"An Inconvenient Local Truth"

A Sermon by Robert Vorsteg

For the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Winston-Salem, NC

November 26, 2006

"God made the country, and man made the town." When the English poet William Cowper wrote this in the 18^th century, he assumed that the town-country distinction was a permanent feature of the inhabited world. Cities like London might continue to grow, but there would always be the healing beauties of the natural world that meant so much to the English, who were very fond of walking tours.

For Americans an ocean away, residing in a vast continent, there never seemed any basis for questioning the permanence of our countryside as providing a natural environment distinct from our cityscapes.

But a century of population shifts from rural to urban has now reached a point where profound changes are taking place in a contrary direction. Rapid expansion of the Triad’s urban population has produced a growing and relentless pressure toward residential development, and the rural environment of Forsyth County is drastically changing. Unless new approaches to development can be found, the long-cherished distinction between town and country will gradually disappear, replacing nature’s gift of natural beauty with the merely utilitarian value of impervious surfaces.

A telling example may be found at Reynolda and Bethania Roads, just a mile beyond the city limits.

On Bethania Road (Rt. 65), across from Lakeview Drive, bulldozers and heavy trucks carved a clay dirt road into the site. The clay dirt road is now the paved entranceway to Olde Towne Village, where the rolling contour of the land has been flattened out, and the tree canopy that covered a third of the 32-acre site is now gone.

Bethania-area residents wince when they drive by the property. If you talk with them, they’ll tell you what it used to be like. They will suggest you look across the site from the entranceway and notice what was, until recently, completely hidden by trees – the sight and sounds of trucks and cars rolling on Reynolda Road. When they talk about it, you can see the distress in their faces.

Such distress prompts questions: Is this clear-cutting approach dictated by economic necessity? Have developers no real choice but to continue destroying God’s country to satisfy the demand for residential development? Are there economically viable alternative approaches to development that could preserve more natural ground cover, with its natural contours and tree canopy?

I’m a member of a Tree Ordinance Committee that has been delegated the task of providing City Council, and the County Commissioners, with a new tree ordinance proposal. Some of us on the committee assume that the need for a tree ordinance has long been obvious, and that the committee was formed to address that need. Others, skeptical of the need or desirability, have insisted upon the priority of the question: Do we need a tree ordinance in Winston-Salem/Forsyth County? This unresolved issue has hung over every meeting – like a storm cloud hovering in the distance. Apart from emotional appeals quoting Joyce Kilmer, what do we need to know in order to have an informed opinion here?

As UUs, we are committed to respecting "the interdependent web of all existence." When we express ourselves in this way, we are speaking metaphorically. Beyond the metaphor lies the natural world – the earth, and the air, and the sea, including the uncountable habitats they provide for innumerable varieties of living things. Over all this, there is the sun that is always rising and always setting. Beyond the metaphor are the many ways we are changing the world because of the way we live.

Beyond the metaphor, there is also the realm of science, which we would be wise to consult when we consider what we might or should do in our problematic role as stewards of our earth, and air, and waters.

Let’s reflect for a moment on what it is we imagine ourselves to be stewards of when we speak of earth and sea and sun and sky. We might begin by reminding ourselves of just how watery our planet really is.

I wonder how many persons, throughout human history, have found themselves in the plight of the ancient mariner in Coleridge’s poem, who cries out:

Water, water, every where,

And all the boards did shrink;

Water, water, every where,

Nor any drop to drink.

On planet Earth, water is indeed everywhere – it covers 70% of its surface – while all the land masses that rise above the water’s edge cover only 30%.

And just think of it! Ninety-seven percent of the water is undrinkable, because it is oceanic and contains 3,500 parts per million (ppm) of salts. Freshwater is defined as containing less than 1,000 ppm salinity, and this definition applies to only 3% of the total planetary water supply. All life on the planet depends upon whatever sources of freshwater can be found within that 3%. And these sources must, of course, be renewable. It is this fact that makes it important to understand the water cycle. For it is only by means of this ever-renewed hydrologic cycle, as scientists call it, that living things can remain alive.

It seems to me quite remarkable that the freshwater we need comes to us by a process that almost guarantees us a permanently renewable resource. The sun shines on the vast belly of the ocean, warming it enough to loosen the bonds of water molecules, and the salt-free water vapor rises into the atmosphere, where air currents move it over the land masses. Water vapor is ever present in the atmosphere, and at the cooler temperature of higher altitudes it condenses into tiny water droplets. As these combine with particles of dust and smoke, clouds form and water droplets combine until heavy enough to fall as rain, snow, or sleet. And that’s the part of the hydrologic cycle we’re all familiar with – evaporation and condensation.

But the water cycle includes much more, and for our purposes, the most important events occur when precipitation reaches the earth. When rainwater falls on woods or meadows, on landscape that has not been disturbed by development, the ground cover absorbs about 50% of the total precipitation.

What happens to the water that is absorbed, or infiltrated, into the ground cover?

This infiltration process replenishes our freshwater storage areas under the ground, in aquifers below the water table. These groundwater supplies of freshwater continue to move downward toward the nearby streams, rivers, or lakes. Without this regular groundwater recharge of our freshwater supplies, the water level in our rivers, streams, and lakes would fall dramatically, and may even dry up. Under natural conditions, in which gravity eventually returns precipitated water into the ocean where the cycle continues, even heavy rains produce very little surface runoff.

When water is falling upon a hardwood forest, for example, only 10% of the total precipitation will become surface runoff. Another 40% of rainwater will return to the atmosphere by evaporation from ground surfaces and by transpiration from plants – i.e., the release of water from plant leaves. (This is the end result of moisture carried through plants from the roots to the leaves, where it is released from the undersides of leaves. A large oak can transpire 40,000 gallons of water per year.) And, as I said, 50% of rainwater will be absorbed into the natural ground cover, which functions something like a sponge, absorbing very significant quantities that maintain the aquifers beneath the surface. This is the groundwater level below the water table, where groundwater collects into aquifers. Such aquifers are, and always have been, our major renewable source of freshwater. The process whereby precipitation is infiltrated into the aquifers is referred to as groundwater recharge. For thousands of years, groundwater from aquifers has flowed where gravity takes it. Our streams and rivers and lakes are constantly replenished by the groundwater discharge (usually through underground seepage and from there on to the great oceans, where the water cycle continues).

That’s how the hydrologic cycle works under natural conditions, where earth, sun, sea, and air are interacting in a cyclical and sustainable fashion that supports the living things that are dependent upon it.

Urbanization alters these natural conditions, and in Winston-Salem/Forsyth County we are experiencing rapid urbanization, spurred by economic and population growth. All this creates new necessities and opportunities, and the need for new housing presents great opportunities and challenges to builders, developers, and realtors. We cannot deny their legitimate interest in making the most of these opportunities. But we also cannot continue to ignore the serious negative impacts of the conventional approach to land development in Winston-Salem and Forsyth County.

I mentioned the recent development on Bethania Road, and how residents in the adjoining community are very upset to see how the land has been denuded to prepare for the new residential development called Olde Towne Village. But except for the close proximity of one house to another, nothing about it will look like a village.

Why do builders and developers go about it this way? They will tell you it’s the only way they can build marketable houses that they can make a profit on. And of course, people have a right to sell their property to developers and builders who, in turn, have a right to build in accordance with acceptable practices in accordance with existing ordinances concerning land use and development.

Many people who get upset when they see land being cleared away are reacting to the visible loss of trees. There is no denying that we regard it as a personal loss when deprived of our view of trees owned by other people on their own property. At the same time, however, our own convictions about property rights limit our ability to do anything more than complain. We tend to wait until an unwanted development comes too close to us, clears away the tree canopy we’ve enjoyed for years, and then we complain and cry out, "Not in my back yard!" This complaint, however, is usually ineffectual.

Another kind of complaint might point us toward a better response. Some of us are affected more directly, when nearby developments result in dramatic increases in stormwater runoff that overflows the nearby creek and floods our own property. They have an issue that brings us closer to a powerful and relevant response to the builders’ appeal to property rights.

The inconvenient truth is that the conventional approach of local builders and developers is creating serious adverse effects that harm not only the unlucky nearby residents, but also the community as a whole. The most visible effect of land clearing is on stormwater runoff, and that increase in velocity and quantity of runoff is only the first link in a causal chain that leads well beyond water flowing downhill and streams rising or even flooding their banks.

Let’s recall how a vegetated natural groundcover functions like a sponge, absorbing significant amounts of rainfall (infiltration) up to about 50%, while the tree canopy and other vegetation enable another 40% of precipitation to be released into the atmosphere by evapotranspiration. That’s how the natural hydrologic features of a land site work, as an integral component of the entire water cycle.

What happens when the bulldozers and heavy machinery lumber onto an undeveloped site, as they did about six months ago on Bethania Road? Before they even start to grade, they are altering the hydrologic features of the site by compacting the soil and thereby reducing its infiltration capacity. It becomes less like a sponge, less porous. Site-clearing machinery applies a very heavy hand that scrapes away the topsoil and doubles the density of the soil zone, depriving future plants of their ability to absorb moisture and nutrients. When the streets are in and some of the houses erected and sold, the ground cover has been changed from zero percent impervious surface to – I’m guessing here – about 15% or 20% impervious. With just that much change, the stormwater runoff will be doubled, from 10% to 20% of precipitation. But, according to the site plan for Olde Towne Village, when all the lots are sold and built on, the total impervious surface will cover 38.8% of the 32 acres. That will cause the storm water runoff to increase up to 30%.

Here are some of the consequences of stormwater runoff:

FLOODING: Although stormwater controls include retention ponds, they can at best limit the peak runoff velocity of a 10-year storm event to the pre-development velocity of that site. But once the site has been developed in the conventional manner, nothing can reduce the increased volume of runoff. And all lesser storm events will release more volume than before. Increased flooding is inevitable. And it does not fit into the category of "Acts of God," but as the consequences of human decisions that can be changed.

EROSION AND SEDIMENTION/POLLUTION: Although some on-site measures are required to limit erosion, runoff flows have been carrying sedimentation into all of our county’s streams that receive their runoff. And sedimentation is now North Carolina’s #1 source of pollution of our streams and rivers.

DEPLETION OF GROUNDWATER AND LOWER STREAM LEVELS: When water cannot infiltrate into the ground, the groundwater supplies in our aquifers are not replenished (less groundwater recharge), and subsequently there is less seepage from aquifers into streams, lakes, and springs. The base flow level is a stream level when there has been no recent rainfall. Lower base flows have been observed in many streams in our county, which leads to impairment or destruction of fish and aquatic life.

I have not attempted to research questions concerning the cost to communities created by conventional approaches to land development in Winston-Salem/Forsyth County. But it is clear that these negative impacts all have a bearing on the public safety, health, and well-being. If this kind of development continues, we will all bear these burdens of loss, including the public cost of repairing an already aging stormwater infrastructure.

HOW TREES CAN HELP

In my view, we need more than an ordinance to preserve a few trees on new residential lots. But that is the minimum we should expect, and demand, from City Council and the County Commissioners, whenever our committee succeeds in putting a proposal together for them to consider.

Trees will certainly help alleviate some of the negative impacts I’ve been talking about. And I want to point out that, in this local struggle, appeals to our love and desire to maintain what is beautiful and good for the spirit will not suffice. Here, the good news is that an increasing amount of evidence is at hand to present to the hard-nosed tax-conscious members of our electoral bodies. I have here a study by the USDA Forest Service, entitled "PIEDMONT COMMUNITY TREE GUIDE: BENEFITS, COSTS, AND STRATEGIC PLANTING" (December 2005). The study is based on the economics of trees in our Piedmont Region, with a specific reference to Mecklenberg County.

I’ll just present a brief summary of the results of the Cost-Benefit analysis. The results are stated in terms of average annual net benefits per tree for four types of trees:

$7 to $18 for a small tree

$23 to $35 for a medium tree

$83 to $92 for a large tree

$31 to $44 for a conifer

The annual net benefits are valid for a 40-year period. So if you assume a planting of just 1,000 trees of each type, you have a net benefit of about $6 to $8 million over that period of time. And consider this: "Environmental benefits alone, including energy savings, stormwater-runoff reduction, improved air quality, and reduced atmospheric carbon dioxide, are up to three times greater than tree care costs."

The study included a hypothetical scenario of a planting project for a total of 1,000 trees:

50 small flowering dogwood trees

150 medium Southern magnolia trees

700 large red maple trees

100 loblolly pine trees

A cost-benefits analysis yields a benefit-cost ratio of 3.74:1, indicating a return of $3.74 for every $1 invested. Of these benefit estimates, the hydrology factor yields 45%, increased property values 37%, reduced energy costs 14%, atmospheric CO2 reduction 3%, and improved air quality 1%.

This is the result of one of various studies providing evidence that preserving and/or planting trees is, at least, a step in the right direction.

Remedies are available, but only on the condition that enough of us educate ourselves on at least the rudiments of the issues, and be prepared to act when we are needed. Here’s what I mean: When a tree ordinance, or any proposed change to our development ordinances, goes to CCPB and from there to City Council (and County Commissioners), you take the time to contact the Planning Board to indicate your concern, and then double your efforts when it faces the City Council. That means actually going down to City Hall to a public meeting. My guess is that it would take fewer than 1,000 people making their voices clearly heard, and showing up at City Hall at the CC’s public meeting.

Tree lovers of the world – UNITE! You have nothing to lose but your dogwoods and maples!