Raining on Rain Gardens

So many bad assumptions, so little time. A report in Tues.(11/18/08) Coastland Times suggests that the oceans off the Outer Banks are awash in bacteriological contamination and that the best solution is for all of us to manage our residential stormwater on our lots and virutally every element of that statement is just wrong.
The League of Women Voters asked John McCord of UNC-CSI and Jan Deblieu of the NC Coastal Federation to talk to them about stormwater. The paper reports that pollution levels on the Outer Banks rival those of polluted California beaches, except they don't.
UNC-CSI has been testing for bacteria in the storm water drains, not in the ocean. They found high levels of bacteria in the storm drains. They can't correlate that with a threat to swimmers because they don't test in the ocean. The people who test in the ocean don't report the pollution predicted by UNC-CSI's finding, in part because they test on very different schedules. UNC-CSI tests storm drains after a rain event when the expect to find pollution. The State tests on a regular schedule, weekly in the summer time, in the waters people use for recreation. The two provide very different data sets but there are some points you can make.

• Point One: Don't swim in a storm water ditch or culvert, swim in the ocean.
• Point One and a half: Don's swim in the ocean near a storm drain after a rain storm.
  
• Point Two: As the CT notes bacteria don't last long in the ocean.
• Point Three: State tests for bacteria in the ocean don't find high levels of bacteria. You can see the results for 2007 state bacteria tests at the Natural Resources Defense Council site as part of their report on beach pollution (hint go to page 6 for the Dare sites).
• Point Four: The bacteria in the storm drains comes from hard surfaces like roads in the drainage basin and improperly install or failing septic systems. It happens during rain events because the bacteria get washed off the roads and the rising water table reduces the effectivemess of septic systems.

I called Jan Deblieu to talk about what she said. The paper reported that she "described Dare's Outer Banks as 'the land of outfalls'". Jan doesn't recall such a comment and Jan recognized that only about 15 miles of the Outer Banks is actually served by storm drains - ocean or sound. Corolla, Duck, Southern Shores, Kitty Hawk and all of Hatteras and Ocracoke Islands lack this infrastructure. Remember how long it took Kitty Hawk to drain the area between the highways after Hurricane Isabel? Know why? no storm drains. No way to get the storm water back to the ocean.
Back to pollution for a minute. There is no disputing that the storm drains pick up a lot of pollutants after a rain storm. There is no disputing that part of the problem is the draining of large roadways and parking lots in to the the stormwater system. The other major source of pollution is bacteria from septic systems that is captured due to a rise in the water table.
What can be disputed is the extent that managing stormwater on residential sites not part of a storm water drainage basin will affect pollution levels in the ocean or sound. UNC-CSI's Mr. McCord is reported to have suggested using storm water Best Management Practices (BMPs) like cisterms and rain gardens to reduce pollution. The problem is that the hard surfaces that pollute, like roads and commercial parking lots, aren't the target of his rain gardens, single family homes are. Manageing stormwater on on a site means managing where it infiltrates into the ground. In the end it doesn't matter where it infiltrates as long as it does.
An approach that might actually work to reduce pollution is to make sure that septic systems are installed with sufficient space between the drainfield and the water table. The standard separation is 18 inches. Increasing this to 24 inches by adding fill in the drain field (called a mound system) or adding additional filteration for the effluent could substandtially reduce the amount of bacteria that hits a rising water table. It costs between $3,000-$5,000 to fix a septic system. If UNC-CSI really wants to impact pollution why not get behind a stalled Nags Head request to the Clean Water Management Trust Fund for $200,000 to fix some older septic systems the town has identified as potential pollution sources.
DOT and UNC-CSI are planning to install filters at the ocean outfalls. Each filter system costs $1,000,000 and requires another $100,000 in annual maintenance. It might be cost effective to fix the source of pollution rather than filter out the problem. Jan Deblieu reports that the filters could be bypassed by overflow as frequently as twice a month on average. It is exactly these flows that need to be captured. Fixing on site systems would reduce storm water pollution effectively and at lower cost.
It would not however impact pollution coming from paved surfaces what is called first flush pollution. Jan suggested a strategy that I will pass on but have not entirely embraced. She suggests using the drainage system as an infiltration basin and limiting the amount of flow to the ocean or sound until certain thresholds had been reached. This could allow storm water in infiltrate back into the water table and be filtered naturally. This is what happens to stormwater in all the areas not served by a drainage system. Unfortunately what also happens is flooding. From Duck to Hatteras and Ocracoke heavy rains mean flooded roads. It might be possible to take some of the money allocated to cleaning up storm drains and using it to expand the capacity of infiltration systems but that capacity is limited. Until I see an engineered analysis of this strategy it is impossible to support it. I would support an exploration of this strategy.
So why am I writing this now? The decisions to install filters was made while the pollution data was being developed. It started before there was any meaningful data. Now that we actually know what is going on we can better analyse the solution. I have written about the lack of data and the battle over storm water pollution before so I won't revisit that topic.
We need an effective storm water system to handle flooding from major storms and ocean overwash. We need to limit the amount of pollution it causes. I am not convinced that the filtering systems being proposed will have much impact. I am totally convinced that rain gardens and cisterns in residential development won't have any impact on pollution.
Ciao
PS. It was good to talk to Jan before I wrote this. The only problem is that it tempered my anger so I apologize if this rant isn't quite as mean spirited or sarcastic as usual. I try to do better.
PPS. We miss you Monty! (and Paula and Kevin too)

It's 11- Here is the film

I said yesterday that John McCain got bad press in large part because he ran a bad campaign and made a lot of bad mistakes. Here is the film that demonstrates my point.

Go vote. It is the only thing that matters.
Ciao

VFTR called out by OBR - film at 11

In a viscious (and viscous) and unprovoked spitball of a post, the author of the Outer Banks Republic Blog, one Monticello

(hereafter referred to as "He who just doesn't get it about the press or Barack Obama or Sarah Palin or much of anything else except beach nourishment and SS Mayor Don Smith" or Hwjdgiatp[or] BO[or] SP [or] moaeebnaSSMDS for short)

has chosen to link my shots at Repubican VP candidate Sarah Palin (here, here and here) to the great liberal media conspiracy to elect Barack Obama. Before I skewer his thesis about the press let me begin by telling my good friend a simple fact of life. I AM NOT UNBIASED. I have never claimed to present a balanced view of anything and frankly you don't either (though I did think that OBR's piece on not voting for Obama was thoughtful and had some balance, wrong of course, but not entirely one sided), Anyway. I express opinions generally supported by facts I have chosen. There are often elements and arguments that may have some limited merit that I choose to flagrantly ignore. Ergo (therefore in Plato talk) get off my case and certainly don't compare my efforts to keep my blogspot subscription from expiring to Fox News. Those are fighting words. I am not mainstream media, don't claim to be. I do try to present my biases up front, especially when discussing local issues. So here goes, I voted for Barack Obama, among my reasons was the fact, FACT, that Sarah Palin does not have enough experience in national or international affairs to be President. Some people think Sen. Obama doesn't either but I am clearly not one of them. With the fact in mind I have chosen to post a couple of stories that bespoke to her inadaquacies. Apparently OBR, or Hwjdgiatp[or] BO[or]moaeebnaSSMDS as he is also know, only reads my blog and the headlines on CNN. If you don't like what I wrote then write something that debunks it. Oh that's right you did. You don't see me pointing out that while you didn't like my jab at Palin over the Kahlidi thing, you chose to ignore the fact that a group led by McCain give Kahlidi's group about a half a million dollars. I don't throw stuff like that in your face do I? I post a piece by a woman who unlike you has actually met Sarah Palin and you say that she is bitchy? You don't dispute a single fact she presents but you say she is bitchy and I am biased. Hey, think for just a minute about the fact that I can see into every room in your house [metaphorically] before you go tossing those ballast rocks at my log cabin!
But enough about me, lets talk about the national press. The First Amendment to the US Constitutions reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It does not say that: Congress shall pass a law that insures the press is fair and balanced in its coverage of the news. Do you know why? Because there is no fair and frankly the press, particularly the for profit press which is nearly all of it, is not designed to be fair. The whole reason to protect the press is so it can say whatever it wants no matter how biased or even inaccurate it is.
Why is this important? Well, lets see, first of all who gets to say what "fair" or "balanced" is. I'll take the job but you might not like my take. Likewise I don't plan on letting you set the rules any time soon. So if we can't do it then who should? The answer is simple, no one. In the marketplace of ideas the people get to vote with their eyes and ears. Unfortunately the media has become better at attracting eyes and ears than at telling the truth (if there is such a thing). The only saving grace is that the Internet lets people like you and me scream foul to anyone who will listen. I tend to do it on local issues like the OB Sentinel on historic homes. You, apparently set your sights a little higher, like trying to make the major networks dance to your choice of stories and spin. Good luck. Even though you may be right it doesn't matter, the media doesn't respond to right, just to readers.
Some media chose to draw ad dollars by providing very straight news, the Coastland Times comes to mind. The opinion is found on the editorial page, the news is straight, although some stories make it and some don't, value judgments are made. The alternative is the Outer Banks Sentinel. the Fox News of the Outer Banks. The Sentinel has chosen to run a number of press releases for me and I appreciate that. The editorial page was fair to us during the beach nourishment referendum but the paper, as a matter of policy, slants its stories. It tries to sell papers by selling scandal and sensationalism, It is their choice and I am happy they can make it.
Somehow OBR seems to think the world isn't driven by profit and markets. That we only need one news source that tells "The real balanced story". Not going to happen and it shouldn't. YOu choose your sources and I'll choose mine and maybe between us we will come close to the truth.
He remembers de'Tocqueville but forgets Ayn Rand. News networks, newspapers, news web sites all are driven by advertising dollars. Their decisions are dictated by what stories sell. The frame stories by what they find people respond to.
It is hard to understand why Monty would expect anything else. The framers of the constitution understood much better than we do that the press is a political tool. In 1776 papers were partisan, totally partisan. Slander and distortion were common tools. The framers understood that even if they didn't like some papers, it was important that they be allowed to say whatever they wanted and that the market would control who succeeded and who failed. The government could not be allowed to do it because there was too much at stake.
Enough about theory. The press is running stories detailing the problems in the McCain campaign because the problems are there. The don't run those stories about the Campaign for Change because Barack Obama and his team have run a masterful campaign. Very few mistakes, always on message, no infighting, no one pissing outside the tent. All the disputes and debates have been kept inside. This means the press can't write about Joe Biden's wardrobe for 4 days straight, they didn't make that mistake. Obama's choice for VP could give coherent answers to policy questions out of the gate, no stories there. The McCain campaign changed horses and themes like a surf fisherman who isn't catching fishing at Cape Point and who knows he may never get back again because of ecoterrorism. Obama didn't create his own negative news, McCain did. End of story.
There are so many things wrong with OBR's post. He complains that CBS featured the CBS polling data to the exclusion of others. Well gee last time I looked McDonalds didn't post Arby's menu. Of course they focused on their poll to their views. What should they do start saying "Well our poll says this but go over to NBC because their poll says that so they must be right" Come one Monty, get real. Of course CBS features their poll, they did the poll so they could feature it not to compare it to other polls - THAT IS OUR JOB!!
Enough rant. Here is the takeaway. I am biased, the press is driven by the market not by balance and that is OK because the alternative is worse. Finally it is everyone's responsibility to get the news they need and if they don't like it to create their own version of it. Just like me. Just like Outer Banks Republic. Your posts aren't balanced either and that's good and that's why I continue to read them.
Ciao
Note: If you really want the best news service in this country listen to NPR Morning Edition, BBC World News and All Things Considered. This is the most thoughtful and in depth coverage of national and internation events going. It is even fun (except at fund raising time).