Residents of the Duwamish Valley, a section of Seattle perched just south of downtown, face an array of environmental challenges, health disparities, and racial inequities. Saddled with a legacy of pollution from the heavy industry and highways nearby, they now face increasing flood risks due to climate change and concerns about displacement and affordability. The riverside neighborhoods of South Park and Georgetown have historically relied on community organizing to attempt to address these problems. But in recent years, the city of Seattle has taken a more active role in advancing environmental justice and equitable development in the Duwamish Valley by creating a cross-departmental Duwamish Valley Program, implementing the Duwamish Valley Action Plan, and collaborating with local activists and residents in new ways. Now, partners from the city and the community are exploring the feasibility of creating one of the nation’s first resilience districts. 

Resilience districts have been implemented in New Orleans, Louisiana; Portland, Oregon; and other cities around the world. Although they sometimes go by other names, the basic concept is the same, as described by the city of Seattle: “a geographic strategy . . . focused on adapting to flood risk and other climate change impacts as a key first step towards adapting to a changing climate, while taking a comprehensive approach that fosters community resilience.” 

Seattle’s approach specifically aims to coordinate investments in infrastructure related to affordable housing, parks, and climate change adaptation; prioritize the partcipation and decision-making of local residents and businesses, with a focus on building power and wealth for people of color and individuals with low incomes; and foster health and equity by identifying sustainable funding sources and equitable investment mechanisms, including value capture. The district will initially be managed by various city departments but will ultimately be led by the Duwamish Valley communities, who will establish partnerships with agencies, philanthropy, and private entities.

The vision for a resilience district, which had previously been discussed internally by city staff and community partners, turned into a concrete plan through partners’ participation in Connect Capital, a program run by the Center for Community Investment that helps place-based teams establish shared priorities and create pipelines of investable projects. Participants in the two-year process included representatives from Seattle Public Utilities (SPU); the city’s Office of Sustainability & Environment (OSE), Office of Planning & Community Development (OPCD), and Office of Economic Development (OED); the Seattle Foundation; the Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition (DRCC), a group of community, tribal, environmental, and small business groups impacted by pollution and remediation along the lower Duwamish River; and other stakeholders.

With planning now underway, city representatives are learning from models around the globe—from Brazil to New Zealand—that offer insights into how to equitably finance related projects, collaborate across sectors, and adapt to sea level rise. Funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), granted at the end of 2020, will enable the project’s partners to take important next steps related to planning and piloting key elements of the resilience district.

“The community has been leading and working on these issues for decades, so it is really exciting to now see this work recognized and given support on the national level in ways that match the creativity and bold solutions being put forward by them,” Alberto J. Rodríguez, Duwamish Valley advisor at OSE and project colead, said. “This approach will allow us to collaborate in transformational ways.”

“This grant will make it possible for community groups, industrial businesses, public sector agencies, utilities, the port, and the county to continue to work together to address environmental hazards and build a more resilient community,” said Omar Carrillo Tinajero, associate director of innovation and learning at the Center for Community Investment. “Even in this difficult time, this work recognizes the importance of taking action to create a more equitable, smarter climate future.”

Project Background

Seventy percent of the residents of the Duwamish Valley’s two primary neighborhoods, South Park and Georgetown, identify as people of color. The environmental hazards they face include industrial pollution in the lower Duwamish River, which was declared a Superfund site in 2001; air pollution from State Highways 99 and 509 and Interstate 5, which all cut through the area; a lack of green space; and other challenges. During a community-run mapping exercise, residents identified noise pollution, vacant lots, a lack of healthy stores, and litter as additional “unhealthy” features. These factors have combined to create an average life expectancy eight years shorter in this zip code than in the city of Seattle and King County overall, and a full 13 years shorter than in more affluent, less diverse neighborhoods in Seattle. Further, by 2104, the routine flooding in this low-lying area is expected to become a daily occurrence.

While the city has made efforts to address these problems, some of these actions have raised concerns among residents about displacement. SPU’s plans to invest $100 million in stormwater management infrastructure in the area and Seattle Parks & Recreation’s plans to improve and add parks, for example, have prompted increasing worries about displacement of current residents in a city with few affordable housing options. A 2015 analysis by Governing revealed that of seven U.S. Census tracts in Seattle that had experienced gentrification since 2000, five were in Georgetown and South Park, with median home values increasing an average of 47 percent between 2000 and 2013.

“We cannot be talking about a water treatment facility that is going to bring open space without thinking of displacement,” Paulina López, executive director of DRCC, said. Collaboration is critical, she said: “Our public utility doesn’t build affordable housing, but it should still be collaborating with the Office of Housing and other departments on its infrastructure investments.”

Since forming the Duwamish Valley Program in 2016, the city has commited to furthering social justice in policy and development, aiming to coordinate priorities across 18 city departments and strengthen relationships with community partners. Participating in Connect Capital helped the team shift from a focus on discrete projects and “symptoms” to a more proactive systems mindset, according to Rodríguez.

Throughout this partnership development and capacity building work, anti-displacement has repeatedly emerged as the top priority for residents. Departments such as OPCD and the Office of Housing are taking steps to address these concerns, including providing funding for capacity-building to the Duwamish Valley Affordable Housing Coalition (DVAHC), which was formed in 2017 to preserve existing affordability, develop a multipurpose community building, provide repairs, and acquire lots to build additional housing. The city is also buying land for affordable housing and providing $910,000 to Habitat for Humanity to build 13 two-bedroom, two-bath homes in South Park, which will be sold for $210,000 for a family with an annual income averaging $45,000 (in February 2021, the median list price of homes in this neighborhood was $525,000).

“We are working to shift to a culture of pairing community development with concrete anti-displacement actions,” said David W. Goldberg, strategic advisor with OPCD and project colead. “It looks like in the next few years the neighborhood will get both a park and new affordable housing.”

Planning: Local and International Models & Inspirations

The partners are thinking of the resilience district timeline in three stages, says Goldberg: “norming, forming, and performing.” At each of these stages, representatives from the community, philanthropy, and city will play evolving roles. During the “norming” stage, the city and community are organizing listening sessions and researching precedents. In the second stage, the city plans to develop regulatory options for enabling legislation and amendments to development standards. By the third phase, the community would hold the largest role and begin to cogovern the district, with the city playing a financing and legislative role.

With the funding from RWJF, the Duwamish Valley Program will focus on “norming” and “forming” by researching promising practices for three aspects of the district: cross-sector collaboration, sustainable funding sources and equitable investment mechanisms, and adaptation to sea level rise. The partners have already identified models in places as far-flung as San Juan, Puerto Rico, São Paulo, Brazil, and Christchurch, New Zealand, that are using strategies that could be adapted in the Duwamish Valley.

“We have built this concept from the needs of the community,” Rodríguez said. “As a result, we cannot find one model elsewhere that perfectly aligns with our work, but we have found bits and pieces that embody key aspects of the work that we want and plan to do.”

Cross-Sector Collaboration in San Juan

In communities along Caño Martin Peña, a tidal channel on the San Juan Bay National Estuary, residents face challenges familiar to the Duwamish Valley, including displacement pressures, flooding, and environmental hazards stemming from poor water infrastructure. In the early 2000s, the Puerto Rico Planning Board designated the area a special planning district and formed a public corporation to oversee the implementation of a development and land use plan. The corporation works with a nonprofit coalition to ensure widespread community involvement and participatory community planning as well as with the Caño Martin Peña Community Land Trust to prevent further displacement.

As envisioned, the resilience district will be a similar type of collaboration. To establish capacity for this type of collaboration, build relationships between the many partners in the Duwamish Valley, and address community skepticism about the approach, the city is convening listening sessions and plans to hire a facilitator and provide stipends to residents offering their expertise.

“Cross-sector collaboration is so important,” López said. “There are not a lot of opportunities for funders, governments, and community-based organizations to be sittng in the same Zoom room, thinking creatively about how to address the impacts of environmental injustices and climate change. This is a great opportunity to develop good strategies and be meaningful in the way that these strategies can be implemented.”

Sustainable Funding Sources & Equitable Investment Mechanisms in São Paulo

Funding mechanisms such as land value capture—which allows the public sector to recover and reinvest land value increases that result from public investment and government actions—could help fund affordable housing, green space, and other community priorities in the Duwamish Valley. The approach of São Paulo, recently highlighted in Land Lines, has resonated in Seattle. Since the early 2000s, São Paulo has used CEPACs, a form of land value capture in which developers pay the municipality a fee for additional development rights. Those fees are then used to fund public improvements, including social housing. The city also stipulates that all displaced families can resettle within the same geographic area, and that a fixed share of revenues must be invested in affordable housing.

Rodríguez and his colleagues are interested not only in land value capture, but in other tools for investing in public goods, such as health equity zones, hospital benefit zones, community benefits agreements, landscaping standards, and more.

“This work is not only about capturing value, but also ensuring its equitable distribution,” Rodríguez said. “We cannot run the risk of further exacerbating existing inequities and disparities.”

Adapting for Sea Level Rise in Christchurch

Finally, the cross-departmental team believes the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Plan in Christchurch, New Zealand, may offer important lessons about how the Duwamish Valley can prepare for projected sea level rise. The project is run by Regenerate Christchurch, a quasi-public agency that formed in the wake of the 2011 earthquake, and takes a holistic approach to planning for present and future land use.

Regenerate Christchurch addresses both the infrastructure needs and the cultural ties of residents, indigenous populations, and representatives from private and nonprofit organizations to the river. In addition to drawing inspiration from Christchurch, the city’s team is also considering using scenario planning, a practice through which communities plan for an uncertain future by exploring multiple possibilities of what might happen, to address rising seas.

“Adaptation to sea level rise in the Duwamish Valley will be rooted in community resilience: power and wealth building today are as critical as engineered infrastructure to respond to climate change impacts tomorrow,” says Ann Grodnik-Nagle, climate policy advisor with SPU.

Learning by Doing: Duwamish Waterway Park Expansion Project

While thinking through the big ideas of the resilience district, the city is using this time to pilot community-led work on a smaller scale with the expansion of the Duwamish Waterway Park, South Park’s main riverfront green space. This “learning by doing” project will use an existing grant to purchase a one-acre site adjacent to an existing park and expand the facility to support community services and cultural programming. The group will start the project by leading a site plan to determine how community uses can be accommodated on the site and, ultimately, how the community could potentially own the land. According to Goldberg, this is one of several potential “proof-of-concept” projects being considered.

“This is a good way to prove the concept so we can learn and replicate something similar with bigger multimillion-dollar investments,” says Goldberg. “It is a way for us to exercise the muscles that we will need to have in place when the resilience district is operating.” 

Emma Zehner is communications and publications editor at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Photograph Credit: Tom Reese.

Related Content

Climate Resilience: Seattle Housing Groups, Utility Launch Bold Experiment in Climate Equity

Rick Schultz doesn’t hate grass outright. He can see the use for it in some places—kids should be able to play soccer somewhere, sure—but there’s no need for it in road medians or sweeping lawns in arid places, says Schultz, a water conservation specialist at the municipally owned utility in Castle Rock, Colorado.

Located on the southern fringes of the Denver metro area, Castle Rock is one of the fastest growing communities in the country. Its population has skyrocketed from 20,224 in 2000 to nearly 72,000 today. Seventy percent of Castle Rock’s water supply comes from non-renewable groundwater, so as the town grew, officials had to figure out how to stretch that supply. In 2006, the water utility and the planning department started collaborating to address that issue. 

The community created a water master plan that set guidelines—like where it made sense to have grass—to delineate how and where they could conserve water while still accommodating growth. Schultz says they had to think outside of traditional land use regulations and water supply patterns to work toward long-term sustainability, steering disparate parts of the planning process toward smart growth: “We needed to push the boundaries a little if we wanted a better outcome.”

Since then, Castle Rock has introduced financial incentives, regulatory changes, and even behavioral science strategies to ensure that water supply is actively considered as part of every planning and development process. From offering incentives to developers who install water monitoring systems to requiring landscapers to pursue professional certification in water efficiency, Castle Rock has become a leader in this area, recognized by the state of Colorado for its efforts and for sharing best practices with other organizations. 

In communities across the United States, water managers and planners are emerging from the silos they’ve traditionally operated in to find new ways to work together. This is in part because climate change is causing turbulence for the water sector nationwide, in the form of prolonged droughts, damaging floods and wildfires, severe storms, and sea-level rise. The urgency of developing resilience in the face of these threats is becoming increasingly clear. Collaboration is also increasing because, although communities face many different challenges and operate with countless variations on municipal structures, many are rediscovering a singular truth about land and water: when you plan for one, you have to plan for both. 

“Water engineers are beginning to recognize they cannot provide sustainable services without involving those in the development community—including planners, architects, and community activists,” explains the American Planning Association’s Policy Guide on Water (APA 2016). “Leading edge planners are reaching across the aisle to water managers to help advise on their comprehensive plans, not only to meet environmental objectives, but also to add value and livability, rooted in the vision of the community.” 

How We Got Here

Picture the view from an airplane as you fly over rural areas or the outskirts of any major city: the way the right-angled boundaries of agricultural fields and housing plots contrast with the twisting braids of river channels and the irregular shape of lakes and ponds. Land and water are very different resources. They have been managed differently—and separately—as a result.

The divide between water and land planning has deep roots. Although water is connected to all parts of sustainable growth, from ecosystem health to economic viability, planners and water managers have long worked separately. From volunteer planning boards in rural communities to fully staffed departments in major cities, planners focus on land use and the built environment. Water managers, meanwhile, whether they are part of a municipally owned utility, private water company, or regional wholesaler, focus on providing a clean and adequate water supply. 

“I can’t think of a single city where [planning and water management] are contained within a single division,” says Ray Quay, a researcher at Arizona State University’s Global Institute of Sustainability who has served as both assistant director of land planning and assistant director of water services in Phoenix, Arizona. Quay says regional and watershed-wide development choices about growth often don’t line up with water supply.

“A typical divide would be that planners plan for growth while assuming the water utility will be able to supply water, while water utilities don’t participate in decisions about community growth, they just build infrastructure to serve the new growth that comes to them,” adds Jim Holway, director of the Babbitt Center for Land and Water Policy, which was created by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy in 2017 to advance the integration of land and water management.

Ivana Kajtezovic, planning program manager at Tampa Bay Water, a regional wholesale drinking water utility in Florida, confirms that lack of alignment. “Tampa Bay Water doesn’t have a say in growth in the counties and cities we serve,” says Kajtezovic. “Our only mission is to provide drinking water, no matter the growth or the speed of growth. Land use decisions are made by the counties and cities we serve.”

In a 2016 APA Water Working Group Water Survey, 75 percent of land use planners felt they were not involved enough in water planning and decisions (Stoker et al, 2018). “We know that land and water are connected, and no one ever argues that they’re separate,” says Philip Stoker, assistant professor of Planning at the University of Arizona, who conducted the APA survey. “It’s only people who have separated them.” 

This divide is partly a result of historical regulatory structures. “Water is very much state law-based, with some federal hooks into various aspects of it,” says Anne Castle, former assistant secretary for Water and Science at the U.S. Department of the Interior. Federal management involves regulations such as the Clean Water Act and agencies such as the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and water rights are allocated at the state level. Meanwhile, although there is federal and state oversight of some public lands, most of the regulation and planning related to private land happens locally or regionally, reflecting individual and community rights and desires. While there are state-level initiatives to “put more emphasis on the consideration of water in developing land,” Castle says—including in Colorado, where she is based—there are still wide gaps in priorities and responsibilities.

Communities across the country are dealing with unique issues, of course, but Stoker’s survey suggests the barriers to solving them are similar: lack of time, lack of resources, fear of a loss of jurisdictional power if they surrender some control, and differences in education, experience, and technical language. It can be hard to surmount those issues. “Logically it should be easy, but when institutions grow up with a single focus, it’s hard to change their mission and expand into other places,” says Bill Cesanek, cochair of the APA Water & Planning Network. Cesanek says things work better when planners share the responsibility for determining where the water to meet future demands will come from.

Land and water planners have to work together, agrees Quay, and need to be realistic about where, how, and whether their communities can grow. “One of the really critical factors is political will,” he says. “We should be thinking about what’s most important for our community, and we should be allocating our water to that.” 

According to Holway of the Babbitt Center, that’s becoming more common. “With growing demand for water in the face of increasing challenges to acquiring new water supplies, utilities and land planners are having to figure out how to work together to maintain a balance between supply and demand.”  

“Too Much, Too Little, Too Dirty”

According to the APA Policy Guide on Water, water-related threats often fall along familiar lines: not enough water, thanks to increased population growth and climatic stress on top of already fully allocated or overallocated water supplies; too much water, due to flooding and rising sea levels; or compromised water quality due to agricultural and urban runoff and other sources of contamination. In every case, the urgency is growing.

Not enough water. In the Southwest—especially the overtapped Colorado River Basin, which serves 41 million people in seven U.S. and two Mexican states—persistent drought means diminishing snowpack, dwindling supplies in natural aquifers, and shrinking reservoirs. Researchers predict that Colorado River flows will decline by 20 to 35 percent by 2050 and 30 to 55 percent by the end of the century (Udall, 2017). 

The drought also has cascading impacts on water systems. For instance, increasingly frequent and large wildfires in dry Western forests are causing watershed contamination in areas that haven’t previously dealt with it, like the headwaters of the Colorado. During fires and for years afterward, according to the EPA, water can be polluted by ash, sediment, and other contaminants, which forces water managers to scramble for solutions. “I do think there’s a much greater trend of land use planning and water management collaboration occurring fastest in places that are facing scarcity,” Stoker says.

Too much water. Over the last 30 years, floods in the United States have caused an average of $8 billion in damages and 82 deaths per year (Cesanek 2017). As climate change fuels more extreme weather events, Quay says, floods are exceeding parameters defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency that have traditionally guided planning decisions. Quay says it’s hard to adapt because our stationary planning guidelines and laws aren’t set up for those extremes. 

Places like low-lying Hoboken, New Jersey—where rising sea levels and superstorms like Hurricane Sandy have inundated sections of the city—are building water system resilience into their planning. The city is incorporating features like manmade urban sand dunes that work as physical barriers and can divert storm surges to newly built flood pumps. “The stormwater system is at the same level as the river—[stormwater] has nowhere to go, so they’ve had to build a really innovative resilience planning program,” Cesanek says.

Contaminated water. During heavy rains, which are increasingly frequent due to climate change, the combined sewer system in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, overflows into neighboring rivers and Lake Michigan, polluting the waterways, compromising the ecosystem, and affecting the water supply. “Stormwater gets into our combined and sanitary systems. Nothing is water-tight,” says Karen Sands, director of Planning, Research, and Sustainability at Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD). Sands says MMSD has had to align at-odds geographic and jurisdictional layers to find solutions that protect the watershed. One of those solutions is the construction of 70-acre Menomonee stormwater park, built in conjunction with city planners, which is expected to treat 100 percent of runoff from industrial and commercial areas nearby. It both ensures a clean supply of water now, and preemptively manages demand for the future. 

Chi Ho Sham, president of the American Water Works Association, a nonprofit international organization for water supply professionals, says one of the group’s biggest concerns is water quality, particularly protecting water at the source, limiting pollutant use, and creating barriers to slow or prevent contamination. “From my point of view, our job is to work very collaboratively with landowners,” he says. “Water managers cannot do it alone.”

Infrastructure and Equity Issues

The U.S. population is projected to reach 517 million by 2050, and the fastest-growing cities are in the South and West (U.S. Census Bureau 2019). You can’t keep people from moving to Tempe or Tampa Bay, but this population growth is occurring in regions where the pressure on both water quality and quantity is already high. In some places, this rapid growth has forced the hand of planners and water managers, who have implemented water conservation and reuse measures to ensure there will be enough water to go around.

To complicate matters, our nation’s water infrastructure hasn’t kept up with changing demographics. Old lead pipes are disintegrating, and water treatment plants are overwhelmed by the amount of water they need to process. In 2017, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave the nation’s drinking water a D grade, estimating a cost of $100 billion for all the necessary infrastructure upgrades (ACES, 2017).

There is also a divide between places that can afford to upgrade their infrastructure and those that cannot. Addressing that inequity is crucial to securing future water supplies for everyone, says Katy Lackey, senior program manager at the nonprofit US Water Alliance, a national coalition of water utilities, businesses, environmental organizations, labor unions, and others which is working to secure a sustainable water future. 

“We believe water equity occurs when all communities have access to clean, safe, and affordable drinking water and wastewater services, infrastructure investments are maximized and benefit all communities, and communities are resilient in the face of a changing climate,” she says. Reaching that goal will require new ways of working.

How to Work Together Well

Integrated planning starts with getting people in the same room to understand the needs of their community, the gaps in current processes, and how they can better work together, says Holway of the Babbitt Center. From there, formalizing goals around planning and water is critical, whether those goals are reflected in a comprehensive or master plan for community development, in a more specific plan based on conservation and resilience, or in zoning and regulatory changes. 

“We are focused on identifying, evaluating, and promoting tools to better integrate land and water, with input from a diverse group of practitioners and researchers,” Holway says, noting that Babbitt Center Research Fellow Erin Rugland has produced several publications for practitioners, including a matrix of available tools for integrating land and water (Rugland 2021) and two manuals focused on best practices (Rugland 2020, Castle and Rugland 2019).

Those focused on the importance of integrating land and water say there are several factors that contribute to successful collaborations, including:

Build relationships. Stoker found that getting people out of their silos is an important first step. “In the places that have been the most successful at integrating land and water planning, the utilities and planners were friends. They knew that if they worked together, they would benefit,” he says. Stoker cites Aiken, South Carolina, where water managers helped build the comprehensive plan, as an example, adding that this kind of collaboration is important at every scale. In Westminster, Colorado, water managers participate in preapplication meetings for any new development. From the beginning, they have a chance to advise on how choices made about things like plumbing and landscaping will impact a project’s water use and fees.

Westminster is one of 33 western communities that have participated in the Growing Water Smart program, a multiday workshop run by the Babbitt Center and the Sonoran Institute with additional funding from the Colorado Water Conservation Board and the Gates Family Foundation. Growing Water Smart brings small teams of leaders together to communicate, collaborate, and identify a one-year action plan. 

“The heart of Growing Water Smart is getting land use planners and water managers from the same communities together to talk to each other, sometimes for the very first time,” says Faith Sternlieb of the Babbitt Center, who helps to facilitate the program. “Once they start sharing resources, data, and information, they see how valuable and important collaboration and cooperation are. It isn’t that they didn’t want to work together, it’s that they truly thought they had everything they needed to do their jobs. But they don’t often have the time and space they need to think and plan holistically.”   

“What has worked in my experience is to form relationships with the planners making decisions,” confirms Kajtezovic of Tampa Bay Water. “To the extent possible, I communicate with them and explain the importance of source water protection.”

Be creative and flexible. Once relationships are formed, creativity and flexibility are key. Because every community is facing different planning challenges, “context is incredibly important,” says Quay. This is true not just among different regions, but within regions, and sometimes even from one community to the next. “What works in Phoenix won’t necessarily work in Tempe [a city of nearly 200,000 just east of Phoenix], so we can’t just adapt best management practices, we have to think about best for who.” He recommends identifying a broad, flexible set of tools that can be used and adapted over time.

Be willing to learn. Because of specialization, planners and water managers “don’t speak the same language,” says Sham, who says the AWWA has been working on collaborative education about source water protection for members and landowners. Sometimes it feels like added work on the front end, and he says people can be reluctant to take on work that’s not in their purview, but developing a shared language and understanding is crucial for long-term sustainability. 

John Berggren helps communities coordinate land and water planning as a water policy analyst for Western Resource Advocates. He says one of his first steps is to educate local leaders and get them excited about including water in their comprehensive plans. “We get them interested and concerned about conservation, to create top-down support for planning departments and water utilities,” he says. Once water is codified in a comprehensive plan, he says, that allows planners and utilities to come up with creative, progressive solutions. 

Be comprehensive. The integration of land use and water planning works best when it is included in state-level regulations or in comprehensive plans at the community level. According to the Babbitt Center, 14 states formally incorporate water into planning in some form, and that number is growing. For example, the 2015 Colorado Water Plan set a goal that 75 percent of Coloradans will live in communities that have incorporated water-saving actions into land use planning by 2025; communities across the state are working on that process, and 80 communities would have to take action to hit the 2025 deadline. Colorado also recently passed state legislation that outlines water conservation guidelines for planning and designates a new position in the state government to support the coordination of land and water planning. 

Since 2000, when Arizona passed the Growing Smarter Plus Act, the state has required communities to include a chapter in their comprehensive plans that addresses the link between water supply, demand, and growth projections. It’s happening in less dry places, too. The Manatee County, Florida, comprehensive plan matches water quality with need to make the best use of non-potable water. It includes codes for water reuse and alternative water sources to increase availability, and to make sure that water gets to the most appropriate destination.

To incorporate water into comprehensive plans, Quay says, communities need a concrete idea of the type and amount of their available resources. Water managers and planners can then work together to identify new and alternative water sources like treated wastewater and graywater (household water that has been used for things like laundry and can still be used for flushing toilets); to identify projected demand; and to outline how to meet it.

Embrace the power of local action. Even if water-related planning is not mandated by the state or incorporated in a community’s comprehensive plan, water managers and planners can still find ways to collaborate. More specific local plans can include water supply and wastewater infrastructure plans; hazard mitigation and resilience plans, like floodplain and stormwater management; demand management; watershed processes and health; and plans for interagency coordination and collaboration. If those variables feel overwhelming, Berggren suggests that planners look to their peer communities for best practices. Although each community is different, he says, “no one needs to reinvent the wheel.” 

Local policy shifts can also include form-based codes that outline water-related aspects of the built environment. In Milwaukee, Sands says best practices for managing flooding and pollution include “updating municipal codes and ordinances to encourage green infrastructure and more sustainable practices.” That green infrastructure, which mimics natural processes at the site level through things like bioswales and stormwater storage, can make communities more resilient to climate change, while restoring ecosystems and protecting water supply.  

Water-wise policy shifts can also come in the form of zoning ordinances, like smaller lot sizes. Planners can use subdivision and land development regulations to promote on-site capture, infiltration, and slow release of stormwater. Some communities have adopted plumbing codes that require high efficiency fixtures, or building codes that permit water recycling, or submetering to increase efficiency in multifamily residences. Fountain, Colorado, has conservation-oriented tap fees, which incentivize developers to meet water efficiency standards beyond the building code. Developers can pay lower tap fees if they agree to options like native landscaping or including efficient indoor fixtures across a development.

The benefits of integrating land and water planning are myriad, from measurable results like adapting plans for development to ensure an adequate water supply to more indirect, long-term effects like reducing conflict between water users as supplies shrink. Back in Castle Rock, Schultz and his colleagues have observed that water-focused land use ordinances can have a big impact, and can benefit quality of life as a whole. It hasn’t always been easy, Schultz says, but the new way of doing things seems to be paying off: “We’ve shown that we can do better if we provide a good foundation.” 

Heather Hansman is a freelance journalist, Outside magazine’s environmental columnist, and the author of the recent book Downriver: Into the Future of Water in the West.

Lead Photograph: In Castle Rock, Colorado, planners and water utility managers have partnered on plans for sustainable growth. Credit: Robert Young via iStock Editorial/Getty Images Plus.

References

APA (American Planning Association). 2016. APA Policy Guide on Water. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association. https://www.planning.org/policy/guides/adopted/water/.

ACES (American Society of Civil Engineers). 2017. Infrastructure Report Card. Washington, DC: American Society of Civil Engineers. https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/.

Castle, Anne, and Erin Rugland. 2019. “Best Practices for Implementing Water Conservation and Demand Management Through Land Use Planning Efforts: Addendum to 2012 Guidance Document.” Denver, CO: Colorado Water Conservation Board. January. https://dnrweblink.state.co.us/cwcbsearch/ElectronicFile.aspx?docid=208193&dbid=0.

Cesanek, William, Vicki Elmer, and Jennifer Graeff. 2017. Planners and Water: PAS Report 588. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association. https://www.planning.org/publications/report/9131532/.

Rugland, Erin. 2021. “Integrating Land and Water: Tools, Practices, Processes, and Evaluation Criteria.” Working paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/working-papers/integrating-land-water. (February).

Rugland, Erin. 2020. Incorporating Water into Comprehensive Planning: A Manual for Land Use Planners in the Colorado River Basin. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/other/incorporating-water-comprehensive-planning.

Stoker, Philip Anthony, Gary Pivo, Alexandra Stoicof, Jacob Kavkewitz, Neil Grigg, and Carol Howe. 2018. Joining-Up Urban Water Management with Urban Planning and Design. Alexandria, VA: The Water Resource Foundation. https://www.waterrf.org/research/projects/joining-urban-water-management-urban-planning-and-design.

Udall, Bradley, and Overpeck, Jonathan. 2017. “The Twenty‐First Century Colorado River Hot Drought and Implications for the Future.” Water Resources Research 53 (3): 1763-2576.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2019. “Fastest-Growing Cities Primarily in the South and West.” Press release. May 23. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2019/subcounty-population-estimates.html.

Related

Growing Water Smart: Workshop Helps Western Communities Integrate Water and Land Use Planning

Water Planning: Land Use Decisions Could Make or Break the River that Sustains One in Nine Americans

The Lincoln Institute is celebrating its 75th anniversary in 2021—our origins date to the original Lincoln Foundation, founded in 1946—and throughout the year the Land Matters podcast will examine different aspects of our work, and the people and places that have had an influence on the organization as it has evolved over the years.

The series begins with one of the most urgent issues facing the planet, and a prominent part of the Lincoln Institute’s portfolio: the climate crisis. Author and journalist Bill McKibben breaks down the actions of the Biden administration to confront global warming, from rejoining the Paris accord to halting the Keystone XL pipeline. Land use and land policy, he says, are critical components as the planet readies for inevitable impacts such as rising seas.

“It’s crucial in two ways,” he says. “We need protection and barrier against the forces we have unleashed–the sea is coming up higher, the winds are rising. It’s all simple physics at some point.”

At the same time, “there’s going to be a lot of places we can’t protect, and we simply need to understand that and begin planning for how we move people away from places that are going to be uninhabitable for humans.”

He anticipates an estimated 1 billion “climate refugees,” and cites as an example the destructive wrath of late-season hurricanes last year making landfall in Honduras, destroying 40 percent of that nation’s GDP. By contrast, the toll of the deadly 2005 storm, Katrina, was one percent of America’s GDP.

Climate change has been a priority of the Lincoln Institute for many years, advancing groundbreaking solutions in both mitigation and adaptation, with special attention to the role of land.

You can listen to the show and subscribe to Land Matters on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Anthony Flint is a senior fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and a contributing editor of Land Lines.

Photograph Credit: Bill McKibben.

Related:

Joe Biden’s Cancellation of the Keystone Pipeline Is a Landmark in the Climate Fight, The New Yorker

Here Are All the Climate Actions Biden Took on Day One, Scientific American

A ‘Nerve Center’ for Climate in the Biden White House, The New York Times

Urban Planning Tools for Climate Change Mitigation, Lincoln Institute

Lessons from Sandy: Federal Policies to Build Climate-Resilient Coastal Regions, Lincoln Institute

Buy-In for Buyouts: The Case for Managed Retreat from Flood Zones, Lincoln Institute

Nature and Cities: The Ecological Imperative in Urban Design and Planning, Lincoln Institute

75th Anniversary website and Land Lines commemorative issue

Land and water policy can shape the built and natural environment to reduce the extent of climate change and help communities and natural systems withstand the impacts of a changing climate. The Lincoln Institute is advancing good planning practices to address these challenges and aspires to foster climate justice as a key element of this work. We reached out to people across our global network to ask them this question: If you could implement one land-based solution during 2021 that would have a meaningful impact on climate change, what would it be?

Kongjian Yu
Founder and President, Turenscape
Contributor, Nature and Cities

The most effective and holistic solution to climate change is “sponge lands.” Expanding on the concept of “sponge cities,” which uses green infrastructure to absorb stormwater and combat pollution in urban areas, this land-based solution can retain rainwater at the source, slow the water in the course of its flow, and be used adaptively at its outlets (rivers, lakes, and oceans). This is completely opposite to the conventional engineering solutions widely used across the globe, particularly in developing countries in the monsoon climate: damming rivers to create big reservoirs, channelizing water using concrete flood walls, building concrete drainage in the city, and pumping water out. Gray infrastructure consumes huge amounts of cement, creating a significant amount of carbon emissions, suffocating the most productive ecosystems with the highest biodiversity, and making land less resilient. Sponge lands means the creation of porosity in vast, hilly landscapes that are suffering from erosion; the creation of “sponge fields” in the form of small ponds in farmland where runoff pollutes nearby rivers and lakes; and the creation of sponge cities. Sponge lands means the prudent use of cement in hydrological engineering and pavement in urban areas. It also means the removal of concrete flood walls and dams along waterways to restore habitat, replenish groundwater, nurture lush vegetation, and create other benefits. Sponge lands are an efficient, inexpensive solution that will empower the resiliency of the land against climate change.

Linda Shi
Assistant Professor of City and Regional Planning, Cornell University
C. Lowell Harriss Dissertation Fellow, 2015–2016

The United States needs a national climate adaptation plan that includes a land use and development strategy. Efforts related to carbon dioxide removal and renewable energy, such as biofuels and solar arrays, will significantly impact rural land use. Failure to decarbonize means escalating climate impacts, climate-induced migration, and new landscapes of injustices in the form of climate oases and climate slums. Growing urban–rural political conflict already reflects spatial and socioeconomic inequality, rooted in rural resource and human extraction for processes of urbanization, dynamics that the climate crisis can exacerbate. Market responses will not be sufficient in scale, target geographies that can sustainably accommodate growth, or enable a just climate transition. The magnitude of needed actions to tackle the climate crisis therefore requires a new national architecture of land policy. This includes (1) science- and equity-informed identification of geographies where future growth and investment should go; (2) fiscal, investment, and grant policies that enable local governments to respond to climate impacts rather than burden them with unfunded mandates or punitive measures; and (3) legal reforms to banking and organizational regulations that would expand cooperative ownership models that help build community control of housing and land for local wealth retention and creation.

Alan Mallach
Senior Fellow, Center for Community Progress
Coauthor, Regenerating America’s Legacy Cities

The zoning of America’s suburbs, resulting in a suburban landscape dominated by large single-family houses on large lots and by vast areas—often largely vacant—zoned for industrial and office use, has fostered an auto-dependent pattern of widely dispersed population and employment centers which in turn has led to increased emissions from vehicular travel, as well as from energy use for lighting, heating, and cooling. It has also curtailed housing production, exacerbated housing affordability problems, and led to millions of lower-income workers making long daily treks from urban centers to suburban jobs. Solutions are straightforward, and do not require undoing single-family zoning. State zoning statutes should require municipalities to allow accessory apartments and structures in single-family zones wherever feasible from a health and safety standpoint, permit multifamily housing along commercial corridors and in industrial or office zones, and rezone bypassed vacant parcels, of which dozens exist in nearly every American suburb, for multifamily housing. Higher residential densities along corridors and in mixed-use clusters will, in turn, vastly increase the opportunities for cost-effective, efficient transit solutions. Increased and diversified housing options in already largely developed suburbs will address unmet housing needs and reduce the pressure for further outward expansion of metros, making the suburbs themselves more sustainable in the face of demographic shifts, changing housing demands, and future climate shocks.

Sivan Kartha
Senior Scientist, Stockholm Environment Institute
Advisor, Lincoln Institute Climate Program

A survey across 64 countries estimated that forests held collectively by indigenous peoples and forest communities contain approximately one trillion tons worth of carbon dioxide, equal to more than three decades’ worth of global emissions from fossil fuel use. These lands are also among the world’s richest in biodiversity and home to vital freshwater resources. However, those living in these forests often lack formally recognized land rights. Forest-rich countries generally have colonial legacies, in which land and resources were seized at the expense of local communities. Centuries-old property rights and land tenure regimes originally set up for taxation and extraction persist, contributing to the continued degradation of forest resources. A growing body of research shows that when land rights are formally recognized and legally safeguarded, indigenous peoples and local communities can protect common resources through informal practices and collective action that prevent deforestation, preserve biodiversity, and protect ecosystem services such as soil enrichment and watershed health. Imposing conventional private property regimes, on the other hand, can cause new problems, triggering land speculation and clashing with local cultural norms. Establishing secure land tenure rights for indigenous peoples and rural communities can help preserve the world’s declining forest resources, while safeguarding the livelihoods on which their hundreds of millions of residents depend.

Tamika Butler
Built Environment and Equity Consultant, TLB Consulting
Guest Speaker, Big City Planning Directors Institute

My hope for 2021 is that the increased attention, conversation, and resource allocation directed toward fighting racism, white supremacy, and anti-Blackness will not disappear with the flip of a calendar page as people push toward “getting back to normal.” Just being better than it is now shouldn’t be enough. As a Black person, I could look at the statistics and know that the old normal meant my life was expendable. As a Black person, I also know that in this new normal, I can look at any statistic about COVID-19, hate crimes, or environmental racism and see that my life is still expendable. Beyond not being good enough, “getting back to normal” will not meaningfully impact climate change. Instead, I hope that those in power examine who they are listening to and funding when it comes to land-based solutions. The ideas, solutions, and pursuits of fighting climate change with land-based solutions should focus on ensuring that we listen to Black people, Indigenous people, and other racialized people and members of historically oppressed groups who have long been leaders in climate change, sustainability, and serving as protectors of humanity. All climate change solutions should center the idea that in 2021 we must stop the killing of Black people, Indigenous people, and other people of color.

Melinda Lis Maldonado
Lawyer, Matanza-Riachuelo River Basin Authority, Argentina
Instructor, Lincoln Institute, Latin America and the Caribbean

The implementation of development charges with environmental components would have a meaningful impact on climate change. These are building or urban permits that consider water and vegetation aspects as requirements to exercise basic or additional building rights. To illustrate the last case, in exchange for increasing density, adding land for green urban spaces could be an additional charge. These urban planning tools could finance climate change adaptation and mitigation, because they could generate, at the local level, resources to finance conservation or the implementation of green and blue infrastructure in private or public spaces. Nature-based solutions would be prioritized. Nature can provide more affordable long-term solutions and more benefits to humans and cities than solutions that only use gray infrastructure. At the same time, such solutions can function as mitigation and adaptation measures. These requirements would typically be fulfilled in the same place where the building occurs, in the form of sustainable drainage, reforestation, or green space. In some exceptions, they would involve financing green infrastructure in another place. Attaching environmental conditions to building rights would take different forms according to local climate change effects and the magnitude of the urban development project. Urban planning, law, and private property regulation have an important role to play in facing climate change.

Frederick Steiner
Dean, University of Pennsylvania Stuart Weitzman School of Design
Coeditor, Design with Nature Now

While we work on enacting effective policy, we need to change our hearts and minds about climate change and adjust how we live accordingly. Everyone reading this would make a list of 365 personal activities that contribute to climate change and make a commitment to replace them, one each day, with an action to mitigate or adapt to climate change. By sharing their pledge on social media, they could encourage their family, friends, and followers to do the same. Each of these actions ties back to land, water, and energy. For example: 

using a copier planting a tree
building a patio digging a garden
driving a car taking a walk
complaining about politicians calling and emailing representatives
ordering a book online visiting a local bookstore
buying imported produce growing a tomato
dropping off dry cleaning learning to iron
grilling beef eating a cricket
flying to a conference organizing a Zoom
turning on the air conditioner opening a window
cutting the grass planting native flowers
upgrading your cable watching birds

and so on for another 353 days.

Astrid R. N. Haas
Policy Director, International Growth Centre

From a governmental perspective, implementing land-based solutions in my own country, Uganda, is inherently challenging. In part this is because our Constitution, and all subsequent legislative instruments pertaining to land, unequivocally vest land in the people. In addition, Uganda has multiple coexisting tenure systems, yet limited administrative capacity to delineate each of them or document ownership. This situation means the government’s ability to implement land-based solutions, which unlock public value, is extremely limited. It is within this context that in 2021 I would therefore pursue land readjustment as an entirely practical approach and the most viable land-based solution. Particularly within urban areas, this tool [a model in which landowners pool their properties to accomplish a redevelopment project] has enormous potential. For example, working at a local level, it would be possible to determine land tenure and ownership and elicit community buy-in to pool parcels for more densified development. There is growing evidence that denser cities are greener and more climate efficient. Therefore, this solution would not only have a significant impact on the efficiency of how Ugandan cities could be managed, particularly with regards to public service provision, it would have a meaningful impact on climate change as well.

Larry Clark
Director of Strategic Initiatives, International Association of Assessing Officers

I am an appraiser with 40 years of experience working in three local jurisdictions, writing articles, lecturing, and teaching mass appraisal in many parts of the United States and the world. My association with people from many parts of the world has given me an appreciation for the issues surrounding climate change. One of the realities of climate change is that water resources are poorly distributed among our 50 states. Climate change exacerbates that situation by causing droughts in one part of the country while the warmer atmosphere brings soaking rains and floods to another. Therefore, my wish would be for the development of a nationwide network of reservoirs and distribution systems to collect and redistribute precipitation nationally. It would require an effort similar in scope to the federal highway system begun under President Eisenhower, and should be governed by a regulatory body that prioritizes humanitarian needs above those of agriculture and commerce. Collection systems should be sited in areas of current and anticipated future flooding, as well as natural runoff, to feed into reservoirs for later distribution into municipal water systems where it is needed.

Forster Ndubisi
Professor of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning, Texas A&M University
Author, Ecology in Urban Design and Planning

Climate solutions require us to fundamentally rethink our ethical relations to the land. I propose that we initiate the process of critical reflection on our ethical obligations to the land and adopt a place-based ecocentric ethic (PBEE) as one climate solution in 2021. The adoption of PBEE via lifelong immersive education stipulates the ethical behavior and moral obligations that designers and planners should adhere to in addressing climate challenges. PBEE is based on the interdependency between people and biophysical [nature] processes, in which each depends on the other for continued existence. Human interactions with natural processes will necessarily result in the degradation of natural resources and processes [natural capital] to a certain degree, including landscapes that provide vital ecosystem services. By implication, PBEE confers the moral imperative for preserving natural capital when feasible; conserving natural capital when a justifiable degree of use is demonstrated; replenishing natural capital through active restoration of degraded ecosystems; minimizing the extent of human footprint; reducing carbon usage; and actively embracing environmental stewardship. To combat climate change effectively, PBEE employs ecological knowing as a process for understanding the interdependency between human and natural ecosystems. In turn, ecological knowing works best by using a coupled system-design thinking process and participatory collaboration in creating climate mitigation and adaptation solutions.

Robin Bronen
Executive Director, Alaska Institute for Justice
Steering Committee, Climigration Network

Return stolen lands to Indigenous Peoples and erase the borders and boundaries that divide and separate the ecosystems upon which we depend. Indigenous Peoples have conserved the biodiversity of this planet for millennia. The one-fourth of the Earth’s land occupied by Indigenous Peoples coincides with 40 percent of the natural areas protected and territories that remain undamaged. According to studies undertaken by the World Bank, these territories hold 80 percent of the planet’s biodiversity. In the United States, settler colonialism created the legal and institutional structures that forcibly removed and relocated Indigenous populations from their traditional lands and recast Indigenous Peoples’ land as property and as a resource. Repatriating land to Indigenous Peoples, as the original stewards of these lands now known as the United States, helps to rectify this injustice. Removing the social construction of boundaries and borders that artificially divides land and erasing these invisible lines ensures that the ecosystems and biodiversity upon which humanity depends can thrive as the climate crisis transforms the web of life.

Cintia Fernandes
Lawyer for the Municipality of Curitiba, Brazil
Instructor, Lincoln Institute, Latin America and the Caribbean

Considering the socioeconomic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, both local and metropolitan solutions are necessary to prevent unwanted impacts on the environment, such as pollution, garbage accumulation, and reduction of green areas. Cities must have connectivity, systemic thinking, and metropolitan sustainability. Cities must implement both a circular economy and circular taxation, strengthening real estate and environmental taxes in order to permit swifter, more effective and efficient local responses. These systems may also result in less corruption, a better quality of life, and the mitigation of climate changes. Aiming to achieve this, we propose a circular tax, an intelligent fiscal tool for the construction and development of cities and metropolitan regions. This entails the strengthening of real estate taxation (property tax, taxation differentiated by use and location, betterment tax) and of environmental taxes (garbage collection and recycling fees, tax on metropolitan environmental threats, application of the polluter pays principle). A circular tax would strengthen planning and sustainable urban management and is a land policy that can help preserve the environment.

Photograph: Aerial view of a solar power station in Germany. Credit: Bim/Getty Images.

Related

Land Matters Podcast: In First of 75th Anniversary Shows, An Interview with Bill McKibben

Muriel Bowser alcanzó un protagonismo nacional este año por ser una voz destacada en la pandemia del coronavirus y el movimiento por la justicia racial. Bowser fue electa alcaldesa de Washington, DC, en 2014 y reelecta en 2018. Es una gran defensora del movimiento por otorgar categoría de estado a DC y ocupa un cargo único: es gobernadora y directora ejecutiva de condado, y también alcaldesa. Desde que asumió su cargo, ha buscado acelerar la producción de viviendas asequibles en el Distrito, que alberga a 706.000 personas en 176 kilómetros cuadrados y cuenta con un presupuesto de US$ 16.000 millones. Además, trabajó para diversificar la economía local, aumentar la satisfacción con los servicios de la ciudad e invertir en programas y políticas que apoyen a las familias. Bowser nació y creció en DC, inició su carrera política en 2004 como comisionada asesora de vecindarios para el barrio Riggs Park y en 2007 entró en el concejo del Distrito Electoral 4. Hace poco, nos cedió un tiempo de su agenda de alcaldesa de la capital de la nación para conectarse por correo electrónico con Anthony Flint, miembro sénior del Instituto Lincoln.

Anthony Flint: Asumió su cargo a principios de 2015. ¿Hubo algo que la pudo haber preparado para el 2020? ¿Cómo ve que se desarrollará lo que queda de este año turbulento? ¿Confía en la gestión ante el coronavirus?

Muriel Bowser: Como ciudad global, nos preparamos constantemente para un abanico de impactos y tensiones. Sin embargo, está claro que este es un evento inaudito que exigió una respuesta inaudita. Los residentes y las empresas hicieron sacrificios tremendos por la salud y la seguridad de la comunidad. Como Distrito, tenemos la suerte de que encaramos la crisis desde una posición de fortaleza. Eso nos permitió empezar a implementar muchos recursos de inmediato para proteger y apoyar a los residentes, como entregar alimentos para personas mayores, crear sitios de distribución gratuita de productos de almacén para quienes los necesitaran o establecer sitios de pruebas gratuitas en toda la ciudad y contratar enseguida cientos de rastreadores de contacto. Desde que comenzó la emergencia, nos hemos centrado mucho en seguir a la ciencia, oír a los expertos y mantener informada a la comunidad. Ojalá eso continúe hasta que podamos superar esto. Pero en general, estoy muy orgullosa de cómo respondió la población de Washington al desafío.

AF: ¿Qué expresa el mural de “Las vidas negras importan” sobre la calle 16th Street frente a la Casa Blanca (replicado en muchas otras ciudades) sobre la dinámica del dominio público y el cambio social?

MB: Decidí crear el Paseo “Las vidas negras importan” cuando las protestas pacíficas contra el racismo sistémico se encontraron con gas lacrimógeno, helicópteros federales y soldados camuflados ocupando nuestras calles locales. Y lo que hicimos fue crear un lugar donde la población estadounidense pudiera unirse para protestar y reparar, para crear estrategias y sanar. La población de todo el país se volcó a la calle para exigir un cambio. Ya sea mediante protestas o arte, o una combinación de protestas y arte, la gente está usando el dominio público para enviar un mensaje claro: que las vidas negras importan, que la humanidad negra importa, y que debemos saldar esta cuenta y reparar los sistemas rotos que perpetúan el racismo y la injusticia desde hace demasiado tiempo.

AF: En 2019, estableció un objetivo para 2025, de crear 36.000 unidades de vivienda nuevas (12.000 de ellas asequibles). ¿Cuáles son las cosas esenciales que deben ocurrir para crear más opciones de vivienda en Washington?

MB: Cuando asumí el cargo, llevamos a más del doble la inversión anual en el Fideicomiso para la Producción de Viviendas de DC, a US$ 100 millones al año. Es el mayor valor per cápita de todas las jurisdicciones. Y no solo estamos invirtiendo: estuvimos sacando ese dinero y poniéndolo en proyectos que producen y conservan miles de viviendas asequibles en toda nuestra ciudad. Pero debemos hacer más. Como usted destacó, en DC tenemos un objetivo grande: construir 36.000 viviendas nuevas para 2025, y que al menos un tercio de ellas sea asequible. El año pasado, nos convertimos en la primera ciudad de la nación en establecer metas de vivienda asequible por vecindario. Cuando anunciamos esas metas, también organizamos conversaciones comunitarias en vecindarios de toda la ciudad para debatir con los residentes sobre el legado persistente de las diversas prácticas discriminatorias y sobre cómo podemos trabajar en conjunto para mejorar. Algunas de las medidas que estamos tomando para lograrlo son: una reducción impositiva en zonas de alta necesidad, cambios en el programa de zonificación inclusiva y continuar con esas inversiones grandes (y estratégicas) del Fideicomiso para la Producción de Viviendas.

AF: Si la economía de la ciudad se recupera de la pandemia, es probable que Washington continúe con su historia de logros con relación al renacimiento urbano. ¿Qué políticas implementó para abordar el aburguesamiento y el desplazamiento, tanto residencial como comercial?

MB: Sé que Washington se podrá recuperar de esta pandemia. Aún tenemos más de 700.000 habitantes que tienen capacidad de recuperación y creatividad, y se centran en ayudar a sus pares a superar la situación; sobre esa base, sé que superaremos esto.

Cuando entramos en emergencia sanitaria pública, ya nos centramos mucho en construir una ciudad más inclusiva y procurar que los beneficios de nuestra prosperidad llegaran a más habitantes. Esta pandemia no hizo más que amplificar la importancia de nuestras labores por la igualdad. Y al avanzar con la respuesta y la recuperación, aún nos centramos en cómo nos acercamos a nuestras metas de vivienda, empleo, atención médica y más. Seguimos invirtiendo más de US$ 100 millones en viviendas asequibles. Estamos avanzando con nuestro plan estratégico para lograr que no haya más personas sin hogar, y abrimos refugios nuevos y más dignos en toda la ciudad. Los programas para adquirir una vivienda continúan. Observamos los números reales de las viviendas para ver cómo podemos ayudar a más residentes a quedarse y construir su futuro en DC.

Y también apoyamos a las pequeñas empresas y los emprendedores locales. Por ejemplo, hace poco anunciamos una nueva estrategia de inclusión equitativa que aumentará el acceso a oportunidades de desarrollo para organizaciones que pertenecen de forma total o mayoritaria a individuos de la población en desventaja social.

AF: ¿Qué tipo de importancia atribuye a la oficina de planificación de su ciudad, y por extensión, quién se está desempeñando bien en la práctica de planificación en otras ciudades?

MB: Es esencial no solo que planifiquemos para el crecimiento a largo plazo de DC, sino también que procuremos que el crecimiento refleje los valores de una ciudad inclusiva y dinámica. Mi Oficina de Planificación tiene un papel crucial en la promoción de nuestras metas de viviendas, y nos ayuda a construir una ciudad que trabaja para la población de todos los entornos y niveles de ingresos. Dado que la oficina de planificación puede ofrecer análisis de políticas, hacer consideraciones a largo plazo y tener un alcance comunitario, además de encargarse de las necesidades de implementación en cuanto a la zonificación y el uso territorial, para mí es uno de los organismos de la vivienda. Trabajan junto con el departamento de vivienda tradicional, la autoridad de viviendas sociales y el organismo de financiamiento de viviendas para analizar las viviendas y la capacidad de pago.

Respecto de otras ciudades, lo que es interesante es que en todo el país también están pasando muchas cosas fantásticas a nivel local, y las ciudades y los pueblos están creando soluciones innovadoras que están a la altura de sus necesidades únicas, desde Los Ángeles hasta Gary, Indiana, y Boston. Las ciudades son incubadoras de innovación, y si bien no siempre tenemos los mismos desafíos (por ejemplo, algunas ciudades tienen muchas personas y pocas viviendas, y otras tienen muchas viviendas y pocas personas), siempre estamos aprendiendo unas de otras.

AF: ¿Qué pueden hacer las ciudades ahora para enfrentar la crisis climática, que sigue avanzando, aunque en este momento esté eclipsada por las otras emergencias que estuvieron ocupando lugares más protagónicos?

MB: La justicia medioambiental debe ser parte de la conversación más amplia que tenemos a nivel nacional en este momento. Por ejemplo, sabemos que el daño causado por el cambio climático antropogénico tiene un impacto desproporcionado en las comunidades de color. Además, cuando observamos el impacto desproporcionado que la COVID-19 tiene en las personas negras estadounidenses, vemos el vínculo directo con el trabajo que debemos hacer para construir comunidades más saludables y con mayor capacidad de resistencia. Es toda una conversación sobre igualdad y justicia. En DC tenemos varios programas, como Solar for All, que se centran en combatir el cambio climático y a la vez responder a la desigualdad y otras disparidades. No debemos aislar estas problemáticas; podemos y debemos centrarnos en todo.

Fotografía: La alcaldesa Bowser observa el mural de “Las vidas negras importan” que encargó para la calle 16th Street, que lleva directo a la Casa Blanca. Crédito: Khalid Naji-Allah.