To the editor:
 
It is commendable that our flooding issue is being taken seriously by the local towns and state agencies by the Route 114 group, which has been holding public forums, but the proposals do not address the main problem.

The issue is not the lack of scientific knowledge, but decisions that insist on ignoring it and the subsequent cost to the taxpayers in remediation. If the political process is not corrected, the rest is just window dressing.

Soon after I arrived at the Boston office of the U.S. Geological Survey in 1971 Robert McNamara, head of the World Bank, proposed to build a home overlooking the ocean on the edge of a bluff on Marthas Vineyard. Studies by the Survey had shown that the bluff eroded an average of three feet per year and such a house would soon be doomed. The plans were changed after a long battle and McNamara then sold the property in 1979 to John Belushi, who built away from the bluff. Science won out. The evidence was acknowledged, changes made, and subsequent zoning precluded further occurrences at no cost to the taxpayer.

But such a process has not been the case around here, where knowledge is too often ignored. Almost all the flooding areas highlighted by the Route 114 group are manmade problems. Construction in wetlands, streams and along the shore seems to be the norm, as well as building new bridges much too low, and the resulting flooding is no surprise. It cannot be blamed on sudden change in climate and sea level rise. It also has been long known how beaches move and that wetlands help in holding back flood waters.

The only solution for the East Bay is to retreat from the coast, elevate the infrastructure where possible and preserve streams and wetlands. This can be done by using the available data to limit shoreline development, use appropriate infrastructure requirements and apply proper zoning. Too often the reverse has been done, despite the available knowledge.

Needed is some kind of political solution that holds the decision makers accountable. What went wrong with the designs of new bridges that resulted in three areas of flooding noted by the Route 114 group and how were 126 apartments allowed to be developed in a shore flood zone at Robbin Rug? Why was the high school built in a wetlands? When was a rigorous review made? Also, the bar for spot zoning that evades present zoning, needs to be raised. A mechanism for such an independent oversight is what is necessary.

Having town Conservation Commissions take the lead and requiring their approval on all projects would be a start. Presenting the RIDOT with height and width of bridges to be followed and not of their choosing, would be another. The agencies that have caused the problems need to be removed from having any oversight. Some of these are members of the 114 group, and foxes should not be designing the new hen house. Do not review new project proposals that are not fully in compliance with the scientific data and zoning, such as filling wetlands at the edge of the property. This does not cost; it just requires the will to pursue it.

The Route 114 group deserves credit for focusing on an important issue, but its attempt to create an organization seeking remedial grant funding is problematic. This could be very wasteful and result in another bureaucracy.

It best remains a loose advisory group pointing out problems. Let the towns apply for funds for individual projects, using local knowledge.  
The solution is to have a solution, based on facts.
 
Patrick Barosh, PhD
Bristol