Features

Berkeley’s beautiful creeks have been receiving a lot of attention lately. The good news includes the start of a million-dollar state-sponsored restoration program on lower Codornices Creek; the elimination of the sewage leaks that were contaminating Bla ckberry Creek as it runs past Thousand Oaks Elementary school; and the all-volunteer restoration project at Strawberry Creek Lodge that is the joy of its residents.  

Not all the news is good: A lawsuit has been filed against the city over who is responsible for expensive maintenance on deteriorating culverts that run under private property; and the Thousand Oaks school cleanup cost the city over $100,000 because of the need to break into the upstream culvert at many locations to plug leaking sewer lines.  

What can we do to increase the good news? For starters, we can keep doing the good things we’ve already begun. Berkeley has many active restoration projects, and has successfully daylighted several stretches of its local creeks, such as those at Stra wberry Creek Park and on lower Codornices Creek around Ninth Street. Where creeks can be daylighted and restored, they should be. Restored creeks and their associated vegetation filter pollutants out of the water, carry more water than culverts, and provi de habitat for fish, birds, and animals. Moreover, the state and regulatory agencies now view creek restoration as one way of improving water quality and controlling floods. 

Another step is to better educate people about urban runoff and how to reduce th e pollutants it carries. Many people still don’t realize that whatever is dumped onto streets ends up in the creeks: detergent from washing cars, pesticides, herbicides and oil dumped into storm drains. Once people understand that such pollutants ultimately contaminate creeks and the bay, they can often take easy steps to reduce or stop such pollution. The city can also encourage measures that cause less stormwater to run directly into creeks. For example, it can require or provide incentives for the use of permeable paving stones instead of asphalt for driveways and parking areas; and it can encourage the enhancement and protection of natural habitats and vegetation, through projects like the National Wildlife Federation’s “Backyard Wildlife Habitat” pro gram. 

Most of Berkeley’s creeks were put into underground culverts more than 70 years ago, when the creeks were literally used as sewers. Also, culverting the creeks allowed developers to build over them. Now, many decades later, these culverts are start ing to fail. Failed culverts undermine homes, buildings, and roadways, costing the city—and property owners—huge sums of money, whether through legal battles, or massive repair bills. Natural creeks cost less to maintain, and provide far more benefits, th an artificial channels and culverts. 

Berkeley can actively encourage the restoration of natural creek conditions by repairing sewer breaks and removing illegal hook-ups, as well as stepping up enforcement of existing laws that prohibit illegal dumping into storm drains. And the city should be firm about enforcing the existing Creek Ordinance, which was implemented both to protect our creeks, and to protect the health and safety of homeowners and property.  

Mechanisms that encourage creek restoration on private property should be explored and implemented; for instance, the City could offer a partial transfer tax rebate modeled on the seismic upgrade rebate. The city also needs to come up with ways to finance the long-term maintenance and restoration of o ur treasured creeks, using ideas that have been effective in other cities and counties. For example, the city should consider implementing stormwater fees for basic infrastructure maintenance and creek restoration, as well as a long-term bond measure, sim ilar to Oakland’s wonderfully successful measure last year for restoration of Lake Merritt, wetlands, and creeks. 

Finally, we need a more fundamental zoning change as well: It is time to update and strengthen Berkeley’s Creek Ordinance. 

The City of Berk eley passed one of the nation’s first watershed protection ordinances in 1989 (Chapter 17.08). That ordinance was primarily designed to prevent further culverting. Since then, many other jurisdictions have adopted ordinances that go much further toward preserving and restoring creeks, and have incorporated a much more sophisticated body of knowledge into their regulations.  

We—an ad hoc group of Berkeley residents, including creekside landowners, creek experts, and interested citizens—have spent several months reviewing the city’s creek ordinance, with an eye towards making it clearer, more effective, and fully up-to-date.  

Our review included researching creek ordinances in other California cities, and comparing effective strategies elsewhere with Berk eley’s current regulations. We also looked at possible funding sources for water quality improvement and protection over the long term. Our initial recommendations are simple: 

1) The ordinance should be overhauled as a comprehensive piece, not as pieceme al responses to particular cases that come before the City Council; 

2) The process should be careful and thoughtful, with public input; 

3) The process should first identify the issues to address, through research on other cities’ and counties’ ordinance s, advice from experts, etc., before developing specific recommendations on these issues. After the issues and recommendations have been identified and settled upon, specific language of the ordinance can be drafted to achieve these goals. 

The city is facing an exciting—but challenging—time with respect to its creeks and watersheds as a whole. Increased knowledge about the importance of healthy creeks, new stringent state regulations for water quality, and a failing culvert infrastructure, all argue for a comprehensive and pro-active long-term strategy to protect and restore these ecological treasures. We possess some of the strongest environmental sensibilities in the nation, a cadre of concerned, committed citizens, and the intellect to come up with in novative, effective approaches that benefit both current and future generations of Berkeley residents. It is time for us to come together and face these challenges directly, and with ecological sensitivity. We urge the city to move ahead in addressing the se challenges, and offer our help in doing that. 

Juliet Lamont, Phil Price, Carole Schemmerling, Junko Bryant, Alan Gould, Diane Tokugawa, Tom Kelly, Jane Kelly, Chad Markell, Jeiwon Choi Deputy, Vikrant Sood.Ä