🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <38EB3391.632BE85D@clark.net>,
  klaatu@clark.net wrote:
> 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.

You brought it up first.

> 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.

I"m not sure where we disagree here. Smart growthers want you to be able
to walk down to the corner for your cigarettes instead of driving.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 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.

Okay, so now we're into a cost-benefit analysis. Leaving it alone still
wins.

>
> 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.

Wow, now there's an ironic sentence. Construction to help silt control.
That only works if we accept your claim that the watershed is already
almost like concrete, which you haven't established yet.

>
> 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.

The political reality is that the ICC has been on the table for 30 years
and still ain't approved.

> 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.

You're the one who hates zoning. You figure out how to get an ICC
without a megamall. If you think it won't happen, you're the one
ignoring political and sociological reality.

>
> >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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.

I'll take that on its face without the possible insult behind it,
because on its face its absolutely true.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.

I see now what you were trying to say, but soil absorption is not the
only factor in water flow. Water flows at different rates over surfaces
as well as through substances. As you yourself have now acknowledged, we
need some flow rate measurements here.

>
> <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.

Correction: they toss more in than the environment would support NOW.
>
> > 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.

Things may be getting better, and that's great. But if they had kept
records 100 years ago, things would still look pretty awful.

> 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.

Glad we're on the same side.
>
> <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.

Oh, I know wetlands can't handle everything, and they shouldn't.

> 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.

There are many areas that haven't been paved, only filled in, where
wetlands can (and are) being restored. The Army Corps of Engineers is
fixing alot of the damage it did along the Anacostia (and nationwide).
>
> >
> > > 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;

But now we're back to the development issue. Why is the lower Anacostia
polluted? Non-point source from city runoff is a huge part of it.

>eliminate
> the pollutants coming in there, and the flushing will be with clean
water
> from the upper reaches, as soon as it rains. Whee.

If it's that easy, why haven't we done it already?




Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.