There appears to be great debate over making Westhaven Golf Course a water retention area. There were even comments made by Mr. Patek after the first round of storms on June 7th/8th that some flooding could have been avoided if there was water retention there.
I don't believe for one minute that flooding could be avoided on as large of a scale as he would like us to believe. What purpose would a pond that far west serve? The golf course served as water retention as it was and basements still flooded all over. It sure wouldn't have done any good for areas south and east of the course. The flood waters would still have gotten there. It wouldn't have done any good for homes or businesses north of 9th Ave. either. The largest backup was created at the bridge over Sawyer Creek at 9th. It turned Oakwood Rd into a raging river and Homestead flooded when the water retention west of Pheasant Creek failed. It sure created a mess for many homes west of Oakwood. All the water retention would have done in this situation is take care of the water backing up at 9th and allowed it to go elsewhere besides basements on Ruschfield/Homestead/Wheatfield/Fairfax/etc.
So you need to ask yourself, is spending $11 million on a golf course/water retention project worth it to protect less than 100 basements? I sure don't.
BTW, I live in the subdivision that would benefit from such an expenditure. I still don't like the cost. I think that there are cheaper and more viable alternatives... even finding a location farther downstream would be better. I think Public Works needs to go back to the drawing board and take another look rather than bail out a retiring golf course owner.
KM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I think the ONW Editorial last week explained that the storm water flows east. So while the proposed retention pond exists in Westhaven, it really impacts the entire city. Relieving pressure on the storm water system is the rationale behind retention ponds. In other words, people on the south and east side would not have seen as much water if there was a place to redirect the water. I think the city should have a discussion about how to address intense rains in the future and the options such as retentions ponds and how they could help.
First of all, it's "raging river" not "ragging river".
"I think that there are cheaper and more viable alternatives... even finding a location farther downstream would be better. "
Just exactly where are you going to find a location furher downstream, and how do you plan on getting the water to the downstream location? The areas that flooded ARE downstream from the impervious surfaces (roofs, parking lots, etc) and altered natural causeways that are causing the flooding in the first place.
You are correct... I always did suck at spelling and as you can tell, spell check doesn't always pick everything up. Especially if it is a word otherwise.
I stated in my post that a retention pond would not offer relief that isn't already there. The 9th Ave bridge is a bottleneck that slows the flow of water. That is why it backs up in the Westhaven and Ruschfield subdivisions. Retention may help parts of those subdivisions but to say that it would have a serious impact east of 41 would be stretching.
As for downstream locations... Perhaps Steins, Sears, or any of several other lots in that area. Even some relief could come if they used part of Red Arrow Park. The city already owns the property and there are no shortage of parks in that area. Red Arrow could still exist, just smaller.
Like I said earlier, there are many alternatives. I seemed to have lost my Engineering degree somewhere but I still have some common sense.
KM
Several retention ponds are planned around the city. Westhaven is only one of them. Maybe you should speak to Mr. Patek to find out the complete listing of areas they're looking at for the rest.
There aren't any other retention plans for this area. The empty lot at 9th/Washburn was eliminated because the owner did not want to sell.
More information can be gained by going here: http://www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/Public_Works/Campbell_Creek_Basin/campbell_creek_basin.htm
This gives all of the current plan/proposal for water control.
KM
The bottom line is we are way behing in requirements set forth by the EPA when it comes to storm water runoff. Way behind.
Is Westhaven the solution? I don't know. Personally, I like it as a golf course. But Kent, seriously, you have no background in engineering, and to make some of the comments you did in your original post was careless.
That's only for the Sawyer Creek area. Better talk to Patek and find out the plans for the whole city. Btetr yet contact the EPA and DNR for the requirements that are forcing those plans all over town.
Revisit using that land at 9th and Washburn rather than buying Westhaven.
There are plenty of vacant properties in Koeller to be used up and the city would save alot of money doing that than buying a low used golf course from Stauffer.
Anonymous 3:52,
You are absolutely correct, I am not an engineer. What is written here is my opinion and only an opinion. Granted we all know what opinions are... but seriously, this post was meant to reach out for other ideas. Not just take what the Public Works department gives us and tells us that we need.
I for one don't like the course. I played it once (not that I am much of a player but rather a hacker) and the course was in poor shape. Most courses will give a reduced rate when the ground are not up to snuff, not Westhaven. They charged full price for some pretty waterlogged (probably spelled wrong) grounds.
Remember... this blog is an opinion used to spark healthy and respectful debate. It was never meant to change the world. Thank you for your input.
KM
Post a Comment