Prevention is the Solution

I believe the best solution to a problem is prevention.  This theory works well when it comes to the health of people, so why not to the health of an ecosystem? 

Let’s assume for a moment you live in a growing community with a watershed that is not yet urbanized.  Wouldn’t it be better if you could prevent it from becoming an urban watershed to begin with, instead of having to come back and restore, revive or repair it?  Well, why not?  Obviously, there are a multitude of pressures with growth that may create obstacles, but you can plan for a path through these obstacles.  That means comprehensive watershed master planning with upfront consideration for recreation, stormwater conveyance, water quality and ecosystem protection.  By planning for these uses ahead of development pressures, you can be prepared to efficiently utilize stream corridors.  Why not plan for the future?  Prevention is certainly more cost effective than remediation.

Such an approach not only benefits the owners, users and public in general, but it can also create a clear regulatory and development path with fewer risks and unknowns.  I have spent a number of years in the public sector, on the side of the regulator, reviewing development plans.  I worked for larger highly urban communities and smaller more rural entities, and the approach I am advocating for here works just as well in all communities of any size. 

I know you may think such planning efforts are cost prohibitive, but I would suggest you step back and really think about this approach first before completely dismissing it.  Consider the regulatory benefits alone.  Imagine a developer comes into your community and wants to develop a tract of property in the middle of the watershed.  What is your guidance to them?  Should they detain flows from the site to predevelopment conditions? For what event should they detain?  Should they preserve the floodplain?  Do they have to accommodate full development upstream or assume that all properties upstream will themselves detain?  Do they have to dedicate park land?  Do they have tree preservation requirements?  What if this is the first property to develop in the watershed?  All of these questions and more could be answered with a master plan.

Just a thought…what do you think?

Posted by JACQUE THOMAS

Comments

[Duanne Gilmore]

I read your entry with great interest. I think you and the other blog writers have a lot of wonderful points. I have been lucky enough to be involved in some Master plans of large projects recently. The alarming water usage that we have experienced in the design of urban environments is irrigation demands for golf facilities (and treatment of pesticides that run off), residential irrigation and district cooling loads.

Even though district cooling on a holistic level is a more efficient system it produces a highly saline blowdown that is far from potable and too saline for groundwater recharge or irrigation. I have seen instances where by way of ecological research, the blowdown mixed with desalination brine, has been used to breed aquatic life while making use of planting to neutralise the salinity. This solution has provided an amenity for water byproduct that previously had no use. Another great example to reduce the irrigation demand is making use of saline water on golf courses, rather than potable especially in regions where it comes from a desalination source or in areas that have low rainfall. It is a simple solution by way of making use of Paspalum type grass rather that the conventional Bermuda which can not be irrigated with saline water.

Duanne Gilmore