Sustainable Land Development Today - September 2008 - (Page 36)

WASTEWATER Distributed Wastewater Management and Sustainable Land Development A call to revamp outmoded regulatory practices that inhibit sustainable land development. By Craig Lindell here could not be a better time to think about sustainable land development. There are a number of dynamics that allow me to make that statement, in particular: I The economics of energy and water are changing perspectives on development. I Communities are assuming management responsibility for their commonpool resources. I Consideration for the establishment of a viable resilience among economic, ecological and social interests (the “triple bottom line” of sustainability) will make planning more continuous and adaptive than comprehensive. I The values of habitat, diversity of species and natural-systems services previously externalized in our economic models will be increasingly internalized. I Water and wastewater technologies, properly integrated with community and private interests are revealing value propositions that were not visible under traditional approaches. Specific to wastewater management, consider the long-established processes of the past and the innovative potentials of the future made evident with a glimpse at the Boston suburbs and Cave Springs, Arkansas. T Greater Boston “Give me one home per acre,” a developer in Boston’s metro west suburbs exclaimed, “and I will give you back 50 percent open space, a performance-based, wastewater-treatment system and $11,000 to $20,000 in impact fees.” Tragically what the developer was telling us is that the cost of regulation in some Boston suburbs was the price of a one-acre house lot plus the price of advanced wastewater treatment and up to $20,000 in impact fees. In other words, between $100,000 to $200,000 and 36 September 2008 Sustainable Land Development Today the costs associated with waiting almost four years to complete the permitting process. Approximately 60 percent of the water flowing into the metropolitan Boston sewers is inflow or infiltration or essentially ground water resources. The most easily permitted alternative—a septic system— frequently exceeds $30,000 per home. Take note that 31 states consider the septic system to be their first or second largest source of groundwater pollution. I make the point because it emphasizes that neither the traditional, platform-centric approach to wastewater management that we know as central sewer, nor its default alternative—the onsite septic system—are sufficient to address the larger issues involved in sustaining human community development. Nevertheless, they are locked in place by legislation and regulation. Without a viable, adaptive, affordable,beyond-compliance and readily-deployable infrastructure that serves as an interface between human communities and natural systems, sustainable, prudent land development is at risk or restricted, if not inhibited. At some administrative levels, the EPA recognizes this is an issue of governance and it is struggling to be heard. Shortly after his arrival in Washington in 2001, Tracy Mehan (assistant EPA director for the Office of Water) established a new expectation for the agency and the country. In his presentation to the Environmental Economics Advisory Committee on November 30, 2001, “Building on Success – Going Beyond Regulation,” he exposed the institutional obstacles to the practice of sustainable principles: I “The remaining water pollution problems are significantly more complex when compared with the problems that we have already addressed.” I “Point source controls alone are not capable of achieving or maintaining ambient environmental standards.” I “The assimilative capacity of our environment is limited and the technological and economic limitations of our existing regulatory framework are at hand.” I “Complex problems require innovative solutions and entail a change in paradigm.” Mehan suggests that there is no path to sustainable development with respect to water other than to collaboratively engage the complexity with which we are confronted. Many developers know this. Many have been very creative in pursuing alternatives. However, for the most part American corporate innovation is not trusted in the public sphere. Affirmation is met by regulatory institutions that have no capacity to negotiate for their objectives in the affirmative. Affirmation in a command-and-control structure at best manifests itself as “maybe,” and a regulated “maybe” drives up risk and cost. In order to achieve a natural balance between the needs of human communities and the natural systems upon which they depend, we must create an adaptive interface that places processing power where it is needed in a centrally managed network. Cave Springs On the edge of a sensitive, OzarkMountain ecosystem and next to the recently developed Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport, is the town of Cave Springs. With just over 300 homes, this rural town was confronting the pressure of a ten-fold increase in housing which it was in no position to provide services. In the caves which fostered the community’s name are endangered species that represent obstacles to development and especially for wastewater treatment

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Sustainable Land Development Today - September 2008

Sustainable Land Development Today - September 2008 Contents Our Voice The Bottomline Editorial Board SLDT Resources Digging Deep Oases of Capital Build a Better Business on an Interactive, Virtual Landscape Regulation SLDI in Focus �� SLDI Sponsored Summit �� Workshops �� Bookstore Tee’d Up for Sustainability Retention Solutions Wastewater Redevelopment Industry News Marketplace Products/Services Showcase Advertiser Index The Last Word

Sustainable Land Development Today - September 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.