🚀 go-pugleaf

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?

>
> 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."
>
> 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.

> 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.
>
> Well, let's explore a few more of those streets labelled "no outlet"
which
> lead into the interior of the rough-square bounded by Route 28,
Layhill Road
> between Route 28 (Norbeck Road), Norwood/Dr Bird Road, Batchellor's
Forest
> Drive, and Route 97 and back to Route 28. Just because they're
labelled "no
> outlet" doesn't mean that there's nothing back there.
>
> Why I once again do declare! Down every "no outlet" street I can find
that's
> not labelled "private drive" there are acres and acres and acres of
mostly
> deforested land, and on about every two to five acres, one finds a
house
> which would not be out of place in Potomac Maryland, or in the
parkside area
> of Woodley Park DC between Calvert and Massachusetts Avenues NW just
east of
> Rock Creek. Woo hoo! Them's some big houses, Jack! Nice Mercedes in
the
> drive there. Hell, was that a teenager driving a Rolls? Damn sure was!
I
> think I'm onto something, boys.
>
> Let's just mosey on down to Batchellor's Forest Road, hang a left off
of Dr
> Bird Road, and keep on driving. Hmmm, nice houses. Lots of private
drives.
> Well paved ones. My my. And let's just drive down to right smack in
the
> middle of Batchellor's Forest Road, why my goodness that's a damned
big
> house. And there's another, and another and another. Hell, there's
_lots_ of
> them.
>
> Take a look at this little topo map here...
>
>
http://mapserver2.esri.com/cgi-bin/sure.adol?r=y&f=c&c=-77.051582,39.113
865&p=1&m=0&cd=p&g=-77.03666700,38.89500000&a=Norbeck+Road+East+of+Georg
ia%2c+Centerscreen&MAP.x=301&MAP.y=4
>
> Hey! This shows a lot of houses on the south side of Norbeck, but
where are
> the dozens and dozens of palatial estates I found wandering around on
those
> streets marked "no outlet"? Funny, you'd never know those houses were
there
> driving along on Norbeck, but damned if there aren't one whole hell of
a lot
> of very rich people living Real Close to the proposed InterCounty
Connector!
> Who'd a thunk it? I guess this must be an old map, because it doesn't
show a
> single one of those houses -- and yes indeedy, those houses sure did
look
> just about brand new. So did the streets, for that matter.
>
> With the exception of the big ol' horse farm and the adjacent private
> golf-course, that whole big chunk of land in that square -- the
watershed
> for Batchellor's Run, the main watershed for the Northwest Branch of
the
> Anacostia River in the general area of Olney/Norbeck -- appears to be
just
> about completely developed with a lot of very wealthy people living in
a lot
> of very nice houses that nobody seems to know are there. Why, I don't
> suppose that someone could make a huge amount of money off of the land
where
> the InterCounty Connector would run? You don't suppose that all of
those
> rich rich rich folks living in their splendid isolation would want a
> six-lane highway carrying disgusting plebians and god-forbid truckers
right
> through their community? I don't reckon they would. I damn sure don't
reckon
> that they would _ever_ sell off any of their land for strip malls, for
> "affordable housing" <shudder>! Why, it is as clear as the day that
they've
> got exactly enough roads for them and for them only, and the rest of
the
> State of Maryland can just go hang, the perishing low-rent bastards,
damn
> them if we'll let the rest of the State benefit from a road through
_our_
> back yards!
>
> Yeah. I went out and looked. I strongly suggest that everyone remotely
local
> go take a look too.
>
> 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.

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

>
> <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.

>
> 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.

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?

> and clearly with enough money
to keep
> Governor Parris Glendenning in their hip-pocket.

What happened to all the soil talk?

>
> 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 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.
>
> 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.

> 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.