I wondered why Parkshore Drive was closed.
So what ground water is being diverted? From streams or ponds in the area so they can pave it over? Whatever it is, I bet it's not good for the wildlife in the area.
Posted 04 September 2014 - 01:18 PM
I wondered why Parkshore Drive was closed.
So what ground water is being diverted? From streams or ponds in the area so they can pave it over? Whatever it is, I bet it's not good for the wildlife in the area.
Posted 04 September 2014 - 03:22 PM
I haven't seen the construction site, but based on what I see in the video, it is likely Construction Dewatering (http://construction....-Dewatering.htm or http://courses.washi...0/Lecture11.pdf) that is taking place. This is a common practice for sub-surface excavation to remove shallow groundwater. The shallow groundwater likely comes from irrigation runoff or seepage from an adjacent body of water (like a creek or lake). Because it is very shallow compared to a deep aquifer, the water has higher concentrations of salts and contaminants, and is not suitable for drinking or irrigation unless it receives extensive demineralization treatment. I've seen this done several times before in construction around town when digging trenches or foundation footings near creeks. In Sac around the levees, they have permanent sump pumps to remove water that seeps under the levees and redischarges it into the river. Otherwise, you put the levees at risk of liquefaction and failure. Same for folks who have lived in a house with a basement with a sump pump and have to make sure the pump works when it rains heavily.
Posted 04 September 2014 - 08:36 PM
Thanks for the info. I still worry about the carnage that must be taking place with this development. I have a soft spot for the little critters.
Posted 05 September 2014 - 09:19 AM
Even if it is public or private land/water, even if there are no wellheads nor drilling equipment.....
March 2014, the city water director told council the city tried drilling wells, and no water resulted.
Above ground, underground -- they claim to be equal-opportunity public-water-grabbers:
So, the way I read that sign, the city is explaining why people might see water being dumped on the ground, which would look like the city was wasting our water supply, when they are apparently dewatering a construction site so they can build a bunch of houses, which certainly would be served by city water when they are built. They are within the north part of the city and would therefore already be accounted for in the city's total water use. Yes, I realize this was rezoned from commercial to residential, which you are welcome to disagree with, but I don't see that the sign has anything to do with that.
Posted 05 September 2014 - 10:41 AM
As usual, the city-connected people speak without even walking the site, or obtaining the development drawings.
Don't trust any comments made by a professional who does NOT have the actual blueprints, plans, and government Permits!
You have the name of the SWRCB engineers investigating the city. Call Mr. Buffleben with your suppositions and questions.
Posted 05 September 2014 - 01:03 PM
As usual, the city-connected people speak without even walking the site, or obtaining the development drawings.
Don't trust any comments made by a professional who does NOT have the actual blueprints, plans, and government Permits!
You have the name of the SWRCB engineers investigating the city. Call Mr. Buffleben with your suppositions and questions.
Guilty as charged! I read your post, watched your video (can't see any pipes in the video because of the low quality), and read the sign. Other than that, I know there is a housing development planned, and that it is on low land between two branches of Humbug-Willow Creek. Therefore, I conclude from the available information, including what is actually written on the sign, that the developer is probably de-watering the site (likely using wells) to prepare for construction, as mrdavex suggested. I'm not saying I know all about this; all I'm saying is that, based on the available information, most of it provided by you, I don't see how you come to the conclusion that there is some water theft going on.
Posted 05 September 2014 - 01:24 PM
Direct your comments to the state board doing investigation, instead of using your petty attacks as diversion shield.
People see through it.
"Petty attacks"? You accuse me of professional misconduct without so much as explaining what your accusation is about. Asking for some proof of your accusations is not an attack.
But, since you won't produce any of the SWRCB documents, I will. Here's a 2012 audit letter from the SWRCB that includes direct, point by point responses to your ("citizen") concerns. Duly noted is that in that same letter, the SWRCB cited the city for several violations, which, apparently are being addressed. However, these are not related specifically to your complaints about capacity, but are instead maintenance related.
Either way, I'm not sure what the Parkshore project has to do with sewer discharges or the SWRCB.
Posted 05 September 2014 - 04:35 PM
Guilty as charged! I read your post, watched your video (can't see any pipes in the video because of the low quality), and read the sign. Other than that, I know there is a housing development planned, and that it is on low land between two branches of Humbug-Willow Creek. Therefore, I conclude from the available information, including what is actually written on the sign, that the developer is probably de-watering the site (likely using wells) to prepare for construction, as mrdavex suggested. I'm not saying I know all about this; all I'm saying is that, based on the available information, most of it provided by you, I don't see how you come to the conclusion that there is some water theft going on.
You just don't care about the formal investigation being conducted. As a licensed engineer, you need to stop demanding access to evidence in the investigation. There is a right to make videos -- but having a profession engineering license and making off-base assertions -- that shows bias.
Why would a licensed engineer risk interfering when you could call and ask the SWRCB engineer for the information instead.
Or (shock) you could get BPs, inspect site, and learn what you obviously do not know.
How many professional deals do you.company have with the city?
Posted 18 September 2014 - 02:40 PM
The city has done more harm to our water than "diverting" it. Pollution and rampant development are more council problems. Only Ernie voted against the Leidesdorff sewer-less, drain-less, street-less project. How can the four long-time council persons show their faces in public?
Videos at www.youtube.com channel 4sewerdogs
Oil, Tar on soil next to American River D&S Leidesdorff village, LACKS SEWAGE SYSTEM
Local Forums →
Folsom General Discussion →
Folsom And South 50 Make New York TimesStarted by mrdavex , 19 Aug 2015 Water, development, S50 |
|
|
||
Main Forums →
Open Topic →
Here Are The Water Restrictions California Should Have PassedStarted by Dave Burrell , 18 Mar 2015 water, drought, restrictions and 2 more... |
|
|
||
Main Forums →
Open Topic →
Water Wasting - People Just Don't Care?Started by mrdavex , 18 Dec 2014 Water Conservation |
|
|
||
Local Forums →
Folsom General Discussion →
South Of South Of 50.... Do You Care?Started by kcrides99 , 05 Mar 2015 S50, South of 50 |
|
|
||
Local Forums →
Folsom General Discussion →
Folsom Businesses →
Looking For A PlumberStarted by Toadster , 05 Feb 2015 Plumber, Water, Leak, Pressure |
|
|
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users