🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <38F0B229.782BBC37@clark.net>,
  klaatu@clark.net wrote:
>
> First off, will you _please_ fix your news client? the formatting is
> annoying and I really haven't the time to fix it.

What formatting do you prefer?
>
> 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.

Give me a break. Show me some reliable, objective, scientific evidence.
You seemed to have access to so much of it before.
>
> 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.

Throwing labels around proves nothing. To you, anyone who opposes the
ICC is NIMBY (though that doesn't explain me, since I the area is
nowhere near my backyard).

>
> >
> > > 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.

Not much difference.
>
> 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.

Well, we agree on that. Though older suburbs are sometimes in a better
position to preserve their better zoning, since the development is
already there.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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,

Yes! Exactly! Geological conditions underneath notwithstanding.

> especially little
scrubby
> ones interspersed with old giants. Most of the ICC route is not aimed
right
> through virgin forest, you know.

Yes, I know. But there are still trees there. Just because we don't have
virgin forest, our watershed is shot already so why not cut down the
millions of "baby" trees? Is that your argument? It doesn't hold water,
pun intended.

>
> >
> > >
> > > <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.

I've never heard anyone say that to me. And I find your bluster and
attitude annoying too.
>
> > >
> > > <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?

There are things you can do. But what I'm talking about is trying not
to make it worse.


>
> >
> > >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.

Maybe, but if you had your way, we'd have built the ICC 20 years ago and
lost all the time.
>
> >
> > 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/
>


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