|
|
|
|
Judge rules river is merely a ditchRiver Conservationists disappointed that other river uses were ignoredMarch 19, 2004 (Champaign): Calling the Salt Fork River a "ditch", Circuit Court Judge Michael Jones approved a project proposed by the Upper Salt Fork Drainage District to dredge and clear trees from eleven miles of the river.The work had been objected to by landowners who live along the river as well as Prairie Rivers Network. All were concerned about the impacts to the environment that would result from the work. "We are disappointed," said Jean Flemma, Executive Director of Prairie Rivers Network. "We had hoped that the Judge would understand that this is a river that provides not only drainage, but a variety of other functions, including habitat for fish and wildlife." The law requires that drainage districts "use all practicable means and measures, including consideration of alternative methods of providing the necessary drainage, to protect such environmental values as trees and fish and wildlife habitat". According to the Judge, he could not say that the drainage district had actually considered alternatives, but he was not convinced that there would be significant adverse environmental impacts, calling trees an "aesthetic loss" but not one that would necessarily impact wildlife. Moreover, he found that because the drainage district said more drainage was needed, it must be true, despite the lack of evidence provided regarding actual drainage problems that could be solved by dredging. The cards are stacked against fish and wildlife," said Flemma. "Under this judge's interpretation of the law, dredging will always be allowed, regardless of whether it's necessary." Calling the Salt Fork River a "storm sewer", the drainage district's attorney Jeff Tock merely asserted that the benefits of the project exceed the costs, though he did not identify which lands would benefit, and by how much. Instead, he argued that more drainage was always better, and that because sediment removal was the only practical alternative to provide more drainage, then their obligation to protect the environment did not apply. "By failing to define 'necessary drainage', and simply calling witnesses to state that more drainage is better, the Drainage District was able to justify inflicting unlimited environmental harm," stated Flemma. "We understand and respect the need for drainage, we just don't think the other values that the river provides need to be completely disregarded. There are alternatives, but the drainage district refused to consider them." Prairie Rivers and others had hoped that drainage maintenance could be put on a much more sound financial and environmental footing. Precise definition of drainage problems can and should precede investments in maintenance as it does in any other industry. Problem driven maintenance has the advantage of pointing to specific and local maintenance techniques that have much lower costs to landowners and less damage to the environment. With Judge Jones' decision, however, drainage districts can continue to rely on end to end dredging ? the most damaging of maintenance techniques. # # # | |