Homes in coastal California use much less energy than homes in most other places in the country. New building in California, as opposed to Texas, reduces America’s carbon emissions. Yet, instead of fighting to make it easier to build in California, environmentalists have played a significant role stemming the growth of America’s greenest cities.

Why is California so green?

The primary reason is climate. January temperature does a terrific job of explaining carbon emissions from home heating and July temperature does almost as well at explaining electricity usage. California has the most temperate climate in the country and as a result, homes use less heat in the winter and less electricity in the summer. In hot, humid Houston or frigid Minneapolis, people use plenty of energy to artificially recreate what California has naturally.

Environmentalists should, presumably, be out there lobbying for more homes in coastal California, but instead, for more than four decades, California environmental groups, such as Save the Bay, have fought new construction in the most temperate, lowest carbon-emission area of the country.

This anti-growth movement has achieved enormous successes, and the growth rate of California has plummeted. In the 20 years that ended in 1970, California’s population increased by 88%. Between 2000 and 2007, the population of California grew by less than 8%, which is slightly more than the growth of the United States population. California’s low growth doesn’t reflect lack of demand (prices remain quite high) or lack of land (densities are low), but instead one of the most regulated building environments in the country.

The local opponents of construction don’t have the ability to stop building in the United States as a whole, which hums along at roughly the rate of new household formation. When California’s anti-growth activists restrict building in California, then construction increases in Atlanta, Dallas and Houston. These three areas are both among the nation’s five most carbon-intensive living areas and among the four fastest-growing metropolitan areas. To be complete, California’s mandated environmental-impact reviews should ask not only about the impact on the local environment if a project proceeds, but also about the impact on global environment if the project gets moved elsewhere.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/missing-the-forest-for-the-trees/

4/21/2009 3:29:56 PM

There are five quadrillion ways to make the argument that the strict regulatory environment in California has done damage to the environment.

How about manufacturing? How is manufacturing doing in California these days? Not so well, so where did it go? Same place all manufacturing is going; China. What is the carbon intensity of China? A whole freaking lot. Something like 33% of their carbon emissions is from the export industry and their electrical grid is powered by 80% + coal power, and most of the 'other' sources comprises of gargantuan hydroelectric projects that destroy natural areas the size of small states and wipe out multiple endangered species.

One move California could do to reduce it's carbon intensity would be to levy tariffs (i don't actually know if they have the power to do this or not).

But California was never concerned with protecting the environment of the world as a whole. That would be making the common mistake of assuming that the green movement had the objective of protecting the Earth. Evidence points to the contrary.

4/21/2009 3:49:22 PM

Quote :

"lack of land (densities are low)"

is this referring to coastal densities or the whole state? because southern california and the bay area are ridiculously crowded so i'm not convinced environmental building regulations are the only thing keeping coastal growth low

and you don't have to get very far inland to lose that wonderful 'green' coastal climate

4/21/2009 4:43:38 PM

China is responsible for China. The Southeast USA is responsible for the Southeast USA. If my neighbor's house gets robbed, you can't say I'm at fault for keeping my own house locked.

4/21/2009 5:04:49 PM

Quote :

"China is responsible for China. The Southeast USA is responsible for the Southeast USA. If my neighbor's house gets robbed, you can't say I'm at fault for keeping my own house locked."

Your comment seriously does not make any sense. Read the article, the entire point of it is that local environmentalism is almost always detrimental to global health. Did that point just go whizzing over your head? Your comment might be taken to say that you disagree with the claim, but who knows, you didn't make any coherent argument.

If I am to elaborate more on WHY local environmentalism can be bad for the environment... generally such local action prevents some economic product from being produced. The issue is that the product will still be consumed. So if you don't manufacture something locally and import it from China, the subsequent environmental destruction isn't China's problem, that's you being a dumbass. The problem isn't production, the problem is consumption. If you're the one producing a robber then it doesn't matter who's house he/she robs.

4/21/2009 6:12:29 PM

Quote :

"homes use less heat in the winter and less electricity in the summer"

does not compute...

Are you inferring homes in california use less gas for heating??

Quote :

"Environmentalists should, presumably, be out there lobbying for more homes in coastal California, but instead, for more than four decades, California environmental groups, such as Save the Bay, have fought new construction in the most temperate, lowest carbon-emission area of the country."

your logic is kinda flawed as you make a rash assumption that every house not built in california means a saddened person will
retreat all the way back to texas or minnesota where they will use more heat/AC in everyday living.

Not to mention you neglect variables such as car emissions sitting in traffic given the high level of congestion places like LA have compared to say Oydessa Tx.

This argument overall sounds as if written by a 15 yr old.


Beyond the uber liberal tree-hugging hippies; i think many oppose growth of new houses as the % of unoccupied houses is enormous (don't feel like finding statistic)
compared to 20-30 years ago.

This article only has credibility if it can prove people are choosing not to move to California if they can not build a brand new house on Laguna Beach

4/21/2009 7:34:08 PM

Quote :

"The issue is that the product will still be consumed. So if you don't manufacture something locally and import it from China, the subsequent environmental destruction isn't China's problem, that's you being a dumbass. The problem isn't production, the problem is consumption. If you're the one producing a robber then it doesn't matter who's house he/she robs."

Well clearly you had an inkling of what I was getting at, otherwise you wouldn't have provided a counterpoint. My point: local environmentalism is not at fault for problems caused by a lack of environmentalism elsewhere. This article does not provide any compelling evidence that the referenced environmental destruction would not have happened anyways, regardless of California.

Nor does it offer any statistics to compare energy costs in California vs Houston, etc; to indicate to us that the writer is not exaggerating.

Nor does it offer any compelling evidence that environmentally sound development is not economically viable.

And finally, the connection between slow development in California and environmental regulation is tenuous at best. There are so many other factors to consider.

[Edited on April 21, 2009 at 7:42 PM. Reason : thus my analogy]

4/21/2009 7:37:11 PM

You think shit's bad now, just wait till the laughing stock of the US govt called the EPA starts regulating CO2 emissions for new buildings.

Don't want that Walmart built near your neighborhood? Just petition the EPA that the CO2 emissions from that building will harm your neighborhood. Development across the country is going to be slowed down and in some cases stopped if this lunacy continues.


But hey, its all in the name of something that can't be proven, so by all means continue...

4/21/2009 9:30:57 PM

have you gone delusional Pat?

Sure the liberals in DC have some goofy ideas. Do you really think they would pass though? Just like the proposed ban on exotic pets (guinea pigs, snakes, ferrets, etc) the public uproar would be huge.

As much as i hate to say but this carbon tax nightmare and other delusions by the right have about as much chance being enacted as a ban on abortion or declaring Christianity the official language of the US if Palin were elected in 2012....

4/21/2009 10:44:17 PM

i thought this was about oil refineries and nuclear power

4/21/2009 10:53:57 PM

Quote :

" Environmentalists should, presumably, be out there lobbying for more homes in coastal California, but instead, for more than four decades, California environmental groups, such as Save the Bay, have fought new construction in the most temperate, lowest carbon-emission area of the country."

Duh. You know why? Northern Californians don't want the bay area to turn into L.A. For good reason, I might add.

As I stated in another thread, there are lots of NIMBY enviro-nuts here. In many local political races, the candidates will trash each other as being not-environmentally-friendly-enough. There's no doubt that in specific places development restrictions should be eased.

But supply and demand being what it is, locales will naturally be more restrictive here. It's a beautiful place and that's why people want to live here. The state draws tourists for a similar reason. On a certain level we can't assume that all cities are Houston, TX that should grow endlessly outward.

On a last note, I take issue with the blog treating all of California as one homogeneous mass. It's not a productive discussion from a policy standpoint. Just within the Bay Area alone I think I could make a pretty decent argument for different approaches to growth for, say, San Jose and San Francisco. Both are very different places, even though they are relatively close.

4/22/2009 12:01:26 AM

oh no derr luberals tuk err newz houses omg nazis!

[Edited on April 22, 2009 at 7:43 AM. Reason : l]

4/22/2009 7:43:22 AM

Quote :

"Environmentalists should, presumably, be out there lobbying for more homes in coastal California, but instead, for more than four decades, California environmental groups, such as Save the Bay, have fought new construction in the most temperate, lowest carbon-emission area of the country."

This makes zero sense.

That's like saying, "Hey, Ocracoke is a really nice place. Let's build high rises on it!"

4/22/2009 8:37:39 AM

Quote :

"Let's build high rises on it"

hell ya free markets 4 da WinZ! no one should stop me from bulldozing acres of dunes and wildlife refuge so that I can put a 10 story hotel resort right on the ocean at Cape hatteras. why do environmentalists liberals hate capitalism so much?

[Edited on April 22, 2009 at 8:43 AM. Reason : x]

4/22/2009 8:43:20 AM

So, let me ask you environmentalists a question. It will be a good exercise in clarifying one's argument.

What criteria would properly justify 'protecting' an area from development in your mind?

1. The area is pretty
2. The area is ecologically significant (i.e. purifies water, produces an important product that other species consume, or preforms a significant function for the biosphere)
3. The area is biologically significant (i.e. provides an important habitat for a species that could not otherwise exist)
4. The area has natural wonders that other places don't have
5. The area is home to wild plants and animals period
6. The development is large
7. The development is small
8. The area is undeveloped - meaning that fighting development on any land that is not presently developed is justified
9. Other

More questions will follow.

4/22/2009 9:04:51 PM

I think a more obvious case of NIMBYs making things worse is typified by the OMG YUCCA crowd. So now, instead of having a central place where we store a bunch of really bad shit, which we can secure really well, since it's only in one place, we are gonna keep all this stuff in random ass places around the country, with varying levels of security, if any. Really, folks?

Another case would be OMG CAN'T BUILD A WINDFARM HERE!!! Well, ok, then we'll just keep using CO2-producing power-plants elsewhere (assuming that CO2 is the evil boogeyman it is made out to be, of course).

4/22/2009 9:09:33 PM

Quote :

"What criteria would properly justify 'protecting' an area from development in your mind?"

Maybe instead of asking "Why shouldnt we be allowed to develop this land (Why should we protect it)", we should be asking "Do we really NEED to develop this land?"

there is loads of property throughout the US that is already developed but is not being used that needs to be recycled. I think most people would agree that there should be balance between the "natural" world and our developed world, environmentalists just happen to believe that the balance has been reached (or maybe surpassed)

btw most of those points you listed I would generally agree are decent reasons to stop development (some more than others, obviously).

[Edited on April 22, 2009 at 9:40 PM. Reason : yea, i bit]

4/22/2009 9:39:49 PM

Quote :

"there is loads of property throughout the US that is already developed but is not being used that needs to be recycled."

Then, by all means, go out there and "recycle it." If you are right, then you will make a killing in profit! Your reasoning is a horrible reason to deny development in other areas. More than likely, there's a reason that said property is derelict: bad location, lots of crime, bad zoning laws or other spurious gov't regulation.

Quote :

"environmentalists just happen to believe that the balance has been reached (or maybe surpassed)"

No, not really. I'd say that most of the time "environmentalists" are just mis-informed idiots who know just enough to be dangerous. Kind of like politicians.

4/22/2009 9:46:47 PM

Quote :

"The enemies of growth in California emphasize the state’s water crisis. But the bulk of California’s water is used for agricultural purposes, not homes. If the state sensibly charged farmers the true social cost of their water, there would be plenty of water for homeowners."

I'd like to see more market pricing of water. It would put a strangle on a lot of growth in the West. I don't know what it would do the water situation in California, though. If you are going to get that water to those hypothetical cool Coastal cities you will end up pumping it over the coast range. Not cheap at all.

Environmentalists are hardly monolithic in their environmentalism. I'd rather see the preservation of wilderness over insuring every person lives a carbon neutral life or whatever.

4/22/2009 9:55:57 PM

correlation != causation

maybe no one wants to live in california because its a stupid state with horribly high tax rates and draconian laws dreamed up in the cauldrons of SF.

4/22/2009 9:59:51 PM

Quote :

"Maybe instead of asking "Why shouldnt we be allowed to develop this land (Why should we protect it)", we should be asking "Do we really NEED to develop this land?""

Fuck that.

I mean seriously, fuck that attitude (I'm trying to do one better than just FU). I don't want to live in a country where people are applying that attitude to anti-development activism.

This reminds me of the semi-automatic guns debate/thread. People keep asking "why do you need this?" And seriously, fuck that. I'll give you a reason, it's called the fucking free world.

I mean, do you have any perspective on this attitude and your approach? No one in the green movement is going around trying to convince people to not live in new homes. They're going around fighting court battles to keep new homes from being built. The question you're posing isn't "Do we really NEED to develop this land?", but "Do you really NEED to develop this land?"

Did you make them another home offer? Did you hand them a brochure summarizing the more environmentally friendly already-built home options when they were house shopping? Did you help your city government in recycling efforts? I agree that if there is waste then we have a civic duty to take action to reduce the impact on the planet in the act of fulfilling our human needs and wants, but for heaven's sake, let's do it in a proactive manner instead of stealing the American dream from other productive members of society.

4/22/2009 10:04:40 PM

^^ and there's that

Quote :

"If you are right, then you will make a killing in profit!"

It costs more to redevelop land than to develop new land.

4/22/2009 10:46:10 PM

This is a topic that I would generally be keen to engage in but the sheer lunacy perpetuated by the likes of mrfrog and aaronburro make it clear they have no intentions of seeing the importance of sustainable living. They'd rather live in their own little worlds free of the responsibilities of their actions. It's quite pathetic and sad actually.

[Edited on April 23, 2009 at 12:02 AM. Reason : .]

4/23/2009 12:02:33 AM

Quote :

"here's a reason that said property is derelict: bad location, lots of crime, bad zoning laws or other spurious gov't regulation."

Then maybe those are the issues that should be discussed so that the land can be reused, instead of just throwing it away because its cheaper or easier to develop new land

Quote :

"No, not really. I'd say that most of the time "environmentalists" are just mis-informed idiots who know just enough to be dangerous. Kind of like politicians."

Im glad your so smart, surely your world view is the only correct one

Quote :

"I'd like to see more market pricing of water"

me too. I think water will be a big issue soon, even hear in NC

Quote :

"instead of stealing the American dream from other productive members of society."

Isnt the American Dream deeper to you than a new McMansion and Hummer with a boat? That was just a vision perpetuated to make people go out and consume more and spend money (that it turns out they didnt have, makes me wonder how much of a role cheap credit played in our current environmental problems). To me the American dream is more about opportunity, everyone is treated fairly so that there is an even playing field for upward mobility in society (whether or not that is true is up for debate)

4/23/2009 8:53:51 AM

Quote :

"Isnt the American Dream deeper to you than a new McMansion and Hummer with a boat?"

To extend mrfrog's point, it does not appear to be deeper for the individuals in question. They are trying to buy a house in the suburbs, apparently they would not choose the dedicate a large fraction of their income towards the goal if it was not part of their American Dream. As the assertion goes, you have a home, and the environmental activists that work against the construction of the new homes have a home, probably in the suburbs, but these people should not be allowed to have one? It strikes me of "I've got mine, you should go without."

But it needs pointing out that the housing situation in much of California is not purely a land supply issue. While there is lots of land surounded by development and ripe for development itself, a lot of the demand for new housing could be met by increasing density (tearing down old housing to build apartment complexes) which is also blocked. Outside of downtown there is a height limit.

On the issue of water, simply putting a price on it would fix California's problem. As it is, city residents already pay far more for water than the farmers do. As such, making the two more equal would cause farmers to use far less water, even to the point of halting production of some crops, freeing up lots of water for human consumption.

Quote :

"It costs more to redevelop land than to develop new land."

Not really. You cannot develop land without road access, so if the land is truely isolated then the cost of road construction would make the land beyond development. Therefore, something could be said for city government's tendency to subsidise new land construction by donating free highways to the landowners. But that is how we've decided roads should be built, by government for free, so be it. It was not accident that before government began providing transportation land owners usually had to pay a sizeable portion of the costs of getting trolley and road lines extended to service their land.

4/23/2009 10:23:30 AM

Quote :

"As the assertion goes, you have a home, and the environmental activists that work against the construction of the new homes have a home, probably in the suburbs, but these people should not be allowed to have one? It strikes me of "I've got mine, you should go without." "

"I'm going to assume they are complete hypocrites because it supports my argument"

Thats a silly assertion, not to mention its just irresponsible to be building new homes when there's already a glut of homes available.

4/23/2009 10:54:12 AM

Quote :

"It strikes me of "I've got mine, you should go without." "

True, And I will readily admit I am torn between what I believe should be done in regards to the environment and the belief that I really have no right to tell others how to live (or in this case where to live)

But I also think it should be pointed out that new development, especially on relatively pristine land can affect more than the landowner/buyer. For instance, A new development may cause sedimentation that chokes out my favorite trout stream, etc.

4/23/2009 10:56:47 AM

Quote :

"Isnt the American Dream deeper to you than a new McMansion and Hummer with a boat? That was just a vision perpetuated to make people go out and consume more and spend money (that it turns out they didnt have, makes me wonder how much of a role cheap credit played in our current environmental problems). To me the American dream is more about opportunity, everyone is treated fairly so that there is an even playing field for upward mobility in society (whether or not that is true is up for debate)"

Let me say that there is NO McMansion whatsoever in my own version of the American dream. In fact, 'my' American dream doesn't look much like what it used to be, and it doesn't require large development.

But that's not what we're talking about. This falls into the category of the pursuit of happiness and allowing individuals to pursue their own happiness in whatever way doesn't interfere with other's rights or own happiness. That is why this list came up:

Quote :

"1. The area is pretty 2. The area is ecologically significant (i.e. purifies water, produces an important product that other species consume, or preforms a significant function for the biosphere) 3. The area is biologically significant (i.e. provides an important habitat for a species that could not otherwise exist) 4. The area has natural wonders that other places don't have 5. The area is home to wild plants and animals period 6. The development is large 7. The development is small 8. The area is undeveloped - meaning that fighting development on any land that is not presently developed is justified 9. Other"

If there is a reason development should not be plopped down, then say it for crying out loud. In fact, prove it. If you can't clearly outline why somewhere should not be developed, then you have no right to probe into the reasons someone else wants to develop it.

4/23/2009 12:00:22 PM

How about I choose an example that is nearby: Jordan Lake

http://www.environmentnorthcarolina.org/newsroom/clean-water-news/clean-water-news/citizens-call-for-protection-of-jordan-lake

Quote :

"In the past 3 years, 20 new developments, housing at least 20,000 new residents, have started or are applying to start construction in the area. Around the rivers and streams that flow into Jordan Lake, and the lake itself, the population has jumped 37 percent, and development more than 100 percent, in the last 10 years. The most recent development to win approval: a 577 acre gated community, which will add over 450 houses and 1100 people to the lake's imperiled shores."

Quote :

"The upper ends of the lake routinely violate state and federal standards for chlorophyll a, a sign of too much algae from excess nitrogen and phosphorus. Data shows that the entire lake is now polluted by excessive nitrogen and phosphorous. This nutrient pollution threatens aquatic life and increases the costs of treating drinking water. The pollution impacting Jordan Lake is due in large part to the rapid growth occurring around the lake."

You see, often when you develop land it affects more than just the land you build on, especially concerning water quality. Should we continue to allow exploding development around Jordan Lake? Should we allow people to build right up to the waters edge just because they want to?

I think this example also shows that development can interfere with other's pursuit of happiness, For instance my idea of happiness is being able to swim in my local lake without having to be concerned if the water is clean or not.

4/23/2009 2:30:16 PM

nutrient polution... How has the development caused this polution? Fertilizer from lawns? Released run-off due to land clearing? I fear I do not know enough about it, but it seems to me that this particular example does not render the water unusable, just more nutritious.

But let us assume it does harm the water. Well, this is why we pay taxes: civil engineers at this university could tell you what type of filtration system to build to control the runoff into the lake. You might do better by just introducing new types of plant and animal life to eat the excess food, leaving less for the algae to eat.

Now, back to philosophy. The presence of other humans is and always has been a benefit and a curse. The residents probably enjoy the variety of restaurant choices available now that the area population can support them. The mall will also be more crowded, but without the people there might not have been a mall. As for the lake, it would have been there anyway, and it will be more crowded directly (it is no fun boating on a lake crowded with other boats). Then again, humans do tend to build more lakes (see lake Raleigh on centenial, it wasn't there a generation ago). The question is, what do we do about this dichotamy?

One American Principle is equality, and what would be equal in a relationship where you get to enjoy living here but all those not lucky enough to have purchased a house before now must go live on the moon. I guess it would be less objectionable if you declared the entire area off limits, depriving you of the lake too, at least then we would all be equal. But that is not what you are suggesting, you want to grant special priviledges to some, just as old England when only royalty could set foot in the kings forest.

But this only looks at two groups (those inside and those outside). What about those that own land near your lake, but just hadn't gotten around to building on their land yet? Why should they be deprived of their landed property right to build? The owner of the land your house was built upon and sold got his American Dream out of it, why does his neighbor not get to do the same?

We can clean your lake, but we must sacrifice the principle of equality before the law, unless you too are willing to move to Navada and likewise despoil Navada's landscape.

4/23/2009 3:16:40 PM

I think if we adjusted the rules for development in areas that could be considered more environmentally sensitive, but not environmentally critical (i.e. sensitive areas are around freshwater runoff areas, and critical areas include marshes, wetlands, etc), we could put legal regulations in effect that prevent folks from using pesticides and fertilizers on their lawns in those areas. I do imagine a great deal of contamination in that area could be attributed to low standards for stormwater filtering, a high usage of fertilizers on medium-high income suburban developments, and lackluster erosion and sediment control standards for new developments.

4/23/2009 3:22:47 PM

You can't clean the lake. You don’t need to build a home to get a home. There are no “two groups”. Stop making up shit to support your arguement.

4/23/2009 3:35:44 PM

Quote :

"How has the development caused this polution?"

per the article (in a nutshell)

Quote :

"Rapid growth harms our lakes in two ways. More paved surfaces serve as a conduit for oil, dirt, fertilizer, and other toxins, funneling pollution straight into our waters. Additionally, more development means more people, increasing the amount of wastewater that communities must discharge into the lake."

Quote :

"does not render the water unusable, just more nutritious. "

True, its probably not a huge human health hazard in this example, unless something in the watershed is contributing Fecal coliforms (Possible but if it wasnt specifically mentioned I doubt its a problem)

However it does severely affect fish populations and more importantly as it makes its way to the sea our estuaries and commercial fishing populations.

Quote :

"civil engineers at this university could tell you what type of filtration system to build to control the runoff into the lake."

I realize there are ways to mitigate our impact, Recent laws passed for this watershed and others (the tar-pam and Neuse) have made some improvements, but its still not enough in my opinion. (believe it or not North Carolina is actually a fairly progressive state when it comes to water quality laws)

Quote :

"all those not lucky enough to have purchased a house before now must go live on the moon . . .. . . . .But that is not what you are suggesting, you want to grant special priviledges to some, just as old England when only royalty could set foot in the kings forest."

If that is what I wanted I would realize that I would need to buy the lake myself. Im not suggesting that these people cant build new houses, just that they shouldnt be able to build them on new land. THere are plenty of places they could have developed instead that wouldnt have caused these problems.

Also note that this lake is a public resource, meaning that anyone should be able to access it.

Quote :

"What about those that own land near your lake, but just hadn't gotten around to building on their land yet?"

As I mentioned before I have trouble with this part as well. I dont believe I should be able to tell others how to live or what to do with their property. However, when their development is affecting me because I cant fish in my local lake, well they are also affecting me.

Quote :

"unless you too are willing to move to Navada and likewise despoil Navada's landscape."

Or I could live in Raleigh were the landscape has already been changed and has been different for some time




Mindstorm, I agree that your solution could work. Regulations may actually slow the development as well by increasing the cost it would take to build. New regulations for the area have been passed fairly recently and improvements in the overall water quality are already being seen. But if it continues and continues to grow the land simply wont be able to clean itself, your exceeding the carrying capacity.

4/23/2009 3:57:18 PM

Terd, it seems to me you are trying to solve the wrong problem. There is nothing inherent about a house being there that causes pollution in your lake. If it is as I suspected, the use of fertilizer on lawns combined with poor filtration installations is the problem, so fix that, for everyone. I suspect it is not just the new construction that is causing the nutrients to settle in your lake, but your home as well. It is unfair to dump all the costs upon them when the same or better effect can be had by distributing the cost among all of us, by implimenting Mindstorm's suggestions. Capturing the water from storm drains for treatment is expensive, but many cities do it because that is the only way for a free society to protect its waterways.

So, the cost being weighed is your right to pollute freely versus their right to live where they want.

4/23/2009 5:44:49 PM

So you would rather us all pay taxes on the millions of dollars it would take for those few neighborhoods around Lake Jordan to not contribute to the nutrient loading of the lake?

And continue to maintain and monitor those projects and enforce other rules for years to come?

Quote :

"but your home as well"

My home is in Raleigh, it in no way contributes (though it may contribute to the Neuse)

4/23/2009 6:36:04 PM

Keep in mind when I'm talking about improving storm water filtration, I'm talking about making it mandatory. In general, neighborhood storm water systems, in new neighborhoods at least, tend to divert water from impervious surfaces (i.e. runoff from the streets and a few driveways) into a retention pond where the water can be dispersed at a rate that roughly matches the areas pre-development rate (that's the whole point of hydrology and storm water systems). As is you will not see any filtration systems put into these areas. Generally there are a series of inlets or catch basins which drain through a series of pipes into a lake. In the lake (or dry retention pond, or whatever they're using, it depends on how big the development is) you'll usually see a concrete box that's a little bit above the surface of the water. That's where the water drains out over a sharp crested weir into a steel pipe which probably drains out to a ditch on the side of a hill and down into a creek/stream/freshwater lake.

The two biggest ways to fix contamination as a result of fertilizers and vehicle pollution (which is I believe is generally what the damn issue is with suburban neighborhoods) are to eliminate the most impervious surfaces and to filter the runoff water. Outlawing fertilizer could also help. As for how to filter storm water, you tend to have sand filters in long inlets which allows heavier particles to settle into the bottom of the inlet before the water trickles into the outlet pipe. A system of fine sands could filter the water passively, underground, without affecting the appearance or performance of the above-ground system. Yes, it'll cost some money, but it should be noted that this stuff is not terribly expensive to put together, and adding a sand filter to your retention pond system will seem a lot more economically viable when the EPA finally grows some balls and starts suing developers for creating an environmentally unfriendly housing development.

Yeah, we're not there yet, but we're probably headed in that direction and should start to implement some greater standards for filtering runoff water to reduce our impact on the environment. Many of the problems could be avoided it fertilizer wasn't allowed in freshwater river basins that drain to reservoirs (this would be most every neighborhood in our area), if watering your lawn with municipal water was illegal (it's not sustainable and the runoff water from running your sprinkler system will carry all those fertilizers with it into the storm water management system in your neighborhood), if basic filters were mandated for storm water systems (generally this is a little sand patch buried under the soil with an impervious plastic surface at the bottom which allows water to trickle through the sand to an outlet pipe on the far end, and this will filter the water somewhat and get some of that nasty shit out before it goes into our rivers), and if people switched to using driveways with pervious surfaces (i.e. gravel or dirt) so that the chemicals/oils/fluids that leak from their cars would go directly into the dirt on their driveway instead of down the driveway, into the street, and into the storm water management system (which in turn flows into a freshwater lake, river, or stream).

Most of the stuff I'm mentioning here will actually save people money or cancel out some of the added cost required for creating a new development that meets these standards. A gravel driveway is cheap compared to a concrete driveway, and putting in landscaping that is drought resistant or which is appropriate for the area (i.e. if we didn't try to grow specific types of grass which, while pretty, require frequent, moderate watering) will mean that you aren't constantly fighting mother nature trying to keep those brown patches off of your lawn.

As for the whole development argument of whether or not we should develop virgin land in certain areas to preserve a place's natural beauty, that's not an argument I want to get into. The momentum of human kind is such that we are going to expand and develop into every area we have until there's simply no more room left for us to live in. The best thing we can do, as a very wealthy nation, is to try to alleviate the damage we do and to ensure sustainability by taking simple, reasonable steps which protect the environment. For instance, clear-cutting to create a new housing development could be outlawed for developments under a certain density. My parents' neighborhood consists of ~0.3-0.5 acre lot homes that range in value between $170,000-330,000. That neighborhood was built in the 80's and they worked around existing trees such that each house had a natural area and had natural barriers between neighborhoods/homes to ensure privacy. There's no reason for companies like KB Homes to go and take a 100 acre plat of land and completely deforest it to construct new homes on it when these homes have fairly sizeable lots. Sure, constructability becomes marginally more difficult when you can't just bulldoze over everything, but it's much better for aesthetics and for the health of the surrounding ecosystem to try to leave as many trees as possible in place when building a new home.

Personally I feel that city planners in many areas (including ours) just went for the cheapest, best way to boost land values and to increase their tax base, and that was to build lots of suburban housing developments on every piece of available land with a number of nearby shopping centers to boost desirability. They did not, however, pay any attention to sustainability or affordability when putting these development plans together, and as a result the residents of these new neighborhoods often times put up with fairly ridiculous traffic levels and don't have decent public transportation available to get them where they need to go. The planning for cities needs to focus more on centralized urban areas instead of suburbanization to enable our area to continue to grow in the future. As is we've got retards like Meeker going around trying to ban garbage disposals and harass university residents instead of promoting urbanization measures which will enable people to live closer to work in a higher-density area and still give them access to public transit which can take them somewhere useful during 60-70% of a given day's hours without them having to wait more than fifteen minutes to get a ride.

I applaud environmentalists for having their hearts in the right place, but I really can't approve of stonewalling development and protesting construction as a way of promoting green living. If they decided to, instead, get a shitload of people together and petition local politicians to make minor changes to regulatory requirements (just some of the stuff I suggested), they would probably make a greater impact for environmental wellbeing without completely castrating our nation's growth. Their objective should be to enact the most cost-effective systems, policies, and regulations which protect the environment without greatly impinging on people's freedom or on economic growth.

Mmm... K I've been drinking and I'm not exactly sure what's all in those paragraphs, but that's kind of what the soap box is all about. Pick away at what I said and let's continue this nerdy discourse.

[Edited on April 24, 2009 at 2:58 AM. Reason : OMG! tl;dr]

4/24/2009 2:55:32 AM

Quote :

"Then maybe those are the issues that should be discussed so that the land can be reused, instead of just throwing it away because its cheaper or easier to develop new land"

Then, by all means, discuss it and work on it ON YOUR OWN DIME. Don't force that on someone else

4/24/2009 10:59:19 AM

Shouldn't sustainable practices be everyone's responsibility though?

4/24/2009 11:13:45 AM

Quote :

"So you would rather us all pay taxes on the millions of dollars it would take for those few neighborhoods around Lake Jordan to not contribute to the nutrient loading of the lake?"

Like you said, the lake is already polluted. As such, even if not another house was built the lake would still be polluted. And as Mindstorm has said, your share of these costs comes out to about $100 to build a filtration system for your neighborhood or, alternatively, to have the city do it for you down stream.

So, again, the issue is this: while only a few of you wanted to live there, dumping your pollution in the lake was not a problem, nature could cope. But now that far more of you want to live here, continued unsustainable dumping would curse the lake. What is to be done? You seem to believe your right to dump exceeds their right to develop their land. As such, you seem to support a human density cap at the freely dumping impacts the local environment. Well, if such had been enforced all along, Raleigh would not be here; as building Raleigh polluted the Neuse. New York would not be here, as building it polluted everything. And, the entire north American landmass would be covered with up-to-size villages, with horrible outcomes (America would be a poor country; while many local water supplies might still be usable, regional and national water channels would be devastated; and there would be no virgin territory to speak of).

So, what makes current land use sacrosanct?

And I'm all for density. Most cities make it absurdly hard to tear down old structures to put up new denser ones. Fix that law before all else, I would suggest.

[Edited on April 24, 2009 at 11:31 AM. Reason : .,.]

4/24/2009 11:29:19 AM

^^^^ good post.

4/24/2009 12:47:30 PM

^ I would like to second that motion.

4/24/2009 1:49:32 PM

In related news, you shouldn't attempt to drive away a dude breaking into your home. That will just move the problem elsewhere.

4/24/2009 5:32:33 PM

^^^^ Oh yeah, thought I'd mention that the total cost to develop a proper system like that would probably run out to a grand or two for your average sized lot in a medium-expensive housing development these days. It's a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of most of these pricey ass homes they're building now. I'm also saying that on a lot that costs about $50k from a builder, you're going to see that a couple thousand dollars went into your enhanced storm drain system.

Also, I can't believe I put that many words into this thread last night. I need to drink myself into a coma or just drink lightly. That inbetween stage turns me into "professor Barney."

[Edited on April 24, 2009 at 6:04 PM. Reason : ^]

4/24/2009 6:04:31 PM

Now I have a question about storm drain systems.

For most things, it's a lot more expensive to refit an existing home or lot than to include it in the original plans. Efficiency, for example, can nearly halve the energy use of existing homes, but decrease new home energy use by 1/4th or more.

Are storm drains the same way? I mean, it's going to be a big pain to go around and dig up places to put the catchment thingeys right? I mean, if it costs 2k more on a new home, i shudder to think what it would run existing places if they were required to get it.

4/24/2009 7:23:57 PM

Not really. While I suspect it would be cheaper to put it in ahead of time, you can just find some place downstream (even right before the lake) and install a much larger one.

4/24/2009 9:55:01 PM

I'm throwing $2k as a guesstimate for a ballpark "per lot" cost for a medium sized housing development to integrate some sort of stormwater filtration system into it.

Retrofitting an existing stormwater system simply would involve diverting water from the outflow pipe(s) from the retention pond into some sort of simple sand filtration system that operates passively by gravity. At the low end of the spectrum, if they put down an impermeable barrier (say 3 mil plastic) on a newly graded area that was sloped at, say, 4% and then filled the area up with sand and had some fine screens on each end of the graded area where water was to flow in and out (this is to keep in the sand and larger contaminants), you could very easily just put another layer of plastic on top of that big underground sand box and call it a filtration system.

It basically needs to take an outflow pipe and distribute its water evenly along a wide underground "sandbox" such that the water slows to a trickle as it passes through the sandy area. Once the water hits the end of the filter it'll just slowly trickle out into a trough which connects to another regular pipe which just dumps the water in a similar location.

This is not expensive to do. It is sand and plastic with a minor amount of extra pipe. The expensive part is when you decide to use custom inlets like you will see on parts of centennial campus. These long, goofy looking things which have a sand filter like I've just described integrated into the inlet, which then drains off into a retention pond somewhere. Those things cost money because they are not mainstream yet and because they use a decent amount more steel than a regular inlet (generally those have a tiny bit of steel for the grate/curb and are precast concrete or masonry for the whole of the structure).

Again, it would be fairly simple to refit an existing neighborhood with something like this. It would involve bringing in some fill to create a good stable base for the sand filter, creating some simple method to distribute the volume of runoff water evenly along the entire width of the sand filter, putting down an impermeable plastic barrier and filling it with sand, installing a simple water-permeable geofabric at each end of the sand filter (i.e. use the black mesh they use for landscaping to keep weeds out as that lets water through w/o letting soil through, so your sand won't wash away), and then having all the runoff water at the far end flow down into another pipe which flows right back out to where the water was going towards originally. You then wrap the whole system up in that plastic to keep water from getting in or out (except through the inlet and outlet pipes) and bury it under some soil and plant some simple grass on top. You now have a lump of dirt on the side of a hill that looks a little goofy, and you'll have somewhat cleaner water coming out of your new outlet pipe.

Most of the filtration systems you see now are very high end sorts of deals that are designed for filtering water for human consumption or for turning sewage water into gray water for landscaping. This sort of passive filtering like I'm talking about is something I've only seen recently, and I mostly discovered it while working at my last job. My ideas here are just a simple way that they could implement this without breaking the bank. $2k is also not an accurate figure for how much the added "per lot" cost would be for a developer to implement a system like this. I don't know what would be. I'm throwing that out there because if you can't dig a ditch and throw some sand in it with some fabric and pipes at both ends for $100k (let's say your average development is 50 lots in size, that's reasonable) then you probably don't have any business developing something like this.

I mean, let me do some quick, rough estimates for what this would cost. I would guess a basic filter would be 18 inches deep, 15 feet wide, and 30 feet long (this is probably overkill). This would be able to handle a sizeable amount of runoff water while still allowing enough capacity for the water to be able to trickle at a fairly slow rate through the sand. The total amount of sand you'd need is 25 cubic yards, which I've got priced at $29/cy (delivered) for coarse sand from some place in Washington state. That means you're spending $725 for your coarse sand you're going to dump in your filter. Assuming you've got ten day laborers working for $13.50/hr (including a 33% burden for insurance/overhead for these guys), you could probably have a newly dumped pile of sand taken care of in an afternoon (call it 5 hours each). That's a $675 labor cost to process this sand assuming you did that entirely with man power (you'd likely use a crappy little bobcat to scoot dirt into your plastic-lined pit on a project this size). You'd need enough plastic to wrap around the whole "sand box" plus two trapezoidal areas at each end of the filter for distribution and collection. Let's say those are 2' wide at the small end and expanding to 15' (to match the width of the sand filter) and have a runout length (the height of the trapezoid shape) of 5'. We'll just say the sides of the trapezoid are 1.5 ft tall. There will be a 24" CMP or concrete pipe at the inlet and outlet ends of the sand filter (I'm not pricing these out as these would be here without the sand filter in place). Just doing some rough calcs here we're looking at about... 1418 sq ft of plastic including an extra 2' of plastic along the thing's entire width for a 1' overlapping seam (from entrance to entrance, where they're going to wrap the thing up before burying it in the dirt). I've got a website here that sells 12'x100' rolls of 3 mil plastic (i.e. 1200 sq ft) for $48.51 a roll, so we'll call the plastic wrap cost $100. Placement of the plastic and earthworking to create my fancy hole in the ground is another issue here, but I'm going to go with a rough $5000 labor cost for this full excavation with grading and with work to put down the plastic (this isn't too far from what it would be, I don't think, as you'd likely have somebody in an excavator working elsewhere on your project). Again, given how low-tech this system is we're just building something that roughly allows the water to flow downhill, slowly, through our sandbox). In addition to the plastic wrap we need 120 sq ft of landscape fabric (counting a foot of overlap on all sides of the filter at each end so they can attach it/stuff it however they want) to keep the sand from washing away at the entrance and outlet of our filter. Ace hardware has 400 sq ft of commercial landscape fabric for $50, and we'll assume the labor cost to install this is included in the cost to man handle the plastic and the sand (as that's when we're gonna attach the stuff and it won't take much work to deal with the landscape fabric). How will we keep the open chambers from collapsing you say? Well, there's lots of ways we could do this. Let's just assume they use simple rebar cages that are tack welded together. That would probably cost about $1000 for the steel (that would land you about a ton of rebar, maybe a bit less, which should be enough for what I'm ranting off here). Add $1500 for skilled labor to place, tie, and weld the bars (it doesn't have to be perfect, but it should adequately brace the landscape fabric wall to prevent its total collapse over time and keep at least 1' of vertical clearance (of the original 1.5) when sagging while supporting the soil that is added to the top of the filter). Add another $5000 for using all that dirt you displaced to put this big hole in the ground to cover up your filter. That will include the simple grading, straw, and seed they'd put down to make this look like a pleasant grassy area with nothing suspicious under it. All in all that's the most you'd be looking at for a filter for either a new development or an old one (this is a simple system because you can just stick it on the end of an existing storm drain pipe). You may need to add $2000 to truck in fill if you're putting this filter in an existing area.

(continuation in a sec)

4/24/2009 10:44:19 PM

So let me add up this little bit of junk estimating I just did:

$725 - Sand
$675 - Labor to transfer sand ~15 ft from a stockpile; includes grading
$100 - 2400 sq ft of 3 mil plastic wrap
$50 - One roll of landscaping fiber, installed across each end of the sand filter (to prevent the sand from washing away)
$5000 - Numerous days of excavation and grading to create an excavated "filter box" with a rough 4% grade; includes labor to place, wrap, and tape plastic to seal up the filter system; includes labor and equipment/rental costs for a skilled equipment operator (who is assumed to already have been on-site); includes labor for landscaping fiber installation;
$1000 - Estimated material cost for a decent amount of #4 rebar (more than you'd need I'm sure) to create a cage to support the entry and exit cavities of the sand filter
$1500 - Estimated labor and material cost for an experienced rebar crew (estimating about three men working no more than one day) to place, tie, and tack weld the bars together to create a simple steel cage which will provide a cavity for water to flow through (strong enough to withstand surface pressure from a vehicle parked on top of the filter); includes material cost for rental of welding equipment, etc
$5000 - Earthwork and "finishing touches" landscape work to restore dislocated soil back on top of the new sand filter; includes labor and material costs for straw and seed to grow some grass on top of the filter so it doesn't look funny
$2000 - Estimated cost required for trucked in fill material from a nearby stockpile for existing neighborhoods (doesn't apply to new developments)

SO, the estimated total for this, since some of you are bedeviling on about the minor details of this sand filter idea I'm throwing out there:

$14050 for a new development
or
$16050 for an upfit of an existing system

That's not necessarily including the profit a contractor would be looking to make on top of all this, and it's neglecting some of the transport costs associated with just getting a contractor and his men out onto a job site. It gives you a good idea of the base material and labor cost just for the filter itself, including all the earthwork. Now what I put together there is for a system with a 24" diameter storm drain outfall pipe as I mentioned. That was a rough estimate that would've probably reduced the velocity of the drain water to... say... 1/7th of its original amount. This is all fuzzy math, but I don't believe I'm being unreasonable (I mean, think about how big a 15'x30'x1.5' sandbox would be).

I'm not sure how much the special sand filtration storm inlets would cost, I might look up something on that in a sec. You guys are making my inner nerd come out to play again! I wouldn't be going through nearly this much effort if I was gainfully employed as a civil engineer right now (I like thinking about stuff like this because it's fun, but I wouldn't do it outside of work if I did this crap 40+ hrs/wk).

[Edited on April 24, 2009 at 11:03 PM. Reason : OH DON'T LET ME SCARE YOU OFF, I'M JUST BORED AND DIDN'T WANT TO HELP MY FRIEND WITH HIS STAT HW]

4/24/2009 10:45:15 PM

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.

4/25/2009 12:36:48 AM

^^you left out DENR permitting fees and engineering labor. More importantly, you left out the cost of the additional land that would be needed to build the infiltration basin, which could be over $100,000 since it could take a few acres to handle the runoff based on the topography of the surrounding land and the expected rainfall that will need to be handled.

Also, your filter does nothing to remove water soluble pollutants like fertilizers and insecticides. Honestly, I don't see how it does anything more than a simple infiltration pond.

4/26/2009 12:54:08 AM

*shrug*

I'm throwing an idea out there without having taken an environmental engineering course.

You're welcome to throw your hat into the ring.

4/26/2009 1:44:56 AM