Restoring Ecosystem Health in Frequent-Fire Forests of the American West - Design with the Desert: Conservation and Sustainable Development - page 230

congestion, longer commuting times, access to recreational opportunities, and added
financial burdens to pay for the infrastructure required to deal with the consequences
of these developments. The authors discuss several options for communities to consider
going forward to mitigate the adverse impacts of sprawl, which include a wide variety of
tools for cities to use as planning tools for sustainable growth management.
Sharon B. Megdal and Joanna B. Nadeau take on the very important task of provid-
ing us in Chapter 15, “Water Planning for Growing Southwest Communities,” with an
overview of water planning concerns for Southwest communities. The authors begin with
some macro planning concerns for the region and some of the major water engineering
projects along the Colorado and Rio Grande Rivers. This chapter addresses the critical
need for communities to develop water planning goals and conservation measures for
drought management and potential shortfalls in the local or regional water portfolio. The
involvement of critical stakeholders of water users is identified as a critical element of the
decision-making process concerning water issues.
The American West is home to a large amount of the country's natural resources. In
Chapter 16, “Removable and Place-Based Economies,” Kim Sorvig evokes Aldo Leopold's
“land ethic” in response to the concern about natural resources that can be extracted and
transported to support distant and disconnected areas. Sorvig talks about amenity com-
munities: Those geared to developing a quality of life for the residents pose an alternative
economic base for places that can leverage the place-based qualities the land has to offer.
Extractive industries such as mining or mineral operations can have an impact on the
community. As the markets for these resources fluctuate or dry up, so does the means to
support a viable community.
Poor and disadvantage communities have many barriers in front of them to reach a
dignified quality of life. This struggle can be exacerbated by public planning or commu-
nity development that encourages a disproportionate burden of risk from environmental
toxins from industries or facilities that pose health or safety risks to the local residents. In
Chapter 17, “Environmental Injustice in the Urban Southwest,” Bolin et al. present a study
of south Phoenix using census data and other public records on toxic materials to identify
the adverse impacts posed by environmental toxins, particularly on the poor and minority
communities. These disadvantaged groups are often without a voice within the political
arena and have trouble getting issues of concern put on the agenda for consideration.
Connecting communities with nature should be a real consideration for development
projects, but this is not always the reality. Geoffrey Frasz presents an interesting critique
of three communities in the Las Vegas, Nevada area in Chapter 18, “Dwelling in Expanded
Biotic Communities.” Frasz, a philosopher, provides a theoretical foundation for what a
community should strive to achieve for its residents. He then outlines the good points
found in master-planned communities and the elements that leave the resident discon-
nected from the natural environment and other people. He also makes some interesting
comments on how people can more effectively dwell within a biotic community.
Richard A. Malloy evokes a stirring call to open a dialogue on development in
Chapter 19, “Dialogue on Development.” Communities need development to sustain the
needs of its residents. It would behoove everyone to come together in areas of common
concern, setting aside critical lands for protection, effective water planning to support
new development, and sensible measure of using existing public infrastructure to avoid
undo costs to the public. Development should not drive cities in a race to the bottom
on public giveaways of tax incentives, sales tax revenues, or development impact fees.
Rather, developers should have a responsive government planning partner in areas where
development is not controversial or out of accord with community interests as a whole.