During recent
candidate forums, several contenders for the Petaluma City Council suggested that
the City consider a moratorium on building permits until the drought eases. I’ll speculate that other North Bay cities
are entertaining similar thoughts.
I support the
need to respond to the drought. The
water shortfall is significant, may not slacken during the coming winter, and
could be indicative of a systemic change.
But a blanket moratorium is the wrong tool for several reasons.
First, a
moratorium without simultaneous regulatory adjustments is tantamount to considering
the drought a normal and random element of the climate cycle, thereby
supporting a position taken by climate change deniers.
I’m not
saying that candidates who suggested a moratorium are climate change
deniers. I’m sure that few if any of
them are within that camp. But they’ve
mistakenly offered a position that aligns with a key proposition put forth by deniers.
(I won’t delve more deeply into a climate
change discussion because I don’t want this post to be sidetracked into a
discussion on the validity of the theory.
It’s a worthy topic, but not for today.)
Another
problem with a blanket moratorium is that it doesn’t reposition our communities
for when the drought may ease. If we get
enough rain to believe the drought is over and begin issuing new building
permits without a change in the water use standards, we’d have wasted an
opportunity to make our communities more resilient.
Lastly, we’re
in a time when our communities should be evolving in responses to multiple
challenges such as municipal finances and non-drought climate change
issues. A blanket moratorium, stopping
all development, would impede our progress toward other goals.
Luckily, a
better alternative can be conceived. In
place of the blanket moratorium suggested by the candidates, I propose a two-phase
moratorium. Initially, North Bay cities can
impose a short-term moratorium on all building permits, but only for long
enough to rework development standards to define water-smart standards for new
or remodeled buildings.
Some will
object that North Bay cities lack funds within current budgets, particularly if
tax measures fail, to undertake code revisions.
The concern is legitimate, but Petaluma, and likely other cities, has a
wealth of knowledgeable engineers and developers with water backgrounds, many
of whom would probably be willing to offer their expertise toward writing new
rules. In fact, there may be an
opportunity for regional code-revision cooperation.
Some effort by
city staffs would still be required to incorporate the information into the
zoning code, but it would be far less than if the staffs had to also develop
the concepts without assistance.
Next, as the
first moratorium expires and emergency revisions are made to the zoning code, a
second moratorium would be imposed on projects that don’t meet the water-smart
standards. The duration on this latter
moratorium would be indefinite, lasting until the city councils judge that the
drought has ended. If the more
pessimistic projections on climate change are valid, the second moratorium may
never be lifted. Hopefully, that won’t
be the case, but it’s a possibility.
The obvious
direction in which these moratoriums would push residential development would
be toward multi-family homes. It’s easier
to be water-smart without either a frontyard or a backyard. And a move toward multi-family would likely
include more housing in walkable urban settings, which I would applaud.
But
single-family residential would still be possible. I recently chatted with a North Bay
single-family developer who is proposing use of a treatment system that would
allow use of treated greywater from showers and washing machines for surface
application. (The greywater systems now
used in a few locations around the North Bay only allow subsurface
application.)
The
developer estimated that he could save almost 20,000 gallons per home per
year. That would be 20,000 gallons of potable
water that needn’t be treated and delivered and 20,000 gallons of greywater
that needn’t be conveyed away for treatment at a municipal wastewater plant.
The system
he proposes is in regular use in Europe and Australia, but unknown in the
U.S. It’s that kind of innovation and
adoption that the proposed two-phase moratorium would foster.
Thanks to
the Petaluma City Council candidates for raising the subject. Now, let’s hone their idea and ensure that it
best meet the needs of our communities.
Before
closing, one other comment should be made.
The savings from requiring new or remodeled buildings to be more
water-smart is worthwhile and, with the right technology, significant. But those savings are dwarfed by the savings
that could be achieved at existing homes and businesses. Between retrofitted fixtures, changed
landscaping patterns (my wife and I removed the last of our grass nearly ten
years ago), and reduced consumption encouraged by more sharply tiered rates,
water use at existing buildings can be sharply curtailed.
To fall into
the trap of believing that we’ve imposed a moratorium and therefore solved the
problem would be both wrong and harmful.
Instead, we must look into the mirror for the most important elements of
water conservation.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment