Searching for a common path
Different value sets at play regarding Wash Brook watershed
We have been following current events in Sydney regarding flood mitigation efforts for the Wash Brook watershed, and what seems clear – but what has not been highlighted thus far – is that different value sets or paradigms are at play here.
It is important to acknowledge these paradigms and where they clash and intersect, because depending on what paradigm you adhere to, your conclusion about what should be done to mitigate flooding may change.
One paradigm, let’s call it the Hard Engineering approach, insists that the only way to deal with flooding in the Wash Brook floodplain is to hold back a desired volume of water with engineered structures. This approach is in line with conventional stormwater and flood control. This is a single-benefit solution because berms do not attract tourists or provide ecosystem services.
The other paradigm, let’s call it the Green/Blue approach, holds that the mature Baille Ard forest already provides stormwater management and flood mitigation. This approach sees value in maintaining this urban greenspace because it offers many ecosystem services to the community (environmental, social, economic) and could be a part of a modern approach to flood mitigation which protects and enhances natural areas. This approach would represent a multiple-benefit solution that could increase tourist potential, provide recreational space, improve community health and well-being, and enhance local ecosystems and ecosystem services.
The point of painting two distinct camps (while still acknowledging this is a simplification of a complex issue) is to emphasize the reality that there is no ‘objectively’ correct solution to the flooding issues in the Wash Brook area in Sydney. Development within, and the infilling of, a flood plain has resulted in flood risk for the area. Any choice on how to move forward, no matter the expertise involved, is based on value judgements. Of course, this is just how humans make decisions, but it is worth noting because it is false to assume that there is only one way forward here. Both approaches are opinions with facts and scientific studies to support them. Choosing a path forward requires weighing all factors at play.
Attempts to quash the community’s concerns over the Hard Engineering approach consistently claim that we should “leave it to the experts.” We need to realize that it is not the case that the Green/ Blue approach is based on fuzzy feelings while the Hard Engineering approach is based on science and expertise. In fact, the asks of the Wash Brook community are based on successful examples from all around the world which effectively address urban stormwater issues and flooding using the nature-based solutions of green and blue infrastructure. For a snapshot of what others around the world are doing, try searching these terms online: Berlin is becoming a sponge city; Bangkok stormwater; Vancouver rain city strategy; Portland green streets; Staten Island bluebelt; NYC green infrastructure; China sponge city; Toronto green streets; green infrastructure
Pittsburgh clay soils; innovative stormwater management UBC.
This clash of paradigms is dividing community members. The good news is both camps want to pursue flood mitigation.
In that light, finding a common path seems an ideal way forward.
We need more than berms if we are serious about addressing flooding long-term – we need to create policies and implement land-use guidelines in the entire watershed area. In a 2018 presentation to council, Alexander Wilson of CBCL suggested that a holistic approach to the Wash Brook flood issue was an option. Great news! Let us continue to welcome CBCL to the table to offer their expertise.
Such a large issue, however, merits greater input. Why not follow suit with communities all over the world who establish multidisciplinary teams of experts and stakeholders to deal with the complex issues of urban stormwater management and building flood resiliency in the age of climate change? Such an approach could unite both camps and create a flood mitigation plan more in line with what the community at risk seems to want.