Here’s a pair of maps. The first one shows a 27-acre area tributary to a ravine. The second roughs out the location where a bioretention facility might go. The facility would intercept runoff—infiltrating some of it, evaporating a bit more, and treating the remainder before letting it seep toward the creek downstream.
The project was envisioned by a small group of public works planners and engineers. To me, this is government at its best—both objectively and subjectively.
Objectively, because the project is a way to get a lot of environmental benefit for a relatively modest public investment. Subjectively, because planning and executing projects that improve the urban environment is really cool and fun. It’s the sort of thing government ought to be doing, to my way of thinking, and I appreciate the privilege to get paid to do it.
Not this time.
80% of project costs would be grant-funded, and some of the 20% match could be attributed to another project that’s already in the budget. Some of the remainder would be spread around among a number of municipalities. But there’s no money for matching funds. Ultimately, the project died because one of the potential participating agencies couldn’t pledge $540.
Why? A couple of reasons:
First, cities and counties are in a budget crisis, and every budget crisis, once the pressure builds long enough, produces irrational, penny-wise decisions.
Second, our municipal stormwater permit mandates so many actions, and with such specificity, that municipal staff would rather be damned than add yet another activity, and another expense, regardless of how cost-effective that activity and expense might be.
That’s sad for those of us who got into the environmental business, and the public works business, because we had an expansive and optimistic view of how government could protect the environment.
All these years in, we’re still doing the minimum.
