THE STATE, THE FEDS, & COASTING ON OUR COAST
As the sense of urgency for coastal restoration runs head-long into state and federal bureaucracy and land-owner issues, GRN board member Mark Davis weighs in:
---------
Someone once said that there are no bigger gaps on this planet than the ones between words and deeds. I was reminded of that as I was reading the State’s recent draft Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast and the White House’s draft Statement of Administration Policy concerning the Water Resources Development Act which is pending in Congress now.
I was struck, pleasantly, by the language in both that spoke of the need to expand the effort to restore our coast and of the need to revisit massive levee projects to ensure that they fit our current needs and reflect the lessons taught by the storms of 2005. There is even language in the State plan about the need for smart growth and strict enforcement of zoning laws. Wow.
But then there are the deeds. I am not one of those who actually thought we would be seeing detailed statements from Baton Rouge and Washington mapping out just how we can save our coast and protect our people. At this stage I don’t see how that would be possible. What I do think is fair to expect is an honest game plan for moving forward that would yield the answers to the tough questions that stand between us and a future that contains safe communities and a functioning coast. It is that one deed that everything else depends on and we haven’t got it. The gap is yawning.
The State plan is supposed to be a three-legged stool. Storm protection is one leg, coastal restoration is another leg, and smart growth is the third. But the State’s draft plan, at last reading, seems to describe a stool with one and a half legs. I can’t help but think that the levee lines drawn across vast tracts of marshes and the reliance on catch-phrases such as “leaky levees” and “adaptive management” are rooted more in the needs and desires of civic boosters and of officials who will be facing voters than anything else. I understand that and there’s nothing wrong with it if those pieces of the plan actually add up to real and honest protection and fit with needs of a sustainable coast. There’s another one of those gaps though. The fact is, it appears that the coast is secondary to structural storm protection and that there is no game plan to move the ball on the smart growth front. Thankfully, there were strong voices pointing these points out and the State may yet address them. Let’s hope so but nobody can afford to assume it.
Things are no different on the federal side. First, a few givens. Number one, the Water Resources Development Act is and likely always will be a pork-fest with lots of things in it to object to. Number two, there are legitimate questions about nearly every major project up for authorization in the bill. Number three, there are some water projects and programs that need to be authorized one way or another. The White House policy statement admirably aims to trim the cost of the WRDA bill. It also notes how important it is to expand the effort to save our coast and to be sure that new levees apply the lessons taught by Katrina and Rita. But then, tragically, it drops the ball. Instead of suggesting ways of expanding and expediting coastal restoration, it calls for lowering the authorization by $700 million and for increasing the State cost share from 35% to 50%. That should speed things up.
With respect to storm protection, it seizes on concerns that have been raised about hurricane levees but suggests eliminating them from the bill but without any mechanism for addressing the concerns.
In short the message I get is, “tough luck kid, we’d like to help but we have a war to fight and tax cuts to keep.” Not the stuff of greatness. But should I be surprised? The more I think about it the more convinced I am that if I want those gaps filled I have to make it my job to make success their job.
Mark Davis is the Director of the Tulane Institute on Water Resources, Law & Policy, and has served on the GRN Board as both Chair and Treasurer.
As the sense of urgency for coastal restoration runs head-long into state and federal bureaucracy and land-owner issues, GRN board member Mark Davis weighs in:
---------
Someone once said that there are no bigger gaps on this planet than the ones between words and deeds. I was reminded of that as I was reading the State’s recent draft Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast and the White House’s draft Statement of Administration Policy concerning the Water Resources Development Act which is pending in Congress now.
I was struck, pleasantly, by the language in both that spoke of the need to expand the effort to restore our coast and of the need to revisit massive levee projects to ensure that they fit our current needs and reflect the lessons taught by the storms of 2005. There is even language in the State plan about the need for smart growth and strict enforcement of zoning laws. Wow.
But then there are the deeds. I am not one of those who actually thought we would be seeing detailed statements from Baton Rouge and Washington mapping out just how we can save our coast and protect our people. At this stage I don’t see how that would be possible. What I do think is fair to expect is an honest game plan for moving forward that would yield the answers to the tough questions that stand between us and a future that contains safe communities and a functioning coast. It is that one deed that everything else depends on and we haven’t got it. The gap is yawning.
The State plan is supposed to be a three-legged stool. Storm protection is one leg, coastal restoration is another leg, and smart growth is the third. But the State’s draft plan, at last reading, seems to describe a stool with one and a half legs. I can’t help but think that the levee lines drawn across vast tracts of marshes and the reliance on catch-phrases such as “leaky levees” and “adaptive management” are rooted more in the needs and desires of civic boosters and of officials who will be facing voters than anything else. I understand that and there’s nothing wrong with it if those pieces of the plan actually add up to real and honest protection and fit with needs of a sustainable coast. There’s another one of those gaps though. The fact is, it appears that the coast is secondary to structural storm protection and that there is no game plan to move the ball on the smart growth front. Thankfully, there were strong voices pointing these points out and the State may yet address them. Let’s hope so but nobody can afford to assume it.
Things are no different on the federal side. First, a few givens. Number one, the Water Resources Development Act is and likely always will be a pork-fest with lots of things in it to object to. Number two, there are legitimate questions about nearly every major project up for authorization in the bill. Number three, there are some water projects and programs that need to be authorized one way or another. The White House policy statement admirably aims to trim the cost of the WRDA bill. It also notes how important it is to expand the effort to save our coast and to be sure that new levees apply the lessons taught by Katrina and Rita. But then, tragically, it drops the ball. Instead of suggesting ways of expanding and expediting coastal restoration, it calls for lowering the authorization by $700 million and for increasing the State cost share from 35% to 50%. That should speed things up.
With respect to storm protection, it seizes on concerns that have been raised about hurricane levees but suggests eliminating them from the bill but without any mechanism for addressing the concerns.
In short the message I get is, “tough luck kid, we’d like to help but we have a war to fight and tax cuts to keep.” Not the stuff of greatness. But should I be surprised? The more I think about it the more convinced I am that if I want those gaps filled I have to make it my job to make success their job.
Mark Davis is the Director of the Tulane Institute on Water Resources, Law & Policy, and has served on the GRN Board as both Chair and Treasurer.
Labels: Flood Washington, Member Groups, Natural Storm Defenses, Wetlands
posted by Aaron at 11:49 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home