That is a question that has been lingering for a while now. If you have read the news, you know that approximately 50% of Oshkosh had some type of water damage from the storm. Most of the central city had their sewer back up into the basement creating quite a mess. That mess was raw sewage, not storm water.
Now back to the question... what good would storm water retention do? How would that solve the sanitary sewer backup problem? My answer... it wouldn't. It looks good on paper but how would STORM WATER retention prevent SANITARY SEWER from backing up? They are NOT connected. They are 2 separate systems and retention would only help the storm water related flooding. You could build 20 retention ponds in the city and the crap would still float in basements.
Now if you want to actually solve THAT problem, we need to figure out the root cause of the issue. It is no secret that houses built 25-50 years ago set up the sump flow into sanitary sewer. That means that every time the sump needs to be pumped out, it pushes the water to the sanitary pipes. Those are the same as the sink, tub and toilet in your house. It also is the same as the basement floor drain and the washer drain which is the source of most of the flooding. Since that time, codes have changed to prevent such plumbing dilemmas but it did not ensure that houses built prior were corrected. Well, perhaps that would be a better way to spend $11 million. Find and fix all of the improperly routed sump pumps and actually relieve the pressure put on the sanitary system of the city.
On another related subject, we have Westhaven retention proposal. Here is an artist rendition of the retention area. If you note, it looks nice and pretty with all of the trees and blue clear water forming several ponds throughout the area. I have news for you... it will NOT look like that. In order for the retention area to be effective, it will be nearly or completely empty for around 340 days a year. Only in the spring when Sawyer Creek swells out of it's banks will the retention area see water. The rest of the time it would most likely be a low lying swampy area with cattails and weeds.
For those who still think it's a good idea... feel free to buy a house in that area as the people who currently live there will want to move. I live across Oakwood to the west and I have not met anyone who really favors this plan. It is far too expensive and will not serve the intended purpose of preventing floods east of 41. Nice thought but planners should hit that drawing board again.
I know I am not an engineer but I don't think you need an engineering degree to see that this plan is not adding up. As with most plans, it looked good at first and nobody is willing to admit that it may not work after all.
KM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I'm confused by your comments KM. In your one post you say because you live in the area you'd benefit from the detention pond. In the next post you say you wouldn't. Which is it?
I never said that I would benefit from the retention pond. I said that I live IN the subdivision that would benefit. I have lived in this house for 6 years and still don't know if the sump pump actually works. I have never had any water. My neighbors on the other hand have not been so lucky and most had some type of loss from Sawyer Creek flooding the area.
I don't like the retention pond because it is too much money for very little benefit. There are only a few dozen homes that wouldn't flood anymore... maybe.
Are you willing to spend the money?
KM
YES any help that can be given to OTHER flood victims is worth the money. If retention ponds could save some of the homes from flooding its worth the money.
IF the water filtered through retention ponds saves pollution from our lakes and streams its worth the money.
If you weren't so self-centered you would think of the benefits to others.
After all we pay taxes too and should be protected from the yearly flooding we get from Campbell and Sawyer creeks
We have paid out enough money to replace the furnace and water heater and that's just a start!
Nobody said that there shouldn't be a retention pond. I am not advocating that no money should be spent. We do need to do something to alleviate the flooding that is seen year after year. It shouldn't be the golf course though. Don't forget that the city was exploring putting such a pond behind the former Hudsons Grill until the owner of the land decided to market to developers instead. So, they decided to move the pond farther west and reduce the impact it could have.
You call me self centered... opinions vary. I feel that if $11 million of our tax dollars are being spent, it should benefit as many as possible. Who is the self centered one? Let's get more bang for our buck. Look at it another way, if we put the pond at this location to benefit around 100 homes, or another site that could benefit 200 homes (that would include the first 100). Which would you choose?
I fully remember the council action involving the land behind the former Hudson's but like everything else its MONEY and the NIMBY theories that fuel bad decisions thus go on to cause more property damage. Tha pond could be already built and retaining water.
I believe it would be a benefit for many to buy Westhaven property and install water hazards. Sooner or later the city will need to purchase land for the ponds. Sooner or later they will spend 11M
or MORE. The Westhaven location would be able to serve 2 basins.
The current city owned golf course could inspire development for hotels/motels, indoor water park restaurants, maybe a casino.
All with easy access on/off the highway.
You still haven't explained how you come up with only 100 homes being helped. Your problem is you refuse to believe what all the people with more knowledge than you are saying about the problem. Also, I thought the people who gave the workshop presentation called them detention ponds instead of retention ponds. But whatever they're called, more than just 100 people will be served and that one pond os part of many planned around the city. Together they will help everyone, hopefully.
100 homes was just a guess. It was a nice round number that made sense. Campbell Creek is east of the golf course and may have some benefit from the course but it is difficult to route a water source in a different direction. Especially the opposite direction than it is currently going.
Take a look at the city site regarding this project. Rather than looking at the optimistic point of view, look as a pessimist. Try and find changes that could be made to make this plan better. The price isn't so much a factor as effectiveness.
Anonymous 12:03 says that I refuse to take what people smarter than me have to say about it. I think that they are too quick to accept it.
I have my doubts that any one in my neighborhood would support this project. The only people that are, will be the ones that believe these ponds (whether detention or retention) will make a difference. Perhaps I should point out that the new pond at New York and the railroad tracks was only 1/4 filled when all or most of the surrounding streets were not passable.
City engineers are smart. I will not dispute that. I think that some of what is happening is from a lack of planning.
Take a look at the flooded areas in that presentation (slide 6 of 30). Look at why those areas would flood. If a creek or river is allowed to flow free, it will not back up and exceed it's banks. But if a restriction is introduced, then it cannot flow how it wants to.
Sawyer Creek has restrictions at 9th Avenue, Witzel, and Hwy 41. The map will show flooding from all of those areas. There was very little flooding from Campbell Creek and considerable flooding from Sawyer. Take a look and tell me what you think.
If the bridges were built higher and able to support more water flow, the golf course project would not be necessary. Of course they aren't going to tell us that they messed it up. That would make them human rather than experts.
Perhaps I am full of crap. But maybe I'm not. What would it hurt to make them prove that this is the answer before they spend $11 million for another "oops".
KM
I don't think you would accept anything as proof. You are a naysayer who far too often disputes what people at city hall have said. And using 100 as a number because it's easy doesn't mean it makes sense. It was irresponsible and it's clear you haven't paid attention to the workshop or other discussions about this problem.
A. We are required by the EPA to build these ponds for pollution control.
B. The Westhaven ponds will serve 2 basins.
C. The pond on Murdock was full to the top (see the pictures provided by city staff. I have heard others say it overflowed.
D.I don't care how many ponds you have there will still be flooding when you receive 6 inches of rain in a few hours, especially after the 4 inches we had a few day before. Have you seen the rrest of the state? The bottom 1/3 of our state has been declared a disaster area. We need these ponds for pollution control purposes. They will also help in flooding situations. They will NOT stop a major flood event.
Anonymous 10:35 (and previously 12:03 and 7:43), you can call me names if you wish. It appears that when I use the cities own data, you have no rebuttal. Look at the map. it will tell the tail. If you choose to stick you head in the sand, so be it. But that doesn't mean that the rest of us should.
Anonymous 10:37, I understand the need to build ponds. The locations are NOT mandated though and need to be strategic in order to get the best value from the expense. Why build a pond just to build it?
In summary of everything I have said to this point:
Sawyer Creek is a bigger problem that Campbell Creek. One significant root cause to the back up is the poor engineering of the bridges at 9th Ave, Witzel, and Hwy 41. The pond in the Westhaven area DOES NOT have to be located on the golf course. Potentially, there are better locations that would be cheaper and more effective than the course. Central city flooding was caused by inadequate sanitary sewer system and the many houses in violation of city code pumping their sumps into it rather than into the storm sewers (that is why people had raw sewage floating in their basements).
Call me a "naysayer" if you must. I am simply putting another light on a civil debate. You seem to believe the city staff, which is your perogative. I just prefer having ALL of the information before making a Multi-Million dollar analysis.
BTW 10:35, did you even look at the presentation? Or did you simply believe what they are saying?
Some of us paid very close attention to the presentation. We choose to believe experts over you, KM. You say you want ALL the information. What more information do you want? If you are so expert on what will and will not work why didn't you gather your data and other information and present it before the workshop the other night? Other people discussed their thoughts. Why not you? You missed a golden opportunity but you can still make your case to the council during the next citizen statements. How about it?
There were various reasons why raw sewage backed up into basements Kent. In some cases it had nothing to do with sump pumps being hooked up improperly or illegally. Mr. Patek has outlined the many reasons.
I prefer to listen to "schooled"
engineers and common sense. We have outdated infrastruction in too many parts of this city. We have a DNR mandate to comply with. We do need to find a way to contain the water WEST OF HWY 41.
Set aside the fact these engineers are "public" employees perhaps you could think without "clouded" judgement.
After watching the council meeting last night, my confidence in our city department managers is at an all time low. These people seem to feel they are not accountable to taxpayers. They seem to think that whatever they say must be taken as gospel without question. I sure hope our new manager isn't cut out of the same cloth Fitzpatrick is. Fitz blindly supports these people as if he feels he must be their flack. Something is really troubling in our city government. Public employees need to be taken down a few notches and get the news that their checks come from us property taxpayers!
It won't happen until we can get a council/city manager that will put their feet to the fire.
Post a Comment