🚀 go-pugleaf

ableamison@my-deja.com wrote:
> 
> In article <38F102BC.7C121206@clark.net>,
>   klaatu@clark.net wrote:
> > ableamison@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <38EB37A8.FFB1982@clark.net>,
> > >   klaatu@clark.net wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > You're the one making the assertion -- you do the research.
> >
> > Actually, I am _not_ the one making the assertion.
> 
> I am speaking of the assertion that the watershed has 99.2% the
> impermeability of concrete -- which you made.
> 
> > It is you who says
> that
> > building the ICC will massively impact the far Northwest Branch
> watersheds,
> > in particular with regard to floods and silting. Yours was the first
> > assertion, and you have yet to provide a shred of credible proof that
> this
> > is so. _You_ do that damned research proving your assertion.
> 
> Well, now you ask. You started out by disputing it, so don't blame me
> for going this route. I'll get back to you.
> 
> > And while
> > you're at it, why don't you tell us exactly when, if ever, you've ever
> set
> > foot anywhere _near_ the terrains in question.
> 
> I've been there. Not like setting foot on it is proof of anything.
> >
> > So you can at least pretend you have, here's a nice topo of the area.
> >
> >
> http://mapserver2.esri.com/cgi-bin/sure.adol?c=-77.042784,39.105764&p=2&
> m=0&cd=o&g=-77.03666700,38.89500000&a=Northwest+Branch+Anacostia+Norwood
> %2c+Maryland&r=y
> >
> > That's just so you can see where I'm getting my maps so that you won't
> start
> > off on a tangent about "who faked that for you" or some such nonsense.
> 
> Don't put words in my mouth. It's quite rude.
> >
> > While you are at it, why not saturate my bandwidth and see
> > http://earthops.org/NW-Branch/far-nwb.gif
> >
> > Start at the bottom of the picture, in very heavily urbanized Wheaton
> > Maryland. Now travel northwards past Wheaton Regional Park, past
> Randolph
> > Road and the gaging station. See Bel Pre Creek leading off to the
> northwest?
> > Bel Pre Creek runs up past Bel Pre Road, through 30-year-old suburbia,
> right
> > into the back of Leisure World, a very rapidly-expanding gated
> retirement
> > community. There has been very substantial construction going on there
> > nonstop for about 15 years. At present the construction is pretty
> heavy.
> > Lots and lots of big buildings going up, you know. Don't believe me?
> Why not
> > go take a look? Lots of concrete _already_ there.
> 
> So? That's supposed to make it okay to pave the rest of the watershed?
> >
> > >
> > > But at least you acknowledge that flow rates are the measure needed,
> > > which implies that you did not support your argument earlier, which
> > > makes your blaming me for not understanding it invalid.
> >
> > You know what? This is all so very much total bull-puckey and is in
> fact an
> > immense smoke screen to the real issue.
> 
> You made a specific, numerical claim (99.2% was the number). I asked for
> backup. You posted quite blustery language about how you'd blow me away
> if I asked for it, but I did.
> 
> Where is it?

On one site specifically dedicated to the Anacostia, which has inexplicably
disappeared from the Net for now. See the link under 
http://www.gmu.edu/bios/

So screw the specific claim. It's a red-herring anyway.

> 
> >
> > Well... since I typed in the text at the top of the message, I decided
> to go
> > do some fieldwork.
> >
> > I put on my army green t-shirt and my battered camo patrol cap, got
> into my
> > little red Nissan station-wagon, and toured the area in question. I
> think I
> > managed to go actually take a look at most of the watershed in
> question.
> >
> > Now, you seem to be of the opinion that there will be some vast
> expanse of
> > concrete laid into place in the pristine and virgin forests of east
> Olney.
> > Let me tell you -- it's not going to happen.
> 
> Now you've completely switched from "it won't matter" to "it won't
> happen anyway."

The chances of The Rich subdividing their "rurban" ("rural suburban")
estates so as to slap up high-density low-rent housing is just about nil and
you know it.

By the time they do that, the Singularity will long since have come and gone
and natural watersheds will either be the rule globally (nothing remotely
human left) or it won't much matter in any case (nothing remotely human
left).

> >
> > Let's start with the area which would be directly impacted by the
> > construction of the InterCounty Connector, roughly from the
> intersection of
> > Layhill Road and Norwood Road, to appoximately one-half mile north on
> Route
> > 97 (Georgia Avenue extended) of the intersection of Route 97 and
> Norbeck
> > Road.
> >
> > Now, let's start at Norwood and Layhill. Hell, let's drive a little
> east of
> > there, to the new, and huge, James Hubert High School. What, it's not
> on
> > your map? Maybe that's because it's so damned new the paint's hardly
> dry and
> > they're adding on even more. And it's got this _immense_ chunk of
> parklands
> > attached, which run right down to the NW Branch and right across from
> that
> > is the _equally immense_ chunk of parklands which is the County Public
> Golf
> > Course. Okay, so let's go back up the Norwood and Layhill. "X" marks
> the
> > spot on your map.
> >
> > Nice little hilltop, one heck of a view... mostly of lots of houses.
> Okay,
> > not all that many... only 50 or so but they're there. They're very
> nice, if
> > they cost much less than a million each I'm surprised. This is just
> back of
> > the South corner of the intersection. And cruise around and you can
> see
> > they're prepositioned to build about another fifty. So, let's look at
> the
> > North corner, my goodness, it seems that's the MNCPPC Park Police
> Aviation
> > center, Woodlawn. I just can't imaging them building a lot of low-rent
> > apartments with lots of parking spaces and no flood abatement right
> there!
> 
> Your imagination isn't very good evidence.

For one, it's a registered historical landmark, I'm pretty sure, also it's
bi-county agency property. 

May I also recommend that you get your Heavy Sarcasm detector recalibrated.

> 
> > Well, let's look at the East Corner of the intersection. Well, if you
> drive
> > down Ednor Road a little bit, there's a little road that turns right,
> says
> > "no outlet" but if you drive back in there, whaddaya know. Even more
> very
> > expensive houses, only in nice wooded 2-acre lots. Well, let's look at
> the
> > West corner.
> >
> > Well, the West corner of that intersection has one ramshackle old
> country
> > store that's been there since about the Civil War, and behind it is a
> lot of
> > wide open spaces which happens to have one huge honking pile of dirt
> smack
> > in the middle of it. Topsoil or maybe a soil-manure mix. And right
> beyond it
> > on the other side of the NW Branch watershed there, atop that big
> deforested
> > ridge? My goodness gracious, it appears to be a lot more nice big
> > million-dollar homes. My my. But you can't get there from here.
> >
> > Well, let's just mosey on down towards Olney. First, on the right, we
> pass
> > Woodlawn, and then -- why, there's the huge and sprawling campus of
> the
> > Sandy Spring Friends School! I betcha they don't put up a lot of
> low-rent
> > apartments with adjacent strip malls right there! No sirree! and right
> back
> > across Norwood Road from the SSFS, there's a nice little road leading
> back
> > into the lovely green hills hidden behind the little strip of woods,
> and
> > there one finds... you guessed it! A lot more luxury homes on acres
> and
> > acres of land! why these folks even have horses! And some of those
> houses
> > appear to be brand smackin' new! And heck, it would appear that some
> of them
> > are probably closer to a million-and-a-half in value! And they're
> building
> > even more of them, looks like! Why I do declare. Mmh, mmh, mmh.
> 
> What is the point of all this? What does the price of these homes have
> to do with anything? I don't see anything about the permeability of the
> soil or the percentage of impermeable surfaces in the watershed yet.

The point is that there _will be no paving over of the watershed_. Whatever
will ever happen along that line _is already done_.

<snips>

> >
> > This business about "immense concrete expanses ruining the precious
> > Northwest Branch of the Anacostia is a bunch of misleading hooey, and
> it is
> > about one thing and one thing only, seen in the context of a State and
> > County where there are some of the finest roads and finest civil
> engineers
> > and some of the most restrictive environmental laws and codes in the
> > country.
> 
> I understand your point now. You have dropped your hydrological issue
> and moved to a rather wordy new argument -- that the watershed is
> already developed.

That _is__ the hydrological issue! There's not going to be "massive
concretization" out there. It's just not going to happen. If there's an
issue here, it's about deforestation so that rich fscks can have three acres
of lawn... which retains runoff nowhere near as well as does forest or even
scrub. 

> 
> Your characterization of the area may be accurate, but incomplete. I'll
> get back to you after I look at the maps for myself.

The Map Is Not The Territory. You will have to go see for yourself, on no
map could I find the vast majority of this recent development. Which is
ongoing I might add.

> >
> > This is _entirely_ about rich-ass bastards who are absolutely will
> (and
> > financially able) to throttle the rest of the State of Maryland and in
> fact
> > by derivation the Greater Washington Metropolitan Area... simply
> because
> > they don't want their precious tranquillity shattered by a road that
> the
> > area has desperately needed for 30 years.
> >
> > Any argument not directly addressing _that_ is primarily bullshit and
> a red
> > herring.
> 
> I'll check the maps and get back to you.

The Map Is Not The Territory. You will have to go look for yourself as
almost none of this recent development appears on any maps I could find. If
you're really serious about this, commission a photosurvey overflight or get
some this-week satellite shots.

> 
> >
> > <snips>
> > >
> > > Just tell me where you got the 99.2% number. A quick citation will
> be
> > > fine.
> >
> > Smokescreen, bullshit, red-herring.
> 
> Now we finally get to the bottom of you.
> 
> YOU brought up the 99.2% number.
> 
> >
> > NIMBY Rich-boy shill.
> 
> I don't live anywhere near the area, so you can't call me NIMBY. I am
> not rich either. But it's clear that you're getting frustrated.

Yes, because you're trying to beat a dead horse
 which is in fact completely a straw-man to the issue.

> 
> >
> > Remainder snipped, since it's misdirection, and a troll off of the
> real
> > issue here... wealthy elitists perfectly willing to choke the rest of
> the
> > State's east-west heavy traffic needs,
> 
> Don't you just hate rich people! Why, poor people just love to have big
> highways go through their neighborhoods! They don't complain, they just
> roll over like good little poor people.

Hah, tell that to Doug Willinger and the other I-95 into DC folks.

> 
> Did it ever occur to you that a highway might be a bad idea no matter
> what the wealth of the neighborhood it slices up?

It occurred to me and I as quickly dismissed it; it was well known that
there was a desperate need for this exact highway some 30 years ago.

> 
> > and clearly with enough money
> to keep
> > Governor Parris Glendenning in their hip-pocket.
> 
> What happened to all the soil talk?

It's no longer germane to the discussion. But I still stand by my statements
that as regards the NW Branch of the Anacostia (not Paint Branch no any
other) outside of the connector itself, you may lay your fears of massive
concretization to rest. It's not going to happen to any degree so as to
significantly impact the NW Branch.

> 
> >
> > It's awfully odd, isn't it. The sites that every other
> ecology/watershed
> > site points to, which has the soil permeability figures, is suddenly
> > offline. The other sites still point to it... I guess when you have
> enough
> > money, you can do anything.
> 
> Even cut off the free flow of information in the internet age? That's
> straight out of the X-Files. Don't get paranoid.

I'm not being paranoid, I'm looking at 350 years of Corrupt Politics As A
Given in Maryland. Ask Spiro T. Agnew if you don't believe me.

> 
> >I bet one could even, if they had enough
> money,
> > get the Governor to permanently shitcan the idea of a freeway through
> the
> > backyard of rich people, and then sell the reserved/purchased lands
> back to
> > the developers at just the right cost for them to make an unholy
> bundle of
> > cash, with a healthy chunk of that going to the future Governor of
> Maryland,
> > the Kathleen Kennedy (Townsend).
> 
> Throwing out unsupported accusations only makes you look even more
> paranoid.

No, it makes me someone who's eminently familiar with Maryland politics and
Democratic PArty politics.

Being wary when you're in bear-country isn't paranoia, silly -- it's how you
don't get et y a grizzly.

> >
> > I don't care if the soil around the NW Branch Anacostia headwaters is
> so
> > goddamned absorbent that it sucks enough to make the damned river run
> uphill
> > and backwards.
> 
> You used to.

That was before I went out and tramped around. There is a lot of berming and
other flow-control engineering, you'd be totally astounded at the stuff just
to the northwest of the intersection of Layhill Road and Bel Pre Road. It's
like the Army Corp of Engineers On Speed went through there. I don't think
you have much to worry about.

> 
> > This is all this blockade of the ICC is about, all it's
> ever
> > been about, but never so much more so than now... it's the rich
> looking out
> > for the rich, and to hell with everyone else.
> >
> > Go look for yourself, it's apparent as the nose on your face.
> 
> 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/