Thursday, July 29, 2010

FASCE Amendment 4 Opposition: Referendums for Local Agency Decisions

"The Florida Section of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has recently adopted a position statement in opposition to proposed Amendment 4, to be included on the November 2010 ballot. Amendment 4 establishes that before a local government may adopt a new comprehensive land use plan, or amend a comprehensive land use plan, the proposed plan or amendment shall be subject to vote of the electors of the local government by referendum. The Florida Section of ASCE feels the impacts, both intended and unintended, of this proposed amendment are in direct conflict with several established national ASCE policy statements. The FASCE's position statement is available for review at FASCE's website (http://www.fla-asce.org)".

What does this have to do with stormwater management and/or civil engineering in general?

It is amazing to me that during these harsh economic conditions legislators actually consider some of these illogical and impractical rule or law changes to comp plans which can only add to the economy's woes and most likely have a negative impact on the supposed recovery and the restoration of the nation's infrastructure. I can only imagine the unacceptable time delays in actually executing capital improvement projects if every time a local municipality which wanted or needed to amend or change their comp plan for land use or other issues an election needed to be held and the electorate approve or disapprove of the amendment or change.

There are already rules in place that allow the public to voice their concerns regarding comp plan changes through the hearing process, at all levels. As an engineer and project manager, to my surprise I learned that most roadway projects always had a significant amount of opposition, as this would become evident in public hearings and at the local public works office via direct calls from the daily public. Some more than others. It would always surprise me when for example, an existing clay road was programmed and funded for paving, some of the existing residents affected by the proposed work did not want the road paved, they liked it just the way it was, as long as it kept being maintained by the responsible municipality without their taxes being increased. So infrastructure "improvements" can be in the eye of the beholder.

I mention this to make a point, and that is that if enough residents are opposed to a particular project and/or comp plan land use change, the commissioners (or other officials in charge) will hear about it, and as duly elected by their corresponding districts constituents, they eventually vote and make a decision, and it is up to the electors to decide which commissioner if any is serving their needs and wants and thus re-elect them for a next term. I know. It's a bit slow, but it is a process. Can anyone imagine if an additional level of approval by way of general electoral vote for approval or disapproval of each and every specific land use or other change in a comprehensive plan was needed? The time delays? The additional costs? It just makes no sense. Not even if the economy was roaring. But under our current conditions, it makes even less sense.
I suggest the reader to go the fasce link mentioned above and read their position paper which contains the exact language of the opposition statements.

How can this be considered an improvement to the existing process? What are they thinking? Humn............................JC

Saturday, July 17, 2010

Stormwater Management Systems Design: by Landscape Architects?

A while back I was asked to comment by the Florida Engineering Society (FES) on the possible rule change being considered by the Board that would allow landscape architects to design stormwater management (SWM) systems and obtain corresponding permits. As a registered professional engineer with seventeen years of stormwater management systems design and permitting experience in the state of Florida, including six years at the South Florida Water Management District and nine years of private consulting, I don’t believe that the rule change should be approved. I can’t say I’m even sure I can find the logic or practical reasons why this would even be considered. Perhaps us overworked civil engineers need to be alleviated of all of the extra work (you can LOL here).

In all seriousness, I have much respect for the architecture profession. I have friends and family members who are registered architects, I even took a couple of architecture classes as an undergrad student. Architects provide a much needed service to our societies and they should be appreciated and respected for what they do. Never-the-less, throughout my career I have worked in conjunction with landscape architects on various projects, and I do not believe that they have the adequate education nor experience to properly design a safe and environmentally compliant stormwater management system. With respect to signing and sealing technical engineering SWM calculations and plans (assuming responsibility and exposing liability), Civil Engineers are the only professionals which must demonstrate adequate education and experience to be able to do so. After graduating from an accredited ABET approved program with a bachelors degree, engineering graduates must first take and pass a state/national regulated exam to obtain the Engineering Intern (E.I.) designation. The next step is working for four years under the guidance of a registered professional engineer as an E.I., then another state mandated exam must be passed to obtain the Professional Engineer (P.E.) registration. Thus at a minimum, eight years of education and experience are required for the privilege to sign and seal engineering calculations and plans for a stormwater management system design.

Stormwater management systems plans and technical reports must be signed and sealed by a P.E. which has acquired intricate and extensive knowledge of hydrology and hydraulics, among other skills. By signing and sealing such plans and reports, the engineer exposes his or her license to liabilities governed by the board of professional engineers. In the course of a typical project design process, landscape architects become familiar with mainly one of the aspects or components of a proper stormwater management system design (i.e. Grading). They do not have the proper education, training and experience to design safe and environmentally compliant stormwater management systems, as this requires specific engineering skills, knowledge and abilities, such as constructing and executing complex Hydrologic/Hydraulic models, designing collection and conveyance systems including inlets, pipes, and channel flows, various types of ponds (i.e. Detention, Retention), outfall control structures, prevention of flooding, water quality standards, and many other engineering components. To summarily allow landscape architects to design stormwater management systems without the proper education and experience would be contrary to the goals and rules established by the Board, and perhaps pose debilitating impacts to the civil engineering profession, the public’s safety and economic interests.

With so many other important issues and challenges facing not only our overall economic conditions, but the decimated state of the general architecture, engineering, and construction (A/E/C) industry, I think our regulatory and legislative time could be better utilized seeking to build up existing technical disciplines as we embrace innovative technologies and sustainable development, not contemplating rule changes amongst existing professional disciplines that do not make much sense to begin with. Until next time………JC.