2

4/26/2009 9:50:54 AM

http://www.neuse.ncsu.edu/ag588-15.pdf

Describes most of the stormwater BMPs that could be used.


Note that most of them have decent pollutant removal efficiencies but they aren't perfect. You wouldn't be able to reach the previous pristine conditions of the lake.

4/26/2009 11:29:17 AM

If you're spending $ 15-200 k for a stormwater entrapment system for a medium size development in order to preserve the lake, you would think that you could at least put in some kind of regulations about what kinds of fertilizers and insecticides could be used. I mean, it seems to me like that could easily be mandated by a homeowner's association (that level of locality).

But I'm not entirely sure how much the concern of fertilizers applies to suburbia anyway. I could see farms and stuff, of course, but what are homeowners drowning in fertilizers? Their grass lawns? That sounds like a pretty stupid reason to trash a lake.

Quote :

""while only a few of you wanted to live there, dumping your pollution in the lake was not a problem, nature could cope." What? It was a problem then too, we just didn't know enough to understand the implications of the impact. We know a lot more now than we did when development on the lake first began."

Wow, I'm unconvinced by this argument.

We've known since at least the 70s that we're pretty consistently fucking things up with developments of all kinds. The growth of NIMBYism did not correspond with new research findings exposing the evils of development.

4/27/2009 12:15:16 AM

Fucking LIBERALS if i want to put an industrial coal burning furnace in my back yard or turn it into a privately own landfill at Wrightsville beach then its my RIGHT to do so !!! America Freedoms! Libbies hate my freedom to do whatever i want just b.c its my land!

4/27/2009 12:17:34 AM

Quote :

"If you're spending $ 15-200 k for a stormwater entrapment system for a medium size development in order to preserve the lake, you would think that you could at least put in some kind of regulations about what kinds of fertilizers and insecticides could be used. I mean, it seems to me like that could easily be mandated by a homeowner's association (that level of locality)."

I suppose the issue there is that the NIMBY folks run the HOA's too, for the worse. You have to have a healthy lawn, have your trees a certain way (can't have dead trees in your yard, that's a fine!), and cut your grass regularly to avoid getting harassed and fined. Not all HOA's are like this. I've only heard of one or two that are like this, and most have somewhat reasonable covenants. It's just that an HOA wouldn't enforce something like that. It's really up to the municipality responsible for that development, the county, or the state to specify restricted areas for contaminated runoff water.

The other thing is that they don't want to regulate something that has more or less become a staple of the American suburb. I wonder how many people would lose their shit if they were told they cannot use municipal water on their lawns, can no longer use fertilizers or pesticides, and that their vehicle washing/service must be done in certified locations with special drainage systems that collect contaminated water for pumping/treatment. They're really afraid of doing anything about the issue because it will probably cost somebody their reelection/job/whatever. If there is, however, a media interest story in local freshwater contamination and a grassroots movement to "save our lakes" or what have you, then you might see something. As is, people just aren't paying attention enough to it for anything to change.

4/28/2009 12:00:13 AM

Can we stop trying to pick apart the various reasons why development causes environmental damage? Theres too many to count. Here, let me toss out a bunch of things off the top of my head:

Noise
Automotive exhaust particulate and chassis seepage
Clothes Dryer exhaust particulate
Litter
Pests
Infrastructure

Precipitation runoff:
-Tar from rooftops and infrastructure
-Oxidation from metal framework, pipes etc
-Preservatives from treated wood.
-Paint chips and oxydation
-Street Garbage
-Fertilizers
-Pesticides
-Adhesives
-Home Exterior Cleaning Agents

4/28/2009 10:52:03 AM

Could you actually clearly argue how all of those points are doing damage to the environment?

Noise? Is it scaring the animals away? However much that hurts the environment it doesn't compare to the fact that you changed the use of the land to natural whatever to human habitation. The fact is that a house is on a plot of land keeps the animals from making it their home in the first place, and who gives a flying F. if there's noise or a plastic wrapper after that point.

You're mistaking the group of things that humans don't like for something that makes a difference to the natural world.

[Edited on April 28, 2009 at 10:56 AM. Reason : ]

4/28/2009 10:55:53 AM

You're acting like fertilizer is the only thing thats dangerous. Im pointing out a bunch of other contaminants that go into our groundwater and cause worse things than algae. Like Cancer.

Yes, I am including the resident human population as part of the "environment". We're talking about preserving a lake thats already being used by humans in another fashion (recreation).

4/28/2009 11:20:07 AM