🚀 go-pugleaf

First off, will you _please_ fix your news client? the formatting is
annoying and I really haven't the time to fix it.

ableamison@my-deja.com wrote:
> 
> 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!>
> >

<snip>

> >
> > 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.

I've established it just fine, I went up and parked my car and checked it
out. Why don't you do the same.

If you're talking about the Paint Branch or Sligo, those are slightly
different stories.

> 
> >
> > 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.

That's really funny, I can't figure it out. Everyone except for the NIMBY
people wanted it built 20 years ago. Everyone except for the NIMBY people
still want it built.

> 
> > 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.

Megamalls are possible only when you've got a zone set aside for them.
Otherwise, admittedly, you tend to get strip malls.

I don't think that zoning is good in the older suburbs. Out at the edge of
Smart Growth, though, that's where it's needed.

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

The most absorbent thing you can have is trees, especially little scrubby
ones interspersed with old giants. Most of the ICC route is not aimed right
through virgin forest, you know.

> 
> >
> > <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.

*Grumble* Bah, try to be less annoying and people won't start muttering
"pave the Bay" evrey time they see you.

> >
> > <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.

Not much you can do about that, it there? Other than remove the city?

> 
> >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?

It takes time, and money, and mostly the will to do it. The will is
increasing.

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

-- 
                    "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/