Columbia needs a sustainability director
By KEN MIDKIFF
Published Friday, January 23, 2009
(http://www.columbiatribune.com/2009/Jan/20090123Comm003.asp)

Back in the fall, the Columbia City Council considered creating a new position called "sustainability director." City staff wanted the position to be created. The salary for this position was in the budget.
But the council couldn’t come to an agreement on a definition (or job description) for this position, and eventually the notion was pushed aside.

It is time to reconsider this position, and it is suggested that a job description be adopted from the various points of view and a sustainability director be appointed. Recent and not-so-recent developments justify creating such a position.

Consider the problem with Columbia’s drinking water. Back in the early 1990s, when the Missouri Department of Conservation’s Eagle Bluffs wetlands were being considered, several people pointed out that this development would likely affect the quality of our drinking water. A letter was sent to the city council and to Ray Beck, then the city manager. One signatory appeared before the city council to express the concerns outlined in the letter.

In the letter, signed by a number of engineers and water quality experts (including John O’Connor, Blaise Brazos and other University of Missouri personnel), it was pointed out that sooner or later, the effluent from Columbia’s wastewater - which flows into Eagle Bluffs - would taint our drinking water.

Now that "sooner or later" is here, and our drinking water will require additional and costly treatment to prevent the formation of total trihalomethanes. Everyone is pointing fingers and asking, "Who knew?"
Well, it turns out that a number of people knew, and they informed the city council of their knowledge. They were ignored.

But if there had been a sustainability director and that director was on his or her toes, the city staff would have pointed out that Eagle Bluffs rendered Columbia’s drinking water source as "non-sustainable." As it was, Beck, acting almost solely on his own and mostly concerned about money, did suggest that the city explore obtaining source water from across the river, since there was a possibility that Eagle Bluffs would negatively affect our drinking water.

This, too, was ignored, because it would have been expensive, involved no federal funding and a lot of people favored the creation of Eagle Bluffs. The cheerleaders included most environment and conservation groups. Now, in recognition that the letter signers were correct, those same organizations are in mea culpa mode.

If the city had a sustainability director, this entire fiasco could have been avoided. Not only could we have explored other sources of drinking water, but also placing Columbia’s water wells so close to Eagle Bluffs could have been avoided.

A sustainability director could also have noted that the council-permitted sprawling developments in this area were and are negatively affecting this area’s sustainability of wildlife habitat and our open and green spaces. The sustainability director could be involved in planning the designs for various newly acquired parklands.

Given the long radioactive life of materials produced by nuclear power plants, it is likely that a sustainability director could point out acquiring electricity from such a facility is unsustainable. There are all sorts of issues in which a sustainability director could and should be involved.

We are losing our open and green spaces. Sprawling developments - now slowed somewhat by the tanking of the housing market - pop up like fetid mushrooms. Since most of the "flat land" has already been used, new developments are taking place on steep slopes, wooded areas and along streams - places that are sensitive and highly vulnerable to erosion and rainwater runoff containing sediment.
Bottom line: The city of Columbia needs to resolve all differences of opinion and create this position quickly.