|
|
||
Building industry needs a more constructive approach regarding proposed development runoff regulations Date published: 8/13/2009
AS NATURAL and vital as rainfall That's really not surprising, all things considered. The technology being used to upgrade existing wastewater plants and build better new ones does what it's supposed to do and is showing positive results. Battling agricultural run-off has been more challenging, but we know that buffers and other best management practices can prevent fertilizer and manure from ending up in the waterways. More enforcement is needed. The biggest challenge has been with runoff at residential and commercial development sites, where containment efforts continue to lose ground. No wonder: While the population of the Chesapeake Bay watershed has grown 8 percent over the past decade, impervious surfaces such as rooftops, sidewalks, parking lots, and streets have increased by 41 percent. The sediment generated by this construction and the subsequent stew of gasoline, oils, chemicals, and dirt is washed from paved areas into waterways every time it rains. The General Assembly approved legislation five years ago requiring more stringent stormwater management. Researchers have set a 38 percent reduction target for the phosphorus, a harmful nutrient, that runs off a construction site. Nitrogen is automatically captured as well. Standard retention ponds merely release runoff over a longer period, so more plantings and absorbent green spaces would be needed in a parking lot, for example. Nobody's saying it will be cheap. State agencies, trade organizations, and advocacy groups have tried to hammer out an acceptable proposal, but the building industry largely feels that the proposed rules put the burden of saving the Chesapeake Bay on its back. It wants to see more sharing of the cost. It has offered to help farmers deal with their chicken manure--and have its own runoff standards relaxed in return. Let's not complicate things even more. It's time for builders to rein in the collateral environmental damage that occurs in the name of progress. Of course they will "share" those costs in every sales contract as a part of doing business. Perhaps a government-sponsored tax-credit program would ease the pain initially. Once the habit of these new techniques is established, the difficulty and cost will decrease. The Chesapeake Bay is suffering from a terminal case of buck passing. The builders need to do the right thing and set a refreshing example. Public comment on the proposal is welcome through Aug. 21. Visit town hall.state.va.us., click on Public Comment Forums, and look under Natural Resources for Stormwater Management.
Seattle to Corpus Cristi to Long Island Sound - all of them
with WalMarts, roads bridges, development - how come
their Bays are not dying like the Chesapeake Bay is?
I'm not saying that urban runoff is not a major issue - it is -
but we need to understand what the Chesapeake is
seemingly more affected than other bays are before we
advocate arbitrary and very expensive "solutions".
The problem is that walmart and the like have to pretreat and super pre treat the water prior to it leaving the site. The problem is the 100+ years of development that never had to treat the water and still doesnt. Just look at the 95 Rappahannock Bridge, it has been here for 40 sum years and has a drainage area of just over 2 sq mi. The water from the road dumps directly into the river. no treatment at all. add all the roads in VA, MD, DE up and just that alone will hurt the bay.
|
|
|||||||||||||||
