Tidal Fish Forum banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,471 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Governor may revive spending proposals - Kaine suggests he'll try to find a way to give Lynchburg money to keep waste out of the James

BY MICHAEL HARDY AND ANDREW PETKOFSKY TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITERS

Jun 30, 2006

Slapped down by House Republicans on several spending proposals, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine said yesterday that he might revive some of them through executive actions.


"Most compelling," the governor suggested, would be to direct $3.75 million to Lynchburg to control sewer overflow in the James River during major storms.

It makes no sense, he said, for the GOP-controlled General Assembly to tout and spend big dollars on the environment, including $200 million toward Chesapeake Bay cleanup, and then allow the befouling of the James River.

The state money would also be matched by funds from the federal government, he said. Kaine, who said he will sign the new and long-overdue state budget today, made his comments on his monthly radio call-in show broadcast from the studios of WRVA (1140 AM) in Richmond.

The $3.75 million Lynchburg lost could have an effect on life in Richmond downstream.

Tim Mitchell, Lynchburg utilities director, said, "It means that during significant rain events, raw sewage is going to continue to spill over into the James River and ultimately into the Chesapeake Bay.

"We are under an EPA directive to correct the problem, but there is only so much we can do locally."

The last sewage overflow was Wednesday, said City Manager L. Kimball Payne.

Payne said he does not understand why Richmond received a state appropriation for the overflow abatement but Lynchburg didn't.

Lynchburg is in the middle of a 20-year plan to keep waste out of the James. The city has already spent $100 million that has corrected at least 75 percent of the overflow problem, Payne said.

Lynchburg officials estimate they will need an additional $300 million over 10 years to finish the job.

Good, good... just think of all the treatment money we'd save if we left some pogies and oysters in the bay to help with the problem...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
[Q]Sea Gristle originally wrote:

Lynchburg is in the middle of a 20-year plan to keep waste out of the James. The city has already spent $100 million that has corrected at least 75 percent of the overflow problem, Payne said.

Lynchburg officials estimate they will need an additional $300 million over 10 years to finish the job.

Good, good... just think of all the treatment money we'd save if we left some pogies and oysters in the bay to help with the problem...

[/Q]

So you are saying that it is cheaper to buy out the pogie boats than fix the up stream problems? If so I agree!!!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,291 Posts
[Q]Sea Gristle originally wrote:
Good, good... just think of all the treatment money we'd save if we left some pogies and oysters in the bay to help with the problem...

[/Q]

Bahaaaaaaaaaaa. It appears you need to do some research. Some scientists are saying even restoring oysters and LY's to it's highest level ever, will fall way short of any restoration of the bay. The problem is to many people. Blaming it on anything else is an "Not Me" approach. Money to update archaic treatment plants and better control of runoff should be the top priority. Oysters and fish won't grow in a septic tank.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,374 Posts
Oysters seem to be thriving in certain areas of the Lynnhaven River that are extremely polluted via nutrient loads and highly populated. Well...they are thriving in riprap...where they are more difficult to harvest. Oddly enough, those oysters seem to be "disease resistant"....hmmmm.. Makes me wonder about the diseases and what would happen if they were left alone...and the current welfare state of oyster harvest via fossil shell beds... Maybe riprap would help?

It's kind of silly when people say the problem is too many people. It's a thinly veiled excuse for shrugging your shoulders and throwing in the towel. Hello... the population is growing everywhere. (Side note....one of the few cities that isn't growing very much... you guessed it Baltimore.) There's nothing that is going to change that. So, you have to work with it. Even if the oysters and bunker cleaned 15% of the nutrient load, it's more than they do now. Do you disagree? When you are dealing with millions of tons, 15% isn't exactly a drop in the bucket.
You always have the same arguement. Too many people...blah blah blah.. Guess what, it's never going to change. We have to work with the parameters that confine us. So, rather than shoot down someone who is raising awareness to a conservation issue, maybe you could be pro-active ...or dare I say positive towards an average Joe who actually cares.

No go on Reds... pick one or two sentences out of my post, quote them, and try to deflect all the reason and logic I presented. Anyone want to make a side bet on which paragraph he picks?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,291 Posts
What reason and logic?

All I see is rhetoric from a fishing club member saying “No it’s not me. Must be someone or something else."

Do yourself a favor and grow up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,037 Posts
[Q]OneMoreCast originally wrote:
Oysters seem to be thriving in certain areas of the Lynnhaven River that are extremely polluted via nutrient loads and highly populated. Well...they are thriving in riprap...where they are more difficult to harvest. Oddly enough, those oysters seem to be "disease resistant"....hmmmm.. Makes me wonder about the diseases and what would happen if they were left alone...and the current welfare state of oyster harvest via fossil shell beds... Maybe riprap would help?

It's kind of silly when people say the problem is too many people. It's a thinly veiled excuse for shrugging your shoulders and throwing in the towel. Hello... the population is growing everywhere. (Side note....one of the few cities that isn't growing very much... you guessed it Baltimore.) There's nothing that is going to change that. So, you have to work with it. Even if the oysters and bunker cleaned 15% of the nutrient load, it's more than they do now. Do you disagree? When you are dealing with millions of tons, 15% isn't exactly a drop in the bucket.
You always have the same arguement. Too many people...blah blah blah.. Guess what, it's never going to change. We have to work with the parameters that confine us. So, rather than shoot down someone who is raising awareness to a conservation issue, maybe you could be pro-active ...or dare I say positive towards an average Joe who actually cares.
[/Q]

Very well said.
Didn't you know? Any species not able to be harvested by watermen are automatically bad for the Bay[tongue]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,374 Posts
[Q]reds originally wrote:
What reason and logic?

All I see is rhetoric from a fishing club member saying "No it's not me. Must be someone or something else."

Do yourself a favor and grow up.

[/Q]
Do myself a favor....hmmm ....is that a threat reds? Glad I quoted you on this one. First name calling now lifestyle suggestions. What's next? Tax advice?
I like the edit ... have you ever posted anything without choking, going back, and editing?

Rhetoric...."rhetoric is said to flourish in open and democratic societies with rights of free speech, free assembly, and political enfranchisement for some portion of the population."

Get used to it.

1) Oysters and Bunker would clean a certain percentage of the nutrient load
2) Lynnhaven has seen an explosion of oyster growth in riprap.
3) Population is not increasing in Baltimore
4) We have to work with what we have.

There's my reason and logic Reds. You offer nothing to these conversations. In spite of this, I encourage you to continue to reply. Because, every time you enter text on this message board, you show every reader exactly what you are.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,291 Posts
Again I must laugh. Why do the rabbit and the briar patch come to mind?

Only people following a line of rhetoric told to them would even think that using stone would create a problem for the watermen.

The stone costs are 4 times as much as fossil oyster shell and unless it’s put in a large pile there would be no way to uncover it from silt sediment at a low cost.

If stone is used and put in a pile it would be very easy for divers, using breathing apparatus, to strip a pile in short order. Patent tongs, hand tongs and dredge equipment can’t see the oysters. Divers can.

Baltimore numbers are going down.....True, but have you checked the surrounding areas. Guess what, they are going up. Projections 20 years out, are for 3+ million more people in the total watershed.

Lynnhaven... I answered that above.

10% nutrient cleaning is a thimble full....Catch up on the latest projections on nutrients. The 10% could be 1% in wet years. With global warming, scientists say there will be more wet years then dry. Who will you blame then?

No threats just fact. You act like a small child.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,374 Posts
[Q]reds originally wrote:

Again I must laugh. Why do the rabbit and the briar patch come to mind?

Only people following a line of rhetoric told to them would even think that using stone would create a problem for the watermen.

The stone costs are 4 times as much as fossil oyster shell and unless it's put in a large pile there would be no way to uncover it from silt sediment at a low cost.

If stone is used and put in a pile it would be very easy for divers, using breathing apparatus, to strip a pile in short order. Patent tongs, hand tongs and dredge equipment can't see the oysters. Divers can.

Baltimore numbers are going down.....True, but have you checked the surrounding areas. Guess what, they are going up. Projections 20 years out, are for 3+ million more people in the total watershed.

Lynnhaven... I answered that above.

10% nutrient cleaning is a thimble full....Catch up on the latest projections on nutrients. The 10% could be 1% in wet years. With global warming, scientists say there will be more wet years then dry. Who will you blame then?

No threats just fact. You act like a small child.

[/Q]

4x as an initial cost. How much longer would the stone last Reds? You ever do any accounting old timer? How many more years would it stay above the muck? How long does it take for the shell to get sediment over it thereby rendering it useless? That old excuse for power dredging would be moot eh?
I have no doubt that they would figure out a way to get the oysters....no doubt at all.
15% is 15% reds. In drought years that percentage would go up. I never took you for someone who would believe in global warming. Glad you have that figured out before the scientists have a handle on it. Maybe you can consult NASA on possible asteroid strikes in the next thousand years too.
You never answered the Lynnhaven issue. Why are they thriving? Why isn't the disease killing them?
I know the surrounding areas Reds. But those are new developments with higher standards for water management. Big, old cities...with their ancient sewer systems are the real issue. You know that as well as I do. Population is population. There is nothing that can be done. Let's talk about things that can be changed.

Funny that you would argue with a small child reds(and lose badly I might add)....very funny indeed.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,291 Posts
Since you are a member of the CCA and on the board of a local chapter, do they tell you what to say? I know know you can't think for yourself. Is it all written down for you? Bahaaaaaaaa.

Nets need checking gotta go.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,374 Posts
Go check your nets Reds. Enjoy it while it lasts.... I hear those things don't have a great resale value.
I'm not on the board of any CCA chapter, nor have I ever been. Never held a position in the CCA to date. I just a member....just like you!!!
Back to your typical garbage eh? I'm an ass, a child, and I can't think for myself....but I sure put a hurtin on you.
Want to talk about anything else Reds? Politics, the market, fishing??? Because I can debate you on just about anything and win. Not because anyone is feeding me information. Because, I outclass you in every single category worth considering. Believe me...I'm not bragging. Almost everyone I know outclasses you.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,291 Posts
[Q]OneMoreCast originally wrote:
Go check your nets Reds. Enjoy it while it lasts.... I hear those things don't have a great resale value.
I'm not on the board of any CCA chapter, nor have I ever been. Never held a position in the CCA to date. I just a member....just like you!!!
Back to your typical garbage eh? I'm an ass, a child, and I can't think for myself....but I sure put a hurtin on you.
Want to talk about anything else Reds? Politics, the market, fishing??? Because I can debate you on just about anything and win. Not because anyone is feeding me information. Because, I outclass you in every single category worth considering. Believe me...I'm not bragging. Almost everyone I know outclasses you.
[/Q]

Must be hard trying to find a hat for that oversized head of yours.

I'd recommend a bushel basket. It should fit perfectly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,471 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
[Q]reds originally wrote:

If stone is used and put in a pile it would be very easy for divers, using breathing apparatus, to strip a pile in short order. Patent tongs, hand tongs and dredge equipment can't see the oysters. Divers can.

[/Q]
All the more reason for a moratorium.Besides I can't see a lot of tongers strapping on tanks to harvest by hand- another Red Herring?[grin]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,264 Posts
Just to really add some facts and stir it a bit, actually pretty soon I'll be able to add more comment. I think both OMC and Reds are correct and not exactly accurate.
The Bay's watershed population has increased by many millions over the past 50 years. My good friend JP Williams from the CBF kinda starts most of his lectures off with the facts regarding the watershed populace and it's impacts. Unfortunately people make pollution, directly, indirectly, in other words, lots of it. It either flushes, runs off, goes off as air pollution gasses which form Oxides of Nitrogen, etcetc. Now where Reds and me are probably not going to agree are the massive costs to clean it up and the useage of filter feeders. Weve spent many billions in the Bay's watershed and the Bay's dead zone increases. Bay grasses have increased and major WWTP nutrient loads have decreased so definitely some gain. However, we've definitely upset the Bay's ecosystems by removal of filter feeders either by harvest or from poor environments. Either way, we get a really cheap bang for the buck by the use of oysters and menhadden, etc, which filtered & cleaned the Bay every several days over a century ago. My theory is bring back the filter feeders, lets get a picture of what we need to do to clean up the rest. The cost of a total cleanup is probably unattainable to a tax wary populace.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top