Join the Fray
In any field, open discussion and debate are important tools: ways to move the profession forward, to clarify to others—and sometimes even to ourselves—exactly what it is we mean, what our priorities are, and what we’re trying to accomplish. This is doubly true in a dynamic and relatively new arena like stormwater management, where regulations, treatment strategies, and other concepts are still evolving.
The authors of several articles in this issue jump headlong into one of several ongoing discussions. Neal Shapiro’s editorial on page 8 challenges us to be more careful in the words we use to express what we’re doing. We might know what we mean, but for newcomers to the field, and the members of the public we’re so often trying to convince of the value of what we’re doing, some of our terms can be baffling. As an editor, I agree wholeheartedly with his sentiment that carelessness or paucity of expression can make people suspect there are flaws elsewhere in our arguments and methods, and that seemingly small illogicalities or inconsistencies erode credibility. (And to show we’re open to throwing almost any subject on the table, we didn’t edit out his question about the name of the magazine itself: Stormwater or Storm Water?)
Even fairly well-established concepts like first flush can and should be reexamined, as in the article on page 36. Observing whether a particular region actually experiences a significant first-flush phenomenon, as the authors did, can have tremendous implications for the water-quality treatment strategies that will be most effective there.
Some questions are even more complex. The article on page 10 looks at the direction current stormwater regulations are headed—simply put, a requirement to retain the 95% storm onsite, or more broadly, maintaining predevelopment hydrology—then examines their feasibility and proposes some different options.
Finally, two articles in this issue deal with low-impact development. The account of Partridgeberry Place on page 52 compares the runoff volumes from several different neighborhood designs: a conventional subdivision with curb-and-gutter drainage, one with clustered housing to preserve open space, and one with clustered housing plus LID features. Getting at the actual effectiveness of these different approaches is crucial and something that’s been done too rarely. The article on page 60 looks at some of the implications and costs of requiring developers to incorporate LID techniques into new development. Those working hard to encourage LID techniques might take exception to some of the points in the article, as we and its author are well aware—and yet it expresses the very questions many people outside the stormwater arena are likely to have when facing new LID requirements. We need to be able to address these issues cogently among ourselves if we’re going to address them elsewhere. Aspects of both of these LID articles may surprise you.
Those of you who are joining us at StormCon in San Antonio in August will hear plenty of discussion on these and other issues; one of the main benefits of professional conferences is bringing us all together to debate it out in person. Those who aren’t attending—or who are but find, when they return home, they’ve still got more to say—can always join in the online discussions at www.stormh2o.com. Please feel free to comment on any of the articles in this issue, or propose a topic of your own.
Advertisement
July-August 2010
Join the Fray
In any field, open discussion and debate are important tools: ways to move the profession forward, to clarify to others—and sometimes even to ourselves—exactly what it is we mean, what our priorities are, and what we’re trying to accomplish. This is doubly true in a dynamic and relatively new arena like stormwater management, where regulations, treatment strategies, and other concepts are still evolving.
The authors of several articles in this issue jump headlong into one of several ongoing discussions. Neal Shapiro’s editorial on page 8 challenges us to be more careful in the words we use to express what we’re doing. We might know what we mean, but for newcomers to the field, and the members of the public we’re so often trying to convince of the value of what we’re doing, some of our terms can be baffling. As an editor, I agree wholeheartedly with his sentiment that carelessness or paucity of expression can make people suspect there are flaws elsewhere in our arguments and methods, and that seemingly small illogicalities or inconsistencies erode credibility. (And to show we’re open to throwing almost any subject on the table, we didn’t edit out his question about the name of the magazine itself: Stormwater or Storm Water?)
Even fairly well-established concepts like first flush can and should be reexamined, as in the article on page 36. Observing whether a particular region actually experiences a significant first-flush phenomenon, as the authors did, can have tremendous implications for the water-quality treatment strategies that will be most effective there.
Some questions are even more complex. The article on page 10 looks at the direction current stormwater regulations are headed—simply put, a requirement to retain the 95% storm onsite, or more broadly, maintaining predevelopment hydrology—then examines their feasibility and proposes some different options.
Finally, two articles in this issue deal with low-impact development. The account of Partridgeberry Place on page 52 compares the runoff volumes from several different neighborhood designs: a conventional subdivision with curb-and-gutter drainage, one with clustered housing to preserve open space, and one with clustered housing plus LID features. Getting at the actual effectiveness of these different approaches is crucial and something that’s been done too rarely. The article on page 60 looks at some of the implications and costs of requiring developers to incorporate LID techniques into new development. Those working hard to encourage LID techniques might take exception to some of the points in the article, as we and its author are well aware—and yet it expresses the very questions many people outside the stormwater arena are likely to have when facing new LID requirements. We need to be able to address these issues cogently among ourselves if we’re going to address them elsewhere. Aspects of both of these LID articles may surprise you.
Those of you who are joining us at StormCon in San Antonio in August will hear plenty of discussion on these and other issues; one of the main benefits of professional conferences is bringing us all together to debate it out in person. Those who aren’t attending—or who are but find, when they return home, they’ve still got more to say—can always join in the online discussions at www.stormh2o.com. Please feel free to comment on any of the articles in this issue, or propose a topic of your own.