🚀 go-pugleaf

ableamison@my-deja.com wrote:
> 
> In article <38E9DAE9.C8256E69@clark.net>,
> klaatu@clark.net wrote:
> > ableamison@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >

<CHOMP!>

> > The stormwater impoundment requirement is certainly not going away!
> 
> Great. But what about zoning?

Totally a different issue. I have neither the time nor the interest to get
into that right now. I personally think that outside of rural-legacy
preservation and Limits-to-Growth/Smart-Growth, Zoning Sucks. It's why I
have to walk a mile to get a pack of cigarettes instead of walking down to
the corner. Now admittedly I favor zoning such things as major industries,
but stuff like prohibiting small-business in residentially-zoned areas is
sort of stupid, especially in the age of telelcommuting.

> >
> > >
> > > Probably the net effect would be _less_ flooding
> > > > and less sediment input in the upper NW branch of the Anacostia
> > >
> > > Now there's a silly claim. Of course, even if you did get a net gain,
> > > you'd spend alot of money getting it, but that's another discussion.
> >
> > The expense is already required by law and is factored into any given
> > project.
> 
> But compared to all alternatives? The cost of leaving the are alone is
> zero.

No it's _not_. The cost to the environment even isn't zero, all of the
traffic stuck idling is sitting there blowing icky stuff onto the ground and
the road surface at much higher concentrations than if it were rolling along
at speed, where it tends to get mixed by turbulence into the air. Also, lack
of straight routes means people have to detour, which costs more in terms of
vehiclular maintanance, fuel consumption, frazzle on the drivers' nerves.,
etc etc etc etc.

BTW -- the area in question frequently floods and there has often been talk
that went nowhere, of adding runoff impoundment ponds etc -- which hasn't
gone anywhere mostly because there's no enabling law, though there's a
_requirement_ to control the watershed legally if you build roads. Want silt
control for the upper NW reaches of the Anacostia? Then you have to
_support_ new construction, not fight it.

You have to face the (admittedly odd) realities of the political situation
as well as the geological and sociological realities of the situation as
well. And believe me, the last thing I ever want to see is a freakin'
megamall at Norwood Rd and Route 28. They have enough of that crap in Olney,
which I remember as a one-horse town where the horse ran away in boredom. I
look at it now and it's Fear and Loathing.

> 
> >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Big words don't mean much if they don't answer the question,
> professor.
> >
> > They answer the question, but apparently you cannot understand the
> answer,
> > or you are -- I suspect -- willfully pretending ignorance so as to
> serve
> > whatever agenda is yours.
> 
> No, you failed to make your argument clear in an attempt to scare me
> off, I believe.

No, I'm sorry, I have this obviously misplaced expectation that everyone can
follow my writing. I'll be sure to keep it simpler and more linear in the
future.

> 
> >
> > > >
> > > > Consider the question answered. And don't call me professor, I
> don't even
> > > > have a college degree. I do however read and have been known to
> consult a
> > > > dictionary, and more importantly learn from those around me, whose
> knowledge
> > > > I respect, even if I do not agree, after application of critical
> reasoning
> > > > and my own researches, with their opinions.
> > >
> > > Sorry to hit a nerve, but I felt that you were trying to impress us
> with
> > > big words that weren't really revelant.
> >
> > They're absolutely relevant because they are the best words for the
> > situation, their description is _exact_.
> 
> Exact, but incomplete. I don't remember you claiming until now that your
> description of the geological conditions of the area translate into 99.2
> percent the impermeability of concrete. If you did, my apologies. I
> think I would have remembered that one.

I didn't put it down as percent, but I think "cannot be further saturated,
meaning it's non absorbent" translates roughly to 99.whatever percent
impermeable. Think about it, a compressed sponge only absorbs water when
it's dry, once it's saturated the water might as well be bouncing off of a
brick. 

<chomp>

> > No, it doesn't mean that, it means that for recreational-purposes
> > enhancement, the State has tossed in one heck of a lot more fingerlings than
> > the environment would naturally support.
> 
> Wrong. There are plenty of streams that once supported healthy
> populations of fish that no longer do without stocking. 

That in no way contradicts the statement that the State tosses in more
fingerlings than the natural environment would support.

> The shad run in
> the Potomac once rivaled Pacific Salmon. Fishing was a huge industry in
> the Potomac once. Don't even try to come in here and claim that our
> streams are as healthy as they ever were.

I'm not even trying to do that. But you will note that this last year saw
record catches of bass in the lower Potomac, as well as many other fish.
Also, while it's obviously not back to pre-Columbian levels, the years of
drought appear to have reduced sedimentation and increased salinity in the
Chesapeake to the point where many of its populations are beginning to
rebound, another five years of complete moratorium on C-Bay shellfishing
(including crab) and the populations may be safely high so as to permit
limited oystering again. 

The Anacostia needs fixing in a big way, I don't disagree there. It was at
one time one of the most productive rivers in Maryland.


<snips>

> > If anything, you probably ought to be
> > happy that the surfaces are impermeable, else the nastiness would get into
> > the groundwater/water-table... which can't be cleaned in a millenium,
> 
> Actually, wetlands do a great job of filtering out and then either
> burying or breaking down many of those nasties. Of course, the best
> solution is to plug the leaks, but who's got time for that?

The problem is that wetlands work great when the terrain is right... and
when the nasties aren't entirely non-biodegradable. Wetlands do absolute
wonders on organics. But if you get a wetland contaminated with PCBs, you
don't have a safe bio-filter, you've got Love Canal feeding toxic sludge
downstream. Also, the terrain has to be flat and swampy, and above all,
voluminous. PG is not voluminous, unless you're talking about tearing out
half of Hyattsville/Riverdale (etc) and ripping up all concrete and
converting it to swamp again.

> 
> > whereas the Anacostia flushes entirely in about three months IIRC.
> 
> But most of the time it gets "flushed" by more polluted water!

Not through most of the upper reaches. They're largely very clean indeed,
being mostly rain runoff. The Lower Anacostia is what's polluted; eliminate
the pollutants coming in there, and the flushing will be with clean water
from the upper reaches, as soon as it rains. Whee.


<snips rest, I really don't have time since (I don't want to be late for
work)>

-- 
                    "We look through a glass but darkly:
                 What we see is more colored by our beliefs, 
               than what we believe is colored by what we see."
Whom thou'st vex'd waxeth wroth:   Meow.    http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/