|
Wetlands are giant sponges that store rainwater for long periods, gradually releasing it to maintain ground water levels, and support the year round flow of water in creeks. They are part of the vast system that delivers clean water to our many springs, and the principle tool nature uses to remove pollutants from water, and recharge our aquifers. 2. The recent series in the Sun showed how decades of filling in wetlands and paving over the land they once occupied has devastated our creeks and allowed enormous amounts of pollution to be delivered to all our surface waters. These building practices simultaneously increased the amount of runoff during wet weather, and removed the wetlands, nature's first line of defense against flash floods, and its cure for polluted water. While many of the city creeks remain healthy at or near their headwaters, where wetlands are pristine and undamaged by development, the creeks within the developed parts of town are in bad shape. Stream flow ranges from a mere trickle during dry periods to a ranging torrent during intense storms. 3.Our flooding problems continue, as more and more of the available land in the watersheds of Gainesville's many little creeks continue to be paved over. But the loss of wetlands was curbed in 1991 when the current policy of "no net loss" of wetlands on any single parcel was established. This has removed economic incentives for wetland destruction, since developers cannot gain more land to build on if they have to replace paved-over wetlands with new ones close by. 4. Pollutant levels in streams and lakes are far too high, partly because toxic materials on streets and pavements are regularly washed off into the creeks, and are also because toxic substances in forgotten dumps near creeks are being leached into streams, and carried into lakes and the Floridan aquifer. Federal law requires that our waters be clean and swimable within a decade. The costs of this cleanup are likely to be enormous, but are not known in detail. Meanwhile, costs of infrastructure needed to discharge storm water and prevent flooding mount with the increasing areas of roads and other paved surfaces within the city watersheds, while the discharge systems themselves continue to damage our creeks, and deliver yet more pollution to surface waters. 5. Drinking water supplies are dwindling all over the state, and a serious water shortage is predicted for Orlando and points south within five years. Many fear those thirsty cities will be raiding our water supplies shortly thereafter. 6. In spite of all these problems, the city commission gives every indication of approving a policy that will allow developers to destroy more wetlands, as long as they promise to "mitigate" the loss of wetland functions in ways approved by the state. This is an invitation to the state to take away home rule authoritiy over a very critical aspect of land use regulation. 7. A "blue ribbon " committee has drafted regulations requiring developers to avoid damaging wetlands, using all practicable techniques that are "economically viable". Case law has defined an "economically viable" technique as one costing no more than 6 to 8% of total project cost. 8. Residents who beg the city government to consider changes in the wetlands policy are told that no changes can be made because a small group of people appointed by the city commission met frequently during 2000, and agreed on the new policy. Citizens who didn't participate then have no right to ask for changes now. No one has explained why critics' rights evaporated at the end of 2000, before they knew what the small group had agreed on. 9. Advocates of the new policy justify it on the grounds that it will "stop sprawl", by allowing builders to put densely clustered residences on the paved-over wetlands. According to City planners, Gainesville has enough undeveloped land inside the city to accommodate almost twice the number of new residents that are expected to move here in the next decade, without changing zoning to increase residential densities on this new land. 10. These advocates also claim we have many degraded wetlands that no longer provide attractive habitat for animals and plants, and therefore ought to be paved over and built on. But they cannot tell us where these degraded wetlands are nor why such wetlands should not be rehabilitated instead of destroyed. This criticism ignores the important role wetlands devoid of animals can still play in storing water and reducing floods. 11. Citizens turned out in large numbers at workshops reluctantly scheduled by the city commission. These citizens rejected the new policy by overwhelming majorities, but city planners and the commission stubbornly refused to consider retaining the old policy, or even formulating any alternative to the new one. 12. During 2001 the wetlands debate focused on the confirmed failure of techniques designed to "mitigate" loss of wetlands by establishing in a different location "mitigation" wetlands that could perform the functions of the wetland lost through development. Critics puzzled by the illogic of expecting a wetland in a new location to perform the water storage, flood control, and water quality functions of a wetland that had been destroyed in another location-- possibly several miles away-- away were ignored, or worse. 13. We now know that the state mitigation program won't preserve the most important wetland functions. Its goal is only to provide wetland habitats for the kinds of threatened and endangered plant and animal species that formerly occupied the wetlands that will be destroyed under this new policy. It was never intended to perform the water storage, flood control, water quality improvement or creek protection functions served by the destroyed wetland. 14. Advocates of the new policy now claim that existing rules for storm water control in new developments will substitute storm water retention basins for the missing wetlands, and do the same jobs the missing wetlands performed. Retention basins do promote percolation of runoff into the ground, but they do not significantly improve its quality. They are designed for rapid discharge, not the long term water strorage that can support flow in our imperilied creeks. No qualified professional will agree to that retention basins are good substitutes for watersheds, nor that they can duplicate all the watershed functions needed to protect and rehabilitate our creeks, and clean our water. 15.Recognizing that they had no clear idea of the condition and function of existing city wetlands, and didn't even have good maps of their locations, the commission agreed on 5/13/02 to authorize a watershed management study to identify the wetlands that must be be protected from development because of their important roles in the protection of our creeks and surface and subsurface water supplies. But a majority still want to go ahead and authorize wetlands destruction before determining which wetlands cannot be destroyed with impunity, and which might be lost without further significant damage to our creek system. |