Debate over watershed draws crowd

A packed house at the Tiger Hotel ballroom participated in a town hall-style debate over the land management policies of the Bonne Femme watershed.

Four panelists lead the debate: Craig Van Matre, an attorney representing developers; Ken Midkiff, Sierra Club conservation chairman; Brent Bryant, Missouri Cattlemen’s Association vice president; and John Ikerd, MU professor emeritus of agricultural economics who owns three acres in the Bonne Femme Watershed.

The debate was staged to spark recommendations for protection of the watershed that allow landowners to reap the economic benefits from their land without devastating its environmental attributes. The area under consideration is 59,700 acres in southern Boone County. The watershed drains into 19 streams which could be affected by further housing developments and agricultural land usage.

“The Bonne Femme watershed is one of the most ecologically fragile and economically valuable watersheds in the state,” Ikerd said.

The most heated question of the debate dealt with how much impervious ground cover, or housing and roads, should be allowed. Currently 7 percent to 8 percent of the watershed has impervious ground cover.

A recently concluded environmental study, funded by the Environmental Protection Agency and Missouri’s Department of Natural Resources, said that any time an area reaches 10 percent impervious covering, flooding increases. The flooding is harmful to the environment and the wildlife.

Some panelists questioned the weight the study should be given in regulating landowners.

“A lot of the report is based on solid faith that the 10 percent rule is the law,” Bryant said. “It is too risky to develop regulations based on this research.”

Van Matre completely disagreed with the study, saying, “The impermeability study is pure junk science.”

He said that all the soil is impermeable 3 feet down due to clay, making impermeability standards imposed on new developers ineffective. In addition Van Matre suggested that forcing developers to comply with unrealistic standards would result in urban sprawl rather than environmental conservation.

While the debaters unanimously agreed that the watershed should be maintained by a joint committee with members representing all the affected jurisdictions, they disagreed strongly on whether it should be developed.

“All development should be regulated, even low-impact development, to protect the watershed,” Ikerd said. “Nature works very effectively. If you don’t cover the ground in the first place, you don’t have to worry about what will happen when you do.”