Dear Editor:
As a follow-up from my previous letter of flood damage problems in Jefferson City, I continue discussion. I believe the city has ignored stormwater management for years and allowed full development without concern to detention. The city, at best, has been reactive. The need now is proactive.
The city has a problem with priority of spending. Too much is spent on wants and non-essentials rather than real requirements. Sidewalks, fitness center, and beautification projects such as the fancy bridges, painting and lighting on the recently constructed Highway 50/63 project are all recent examples.
While most at the meeting who voiced concerns of recent damage to their properties, wanted the city to do something to mitigate their damage, or get federal grants and insurance, they generally projected a lack of individual responsibility as to why they bought or constructed in flood-prone areas. In some cases, they likely had valid complaints due to lack of development controls; others maybe ignorance of flood-prone areas put them in jeopardy.
To understand the need and to fund it are two entirely different propositions. There are probably less than 5 percent of properties in flooded areas. It is difficult for me to believe voters would pass this cost increase as a city-wide vote. Maybe breaking the whole of storm water needs into watershed priorities with separate fee schedules would be more palatable all who vote.
I believe a set portion of existing public tax funds (including the Parks and Recreation funding) be designated specifically to storm water control. Priority should be to first to correct deficient culverts that are damaged or undersized that impede steady flow. All new construction or re-construction or expansion projects should have detention and other on-site construction methods which can slow runoff, impond or reuse storm water on site thereby reducing storm intensity by increasing duration. This would include both residential and non-residential properties.
Lastly, the city needs separate construction of stormwater detention independent of new development to reverse the ill-planned and existing impervious surface improvements. Priority could be to existing government properties where ownership is not any issue. In the Wear's Creek middle watershed, I only counted two or three storm water detention areas.
Obviously, funding and timing will be at issue, so the sooner the city recognizes the change in direction is needed, the sooner the flooding can be reversed.