3 ms·
I think it basically is a given. To segregate storm water from sewer would require a rebuild of the system. Pretty impractical at this point. It can be done in
by hermitdev 8y ago
I think it basically is a given. To segregate storm water from sewer would require a rebuild of the system. Pretty impractical at this point. It can be done in some cases. I live in the west suburbs of Chicago, and the storm water from my (less than 5 year old) complex drains into the Salt Creek. I don't think my city is connected to the big dig, but we do have the capability to dump into a local quarry. The quarry has also been used to dump snow into for large winter storms. We've also been through a large expansion in recent years of green areas and detention drainage areas to alleviate flooding. Living right on the Salt Creek, I routinely see the water level fluctuate by around 10 feet or so after even a decent storm. We're probably about 5-6 feet above normal right now after recent storms.
- Retric 8y agoYou don’t need to fix this in a weekend. Chicago is likely to be around in 300 years. So, solve 3% of the problem every decade and it gets fixed. Meanwhile runoff becomes a 3% smaller problem every decade.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- ryanmarsh 8y agoGrand Rapids is proof you can do it faster than 3% per decade.
- jessriedel 8y agoI agree it's useful evidence, but Grand Rapids is an order of magnitude smaller than Chicago. Geology could be very different too for all I know. Being able to do it in one place does not necessarily make it feasible in the other.
- danjayh 8y agoGrand Rapids did it (and Lansing is doing it) in Michigan. Yes, a smaller scale, but still a big enough scale to show that it can be done. In GR, it fixed the problem, period.