The *problem* is not soil erosion per se. That is merely a symptom
of the real problem. The real *problem* is that there is
no mechanism for citizens who attend the hearings on development
proposals to know the real and potential impacts of new development.
Have you ever wondered:
1) How much traffic is a new subdivision going to generate?
2) What effect will the development have on local area schools?
3) How will local property taxes be impacted by the development?
4) How much noise will be generated by the new contruction?
5) How much water will the new development consume and what
impact will this have on existing water supplies?
6) What effect will the new development have on
existing sewage capacity?
7) What wildlife and vegetation are currently present
on the development site and how will these be impacted?
8) What type of soils are present at the site and how
much grading is planned? What is the risk for erosion from
the project?
9) What is the *cumulative* impact of this development when
*combined* with other planned or potential developments?
An impact statement ordinance is the *only* solution that will
guarantee greater participation by ordinary people in the process.
Why? Because it opens up the process. Information is empowerment.
I expect a soil erosion ordinance to be passed. Big deal.
A community that is really interested in planning
will ensure that its citizens are fully
informed about the potential impacts associated with development
proposals. The tragedy at Hwy 95 South would probably never have
happened with such an impact statement ordinance. The proposal
was outrageous to begin with on that sensitive site and the impact
statement would have reflected as much.
It is only when you have a truly informed citizenry can one expect
decisions that reflect the collective will of the people.
-- Greg Brown (gregb@uidaho.edu) Assistant Professor, Dept. of Forestry, Southern Illinois University Adjunct Assistant Professor, College of Forestry,Wildlife,& Range Sciences University of Idaho