Urban Watersheds Perspectives

Taking a break...

Jim Chlup — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:38:15 -0800

Well, we've completed an entire year of posts with our blog. We've covered a wide variety of topics related to urban watersheds, had some great exchanges with many of you, and we look forward to continued discussion on this topic. However, it is time for us to take a break from the blog so that we can concentrate on other aspects of our business.

Please check back from time to time and we will have much more to say on this topic when we go live again. Also, please don't hesitate to drop us a line. We'd enjoy hearing from you!

Wishing you all the best for 2008!

Kevin Conner

Randy Alexander

Jacque Thomas

Jim Chlup

Who Pays?

Jim Chlup — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:30:46 -0800

Interesting article from HometownAnnapolis.com.

The concerns raised in and around Annapolis are common to the country as a whole. As with everything, it all comes back to money. We all understand the need for infrastructure – but we seem to value difference types of infrastructure differently. For example, everyone sees the need for modern, safe bridges because we all drive over them every day. However, how often do we notice, or even see, the infrastructure that cleans stormwater runoff? Is one more inherently valuable that the other? We certainly have to prioritize infrastructure improvements so that our elected officials can budget and fund them. There’s little question that more education is needed on the importance on stormwater infrastructure and the real impact (I’m talking financial impacts) that stormwater pollution has on our communities.

posted by RANDY ALEXANDER

HR 2421 - The Clean Water Restoration Act of 2007

Jim Chlup — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 09:29:43 -0800

If you listen to some of the statements made by the authors of this bill, you might be tempted to think that it wouldn’t have that big of an impact on how water resources (including our urban watersheds) are regulated in the U.S. However, the language chosen for this bill appears to potentially significantly broaden the scope of federal regulation.

At issue are measures in the bill that revise the definition of ‘waters of the United States.’ The revised definition strikes the term "navigable" and includes "all interstate and intrastate waters." This would appear to open many waters that have not traditionally been subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, such as agricultural stock ponds and roadside drainage ditches originally constructed in uplands.

If the proposed definition were adopted, there could be significant impacts to all manner of projects. Here’s a real-life doomsday scenario... imagine a 20-mile road expansion project, where borrow ditches constructed 60 years ago in uplands, that because of steady road runoff and lack of maintenance, are deemed ‘jurisdictional.’ The costs to permit and mitigate filling these ditches (which would probably extend down both sides of the roadway for the entire extent of the project area) could be staggering.

Few reasonable people think that water quality shouldn’t be regulated. However, the proposed definition included in this legislation should be considered in light of its potential economic impact. Perhaps a clearer, more restrictive definition is warranted – one that exempts waters that are not connected to what have traditionally been thought of as waters of the U.S. Of course this would take us right back near the definition of waters that could be inferred from the joint guidance recently issued by the Corps and EPA. It’s funny how logical that guidance seems now.

If you’d like to read the proposed legislation, click here.

posted by RANDY ALEXANDER

Water Appropriations

Jim Chlup — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 07:46:54 -0800

Have you stopped to consider water rights or water appropriations policies in the context of our overall water resources? One example from a recent project I was working on got me thinking and I thought you might find it interesting...

Say I have a stock pond (in Texas, these man-made ponds are used for watering livestock) and this pond is a water of the state (e.g., it was constructed on a stream channel). Now say I decide to convert my property from agricultural uses to a residential development. This would cause me to lose my domestic and livestock (D&L) water appropriations exemption. Therefore, I would have to apply for a water appropriations permit for the water I’m holding in the lake. These permits have several key elements. For instance, if the dam is over 6 feet high (and most of them are) I would have to go through the dam safety permitting process that includes an analysis of the dam’s structural stability. It’s also likely that my appropriations permit would require me to drill a water well and supplement the water in the pond to account for losses of water to evaporation. Note that nothing has changed with regard to this hypothetical stock pond – we’ve not proposed to change the size, configuration, or capacity of the lake. Nor have we proposed to use the water for any purpose. The lake is the same size as before and would theoretically be losing the same amount of water to evaporation. If anything, since my cows are no longer drinking the lake water, more albeit minute amounts, should be flowing downstream.

Even though I’m proposing no changes to the pond proper, I’ve got to get a permit and go to the expense of drilling a well, etc. So what? You’re thinking that I’ve developed my land and will make a bunch of money from the sale of lots, so who cares if I have to spend a little money to augment evaporation losses from the pond?

For starters, it’s likely that the groundwater from the water well isn't the same in terms of chemical and physical properties as the water in the surface water system. Even though it might be of suitable quality to drink, it might not be ecologically suitable for the surface water system. Furthermore, if I’m in a somewhat rural situation, I may be drilling a well that further taxes a groundwater system that my neighbors are relying on for their drinking water. To make matters even more complicated, some parts of Texas have Groundwater Conservation Districts that might not even allow new wells.

So now say I want to side-step this issue entirely, avoid these potential problems and just fill in the pond since I don’t need it anymore. Well, I’d probably need a Section 404 permit for that (remember, we’re assuming the pond was built on a stream channel).

So really it’s a classic catch-22 situation - either go through a potentially arduous Section 404 permitting process to get rid of the pond or get a water appropriations permit and drill a well to compensate for evaporative losses. And all this for a pond that I don’t want or need to change in any way.

While you and I might find legal and regulatory conundrums like this fascinating, this scenario is very real and more common than you might think. But problems like this reflect the fact that we need to constantly look at water policy and be open to creative solutions that provide the greatest benefit.

posted by RANDY ALEXANDER

Off to Boston!

Jim Chlup — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 07:44:04 -0700

No, not for baseball...but it looks like the Red Sox are off to a heckuva start, eh?

Kevin and I will be in Boston next week for Urban Waterfronts 25. This is our first event with this group, so we are both looking forward to meeting some new people in the industry and getting some fresh perspectives. Look for a recap after we return, and we we certainly be posting some new topics based on what we've learned from the seminars.

We will have a tabletop exhibit at the conference, so if you are attending, please introduce yourself!

For more info, here is the conference website.

posted by JIM CHLUP

WRDA: Update on the Legislation

Jim Chlup — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 11:50:44 -0700

In a word (acronym actually)……WRDA. The slang term for this is pronounced "word-ah", and it stands for the Water Resources Development Act. Many of you may know what WRDA is, so bear with me for a couple of paragraphs while I delve into a short explanation (The status of the WRDA bill is at the end of this post, for those of you who might want to skip to the bottom).

This act is almost an omnibus-type act in its scope: It deals with all aspects of water resources, including the mission for the USACE, individual projects, disbursement of funds for projects, grant programs…..basically, funding water-related projects that are found to be in the federal interst.

There has not been a WRDA passed since 1987. Seems to parallel our nation’s neglect of our infrastructure, which according to the US Chamber of Commerce will cost $1.6T (yep, that’s trillion) to get our overall infrastructure back into shape. The Minneapolis bridge incident was horrible, and we could be in store for similar problems if we don’t get our act together.

The past WRDA acts have been important to urban waterfronts, and the current WRDA act under consideration is similarly important. Urban waterfront projects range from navigation and shipping improvements to economic development projects to pollution prevention projects to ecosystem restoration projects. Since WRDA can direct an agency to undertake a project, how to undertake it, and provide a schedule, it can clear up regulatory logjams. Past blogs have addressed the economic importance of revitalized waterfronts (both riverine and marine), which included:

What’s better: Eagle habitat or a waterfront entertainment district?

Balancing Act

The Border Fence and the Rio Grande

To my view, a large part of our infrastructure revolves around water resources, so I tend to think that WRDA is good for our water resources overall. That’s not to say that every project in WRDA is good….some of them are probably bad for the ecosystems. On the whole, however, it provides funding and wherewithal for stream-related projects.

Regardless of environmental position, WRDA is critical for federal funding for water resources because the USACE ecosystem restoration mission (I’ve heard people argue that they are not good at it, but they also undertake the largest such projects in the nation when no one else has the resources to do it); there are 20 waterfront revitalization projects in the legislation which will economically assist communities (providing the fishing pole instead of giving fish); and it assists in our infrastructure on rivers (including dam removal, maintenance, navigation, etc.)

WRDA update:

During the past month, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved the water bill on a 381-40 vote. That is a veto-proof margin. The Senate approved a roughly $14 billion WRDA bill this year also with a veto-proof margin.

Senate Environment and Public Works ranking member James Inhofe, R-Okla., is trying to lead White House officials to prevent veto over $20 billion in Army Corps of Engineers water infrastructure projects.

The White House says its cost is too high. Supporters of the of the House-Senate WRDA conference report say the high cost is due to a backlog of Army Corps projects since WRDA was last updated in 2000. It is supposed to be reauthorized every other year.

It is very important for local communities like yours, which stand to benefit from the WRDA legislation, to continue to contact your legislators and press for the WRDA approval.

Funny thing about earmarks:

Everyone else’s earmarks are bad (except for ours, of course, which are fully justified as a project that is in the best interest of the nation!).

I bring up earmarks because WRDA is often accused of being simply an earmark omnibus bill.

Earmarks are the true embodiment of situational ethics. The public outcry over the Alaskan "Bridge to Nowhere" earmark by Senator Ted Stevens is such an example. However, not much is said about over 300 federal projects in West Virginia named for Senator Robert Byrd or his immediate family. I wonder how many people in West Virginia griped about the Alaskan bridge? The example is not limited to those two states either……there is intense competition and armtwisting among federal legislators to bring home federal projects. Seems like it’s always been that way. The fact is that earmarks are going to remain in the legislative process for a long time to come. There is more transparency about who’s earmarking funds for what, and that transparency is a good thing.

posted by KEVIN CONNER

Watershed Management Planning: Cookie Cutters Need Not Apply

Jim Chlup — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:52:50 -0700

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

The Border Fence and the Rio Grande

Jim Chlup — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 12:21:34 -0700

Originally, I had written a strong piece about the puerile mentality of using a single solution for illegal immigration problem along the Mexican border. The idea of using a single design solution for an area with varied contexts is ludicrous, sustainable only at great expense, and has the potential to damage some American cities. Last time I checked, the goal of border security is to dramatically slow illegal immigration; I’m all for that. However, that goal does not include irreparably damaging entire urban areas.

I’m on my way to DC for the 3rd time this year to discuss design issues along the Rio Grande. I’m being asked to be part of these meetings because of my familiarity with the river as it traverses through the cities on the Texas border. Like the river, these cities are old. Laredo dates to the 1700’s, for example. Together, the larger cities (El Paso, Del Rio, Eagle Pass, Laredo, Brownsville, McAllen, and the other Rio Grande Valley communities) total over 1.1 million people. While these are not wealthy communities, they are vibrant communities that are growing.

Their original raison d’etre is the Rio Grande, which I would classify as a desert river. Just like many communities throughout the US.

It also happens to be the border with Mexico, and the illegal immigration issue is one that must be addressed by the US. Before you go categorize me before you finish reading this: I’m a big fan of slowing illegal immigration way down.

As I understand it, the current proposal is to use the same solution along the river border throughout the Texas US/Mexico border: A double fence with a patrol road down the middle, with clear zones on both sides. The footprint is some 200’ to 400’ wide, depending upon terrain. That solution is to be implemented in rural areas such as the large ranches and in urban areas such as downtown Laredo.

However, once we analyze such an approach closely, the validity of a single solution rubberstamped everywhere falls apart pretty quickly. The complexity of urban environments militates against the same solution that is used in rural areas. I just think that a fence whose footprint is an entire city block in width, located along the river in an urban area, is a bad idea.

We can measure the effect of the proposed border fence within four areas: Oddly enough, many of the same negative aspects that noted for the border fence below are the same negative aspects that a channelized ditch has:

1. Economic Value:
The impact of such as fence along the Rio Grande can almost be intuitively felt. If the edges of waters are a soul-felt draw for people, then putting a fence between people and the waters’ edge will do nothing but drive people away. The economic development opportunities along the river will be eliminated, and a no-mans-land will be created. In an urban setting, this malignancy can creep further into downtown.

2. Social/Cultural Value
The only social/cultural value that the border fence might have is in the area of security. However, security comes in several categories, including national security and personal security. The only positive effect that the proposed border fence could have is in the area of national security. Yes, it could work. However, other ways exist to get the same security. To blindly accept the same security solution in a city block that is used on a ranch seems ludicrous.

The border fence has no other positive social/cultural value, period. In fact, within the context of a city, the no-mans-land that will inevitably erupt adjacent to the fence (and thereby eroding the urban fabric of shops and street life) actually impinges on personal security by creating a blighted area.

3. Visual Value
The impact on the visual vernacular is severe. Who in their right mind is going to make significant investments in the urban fabric, public or private, with such a fence next to them? It’s almost as if the fence, if placed in a city, could require a wholesale mitigation measure for the adjacent properties. There are land uses that can abut a security fence: industrial uses and defense-related uses come to mind, or other uses that do not desire pedestrian traffic or human interaction at street level. However, for most urban uses that desire such interaction, the proposed border fence is going to be detrimental on a street level. In short, it simply is not good urban design.

4. Environmental Value
I define environmental value as those qualities or characteristics that add ecological and human sustainability within a given context. As a broad example, environmental value within an urban context is related more to green building principles and avoiding negative impacts on regional resources such as rivers. Conversely, environmental value within a rural context is related more to enhancing or avoiding negative impacts to natural systems.

As far as the border fence is concerned, it has no environmental value in either urban, suburban, or rural areas. It interrupts the wildlife migration near the Rio Grande in rural areas.

There are other methods to provide such border security along the Rio Grande. We have proposed a series of improvements along Laredo’s riverfront that provide border security as well as provide the framework for private investment and redevelopment of Laredo’s downtown. I’ll be able to share more about that proposal once we have both federal and state authorities engaged. I can give you a hint, though: If you analyze the actual security requirements of the Border Patrol, there are other methods of meeting the actual security requirements other than a vertical fence. If you’re particularly interested, please email us at the contact information on the blog page.

BTW, there is a publication coming out from ULI called “Return on Perception”, which discusses many of these same issues in depth. I’ve been privileged to see a couple of the chapters and the foreword…..it’ll be a great commentary on the importance of great public spaces to the overall economy.

posted by KEVIN CONNER

"No a la NOM-029!"

Jim Chlup — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:18:08 -0700

I love to fish. Since I was a young boy, it’s been my passion. These days I mostly fish for largemouth bass in local reservoirs, but I have fished all over the U.S., even spending six years in Idaho fly fishing for trout (and sometimes attending classes). Although I prefer fishing with artificial lures or flies, I’m no purist – I’ll drown worms with the best of them. To my three daughters, the worms are more interesting than the fish.

Recently, I fulfilled a life-long dream and went marlin fishing in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico. If you like to fish, I can’t recommend this trip enough. In three days we caught seven striped marlin and two mahi-mahi. The waters in the Pacific and Sea of Cortez were gorgeous.

Working in the environmental field, I always find it interesting to see the types of natural resource management conflicts and issues that people around the world deal with. While we were in Cabo, I couldn’t help but notice that most of the charter boat captains in Cabo were wearing t-shirts and sporting bumper stickers that read "No a la NOM-029!" When I asked our friend who lives there what the stickers referred to, he explained that NOM-029 is a new fishing regulation. The problem that the sport fishermen in Cabo have with NOM-029 is that it allows long-liners (commercial fishermen) to keep their by-catch, including the prized billfish like marlin and sailfish. In some cases, the amount of "incidental by-catch" that is caught and killed is staggering. The sport fishermen worry, rightly so, that this might impact the resource and in-turn affect their business. The sportfishing industry is almost entirely catch-tag-release (meaning that the sailfish and marlin are released alive). I should point out that even sport fishermen keep a few mahi-mahi and tuna for the table (yum!).

The conservation fight over NOM-029 may seem remote to you – it certainly does to me sitting here in an office 300 miles from the coast. Most of us who live far inland probably don’t feel a big connection with our oceans, even though we may care about them. This fact made me think about another issue I’ve been reading about recently – the so-called "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico. You’ve probably heard of the "dead zone," which is also called the hypoxic zone. This is an area in the Gulf, recently measured at over 7,900 square miles, that is basically devoid of oxygen. The main locus for hypoxia is at the mouth of the Mississippi. However, scientists recently announced the discovery (for the first time) of a zone generated on the Texas coast. Although there is still much to learn about this issue, scientists do have a good idea of what causes it and this is where us landlubbers fit in.

In a nutshell, hypoxia is a result of freshwater that floats on top of the more dense saltwater causing a die-off of algae. The dead algae then falls to the bottom and decays, using up oxygen faster than it can be replenished and brought down from the surface. These lower, oxygen starved layers, simply can’t support sea life. The whole process is sped up and exacerbated by nitrogen, which is washed into the ocean from our rivers, encouraging algae blooms. Sources of nitrogen include lawn and agricultural fertilizers, erosion, and sewage treatment facilities. By not over-fertilizing and better controlling nitrogen from water treatment plants, we can help reduce the size and effect of the "dead zones." The point is that no matter how far we are from the coast, the decisions we make about how we manage our land and water resources have an impact on our oceans.

For more information about NOM-029, check out The Billfish Foundation website:

http://www.billfish.org/new/NewsArticle.asp?ArticleID=60

For more information about the "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico, see the following websites:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/07/29/dead.zone.ap/index.html

http://www.gulfhypoxia.net/

http://www.smm.org/deadzone/top.html (more kid-friendly)

posted by RANDY ALEXANDER

Urban Waterfronts 25

Jim Chlup — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:54:08 -0700

Hey folks, we've just signed on as a sponsor for Urban Waterfronts 25, which will be held November 1-3, 2007 in Boston. Their conference themes this year look pretty interesting:

"Our program is organized under three broad themes: Economic Development Issues, Public Policy Questions and Design Considerations offering three simultaneous tracks and a total of nine panels. Within the conference matrix there are sessions planned for those with an interest in “green” issues, historic preservation and water-related matters."

Here's the conference website: http://www.waterfrontcenter.org/conference/index.html

Let us know if you are going. We'd enjoy meeting you!

posted by JIM CHLUP