In marketing and politics, it's the basics that sway the most people... move the most product. The basic motivations like sex, greed, and fear. So it's not surprising to hear some of these bandied about in local politics.
For example, in public discussions several years ago leading up to burial of Westmorland Stream where it runs through the park, a few neighbors said that, if the stream remained open, children might be swept away in floods. Because no one contradicted this nonsense, the stream was buried.
So in the interest of colorful reporting on local issues (like the Public Works Board meeting I attended last night), I'm going to hand out Fear Monger Awards to those who use the tactic.
FM 5--Warning of end of the world, comet impact, etc.
FM 4--Warning of major terrorist attack, raising the Homeland Security color code, appeal to 9/11 memory.
FM 3--Your children will be swept away by a raging urban stream.
FM 2--Your taxes will go up.
FM 1--Backyard mosquitoes will ruin your barbecue.
Now, some warnings are real, so how do we distinguish fact from fear mongering? You get an FM award, if your warning is unsubstantiated, exaggerated, or appeals to some stereotyped fear. Humor is often used, to plant the seed, yet pretend you aren't really serious.
Now, let's apply this rating to last night's Board of Public Works hearing:
Alder Paul Skidmore, FM 1.5 ...for implying with a colorful story that our basements might be filled with raw sewage if we don't take action in the greenway.
Mr. Ozanne, FM 1 ... for implying mosquitoes, the state bird, would carry us away if we allow dams in the greenway.
Unnamed person who complained to City Engineering, FM 1.5 ... as reported at the meeting, for saying garages might topple into the greenway's ravine if the erosion wasn't stopped.
As Winston Churchill said, "there's nothing to fear but fear-mongering itself."
4/22/10
4/21/10
Board of Public Works approves greenway plan--with no changes
The Board of Public Works in session on 4/21/10
On April 21 at 6:30, the public hearing portion of the meeting began in the City-County building, and ended at about 9:00 pm. The board actually began their meeting at 4:30 pm, considering the “non-hearing” items before 6:30. What a marathon! Hey, running the city is hard work!
Attending were seven board members (some of them Alders), about 4 city engineers who presented projects to the Board, and at least 10 citizens. There were three citizens who made statements about the greenway.
The format for review of each project was
- Presentation of the project by an engineer
- Technical questions by board members
- Technical questions by citizens
- Comments by citizens (limited to three minutes each)
- Discussion among board members.
- Motion to approve the project (sometimes with a few modifications), then a vote.
Engineer Lisa Coleman (above) made a verbal presentation of the project, using the maps we have seen plus some photo enlargements. She reviewed the history of the project and the opposition, stating that the whole project began after some residents along the greenway complained about the erosion.
The original plan for four dams has been cut back to three because one resident objected--probably Mr. Ozanne, because later he commented that he was opposed to dams because of the mosquitoes that plagued his family when he was young.
One board member confirmed that it is now City policy to hold contractors responsible for damage to trees outside planned area, and Lisa confirmed that they would delimit the construction area with fencing (except for the lateral sewage lines). I believe I heard that the project will be bid for natural fieldstone riprap.
During technical questions, we learned that the Vactor trucks can work with hoses up to 600 feet long, but that they cannot operate from Upland or Hillcrest because of the 90 degree bend that would be required in a hose coming down from either street. So the gravel road to the first manhole from the east end is still required--the gravel will be covered with topsoil, as in Westmorland park (where it still looks a little ratty).
Comments from residents on the plan
Peter Mitchell asked about disturbance to residents from construction, talked about the large size of equipment, and his fears about expected collateral damage to trees. He questioned why large trees couldn’t be planted; Lisa replied that, after they lay down the riprap, heavy equipment won’t be able to come in to plant large trees. Board member Phillips agreed that he, too, is concerned about collateral damage to trees.
Mitchell said, rather pointedly, that residents were concerned that--even at this meeting--there weren’t enough details provided for residents to fully understand what was planned.
I have to agree. I still cannot understand why a rain garden at the east end cannot be built to take runoff from South Owen Drive. I have looked at the lay of the land there, and can’t see a valid reason against it. You might say: "Citizens should just trust city engineers to do their job." The problem is, people report that project details are sometimes modified in mid-stream, so they don't turn out as presented in public meetings.
Responding to Mitchell’s critical tone, board member Michael Rewey defended Lisa, saying twice that in the ten years he has served on the board, hers was the best presentation he had ever heard.
Alder Paul responded that, putting things in perspective, sewers were important, and there would be s*** in people’s basements if something wasn’t done. Trees were important, but it was unavoidable to lose some, and they would grow back.
David Thompson said:
- The original cause of damage to the greenway was excessive runoff from upstream.
- It would be better for both the neighborhood and the city to solve the runoff problem, but this project does nothing to address runoff issues, despite the fact that just upstream is a park where runoff could be moderated.
- The city would be better served if runoff were solved at the source--an example being the need for an expensive project underway to prevent flooding downstream on University Avenue.
- In summary, the Board of Public Works should give greater weight to watershed issues.
The project is approved
The Board approved the project as presented, all 7 members voting in favor.
In my last blog posting, I said I expected the greenway plan would be “rubber-stamped by the board. After seeing them in action, I don’t think the Board gives all projects a rubber stamp approval. For a number of projects, there were numerous comments and questions from board members, and even some minor modifications requested for a project before it was voted on.
That said, the Greenway plan was passed with no modifications, and approved unanimously. Two Board members actively supported the plan in the face of criticism from residents. I suspect Board support reflects the fact that Lisa Coleman and Chris Schmidt have worked so hard on this project, going through three neighborhood meetings.
In short, all the juice has been squeezed from this lemon--there’s no more lemonade to be had.
What more can we do?
- Work to reform the Board of Public Works--give it a greener perspective.
- Remember and vote for Adlers and Mayors who back green infrastructure.
- Review the landscaping plan.
- Watch construction and sound the alarm if any trees outside the fence are touched.
- Find out how trees along the lateral lines will be protected--that's still up in the air.
- Make sure natural fieldstone riprap is used, as promised.
- Attend and register to make comments at the Common Council hearing on May 4. Let the City know the process isn't "green" enough.
- Make sure redevelopment of the Mt.Olive Church property reduces stormwater runoff from the current levels.
4/20/10
Where do we go from here? Improve the process.
At the Board of Public Works hearing, on April 21, it looks as if the Board will rubber-stamp Lisa Coleman's plans for the greenway. What else can you call the process, when the greenway plan is one of 56 items to be reviewed, and there is no written plan presented to the board to study before the meeting?
Yes, our Alder Chris Schmidt has been extremely helpful in answering questions and facilitating discussion, while engineer Lisa Coleman has done much extra work and made some important modifications to the original plan. We are grateful for their dilligence and concern, which led to the following changes:
The symptoms are higher costs for our municipal water supply, serious flooding, sediment creating "deltas" in the lakes, stinking algae blooms, along with dried up streams and springs. With a patient as sick as Madison, remedial projects like the planned pipe under University Avenue will be very expensive, without addressing the cause of the problem.
With streams dried up or buried, children are loosing places to play, to exercise, and to learn about nature.
The present greenway plans are nothing more than "aspirin" for a very sick patient. The only real cure is improvements to the entire watershed--involving rain gardens and other kinds of "green infrastructure."
The recent struggle over the Hillcrest-Upland Greenway shows that green infrastructure won't make much headway in Madison until we make changes to the process.
Historically, the process has been this: City Engineering responds...
The planning and approval process needs to be reformed, to ensure that stormwater problems are viewed from a watershed perspective, with gradual improvements to watershed health as a key goal.
There's no question that making improvements to a whole watershed will be complicated--and will take a long time...20 years or more. That's probably the reason why few in city government want to do anything but dispense aspirin.
Complex problems require a new approach
We eradicated smallpox... we flew to the moon. That makes people think that taking a pill, or hiring an engineer, will solve all problems. But increasingly, the most complicated problems seem impossible to solve--problems like global warming, health care reform, and .... city infrastructure that's both livable and sustainable.
There's one complex undertaking where we've succeeded--the construction of large buildings. Every time I go downtown, I'm amazed by a new apartment building that wasn't there a few months ago. Perhaps the construction industry can teach us how to attack other complex problems.
In his recent book The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right, physician Atul Gawande engagingly describes how the people working on construction of a skyscraper are able to handle unexpected problems. The various professionals and workers affected by the problem consult in a timely manner. They work out a solution together, then modify the construction schedule as needed. The Checklist Manifesto is about how to solve our healthcare crisis, but its lessons can be applied to watershed issues.
To cure watershed disease, we need to bring together, with a new process, a variety of stakeholders and experts, including:
First, the City needs to decide whether it wants to head in the direction of green infrastructure. Philadelphia is now taking bold steps down this road. Such a committment might by started by passing a referendum, or by creating some kind of city-wide panel. Suggestions, please! On the neighborhood level, there is a process that produces neighborhood plans.
Next, new laws are needed that create mandates. This is a goal--really a requirement--to show where we are headed. We already have some mandates. For example, there's one that sets a goal for reducing the sediment load to our lakes.* For new developments, there's a mandate administered by DNR and Dane County, saying that runoff after after a new residential development should be no more than it was before construction. But unfortunately, we have few tools to improve the watershed within already developed areas.
Then, we need to pass laws creating an orderly but flexible process that will bring all the above stakeholders into the process. Mandates alone, without a better process, don't work that well. The mandate about sediment is pushing the city to repair the Hillcrest-Upland Greenway, but the resuilting plan does nothing to solve the underlying problem--to improve the watershed.
Finally, citizens have to be part of the solution. We have to improve outreach, education, and provide incentives that encourage people to participate.
Yes, Madison has already made a tiny step in that direction with the City's rain garden program for terraces--the city does the construction, shares costs with the homeowner, and the owner maintains the garden. It's a nice start, but construction projects all over the city are still taking place without any rain gardens (for example, the recent repaving of Midvale Blvd, or Keating Terrace). Funds and guidelines for terrace rain gardens need to be dramatically expanded.
We need to experiment with other ways to encourage citizens to do the right thing for the watershed. For example, if we have as many rain gardens in a neighborhood as we really need, the soil is going to get soggy sometimes. A few basements per block might leak. The city needs a program to either compensate these homeowners, or better, to help them upgrade their basements.
Next steps
It's time to start talking about how the Board of Public Works can be modified to incorporate input from more experts and stakeholders.
City officials need to exercise strong leadership, because with watershed disease, the cures aren't obvious to citizens.
Groups of neighbors need to work together to find small neighborhood solutions. For example, there's a long history in Sunset Village of controversy about what happens to the terraces. Sidewalks? No way! But rain gardens for street runoff? Maybe. Before the neighborhood planning process gets underway, a few neighbors could create beautiful rain gardens alongside several streets. These would show we can improve stormwater management and make the nieghborhood more beautiful at the same time. Unless we start demonstration gardens soon, the idea won't get anywhere in the upcoming neighborhood planning process, and green infrastructure will be postponed for 10 years or more.
Yes, our Alder Chris Schmidt has been extremely helpful in answering questions and facilitating discussion, while engineer Lisa Coleman has done much extra work and made some important modifications to the original plan. We are grateful for their dilligence and concern, which led to the following changes:
- The plan for a maintenance road down the center of the greenway was shortened to just the eastern end.
- The limits of the construction area will be clearly marked and there will be penalties for the contractor if additional trees are harmed.
- The city will create a unified landscaping plan for the greenway.
- The stream won't be buried in a pipe (but it will be buried in riprap).
- Several dams will break up the monotony of the stone rubble that will line the channel.
- Natural fieldstones will be used to line the channel (the riprap).
- The leafy, natural beauty of the wooded ravine will be spoiled with at least 65 large trees destroyed.
- The natural stream that sometimes flows will be straightened and buried in ugly riprap.
- No rain gardens will be incorporated into the eastern end. We feel that rain gardens should be part of any city construction.
- The biggest problem is that this project was planned in isolation. There has been no effort to consider other plans upstream to reduce and control excessive runoff which is the cause of our greenway problems.
The symptoms are higher costs for our municipal water supply, serious flooding, sediment creating "deltas" in the lakes, stinking algae blooms, along with dried up streams and springs. With a patient as sick as Madison, remedial projects like the planned pipe under University Avenue will be very expensive, without addressing the cause of the problem.
With streams dried up or buried, children are loosing places to play, to exercise, and to learn about nature.
The present greenway plans are nothing more than "aspirin" for a very sick patient. The only real cure is improvements to the entire watershed--involving rain gardens and other kinds of "green infrastructure."
The recent struggle over the Hillcrest-Upland Greenway shows that green infrastructure won't make much headway in Madison until we make changes to the process.
Historically, the process has been this: City Engineering responds...
- To obvious problems--like persistent flooding at the intersection of University Avenue and Midvale Blvd.
- To complaints from individual citizens. According to Mr. Ozanne at a recent meeting, burial of the stream at the east end of the greenway resulted from a complaint by his family that the stream was creeping too close to their house on South Owen Drive.
- In addition, Engineering makes inspections, deciding when current structures need upgrade or repair.
- Recently, there was a new wrinkle--the city must respond to a mandate* to reduce sediment washing into the lakes.
The planning and approval process needs to be reformed, to ensure that stormwater problems are viewed from a watershed perspective, with gradual improvements to watershed health as a key goal.
There's no question that making improvements to a whole watershed will be complicated--and will take a long time...20 years or more. That's probably the reason why few in city government want to do anything but dispense aspirin.
Complex problems require a new approach
We eradicated smallpox... we flew to the moon. That makes people think that taking a pill, or hiring an engineer, will solve all problems. But increasingly, the most complicated problems seem impossible to solve--problems like global warming, health care reform, and .... city infrastructure that's both livable and sustainable.
There's one complex undertaking where we've succeeded--the construction of large buildings. Every time I go downtown, I'm amazed by a new apartment building that wasn't there a few months ago. Perhaps the construction industry can teach us how to attack other complex problems.
In his recent book The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right, physician Atul Gawande engagingly describes how the people working on construction of a skyscraper are able to handle unexpected problems. The various professionals and workers affected by the problem consult in a timely manner. They work out a solution together, then modify the construction schedule as needed. The Checklist Manifesto is about how to solve our healthcare crisis, but its lessons can be applied to watershed issues.
To cure watershed disease, we need to bring together, with a new process, a variety of stakeholders and experts, including:
- Stormwater engineers
- Scientists who study lakes (limnologists)
- Contractors who do the work
- Landscape architect, horticulturists, and environmental consultants
- City officials, politicians, and lawmakers
- Agencies like DNR & Dane County who enforce rules and grant permits
- Neighborhood groups and other groups like Friends of Lake Wingra
- People who educate the public (teachers, activists, reporters)
- Business managers
- Individual landowners
First, the City needs to decide whether it wants to head in the direction of green infrastructure. Philadelphia is now taking bold steps down this road. Such a committment might by started by passing a referendum, or by creating some kind of city-wide panel. Suggestions, please! On the neighborhood level, there is a process that produces neighborhood plans.
Next, new laws are needed that create mandates. This is a goal--really a requirement--to show where we are headed. We already have some mandates. For example, there's one that sets a goal for reducing the sediment load to our lakes.* For new developments, there's a mandate administered by DNR and Dane County, saying that runoff after after a new residential development should be no more than it was before construction. But unfortunately, we have few tools to improve the watershed within already developed areas.
Then, we need to pass laws creating an orderly but flexible process that will bring all the above stakeholders into the process. Mandates alone, without a better process, don't work that well. The mandate about sediment is pushing the city to repair the Hillcrest-Upland Greenway, but the resuilting plan does nothing to solve the underlying problem--to improve the watershed.
Finally, citizens have to be part of the solution. We have to improve outreach, education, and provide incentives that encourage people to participate.
Yes, Madison has already made a tiny step in that direction with the City's rain garden program for terraces--the city does the construction, shares costs with the homeowner, and the owner maintains the garden. It's a nice start, but construction projects all over the city are still taking place without any rain gardens (for example, the recent repaving of Midvale Blvd, or Keating Terrace). Funds and guidelines for terrace rain gardens need to be dramatically expanded.
We need to experiment with other ways to encourage citizens to do the right thing for the watershed. For example, if we have as many rain gardens in a neighborhood as we really need, the soil is going to get soggy sometimes. A few basements per block might leak. The city needs a program to either compensate these homeowners, or better, to help them upgrade their basements.
Next steps
It's time to start talking about how the Board of Public Works can be modified to incorporate input from more experts and stakeholders.
City officials need to exercise strong leadership, because with watershed disease, the cures aren't obvious to citizens.
Groups of neighbors need to work together to find small neighborhood solutions. For example, there's a long history in Sunset Village of controversy about what happens to the terraces. Sidewalks? No way! But rain gardens for street runoff? Maybe. Before the neighborhood planning process gets underway, a few neighbors could create beautiful rain gardens alongside several streets. These would show we can improve stormwater management and make the nieghborhood more beautiful at the same time. Unless we start demonstration gardens soon, the idea won't get anywhere in the upcoming neighborhood planning process, and green infrastructure will be postponed for 10 years or more.
* * *
* Mandate: 40% Removal of Total Suspended Solids in stormwater runoff by the year is 2015.
This blog is an exploration of some complicated issues. If there's an error, or if you have some ideas, please let me know. You can email me or post a comment at the bottom of the blog.
This blog is an exploration of some complicated issues. If there's an error, or if you have some ideas, please let me know. You can email me or post a comment at the bottom of the blog.
Citizen attendance needed at hearing Wednesday night
The Board of Public Works will hold a public hearing Wednesday night, April 21, at 6:30 pm, in room 108 of the City-County Building.
The Hillcrest-Upland Greenway plans are item #9 on an agenda containing 56 items. You can view the whole agenda here.
Lisa Coleman said: "I don't have a written proposal for them - I will provide a short verbal description of the project, show a display of the plan, and take questions." Greenway resident Kathleen McElroy was surprised, given all the controversy, that there was to be no written plan for the Board to review.
Citizens can speak about their concerns, with a time limit of three minutes. You should register to speak before 6:30 pm.
It's important for affected residents to attend, for two reasons.
public hearing at 5:30 pm the same day (same room) about water permits. The Greenway plan can't proceed without permits. Chris Schnmidt said: "This item is a standing item on each agenda, and is for Rob Phillips to report to BPW about the permits that are required for the projects on that agenda. It is a briefing item, basically."
Also of interest to citizens concerned about "green infrastructure" is item #29 (18122): “Waterways 2010.” This project involves various small storm and sanitary sewer projects citywide to conduct necessary repairs or alleviate drainage problems. I am wondering--has City Engineering studied whether rain gardens could solve some of these problems in a more cost-effective way?
The Hillcrest-Upland Greenway plans are item #9 on an agenda containing 56 items. You can view the whole agenda here.
Lisa Coleman said: "I don't have a written proposal for them - I will provide a short verbal description of the project, show a display of the plan, and take questions." Greenway resident Kathleen McElroy was surprised, given all the controversy, that there was to be no written plan for the Board to review.
Citizens can speak about their concerns, with a time limit of three minutes. You should register to speak before 6:30 pm.
It's important for affected residents to attend, for two reasons.
- To show there is continued interest, and that projects shouldn't just be rubber stamped.
- To make sure that the plan for the Hillcrest-Upland Greenway hasn't changed since residents heard revised plans at the last neighborhood meeting.
Also of interest to citizens concerned about "green infrastructure" is item #29 (18122): “Waterways 2010.” This project involves various small storm and sanitary sewer projects citywide to conduct necessary repairs or alleviate drainage problems. I am wondering--has City Engineering studied whether rain gardens could solve some of these problems in a more cost-effective way?
4/11/10
Upcoming meetings about the greenway
Engineer Lisa Coleman has informed us "of the upcoming schedule for meetings for project approval by the Board of Public Works and the Common Council."
- Board of Public Works Public Hearing 4/21/10
- Common Council Public Hearing 5/4/10
Agendas for these two meetings are available here. Check this link before the meetings to find correct room numbers.
3/1/10
Rulings Restrict Clean Water Act, Foiling E.P.A.
Water pollution getting worse
"Thousands of the nation’s largest water polluters are outside the Clean Water Act’s reach because the Supreme Court has left uncertain which waterways are protected by that law, according to interviews with regulators.
As a result, some businesses are declaring that the law no longer applies to them. And pollution rates are rising."
Story from the New York Times.
Make a difference in your own neighborhood
On the whole, water pollution around the country is geting worse. It's the result of increasing population, combined with weakened government and laws.
"Green infrastructure," including rain gardens, offers citizens a way of making a difference in their own neighborhoods, where the water cycle begins.
"Thousands of the nation’s largest water polluters are outside the Clean Water Act’s reach because the Supreme Court has left uncertain which waterways are protected by that law, according to interviews with regulators.
As a result, some businesses are declaring that the law no longer applies to them. And pollution rates are rising."
Story from the New York Times.
Make a difference in your own neighborhood
On the whole, water pollution around the country is geting worse. It's the result of increasing population, combined with weakened government and laws.
"Green infrastructure," including rain gardens, offers citizens a way of making a difference in their own neighborhoods, where the water cycle begins.
2/25/10
Vaccinating our city against watershed disease
Vaccination is the most successful and cost-effective method of preventing infectious disease. But the process was slow to spread after it was successfully tested by Edward Jenner in 1796, because it's a little painful, and the reason why it works isn't obvious to the average citizen.
Vaccination works by stimulating our natural immune system. It works with nature, rather than against it. And vaccination works best when everyone is vaccinated, because then the disease can't find enough unvaccinated people to spread.
A sick watershed
Today, we have a similar situation with our lakes and streams. In wild landscapes, rainwater sinks into the ground. Sometimes during large storms, water does run over the surface into nearby streams, but soon the floodwaters are trapped and filtered in wetlands, where they linger on the way to our lakes. So all water flowing into the lakes is filtered by flowing through the ground, or through the wetlands.
By paving the uplands and filling the wetlands to make shopping centers, we changed the natural system--our lakes and streams became "diseased." The signs of this disease are vanishing wildlife, dry streams, dirty lakes, and floods near University Avenue.
The prescribed cure?
Vaccinate the landscape by building rain gardens and small artificial wetlands. This landscape approach has many similarities to vaccination:
The "leech doctor"
Despite its obvious success, vaccination has always had its detractors. Old medical traditions died hard. The same is true today of city infrastructure. Once, paving the land and channelizing streams seemed like the modern thing to do. And it did work for a while. When the patient is young and vigorous, you can apply a leech to suck some blood, without much ill effect.
But today, with our mature city landscape, "vaccinating" with rain gardens and wetlands is the only sensible solution. They must be part of EVERY new construction, resurfacing, and redevelopment. They must be part of the greenway plan.
If you hear of any new city plan that does not incorporate rain gardens and artificial wetlands, then you are listening to...THE LEECH DOCTOR.
Strong leadership needed
In Madison, there's a lack of strong leadership concerning our diseased lakes and streams. The system is broken. When each rain garden by itself is bound to have little effect, we need bold and coordinated action.
Nowhere is this more obvious than in the City's proposal to allow each resident along the greenway to adopt their own landscaping plan.
What if we allowed each citizen to mix their own smallpox vaccination? What if we wrote a check to each resident along University Avenue and said, you get your section paved? Wow! This is not a serious proposal for a serious problem.
Yes, it won't be easy to fix the watershed upstream, so that flooding in the greenway (and along University Ave.) is less severe. So, where's the strong leadership to get hard things done? Why is our alder just being an apologist for outmoded stormwater solutions? Where's the Mayor?
Vaccination works by stimulating our natural immune system. It works with nature, rather than against it. And vaccination works best when everyone is vaccinated, because then the disease can't find enough unvaccinated people to spread.
A sick watershed
Today, we have a similar situation with our lakes and streams. In wild landscapes, rainwater sinks into the ground. Sometimes during large storms, water does run over the surface into nearby streams, but soon the floodwaters are trapped and filtered in wetlands, where they linger on the way to our lakes. So all water flowing into the lakes is filtered by flowing through the ground, or through the wetlands.
By paving the uplands and filling the wetlands to make shopping centers, we changed the natural system--our lakes and streams became "diseased." The signs of this disease are vanishing wildlife, dry streams, dirty lakes, and floods near University Avenue.
The prescribed cure?
Vaccinate the landscape by building rain gardens and small artificial wetlands. This landscape approach has many similarities to vaccination:
- Nearly every impervious surface--roof or road--needs a rain garden.
- Nearly every channel for water needs to incorporate a wetland.
- Nearly everyone has to become part of the solution.
- Since the underlying science isn't obvious (groundwater is invisible), city officials and informed citizens have to assert strong leadership.
- It's a little "painful" at first. But here there's a difference--for rain gardens are truly beautiful.
The "leech doctor"
Despite its obvious success, vaccination has always had its detractors. Old medical traditions died hard. The same is true today of city infrastructure. Once, paving the land and channelizing streams seemed like the modern thing to do. And it did work for a while. When the patient is young and vigorous, you can apply a leech to suck some blood, without much ill effect.
But today, with our mature city landscape, "vaccinating" with rain gardens and wetlands is the only sensible solution. They must be part of EVERY new construction, resurfacing, and redevelopment. They must be part of the greenway plan.
If you hear of any new city plan that does not incorporate rain gardens and artificial wetlands, then you are listening to...THE LEECH DOCTOR.
Strong leadership needed
In Madison, there's a lack of strong leadership concerning our diseased lakes and streams. The system is broken. When each rain garden by itself is bound to have little effect, we need bold and coordinated action.
Nowhere is this more obvious than in the City's proposal to allow each resident along the greenway to adopt their own landscaping plan.
What if we allowed each citizen to mix their own smallpox vaccination? What if we wrote a check to each resident along University Avenue and said, you get your section paved? Wow! This is not a serious proposal for a serious problem.
Yes, it won't be easy to fix the watershed upstream, so that flooding in the greenway (and along University Ave.) is less severe. So, where's the strong leadership to get hard things done? Why is our alder just being an apologist for outmoded stormwater solutions? Where's the Mayor?
Greenway featured on WORT radio program
Today, Lisa Coleman--representing City Engineering, and David Newby--a resident, discussed plans for the Greenway on the radio.
You can hear a podcast of the program--click on "In Our Backyard," Wednesday February 24, 6:30 pm.
The Greenway is the second topic during the program, and the discussion lasts about 5 minutes. It's mostly a summary of what has happened so far.
Of particular interest were Lisa's comments about landscaping. You may recall that at the last meeting, neighbors found details about the greenway plans skimpy, and requested the meeting of Feb. 25 specifically to learn more about landscaping plans.
On the radio, Lisa provided a preview of her presentation at the next meeting. Lisa said she had agreed to more landscaping, and that at the meeting she would present two options. The City will...
So it looks like the same approach again--a charade where the city pretends to present options--appears to be flexible--when they really have just one outcome in mind.
The channel should be part of the landscaping plan
For Option 1 above, Lisa said that trees and shrubs would be planted outside the ripraped channel. Well, in our narrow ravine, that doesn't leave much. The cross-sectional diagram on plans shows a strip of riprap 18 feet wide. With a channel this wide, then details about the channel itself are of critical importance:
What's at stake in the greenway
It's about more than just the wildlife and trees in this one lovely spot. If neighbors accept the despoiling of this place, then other neighborhoods are going to experience the same short-sighted process.
We're going to get an 18-foot-wide swath of rubble, and lose 65 trees, because the city seems incapable of planning to handle stormwaters upstream. Large rain gardens could be planted on terraces to handle street runoff, as in Portland, Oregon. A beautiful retention basin/rain garden could be created in the park. Church parking lots could be modified to control runoff. But none of this has been considered in this project, so instead we get enough riprap to nearly obliterate the ravine.
Engineering has no budget for maintenance of projects like this, so instead we get enough riprap to last till the next ice age, without any maintenance. The whole approach and process needs to change.
A watershed plan could save everyone's time
After the last meeting, an editorial about the controversy praised the democratic process. I certainly am grateful for the many hours that Lisa Coleman and Alder Chris Schmidt have put into communicating with citizens. And citizens also have put in many long hours, researching alternatives and debating with one another. But I fear much of this was time wasted, digging ourselves out of a hole that was created by poor planning--by a flawed process.
What we need instead is a watershed approach, with many more tools in the kit than just tons of riprap and a chainsaw. We need a willingness to try new ways of handling rain where it falls.
You can review here what "Friends of the Hillcrest-Upland Greenway" thought about the last meeting, and what they hope to learn at the Feb. 25th meeting.
You can hear a podcast of the program--click on "In Our Backyard," Wednesday February 24, 6:30 pm.
The Greenway is the second topic during the program, and the discussion lasts about 5 minutes. It's mostly a summary of what has happened so far.
Of particular interest were Lisa's comments about landscaping. You may recall that at the last meeting, neighbors found details about the greenway plans skimpy, and requested the meeting of Feb. 25 specifically to learn more about landscaping plans.
On the radio, Lisa provided a preview of her presentation at the next meeting. Lisa said she had agreed to more landscaping, and that at the meeting she would present two options. The City will...
- Plant some new shrubs and trees to replace ones that are lost--but this will occur only outside the channel filled with riprap; or
- Simply write a check to people whose property borders the greenway. They can use the money for plantings of their own choosing on the greenway easement. She says this will provide more freedom, and people won't have to wait for a lot of red tape.
So it looks like the same approach again--a charade where the city pretends to present options--appears to be flexible--when they really have just one outcome in mind.
The channel should be part of the landscaping plan
For Option 1 above, Lisa said that trees and shrubs would be planted outside the ripraped channel. Well, in our narrow ravine, that doesn't leave much. The cross-sectional diagram on plans shows a strip of riprap 18 feet wide. With a channel this wide, then details about the channel itself are of critical importance:
- Can the channel width be varied, or can it be curved, to avoid large trees?
- Will the channel have pools, check dams, or vegetation?
- For riprap, can residents be guaranteed that natural fieldstone will be used--rather than limestone rubble with edges sharp as glass? Or do we learn that "natural stone was out of stock" when the dump truck arrives.
- What provisions will be made for watering the plantings while they become established?
What's at stake in the greenway
It's about more than just the wildlife and trees in this one lovely spot. If neighbors accept the despoiling of this place, then other neighborhoods are going to experience the same short-sighted process.
We're going to get an 18-foot-wide swath of rubble, and lose 65 trees, because the city seems incapable of planning to handle stormwaters upstream. Large rain gardens could be planted on terraces to handle street runoff, as in Portland, Oregon. A beautiful retention basin/rain garden could be created in the park. Church parking lots could be modified to control runoff. But none of this has been considered in this project, so instead we get enough riprap to nearly obliterate the ravine.
Engineering has no budget for maintenance of projects like this, so instead we get enough riprap to last till the next ice age, without any maintenance. The whole approach and process needs to change.
A watershed plan could save everyone's time
After the last meeting, an editorial about the controversy praised the democratic process. I certainly am grateful for the many hours that Lisa Coleman and Alder Chris Schmidt have put into communicating with citizens. And citizens also have put in many long hours, researching alternatives and debating with one another. But I fear much of this was time wasted, digging ourselves out of a hole that was created by poor planning--by a flawed process.
What we need instead is a watershed approach, with many more tools in the kit than just tons of riprap and a chainsaw. We need a willingness to try new ways of handling rain where it falls.
* * *
2/23/10
Green streets for Madison
If Madison is going to "get serious" about problems of flooding and pollution in our lakes, then we have to build rain gardens for street runoff.
The intersection of University Ave. and Midvale Blvd has seen frequent and serious flooding.
According to Alder Chris Schmidt, "A few years ago Madison and Shorewood Hills went through a big exercise regarding stormwater that heads to University Ave. Both sides hired consultants, and after studying the issue it was found that to stop flooding on University Ave without adding extra storage space and outflow potential, one would have to convert all City of Madison land in the watershed to detention ponds and every property owner in the watershed--thousands of homes and businesses--would need to install raingardens and rain barrels."
Apparently, the rain garden and detention pond solution was considered too radical, and "not a guaranteed fix." So instead, they opted for adding a second "box culvert" to carry floodwaters from the University Ave. area to Lake Mendota, via Willow Creek. The expensive culvert is more of a "guaranteed fix" for the flooding, but not for the pollution--sediment carried by Willow Creek is creating a "delta" where the creek meets University Bay.
The culvert work is scheduled for next summer. Rather than trying to solve problems in the larger watershed, the culvert is just a band-aid. The same old approach--one band-aid at a time.
Along with roofs, streets and parking lots are the largest source of runoff during storms. You would think that, if rain gardens have already been identified as part of the solution, they would be included in every street reconstruction, or other major construction, but that has not been the case. Last summer, Midvale Blvd was resurfaced--but no rain gardens.
Madison's experiment with rain gardens for street runoff
Last spring, when streets in the West High School area were resurfaced, the city gave residents the option of installing a rain garden on the terrace. About two people per block chose this option, providing a decent test for the design. Some residents hired their own garden consultants to design somewhat more elaborate rain gardens. One resident I talked to was very happy with the outcome.
This rain garden near West High School, built by the City on the terrace, handles runoff from the street.
Here's where water in the gutter enters a pipe, which leads to the rain garden. It's necessary for residents to keep these clear of debris. It seems doubtful this small opening can handle much of the stormwater from a block of street.
During the same resurfacing project, grates were installed to drain runoff from some sidewalks and driveways into rain gardens.
The City now has a terrace rain garden program--the City will pay 75% of the costs of installing and planting a rain garden on your terrace, provided the spot meets certain standards. More details here.
Madison and the USGS also conducted research to test how well prairie vegetation, when planted in rain gardens, helped ground to absorb the water. It turns out that when you plant the proper plants, they are very efficient in draining water into the ground. More.
In my opinion, this program is a step in the right direction, but not nearly enough. Each rain garden is isolated, and the grates where water enters the garden can easily become clogged. In many cases, the terraces in Madison are not large enough--they should be enlarged to create a chain of interconnected pools.
Madison needs more than a few rain gardens per street--we need "green streets."
Unlike Madison, the City of Portland "benefits from comprehensive thinking and planning. In Portland, urban design, multi-modal transportation systems, watershed health, parks, open spaces, and infrastructure systems are all enhanced by integrated planning, design, and budgeting."
In Madison, it's one band-aid at a time. Stormwater projects are planned with little thought to what else could be done upstream to reduce the problem.
Siskiyou Street in Portland, Oregon
"A street that uses vegetated facilities to manage stormwater runoff at its source is referred to as a Green Street."
In the Siskiyou Green Street project below, the street was narrowed, creating larger terraces for bigger rain gardens.
Photo: Kevin Robert Perry.
Plan for the Siskiyou Green Street Project. Click to enlarge.
"Stormwater runoff from 10,000 square feet of NE Siskiyou Street and neighboring driveways flows downhill along the existing curb until it reaches the 7-foot wide, 50-foot long curb extensions. An 18-inch wide curb cut allows this water to enter each curb extension. Once water is within the landscape area, the water is retained to a depth of 7 inches by a series of checkdams."
"Depending on the intensity of a rain event, water will cascade from one "cell" to another until plants and soil absorb the runoff or until the curb extensions reach their storage capacity. The landscape system in place infiltrates water at a rate of 3 inches per hour."
If a storm is intense enough, water will exit the landscape area through another curb cut at the end of each curb extension and will flow into the existing [storm sewer] street inlets. With the new stormwater curb extensions now in place, nearly all of NE Siskiyou’s annual street runoff, estimated at 225,000 gallons, is managed by its landscape system. In fact, multiple simulated flow tests have shown that the curb extensions at NE Siskiyou Street have the ability to reduce the runoff intensity of a typical 25-year storm event by 85 percent.
"Where communities struggle with ever-increasing impervious areas and degraded water quality, these simple landscape approaches can have a measurable positive impact." Source.
The project had benefits in addition to stormwater--beauty, calming of traffic, community education about water quality, and community spirit.
Community involvement
"The success of neighborhood stormwater projects like the NE Siskiyou Green Street is dependent on community involvement. The residents were active participants in the design process. Multiple "street side chats" were conducted during the summer of 2003 to determine how much parking to remove and what planting schemes they desired, as well as to answer any questions and address any concerns."
"In a unique partnership, the City and the neighborhood residents have agreed to share responsibilities in maintaining the landscaped stormwater curb extensions."
Sunset Village would be an ideal place to try the Siskiyou plan
- Low traffic & low residential density
- Residents already love their stream and want to restore it to health
- Serious stormwater problems downstream need solutions (Greenway erosion & University Ave flooding)
- Lack of curbs means lower expense modifying streets
- Gradual slopes in neighborhood are friendly to rain gardens.
* * *
More photos from Portland.
Last chance for full moon seen from the ice
Photo with permission by Andre Wagner. Flickr link.
This Sunday, Feb. 28, is your last chance this winter to see a full moon rise over Madison, from Lake Mendota. That evening, sunset will be at 5:45 pm, and monrise at 6:13 pm.
If you're uncomfortable walking on the ice after dark, try Feb. 27, when the full moon will rise at 4:53 pm, before sunset.
Tips on icewalking here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
