🚀 go-pugleaf

ableamison@my-deja.com wrote:
> 
> In article <38E9DD0D.361F4681@clark.net>,
> klaatu@clark.net wrote:
> > ableamison@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <925G4.1982$Oc2.121907@monger.newsread.com>,
> > > russotto@wanda.vf.pond.com (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
> > > > In article <8cae1b$6it$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, <ableamison@my-deja.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > }
> > > > }Such as the answer to my question -- are the upper branches of
> the
> > > > }Anacostia River in the Anacostia watershed or not? Geez, when I
> put
> > > it
> > > > }that way, it answers itself. No talk of soil conditions required
> > > here.
> > > > }Yes or no?
> > > >
> > > > A branch of a river is by definition within its watershed.
> > >
> > > Thank you!
> > >
> > > So any development within the watershed would change the capacity of
> the
> > > soil underneath it to absorb or slow rainwater.
> >
> > No. It's already impermeable to within about 99.2 percent of concrete.
> The
> > remaining .06 percent could be vastly improved-upon with stormwater
> > catchments.
> >
> > > Any discussion of
> > > the current state of soil there is irrelevant unless it takes that
> > > into account. That's all I wanted to say.
> >
> > If the soil is already as impermeable as concrete,replacing it with
> concrete
> > will have no net effect on runoff volumes or speeds of downhill flow
> and
> > flood channel impact.
> >
> > Soil conditions are _extremely_ germane to any argument.
> >
> > If the soil in question was a wetland atop an aquifer recharge zone, I
> would
> > be behind you all of the way and your arguments might have merit.
> >
> > >
> > > > Any more silly questions?
> > >
> > > If you were paying attention, you'd have noticed that the silly
> question
> > > was in response to a previous silly answer.
> >
> > Two sillies don't make an intelligent. You're wasting our time and
> yours
> > with misapplied sophistries.
> >
> > If you have a point, make it, if it's debatable we'll debate it on its
> > merits. If it hasn't any merits, because it's _silly_ expect to get
> called
> > on it. If having a silly argument called "silly" bothers you, think
> your
> > proposal through and nobody will call it "silly". they may continue to
> > object, but at least it won't be for reasons that make people laugh.
> 
> Please see my response to Mr. Russotto's answer to my message.
> 
> I simply do not believe that the area in question is 99.2 percent the
> impermeability of concrete all the way to the surface, or at least that
> this translates to 99.2 percent of the flow rate of concrete. Show me a
> system-wide flow rate that accounts for all flow from the surface down
> please.

I don't suppose you're sufficiently familiar with the formats so as to
knowledgeably request in which format I should provide this to you?

Again, my advice is that you actually travel to the area in question and
_look_. Take a pointed stick and mark off gradations up to one foot and
record the diameter of the stick. Take a gradated measuring-cup of water.
Poke a hole in the ground on a nice dry day and pour the glass of water into
the hole. Measure how much water you put in there, and how long it stands.
Look at the side of the stick and see what sort of soils stick to it to what
depths. 

Repeat in about a dozen locations in the area in question.

If you're talking about the field to the west of Md Route 28 (Layhill Road)
between Norbeck and Norwood Roads, if you can get the stick more than six
inches into the ground before hitting rock (on average) I will be just about
shocked. If it's got more than an inch of topsoil atop five inches of clay
and mixed basalt/quartz fragments (on average) I will be shocked.

I have a very nice map of Maryland Geology for which we paid about $3,000.00
as part of a Radon Risk assessment, and I really don't feel like sharing the
engineers' livelihood nor my investment for free, but you can probably get
the same information off of one of th State department of the interior sites
for free. Or you can post a re-request sometime near the weekend and _maybe_
I will have time (I just took a new job and am no longer the mopey king of
excess leisure time) to do your research for you.

To be brief, Georgia Avenue at almost all points north of the District right
out to Brookville MD is on the often-exposed ridgeline of a huge basalt
shield that sits right near the surface. It has multiple subridges, also
often exposed, also all very near the surface. Again, my advice is that you
go to the library. If you actually make me go to the trouble of digging all
of this up somly so that it cannot be said of me "he doesn't know what he's
talking about", you won't enjoy my presentation and if I should (once again
as usual) be shown to be right, frankly you will not enjoy my presentation
and will probably be licking your wounds for months and if you ever had any
credibility in any local political issue dealing with development or roads,
it will be shattered. Alternatively, if I am anywhere _near_ to being
"wrong" on this I will eat my crow with pretense of relish. But I don't
expect that latter to happen, because you're pretty much talking about my
backyard and I know it a lot better than you do.
 
-- 
                    "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/