Creek concern

I am writing in reference to the article written by Tony Brown concerning the work done on the south end of Peach Creek. In this article, Mr. Brown, a reporter for the Maryville Daily Forum, makes what I considered snide remarks concerning the destruction of native habitat along the creek. Perhaps Mr. Brown does not understand the concept of a riparian habitat or perhaps he doesn’t know the word. For his benefit, riparian refers to stream/river borders. These habitats are important, even though Mr. Brown doesn’t think so. Riparian habitats provide homes, food, and protection to a large number of creatures which live in these areas. Even though numerous changes have been made to upstream Peach Creek, does that mean that it would be alright along its entire length? The creek bank in question was wild and natural. What a shame to destroy what was left of a natural creek. Even though Mr. Brown doesn’t think it is problem, evidently others do as evidence by the multiple agencies involved in investigating the habitat destruction.

I assume that the city had to proper permits or permission to do work on Peach Creek in 2012. But should that carry forward for four years without rechecking on the possibility of regulation changes? It is a shame that taxpayers MAY have to pay a fine for the city’s mistakes. I, for one, hope the city’s mitigation does result in at least partial replacement of the habitat along that portion of the creek and not at an alternative site.

To make another assumption, when buying or building in a flood plain area or along a creek, shouldn’t one expect occasional flooding? I am sorry for those residents who had a problem with the water during such occurrences, but they should have taken water fluctuations into account when they purchased and built along a creek or flood plain.

–David Smith

Retired Biology Teacher, Maryville