Land-use planning and disaster readiness
by Peter BrayOctober 13th, 2005 at 13:33:55
“These hillsides are extremely prone to slides, even without development. When you start building subdivisions and roads, taking out trees and roots that absorb water and hold the slopes in place, you change the balance of forces. And one result is landslides.â€
To the editor,
The “teachable moment” from natural disasters (Disastrously unprepared, October 11, 2005) is more than just flashlights, extra water, and whistles. Consider, also, the larger public decisions we make about protection and development of our local environment.
Hurricane Katrina was that much worse because of lost barrier islands and buffering coastal forests. Wildfires in California are often so devastating because of where and how subdivisions develop.
In Oregon, we can limit flooding and landslide damage by curtailing development of environmentally sensitive areas and better managing urban storm-water run-off.
Indeed, geologists at Portland State University evaluated the causes of over 700 landslides in the Portland-Metro area following the 1996 flood. They found that poor placement of roads and buildings helped cause 76% of landslides.
Unfortunately, efforts to require developers to avoid landslide-prone areas are stymied by “property rights” legislators in Salem. Moreover, the uncertainties surrounding Measure 37 create additional barriers to keeping life and property out of harm’s way. Since the 1996 flood, shockingly, jurisdictions like Gresham have made hill-slope construction even more permissive, allowing development on land with up to 60% slope.
We should reflect on recent disasters to better understand that land-use planning is a vital component of preparation.
October 17th, 2005 at 8:45 pm
Now that we’ve got some breathing room with M37 having been ruled unconstitutional, these issues have to be addressed. No doubt we’ll have future disasters in Oregon such as floods and earthquakes. The question is, do we make them worse by allowing a do-it-yourself development type of attitude or do we use scientific expertise to determine what areas are safe or not for development.
August 27th, 2006 at 8:06 am
my mother has a beautiful property at the foot of a once heavily forested hillside, now a developer is making lots for homes there the hillside was clear cut a few years ago but never replanted the city has approved for building despite the report that the hillside is now unstable. Now during excavations there are large rocks and boulders coming down the hill threating homes. I sure would like to know what to do.
September 12th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
Virginia. There are no easy answers or quick solutions. Some local governments have stronger, more protective land-use controls (i.e. City of Portland, Lake Oswego, Wilsonville) because citizens and conservationists have organized and advocated effectively to establish these development standards that do a better job at protecting natural hazards, water quality and fish and wildlife habitat. Other jurisdictions have much weaker measures (City of Gresham, Happy Valley, Washington County) because citizens have not gotten organized to shape their communities’ future.
I suggest getting involved in your local watershed council or neighborhood association. There are lots of local grassroots roots around the Portland-Metro region that are organizing and advocating for better policies and programs to protect local ecosystems. If you call me I can help connect you with them.
Best,
Jim Labbe
Urban Conservationist
Audubon Society of Portland
http://www.urbanfauna.org