I love Hans Noeldner’s take on our deathmobiling culture. His latest post brings the perspective of a hydraulic engineer to bear on the issue.
Put on your metaphorical thinking cap before clicking over there!
Archive for the ‘Environment’ Category
Entropy & Engineering
Tuesday, August 24th, 2010Unobtanium Discovered in Afghanistan!
Monday, June 14th, 2010And Lithium, too! Enough to keep everyone in Prius batteries for decades to come.
And now we have a real excuse to keep the war going forever…..as usual in the name of deathmobiling forevermore.
‘Sleeper’ items on Tuesday Council Agenda: Before the Pave, the Pipe
Tuesday, June 1st, 2010Below is an excellent little analysis of a couple of items destined to be rubber stamped by our paving council this evening. This comes from a small local listserv*:
On just about every City Council Agenda you’ll find ‘sleeper’ items — seemingly innocuous — but which have huge implications in future.Twenty-or forty-years from now, if someone asks, How did this happen? How did it get this way? What were they thinking?, these are the kinds of items that caused ‘it’ to ‘get this way’.These items will almost certainly get little or no discussion Tuesday — yet they deserve thought and discussion as surely as The Edgewater did.66. Felland Road Sanitary Sewer Phase 2 — This is what opens up an area to development — the sanitary sewer. So, here we are, along Felland Road, out in the Town of Burke [far east fringes of Madison], spreading further and further out. I’d love to see a list of names on the Front Page of the State Journal, above the fold, of individuals who will benefit from thi$.
80. MATC Parking – Look at the disaster MATC surface parking is already. When Plan Commission questioned MATC about their paving plans, a while back, we suddenly — coincidence? — saw a flurry of “news” stories about how MATC kids can’t find a place to put their cars. Has this item been thoroughly aired? — and discussed? Will someone pull this item off the Consent Agenda — and challenge MATC on what they’re doing out there?
On the Felland Rd water & sewer: I’d add something that this particular quoted author has said before: “No water, no development.” I’d also add that the city is making a huge mistake in not making bottom-line sustainability demands before approving the water system. For starters, that would include, the most rigorous sustainability, inclusivity and accessibility standards possible (net zero energy homes, walking-oriented, completely interconnected with the rest of the city on a neighborhood street grid, 95% car-free, frequent public transportation, housing affordability levels fully mixed in, and that match the city’s current demographics, etc.).
On the MATC issue: in this age of straitened budgets, high unemployment, and environmental destruction (thanks to our car-oriented lifestyle), the parking lot whiners at MATC deserve no taxpayer funded bailout for their wasteful campus design. And the people who live downstream from the proposed paved acreage should not have to pay by having to suffer from the increased flooding that will result. More paving = more flooding.
In both cases, we are hardwiring our city for waste, unsustainability and economic & ecologic rigormortis forevermore.
It is very, very unfortunate that we have a council that is so uniformly unable to analyze, anticipate and reflect on the long term implications of their votes. The mayor is, of course, a lost cause. Corporate. Bought & paid for. A mindless cash-seeking robot. But one would think that at least the nominal progressives would question the stupidity.
Instead, we’ll have to duck as they wield their well-worn rubber stamps.
*The author usually likes to fly beneath the radar, thus, the post shall be left unattributed, unless author requests otherwise.
Madison Water Utility to Deliver Brown Water to Eastside Taps this Summer
Tuesday, May 25th, 2010Tuesday evening, 5/25/2010, the Water Utility Board will be meeting:
4:30 PM WATER UTILITY BOARD 119 E. OLIN AVE. ROOMS A & B (pdf of agenda here)
Though the topic is not on the agenda, eastsiders are concerned about the Utility’s plans to open the spigot on Well 8 this summer.
This is the well that sits atop the Olbrich sledding hill. It serves the near east side (Atwood & environs). It has:
a) high manganese levels (the element that causes dirty brown water around here), and,
b) high bacteria counts (given the drawdown of the aquifer, the aquifer is now likely supplied by lakewater rather than the natural order of things, aquifer-feeding-into-lake).
Given the routine summertime drawdown of our aquifer (generally caused by obsessions with green lawns in August), the Utility — spurred by the Fire Department — goes into desperation mode and opens this dirty well during peak-demand summer months.
Eastsiders are, shall we say, concerned. And rightly so. Several of our leading lights are submitting comment about the need for a better, safer policy with regard to our water supply.
The overarching point is: The Water Utility needs to follow the sustainability, conservation path rather than the business-as-usual consumption-at-all-costs path.
Below are some of the emails constituting public comment submissions on the idea of adding such a dangerous water source to our drinking water.
***
From fae dremock
Sent : Saturday, May 22, 2010 8:58 PM
To : Larson, Alan
Subject : Well 8: keep it offline
Hi, Al–
Well 8 has long been pumping water into taps used for drinking water by older residents, folks with heart conditions, pregnant women, and your children.
All of those groups are considered at risk at the high levels of manganese and iron reported in Well 8 water– which in fact led to citizen concern and to utility investigation into the need for filtration of Well 8.
The high iron levels are also correlated (perhaps also causative) of increased bacterial growth in the well.
The Madison water utility has already reported that Well 8 NEEDS filtration, and the well was turned off to avoid using that well’s water as drinking water.
If we had an adequate summer conservation program in place and well disseminated in the neighborhoods in that pressure zone, the Well would not need to be turned back on. We even have ways of doing this outlined in the utility’s standard operating procedure for citizen process– which was approved by the common council.
We should NOT being turning Well 8 back on– in its current unfiltered state. And the utility doesn’t need the added publicity of citizen blowback or independent epidemiological studies of high manganese and high iron health effects on at-risk populations in Madison, whether seniors or young children or pregnant mothers.
Either filter Well 8, or keep it shut down.
Please include this email under Public Comment on the May 25 Water Utility Board Agenda–in case I am unable to attend the May 25 Board meeting in person.
Sincerely,
Fae Dremock
Former member of the citizen water utility working group for Well 3 and a member of the citizen committee that worked with the water utility to create the SOP on citizen process.
Also, press card-carrying member of the National Science Writers Association.
***
From: Steven Klafka
Subject: City Well 8 Operating Schedule for 2010
To : “Larson, Alan”
Date : Thursday, May 20, 2010, 3:44 PM
Al Larson,
Probably because of my involvement on the Well 8 citizens advisory committee, I have seen recent emails regarding the operation of Well 8 this summer beginning in late June. As has been suggested, I think the Water Utility should seriously consider not operating Well 8 this summer, and not until a new filtration system is installed at Well 8 or in combination with other wells on the eastside.
As shown in the attachment to the January 2009 project scoping document, Well 8 iron levels are several times the taste threshold and twice the level at which laundry and plumbing staining occurs. Manganese levels are at the taste threshold, and exceed levels where it can coat water pipes and discolor water. Periodic variations above the average levels reported in the scoping document would be more noticeable. The manganese levels are well below the EPA lifetime health advisory value, but the potential for health effects merits more serious consideration of our options.
The neighborhood residents around Well 8 has shown to be great environmental advocates. If the water utility suggested that neighbors reduce excessive summertime water usage so Well 8 is not required, I think they will respond positively.
Thanks for considering my comments.
Steve Klafka
508 Elmside Boulevard
Madison, WI 53704
(608) 249-0231
***
Subject : Re: Please filter or keep Well 8 turned off this summer
Date : Thu, 20 May 2010 16:31:33 -0500
From : Betty Chewning
Organization : University of Wisconsin – Madison
To: Grande, Joseph , Lawrence Lundy
Mr Grande:
Thank you for sharing my comments at the Water Board meeting. Could you share these as well?
It looks like you intend to keep Well 8 with its elevated iron and manganese levels going this summer. You didn’t say whether you would filter it. My neighbors and I would like to know if you are going to do this.
I’m very interested in moving forward a sustainability approach to water management. City government is constantly faced with tradeoffs, which I understand having been a member of the Madison Park Commission for the past 9 years. I don’t mean to oversimplify your challenge, but my question is why not work much more on the conservation side of the question rather than assuming you need to keep #8 in service? Let’s work together to encourage a sustainable mode of water use by Madison’s fine residents and industryl/ businesses? We (your agency and those of us interested in sustainability ) can ask people/ business to use less. The sustainable Atwood effort is trying to think about this issue. For example, with city or university help we or the city could establish per capita goals. Through their water bills we could give people feedback of whether they are below, above, or at average use on their bills? ( I have a prius and the feedback on my second by second mileage has been powerful in changing my driving behavior to conserve gas). This could be augmented with public education on formulas that each household could use to determine their own goal based on number of people in the household. People could be taught to read their own meters and given shared equipment for doing that if needed. How hard would it be to put up on the City Water Utility web the list of behaviors that can help households, businesses and industry conserve water in the summer ( in addition to the formulaes). We use a sustain dane rain barrel to collect water for all of our plants in the summer for example.What are the resources such as this that can build the city’s capacity to conserve water. Not keeping your water running when brushing your teeth is a small start that Dr.Gilbert White, a prominent international water management expert from Univ. of Chicago, advocated years ago just to raise consciousness that water is a scarce commodity. The use of gray water certainly deserves discussion. Sounds like a grad student or internship project to me. What do you think?
The translation of what is known both about human behavior and sustainable water practice and behavior is very exciting. What do you think about engaging the community in a full fledged public, industry and business education campaign on priority behaviors we can engage in to minimize our water use in Madison? I would be happy as well as many others to help you think about it. This could be an exciting time rather than the contentious time that I”m afraid has marked well water discussions in the past. Just know that you are not alone if you choose to move in the direction of conservation and sustainability.
By the way, don’t misunderstand my point re. the serious health issues concentrated on my block. We (you and I) are all being exposed to numerous small chemical risks. There is actually little done to estimate the interactive effects of all these small risks. I simply don’t want my family to have another small exposure when there is no need for it. And that is the real issue here. If sustainability, which should happen anyway, were a central theme of madison’s policy we wouldn’t need for any elevated levels from well #8. I sincerely and respectfully ask for your leadership on this.
Betty Chewning
***[The following message is from Water Utility a staffer]
Grande, Joseph wrote:
Thank you, Ms. Chewning, for your message regarding the planned operation of Well 8 later this year. I have requested that your message be entered during the public comment period at next Tuesday’s Water Board meeting.
A filter at Well 8, or other Madison wells, would improve the aesthetic quality of the water and reduce the staining of clothes, shower curtains, and plumbing fixtures. Comprehensive testing at the residential tap has shown that, when Well 8 operates, iron and manganese levels are indeed above the aesthetic threshold (i.e. the national secondary drinking water level) but well below levels deemed potentially unhealthy. The primary problem with groundwater minerals like calcium (hardness), iron, and manganese is that they produce visible residues that are a nuisance. Iron and manganese accumulate in water mains over time and periodically lead to discolored water at the tap. The Water Utility already limits the operation of Well 8 to reduce the likelihood of discolored water at the residential tap. Our flushing program further helps to lessen the chance of colored water by removing the mineral sediment before it can become a problem.
We plan to operate the well during the summer months (late June through early September) when water demands are higher due to outdoor water use. Last year the well pumped 43 million gallons or about 1 million gallons per day and we anticipate similar operations this year. Seasonal wells, including Well 8, are important supply points to meet often unpredictable summer water demand. They also serve as important backup supply during system problems (power outage, unplanned maintenance need, etc.) or major fire that could require additional supply. As in previous years, we will monitor manganese and iron levels at the residential tap during the time when the well operates. Test results from 2007-2009 are available on our website, www.madisonwater.org.
The Water Utility is committed to improving water quality throughout the water system and particularly at Well 8. A Citizen Advisory Panel (CAP) was formed last year to allow citizen input into how the water quality concerns at Well 8 are addressed. In addition, a consultant was recently hired to evaluate a host of treatment and operation alternatives not only for Well 8 but the entire near eastside. The study should be completed by next summer, at which point a preferred alternative will be selected. I encourage you to contact Al Larson (copied on this message) to become part of the CAP so that your concerns and preferences are incorporated into the planning process for improved water quality.
Finally, I am saddened to hear about the coincidental adverse health of several neighbors. However, to my knowledge, the minerals impurities and the levels typically found in water pumped from Well 8 are not associated with these specific health conditions. I believe Public Health Madison Dane County can more appropriately address your health-related concerns. Jeff Lafferty (242-6491) is a good resource at Public Health.
Please feel free to contact me directly (266-4654) if you have any other water quality questions.
Sincerely,
Joseph Grande
Water Quality Manager
Madison Water Utility
608-266-4654
***
From : Foxcroft, Melanie A – DHS
Sent : Monday, May 24, 2010 3:32 PM
Subject : PUBLIC COMMENT for May 25 Board Agenda
To : Greg Harrington Water Utility Board Chair
Please include my comment below under the PUBLIC COMMENT portion of the May 25 Board Agenda, thanks!
I request that the Madison Water Utility educate and support efforts by residents in the Well #8 area to conserve water this summer, including: collect “grey” water from their households to re-use on their gardens; plant more drought-resistant lawns and garden plants (including seed & plant suggestions); reduce watering lawns (be proud of your brown lawn!); collect rain water from downspouts to use on gardens; and similar measures.
While there may be a perception that Madison has water to waste, I contend that simple water re-use and conservation measures by individuals may have a major impact on water use, limiting drawdown from wells and aquifers that have challenged water quality/quantity including well #8. The Madison Water utility can support this by including conservation information in their bills; by initiating a concerted public announcement/education campaign; by delivering downspout collection devices free to ALL households much as trash collection bins were delivered free; offering neighborhood workshops on how to connect the devices and conserve water; limiting certain types of fertilizers; and similar measures.
A little education and awareness can go a long way!
Keeping farm phosphorous out of our lakes is a Dane County issue, but we can start locally. THANK YOU
***
Consider sending your own message about keeping our water clean to the folks at the Water Utility Board here:
ARobb – at – madisonwater.org
CARPC Comes Through for Clean Water
Sunday, May 16th, 2010Capitol Area Regional Plan Commission really came through for clean water in Dane County. (See message below from Stefi Harris.)
Many thanks to Western Dane County Coalition for Smart Growth & Environment and CRANES for all of their advocacy & research on this. And it even looks like Falk even kind of stuck her neck out on the issue!
-Mike
5/14/10
The County Executive presented the testimony below to the CARPC Commission last night.
DATE: May 13, 2010
TO: Members, CARPC Commission
FROM: Kathleen M. Falk
Dane County ExecutiveRE: Verona USA Expansion Request
I respectfully ask that you vote to deny or substantially modify Verona’s request for an Urban Service Area expansion in the Upper Sugar and Badger Mill Creek corridors and watershed.CARPC’s first and foremost responsibility is to protect water quality. The more valuable, rare, and precious the resource, the higher degree of protection – that’s a common sense principle that just about everyone can agree to and CARPC should follow.
Other points of agreement are also, I think, clear. The Upper Sugar River and Badger Mill Creek are valuable, rare, and precious resources. Badger Mill Creek is a productive trout stream (and yes, I have fished it and even caught trout there) with wild and stocked populations of brown trout, located within a few minutes of rapidly growing neighborhoods in a major metropolitan area. It also has great opportunities for further restoration and public use. Public and private resources, lots of time and lots of money, have been devoted to Badger Mill Creek, (for example, dozens of volunteers from the Dane County Conservation League and Trout Unlimited, the extraordinary aeration system installed by MMSD, the inclusion of much of this area in the County’s Parks & Open Spaces Plan). All of this has produced results. As my staff reminded your staff, the latest information on Badger Mill that arrived in our offices in the last two weeks show that the trout population is now at a 15 year high.
In the extensive questioning concerning this request that occurred at the last meeting, it also became clear that we cannot be reasonably sure that the recommended conditions will adequately protect these resources. I also believe this is one of only two USA expansions of all the many you have reviewed for which CARPC staff has not recommended approval.
The course CARPC should follow if it is to remain true to its mission is to deny this USA request or to reduce it in size so that it poses less of a threat to these resources. As an example of the latter, CARPC could approve a much smaller USA in order to accommodate the Dean Clinic facility, which is in the area furthest from some of the most valuable resources. Either denial or partial denial would be the careful, cautious, conservative, conservation-oriented course these resources deserve from you.
You are a water quality planning and protection agency. You should and must be champions of valuable water resources. Approving this USA expansion will be a fatal mistake for CARPC. In a very candid exchange with the Chair, whose hard work and good intentions I acknowledge and respect, he made it clear that he thought CARPC rejection of this request would cause the City of Verona to reject the FUDA process. He, and I think in this discussion he represents the views of some other Commissioners, believes FUDA to be an absolutely voluntary process; that communities can wholly decide whether to participate or not. Both beliefs are, however well intentioned, wrong and will make it impossible for CARPC to function. With the precedent of this decision, should you grant this USA, any and every community will demand approval of USA expansions as a condition of participating in FUDA. What then is the point of FUDA? Secondly, every community that formally voted to create CARPC knows that, by the charter approved by them and the Governor, FUDA is the process by which CARPC will pursue its water quality planning responsibilities and that those FUDA’s will form the basis of future USA recommendations. That is why, by the way, there are eleven “shall’s” used in the charter’s description of CARPC and communities’ participation in FUDA. Participation in FUDA’s can and should be a prerequisite, not a reward, for approval of USA requests.
No one else in this County but me has taxed citizens to preserve the RPC staff when that agency was destroyed and to then create the CARPC you are today a part of. Specifically, I have levied almost $4 million in property taxes since 2004 for those purposes. I did so willingly, publicly, and enthusiastically because I believed this agency and the FUDA process could be the means by which the protection of key natural resources and urban development could mutually proceed via a fair, well informed, and public process. I have come to question my belief as I have witnessed CARPC approval of thousands of acres of new development approved in 27 USA’s with no discernable progress on FUDA.
CARPC has moved too far from its clearly stated mission. The FUDA requirements and schedules are clearly stated in the charter document that was reviewed and approved by almost every Dane County municipal government. That document laid out the priority area and committed CARPC to
“provide the [environmental] information described in Item a. to areas with the highest environmental sensitivity and growth pressure within three years of the date the CARPC commences operations. g. Communities shall submit their proposed Future Urban Development Area within 24 months of the date they receive the data from CARPC. If a community does not meet this timeline, the CARPC shall not act on any individual USA expansion requests until the proposed plan is submitted. CARPC may grant one six-month extension to this timeline.” (ll. 170-179 of the charter) (emphasis added)
CARPC is now in its fourth year of existence, with no FUDA’s created.
Approval of this USA will, in my judgment, ruin any prospect of FUDA succeeding. At that point, County taxpayers are wasting their money ($700,000 a year on CARPC) on functions that can be handled by the DNR. I cannot, in good conscience, continue to support CARPC if you make that unfortunate decision.
You have before you a rare, important, and difficult intersection of several issues joined in this USA decision: the protection of some valuable public resources and the continuation of what could be a key planning process for our orderly, sustainable growth. To have both, please vote to deny or modify this USA expansion.
Green Collar Job Symposium, Saturday May 1 — Tomorrow
Friday, April 30th, 2010I will be a panelist at the May Day shindig tomorrow (newsrelease below). Robbie Webber may be a panelist with me as well. Our session will be around 11:30.
Hope to see you there!
-Mike
**************************
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Green Collar Job Symposium, Saturday May 1, Madison Labor Temple, 1602 South Park Street, 9:30 – 5:30.
The Green Collar Alliance will be holding the first annual Green Collar Symposium and networking event Saturday, May 1 at the Madison Labor Temple. The purpose of the event is to create a model which if implemented in local communities can create sustainable 100% employment. The Symposium will feature a presentation by the Natural Step Organization and three panel discussions as well as a musical performance by the Raging Grannies. Admission is free and everyone is welcome.
How Bad Planning Reduces IQ…and Pay
Tuesday, April 13th, 2010Mayor Pave and his minions are always lamenting the loss of economically successful people to the ‘burbs or complaining about ‘those people’ who do settle here. I’ve long maintained that if he & his developer buddies were to begin building the city in a more urban form, thus conducive to urban social interactions, we would see an invigorated economy, higher incomes and other good tidings. And we wouldn’t have to resort to racist/classist/scapegoating rhetoric. In fact, it was that promise — a cool city — that got this mayor elected in the first place. But somewhere along the line he got derailed onto the track bound for Rockford (the perennial worst city in the country).
Meanwhile, the research is rolling in that justifies the will of the people ca. 2003….
This NYT article delves into the latest research on the power of cities to generate higher incomes than low-density places. It all comes down to good old fashioned face-to-face communication.
Robbie Webber provides a marvelous illustration as to how this works in day to day life. She’s a geographer, so of course she gets how proximity & design empowers us as it convivializes our urban landscape!
So not only is Mayor Pave saddling us with low-density, car-friendly, cul-de-sac & strip mall development fit for a successful 1950s economy, he is also laying the groundwork for another rust-belt disaster in terms of personal income decimation.
We need a new mayor who understands the power of place for our well-being. And we definitely don’t need an Orange County Republican running our economic development planning.
P.s. I’m working on a post of how Green Kathleen is doing Mayor Pave one better in her constant rubberstamping of sprawl across the county.
City of Verona Set to Destroy Class II Trout Fishery
Wednesday, April 7th, 2010Once again, the Western Dane County Coalition for Smart Growth and Environment has an excellent analysis of how yet another new sprawl development will harm our water resources.
4-5-10
To: Capital Area Regional Planning Commission (CARPC) Members
From: Western Dane Coalition for Smart Growth and Environment (WDC/SGE)
Re: City of Verona Urban Service Area (USA) amendment request
The CARPC staff report on the City of Verona USA amendment request issued on June 11, 2009 concludes with eleven specific recommendations to be imposed on Verona as conditions for the requested approval. These recommendations were put in place in order to minimize water quality impacts of the proposed development on the extremely sensitive exceptional Upper Sugar River and Group 1 wetlands located in the State Natural Area, coldwater Badger Mill Creek and other minor wetlands present in the area. Because the City of Verona deemed some of the CARPC staff recommendations as “unreasonable restrictions”, the decision on the request was postponed and the case was sent to the Environmental Resources Technical Advisory Committee (ERTAC or TAC) to be resolved.
The newly-emerged set of recommendations (CARPC staff report 4-8-10), resultant from TAC’s involvement, represent a weakened version of what was originally offered by the CARPC staff in June 2009. These new recommendations if approved, undoubtedly will have an additional negative water quality impact on the affected resources.
Here is a description of how the two sets of recommendations differ and what is missing in recommendations.
Control of runoff volumes and peak rates
Although both versions of recommendations offer control of peak rates of runoff to pre-settlement levels in all storms, they largely differ in volume control standard. While the old version insists on maintaining the pre-development runoff volumes, which is the same as 100% volume control to pre-development levels, the new version calls for the post-development volume control of only 90%. This particular difference in runoff volume control is significant.
According to the CARPC staff report of 6-11-09 (p 37), even if peak runoff rates from sites are controlled, increases in runoff volume from a site can lead to increases in flood peaks at downstream locations. Increased runoff volumes lead to other unwanted consequences, such as stream bank erosion, stream bank destabilization, sedimentation, increased water temperatures and degradation of biotic communities. The report goes on to say that even relatively small amounts of urban land use in a watershed can lead to major changes in biotic communities and that there is a relatively low threshold point for these changes to take root, beyond which there is no recovery of lost water quality (p 40).
A 10% difference in volume control standard between the two sets of recommendations might appear as unimportant at the first glance. Nevertheless it is significant. The event based modeling for Shady Woods Residential Development (CARPC 12-15-09) demonstrates that 90% volume control standard will lead to runoff volume increase anywhere, between 38% to 156%, depending on the type of vegetation and soil conditions present at the pre-development level. At any rate, the CARPC staff report of 6-11-09 (p 48), expresses the opinion that all new development in Badger Mill Creek and Sugar River sub-watersheds should uphold no increase in runoff volume standard. It calls it “the only practicable approach that would prevent further degradation of these sensitive cold fisheries.”
And the following statement is what the same CARPC staff report (p 41) had to say in reference to Verona’s proposal to recommend for 90% runoff volume control to predevelopment level, 100% peak runoff rate control to pre-settlement level and 80% reduction of suspended sediments – all three measures now a part of the current proposed recommendations:
“Although these measures and standards are above current minimum standards, and will reduce the likely impact of the proposed development, they do not completely address the current state of the receiving waters. To address the potential adverse impact of increased runoff volumes in the Badger Mill Creek and the Sugar River downstream of the confluence, it is important to maintain post-development runoff volumes equal to predevelopment volumes up to the 100-year storm event for all new development (100% pre-development stay-on volume). This will promote the goal of maintaining existing hydrology, which is critically important to maintaining the health of Badger Mill Creek, Sugar River, and the biological communities that they support.”
TAC recognized the benefits of runoff volume control to 100% of pre-development volumes. However, it has decided that concerns over additional costs are more important than the full water quality benefit such measure would produce. But this is an unacceptable argument when proposed by a committee serving a regional planning commission responsible for protecting the environmental quality of the county’s land and water resources.
Caps on the extent of the infiltration areas
The original CARPC staff recommendations ask for maintaining the pre-development recharge rates with no caps on the extent of infiltration areas. The 4-8-10 CARPC Executive Summary (p 4) continues to support this position in the body of the text:
“Allowing a cap has the potential for reducing the volume control and recharge required to well below the recommended standard and could result in inconsistency in the effectiveness of the standard between amendments.”
It views pre-development recharge rate caps as “a large loophole, where the developer is allowed to maximize the development beyond the carrying capacity of the site and insists on limited mitigation because of their development choices.” (pp 4 & 5).
However, the specific new recommendations omit all reference to the “no-cap” rule. Therefore in spite of what is stated elsewhere in the document, the lack of reference to “no cap” rule in recommendations reserves the option for the City of Verona to use the much weaker Dane County ordinance, which allows such caps on 1% or 2% of the total site area to be used for infiltration, dependant on type of proposed development.
Limitation of the size of the infiltration area affects the amount of water that gets infiltrated and eventually recharged to groundwater. It is especially important in this case because of the sensitivity of the water resources involved, and because of very difficult soil and terrain conditions which do not lend themselves to easy infiltration.
Water temperature control
Both the original and new sets of recommendations require thermal impact mitigation. Nowhere in any CARPC reports is there any mention of how this goal would be met. Both Badger Mill Creek and the Sugar River are classified as coldwater communities. In an earlier CARPC case involving a proposed USA amendment affecting Black Earth Creek, lack of demonstrable assurance that coldwater temperatures in that creek would be protected against the proposed development, played a role in CARPC denying that application. By contrast, in the case of the City of Verona, a proposed development affecting two coldwater creeks, one of them exceptional water resources, absence of any concern about how thermal impact mitigation would be met noticeably stands out.
An excellent recommendation, of total runoff peak control rate to pre-settlement levels in all storms, should be followed by an explanation of how it is expected to work in conjunction with thermal mitigation. The standard in peak flow rate control is extended detention for 1-year, 24-hour storm to be gradually released over 12 hours in cold watersheds (CARPC staff report 6-11-09, p 42), and over 24 hours in warm watersheds. But what will happen with larger volumes of water in larger water storms? Is the runoff allowed to warm up during longer retention, in order to control peak flow? Or will it be released quicker in larger volumes in order to avoid warming? These are the types of questions that any reasonably coherent, although not necessarily complete stormwater management plan should have been able to provide the answers for.
What is the enforceability in Wisconsin of Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources 2006 criteria?
One of the more curious new recommendations is that the criteria for maintenance of wetland water levels provided by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources 2006 be used by Verona. Although these criteria might be the best ones in existence, it is highly questionable how either CARPC or DNR would ever be able to legally compel a Wisconsin municipality that it failed to follow Minnesota’s regulations, if the need to sue over water quality should ever rise.
Delineation of environmental corridors
Both recommendation sets call for delineation of environmental corridors based on wetland, stream and floodplain delineations, as well as on CARPC requirements. However, the new recommendations have dropped all reference to a 300 ft vegetative buffer for the commercial area east of STH 69. This buffer, described in the original staff recommendations, is needed to protect the lower portion of Badger Mill Creek and associated wetlands. Similarly, a recommendation that the western portion of Area W be designated as environmental corridor in order to protect the shallow groundwater in that area was also eliminated. These sacrifices of water quality protection obviously were done for the convenience and monetary benefit of the would-be developers of these areas and their municipal partner.
Area W
Most part of Area W is unsuitable for infiltration because it contains sub-areas where such infiltration is inhibited either by fine-grained soils or by shallow, fractured limestone or by high water table. The original staff report suggested several alternative approaches to address this problem. CARPC Executive Summary of April 8, 2010 reports that the resolution of the infiltration problems in this area would not be a part of the conditions for the approval of this amendment. According to the summary (p 4),
“The City prefers to maintain its flexibility”.
But flexibility in environmental protection almost always generates environmental degeneration.
Will the recommended water quality standards deliver the intended performance?
The CARPC Executive summary quotes a DNR letter which states, that without performance measurement of infiltration practices there can be no assurances that the infiltration practices are working as intended and that water quality is protected (p 3).
In the City of Verona’s USA amendment request, performance measurements of infiltration practices are not the only unknown variable. The amendment area is a large mosaic that comprises challenging terrains and difficult infiltration conditions that include steep slopes, shallow and in many places fractured bedrock, high water tables and deep fine grain sands. Nothing even approaching a stormwater management plan has been submitted to CARPC for review, let alone submitted to “performance measurement”. And yet CARPC staff, in spite of its earlier more cautious approach expressed in the 6-11-09 report now seems to be all too ready to gamble with water quality of not just one coldwater stream, but of two, one of which happens to be an “exceptional water resource”. What will happen if Verona’s request gets the needed approval now and its still unknown eventual stormwater management plan gets implemented and fails to work as promised? Who will ever undo the damage to the Upper Sugar River, Badger Mill Creek, the wetlands, the State Natural Area?
The City of Verona and Stormwater Management
Many of Verona’s best management practices (BMPs) date to the1980’s when water quality mitigation standards were lower. Now those facilities need retrofitting to improve their performance. Any such work on BMPs requires large sums of money, which are not easily allocated for these purposes.
As of 6-1-09, the City of Verona had 61 detention basins, two infiltration basins and one bioinfiltration basin. 47 of these facilities are public, 15 private and three are of unknown ownership. The City inspects them on irregular basis and repairs them as need arises, usually after reported flooding.
As of December 2008, Verona was under watch for total suspended soils (TSS), the only pollutant under formal reduction regulations by DNR. In order to reach its goal of 40% TSS reduction the City needed to reduce its base load by 139 tons per year. At that time the City was reducing TSS by 83 tons or 24%. The estimate for 40% TSS reduction was $2.7 million.
All municipalities, including the City of Verona are mostly concerned with expanding their tax bases. Regardless of their public propaganda to the contrary, water quality is never their primary focus. It is unwise of the CARPC to ignore their own responsibility as a watchdog agency for water quality, and turn over these watchdog responsibilities to a municipality and its private developers, letting them dictate terms and conditions under which the CARPC’s recommendation of the amendment approval would be issued to DNR.
It is equally unwise to contemplate recommending anything for approval before a detailed stormwater management plan has been produced and shared with the public. When it comes to water quality protection, no municipality should ever be allowed to do its “own thing” in an environmental area that is difficult to mitigate, with high potential to harm sensitive water resources, such as suggested that the City of Verona should be allowed to do in Area W.
Backed by NR 121.05 (1) (g) 2. c., which based on considerations of water quality, allows for exclusion from a USA of steep slope, highly erosion-prone soils, limiting soil types, recharge areas and other physical constraints, the proposed amendment area should be rejected. As long as such is done for solid water quality reasons, expressed in open deliberations, DNR will have the means of proving that it backs a CARPC decision.
Stefi Harris and Arnold Harris
WDC/SGE
3427 County Rd P
Mt Horeb WI 53572
Americans Ditching Deathmobiles in Droves
Thursday, April 1st, 2010
Highest & Best Use
For the first time in history, Americans scrapped more cars than they bought.
WOOOOOO-HOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!
Meanwhile, liberals anguish. And Detroit is more worried than ever.
Of course, they tried to put a brave face on it: “It foreshadows what may be pentup demand.” Yeah, that’s it, pentup demand! They’ll be back in the showrooms in no time! Willy Loman would be proud.
While the article may be partially right in that any rebound in employment will result in more cars bought, I seriously doubt it will ever go back to the levels of the years just before the bust. There has been a growing awareness across the generations that the car-oriented lifestyle just isn’t sustainable on any level. People of all ages have discovered biking, transit & walking. Mature families are happily letting their 2nd car die, scrapping it, and not replacing it. Younger people are going without a car altogether and loving the economic freedom. Car sharing is booming (both formal & informal). And a growing number of people across the generations & socio-economic divides are determined to simply not own a car at all. No way. No how.
It’s over Detroit. Retool to build buses, streetcars & trains. Embrace the hipster entrepreneurs struggling to gain a toehold in your city. Establish urban farmsteading on those empty lots. Cherish your ruins and foster industrial ruins tourism. Let go of the dreams of the glory days of Motown. The days of mega-industry anchoring the economy of your city are over. Deal with it.
And if places like Madison, Wisconsin don’t get a handle on their car-mandatory development patterns (to the detriment of our schools and economic future, I might add), it too will suffer the fate of every other rust belt city of its size.