What's In A Name?

How important are the names we use? As Shakespeare said, "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." I’ve been struck by this thought recently as I’ve been considering the myriad of organizations and stakeholders trying to have their particular term for stormwater management techniques be more widely adopted in the nomenclature.

3 minute read

March 25, 2007, 3:16 PM PDT

By Anonymous


How important are the names we use? As Shakespeare said, "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." I've been struck by this thought recently as I've been considering the myriad of organizations and stakeholders trying to have their particular term for stormwater management techniques be more widely adopted in the nomenclature.

For example, in one corner there is the low impact development contingent. They want developers to installing a range of natural stormwater approaches that allows the land to act as a sponge and soak up runoff. New Urbanists recently launched "Light Imprint New Urbanism," a new term for "a development technique which aims to lie lightly on the land." I've even entered the fray with the term "site-specific strategies" for those stormwater design solutions that can be incorporated into compact urban areas.

Aren't we all trying to say the same thing to developers, architects, town planners, local governments and everyone else who may be interested? "Hey, look, people! You can have good urban form and manage stormwater on-site!"

It seems to me that the issue is not what these approaches are called, but rather: are they allowed? From what I've seen, the approaches that can manage stormwater runoff on-site, such as strategies that infiltrate, evaportranspirate, or retain runoff for later reuse, are simply not allowed in many communities. They are not allowed because stormwater regulations have not yet recognized, agreed on, or measured the effectiveness of these strategies.

It's an easier proposition to say that a detention basin of a certain size will effectively manage runoff from X number of acres. Data on detention and retention ponds most readily fit into runoff models and permit processes, thereby becoming the path of least resistance. Further cementing these practices are manuals that describe these ponds as "best management practices" for stormwater management. Many of these structural stormwater practices can be bad for urban form – and placemaking in general-- because they require significant land and often don't work for small sites, such as infill or downtown revitalization projects.

Finally, some of these on-site stormwater water approaches, such as rain gardens or grass swales, can trigger other regulations, such as underground injection control requirements, which were originally intended as waste disposal mechanisms-think gas stations or oil wells. If I were a developer, think of the hurdles I would need to clear to install a rain garden-and have it count against my stormwater requirements.

I'm now asking myself if we aren't all wasting time and diluting the importance of our collective message by arguing over what to call these approaches. I think Shakespeare got it right-worry less about what we call things and more about what they are. Don't you think it's time we stop discussing what we call these approaches and start fixing our federal, state, and local water regulations so these approaches can start showing up in new developments?


portrait of professional woman

I love the variety of courses, many practical, and all richly illustrated. They have inspired many ideas that I've applied in practice, and in my own teaching. Mary G., Urban Planner

I love the variety of courses, many practical, and all richly illustrated. They have inspired many ideas that I've applied in practice, and in my own teaching.

Mary G., Urban Planner

Cover CM Credits, Earn Certificates, Push Your Career Forward

Logo for Planetizen Federal Action Tracker with black and white image of U.S. Capitol with water ripple overlay.

Planetizen Federal Action Tracker

A weekly monitor of how Trump’s orders and actions are impacting planners and planning in America.

June 18, 2025 - Diana Ionescu

Rendering of Shirley Chisholm Village four-story housing development with person biking in front.

San Francisco's School District Spent $105M To Build Affordable Housing for Teachers — And That's Just the Beginning

SFUSD joins a growing list of school districts using their land holdings to address housing affordability challenges faced by their own employees.

June 8, 2025 - Fast Company

Yellow single-seat Japanese electric vehicle drivign down road.

The Tiny, Adorable $7,000 Car Turning Japan Onto EVs

The single seat Mibot charges from a regular plug as quickly as an iPad, and is about half the price of an average EV.

June 6, 2025 - PC Magazine

SMall backyard cottage ADU in San Diego, California.

San Diego Votes to Rein in “Towering” ADUs

City council voted to limit the number of units in accessory buildings to six — after confronting backyard developments of up to 100 units behind a single family home.

June 18 - NBC San Diego

Large tower under construction with crane with American and Texas flags in downtown Austin, Texas against sunset sky.

Texas Legislature’s Surprising Pro-Housing Swing

Smaller homes on smaller lots, office to apartment conversions, and 40% less say for NIMBYs, vote state lawmakers.

June 18 - The Texas Tribune

Red brick five-story multifamily housing building in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Even Edmonton Wants Single Staircase Buildings

Canada's second most affordable major city joins those angling to nix the requirement for two staircases in multi-family buildings.

June 18 - Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC)