Rain Barrels and Rain Gardens Will Not Solve Urban CSO Problems

Another Grant Funded Ruse

Band-Aids and Magical Thinking

“Experts” at these conferences would never suggest that the real solutions lie in things like regulatory mandates by DEP, increased impact fees on developers, storm water fees on existing development, higher user fees, and tax increases.  That might get their corporate boards and Trenton politicians upset~~~ Bill Wolfe

Today Jim O’Neill of the Bergen Record did a followup story to the CSO story I blasted yesterday for presenting “very basic misconceptions” about the DEP’s CSO permits, see: DEP CSO Permits Lack Teeth.

In today’s story, O’Neill walks his flawed and over the top story way back, but he does so implicitly.

Of course, like Clark Kent, mild mannered reporters for major metropolitan newspapers never make mistakes, and when they do, certainly never admit them.

Yesterday, O’Neill was quoting environmental cheerleaders about how wonderful and enforceable the DEP CSO permits were and how they would drive multi-billion dollar infrastructure upgrades in NJ’s cities.

As I noted, that was a false and exaggerated crock of shit.

So today, he abandons the billion dollar major capital investments in infrastructure and dials the actual reality of the DEP CSO permits way back.

In today’s story, O’Neill is talking about CSO planning (not construction) and far less costly and effective “green infrastructure” solutions: rain barrels, rain gardens, and planting trees.

Officials from the affected cities joined with state and federal environmental officials and experts at a forum Thursday in Newark to share ideas about how the cities can reduce raw sewage overflows without breaking the bank. Many who spoke said the cities should take advantage of green infrastructure to reduce the load on their sewer systems.

Some cities have already launched green infrastructure projects, gaining traction in New Jersey and across the nation as a way to deal with storm water runoff. These projects – everything from roof gardens and rain barrels to roadside swales – absorb rainwater before it reaches storm drains.

Don’t get me wrong, I have a rain barrel and I broke up about 75 square feet of sidewalk to plant a small “rain garden” in front of my own house. [*Update 1/24/15 – I just came across a similar view].

But I realize that these are really aesthetic measures – just band-aids on gaping wounds, not real solutions to crumbling water infrastructure and declining water quality.

Real solutions require government mandates and massive investments, which are nowhere on the horizon.

But, I can’t let O’Neill off the hook for completely walking back his mistakes.

Today’s story repeats the misleading line of crap by the NJ Environmental Infrastructure Trust that I criticized this summer when NJEIT presented the plan to the Legislature.

NJEIT is creating the false impression that the solutions will not cost anything – a free lunch. Check this quote out:

Through the trust, Camden has secured $460 million in loans to make vital upgrades to the city’s sewage treatment system. Because the borrowing involved interest rates lower than the market rate, the program has saved Camden $221 million in borrowing costs, said David Zimmer, the trust’s director.

Camden used the loans for new, more efficient treatment equipment that cut energy costs and reduced the solids that the facility dumped into the Delaware River by 5,000 tons each year, said Andy Kricun, executive director of the Camden County Municipal Utility Authority. He said the agency focused on infrastructure projects that generated savings greater than the debt service of the loans. The agency will follow the same approach to deal with its 23 combined sewer outfall pipes that dump into the Delaware and its tributaries.

Two simple examples can expose this BS: First, if you’re broke and can’t afford it, it doesn’t matter if NJEIT can give you a loan with a lower interest rate that would reduce your loan payments.

Second, the idea about “generat[ing] savings greater than the debt service of the loans” makes NO SENSE for CSO’s.

That argument make sense for situations where borrowing to replace a piece of equipment that you are paying for with a more efficient and lower cost unit, like replacing a motor, can save you operating costs. Another example would be to buy a more efficient heating unit for your home to lower your energy bill or investing in a solar system. They would lower your monthly energy bill. The payback period is short and you save money.

But no one is paying anything to operate CSO’s! They are free! That’s the whole problem. It’s like having a huge hole in your roof or a blown car engine. The solution requires money. You don’t generate the money by reducing the operating cost. The NJ EIT analogy is totally wrong and misleading. (and it fails to mention the fact that the Camden improvements were driven by DEP and EPA regulatory mandates, which is not the case with respect to CSO’s, as I’ve already noted.)

So, after walking back his story yesterday, O’Neill also hints at the real dynamic that explains the cheerleading and what I’ve called “magical thinking” – it’s all about grants:

The conference also featured experts who explained how partnerships among academic institutions, private property owners, non-profits and local governments can leverage money for green infrastructure projects that benefit communities.

Leveraging funding, but that funding goes to academics and non-profits.

And of course, those “experts” at the conference would never suggest that the real solutions lie in things like regulatory mandates by DEP, increased impact fees on developers, storm water fees on existing development, and tax increases.

Those kind of solutions are controversial and the Foundations who provide the grants to these kind of conferences prefer to steer clear of all that.

It might get their corporate boards and Trenton politicians upset.