{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.011089367253750815, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.6695652173913045, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A comparative analysis: storm water pollution policy in California, USA and Victoria, Australia.

Urban drainage systems historically were developed on principles of hydraulic capacity for the transport of storm water to reduce the risk of flooding. However, with urbanization the percent of impervious surfaces increases dramatically resulting in increased flood volumes, peak discharge rates, velocities and duration, and a significant increase in pollutant loads. Storm water and urban runoff are the leading causes of the impairment of receiving waters and their beneficial uses in Australia and the United States today. Strict environmental and technology controls on wastewater treatment facilities and industry for more than three decades have ensured that these sources are less significant today as the cause of impairment of receiving waters. This paper compares the approach undertaken by the Environmental Protection Authority Victoria for the Melbourne metropolitan area with the approach implemented by the California Environmental Protection Agency for the Los Angeles area to control storm water pollution. Both these communities are largely similar in population size and the extent of urbanization. The authors present an analysis of the different approaches contrasting Australia with the USA, comment on their comparative success, and discuss the relevance of the two experiences for developed and developing nations in the context of environmental policy making to control storm water and urban runoff pollution.