6 ms·

San Francisco has a similar problem to the one described in Pittsburg. We use an old, single pipe, gravity based system that carries both storm water and sewag

by geebee 9y ago

San Francisco has a similar problem to the one described in Pittsburg. We use an old, single pipe, gravity based system that carries both storm water and sewage. When it rains heavily, the system backs up at various bottlenecks. Unfortunately, some of these are in heavily populated and residential areas, which get flooded with human waste. Even areas not at the bottlenecks may see more mild drainage backups. Sadly, SF has done a pretty bad job managing this: http://www.sfweekly.com/news/shit-storm-why-wont-sf-stop-flooding-homes-with-sewage/ http://www.sfweekly.com/news/shit-storm-why-wont-sf-stop-flo... SF's esponse to this problem has shaken my confidence in the city's governance. SF is going in the opposite direction from what is suggested in this article - we are paving over (with non-permeable surfacing) more than ever. The common practice of paving over your front year for extra parking is generally illegal, but like most quality of life issues in SF, enforcement is so rare that the city created an entitlement - and it has become the norm in some neighborhoods. I know some people my chuckle that this particular issue would cause me to question SF's government, considering what is going on. But I think it's the straightforward nature of this - the clear engineering failure, the cause and effect between excessive paving and storm system overflow, the unenforced legislation to curtail it, the massive city budget and projects without adequate funding for critical infrastructure... it's the mundane failures that really drive home how badly SF's government is handling serious problems.

teekert 9y ago
Amsterdam has this problem as well, it is now generally discouraged to pave your garden. Moreover projects using the "rain away tile" are popping up: http://rainaway.nl/ http://rainaway.nl/
- sharpercoder 9y ago
  And also a the term "tegel-tax" (tile-tax) is introduced. The idea is to tax real estate based on the amount of non-permeable surface it has. More non-permeable surface resulting in a higher tax bill. Satellite & plane imaging combined with computational analysis would enable enforcement.
closeparen 9y ago
What’s wrong with parking on grass? Why do people feel a need to pave?
- lojack 9y ago
  Parking on the grass kills the grass, and dead grass eventually turns into mud when it rains, and mud eventually gets your car stuck. People often use gravel to prevent this, which is permeable, but you need to add fresh gravel every year or so.
  - algorias 9y ago
    I have this childhood memory of parking spaces made of concrete tiles with holes in them, with grass growing through the holes. Now I finally know what they're for :)
  - sharpercoder 9y ago
    Gravel is only permeable with permeable undersurface. This is usually not the case, because non-permeable plastics are used to prevent weed from growing in gravel area.
    - abritinthebay 9y ago
      There are water permeable barriers that resist weeds too. It’s solvable.
      - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
        Those surfaces are quite a bit more expensive than asphalt, so most companies won't put them in unless they are incentivized through something like a non-permeable surface tax.
        abritinthebay 9y ago
        True, it's up to the people involved. My point was more that it's possible
sarcher 9y ago
Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) represent a big problem that is not technically difficult to address. The issue is only money and political will. We have a great example in Maine of how well CSOs can be addressed and minimized in the twin-cities of Saco and Biddeford. These two municipalities face each other across the Saco River and have separate waste water systems. They both have historical issues with CSOs and have been working to address them. Saco worked quickly, spent a ton of money, and raised a lot of fees to upgrade their sewer infrastructure to minimize CSOs into the Saco River. They are largely complete with that work and total CSOs has dropped to under 1 million gallons per year[0] estimated, and only 600k gallons in 2016[1] (highly dependent on rainfall). Biddeford has been slower off the block, to be honest I'm not sure what they've accomplished although I know they've made progress. I believe a recent large Main Street reconstruction included CSO work. Their CSO discharge rate sits around 20-40 million gallons year year[1]. One big difference is that Saco charges an CSO impact fee on new sewer volume, currently $11.27 per rated gallon[2]. I'm pretty sure that Biddeford doesn't charge a CSO fee at all, at least it's not detailed on their wastewater permit application. A community is a reflection of it's citizen values. Care about CSOs? Talk about them, build consensus, and raise money to deal with them. There will always be someone complaining about the municipal fees to build and live in a particular community, don't let those individuals dictate the narrative and thereby the world you live in. It's easier to see your impact in a small community (like Saco, ME) as compared to a large community (like San Francisco, CA), I get that. Don't get discouraged, keep working. [0]http://courier.mainelymediallc.com/news/2017-11-09/News/Saco_completes_latest_sewer_overflow_project.html http://courier.mainelymediallc.com/news/2017-11-09/News/Saco... [1]http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/cso/2016_status_report.pdf http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/cso/2016_status_report.pdf [2]http://www.sacomaine.org/departments/water_resource_recovery_division/impact_fee_explanation.php http://www.sacomaine.org/departments/water_resource_recovery...
- hexane360 9y ago
  > not technically difficult to address While the concepts may not be difficult, the scale often is. See the Milwaukee deep tunnel system, storing 521 million gallons in 28.5 miles of tunnel. https://www.mmsd.com/what-we-do/wastewater-treatment/deep-tunnel https://www.mmsd.com/what-we-do/wastewater-treatment/deep-tu... But it does work: https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2014/06/12/murphys-law-the-remarkable-impact-of-the-deep-tunnel/ https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2014/06/12/murphys-law-the-remark...
sliverstorm 9y ago
As a kid I thought of the Bay Area & San Francisco as progressive & environmentally friendly. When it comes to the cities themselves and not just which President they voted for, was it that way in decades past, or was this never the case?
- tinokid 9y ago
  Never. In decades past they voted for Nixon.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- TulliusCicero 9y ago
  Every demographic has ideological blind spots. For example, Republicans are generally for reduced government spending...except that when it comes to cars, they favor extremely expensive infrastructure.
- geebee 9y ago
  The San Francisco board of supervisors and most of the voting public would almost certainly declare themselves to be progressive and environmentally friendly, and I don't think they are cynical or manipulative here. They really mean it, and believe they mean it. The problem is where policy becomes enforcement. San Francisco, I believe, isn't good at translating intent into reality. Pave overs are actually a good example. San Francisco has very specifically illegalized front yard pave-overs, and the board of supervisors voted to increase the fines. However, very little budget (in a massive, massive city budget for a city SF's size) is allocated to enforcement. They're also in a bind now, as they have allowed the practice to go on so long, with such light enforcement, that it's going to be difficult to roll it back. Another experience I had was replacing my windows with energy efficient, double pane, insulated windows. The Bush administration (George W) created a tax credit for energy efficient home improvements. Gavin Newsom, SF's liberal mayor at the time, talked quite a bit about about the importance of "Green" San Francisco. Gavin Newsom's San Francisco collected permit fees that more or less confiscated George W Bush's federal tax incentives to encourage energy efficiency. Savor that for a moment. Ironic, isn't it? But to me, this story, along with the pave-over debacle, kind of gets at how SF goes wrong on so many things.

by geebee 9y ago

teekert 9y ago

Amsterdam has this problem as well, it is now generally discouraged to pave your garden. Moreover projects using the "rain away tile" are popping up: http://rainaway.nl/ http://rainaway.nl/

sharpercoder 9y ago
And also a the term "tegel-tax" (tile-tax) is introduced. The idea is to tax real estate based on the amount of non-permeable surface it has. More non-permeable surface resulting in a higher tax bill. Satellite & plane imaging combined with computational analysis would enable enforcement.

closeparen 9y ago

What’s wrong with parking on grass? Why do people feel a need to pave?

lojack 9y ago
Parking on the grass kills the grass, and dead grass eventually turns into mud when it rains, and mud eventually gets your car stuck. People often use gravel to prevent this, which is permeable, but you need to add fresh gravel every year or so.
- algorias 9y ago
  I have this childhood memory of parking spaces made of concrete tiles with holes in them, with grass growing through the holes. Now I finally know what they're for :)
- sharpercoder 9y ago
  Gravel is only permeable with permeable undersurface. This is usually not the case, because non-permeable plastics are used to prevent weed from growing in gravel area.
  - abritinthebay 9y ago
    There are water permeable barriers that resist weeds too. It’s solvable.
    - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
      Those surfaces are quite a bit more expensive than asphalt, so most companies won't put them in unless they are incentivized through something like a non-permeable surface tax.
      - abritinthebay 9y ago
        True, it's up to the people involved. My point was more that it's possible

sarcher 9y ago

Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) represent a big problem that is not technically difficult to address. The issue is only money and political will. We have a great example in Maine of how well CSOs can be addressed and minimized in the twin-cities of Saco and Biddeford. These two municipalities face each other across the Saco River and have separate waste water systems. They both have historical issues with CSOs and have been working to address them. Saco worked quickly, spent a ton of money, and raised a lot of fees to upgrade their sewer infrastructure to minimize CSOs into the Saco River. They are largely complete with that work and total CSOs has dropped to under 1 million gallons per year[0] estimated, and only 600k gallons in 2016[1] (highly dependent on rainfall). Biddeford has been slower off the block, to be honest I'm not sure what they've accomplished although I know they've made progress. I believe a recent large Main Street reconstruction included CSO work. Their CSO discharge rate sits around 20-40 million gallons year year[1]. One big difference is that Saco charges an CSO impact fee on new sewer volume, currently $11.27 per rated gallon[2]. I'm pretty sure that Biddeford doesn't charge a CSO fee at all, at least it's not detailed on their wastewater permit application. A community is a reflection of it's citizen values. Care about CSOs? Talk about them, build consensus, and raise money to deal with them. There will always be someone complaining about the municipal fees to build and live in a particular community, don't let those individuals dictate the narrative and thereby the world you live in. It's easier to see your impact in a small community (like Saco, ME) as compared to a large community (like San Francisco, CA), I get that. Don't get discouraged, keep working. [0]http://courier.mainelymediallc.com/news/2017-11-09/News/Saco_completes_latest_sewer_overflow_project.html http://courier.mainelymediallc.com/news/2017-11-09/News/Saco... [1]http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/cso/2016_status_report.pdf http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/cso/2016_status_report.pdf [2]http://www.sacomaine.org/departments/water_resource_recovery_division/impact_fee_explanation.php http://www.sacomaine.org/departments/water_resource_recovery...

hexane360 9y ago
> not technically difficult to address While the concepts may not be difficult, the scale often is. See the Milwaukee deep tunnel system, storing 521 million gallons in 28.5 miles of tunnel. https://www.mmsd.com/what-we-do/wastewater-treatment/deep-tunnel https://www.mmsd.com/what-we-do/wastewater-treatment/deep-tu... But it does work: https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2014/06/12/murphys-law-the-remarkable-impact-of-the-deep-tunnel/ https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2014/06/12/murphys-law-the-remark...

sliverstorm 9y ago

As a kid I thought of the Bay Area & San Francisco as progressive & environmentally friendly. When it comes to the cities themselves and not just which President they voted for, was it that way in decades past, or was this never the case?

tinokid 9y ago
Never. In decades past they voted for Nixon.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
TulliusCicero 9y ago
Every demographic has ideological blind spots. For example, Republicans are generally for reduced government spending...except that when it comes to cars, they favor extremely expensive infrastructure.
geebee 9y ago
The San Francisco board of supervisors and most of the voting public would almost certainly declare themselves to be progressive and environmentally friendly, and I don't think they are cynical or manipulative here. They really mean it, and believe they mean it. The problem is where policy becomes enforcement. San Francisco, I believe, isn't good at translating intent into reality. Pave overs are actually a good example. San Francisco has very specifically illegalized front yard pave-overs, and the board of supervisors voted to increase the fines. However, very little budget (in a massive, massive city budget for a city SF's size) is allocated to enforcement. They're also in a bind now, as they have allowed the practice to go on so long, with such light enforcement, that it's going to be difficult to roll it back. Another experience I had was replacing my windows with energy efficient, double pane, insulated windows. The Bush administration (George W) created a tax credit for energy efficient home improvements. Gavin Newsom, SF's liberal mayor at the time, talked quite a bit about about the importance of "Green" San Francisco. Gavin Newsom's San Francisco collected permit fees that more or less confiscated George W Bush's federal tax incentives to encourage energy efficiency. Savor that for a moment. Ironic, isn't it? But to me, this story, along with the pave-over debacle, kind of gets at how SF goes wrong on so many things.