry
as well as provides an annual list of members, manufacturers,
and products. SEIA can put communities in touch with the manufacturers,
distributors, and member companies that might have an interest
in locating facilities in these communities.
Urban Consortium Energy Task Force
Public Technology, Inc.
1301 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20004
(202) 626-2400
The Urban Consortium carries out work through special projects
and task forces on specific functional areas of local government
management, using staff, management and business services provided
by Public Technology, Inc. The Urban Consortium Energy Task Force
is the nation's most extensive cooperative local government program
to improve energy management and technology applications in cities
and urban counties. Its membership is composed of local governments
from 20 of America's largest urban centers. Members define annual
work programs to meet specific objectives relative to defining
urban energy problems, developing resolutions to them, and transferring
the results to the Urban Consortium and other local governments.
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
Midwest National Technical Center
Room 152
100 Centennial Mall, North
Lincoln, NE 68508
(402) 437-5318
This Center facilitates the use of computer visual simulation,
a collection of programs that allows planners to see what new
communities would look like with different land-use patterns,
landscaping, architectural styles and street layouts. Helps facilitate
community decision-making by assessing the visual impact of housing,
transportation and urban design; zoning ordinances; recreation
features and conservation measures.
U.S. Department of Energy
Clean Cities Program
P.O. Box 12316
Arlington, VA 22209
(800) CCITIES
This program encourages communities to switch to alternative
transportation fuels. DOE provides technical assistance to communities
that pledge to add alternative fuel vehicles to their municipal
fleets and promises, if federal vehicles are located in those
cities, to purchase vehicles that conform to the city's alternative
fuel choice.
DOE's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 3048
Merrrifield, VA 22116
(800) DOE-EREC
This clearinghouse provides free-of-charge information on energy
efficiency and renewable energy technologies, including fact sheets,
publications, brochures, resource lists, bibliographies, and detailed
technical responses. It also provides personal business assistance
for entrepreneurs and inventors.
Additional information about specific energy programs can
be obtained from State Energy Offices or from DOE's 10 regional
support offices:
Region I
(Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island,
Vermont)
(617) 565-9700
Region II
(New York, New Jersey)
(212) 264-1021
Region III
(Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
West Virginia)
(215) 656-6950
Region IV
(Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico)
(404) 347-2697
Region V
(Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin)
(708) 972-2208
Region VI
(Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas)
(214) 767- 7232
Region VII
(Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska)
(816) 426-4784
Region VIII
(Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming)
(303) 231-5750, ext. 128
Region IX
(Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Trust Territories)
(510) 637-1794
Region X
(Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington)
(206) 553-1004
Table of Contents
(end of document)
Back to Top
HOME
| SEARCH
| 
