Inbox

RIVER DANCE REVISION
In his article on our federal lawsuit targeting the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) violations of the Endangered Species Act ["River Dance," WW, July 15, 2009], Nigel Jaquiss explains the link between subsidized federal flood insurance and loss of key habitat for protected salmon and steelhead.

However, the article may leave readers with two inaccurate impressions. First, the article's focus on South Waterfront suggests that our lawsuit targets developments at South Waterfront in particular. The reality is that the case has implications for development on all of Oregon's floodplains; if our suit is successful, new development at South Waterfront and every other new floodplain development in Oregon will have to meet standards more protective of salmon habitat.

In addition, the article's lead suggests that we took a law school class to a South Waterfront penthouse to highlight our lawsuit. In fact, we take our class to South Waterfront each year to see some of the impressive environmental work there—LEED certified buildings, increased urban density, advanced green stormwater facilities, and four acres of ecoroofs. When we teach at Lewis Clark Law School, we're careful to present a variety of perspectives and information rather than an advocate's view of challenging environmental issues. Our class that day featured presentations from a biologist with the National Marine Fisheries Service and a spokesperson for South Waterfront developers. Overall, though, Willamette Week has done its readers a service by highlighting FEMA's little-known but crucial role in continuing to promote environmentally and economically unwise development in Oregon's floodplains.

Dan Rohlf

Bob Sallinger

WWeek 2015