By Yael T. Abouhalkah, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist
Jan Marcason and other KC City Council members say they want a green sewer plan. They laud solutions like porous paving, rain gardens, green roofs, rain barrels and vegetative swales that carry water runoff in place of sewer pipes. But let's be realistic.
No one at the EPA, the DNR or City Hall knows whether these will dramatically and efficiently reduce KC's stormwater problem. Or help keep a lot of water out of sewers.
How much will green solutions really account for in KC's proposed $2.3 billion sewer-repair proposal? The council members frankly don't know yet.
They need to find out. Will $500 million suffice? $1 billion? Is anything like that amount even realistic?
The most realistic assessment of the situation so far came from my old boss on the Editorial Page, Rich Hood, now a top EPA administrator in the regional office.
In a recent Star story, Hood held to the EPA party line that green solutions are important.
But then he added that the city would still need -- as the paper paraphrased -- "big tunnels and hundreds of miles of pipes to meet federal standards."
Agreed. And I predict those expenses will still make up the bulk of the city's sewer-repair plan when all is said and done.
Assistant City Manager John Franklin said the city's interest in green solutions "isn't hyperbole."
Actually, it still really is. That's because the city doesn't have a realistic plan for putting the green solution into place.
You can bank on this much: The EPA will give KC another six months to come up with more ideas on how to go green. By early 2009 Kansas Citians will have a better clue if City Hall can really resolve its problems this way.
Delicious
Digg
huh?
He's getting older and lame. And as his writing and politics have shown themselves to be the once mighty and respected Yael T Abouhlalah is down to throwing whatever nonsense passes through his mind and hope some of it sticks so he can find a way back to being relevant once more.
The smoking ban Yael has seemed to be your best bet. Alternatively, re-arranging the deck chairs on the HMS Funk A Dunk seems like a bad bet :)
It's not either or but both
Yael Alphabetsoup is creating controversy where is none. The plan will be predominantly pipes and tunnels. But anybody who has ever put a piece of pipe in the ground will tell you that sometimes you are better off not digging around the mess of infrastructure that lies beneath Kansas City's streets. If you have other options, explore them.
And this is a surprise?
I don't think there ever was any doubt that EPA and MDNR are going to require Kansas City to meeet regulatory requirements, regardless of whether the plan is green, grey or polkadotted.
Green solutions will not solve the Kansas City sewer problem by themselves, even if Cleaver (and his advisor) think they will. Green solutions can reduce the amount of stormwater reaching the sewer during low intensity rainfall events. When we get larger rainfalls, say 1-inch or more of rain in one event, the green solutions will reach saturation and will not retain any additional rainfall. All that excess will go to the sewer system. The sewer system must be capable of capturing that without overflowing. Hense, miles of pipe and tunnels will be required to handle those events.
Furthermore, many of the green solutions would be installed or built on private property: green roofs, rain gardens, porus pavement and infiltration ditches in parking lots, etc. But, I am sure EPA will not let Kansas City take credit for any of those private projects unless the City has some authority to require the property owner to maintain them and keep them in proper working order. That would require action by the City Council to enact new ordinances that mandate those requirements. We have already seen, with the stream setback ordinance, that the City Council, when push comes to shove, is not going to ask its developers to do anything above and beyond what they voluntarily do, which will not be enough to make any difference at all.
Yes, the plan that gets submitted will have green components. And that is a good thing. But it will (and must) still contain most of the grey solutions in the Plan already developed if there is any hope of getting regulatory agency approval.
Nothing new or enlighening here.
Huh?
Just today you wrote an editorial calling the city to make downtown more green. How can you turn around and dismiss one of the mechanisms to do it? Do you even read what you write? Did you forget to take your medications?
Oh for God's sake -
Oh for God's sake - it seems like everyone's running around yapping like ritalin-addled hopheads mouthing the magic phrase 'green', often without any in-depth understanding of what it actually means, what it will actually cost, whether it will do any damn 'good' (which of course is fuzzy and usually quite undefined), and whether it is necessary.
Now they want to turn the brown stuff green - here's a simple cost-effective solution: buy the same green dye they put into beer on St. Paddy's day and dump it down the manholes. You want it green, you got it.
Next problem, please.