Since the drought of the 2000’s, residents of the metropolitan area of Atlanta have become painfully aware of the scarcity of water resources. It has apparently taken such a severe natural event to make a notable impression. Now that the drought has passed, the question is: What have we learned from it? Many now advocate conservation, and this is good. Under any circumstances, this is good. But this is not enough. Our political leaders still have not helped us understand the root problem. Perhaps it’s because they don’t really understand the problem.
Many may recall back during the dry spell panic, one of our most prominent leaders actually made known publicly of his initiative to pray for an end to the drought. The logic being that if God created the problem, only God could fix it. This accusation is akin to blaming the design-engineer for a failing, but misused machine. Few are willing to argue that this planet was not well designed by its maker. But the earth, too, will break, if like a well-designed machine it is misused. The astute among us recognize that the fault in this situation has been more the result of the hand of man, than the hand of God.
Our drought was moreover caused by an overzealous appetite for development, and thoughtless land use in and around Atlanta. We have built too much impervious surface in this geographical area. And because of this, the limited amount of rainfall received, was not plentiful enough to provide all the necessary water resource. But also important to know is that even the skimpy quantities of rainfall should have been enough—even during the apex of what we had labeled a drought period. I’ll attempt to explain this in scientifically unworthy laymen’s terms. But I would suggest that if you really want to understand the scientific basis for this argument, read: The Realities of CO2: Seeing Through the Smog of Rhetoric and Politics.1
The key to understanding this argument is recognizing that highways, parking lots, and rooftops are not the only impervious surfaces built on a typical parcel of developed land. And let there be no doubt about it, the problem surely has everything to do with the construction of impervious surfaces. But another equally environmentally damaging, yet unsuspected culprit in this ecological offense would be the turf lawns in our residential subdivisions and on our corporate campuses. These lawns are typically comprised of non-indigenous, short rooted grasses that are kept mowed to within a few inches from the soil. The result of this behavior is that the lawns are unable to generate sufficient rainwater-retaining root mass. This pervasive landscaping feature, heralded by horticulturalists, notwithstanding its subliminal evil, has been eagerly perpetuated by an unaware public to such an extent that it has become a cultural norm. (It hasn’t always been this way, it just seems like it.)
The problem with this steadfast contemporary norm is that these introduced plants are unable to absorb the rainfall natural to their new habitats. This is so, even for quantities of unsubstantial rainfall. The water that we so desperately demand is, indeed, furnished as wished for, but it is granted to us as it falls on our incompetent lawns. Then, coupled with the water falling on our rooftops, driveways, and streets is whisked away, overcharging the creeks and streams, gushing into the Chattahoochee River (in the Atlanta case), and eventually but rapidly dispatched into the Gulf of Mexico. And then, having made certain that the resource offered (by God) has been squandered, we are amazed that we have no water. Few stop to consider that we intentionally engineered it away through the highly effective, but ecologically faulty design of our developed landscapes. And the irony is that, during high precipitation periods, these same systems are moreover the fault of the ever increasing number and ferocity of floods, witnessed all across the United States in recent years. Unfortunately, this concept evades some government water conservation and planning initiatives, as exemplified in a recent north Georgia storm and waste water management plan.2 This plan suggests that, since only about 1% of ground-water contributes to the water supply, it is hardly worth spending money and time to convert it into a more substantially consumable asset. Another irony here then, is that precious surface water (rainwater) then becomes 99% of the available resource, yet we illogically turn our backs on the bulk of it.
In the time before development of any parcel of land, the surface was adorned with natural flora that was a delicate part of a balanced ecosystem—one that inherently understood how to receive the rain, and how to retain it as a sustainable resource. Undisturbed natural landscapes were designed to compensate for weather cycles that could be expected to bring more or less rain. And at the risk of stating the obvious, we might acknowledge that such native lands could withstand these fates of nature with a casual, but supportive interrelationship with mankind. The human being is indeed, an integral part of our ecology, and does have a critical role as responsible steward of the land. The issue taken here is that, as a culture, we have lost sight of this caretaker role, and rather have become destructive, perhaps beyond the point of redemption, in many cases.
Fundamental is the understanding that, through a natural process (that only God could have built), these natural landscapes are more than mere, cosmetic icing on the cake. They play a critical role in feeding the underground aquifers, and continuously, but in a naturally measured way, refurnish with cool, fresh water, our streams, rivers, and lakes. In a properly functioning ecosystem, these water resources never go dry. Drought is an unlikelihood because the supply process can continue for months and months without rainfall of any substance.
Contrast this to the current sate of affairs where the introduction of imported, nonnative plants has overtaken the natural flora. The ecological problem then becomes the reality that these, uprooted, new species do not know how to participate in an unfamiliar ecosystem—in a foreign environment. These species will invariably perish without the unnatural help of the agent that transplanted them. But for the sake of this argument, note that they will not do their naturally assigned role of reintegrating water into the system. They simply cannot hold the water resource.
What we risk in this thoughtless intervention is environmental sustainability, and as a consequence of that, all other species of life, otherwise dependent upon the land, will perish along with its inability to sustain itself. And this fact includes human beings, over time. This is a fundamental reality that must be understood if our hope is that subsequent generations will have a bountiful land, with plenty of fresh water, upon which to continue the human experience.
A significant contributor to the problem is the leadership of our federal government, which has chosen to follow the lead of the global warming celebrity-advocates, that have done a credible job convincing the American public, and maybe even the better part of the world, that carbon foot-printing is our most grave environmental problem, and that conservation and alternative methods of power generation are the solutions. So the pursuits of energy conservation and renewable energy sources have come to overshadow some of the other vital environmental components that many might well argue are of even greater significance. We can live forever without power, but we can survive only mere days without fresh water.
It baffles me why so many in the green movement are so quick to jump on the energy bandwagon relegating other program components to casual interest. Perhaps it is because the rhetoric appears to advance their genuine environmental objectives, even if only a little bit. About this there should probably be little surprise, since the green movement has never before enjoyed such public resonance, credited to any other environmental initiatives to date. But the question we should be asking is whether this concession is worth the cost.
At a meeting of green minded REALTORS®, I was amazed at a story related to me by one of my colleagues. Let’s name him Joe. Joe had been told, covertly, by a vendor that sells rainwater retention systems, that what his company was doing was ultimately contributing to the drought problem. He pointed out that his retention systems served to merely rob the lakes of their rightful supply source—rain. He had convinced Joe that if too many people installed this system, the result could be ecologically catastrophic. This is an absurd argument, of course, but Joe had accepted it as plausible. To me, this was a frightening revelation, because I consider Joe to be an educated, intelligent man. As diplomatically as possible, I pointed out to Joe that the rainwater filling the retention system would have been otherwise whisked away into the storm drains, and lost to the Gulf of Mexico anyway. It wasn’t headed into the lake. It wasn’t going to hang around long enough to be useful to anyone around here. The real tragedy is that hundreds of millions of gallons of rainwater are lost with each rain shower. Too many of us think this is normal. We have come to believe that rivers and streams should bloat, and look muddy shortly after a rainfall. That’s the only way most of us have ever known things to be. But it is not natural, it’s just become familiar.
So what can we REALTORS® do? What role can we play that will make a difference? First is to recognize the problem. Then, to educate ourselves to such a level that we can become conversant about the issues. Sustainability should become a popular term in our lexicon. As we pursue this feat, we will discover that the word sustainability, much like the word green, has become a versatile term meaning different things to different people. For most it implies some observance of energy or water conservation strategies, interior air quality improvements, or construction with recyclable materials. And these are essential concepts for us to grasp, indeed.
But another less exercised component among these virtuous concepts is the fully-integrated, green-minded, mixed-use community. Such developments include environmental considerations of the surrounding landscape, as they carefully and artfully construct residential, social, commercial, and recreational features in such a way that they do not totally upset the ecology of the place. We must learn to recognize this sort of artful development when we see it. We must engender sufficient self-confidence that we can adequately promote such places, as the currently rare but essential places that they are. We must be able to do this for a generally unaware marketplace. That means we must be able to discuss the benefits of such places rather than simply listing the features that might fall deaf upon the ears of an ignorant public.
And this is a problem too. Why is the public ignorant? Why are there not more of these sustainable mixed-use developments? The scarcity of these precious gems may be in some part due to the fact that it is such a hard nut to crack. It demands a shift in a well ensconced paradigm—the pride of achieving a carpet-like grassy yard void of competing species. Competing species that we have learned to label weeds. After all, we can earn yard of the month, if we sufficiently comply with this ecologically misguided social expectation.
As we REALTORS® advance our appreciation for the green movement, we should become aware of the evermore popular, yet misleading ruse called greenwashing. We owe this duty to our clients. And I would like to take it a step further noting that even processes, programs, and materials that demonstrate environmental regard, may not fully embrace the ecology, and therefore, may not have rightly earned the designation eco. This is a crucial differentiation that REALTORS® must be able to discern. I call it ecowashing when the marketing name or concept implies embracing the ecology of the place, when in realty it only touts green-conscious attributes.
Eco should imply appreciation and respect for ecology. Ecology is a fully integrated system, not a component of one, whether functional or not. So the test is to ask: What favor to this purpose do we see in a green community that has an inclusive relationship with the local ecology—one that respects the very land upon which the project is built? Should we be satisfied to build structures that are validated green, such as LEED certified or EarthCraft homes, yet fail to incorporate regard for the land upon which they are perched? I think and hope not.
Thankfully, there are some, real life, virtuosic developments that do observe the ecology—the place. These projects are examples of how the design team broke the code, and figured out that it is not more expensive to develop green, if the multiple disciplines from engineering, to architecture, to construction are considered in the conceptual phase, and remain an integral part of the process through to completion. From the perspective of protecting the water resource, it cannot be over emphasized that the design teams absolutely must include the landscaping component, not as an add-on, or unnecessarily expensive afterthought, but as an integral part of the overall scheme. It is in this integrated planning and execution that economy is found. We find encouragement in the example of communities such as those below (see Internet links in the references) that have found some success in this development format:
A. Serenbe is an Atlanta area example, with a 40,000 acre development that protects 80% of its land mass as green. It integrates a variety of green features from responsible handling of storm water to the exclusive use of native plants and organic landscaping.3
B. The 677 acre community at Prairie Crossing, in Grayslake, Illinois was designed to combine the preservation of open land, easy commuting by rail, and responsible development practices. 60% of the development is protected open land.4
C. Village Homes, a 70 acre subdivision in Davis, California, “was designed to encourage both the development of a sense of community and the conservation of energy and natural resources.” 5
D. The Josey Heights residential neighborhood in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, promotes a “sustainable stormwater management system including permeable paving, biofiltration rain gardens, and bioswales distributed throughout the site.”6
E. The 170 acre Tryon Farms development preserves approximately three-quarters of the landscape as rolling pasture, meadows, woods and ponds.7
These are just a few of the successful attempts at responsible, ecologically-aware development. There are surely others. But it is important to recognize the common thread among these projects is that they all honor the land itself. These developers and designers have fully integrated, to the maximum extent possible, the entire ecology of the site.
These cutting edge projects and communities represent the must of tomorrow’s architectural and landscaping design concepts. We have the technology to do this today, in virtually every construction project, but in many instances we lack the public will, a factor that can only be attributable to a continuing ignorance in the consuming sector. Even with a growing environmental consciousness, too few people understand the necessity to implement what some know emphatically to be essential to the survival of our species. Hence, the purpose of this article has been to inform those not yet apprised, to reassure those that already know, and to signal to the REALTOR® profession that we have an important ecological duty to perform.
By Daniel R. Wilhelm, ABR, ABRM, CRB, EcoBroker, RMP
dan@3optionsrealty.com, 678-397-1282, www.3optionsrealty.com
1. The Realities of CO2: Seeing Through the Smog of Rhetoric and Politics, Wilhelm, 2004, Rev. 2008, http://cdfinc.com/images/download/Realities_of_CO2_revised.pdf
2. Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District, Public Comment Draft, Dec 2008. http://www.northgeorgiawater.com/files/2008-12-12_Watershed_Public_Comment_Draft.pdf
3. The Serenbe Development Team and Consultants, Palmetto, Georgia. http://serenbe.com
4. Prairie Crossing, Developers George and Victoria Ranney, http://www.prairiecrossing.com/pc/site/index.html
5. Village Homes, Davis, California, Mike Corbett, principal designer. http://www.villagehomesdavis.org/home
6. Josey Heights, Josey Heights Development and the Conservation Design Forum, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, http://cdfinc.com/images/download/cut%20sheet-Josey%20Heights.pdf
7. Tryon Farms, Michigan City, Indiana, Tryon Farm Partners, Ltd. and Edward Noonan & Associates, Ltd. http://www.tryonfarm.com