Water, Water Everywhere

For those of you that still don't know what to believe as far as climate change goes, let's at least agree that we've sure had a lot of intense rains lately.  Here are the totals from last Saturday's storm.  Your rain gage was right.  The Cannon was running through streets, parks and golf courses in Northfield.

I heard a talk given by Dr. Mark Seeley a few years ago and he said our trends were for higher summer dew points (more tropical humidity) and more frequent, but localized, high-intensity precipitation events.  He also mentioned higher winter minimum temps--doesn't get as cold, change in the seasonality of temperature--cooler springs and warmer falls, and higher summer minimums too--we don't have those great sleeping nights as frequently.

So how does this impact the  Township?  Last Saturday we had road damage in the Township in many places and repairs are underway.  Maybe you reported the damage to the Road Supervisors (pete.storlie@gmail.com 952-469-3668 or  MarkCeminsky.eurekatn@frontier.com 612-819-1334).
Last May's damage was so bad that we qualified for FEMA funds for the repairs.

In any given year, the majority of our budget goes to roads.  We spent more than the budgeted amount on snow plowing last winter and are dipping into other pots to cover the overage.  We grade, apply dust control, add crushed rock or gravel, fix culverts, maintain ditches...we care about how water is managed because it affects our bottom line.

We also care about how water is managed (or should) because it is the neighborly thing to do.  We may have sighed with relief if that 4" rain did only minor damage to our driveway or crops and if our roof shed the curtain of rain (mine leaked).  But we should also be thinking about how water leaves our property.    Eureka residents are lucky to be near the headwaters of two different watersheds, the Vermillion and the North Cannon.  The water that falls on our properties makes its way to one of those two rivers, affecting everyone downstream.

If we let the water soak in like it always has, the groundwater will be recharged and the streams buffered a bit from extreme fluctuations.  And we know that they are getting extreme!

If we alter the way water soaks into the ground, make it run off more roofs, paved areas, through new ditches, tiling, accommodate it by increasing the size of culverts, we have to expect a response in the stream.  Those folks living along the rivers and their tributaries will tell you its already happening.  Stream banks are caving in, rivers meanders are on the move, floods are higher and more frequent and ironically, the low-level periods for the river are lower.

That is why when Supervisor Ceminsky wanted to increase the size of Accessory Buildings to up to 25% of the property area I laughed initially.  It was an absurd proposition for me, as a geologist working on water issues.  Making 25% of the Township impervious, the extreme result of the proposed ordinance language, would have had such a huge impact on the rivers that the Vermillion Watershed Administrator responded immediately.  He testified at the public hearing that if such an ordinance were to pass, they would have no choice but to require that every land owner making a change in impervious cover to hire a consultant to model the pre- and post-modification runoff amounts for 10-year average high rainfall events.  They would then be required to design a system to capture all excess runoff and keep in on the property.  Sound expensive and confusing?

Thankfully Supervisor Ceminsky retracted his original proposal.  However it still did not stop the Board from passing a still-significant increase in the size of allowed Accessory Buildings, more in line with those in Scott County.  You can now increase your roofshed (water just runs off a roof rather than soaking into the ground) to 5,000 sq ft. if you have up to 5.999 acres and 10,000 sq ft. if you have 10.999 acres.  There is NO LIMIT on properties larger than that.  (That is the gaping hole in the ordinance that we hope they will fix shortly--they didn't run the language by the Planning Commission, ignored public comment on that very point and published the ordinance last month).

Here is what a 10,000 sq ft building looks like.  Hmmm, do you think they have other ordinance changes in mind?  How could this large of a building be something a guy could fill with personal, not commercial property?  How many snowmobiles, boats, cars and toys can a guy own?

So in addition to blocking our view with giant pole buildings, the new ordinance has the potential to impact our watershed--including our road, ditches, culverts, driveways and everyone downstream.

What do you think?  Is this good for the Township?