It may not be completely fair to blame bad land use regulations for the catastrophe in New Orleans. Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath remind us that we are, ultimately, creatures, not the Creator, and that we inhabit a place that has rules and conditions to which we must accommodate ourselves. Wind, earthquakes, flood, and fire put human beings in their place. And our place is not at the very top of the hierarchy. While in many ways we can be sovereign, we are, ultimately, subject to the natural laws and processes that are inherent in a world of Nature that we did not create, but that we simply inhabit by grace.

What we can do is to decide what we are going to do ourselves. While we are not sovereign in the world of Nature, we are sovereigns over the human world in which we most immediately live. The institutions and physical characteristics of that human world are ones over which we do have control. In the world of Nature there are inevitabilities about which we can do nothing. Natural laws can’t be broken. But there is a very large sphere (defined, if you will, by human laws) in which we, as humans, really do have “creative control.”

That is the place at which land use regulations meet the natural realities of wind, earthquakes, flood, and fire, and all the other natural phenomena. Tomorrow, I am going to continue that thought.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

There is a relationship between bad land use regulations and the catastrophe in New Orleans that has followed Hurricane Katrina.

Human beings have no direct control over the world of Nature, a world governed by “natural laws” that describe exactly what will and must inevitably happen within the natural order. The world of Nature is a world upon which all life (including our own) is ultimately dependent. Hurricane Katrina has reminded us of that.

Most immediately, however, human beings live in a world that we create ourselves, a world governed not by the laws of Nature (which are descriptive, like the law of gravity, and tell us what must inevitably happen within the natural order). Human laws, far from being descriptive of what must inevitably happen, are prescriptive. They are like a doctor’s prescription. They are the written-down directions we give ourselves, telling ourselves what we ought to do (not what we have to do).

And that is where bad land use regulations relate to natural disasters (like Katrina) over which we have very little, if any, control. We could have told ourselves, through the right kind of land use regulations, not to build a city that was subject to the kind of flooding that has occurred. We could have followed that prescription. But we didn’t. And because we didn’t, the incredible human and economic loss we see each day on television has been the result.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

The last couple of days I have been waxing philosophical, discussing my “two world” hypothesis. Human beings live, in fact, in two different worlds simultaneously. Ultimately, we are creatures, living in the world of Nature, a world governed by “natural laws” that describe the inevitabilities of the natural order. We are subject to those inevitabilities and natural laws. Most immediately, however, we inhabit a “human world” which is governed by human laws that we ourselves propose and enact.

As most listeners probably know, I have just taken on a new job, as the Executive Director of the Planning and Conservation League, a Sacramento-based environmental organization that works on state laws in the State Legislature. All legislation, at the state level, or at the local government level, is an exercise in trying to define for ourselves what we “ought to do” about the subject of the legislation.

Land use regulations, properly understood, are our written-down prescriptions for what makes sense to us, as we consider how we should relate to the land. The philosophical theory, in other words, has an immediate and practical application. We need to devise and write down for ourselves laws that direct our activities (the things we can control) in a positive direction. Let’s discuss and debate what that direction ought to be, then enact the law and actually follow it. My gosh, that’s politics!

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

The basic idea behind our system of land use is that we first debate and discuss, as a community, what we think we ought to do with respect to our use of the land. Second, after that discussion and debate, we enact laws (or regulations) that provide us with a written?]down prescription for our land use activities. Third, we are then actually supposed to follow our own prescription, and to enforce the written down rules we’ve made for ourselves. If we go through this process, fully and fairly, we hope to end up with the kind of land use patterns that are often called “smart growth.”

It’s just “smart” to preserve and protect the productive agricultural land that provides our food. It’s just “smart” to use land efficiently, focusing growth in areas where infrastructure can be provided relatively inexpensively, and thus without the kind of sprawl that has negative economic impacts as well as environmental impacts. It’s just “smart” to set aside at least some housing that will be permanently affordable to persons with average and below average incomes. It’s just “smart” to anticipate possible natural disasters, and to write ourselves a land use prescription that will protect our lives and economic investments if such a natural disaster should occur.

If you’d like to get some information on the “smart growth” movement in the United States, click on the Land Use Report link at www.kusp.org.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Smart Growth America
http://www.smartgrowthamerica.com/

The State Water Resources Control Board is an agency of state government that has a major impact on virtually every aspect of water supply and water quality. Among other things, the Board oversees a State Revolving Fund for the Construction of Wastewater Treatment Facilities. This fund provides low-interest loans for the construction of publicly-owned wastewater treatment and water recycling facilities, the correction of nonpoint source and storm water drainage pollution problems, and the implementation of estuary enhancement activities.

On September 7th, the State Water Board discussed a proposed set of amendments to the policy that governs how this fund is used, and there will be a follow up meeting in Sacramento. That is a long way to travel, but written comments are encouraged, for those who might not be able to attend in person. If you’d like information on how to participate, click on the Land Use Report link at www.kusp.org.

I note the upcoming discussion about the State Revolving Fund for the Construction of Wastewater Treatment Facilities because the State Water Board is going to be considering something that is perhaps a little bit “new,” but definitely called for. The proposed amendments would impose a set of “smart growth” tests on proposed expenditures from the fund, so that state monies won’t help subsidize sprawl.

There’s some potential good news, in other words, coming out of Sacramento this week.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information:

State Water Resources Control Board Website
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/

Proposed Changes to SRF Policy
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/agendas/2005/
september/0907-05.pdf