Local governments usually have input on projects that are built on or along their waterways through plan review processes, planning commissions/boards, tree removal permits, floodplain development permits, and the like. I have seen developers agree to extensive and expensive concessions in order to comply with ordinances and gain approval for their projects, including the addition of large amounts of tree plantings, recreational amenities, etc. Ostensibly, these terms are intended to improve quality of life or enhance the natural environment in the project area. And they often do.
Sometimes, however, the resulting effort is inefficient or ineffective as a result of the inflexibility of the very ordinances and rules that necessitate the above-mentioned concessions. The most obvious examples of the inefficiencies I’m talking about involve small sites, where extensive effort and relatively large amounts of money are spent to comply with tree replacement, wetland mitigation, or storm water detention requirements. We’ve all seen cases where the effort and money expended on three such small projects, if pooled together, would yield much larger rewards at a combined or consolidated location.
We need to start looking at projects in terms of the watersheds they occur in and the specific needs of that watershed rather than evaluating each project as if it occurred in a vacuum.
This approach is already being employed in some parts of the country and it involves the identification of watershed-specific needs. These needs often include things like habitat enhancements, increases in valley storage, erosion control and bank stabilization projects, etc. Then as development projects come before the local government for approvals, the project proponents could select a project from the list in their watershed or pay a fee commensurate with their proposed activity. Under this type of program, watersheds are treated individually based on their unique characteristics and needs. Cookie cutters need not apply.
I realize the devil is in the details, but this approach almost undoubtedly provides local governments and their constituents with more bang for their buck (actually the developers’ buck). If implemented properly, it could even allow development projects to proceed through the approval process faster. This increased efficiency would be critical, as buy-in from the developers who would be funding such a program would be critical to its success.
posted by RANDY ALEXANDER
Comments