Raising the risk by shunning the science

Politicians talk a lot about promoting STEM education. Kids steeped in science, technology, engineering and mathematics will be tomorrow's innovators and leaders. It's true.

But Kamyar Enshayan finds it truly strange that so many of today's leaders shun science and math when it comes to making big decisions on protecting Iowans and our valuable resources from floodwaters.

“The science is clear, yet there is very little action,” said Enshayan, director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Education at the University of Northern Iowa, at a flood symposium last week at the National Czech & Slovak Museum & Library. The swollen Cedar River served as a backdrop. “We must be bold to implement what we know.”

Enshayan, who describes himself as a “native Iowan born in Iran,” is plenty bold. Science can be complicated, but his core message is not. And that's why it packs such a punch.

Enshayan says science tells us that flood plains are “the home of the river,' and that building in them is a very bad idea. He points to a Cedar Falls ordinance prohibiting new lots and subdivisions in the 500-year flood plain, along with tight restrictions for construction on existing lots. Enshayan notes that few communities have followed Cedar Falls' lead.

Cities, he said, should be focusing flood protection efforts on “upstream solutions.”

Enshayan argues that Iowa's current corn and soybean-dominated “cropping system,” encouraged by federal farm policies, has led to soil erosion and compaction, excessive use of farm chemicals and the development of resistant weeds. But, Enshayan said, research by Iowa State University suggests that adding a third crop to the rotation could alleviate many of those issues, improving the health of the land and cutting the use of herbicides by 88 percent

“This is a huge scientific discovery,” Enshayan said. “Why aren't we hearing about it?”

Using our atmosphere as “a dumping ground,” as Enshayan puts it, is changing our climate, raising the risk for extreme weather events and their consequences. including more frequent flooding.

“We're just not taking science seriously,” Enshayan said.

This sort of stuff can make government types uncomfortable. Cedar Rapids' former flood recovery director, now executive administrator for development services, Joe O'Hern, was on the symposium panel with Enshayan. Immediately after Enshayan's bold talk, O'Hern got a tough question from the audience.

Why has Cedar Rapids authorized building in the flood plain?

O'Hern said it's been a balancing act for the city, trying to weigh flood risk against the need for “economic vitality” and the reality that you can't pick up and move the core of the city to higher ground.

I understand the city's dilemma on that. Buying out and tearing down the heart of the city wasn't an option.

What's much less understandable is how the city had a chance to be part of the solution by creating a stormwater fee structure that would have encouraged property owners to stop runoff. But it went with a watered-down approach. Instead of having some serious stream cred when it asks for upstream help, we proved that not even having 31 feet of stormwater come through is enough to warrant significant change.

Another member of the audience asked O'Hern why Cedar Rapids hasn't been more active in the Cedar River Watershed Coalition. O'Hern said city officials had attended coalition meetings, but he couldn't swear they had been to every one.

Thinking about flood mitigation and water conservation as an issue confined to the city limits or the county line or the furthest fence row isn't going to address the real problems facing everyone who lives in the watershed. It‘s about forging upstream cooperation and taking downstream responsibility. And recognizing that learning the importance of science isn't just for school kids.