Comments on: A Better Road to Clean Water Act Compliance

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:47:20 +0000

What this plan needs is people behind it. Someone needs to form a grassroots organization of people willing to devote their time to drawing up sketches and schematics to not only convice the city but the rest of the public as well. If this organization can get the public support behind it, maybe the politicians will start listening (think property tax protests). The group can emphazize the positives, especially the money that stands to be saved. It sounds like Philadelphia plans to cover their whole system in the amount it is costing Indy to build one tunnel. That is likely to be the most important factor to the general populace. The next most important thing to point out is that it will fix the streets because that is a hot topic these days. After that, the other asthetic benefits can be pointed out as a "free" side effect of the cost savings and street improvements. Philly's plan needs some serious consideration in Indy as it has the chance to leapfrog our inner city ahead of a lot of the things plaguing it.

By: The Urbanophile

The Urbanophile — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 03:27:47 +0000

Thanks for the comments.

David, I agree that cities are in a weak position. That's why we need the President to step in (or some enlightened advisor). The EPA is the lead agency in this. It seems to me that if we move the fight to the political arena (including involving members of Congress) towards an idea is that actually about actually making the environment event better (not just clean water, but also reduced CO2 emissions from encouraging urban development and new greenscape), we should be able to get somewhere.

Maybe it will work, maybe not, but the fight is worth fighting.

By: David

David — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 03:17:53 +0000

Great Post, but you make it sound more like it is these cities' fault. None of the cities would be considering this if it weren't for court orders brought by to us by the EPA and often environmental legal defense funds – Sierra Club was active in the Cincy case. This entirely the fed's fault (as you note in Cincy's attempt to avoid building one). I agree that the Philly model is the way to go, but the cities don't have agency in this situation.

By: Ray Garrigan

Ray Garrigan — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 01:07:42 +0000

Cheers Aaron for this excellent post. Of course the Philly approach is the way to go. The answer should be a combination of reducing runoff, creating wetlands and water gardens to naturally cleanse the water, and helping to replenish the watertable and thus prevent falling watertables and drying up streams due to urban development, and in doing so creating habitat and green spaces for the city. The approach you outline solves a problem and creates an asset for the city.

Deep tunnels reminds me of pumping carbon dioxide in underground storage in an attempt to create green coal. Rather than following the sensible approach of reducing carbon emissions through efficiency and conservation and renewable energy, we throw money at a dubious technonlogy so we don't need to reform our oil addiction (or wasteful water use addiction, or building our cities without proper storm water runoff engineering.)

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:22:36 +0000

Couldnt agree more. Deep Tunnels seem like a very 60's/70's-esque response to problems…heavily engineering/construction oriented, expensive, and labor intensive. Theyve been working on the tunnel here in Chicago for over 30 years, and it still wont be fully wrapped up until sometime later in the next decade.

And of course as you mentioned, they really dont do anything to get at the root of the problem, which is runoff. Thrilled to see that Philadelphia appears to "get" it. Maybe someone can shed some light on this, but why have so few places even attempted to give permeable pavers a try? Is their cost really that high?

By: Indy Rock

Indy Rock — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:14:53 +0000

Perhaps your best post in a long time Aaron. I couldn't have said it better myself. What I suggest you do is see if you can get a hold of Indy or the Office of Sustainability. Maybe they'll be willing to give you a listen? Good luck!

By: K Hansen

K Hansen — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:27:33 +0000

Porous asphalt can be salted for snow and ice conditions. These pavements will require less salt than conventional pavement. The University of New Hampshire reports that they require zero to 25 percent of the normal salt application. They should not be sanded since the sand will clog the pores reducing their permeability.