David Sirota: Sprawl leading to nature-related disasters

As a wildfire/flash flood cycle ravages the American heartland, "the climate bites back" may be the 21st century's karmic rejoinder to the hysterical screams of "freedom!" and "property rights!" when it comes to urban sprawl.

No doubt, we've long understood the invisible dangers of such sprawl. For years, we've been warned by researchers of the direct connections between unplanned and gluttonous construction projects and human-created carbon emissions. We've been told specifically that suburbanization's spread of population into ever-larger swaths of wilderness inherently results in more roads, more cars, more carbon emissions, more climate change — and thus, more chances for nature-related disasters.

But in go-go America, these scientific truisms were no match for McMansion fantasies. As coastal folk headed to the Rocky Mountain frontier with visions of big-but-inexpensive castles far away from the inner city, the term "zoning" became an even more despised epithet than it already had been in cowboy country. Rangeland and foothill frontiers subsequently became expansive low-density subdivisions, and carbon-belching SUVs chugged onto new roads being built farther and farther away from the urban core. That is, farther and farther into what the federal government calls the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) and what fire experts call the dangerous "red zone."

The numbers are stark: According to the Denver Post, between 1990 and 2000, 40 percent of all homes built in the nation were built in the WUI — and "a Colorado State University analysis expects a 300 percent increase in WUI acreage in the next couple decades." In the last two decades in fire-scorched Colorado alone, I-News Network reports that "a quarter million people have moved into red zones," meaning that today "one of every four Colorado homes is in a red zone."

As noted, the super-sized American Dream that came out of 1980s and 1990s mythology explains much of this ongoing homebuyer support for sprawl. But public policy is also actively encouraging the expansion.

At the municipal level, weak building codes and zoning regulations often do not mandate what's necessary to prevent — or mitigate — fires that all taxpayers then have to pay to put out. At the national level, the nonpartisan watchdog Headwaters Economics reports that federal funding formulas mean "local governments have little disincentive to stop zoning mountain areas for more housing when they know the federal government will come in and pay most wildfire suppression costs when the blazes spark." Meanwhile, more homeowners living in wilderness areas means more preemptive fire suppression, which leaves more underbrush on the forest floor — underbrush that becomes extra fuel when a conflagration eventually ignites.

Ultimately, just like the federal flood insurance program was creating incentives for construction in flood areas, America is creating incentives for localities to permit development in fire red zones and for homeowners to avoid investing in expensive fire-mitigation planning. Worse, these incentives are being created at precisely the moment when climate change is making floods and fires bigger than ever.

Fortunately, after Hurricane Katrina and other weather-related cataclysms, the most recent federal transportation bill included some modest steps to reform the flood program. That is a welcome — if tacit — admission that the consequences of climate change can no longer be ignored. The climate will, indeed, bite back.

Whether living near an ocean or a forest, that's a motto all homeowners will have to learn. It's a lesson reminding us that Mother Nature doesn't care about ideological notions of "frontier freedom" or "property rights."

Having ignored that lesson for too long, we now face consequences. Should McMansion dreams, weak zoning laws, perverse federal policies and climate change denialism collectively lead us to pretend such consequences don't exist, the inevitable result will be more destruction.

David Sirota is a syndicated columnist and author. E-mail him at: ds@davidsirota.com, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at www.davidsirota.com.

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your SunJournal.com profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.

Advertisement

Comments

Allisa Milliard's picture

we turn farmland into housing

we turn farmland into housing lots so that people can "live in the country, and breath that fresh farm air, and eat farm fresh foods". where are we going to grow food for this growing population? just ship it in from away of course.
we dig up forest land so that people can "live in the rustic life in the woods". save the trees they say, even though they cut an acre of forestland for their dream house. and their neighbor's house. and that neighbor's neighbor's house.
sprawl is a horrible thing to watch happen. it brings in money to a community, but still sad to watch farmland and forests turned into buildings and congestion.

Norman Mitchell's picture

Sprawl

Another thing against wind farms sprawl

Advertisement

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...