I sent this off to members of city council today. I doubt they’ll read it, so I’ll let you Lockers have a gander.

Most of the public stir about the “Stormwater and Erosion Control Ordinance” has focused on the 50’ buffers. The public is rightly alarmed. I read the proposed revisions the last time supposing the greater buffer width was selected as a decoy issue. I present what I consider to be unnecessary affronts to limited government proposed in the “Stormwater and Erosion Control Ordinance.”

I. BROAD, UNCHECKED POWERS The Stormwater Administrator is given almost dictatorial powers. By p. 6, I was amazed at all the work Ms. Ball will be doing on top of her duties as Transportation and Engineering Director. 3(g)(5)b states, “All stormwater control measures and stormwater treatment practices . . . shall be evaluated by the Stormwater Administrator . . .” Broad powers are given to the SWA. With respect to rights to enter property, care was taken to state that notice must be given before the SWA or her agents enter. 3(g)(8)b indicates that BMP owners will enter into an agreement with the SWA which, “shall grant the City a right of entry in the event that the Stormwater Administrator has reason to believe it has become necessary to inspect, monitor, maintain, repair, or reconstruct the structural BMP.” Does this constitute the “notice” required in other qualifications of the right to entry? The City Engineer (a.k.a. SWA) via 3(g)(12) is granted the power to “take such actions as may be necessary to protect the public and make [“any stormwater management facility”] safe.” Though I have the highest of respect for Ms. Ball, we cannot be conferring this commander-and-chief level of power on one person in government with no checks and balances. Can we please carefully check the language to make sure we are not opening the doors for some cowboy in the future to really take advantage of this very powerful position?

3(h)(1)b states that, “The City shall have the power to conduct an investigation as it may reasonably deem necessary to carry out its duties as prescribed in this section 7-12-2 and, for this purpose, to enter at reasonable times upon any property, public or private, for the purpose of investigating and inspecting the sites of any activity regulated in this section. No person shall refuse entry or access to any authorized representative or agent of the city, who requests such entry for purposes of inspection, and who presents appropriate credentials, nor shall any person obstruct, hamper, or interfere with any such representative while in the process of carrying out his/her official duties. No person shall willfully resist, delay, or obstruct an authorized representative of the city while the representative is inspecting or attempting to inspect an activity under this section 7-12-2.” Section c adds, “No person shall obstruct, hamper or interfere with the Stormwater Administrator while carrying out his or her official duties.”

Though surprise inspections are preferable to scheduled appointments when there is probable cause that somebody is posing a clear and present danger, random violations of privacy are not acceptable. Is the document technically worded to reflect this? See, for example, 3(i)(10)

II. BUREAUCRACY There are all sorts of demands in this document (at least twenty) for licensed professionals to certify paperwork. First, I would ask how much of this paperwork is actually helping the environment. But, more importantly, certification is a government business. Professionals spend money they could reinvest in their practices or the community to obtain little pieces of paper that may or not reflect their aptitudes. Government, on the other hand, gets to hire bureaucrats, set up office space, and pay lawyers to regulate the certification process. Section 3(e)(2) lists a whole bunch of certifications.

III. AMBIGUITY I can understand how the public would be confused, as it was not clear after reading all the preliminary drafts of this document made available to the public, and this document in final form, exactly what applies when. For example:

A. What applies to general land disturbance, and what applies to land only within the buffer?
B. On p. 15 [3(f)(2)a4], “removing built upon areas from the aquatic buffer zones,” could mean exempting them from the buffer strip required or physically hauling them out of the buffer.
C. If 3(f)(2)f1 is consistent with the tabulated statement that owners of fill land will be treated the same as non-owners, then why are the two scenarios addressed separately in the text?
D. Approvals switch from the Stormwater Administrator, the City Engineer, and the Director. I was wondering if there was some confusion, since one person wears all those hats now.
E. 3(f)(4)d excepts residential districts and the River District from permission, leaving owners of residential parcels wondering what else where applies to them?
F. An explicit definition of what constitutes a “taking” would be helpful, as, by some generally-accepted connotations, it looks like the buffers are being “taken.”
G. A lot of the proposals are reasonable, except they go against my concept of what I thought American government was supposed to promote: limited government.
H. Section 7-18-2(b)(2)b lists fines in excess of the $5000 maximum. How is this done?
I. I notice on p. 3 [3(a)(7)a4] of the ordinance that government grants itself a grand exemption from all this.

IV. WHAT PRICE LIBERTY? Lastly, nature has survived longer than humans on this earth, largely due to self-correcting principles we do not see. We only see parts of the system. Local natural philosopher Al Wakeman, who has made a life of studying fluid dynamics, stresses the importance of flows and buildup and release of tension in living systems. Man, however, wants to put everything (students, trees, etc.) in rows and dictate obedience to numbers that may or not be helpful.

I suppose there are some benefits to aquatic life that are gained as nutrients from the soil wash on occasion into their habitats – just like we learned an occasional fire was actually good for the forests. Just like nature doesn’t need government’s omniscient dictatorship, most people are capable of not straight-piping toxins into the rivers without government dictation. If their land started washing into the river, they would probably do something to prevent it. How much trouble is a garage built by the river going to cause? If the land collapsed through some mishap under just one garage, would it be enough to justify these big-brush restrictions?

Our forefathers tried to foster liberty by making sure government would not invade anybody’s space and make erroneous conclusions or ask too many questions by requiring “clear and present danger” and “probable cause” as two basic criteria for government interloping. Today, we have pop-pseudo-science sounding alarms about uncertain hazards, all transferring power from the people and back to the government and moving this country closer and closer to statism.