One Telling Example Of Why Climate Change Adaptation Is Hard

Aerial view of flooding in Waterbury, Vermont this
summer. Photo from University of Vermont via Vermont Public.

We had yet another flood in Vermont this month.  For the second time in five months, the town of Waterbury was hit especially hard. 

Like many communities in Vermont - and around the world for that matter - Waterbury is trying to figure out how to adapt to climate change. 

The town is built in large part in the Winooski river flood plain. Wetter and more intense storms are making the Winooski more likely to flood, and that trend will continue well into the future. 

It's literally sink or swim for Waterbury. 

Recent events, though, demonstrate how hard it can be to adapt. Even seemingly simple, relatively inexpensive ideas are easily shot down. 

After the severe flooding in Waterbury from Tropical Storm Irene in 2011, town officials began to seek ways to mitigate future disasters. One idea in particular popped out.

As Vermont Public reports:

"Experts quickly identified a straight forward project that could provide huge relief for a modest expense. They determined that a small field in neighboring Duxbury sat at a crucial spot on the river, and that building a floodplain in the field could dramatically reduce flood levels a mile away in Waterbury Village.

For $3 million, the project would reduce flooding in downtown Waterbury by as much as 12 inches and prevent millions of dollars of damage to homes and businesses, officials said. 

Better yet, converting the field into a floodplain didn't require knocking down a home or any building. And Waterbury taxpayers wouldn't suffer much of a hit - FEMA would pick up 75 percent  of the cost, and officials hoped to secure grants to spare taxpayers the 25 percent local match."

There's a choke point on the Winooski River in Waterbury a little north of the Winooski Street Bridge. At that point the river runs between the private property and railroad tracks near and parallel to Route 2.

Somewhat elevated land on both sides of the river at that spot means the river can't spread out. It creates a sort of dam that eventually releases a crapload of water back into the town during severe rainstorms.  The idea was to lower land owned by the Harvey family so the water would spill onto that property, which would spread out the water and reduce flooding in the village. 

The problem is that somebody owns that private property in Duxbury. 

That would be the Harvey family, who have lived  on an adjacent property for more than a century. Vermont Public says the family would have kept their land, would have been paid an unspecified price for its use, or may received another piece of land for allowing the project to happen. 

To be fair to the Harveys, they need that land. It's a big part of their livelihood. They train and pasture horses on the parcel that would face more frequent inundations under the plan. So they wouldn't entertain the idea of turning their land into more of a flood plain to potential reduce trouble in Waterbury. 

Vermont Public goes on: 

"They have used the field, which is less than 10 acres to train racehorses, and feared that if it flooded more frequently, it wouldn't be usable. Maureen Harvey told Vermont Public recently.  They were also skeptical of the project's purported benefits. 'I'm not saving the world, I'm not saving Waterbury,' Harvey said. 'It's not a plan that really, I don't think, in the long term is going to do squat.'"

I can understand the Harveys' point of view.  It can be hard to imagine how the plan would work if you're not a hydrologist. That's not to say the experts are wrong about the potential benefits of the plan. They probably are correct. It's just hard to picture it. Especially when the plan threatens the use of your land the way you had intend. 

The State of Vermont could have played hardball. They could have seized the property under eminent domain by declaring the land was necessary for flood control projects. But ultimately, state officials declined to do that. 

Vermont Public explains: 

"The way things work in Vermont is we don't take people's land or force then to do things on their land,' said Roy Schiff, a water resource engineer and scientist who authored the 2013 study that identified the Harveys' field as a potential site for a floodplain."

The Harveys refusal to participate and the state's reluctance to push the issue, probably predicts what will happen when officials try even more complicate flood prevention projects. 

Of course, the December flood added more urgency to the idea of mitigating floods in Waterbury. Once again, parts of the town flooded, including a number of homes on Randall and parts of Elm Streets. 

The Waterbury thing would have been a relatively easy fix. Now imagine what Vermont flood-prone communities need to do when there's a lot more moving parts, and a lot more private properties involved.

Barre is another flood prone Vermont city.  In October, Gov Phil Scott, who grew up in Barre, presented an ambitious major re-do of Barre to flood proof the community. 

It's only a first draft, but as VTDigger describes it, the plan envisions demolishing 92 existing housing units - both single family homes and apartments - in the flood prone north side of downtown. That area would be replaced by parkland and flood plain.

On the edge of this area, above where flood waters would reach, the idea is to building mid and high rise buildings and single family homes, for a total of 225 new homes and apartments. 

Again, it's just an idea. But can you imagine how difficult it would be to get everybody to sign on to this?  Yeah, stay tuned. 

All this is just two examples of the extremely difficult task Vermont has in facing the consequences of  climate change. It's mot just about making a few culverts bigger. Been there, done that. We're going to need to find away to redesign much of the Green Mountain State.