4 thoughts on “Amid Flooding and Pollution Concerns, New Ideas to Address Storm Runoff

  1. And as always, you’ve got SAWS and its SSOs. But that’s okay, because they set low SSO records last year (in a dry year); but then it rained, and after a >100,000 gallon spill of bacteria laden water “No adverse impacts to Salado Creek are expected since the spill has been heavily diluted by stormwater.” Good thing it rained so much to both cause AND dilute the spill. That was just last week, btw. http://www.saws.org/latest_news/articles/20180223_TCEQPublicNotice.pdf

    And TxDOT, lagging behind on flooding repairs because it rained a lot last year (except it didn’t, according to NOAA, but blaming the rain is just Puro San Antonio) and the concrete creek of I-35 flooded again.

    “TxDOT says it recently finished upgrading its pump station in the area, but for some reason it wasn’t pumping this morning.

    “It could be you know they were clogged or just the amount of water it couldn’t handle,” said Laura Lopez, TxDOT spokesperson. “We don’t know what happened this morning but it is being investigated.”

  2. The elephant in the room is that no one ever addresses the fact that leaf blowers are blowing those very pollutants and bacteria that are contaminating our river into the air we breathe. I live in a condo complex and when the leaf blowers are doing their thing it looks like world war 11 out there with all the clouds of dust in the air.

  3. The correct name of the agency from which you obtained the streamflow data to depict how flooding is getting worse is the U.S. Geological Survey, not the U.S. Geographic Survey.

    • The correct use of data (and sourcing) is actually relevant for proper analysis. There are numerous localized rainfall gauges across the City, yet the powers-that-be do not appear to correlate localized downpours to flooding or overflow events.

      SAWS, for example, has literally hundreds of sewer overflows every year but there is no apparent publicly-available correlation being done between local rainfall, local flooding, and SSOs.

      SAWS must have years worth of SSO data (at the very least since the 2013 Consent Decree) that could be cross-referenced to USGS stream flow data, and/or localized rainfall data which could then be used to prioritize which areas or sewer mains need the most urgent repairs. For example, a downstream SSO may have been caused by a highly localized downpour over an area of dense impervious cover. Why is this information not made publicly available in near real-time after the on- average, every-other-day, SSO event?

      The SSO data could then be easily cross-referenced with water quality data from SARA to assist in determining the source of bacteria in the streams. It could also be compared to the levels of impervious cover to determine if developers – and their engineers – are actually doing the correct analysis for downstream flooding.

      Is it possible that storm drains or storm sewers are improperly connected or leaking into the sanitary sewer system?

      The City claims “data driven policies”, the Rivard Report has posted various data-friendly analyses, SAWS is spending over one billion dollars on the Consent Decree, surely someone must be considering applying widespread data analysis to the problem. All openly and transparently, of course.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *