The Loch Gallup Monster

More About Storm Water and Fertilizer

City Hall asserts that most river pollutants from storm water come from the first half inch of rain in a storm. Could it be that the river would be less contaminated if more water was mixed with these pollutants? If so, why is the city trying to reduce the amount of storm water entering the river? Could more water clean up both the river and our back yards?

Until 1968, most of the area now called Gallup Park was a big water-cleaning swamp. The 1968 flood cause the Dixboro Dam to fail. The swamp dried up and all the wetlands vegetation died. It was several years later that the dam was repaired. Meanwhile, the city dug a huge trench through the former swamp, installed a new sewer main, and regraded the land to replace most of the swamp with the islands and open water, thus creating a lot of the park area. Would it be a good idea to undo some of this and create some more swamp to clean up the river? Could we do the same thing above Argo dam and get more swamp while improving the area for the rowers at the same time? Does anyone at the Larcom Building ever think about anything other than more regulations and charges?

Storm Water Fees

Hot on the heels of the fertilizer ordinance comes a new system for setting storm water fees. The basis under the new system is "usage". we are told that different properties have different usage.

It should be noted that properties do not use anything. People use things, like water, energy, and booze. God is also a user, but He (or She), doesn't pay bills from the city.

The city arbitrarily measures usage by the area of impervious surface on a property. There are other things which affect the amount of storm water coming form a property. Most of Ann Arbor has clay soil which doesn't absorb water in a reliable fashion. However, parts of the city have sandy soil which absorbs water easily, unless frozen. Another pertinent factor is the slope of the land. Water runs off hillsides much faster than flat land. The faster the water runs off the less the amount absorbed. Another pertinent but ignored factor is the area of the property. A house on a lot of an acre will ordinarily absorb a lot more of the water than the house on a postage stamp lot. Still another relevant matter is the amount and type of vegetation on the property. Tall grass is better than short grass at holding water until it is absorbed or evaporates. Willow trees are notorious heavy drinkers. There are probably other significant matters.

The method of computing impervious area is badly flawed. The map of the property I live on shows an impervious area in the middle of the yard. A close examination of the map shows that it is yellow. The system sees this as concrete and calls is impervious. Actually, it is a large clump of forsythia that happened to be in bloom at the time the picture was taken.

For some reason all gravel driveways are called impervious, despite the fact that tons and tons of gravel are used for base material in most road building around here because gravel provides excellent drainage.

The whole notion of permeability is unrealistic because of the fact that for several months during most winters the entire county is impervious because the ground is frozen.

So, under a guise of fairness, we have substituted one arbitrary system for another. No doubt the "take" from the new system will be a lot larger, and they will "take" it from us.

The old system was automatic. The new one will require a lot of effort on the part of city employees to deal with and say no to the residents. Thus, unlike the old system, the new one will make a substantial contribution to the orderly growth and development of the city hall bureaucracy.