All it takes is a casual drive through the upper reaches of Hellbranch Run to see what the future might hold for the rest of the Darby watershed in western Franklin County. Portions of this stream system now flow through suburban housing, transforming what one biologist once called the best stream of its size in Ohio into a silty, eroded, algae-filled, and sometimes treeless urban ditch.

It doesn’t take much imagination to envision a similar fate for other parts of Hellbranch and Darby if unplanned urban sprawl continues to spread.

DCA would like to see the process of sprawl transformed into a process of planned, environmentally compatible growth. One challenge in meeting this goal is the sheer number of jurisdictions that control development decisions in the Darby watershed. In an effort to spur consistency in these various jurisdictions, DCA has drafted what it calls "The Darby Creek Protection Accord," which is a statement of principles that asks each local government to "commit itself to planning and development activity that will preserve, protect, and restore the Big Darby Creek ecosystem." We will be asking every local jurisdiction in western Franklin County to sign the accord.

Just this month, Franklin County itself became the first local government to officially adopt the accord, a move that is of great symbolic as well as practical significance since the county recently decided to develop its own planning department.

Currently at least five other area governments are involved in planning efforts that will have important implications for Darby. Norwich and Pleasant townships have completed draft planning documents; Brown Township is in the midst of a revision of its Comprehensive Plan; and Hilliard is conducting a series of master plan workshops, with a draft summary to be presented June 26 at the Hilliard Municipal Building at 6:00 p.m. Members living in these jurisdictions are encouraged to contact local officials to express the need to include Darby protection in their plans.

The fifth government currently assessing future growth in the watershed is the city of Columbus. So far, the Columbus City Council has not yet signed the Darby Accord, which was presented to them last fall by DCA trustee Paul Dumouchelle.

Columbus is currently pursuing an aggressive annexation and development policy in the watershed, despite the fact that it has not fully embraced watershed planning. In recent months the city has taken a number of properties in the Darby watershed over opposition from DCA, other environmental groups, and county and township officials. All are targeted for high-density residential development.

In testimony before City Council DCA warned Columbus officials that without comprehensive environmental planning their annexation policy threatens the already heavily-impacted Hellbranch watershed, as well as downstream parts of Big Darby Creek. Last year a Columbus project called Grasshopper Creek on Johnson Rd. destroyed the riparian corridor of a Hellbranch tributary and resulted in tons of sediment being washed into the Darby system.

Columbus officials have complained that they do not get enough credit for promoting Darby protection. For example, Columbus has supported the Hellbranch Greenway planning process (though ironically this study identified stormwater runoff from developments as a major cause of pollution, flooding, and channel erosion in Hellbranch Run, and cited ten other studies that recommended against extensive development in the watershed).

In addition, Columbus is currently drafting a zoning overlay that would create a buffer along city streams, including Hellbranch and its tributaries. Beyond this, the city claims it is drafting tougher building standards specific to the Darby watershed, which, we are told, will include retention requirements for stormwater.

Finally, Columbus recently proposed that the western part of the Hellbranch watershed be placed in a protected zone where development would be allowed only after study and planning showed that Darby would not be harmed by it. If implemented this plan would significantly increase Columbus’s current Environmental Conservation District west of Hilliard. Unfortunately, Columbus has chosen to leave part of the Darby watershed unprotected—specifically, areas east of Hellbranch Run where it intends to expand its borders.

Despite these measures, the fact remains that no other political entity in the watershed is currently building as many houses, roads, and storm sewers as Columbus, and thus no other entity has such potential to destroy the Darby ecosystem.

Ultimately, DCA believes that a cooperative, comprehensive watershed planning effort across jurisdictions will be needed to assure that development occurs in an appropriate way and at an appropriate level. Though such an effort may be on the horizon (See story p. 2), for the moment agreement to protect Darby within each jurisdiction is a good place to start.

John Tetzloff