Taming Virginia’s Hardened Landscapes

If you haven’t noticed, I’ve been narrowing the focus of my blog posts to an interlocking set of topics: transportation, land use, energy, environment and infrastructure. Each of these themes is inextricably bound with the other. We’ll never make sense of any one of them until we understand how each relates to the others.

A case in point comes from an article published in the June 2008 edition of the American Water Works Association Journal written by Ridge Schuyler, Piedmont program director for the Nature Conservancy. In “Reducing the Effects of North America’s Hardened Landscapes,” he traces a fascinating flow of causality.

When Virginia was wilderness, the forest acted as a natural buffer for rainwater. The forest canopy, low-lying vegetation and leaf litter slowed the flow of rainwater into rivers and streams. Much of the rainwater was absorbed into the water table, and the run-off was gentle when it hit the tributaries. Over the decades, the clearing of farmland and then the construction of roofs, roads, parking lots and other impermeable surfaces has destroyed much of this buffer. There is more run-off these days, and it hits waterways with greater velocity.

Schuyler cites a U.S. Department of Agriculture study that estimated the amount of soil deposited from an eroding stream bank in North Carolina into the stream: Researchers found that over the course of one year, a mere 100 feet of stream bank deposited 500 tons of soil into the waterway.

Virginia’s geology and hydrology are very similar to North Carolina’s. The spread of hardened landscapes explains the tremendous erosion of our stream beds and the consequent increase in sedimentation. Charlottesville, Schuyler points out, relies upon a reservoir that is slowly filling in from sedimentation. “Over the next 50 years,” he writes, “it is expected that roughly half the reservoir’s storage capacity will be lost to dirt.”

Even though Virginia is blessed with abundant rainwater, increasing populations will demand more clean drinking water. That may be hard to supply if our reservoirs are silting in.

What are the options? Dredging our reservoirs? (Is that even possible?) Building new reservoirs? (Talk to the City of Newport News to see how many decades that can take.) Traditional engineering solutions will cost large amounts of money — money that could be spent on other pressing priorities.

Schuyler discusses a short-term solution: “rainwater harvesting.” The idea is to capture rainwater in barrels or cisterns as it runs off roofs and release it slowly, using it for such indoor things as toilet water or outdoor applications such as watering the garden.

That’s good as far as it goes. But long-term, the answer is adopting more compact human settlement patterns (and creating appropriate storm water management systems), reforesting more acreage and re-instituting nature’s storm water buffers. Until we make the systemic changes needed to restore the health of our streams, we’re just drawing down our natural capital. Ultimate destination: Haiti.

(Photo credit: American Water Works Association Journal.)


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

36 responses to “Taming Virginia’s Hardened Landscapes”

  1. So, we have another example of a location specific subsidy. The clearing of land causes erosion which damages the water supply. I guess there needs to be a “cleared land tax”. Farmers, suburbanites, businesses who clear land will have to pay the tax. Anybody who wants to avoid the tax will have to reforest the land. Meanwhile, the collected taxes will be put in a lockbox to rectify the damage done by erosion.

    I wonder what the “farm lobby” would make of that?

  2. E M Risse Avatar

    Groveton:

    It is just one of the 40 +/- location variable costs. Line loss from low-voltage electrical distribution, septic tank impact on water quality, stream bank erosion, the list is long and the expense when fairly allocated is great.

    I thought you were going to find a way to minimize the impact of “lobbiest” who represent interests that generate settlement pattern dysfunction.

    Actually farmers following best pratices are not the biggest problem, it is .5, 1, 2, 5 and 10 acre urban lots, especially those devoted to mown grass that would pay the big bill if location variable costs were fairly allocated.

    The first wash runoff coefecient of mown grass is not far behind a paved driveway.

    Now watch the 12.5 ers spin.

    EMR

  3. Anonymous Avatar

    Further reading for those that are interested….

    The current issue of National Geographic discusses this very topic

    http://tinyurl.com/6fb2kw

    Also, here is a link to a NPR show, "Suburban Sprawl & Climate Change"

    http://tinyurl.com/6zcjfo

    Cheers!

  4. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    well.. rivers ran muddy long before the white man “hardened” the landscape and I think there are many ways to not really understand the difference between a muddy river in 1600 and a muddy river in 2008.

    Rivers like the Platte, the Missouri and the Red Rivers cut banks… for ages.. in fact… their are places called Cut Bank.

    The river I did last August – a wilderness river – was so full of mud that the water was not drinkable without settling and I can assure folks that there was not a single driveway or grass lawn along the entire 500 mile length of it.. and it flowed at twice, three times the volume and rate of the James and Potomac.

    In fact, it was but a mere tributary of the mighty Mackenzie River which also carries great loads of mud.

    but those rivers are very healthy rivers… clean enough to drink out of..with a minor risk of giardia.

    So.. it’s not just erosion and mud – which are natural processes.

    but ..what’s not in those rivers is fertilizers, hormones, antibiotics, anti-freeze, oil, pesticides, prescription drugs, pet feces, and animal feces from animal factory farms.

    There are animal farms …that put out more sewage – untreated – than some cities – so that meat can be made available to cities….

    of course the same factory farms serve those who live in sprawl also and sometimes it’s things like this that may or may not be relevant to settlement patterns.

    Certainly one person living on 5 wooded acres… with a gravel driveway.. and virtually no lawn except for the septic field will have a miniscule impact to runoff as 1000 people living on that same 5 acres with 95% of it covered with impervious surfaces.

    I would bet that 1000 people living on separate 5 acre wood tracts would have virtually no impact either.

    and there is no way that a correctly functioning septic field is going to come anywhere near the impact of flushing toilets through a sewage treatment plant that fails to remove.. many harmful substances including hormones, pesticides, prescription drugs, etc.

    but I’d entertain any studies that seek to compare to the two methods.. real studies … not the innuendo and propaganda that is part and parcel of the Save the Bay types…schtick…

    I think the CONCEPT that is confused sometimes is that Compact Development is MORE EFFICIENT use of land – yes – but also much more INTENSIVE – “hardening” if you will.

    I’m not saying this is bad or good – only that if we want to ALSO look at settlement patterns in terms of pollution… we’ll need more than preconceived ideas and beliefs without data….

    I think, for instance, if 1000 folks live in a multistory building…that it is not only “more efficient” but certainly for a one acre “footprint” the runoff on a “per capita” basis – even with the impervious surfaces could be worth comparing….

    Cities are dirty places – though – we need to face this reality.

    They are not kind to the “environment” as streets and storm drains are repositories of so much nasty stuff .. that flushes with the rains come.. that we are glad to see the streets flushed – but we forget.. where it ends up…

    I can tell you – folks who paddle rivers – know where it ends up and we know that heavy rain is no longer a blessing.. but instead another big slug of pollution to further damage the river.

    so.. my two cents worth is – my usual blather… if we really want to do better – we really do need to better understand…

    for myself – I believe that storm water runoff in developed areas is nasty stuff that harms rivers …and the denser and more impervious the surfaces.. the nastier the runoff.

    We can fix it… but it won’t be cheap… and if you want to figure up the costs – it’s clear – the more dense and the more impervious the surfaces – the more expensive it will be to deal with it.

    that IS a location variable..

  5. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell — Chesapeake

    Great idea. I think everyone should live in the city and let nature take it’s course. After all, the city is where it’s at and no one but greedy landowners want to live in the country. Bah!

    Speaking of rainwater, run a pipe to your sprinkler pump from your catchment tank. Dig up your sprinkler system, and put it on your roof. Use the rainwater to cool your roof so you don’t use your HVAC so much. 5 min. an hour is all you need to knock nearly 30 percent off your AC bill. Not only are you saving rainwater, you are not depleting the water table to keep a very Un-PC lawn alive.

    On second thought, forget about that idea. The farmers you kicked off the land might think you stole their chicken coops.

  6. Anonymous Avatar

    You make it sound as if there were never floods, siltation, or erosion before man arrived.

    We occupy somthing like five percent of the land mass. Even considering that we tend to occupy places near streambeds, there is a lot more unmanaged and uncontrolled (read natural) runoff, and a lot more unmanaged and uncontrolled siltation than what comes from manmade sources.

    For example, I have two streambeds that originate on the farm. There is nothing unnatural contributing to their erosion, and they have plenty of buffer. Even beyond th ebuffer it is fully vegetated.

    And yet, before even those tiny trickles even exit the farm you can see erosion and siltation in action. By the ton, if you watch long enough.

    If we filtered every storm drain, and arranged surge ponds for evey bit of runoff, so that no stream had more than natural amounts of storm surge, we would still have runoff and siltation.

    Like everything else, the question is how much are we willing to spend to prevent how much? And what are we NOT spending on that MIGHT be more important.

    ———————

    “it is .5, 1, 2, 5 and 10 acre urban lots, especially those devoted to mown grass that would pay the big bill if location variable costs were fairly allocated. “

    Nonsense.

    I’ll agree that there are places that have entirely too much lawn, too manicured. But take a ten acre lot and put a 2500 sq ft home in the middle of it. I seriously doubt that the CHANGE in runoff at the property edges is measurable.

    Now, take all the streets it takes to service a bunch of such places, and thats different, but that’s what we have engineers for.

    RH

  7. Anonymous Avatar

    “Actually farmers following best pratices are not the biggest problem,”

    Nonsense again.

    Agricultural related runoff is THE largest contributor to stream pollution.

    RH

  8. Anonymous Avatar

    “what’s not in those rivers is fertilizers, hormones, antibiotics, anti-freeze, oil, pesticides, prescription drugs, pet feces, and animal feces from animal factory farms.”

    You wanna bet? I spent a few years doing trace environmental analysis. You can find nearly anything nearly anywhere with the right instruments and some patience.

    RH

  9. Anonymous Avatar

    “I think the CONCEPT that is confused sometimes is that Compact Development is MORE EFFICIENT use of land – yes – but also much more INTENSIVE – “hardening” if you will.

    I’m not saying this is bad or good – only that if we want to ALSO look at settlement patterns in terms of pollution… we’ll need more than preconceived ideas and beliefs without data….”

    TA DA!

    I think he’s got it.

    It is ALL relative. We may have preconcieved or even pre-sold ideas on HOW relative (as suits our personal condition and finances), but it takes good solid (and OBJECTIVE) science to find out the best relative answers.

    RH

  10. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “finding trace elements if you look hard enough”

    that’s not the problem.

    The problem is way too much ..easily measured… of things that have gotten into rivers and damaged them – and the bay…

    .. and our attitude towards the problem…

    .. do we perceive it to be a significant problem that must be delt with or do we perceive it to be just the “cost” of our modern lives?

    If we think that intersex fish…, fish with lesions and sores… the extinction of crabs and oysters… etc… “acceptable” then let’s agree that we need to NOT devote any more money to dealing with the issue…

    however, if we think it IS a problem then we need to focus and prioritize.. and that means understanding what the problems are as opposed to clucking our tongues.

    and the first step is clear data to show what kinds of stuff comes from farms and in what volume compared to what kinds of stuff comes from urban stormwater runoff.

    Right now.. the Chesapeake Bay is getting literally choked to death from too much nutrients… that breed algae and other organisms that..when they die.. deplete the oxygen.. causing .. every increasing ‘dead zones’.

    How much of the nutrients come from farms?

    How much of the nutrients come from stormwater runoff?

    How much of the nutrients come from septic tanks?

    etc…

    Right now.. I challenge anyone who reads this blog to tell me for the James River – what the nutrient levels are upstream and downstream of Richmond – that would show how much Richmond ADDS to whatever already is in the river – above Richmond.

    If you knew that data – you’d know some important things:

    1. – You’d know how much of a problem is UPSTREAM of Richmond..

    2. – If you knew that – you’d know what Richmond’s specific contribution is because you’d also know how much comes from it’s sewage treatment effluent.. stormwater runoff..

    3. – then you’d know where the biggest issues are – and where to target resources – that are finite and not unlimited.

    We would do this with all of Virginia’s River Basins – so that we’d better understand where the biggest problems are – and thus where to prioritize … more important.. we’d have some idea of how much more money might be needed.

    But you cannot do that when you don’t know much more than some fuzzy idea of what percentage of the different contaminates come from farming and what comes from non-farming…

    We have some folks who insist the problem comes from farming.. when we know that urban areas have 10 times the population – and each person between his poop, his dog’s poop.. his fertilizer, weed killer, pesticides, prescription drugs, hormones, etc.. get added to the river.

    Do we REALLY KNOW that farming is THE problem?

    If it is .. then why are we yammering about stormwater runoff.. spending millions of dollars building storm ponds … when we should be spending that money to reduce the impacts of farming…

    my point – we don’t know…

    I just don’t think our current approach of collective hand-wringing.. and asking for more and more money for the problem – is effective.

  11. EMR:

    Someday I’d love to see the math which demonstrates that one half acre of grass creates more runoff than 100 acres of soybeans. Or, are we trying to compare one half acres of grass to one half acre of soybeans. I’d also be very interested in the runoff statistics for horse farms, cattle ranches and other agricultural operations that rely on large open spaces.

    I do worry about the US waterways. I am a layman but I believe that I’ve seen the Chesapeake deterioriate in my lifetime. There have certainly been good times and bad times but, on average, the bad seem to outnumber the good.

    This seems like an area that can be accurately definied. It was done for the Potomac River. I have no doubt that the work on sewage treatment in Washington made a massive difference to the Potomac. But this positive difference started with a good analysis of the problems. Where is this analysis for the problems confronting the Bay?

  12. I thought the article was a crock.

    suburban development = more runoff = danger! our reservoir is filling up = solution! use storm-water for watering lawns.

    Having a reservoir fill up is not a major danger. A few years of dredging. A bit expensive, but worth it.

    Building storm-water runoff systems for houses sounds incredibly expensive. Maybe 4500-5000? You could use it to water your lawn, but how many people will install an in-lawn watering system (another 4-5k?)

    And haven’t we have a major drought in Virginia for the past 5 years?

    Anyway:

    1) Is this article an example of solutions on the margins mandated by the Clean Water Act? For example, EPA regulating lawnmowers to remove smog.

    2) a call for personal responsibility, where the answer is going to cost homeowners another 10K.

    3) summer filler material for a magazine?

    My query:

  13. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    In fact, many lakes are more vigilant with respect to runoff and what it contains because they know that it will stay in the lake and not go downstream.

    this can lead not only to sediment buildup – which reduces the capacity of the lake (i.e. it’s “safe yield” for water supply) but eutrophication from nutrients… and other contaminates…essentially sequestered in the lake can and does affect water quality and the general ecological health of the lake – translation – if not delt with – in a “dirty” watershed – it can turn into a weed-choked ..lake unfit for many uses.

    A good local example of the trials and tribulations associated with keeping a lake “healthy” would be to GOOGLE the “Occoquan Reservoir”.

    The Chesapeake Bay is a lot like a reservoir but it is so big.. and complex that it takes decades for problems to become obvious – and will probably take decades to bring it back to a healthy enough status to support crabs and oysters …

    and it’s much harder to gain the public’s support.

    If you live on a reservoir and you and your neighbors notice water quality problems.. a group is usually formed.. and actions implemented..

    A good example.. is the citizens group on Lake Anna…

    and that’s the basic problem IMHO with the Chesapeake Bay …approach to engaging the public…

    we simply do not deal with the facts and realities in a way that people feel a direct responsibility.. and instead think it is up to the state or environmentalists to fix….

    If you live on a lake.. and you see storm water sediment and other gunk pouring into the lake …that you live on.. it’s a whole different deal.. than seeing essentially the same thing in a creek behind your home.. that you really don’t know where it ends up… even though it should be obvious.. but.. it’s far away from where it is “in your face” type impact.

  14. E M Risse Avatar

    Groveton said:

    EMR:

    Someday I’d love to see the math which demonstrates that one half acre of grass creates more runoff than 100 acres of soybeans.

    I do not think that is the issue. The issue is 100 acres of 1, 2, 5 and 10 acre lots vs 100 acres of soybeans.

    “Or, are we trying to compare one half acres of grass to one half acre of soybeans.”

    Sort of, but when I talk about “best practices” in ag, I mean BEST PRACTICES in ag. That means riparian buffers that filter out and adsorb any runoff beyond native woodland background.

    “I’d also be very interested in the runoff statistics for horse farms, cattle ranches and other agricultural operations that rely on large open spaces.”

    Most factory ag is NOT using best pratices. If they did, the cost of food would go up.

    We say over an over that the true full cost of contemporary society is far more than is being paid in Enterprise products AND Agency products.

    We have held down the cost by glorious “competition” but mainly by burning through Natural Capital and treating most costs as externalities — like the health of the Bay.

    “I do worry about the US waterways. I am a layman but I believe that I’ve seen the Chesapeake deterioriate in my lifetime. There have certainly been good times and bad times but, on average, the bad seem to outnumber the good.”

    You are right.

    “This seems like an area that can be accurately definied. It was done for the Potomac River.”

    And there is still a long ways to go — note the fish kills in the Shenandoah that are not to this day explained….

    “I have no doubt that the work on sewage treatment in Washington made a massive difference to the Potomac. But this positive difference started with a good analysis of the problems. Where is this analysis for the problems confronting the Bay?”

    Burried in Business-As-Usual and Politics-As-Usual.

    Those who are at the top of the Ziggurat in Enterprises, Agencies and Institutions do not want answers.

    EMR

  15. Anonymous Avatar

    Do we REALLY KNOW that farming is THE problem?

    Pretty much, yes.

    It is not the whole problem, but it is without any doubt the biggest single component. There is far too much information to have any doubt on that fact.

    Farmers are doing a better job in some respects: more no-till, low-till, or conservation tillage is being used, along with better control of animal wastes. But, rememb er, no-till requires a lot of herbicide use.

    Can we do a better job of ruducing urban runoff? Yes, but we shoud recognize that it is still a small part of the total.

    Do we need to have ten acre manicured lawns? No, and we can do a lot with more natural landscapes.

    After we take care of all those things, will we still have runoff and siltation? Yes.

    RH

  16. Anonymous Avatar

    James River Facts:

    acres, 10,236.4 square miles, 24 percent of Virginia’s land area.
    • Length: 350 miles
    • Counties: 57
    • Cities: Buchanan, Buena Vista, Clifton Forge, Charlottesville, Chesapeake, Colonial Heights,
    Covington, Hampton, Hopewell, Lexington, Lynchburg, Newport News, Norfolk, Petersburg,
    Portsmouth, Richmond, Suffolk, Virginia Beach, Williamsburg
    • 2000 Population: 2,604,246: Upper James = 91,607, Middle James = 1,221,792, Lower James =
    1,290,847
    • Headwaters: Jackson & Cowpasture Rivers
    • Larger Tributaries: Appomattox River, Chickahominy River, Hardware River, Jackson River, Maury
    River, Rivanna River
    • Percent Land Use: 5 percent urban, 7 percent agriculture, 71 percent forest, 4 percent open water, 3
    percent wetland.

    Topography plays a significant role in sediment contribution as land slopes are at their steepest in the upper portions of the basin. Steeper slopes can lead to higher erosion rates. Additionally, the dense network of tributaries within the upper reaches of the James far exceeds those found in lower segments. Coupling higher slope related erosion potential with a denser stream network lends itself to the increased potential for sedimentation of the waters that feed the Upper James. Conversely, this sub-watershed contributes low percentages of nitrogen and phosphorus to the overall basin. The 1998 report cites controllable nitrogen load levels contributed to the James from this upper segment at four percent and approximately 19 percent for phosphorus. Agriculture is listed as the primary source for both nitrogen and phosphorus.

    The three major pollutants targeted in the tributary strategy process are nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment. Approximately 59 percent of the nitrogen and 70 percent of the phosphorus loads to the James River originate from nonpoint sources. Most nonpoint source pollutants come in stormwater runoff from agricultural lands, residential lands and other urban areas. The other 41 percent of the nitrogen and 30 percent of the phosphorus loads come from point source discharges (municipal sewage and industrial wastewater plants). Soil erosion is considered 100 percent nonpoint source related and are typically the result of construction sites and stream bank erosion.

    2002 James Nitrogen by Source:Agriculture19%, Urban Runoff 18%, Mixed Open 7%, Non-Tidal Water Dep 1%, Forest 11%, Septic4%, Point Source 40%

    1985 James Nitrogen by Source:Agriculture 19%, Urban Runoff 14%, Mixed Open 5%, Point Source 51%, Forest8%, Septic 2%, Non-Tidal Water Dep 1%

    2002 James Sediment by Source: Agriculture 52%, Forest 32%, Non-Tidal Water Dep 0%, Urban Runoff 8%, Septic0%, Mixed Open 8%, Point Source 0%

    Table 5-2: Summary of James Basin Estimated Costs

    Estimated costs in Millions of Dollars Capital Costs Tech Assistance O & M Total Cost
    Total Cost for Agricultural BMPs $286 $29 $15 $330
    Total Cost for Urban BMPs $2,741 $522 $228 $3,491
    Total Cost for Mixed Open BMPs $179 $36 $4 $218
    Total Costs for Forest BMPs $1 $0.10 $0 $1
    Total Cost for Septic BMPs $21 $2 $0 $23
    Total Costs for Point Source Reductions $487 $0 $15 $501
    Grand Total $4,564

  17. Anonymous Avatar

    http://www.deq.virginia.gov/water/reports.html

    You can get detailed data for over 2100 monitoring sites at this URL.

    RH

  18. E M Risse Avatar

    In a post of 4:36 PM we said;

    “Now watch the 12.5 ers spin”

    At 8:45 PM Larry Gross did just that.

    “well.. rivers ran muddy long before the white man “hardened” the landscape and I think there are many ways to not really understand the difference between a muddy river in 1600 and a muddy river in 2008.

    “Rivers like the Platte, the Missouri and the Red Rivers cut banks… for ages.. in fact… their are places called Cut Bank.”

    Places like Cut Bank, Montana and the rivers named drain reletively “new” mountain areas. Jim Bacon was talking about Virginia — East of Alleghenys — and he and Ridge Schyler are right, absolutly right.

    “The river I did last August – a wilderness river – was so full of mud that the water was not drinkable without settling and I can assure folks that there was not a single driveway or grass lawn along the entire 500 mile length of it.. and it flowed at twice, three times the volume and rate of the James and Potomac.

    “In fact, it was but a mere tributary of the mighty Mackenzie River which also carries great loads of mud.”

    And that river was in what part of Virginia?

    “but those rivers are very healthy rivers… clean enough to drink out of..with a minor risk of giardia.”

    This is true.

    “So.. it’s not just erosion and mud – which are natural processes.”

    Yes but as you go on to say, there are a lot of other things in the water and washing down banks puts that stuff in the water because silt acts as a carrier.

    “but ..what’s not in those rivers is fertilizers, hormones, antibiotics, anti-freeze, oil, pesticides, prescription drugs, pet feces, and animal feces from animal factory farms.”

    Right on, see note to Groveton above.

    “There are animal farms …that put out more sewage – untreated – than some cities – so that meat can be made available to cities….”

    There are no “cities” left, do you mean provide meat for the 95 percent of the population that would starve if you gave them a knife, a match and a live chicken?

    “of course the same factory farms serve those who live in sprawl also and sometimes it’s things like this that may or may not be relevant to settlement patterns.”

    What is “sprawl”? Do you mean Dysfunctiona human settlement patterns where most of that 95 percent now live?

    “Certainly one person living on 5 wooded acres… with a gravel driveway.. and virtually no lawn except for the septic field will have a miniscule impact to runoff as 1000 people living on that same 5 acres with 95% of it covered with impervious surfaces.”

    A wonderful straw person, this one person Household.

    It depends on the context of the 200 person per acre Neighborhood how much they pollute.

    So does the context of the strawperson.

    “Ecocity” (sorry about the name but that is what they call themselves) could show you numbers that would surpise you. Some of those Green Greed web sites you like to cite could too.

    It is all about context and location.

    “I would bet that 1000 people living on separate 5 acre wood tracts would have virtually no impact either.”

    How much are you willing to bet, lets make it interesting. Lets start at 500,000.00 Euros or gold coin.

    “and there is no way that a correctly functioning septic field is going to come anywhere near the impact of flushing toilets through a sewage treatment plant that fails to remove.. many harmful substances including hormones, pesticides, prescription drugs, etc.”

    Define a correctly functioning septic tank and the level of treatment in the shared sewer system.

    How often is the septic tank effluent tested and what is the septic tank fee and what is the subsurface water flow and ….

    “but I’d entertain any studies that seek to compare to the two methods.. real studies … not the innuendo and propaganda that is part and parcel of the Save the Bay types…schtick…”

    As I recall Pennsylvaia has done some, so has Maryland. I will not bother to look them up for you because in the past you have not bothered to read or try to understand what we have cited.

    “I think the CONCEPT that is confused sometimes is that Compact Development is MORE EFFICIENT use of land – yes – but also much more INTENSIVE – “hardening” if you will.”

    I do not confuse that and neither do the places that I had control over the design.

    “I’m not saying this is bad or good – only that if we want to ALSO look at settlement patterns in terms of pollution… we’ll need more than preconceived ideas and beliefs without data….”

    True.

    “I think, for instance, if 1000 folks live in a multistory building…that it is not only “more efficient” but certainly for a one acre “footprint” the runoff on a “per capita” basis – even with the impervious surfaces could be worth comparing….”

    “Cities are dirty places – though – we need to face this reality.”

    Badly designed urban enclaves can be “dirty” but they need not be badly designed.

    “They are not kind to the “environment” as streets and storm drains are repositories of so much nasty stuff .. that flushes with the rains come.. that we are glad to see the streets flushed – but we forget.. where it ends up…”

    Only if the storm drain goes unprocessed into natural streams. See our note to Groveton re cost of retrofitting infrastructure.

    “I can tell you – folks who paddle rivers – know where it ends up and we know that heavy rain is no longer a blessing.. but instead another big slug of pollution to further damage the river.”

    Very ture, given the current state of the infrastructure and the settlement pattern.

    “so.. my two cents worth is – my usual blather… if we really want to do better – we really do need to better understand…”

    Our mission.

    “for myself – I believe that storm water runoff in developed areas is nasty stuff that harms rivers …and the denser and more impervious the surfaces.. the nastier the runoff.”

    Not per capita. Those who live in 10 persons per acre (at the Alpha Community scale) consume and therefore discard far less percapita — gasoline, oil, lawn fertilizer, lawn mower fumes, etc. There is far less pavement per capita, far less everything.

    The 10 persons per acre at the Alpha Community scale was the sweet spot when Mobility and Access is provied primarily by Autonomobiles and energy was cheap. As we have noted, the number will pencil out higher now to support shared-vehicle systems to replace Large, Private Vehicles.

    (Of Note just yesterday in 2008 — EPA raised the standards, effective in 2010 and 2011, for small gasoline engines that should have been implemented in 1975.)

    “We can fix it… but it won’t be cheap…”

    Right on! See note to Groveton.

    “and if you want to figure up the costs – it’s clear – the more dense and the more impervious the surfaces – the more expensive it will be to deal with it.”

    Sorry you are dead wrong, back to that 500,000.00 Euros.

    “that IS a location variable..”

    True but not what you believe.

    EMR

  19. E M Risse Avatar

    At 10:45 someone named “Anonymous” posted the following:

    “• Percent Land Use: 5 percent urban, 7 percent agriculture, 71 percent forest, 4 percent open water, 3
    percent wetland.”

    As we document in THE USE AND MANAGEMENT OF LAND (forthcoming PART FOUR of FOUNDATIONS)these numbers, and the impacts of these land uses, have no relationship to reality.

    Upon further review, Larry lets make that 2,000,000 Euros because we will have to go back and collect and document new, real data.

    Why is the current data of little value? See our note to Groveton above.

    EMR

  20. Anonymous Avatar

    One of the best reasons to prohibit “Anon” posts is that even when the “Anon” poster puts up a subsequent post that shows the original one is false, he / she cannot deleat the false on.

    Who is this “RH” Anon who posts and posts. He / she contradicts themselves and just keeps going. See above about impact of farming — even if the later posts are based on poor information. Point Sources are still the problem in the James.

  21. Anonymous Avatar

    “..these numbers, and the impacts of these land uses, have no relationship to reality.”

    I guess we don’t have to care about land uses then. We don’t have any measrements or numbers that are real, and the impact of one land use over another has no relationship to reality.

    RH

  22. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: rivers in Virginia

    There are natural processes in Virginia that result in cut banks… erosion.. sediment and seriously muddy rivers…

    Even some of the streams that have no development…no industry .. and little or no farming… 90+% wooded.. will run muddy if a storm event is significant enough.

    The difference is how many times this happens.. and in what severity.

    In a landscape that is natural.. the number of times this happens and the severity are “normal” and do not damage the watershed.

    On land that is developed.. the more impervious surfaces there are – the more frequent higher runoff.. and the higher the volume of the runoff PLUS the contaminates that sit on the impervious surfaces and never have a chance to slowly degrade and be absorbed by soil and gravel.

    In a natural runoff scenario.. a bank might be cut… erosion may happen… but natural vegetation.. tends to “heal” the scar.. IF there is some period of time before the next higher than normal runoff.

    The stream.. basically has a chance to “heal” itself.

    When impervious surfaces are involved – the stream never has a chance to recover.., and the damage expands and extends until you have a stream like just about any in the NoVa (or any urbanized area) suffer.

    In some areas, including NoVa, they end up turning the streams into concrete canals – because we’ve built on the flood plain.. and allowing the stream to back up and flood.. causes economic damage … so we ‘streamline’ the flow where there is development.. which then results in areas below.. suffering even higher levels of scour and bank damage.

    Don’t take my word for this…

    check out the Center for Watershed Protection

    http://www.cwp.org/

    I can tell you – as a paddler – who has paddled hundreds of rivers – it is the urban areas that have the most serious issues with storm water because of their high percentage of impervious surfaces.

    there ARE solutions – pervious surfaces and storage tanks can return a paved area to some level of natural runoff.

    There are places that practice this right now. They require parking lots to absorb runoff.

    RH alludes to monitoring data – available. I issue a challenge to him –

    extract the upstream and downstream nutrient data for ANY urban area…and post it here or compare the nutrient levels for farming areas verses urban areas…

    good luck… because you’re gonna find that task.. more than a tad bit challenging…

  23. Anonymous Avatar

    “Those who live in 10 persons per acre (at the Alpha Community scale) consume and therefore discard far less percapita — gasoline, oil, lawn fertilizer, lawn mower fumes, etc. There is far less pavement per capita, far less everything. “

    This is simply not necessarily true.

    RH

  24. Anonymous Avatar

    “He / she contradicts themselves and just keeps going. See above about impact of farming — even if the later posts are based on poor information. Point Sources are still the problem in the James.”

    That is correct. Point sources are the largest point source of nutrient pollution. Farms are the largest non-point source and the largest source of pollution from runoff. Sewage treatment plants are the largest source of nutrients, and they are associated with cities.

    Larry is correct that cities provide the most nutrients to the rivers, but not the most nutrients from runoff.

    I don’t see that those are contradictory, and anyway I have no position, I just try to provide information, if I contradict myself, well, I was maybe wrong. I’m not ashamed of it. As EMR points out, we have to take information with a grain of salt: some people will try to distort it in order to try to sell something.

    I omitted the initials from the first post by accident. There was no intent to deceive.

    RH

  25. Anonymous Avatar

    Agriculture produces 51% of the sediment in the James and 19% of the Nitrogen.

    Urban areas contribute 8% of the sediment and 18% of the nutrients through runoff and another 50% thourgh sewage treatment plants. so they prduce 3.5 times the nitrogen but they get 10 times the money as agricultural areas.

    That might be a good spending pattern or not: it depends on where you get the most reduction for your money.

    RH

  26. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    the point I continue to make…is that while there is a scad of data…. there is a distinct lack of “actionable” INFORMATION.

    If we have LIMITED resources for dealing with the problem… what should the priorities be?

    Should we prioritize money for better farming practices?

    Should it be prioritized for more nutrient removal from Sewage Treatment plants?

    How about impervious surfaces?

    What is the contribution of impervious surfaces as compared to sewage treatment?

    Right now – we do not have INFORMATION that is needed to make decisions about how to direct funding…

    instead.. the “answer” seems to be that only more money can help.

    I reject this concept.

    This is the same concept of other budgetary spending that eschews performance accountability….

    It does not matter whether the spending is for roads, education or the environment – if our approach is to throw money .. instead of demanding some level of accountability for results – then we are wasting money and spinning our wheels…

    and folks… this is what drives…empowers… the “no mo tax” philosophy… and while I admit this is not a valid approach to governance… it is the result of spending without accountability…

    people are opposed to the concept of throwing more money down a black hole…whether it be for roads or cleaner rivers.

  27. Michael Ryan Avatar
    Michael Ryan

    So, if there is at least some agreement that agricultural runoff contributes to pollution problems, then an easy first step would to be to ban the export of food from the U.S. Less need for agricultural land results, and reforestation in areas like VA can proceed.

  28. Anonymous Avatar

    “If we have LIMITED resources for dealing with the problem… what should the priorities be?”

    The gist of all of my comments here goes directly to Larry’s point. Hw DO we set the priorities?

    Right now they are mostly set politically, because we have not invested the money to find the correct answers. Some people reject that search precisely because they are invested in political answers that fit their beliefs.

    Michael Ryans response points out precisely the problem with coming up with a wrong answer: the costs of a wrong answer are, or can be even higher than the costs of no answer: you have to examine the entire system in play.

    Sure, we can save huge sums of money otherwise spent cleaning up by banning lots of agriculture. But that activity has a cost. How do we set the priorities?

    RH

  29. Anonymous Avatar

    The problem with the “No Mo Tax” philosophy (aside from not being a valit approach to governance) is that it offers no alternatives. We SAY that we are not opposed to spending providing that (some impossible) standards are met. The oly possible outcome from that circular logic is “No Mo Tax”, and frequently, no more anything.

    I believe there are set rules for doing cost and benefit analyses. Those rules are frequently misunderstood because they are complicated, and because they deal in setting costs for things that most people believe are subjective. In fact, part of Cost Analysis deals with studying how people accept risk in everyday life, and then extending those observations to the point where they can drive policy. It is difficult, but not impossible.

    If we can ever get to the point where the process of determining costs and benefits is transparent, well understood, and generally nonpartisan, then we will be able to clearly see when a proposal for more taxes buy us anything or not. We will accept that a proposal (involving more taxes OR EVEN less taxes) that survives the process is likely (not guaranteed) to be in our personal benefit.

    Then we won’t mind shelling out the bucks. What we have instead is political maneuvering to get someone else to shell out the bucks. I think John McCain tapped into that sentiment when he spoke about helping the people and not the party, Main Street instead of Wall Street.

    One way or another, this political maneuvering boils down to attempted theft. The way to guard against that is to make property rights stronger, and make sure the government is there to protect our property (including green infrastructure), not steal it.

    We should work to make it politically incorrect to oppose (those few) things that can be demonstrated to benefit us all, according to a strict set of standards. Whichever side of the political fence we sit on, it will be to our benefit to ensure that the standards themselves are nonpartisan, because on any given proposal they might work either for or against our cause. The standards are to our benefit precisely because they will prevent political ideology like “no mo taxes” from requiring or implementing a policy which can be shown to be false economy.

    Of course the huge weak point and probable fatal flaw in all of this is the same as the fatal flaw in EMR’s hypotheses: it requires people to be “educated” in a certain way.

    Which, I guess, is what politics is all about. Too bad we are educating ourselves so stupidly.

    RH

    RH

  30. Anonymous Avatar

    “The experiment involved a group of subjects who were given an initial endowment of money, which they were to allocate between two accounts, one “public,” the other “private.” Money deposited in a subject’s private account was returned dollar for dollar to the subject at the end of the experiment. Money deposited in the public account was first pooled, then multiplied by some factor greater than one, and then distributed equally among all subjects.

    Under these circumstances, the socially optimal behavior is for each subject to put her entire endowment in the public account. But the individually most advantageous strategy is to put all of it in the private account. The self-interest model predicts that all subjects will follow the latter strategy.”

    That, in a nutshell, is the “No Mo Taxes” strategy.

    The problem is to find a method that guarantees that money we give to the public accounts will, in fact, be multiplied by greater than one. That is what cost benefit analysis is all about.

    Now, what do you suppose the result of this experiment was?

    RH

  31. Anonymous Avatar

    “Who is this “RH” Anon who posts and posts. He / she contradicts themselves and just keeps going.”

    I’m an environmental scientist, by education and training. I don;t contradict myself, I just provide contradictory data. I leave it to you gentlemen to sort out the meaning and resolve the facts with your own beliefs. I’m also a systems engineer, trained in energy and engineering economics.

    I beleive that when environmentalists make a green proposal it should be one that Wall Street is willing to invest in. I once tried to sell a proposal to Wall Street, and I found that they ask hard questions.

    But instead of putting forward good, solid proposals that anyone in their right mind can agree with, I see a lot of arm waving about “short term profits” and “corporate greed”, followed up with proposals that cannot be self sustaining, at least not yet.

    The questions I ask here are hard and unpopular, but one way or another they just boil down to one thing: how do you know that your proposal will multiply the public account by more than one?

    Don’t confuse that with me being opposed to your proposals: I just want to know how they will pay for themselves. If you expect me to invest, you will have to answer some hard questions.

    And, just inventing a new glossary, redefining “free market” or other such strategies to redefine the world to fit your plans and beleifs, won’t cut it.

    RH

  32. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    here’s an article that pretty much sums up the current approach:

    (excerpts):

    Water cleanupefforts lagging WATER FACTS

    September 7, 2008 12:16 am

    BY FRANK DELANO

    At the present rate, it will take almost 200 years for Virginia officials to write plans to clean up the state’s polluted waters.

    At that pace, it will take 176 years for the state to figure out how to clean up its remaining 1,937 polluted streams, lakes and estuaries.

    But only one three-quarter-mile-long section of one mountain creek has been cleaned up sufficiently to be removed from the state’s long list of polluted waters, the Environmental Protection Agency says.

    Cleaning up Virginia waters could cost $1 billion or more. But the state has no long-term funding plan, and money for the effort is often lacking in state budgets, said Gerald P. McCarthy, executive director of the Virginia Environmental Endowment.

    “The state has spent about $300 million to improve wastewater-treatment plants, but it has never spent enough to clean up non-point sour-ces of pollution,” said former Secretary of Natural Resources W. Tayloe Murphy Jr. of Westmoreland County.

    “Among many other adverse consequences, this lack of commitment and funding to clean up the water has resulted in the death of the Chesapeake Bay seafood industry and the loss of jobs and the way of life of thousands of people,” Murphy said.

    Virginia has 10,604 miles of polluted streams, 94,039 acres of polluted lakes and 2,185 square miles of polluted estuaries.

    But few environmentalists or state officials support the lengthy, expensive process of documenting pollution stream by stream.

    “It totally misses the three main problems in the Rappahannock and the Chesapeake Bay–nitrogen, phosphorus and sediments–because there are no water-quality standards for those pollutants,” said John Tippett, executive director of the Friends of the Rappahannock.

    “It’s a good concept, but in actuality, it’s ridiculous and unworkable. The whole thing is a complete fraud,” said Lynton S. Land, a retired scientist and clean-water advocate from Northumberland County.

    “It’s largely a paper process that you have to go through, but paper reports don’t clean up streams,” said Jeff Corbin, assistant secretary of natural resources.

    “We’ve been stuck for the past decade in doing nothing but plans and doing nothing to clean up water pollution. We know the solutions. Let’s fund them,” said Chuck Epes, a spokesman for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

    little progress

    The plans for polluted waters set “total maximum daily loads.” TMDLs represent the amount of pollution a body of water can take without exceeding water-quality standards.

    TMDLs are required by the U.S. Clean Water Act.

    The Rappahannock River basin is typical of the magnitude of the problem. From its headwaters to its mouth, 177 tributaries and other sections of the river are known to be polluted, mostly by bacteria from animal and human waste.

    But TMDLs have been written for only 24 of the river’s polluted sections. State law requires a cleanup plan to be drafted for each TMDL, but only one TMDL implementation plan has been written–to clean up four creeks in Fauquier and Stafford counties.

    A $1 billion price tag

    “Virginians ought to be outraged that 10,000 stream miles are not deemed swimmable or fishable,” said Epes of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. “They ought to demand that they be cleaned up. TMDLs and implementation plans will never fix the problems.”

    “We’re in this mess because we want to do everything as cheaply as possible,” said Land.

    Epes believes it will cost a billion dollars–$100 million annually for 10 years–to help farmers install ways to protect the state’s waterways.

    But Jeff Corbin doubts that “the public will to do it.”

    “One thing that has always frustrated me,” said the assistant natural resources secretary, “is that legislators talk about investing in education, trans-portation and public safety. But when it comes to the environment, they always talk about the expense.

    http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2008/092008/09072008/408353/index_html?page=1

    I want you to note RH.. that swimmable or fishable” is NOT ..PRISTINE.

    It basically means that the river is safe to swim in and that the fish in it are safe to eat.

    this is what happens to the environment when we allow pollution for economic gains – without requiring accountability ….

    I don’t think we need to outlaw exports as blogger Ryan advocates…but I DO support documenting the problem – doing the inventory of what is impaired and by how much… and setting up pollution budgets that basically define thresholds for pollution – and to hold everyone in that watershed accountable for not exceeding those thresholds – otherwise known at the EPA – TMD approach.

    I do NOT support the idea that the “worth” of a river is how much economic gain is accomplished verses the cost of pollution – because it does not work.

    We’ve proven it does not work by the sheer numbers of polluted streams and “no one is responsible”.

    the burden needs to be the other way around.

    if you claim there is a net economic gain in polluting – then you are the one who should prove it –

    ..not the other way around…

    otherwise.. what we get is more and more pollution and no one responsible for it…

    .. and the cleanup costs – passed on to taxpayers…

  33. Anonymous Avatar

    “Virginia has 10,604 miles of polluted streams, 94,039 acres of polluted lakes and 2,185 square miles of polluted estuaries.”

    I agree that fishable and swimmable does not mean pristine.

    But you still have the question to answer of “how polluted”? You frequently hear the complaint that one ounce of gasoline can pollute a million gallons of water.

    Yep, true enough, and I can probably find that gasoline in the water and tell you within some confidence interval what that level of pollution is.

    Having been there, I’m pretty certain that the story is that whatever level of pollution we get down to, it won’t be enough. We will keep tightening the standards until we get to pristine. Or until we go broke, whichever comes first.

    While you and I understand the difference between fishable and swimmable and pristine, there are al ot of people out there who don’t.

    ——————–

    “if you claim there is a net economic gain in polluting – then you are the one who should prove it -“

    Absolutely not. This is not my job or your job or the polluters job: it is the governments job, and the government has the responsibility to protect everyones property equally – even those that pollute.

    It is the governments job to properly balance the economic gains from activities that pollute with the costs of pollution and the cost to prevent pollution. There is NEVER any reason to spend more money preventing pollution than the cost of the damages it causes.

    I know that is hard to understand, I know you don’t get it, and most people don’t.

    Imagine you have some hypothetical business, that using the best available technology still winds up putting an ounce of gasoline in the water every month. The best available science tells you that there is a 95% probability that the pollution will cause between $500 and $50000 dollars in damage every month. How much are you (as the government) willing to have some of your citizens pay so that some others won’t incur that damage?

    By attempting to put the burden of proof onthe other guy, you are claiming that your property rights take priority over his, and that is simply incorrect. Especially if you are the government. You have the responsibility to protect everyones property rights equally, and you have the responsibility to protect minorities.

    The law requires you to conduct cost benefits analysis, and the law requires you to see that the result of regulation and enforcement, OR THE LACK THEREOF, do not impact any person or group pf persons unduly.

    It is not true that what you get is more pollution and no one responsible for it. What you get is balance between too much pollution and too much protection.

    Of course someone is responsible for polluted streams, but believe me when I say we cannot make THEM pay for the cleanup. That cost is going to bounce right back in our lap one way or another. It might be lost jobs, it might be higher prices for products, it might mean no products, it might mean products produced someplace where they don’t care so much, but it is NOT GOING TO BE FREE to clean up the rivers.

    It is going to be expensive whether taxpayers or jobholders or consumers pay: in the end we will all pay. Thinking that the OTHER GUY, the polluter can be made to pay is yet another version of “I can get something for nothing” and this version is just as much a fantasy as all the others.

    ——————————

    “I do NOT support the idea that the “worth” of a river is how much economic gain is accomplished verses the cost of pollution – because it does not work.”

    Whether you think support the idea or not, it is the inevitable fact. Of course you support the idea, you just want to put a higher price on pollution. The total value of the river = the value of the goods the river allows us to produce – value of the damage pollution from using the river causes – value of what we spend on pollution prevention and cleanup.

    Nothing you can ever do or believe will change that equation. It is what it is. You want to put an artificially higher price on the value of pollution damage. Fine, but recognize that it will necesarily reduce the value of what the river allows you to do.

    On the other hand, IF THE VALUE ASSIGNED TO THE COST OF POLLUTION IS NOW ARTIFICIALLY TOO LOW, then raising the cost will increase the value of what the river allows us to do.

    Going too far in one direction OR THE OTHER, lowers the value of the river to everyone, and thereore an error in either direction is damaging to someone’s property rights. Even if we agree to err on the side of caustion, that agreement has a price, and we should rcognize it up front.

    WE ARE ALL GOING TO PAY FOR THE CLEANUP. I guarantee it. Trying to make the other guy “prove” his position is futile and costly, and it is simply the wrong approach to finding the best right answer.

    ————————-

    “Under these circumstances, the socially optimal behavior is for each subject to put her entire endowment in the public account. But the individually most advantageous strategy is to put all of it in the private account. The self-interest model predicts that all subjects will follow the latter strategy.”

    That, in a nutshell, is the “No Mo Taxes” strategy. And the obvious corollary of that is the “make the other guy pay” strategy which is equally based on self interest.

    The sad part is that this strategy is guranteed to lead to suboptimal results – for everyone. The Little Dutch Boy drowned along with everyone else when he took his finger out of the dyke.

    RH

  34. Anonymous Avatar

    “Virginia has 10,604 miles of polluted streams, 94,039 acres of polluted lakes and 2,185 square miles of polluted estuaries.

    But few environmentalists or state officials support the lengthy, expensive process of documenting pollution stream by stream.”

    Well, how do we know how much polluted stream we have then?

    If there are no standards, how do we know what polluted means?

    RH

  35. Anonymous Avatar

    “TMDLs represent the amount of pollution a body of water can take without exceeding water-quality standards.

    TMDLs are required by the U.S. Clean Water Act.”

    And TMDL’s include nitrogen, I believe.

    ————————–

    Epes believes it will cost a billion dollars–$100 million annually for 10 years–to help farmers install ways to protect the state’s waterways.

    That’s just to help the farmers, which are only 20% of the total problem: the real cost will be wll over 5 billion.

    And that billion isn’t the whole cost, because the farmers are going to have to pay the rest. Where are they going to get the money? Many of them won’t, they will just fold. The ones that do, will pass the bill on to us.

    When we really start to get the bill for all this, we will start to re-think how much pollution we can afford to prevent.

    By then, we will already have wasted tremendous resources arguing over how to reach unatainable and uneconomic goals, however laudable thaey might be.

    RH

  36. Anonymous Avatar

    I would suggest another overlooked but truly appalling practice that contributes to this pollution is the way we allow companies to clear land for development, They no longer just bulldoze trees or surface scrape the land but rather, move entire hillsides and rearrange contours.And in the process, we lose topsoil and are left with bedpain subsoil.Look to the land on the east side of 29 across from Target shopping center before Charlottesv ille for an example. The arrogance of man-

Leave a Reply