Sustainable Stormwater Management

With a national commitment on stormwater for all of their operating stores, Lowe’s is emerging as the leader among major retailers. They are demonstrating over and over that there is value in doing the right thing.

Read about the latest here.

A few Snippets:

… Anthony Iarrapino said planning for the Essex site “was emblematic of a new approach — to leave the watershed better than they found it.” Lowe’s says a “state-of-the-art stormwater treatment system” in Essex will “contribute a significant part in improving water quality in the Sunderland Brook watershed.”

“The Lowe’s settlement is a model for how development can go forward and not make the problem worse,” he said. “Lowe’s is a great example of a company stepping up, spending the money and doing the right thing.”

It looks like these guys have a start on what’s coming to them, to the tune of $20,000,000.00. That’s a lot of zeros. The last paragraph below seems to put them into perspective. Maybe it is just the bad press coverage, but they certainly seem like a bunch of low lifes…. how do folks like this sleep at night? Never can tell, could be wrong – maybe it’s just the image put out there.

Read it all here.

“The country’s fourth-largest coal producer, Massey Energy Co., will pay a $20 million fine as part of a settlement with the government over allegations it routinely polluted hundreds of streams and waterways in West Virginia and Kentucky with sediment-filled waste water and coal slurry….

…Currently its president and chairman, Don Blankenship, is at the center of conflict of interest allegations involving the chief justice of West Virginia’s supreme court. Photographs surfaced with Blankenship and the justice, Elliott Maynard, socializing together on the Mediterranean last summer _ four months before the court in a 3-2 decision with Maynard in the majority reversed a $76.3 million judgment against Massey in a dispute brought by a bankrupt coal company. Other problems facing Massey include a $219.8 million jury verdict awarded to Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. in a contract dispute and a record $1.5 million in fines by the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration for safety violations involving the deaths of two miners in a January 2006 mine fire. The fire at the Aracoma Alma No. 1 Mine in Logan County, W.Va., also is the subject of a federal criminal investigation. “

The ESD Debate in Maryland rages on as the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) attempts to revise the State’s regulations to address the requirements of the Stormwater Management Act of 2007.

Some industry groups are lining up against the effort in the traditional “Us Against Them”approach. Reminds me of the Civil War battle techniques.

The Environmental Consortium continues to explain their case. See Tom Schueler’s presentation here. Definitely worth a look.

Who is caught in the middle?

1. The General Public, who may be required to change some of their ways and traditional idea of private property rights.

2. Employees of Local Municipalities – These are the folks who must explain things to the general public, field the complaints, and try to protect their jobs when that one politically connected person complains to their County Councilperson.

3. MDE – who maybe should have had the foresight to revise the 2000 Stormwater Design Manual on an ongoing basis to reflect changes in technology and politics. MDE’s in-action (or lack of budget!) is quite possibly what got us here. But who knows?

4. The Designers of projects – and Reviewers – throughout the State, who quite possibly may be saddled with the responsibility to attempt to design and approve sites with practices and guidance that are ill conceived and not well executed. This has happened before – and we see it heading there again.

So we must ask… Is there any middle ground between those who are pushing ESD and those who are steeped in too much tradition? Or will the State’s Design and Review Community get screwed once again?

Film at 11.

“The multibillion-dollar burden to fix the state’s Chesapeake Bay watershed is justified because of poor planning and high engineering and construction costs, experts say.”

And our quote….

“Another reason for high costs is that damage done to one small area has residual impact to the rest of the watershed.

“You need to do it in a certain order to make sure the project isn’t going be destroyed upstream by another problem — otherwise, what’s the sense of fixing when you’re going be back again in a few years?” asked Ted Scott, founder of Hunt Valley-based Applied Stormwater, a consulting and engineering firm.”

See the entire article here.