Winter snow is piled at the side of the road.,into the ditches ,on lawns,on boulevards.
Streets are salted and sanded to prevent freezing and mixed with snow, melts and runs .into storm sewers. In Spring , on my street, it fills the ditches and runs off into creeks and waterways.
Winters are not so cold as they were. We don't use less sand and salt. The grass at the edge of the boulevards no longer turns yellow and builds up with sand the way it used to.
Great mountains of accumulated snow on shopping centre parking lots, stay there until they melt in the Spring leaving behind piles of litter that are cleared away handily.
Here and there, the town removes snow from particular locations. We didn't always do that. . I remember getting a boot full quite often on Yonge Street ,when the town hall was in the middle of the East Block.
The collected snow goes to a gravel parking lot at the Lambert Wilson property. It sits there until it melts into the ground. Like everywhere else in the town.
Salt, whatever is left of it, dissolves in the melt. It filters down through the permeable layers of the good earth in that particular location. Eventually some of it may find it's way into the creek that drains the property.
Sand and litter is easily collected.and transported if need be. .
Not a big deal.
Except, we have a plan to change that. In the capital construction budget, we have half a million dollars to pave the parking lot with cement, create a runnel feeding into a treatment facility to remove "toxins"
The plan is in response to a call from the Minister of Environment to reduce "toxins" from finding their way down to the water table.
"Toxins" identified are oil and grit and sand and salt.
We have never, I mean me, seen any evidence of oil on the grass from winter snow melt. Salt no longer turns the edge of the boulevard grass yellow. We collect sand and re-use the stuff.
The only toxin, if there is any , to merit the description is salt. Salt is soluble.It can't be trapped in a treatment system.
Despite the argument,unwilling to make the decision to remove the item from the budget, like the repairs to the Aurora Family Leisure Centre. it was deferred by Council at the time , to be more thoroughly discussed at a later date.
We did not get to it at the all-day meeting held at the later date.We spent half the day listening to consultants for the Draft Strategic Plan and Space Needs for the 5 million dollar re-organisation of the town hall.
We did thoroughly discuss proposed $ 600 thousand dollars expenditure for the Aurora Family Leisure Complex and rejected most of it. But minutes from the meeting did not reflect that action. They noted the report was received.
It was not. .
It didn't much matter.
The expenditure was approved anyway through another route..
The CAO explained " the later meeting" had been held to allow Council to have "input"
The explanation sat well with the Mayor. No other Council member expressed concern . Therefore, the discussion and conclusion by council not to undertake the expenditure didn't count.
The expenditures are being undertaken.
Yet another Financial report was before council in our single August meeting agenda.
A list of capital construction projects and status is provided and staff approval recommended.
The snow storage site selection /construction is listed at $500,000.
$123,911. has been spent for the design in progress.That was done in a previous year.
The report recommends approval for the project to continue. .
I called the report for discussion. My recollection of budget indicates several items of capital construction deferred for in- depth discussion prior to approval.
If you are still reading this post, I commend you for perseverance.
At the August meeting, the usual complement of delegates, two appearing for the third time, had their turn at the mike to talk about their special interests and they in turn, were debated by Council with variable results,
Half the designated time to deal with town business was expended.
Insufficient time was left to deal with items of town business. They were deferred to September. The agenda will no doubt once again accommodate another flurry of special interest delegates as well as new items of business requiring council attention.
The nub of this post, in case it has been lost is. we are spending half a million dollars on a treatment system to remove "toxins" from a fraction of snow that melts, couldn't be stored if we wanted to, mixed with the minimum of salt we spread, that can't be removed because it dissolves.
Salt is a natural substance taken from the earth in the first place which we use of necessity, to make our environment habitable.
.
We have storm water ponds that filter" toxins" into the sediment
Monday, 29 August 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I like the idea of a "runnel" to collect these toxins. What I can't understand is why it should be so expensive to skim off a bit of oil and residual matter.
Salt is most definitely the greatest toxin in the mix, and the millions you quote for cost would be well worth it if only it could deal with this substance. It is a pity that it cannot. I don't think writing it off as "a natural substance taken from the earth in the first place" is fair. Uranium and asbestos are both natural substances as well. In all cases they are fine if we leave them where we find them, but once we dig them out of the ground we have to take a little responsibility for them.
Engine oil is a natural substance - after all it comes from the ground somewhere. Why can't I put engine oil from my car down the storm sewer outside my house?
Go get an oil change today and you have pay an environmental recovery fee. It goes with the territory in 2011!! It's those damned Berkenstock wearing, tree hugging left wing nutjobs.
"The grass at the edge of the boulevards no longer turns yellow and builds up with sand the way it used to."
Really? It sure as hell builds up at the street end of my front yard. There's so much, it's almost a flowerbed when spring rolls around and we are not even a through street!
Post a Comment