AFS Cinema
Questions About LCRA
RECEIVED Tue., March 16, 2004
Dear Editor,
After the March 11 meeting about the Gracywoods greenbelt I am left wondering several things:
There exist different opinions and standards about how large the "danger zone" around power lines is. The LCRA is using larger distances than some. The LCRA presented their numbers as if they were indisputable objective facts like 2+2=4, but reasonable people disagree about how close trees can be before danger exists, and such engineering rules of thumb are ultimately guidelines based on peoples' opinions and experience. Can an exception to normal LCRA procedures be considered?
Why is raising the lines not considered a viable option? It would cost more, but not unduly more, and raising would only need to be done in the areas with the affected trees, not along the entire length.
Most importantly: Why is there no established policy for replanting new trees when old trees are destroyed? There is a history of the LCRA often leaving a trail of destruction with such tree cuttings. The LCRA presumably exists to serve the community ... but leaving lots of stumps and destroying the recreational enjoyment of a park does not serve the community. The bureaucracy has lost sight of this fact. Talking with some LCRA representatives, I believe that several of them agree and regret how things have proceeded in cases like this, but find it bureaucratically difficult to achieve the goals of being more sensitive to the needs of the community. There should be more explicit rules in the agency about having a commitment to a mitigating plan in cases where tree removal is unavoidable. In the Gracywoods case, the LCRA clearly has very specific plans to remove dozens of mature trees, but several representatives all admitted that it was quite "nebulous" how new trees would get planted to replace them.
After the March 11 meeting about the Gracywoods greenbelt I am left wondering several things:
There exist different opinions and standards about how large the "danger zone" around power lines is. The LCRA is using larger distances than some. The LCRA presented their numbers as if they were indisputable objective facts like 2+2=4, but reasonable people disagree about how close trees can be before danger exists, and such engineering rules of thumb are ultimately guidelines based on peoples' opinions and experience. Can an exception to normal LCRA procedures be considered?
Why is raising the lines not considered a viable option? It would cost more, but not unduly more, and raising would only need to be done in the areas with the affected trees, not along the entire length.
Most importantly: Why is there no established policy for replanting new trees when old trees are destroyed? There is a history of the LCRA often leaving a trail of destruction with such tree cuttings. The LCRA presumably exists to serve the community ... but leaving lots of stumps and destroying the recreational enjoyment of a park does not serve the community. The bureaucracy has lost sight of this fact. Talking with some LCRA representatives, I believe that several of them agree and regret how things have proceeded in cases like this, but find it bureaucratically difficult to achieve the goals of being more sensitive to the needs of the community. There should be more explicit rules in the agency about having a commitment to a mitigating plan in cases where tree removal is unavoidable. In the Gracywoods case, the LCRA clearly has very specific plans to remove dozens of mature trees, but several representatives all admitted that it was quite "nebulous" how new trees would get planted to replace them.
Sincerely,
Russ Williams
Russ Williams