“In integrating actions at four scales, the intended purpose is to provide a clear picture of how local governments can be proactive in applying land use planning tools to protect property and aquatic habitat, while at the same time accommodating land development and population growth,” states Kim Stephens.
“The intended purpose of an ISMP is to provide a clear picture of how local governments can be proactive in applying land use planning tools to protect property watershed health, while at the same time accommodating land development and population growth,” states Ray Fung.
Don Moore was a commonsense practitioner; he was not captive to terminology. Part of his legacy is being the catalyst for looking at drainage differently in 2004. Don Moore was also responsible for constructing the first ‘engineered rain garden’ in British Columbia.
Richard Boase (120p)
The catalyst for pending action is the current incremental impact of property redevelopment on stream health. Our watersheds have been experiencing death by a thousand cuts as the house footprint has grown larger and larger over the decades.
The plan reimagines the city as an oasis of rain gardens, green roofs, permeable pavements, thousands of additional trees, and more. According to Howard Neukrug, the Philadelphia Water Department’s Director of the Office of Watersheds, “We are taking that (old, grey infrastructure) barrier down, and are stopping the water from ever hitting the system.”
“The cost of trying and failing may be high. But the cost of doing nothing is higher still. We have one chance to develop things right—to provide for safe and attractive neighborhoods, ecological balance, and clean water. If we mess it up, it will take decades and millions of dollars to fix it later,” writes Andy Reese.
A decade ago, British Columbia and Washington State had the same science and a common understanding of what it meant. The point of departure for rainwater management and green infrastructure was the same. A decade later, are they on diverging paths? A cross-border panel session created the opportunity to compare prescriptive vs educational approaches. “We call our approach designing with nature,” continued Remi Dubé, “We have borrowed from the teachings of Ian McHarg because we believe this is the way we will create livable communities and protect stream health.”
“When the Reference Panel reported back to the Waste Management Committee in July 2008, we identified the ISMP process as a sleeper issue because continuation of the old-business-as-usual would potentially result in an aggregate unfunded liability that could easily equal the $1.4 billion cost of sewage treatment,” stated Kim Stephens.
The Puget Sound Partnership has adopted an Action Agenda to clean up Puget Sound. For the first time, the Action Agenda provides critical data and a strategy for tackling these threats to the waters in and around Puget Sound. Its four cornerstones are driven by the latest available science and are results-oriented.
The truth about stormwater regulation in Puget Sound is that it is not working, writes Sue Joerger. She states that the Washington State Department of Ecology has failed to develop an effective regulatory and enforcement strategy to protect water quality and salmon when it rains.
