Showing posts with label public space. Show all posts
Showing posts with label public space. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

DC Sewage Politricks


Politics at every turn.......

As overflows continue, D.C. plan for sewage tunnels getting messy

Turf battles, firings occur over best way to control flow into city waterways

By Jeffrey Anderson  -  The Washington Times  -  Sunday, June 2, 2013


More than a billion gallons of stormwater and sewage flow into the District of Columbia's rivers every year, and there is a belief that George Hawkins is the man to fix it.
The D.C. Water general manager is a national environmental rock star, a charismatic man — as anyone who has seen him sketch a once-in-a-century infrastructure project on a white board can attest.
He is said to harbor ambitions of someday becoming administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
But with Mr. Hawkins acting in concert with D.C. Water's Chairman of the Board Allen Lew, who also is the D.C. City Administrator, the attempt to open up a 2005 federal consent decree requiring reduced overflows from the city's combined sewer system has gotten messy. The plan is to shift resources away from a three-tunnel project to divert and treat polluted rainwater that flows into the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers and Rock Creek, and into a pilot project to study green alternatives such as rain gardens.
Already, there have been consequences for D.C. officials who questioned the plan, with Mr. Lew exercising a heavy hand in firings and aborted attempts at firings. Meantime, Mr. Hawkins, with the approval of Mr. Lew and Mayor Vincent C. Gray, has quietly negotiated a "Green Infrastructure Partnership Agreement" with the EPA that could shift D.C. Water's financial burdens onto District agencies and taxpayers to support its stormwater projects.
On Monday, Mr. Gray and Mr. Lew will ask the D.C. Council to confirm appointment of the director of the District Department of Environment (DDOE) to the board of D.C. Water. But D.C. Water is supposed to be an independent agency, and DDOE is empowered to regulate stormwater management activities in the District.
Environmental groups see the maneuver as a conflict of interest, and Mr. Gray as willing to manipulate his DDOE director in spite of his regulatory authority in order to gain EPA approval of Hawkins' plan.
They are equally concerned the pilot project will forestall the tunnels in favor of newer technology that is unproven on a citywide scale.
Mr. Hawkins often plays by his own rules, according to those who have observed him up close. In promoting the pilot project, he reportedly bypassed EPA Region 3 Administrator Shawn Garvin and went directly to former EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, a friend from when the two served as environmental protection officials in New Jersey.
Mr. Hawkins denies bypassing Mr. Garvin — a major "process foul" in EPA parlance — but during a recent two-hour interview he conceded, "We communicate with EPA [headquarters] more than other agencies because they're in D.C. Plus, I know Lisa from New Jersey."
Mr. Hawkins also admits that he kept DDOE — the city's stormwater administrator — out of the EPA discussions until the 11th hour, a decision that would not be possible without Mr. Lew's approval.
"If I had it to do over, I would have involved DDOE earlier and more often," Mr. Hawkins said. "I misjudged that, and should've engaged them early on."
Put D.C. at the forefront
Mr. Hawkins aims to put D.C. at the forefront of the clean rivers movement. Currently the project to reduce stormwater and sewage overflows is funded by D.C. Water, which provides 600,000 residents, 17.8 million annual visitors and 700,000 District employees with water and sewer service.
D.C. Water is spending $1.6 billion to build a tunnel along the Anacostia River to divert those overflows to the Blue Plains Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant. Mr. Hawkins said D.C. Water will finish that tunnel by 2017, and that by 2025, it will reduce billions of gallons of annual overflows into the city's rivers by 96 percent.
But faced with a 2015 deadline to begin work on the other two tunnels, at an additional cost of $1 billion, he is proposing spending $30 million to $40 million to evaluate the impacts of green roofs, rain gardens, rain barrels and "pervious pavements."
Initially, Mr. Hawkins asked EPA for an 8-year grace period from working on the other two tunnels, but now he says he "mischaracterized" the plan. He says he is asking EPA to give him until 2015 to gain the support of the other necessary federal and local agencies. If he cannot, or fails to meet other benchmarks by 2017 or 2023, then D.C. Water will keep tunneling, he said.
Cities such as St. Louis, Cleveland and Indianapolis are working under similar consent decrees with a combination of tunnels and green methods. Philadelphia has a plan that is almost entirely green.
But environmentalists ask why the District hasn't made more green progress since 2005, and question whether green infrastructure can capture the amount of stormwater that the tunnels can handle.
'International green city'
In 2009, as director of DDOE, Mr. Hawkins spoke before the D.C. Council on the importance of "teamwork" in turning D.C. into a "leading international green city." He supported the Stormwater Management Act, a 2008 law that made DDOE responsible for "monitoring and coordinating the [stormwater] activities of all District agencies, including [D.C. Water]."
In January 2012, however, once Mr. Hawkins became general manager of D.C. Water, his agency argued in an EPA appeal that "the District government cannot impose financial obligations on D.C. Water," and that "DDOE cannot speak for or constrain D.C. Water with respect to [its] obligations…"
That appeal was dismissed, and DDOE still regulates stormwater management, but its status relative to D.C. Water has changed. According to a letter from Mr. Gray to Ms. Jackson, by March 2012, D.C. Water had made "significant progress in its negotiations with EPA to establish a framework that would allow for an exploration of green infrastructure as an alternative to the costly underground tunnels."
This was news to DDOE when, in July, Mr. Garvin notified former DDOE Director Christophe Tulou that a draft green infrastructure partnership agreement with EPA was in the works, according to multiple sources. At Mr. Garvin's — and Mr. Hawkins' — request, Mr. Tulou submitted comments on the draft agreement to the EPA. He was fired in August, purportedly for not getting the mayor's approval prior to submitting the comments, despite having sent them to Mr. Lew, Mr. Hawkins and the mayor's chief of staff, Christopher Murphy.
Mr. Lew would not respond to requests for comment. Mr. Garvin did not return calls. The Gray administration did not respond to questions about its relationship with D.C. Water.
Mr. Tulou was not the only casualty. His special assistant, Barry Weiss, who wrote the Stormwater Management Act, was fired. DDOE's general counsel and deputy general counsel were reprimanded, but only after D.C. Attorney General Irvin Nathan refused requests from Mr. Lew's office that they too be fired, according to multiple sources outside D.C. government.
Environmental advocates took note of the lack of distance between Mr. Hawkins and the Gray administration, embodied in the draft agreement with EPA and two letters to the EPA administrator signed by Mayor Gray — without DDOE's knowledge.
"George Hawkins has everyone under his spell at some level, and the city has consolidated power with D.C. Water with Lew as the chairman of its board," said Chris Weiss, former aide to Council Chairman Phil Mendelson. "The mayor is clearly deferring to Lew, and he doesn't seem to have a problem undermining his own agency heads."
'Fiscally irresponsible'
Mr. Gray's letters to Ms. Jackson, sent without Mr. Garvin's knowledge according to multiple sources, state that "it would be fiscally irresponsible" for D.C. Water to continue spending funds for the Potomac River and Rock Creek underground tunnels without first studying the impacts of green infrastructure.
Neither the Gray administration nor D.C. Water would say who drafted those letters or the green partnership agreement.
In an Aug. 12 letter to Mr. Garvin, environmental groups accused D.C. Water of negotiating a backroom deal with the EPA, and said the 60-day comment period after the proposal is unveiled may not be sufficient. They also question whether Hawkins' plan can meet the consent decree's deadlines, and point out that both the Stormwater Management Act and the 2005 consent decree required them to have undertaken that review by now.
Rebecca Hammer of the Natural Resources Defense Council says Mr. Hawkins' plan is vague, that the city does not have enough land to build green infrastructure on the necessary scale, and that it is underestimating the maintenance such systems will require.
"How do you do it on private property?" she asked.
Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Lew say the maintenance will create jobs. Mr. Hawkins also insists he has found public land in less developed parts of the city that are contributing to toxic runoff into Rock Creek.
But talk of cost is fuzzy. While there exists a notion that green is less expensive than gray infrastructure, Adam Krantz, managing director of government affairs for the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, says this is a misconception. "The idea that green is a cheaper approach is not true," he said.
Mr. Hawkins agreed that the city will be "spending like crazy on these [green] projects," and noted that monthly water bills have gone up by $7 since the tunnel project began. "But we believe we will get more bang for the buck," he said.
Speaking for Mr. Hawkins, the mayor's chief of staff added: "We owe it to the rate payers and, frankly, the environment itself to get more data about the effectiveness and cost of what some have called 'green solutions.' It's a question about effectiveness and whether one approach has more ancillary benefits."
So who will pay for D.C. Water's green pilot project, and any further tunnel plans going forward? The EPA draft agreement states that decision points for the project will weigh "the extent to which District departments will commit to revising capital expenditure plans to prioritize [green infrastructure] retrofits in priority areas" — suggesting costs could shift from D.C. Water to District agencies.
Mr. Hawkins brushed aside such concerns, but confirmed the agreement will be part of the proposed modified consent decree to be approved by EPA and a federal judge. Of the possibility that DDOE and other agencies such as the District Departments of Transportation and Public Works end up paying for his projects while having limited input, he said: "Not if the parties are working well together. I'm not going to be political about it, but I'll explain to any mayor or city administrator why it's important. If anything, the costs will be to D.C. Water and not the other way around."
DDOE's recently appointed director Keith Anderson, who is up for confirmation as D.C. Water's newest board member, said he has not spoken with Mr. Lew — both chairman of that board and, as city administrator, Mr. Anderson's putative boss — or Mr. Hawkins about the role his agency will play. Yet he bristled at the suggestion he could soon be taking orders from Mr. Hawkins. "I'm never going to be working for George Hawkins," Mr. Anderson said. "I regulate D.C. Water, and I work for the mayor."



 

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

Curb Alert: Illegal Dumping of Toxic Waste


Somebody left a TV in the tree box of a house near mine. I left the following note on it:

TO WHOEVER LEFT THIS TV HERE:

PLEASE REMOVE IT!!! It is illegal dumping – littering.

Take responsibility for your own garbage! If it works there are countless ways to get it to someone who wants an old tv. This TV has 5+ lbs of lead in it – before someone breaks it and spreads toxic waste, REMOVE IT!!!!

And be glad you didn’t get a ticket for illegal dumping!!!!!!!!

Called DC 311, #237552 is the number they gave me - we will see who gets it first - the Public Works Department crew or someone who breaks it.


Tuesday, June 29, 2010

More On Graffiti

Hello Ms. Lyons,
Nothing personal but your responses to my concerns seem rather boiler plate - let alone that they do not address anything specifically except in general about Green Team.
Tourists note these improvements? I don't live where tourists go.
Resources misused? A proactive response might ask why? By whom? How is it avoided? Your sarcasm about every half hour is all you can offer?


--- On Tue, 6/29/10, Lyons, Nancee (DPW) Nancee.Lyons@dc.gov> wrote:

From: Lyons, Nancee (DPW)
Subject: RE: Graffiti and Litter chat questions

Date: Tuesday, June 29, 2010, 11:25 AM

All of your concerns are our concerns and we have made great strides in improving the sanitation of Washington, DC, which is regularly noted by tourists. Keeping a clean city takes more than just one government agency. It takes a variety of different entities, including citizens. DPW services are broad and varied. Yes, overflowing public litter cans are a concern but we would have to empty each these cans every half hour to keep them from overflowing when they are being misused. Having the Green Team or BIDs to help keep litter under control is not indicative of an agency failure, it’s an example of government, the business community and volunteers working in concert to help stretch resources. This is just how it should be. DPW doesn’t have the resources to keep constant watch to ensure there is no litter on the street. The Green Team is in place to help us achieve our goals. But citizens also are urged to join us in the fight to keep their communities clean. We encourage neighborhood clean ups and provide free tools and trash bags to achieve this.

Very few cities have a free graffiti removal service. Up until recent legislation, DPW could only remove graffiti by request by the property owner. The graffiti you see on public spaces (that do not belong to the federal government) can be removed once they are spotted and reported. Typically graffiti is removed within 10 days after a request. Gang-related graffiti is removed sooner.

Litter and graffiti is not unique to Washington, DC. It is something all cities are grappling with and there is no perfect solution. In a perfect world, citizens would pick up after themselves and have too much respect for public property to paint graffiti on structures that do not belong to them. In the absence of this we, like every other sanitation service, are doing the best we can. It will take need more than suggestions and complaints from citizens to help achieve a cleaner DC. It will take their collaboration.

Nancee Lyons

Public Affairs Specialist

DC Department of Public Works

2000 14th Street, NW, 6th Fl.

(Reeves Center)

Washington, DC 20009

(202) 671-2637, 671-0642 (fax)

www.dpw.dc.gov Visit us on Facebook!

Follow us on Twitter!


Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 5:58 AM
To: Lyons, Nancee (DPW)
Subject: Graffiti and Litter chat questions



Subject: Re: [columbia_heights] Live, Graffiti and Litter

Date: Tuesday, June 29, 2010, 5:57 AM

As much as I am bothered about an increase in graffiti in my area, I am very concerned about what appears to me as DPW's inability (refusal?) to deal with it when graffiti is reported. Two patches of graffiti remain in my area after multiple 311 calls and service numbers. Both patches were reported to 311 and service numbers were taken. Patch 1 was partially completed and patch 2 was not touched at all, yet 311 reported the service numbers as completed. A second service number was taken for the patch that was not touched at all - again, some graffiti covered but not all. So now a third service number will be filed..... Lets see - one graffiti item, three service calls, one and a half responses but credit for three - It seems to me to have more to do with inflating numbers than doing anything. It's all documented.
I have watched the graffiti truck and trailer slowly cruise through the area - when graffiti is on public space like a lamp post, why can't they just paint it?
Litter - on 11th st, the Green Team guys do way more than DPW street sweepers. Any ideas on why DPW can't keep 11th between Florida and Monroe clean and it takes a third party service? Public litter cans overflowing because people put household garbage in them (next to them) - is that a DPW concern?
Are these the efficiencies Fenty refers to? My area was cleaner in the early 1990s when there was a DPW person who did the street cleaning (before the mechanical sweepers).





--- On Fri, 6/25/10, Twine, Kevin (DPW) wrote:


From: Twine, Kevin (DPW)
Subject: [columbia_heights] Live, One-Hour Chat with DC Department of Public Works: Graffiti and Litter
To:
Date: Friday, June 25, 2010, 5:05 PM

Does nothing irk you more than seeing someone throw trash on the ground, sometimes just a few steps away from a litter can? Is your block a dumping ground for wrappers and cups due to your proximity to fast food restaurants? Are you concerned about a rise in graffiti in your neighborhood? Help discuss ways to combat litter and graffiti in your neighborhood by joining DPW’s hour-long online chat Wednesday, June 30, 2010, at 12:00 pm.

DPW staff who collect litter and remove graffiti will discuss daily efforts to keep the city clean and also address concerns about litter and graffiti “hot spot” areas. We also need your feedback on future online discussion topics!

Residents can join or follow the discussion at dpw.dc.gov/livechat once the chat session begins. Residents also may submit questions in advance on DPW’s Twitter account (http://twitter. com/DCDPW), Facebook page, or by email to nancee.lyons@ dc.gov.

WHAT: Live, One-Hour Chat with DC Department of Public Works

WHEN: Wednesday, June 30, 2010, 12:00-1:00 pm

WHERE: dpw.dc.gov/livechat

Kevin B. Twine

Staff Assistant

Department of Public Works

Office of the Director

2000 14th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20009

Ph: 202-671-2593

Fx: 202-671-0642

kevin.twine@ dc.gov

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Private School Seeks Public Space


An editorial from the Northwest Current, December 9, 2009, followed by a response a week later:


A dream of fields

Neighbors have rejected the Maret School’s proposal to construct an athletic field at Ward 4’s Upshur Park in exchange for exclusive access to the space from 3:30 to 6 p.m. during the school year.

While we thought Maret’s plan was worthy of consideration, we respect the residents’ decision and appreciate the considerate way all parties handled the discussion.

Access to parkland is a sticky subject in Northwest D.C., where many private entities find playing fields scarce and residents carefully guard their public spaces. Any plan that would appear to take over a public park is certain to face resistance, especially when a well funded private school is behind it.

Even though Maret requested access for only two-and-a-half hours a day, the idea of restrictions on a public field can be unappealing to many.

Residents were also understandably concerned that the changes to the park would make it less useful to the community. And some noted that the work could impact the D.C. Parks and Recreation Department’s plans to rebuild a playground and install a dog park there.

Maret officials said they are always looking for fields and would still be interested if community members change their minds. Perhaps once the city-funded work — expected to begin in the spring — is done, the parties can revisit the idea.


http://www.currentnewspapers.com/admin/uploadfiles/NW%20Dec.%209%203.pdf

(page 12)


From the Northwest Current, December 16, 2009:

Maret field proposal was not fully vetted


VIEWPOINT
CHARLES G. MYERS


Your Dec. 9 editorial “A dream of fields” started with a misconception. Neighbors did not reject the Maret School’s proposal to construct a first-class athletic field at Ward 4’s Upshur Park in exchange for exclusive access to the space from 3:30 to 6 p.m. weekdays during the school year. In fact, Ward 4 Council member Muriel Bowser rejected the proposal without consulting the neighborhood at large.

I have lived four blocks from the park for 35 years and raised two children without the benefit of adequate park or athletic field space in our neighborhood. I am currently a member of the board of the Friends of 16th Street Heights Parks and was present when representatives from Maret presented their proposal to our group in August. This was several months after their initial presentation to us in a meeting at the Department of Parks and Recreation headquarters.

After much discussion, we concluded that the existence of too many opinions — ranging from enthusiastic support to pointed skepticism — prevented the group from taking a formal position on the proposal. Instead, we recommended that community meetings be held to obtain a broader sense of our neighbors’ thoughts on the proposal’s value.

This was conveyed to Council member Bowser in a meeting in early September that included Ximna Hartsock, then interim director of the parks department. The proposal had been sketchily presented at an Advisory Neighborhood Commission 4C meeting a month earlier, but it was the last topic at 9:30 p.m., after all but a few of the attendees had left, and it had not even been on the published agenda.

Maret’s proposal to the D.C. Department of Parks and Recreation was to spend as much as an estimated $4 million to construct an artificial turf field, substantially larger than the current field, without encroaching on the 2010 plans to rebuild the pool and park space already there. The school said the area would be large enough for overlapping full-size baseball, football and soccer fields. Maret expected exclusive use of the field for two-and-a-half hours weekdays during the school year and roughly five hours on three or four Saturdays in the fall. It also planned to use the field some of the two weeks before Labor Day, although that time was never specifically defined. The Department of Parks and Recreation would then have been able to manage the remaining time for both open community use and permits for use by youth and adult sports groups.

The project promised to solve a number of problems the community has faced for many years. The current softball field and tiny soccer play space are mud holes in wet weather and too small for use by any sport other than baseball for 10-year-olds. Youth sports organizations in our neighborhood suffer from a shortage of quality athletic fields, and we have no artificial turf field in Ward 4. The Columbia Heights community has few parks large enough for pickup soccer games.

The arrangement would have provided Maret exclusive access for approximately 12 percent of daylight hours during the year and would have been in place for 10 years. After this, Maret would have relinquished all rights unless an extension was negotiated. The community would have gotten a first-class field maintained by private funds while benefiting thousands of children and adults within our community — at no cost to the taxpayer.

After the meeting in September, Council member Bowser told the Department of Parks and Recreation that she did not want to pursue this opportunity. I asked her why in a conversation several weeks later. She said the community did not want it. I pointed out that the community members had never been given a chance to voice their opinions in a public meeting with the proposal fully visible.

It is unfortunate that our neighborhood was not given an opportunity to review the proposal and to decide its value for ourselves.

Charles G. Myers is a resident of Crestwood.


http://www.currentnewspapers.com/admin/uploadfiles/NW%20Dec.%2016%201.pdf

page 11