Flumen Communis

Essay 4: Economic Benefits of a Clean River

2007-04-13T10:41:00.000-06:00

“Of course, the river and its tributaries offered drink, food, and safe harbor for early settlers. But its greatest value for the native tribes of the area was as the key to a system of water routes that connect the flowing waters of the mid-continent to the open waters of the Great Lakes.”[i]

—Dr. David Solzman

Northeastern Illinois has from earliest times, benefited from and been dependent on its river geography and the natural wealth of its environment for the ecosystem services it provides.
As settlers came to the region, they modified the Chicago River, dug channels, and established trade routes that ensured the region’s future commercial development. Today we recognize the economic value of the river, one of the nation’s busiest commercial and recreational waterways. More than 50,000 vessels, 900,000 passengers, and 200,000 tons of cargo pass through the Chicago Harbor lock annually.[ii]

What is less widely understood: the huge, untapped economic potential that a strong and healthy ecosystem holds for the region, specifically the direct economic benefits that improving the Chicago River’s aquatic health can bring. While no comprehensive effort to date has provided a complete valuation study of Midwestern ecosystems, improved economic methods allow us to provide some conservative estimates. These estimates are important: ignoring the economic contributions our natural systems make often results in a balance sheet that rewards traditional economic growth over the preservation of our natural assets. In the six-county Chicago metropolitan region, a recent study for Chicago Wilderness estimated the value of the ecosystem services at $1.69 billion annually.[iii]

Do the direct economic benefits to the region of improving the water quality in the Chicago River exceed the direct costs? To answer the question we identified and examined three benefit areas: flood control, property value increases, and recreation. While the linkage between the costs of our policy recommendations and the economic benefits of enacting them is not a direct one, it is important to recognize that a cleaner river does provide substantial economic benefits and that those benefits must be included in the discussion.

In the past we have lacked the tools and understanding necessary to make the valuations, and so we have undervalued these natural assets, or assigned them no monetary value. Today it is exactly this innovative kind of thinking and analysis that will allow us to build public support necessary to invest in a cleaner Chicago River.

The combined direct economic benefit to Illinois if our recommendations are instituted over the next 20 years is $688 million annually. This is several times the estimated $112 million annual costs of completing TARP and disinfecting the effluent from the water reclamation facilities.

FLOOD CONTROL

Each year, the Chicago area suffers significant economic damages from flooding. The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers has estimated that in the combined sewer areas of Cook County, flooding from sewer backup is a $150 million annual problem.[iv] Flooding is also a problem in the separated sewer areas, and has related economic impacts as well, like transportation delays on the roads and reduced Lake Michigan recreation.

TARP was designed to address the flooding problem, and now that its first phase has been completed, it has already had a tremendous impact by capturing and holding water in its tunnels until it can be processed and returned to the river.

The direct economic benefits to the combined sewer areas in Cook County by completing TARP Phase Two reservoirs represent $130 million annually.[v] This number is calculated from an evaluation of 10 benefit categories:

1. Reduction in sewer backup flooding: 80% of this type of flooding occurs along the Mainstream section of the sewer system. This affects 166,000 homes annually.

2. Reduction in basement seepage flooding: structures that experience seepage flooding often have a combined problem of seepage and sewer backups, depending on the drainage area.

3. Reduction in sub-annual flooding: some homeowners experience more than one flood event each year. These events are smaller and involve cleanup costs, rather than structural or material damages.

4. Reduction in flooding from separate sewer areas that are tributaries to the combined system: In certain separate sewer system areas that are adjacent to the combined sewer area, the sanitary sewers connect to the combined sewer system. Flooding in these adjacent areas affects more than 2,300 structures annually.

5. Increased basement use due to reduced flooding: basement flooding reduces the use of significant potential living areas and negatively affects the property’s value.

6. Reduction in transportation delays: during heavy rainfall periods, streets can fill with water and reduce traffic speeds.

7. Water quality enhancement: if CSOs don’t occur, they don’t impair water quality.

8. Reduction in pumping costs at MWRD pumping stations: completion of the reservoirs will reduce some of the pumping stations’ operation and maintenance costs.

9. Improved Lake Michigan recreation opportunities: Backflow to Lake Michigan results in beach closures because of elevated bacteria levels. Reducing CSOs will reduce beach closures.

10. Water supply benefits: water quality improvements provide the opportunity to reallocate water that’s withdrawn from Lake Michigan. Instead of being diluted for sanitary functions, this water can be used for drinking water and other domestic purposes.

PROPERTY VALUES

Today it’s commonly understood that property close to parks, greenways, bodies of water, and open space will command a higher price than other, similar property. In Chicago, this idea was formally championed by Frederick Law Olmsted, who in 1868 told the future developers of Riverside, IL, that based on his experience with developing Central Park in New York, there was “a vast increase in value of eligible sites for dwellings near public parks.”

The Chicago River historically provided much of the impetus for increasing land values as factories and industry developed along its banks. Maps of land values from 1892, show ridges of high property value on both the north and south branches of the river.

However, with the development of elevated railroads, higher bridges that were never closed because of passing ships, and additional transportation options, river-edge property values began to decline, as 1960s studies of property values adjacent to the Chicago River reveal:

“From Ashland Avenue westward, there is no clear-cut indication that waterfront property carries any premium over the land immediately behind it. In fact, in most of the profiles, waterfront values seem to be depressed somewhat below the level of property away from the water.”[vi]

Cross-section analysis of the average value of a foot of land along the river reveals that as late as 1964, property values formed a trough of lower values as one approached the river, with overall values decreasing the farther one moved from the city center.

In the current market environment, which supports significant residential development along the river, Friends has joined with the City of Chicago’s Department of Planning and Development to determine if there was a corresponding improvement in values of river-adjacent properties as the water quality of the river has improved.

We first examined data on the Equalized Assessed Value (EAV) of river-edge properties for the last two assessment periods. EAV is the value used to assess property taxes. Since real estate property is assessed by the Cook County Tax Assessor’s office every three years, we looked at data from the 2002 and 2003 assessments.

We chose to evaluate an 800-foot corridor on each side of the river within the City of Chicago. Within the boundaries of this corridor, we found 8,920 river-edge properties in Chicago divided into nine zoning classes. Residential properties were the largest zoning class at 4365, followed by planned developments at 1301 and manufacturing and planned manufacturing with 1091 each.

Our analysis showed that among the 8,920 river-edge parcels, EAV increased by 20.1% between 2002 and 2003. River-edge parcel values improved at a faster rate than properties in the rest of the city. EAV baseline across the city increased 17.29% during the same period. This was a total dollar increase of $405 million, or a $202.5 million annual increase.

RECREATION

As the Chicago River’s water quality has improved and access to the river for recreational use has increased, paddlers, anglers, and bird watchers are finding an environmental resource that is underutilized. To quantify some of direct economic activity from current levels of recreational use of the river we looked at the contribution that birders, paddlers, and anglers make to the regional economy. While each of these benefits corresponds to a slightly different geographic region we have attempted to where possible limit our analysis to the four county Chicago metropolitan area. Our research documents $356 million in recreation related economic activity annually.[vii].

· Birding

Northeastern Illinois has a robust and diverse variety of birds. The Chicago Audubon Society has recorded more than 313 species of birds present in the Chicago Metropolitan area since 1970. Many of these stop in the area as they use the Chicago River flyway, and Lake Michigan’s shoreline as a migration route. Ornithologists at Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History estimate that on average, more than five million migrating songbirds pass up and down the coast of Lake Michigan through Chicago each year.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that Illinois is home to 1.8 million active birders.[viii] Backyard birding is the most prevalent form of birding, with 88% of birders watching from the comfort of their homes. 40% of birders travel more than a mile to bird, and they spend money on binoculars, field guides, bird food, bird houses, camping gear, and big ticket items such as boats, as well as travel-related costs.

To understand the economic benefit that birders provide to Northeastern Illinois, we focused on the four metro Chicago-area counties that contain 60% of the state’s population (Cook, DuPage, Lake, and Will).[ix]

The active birding population in this four county area is approximately 1 million. Each birder has a net economic value of $35 per day when he or she leaves home to bird. Birders average a little more than seven trips per year, which equals $257 million in the area annually. As the river ecosystem’s health continues to improve, biodiversity will be strengthened, and improved habitat areas can be developed. A 5% annual increase in birding recreation will generate an additional $257 million in economic activity over the next 20 years.

· Fishing

In Northeastern Illinois, as well as rest of the state, the most popular fishing trips are those to lakes and ponds (61%), while streams and rivers are second most popular (27%). As the Chicago River’s water quality has improved, fishing along the river has grown more popular. Anglers catching largemouth bass on the Chicago River while standing in the shadows of downtown Chicago skyscrapers are now a common sight. Other sections of the river are popular spots for catfish, bluegill, and other sport fish.

The four county Chicago Metropolitan area economy, benefits from 708,000 anglers who generate $435 million in retail sales.[x] This commercial activity ripples through the economy to generate $944 million in economic throughput for the state[xi]. Anglers spend, on average, $37 per day for fishing expenses including transportation, food, lodging, bait, and gear. Statewide, licensed anglers average 13 days a year fishing, and out-of-state licensed anglers spend an average of five days a year in Illinois. The annual economic benefit of anglers fishing in rivers and streams in the Chicago metropolitan area is $92 million. A 5% annual increase in fishing recreation will generate an additional $92 million in economic activity over the next 20 years.

· Paddling

Paddling the Chicago River is one of the fastest growing recreational activities in the area. One of the successful canoe rental companies states that it has grown 25-50% annually over the last five years. Through Friends’ canoe trips, interviews with canoe rental companies, and race registrations for the Flatwater Classic, Friends’ annual canoe and kayak race, we were able to document more than 11,500 paddling trips in the 2005 season.[xii]

There are also five organized rowing clubs in the city. Several of the high-school student teams have won national recognition, and team members have gone on to receive university scholarships. These teams, which often practice five or six days a week, are among the river’s most active recreational users.

To determine how much the river’s paddlers benefit the regional economy, Friends of the Chicago River joined with The Openlands Project and the Northeastern Illinois Watertrails Council to conduct the first public opinion survey of area recreational paddlers.

The survey was mailed to 1,500 randomly selected individual households in the eight Northeastern Illinois counties who had registered their canoes and kayaks with the State of Illinois.[xiii] It was also distributed electronically to members of the Illinois Paddling Council, participants in the Flatwater Classic, and members of the public who had requested maps from the Watertrails Council.

Findings:

1. The economic activity from paddling for the eight county Northeast Illinois region in 2005 was $7 million.

2. The Chicago River represents the greatest potential for increasing paddling recreation
because of its proximity to the largest population center.

We identified several additional economic benefits to the region from recreation beyond the scope of this report. Motorized pleasure boating, river park and forest preserve use and cycling all contribute to the local economy, and it is likely that our projected recreation benefits are conservative, given the river’s growing use for recreation purposes.

The three recreation activities we identified produce a total economic regional benefit of $356 million annually.[xiv] As this economic activity works through the region, it produces a significant but undetermined multiplier effect. As policies to improve the river’s aquatic health are adopted, a conservative estimate of a 5% increase in these activities would generate approximately $356 million annually over 20 years in additional economic benefits.

Conclusion:

Why should we only have nice rivers and streams in places like northern Michigan?

-Margaret Frisbie

Ø To best control stormwater and eliminate CSOs we must complete the Phase II reservoirs and increase our use of green infrastructure.

Uncertain federal funding has delayed the completion of the Phase two reservoirs. It’s time to discuss alternative finance methods to ensure that the reservoirs are completed before the current proposed date of 2023. It will require $269 million in local funds and $455 million in federal funding.[xv] If the total cost of this project were financed locally, it would cost $36.2 million a year for 20 years.

Ø To best protect public health we must disinfect the effluent from the MWRD water reclamation facilities.

The cost of disinfecting effluent is manageable. It has been estimated that the cost of disinfection for two of the three water reclamation facilities using ultraviolet (UV) technology is $84 million annually over 20 years. (Capital cost + O&M + Debt service) The per person cost $.042 per day

The direct economic benefits of improving water quality exceed the costs. A clean Chicago River is an important component of a strong economy

The direct economic benefits to the combined sewer areas in Cook County by completing TARP Phase Two reservoirs represent $130 million annually.

Our analysis of property values showed that among the 8920 river-edge parcels, EAV increased by 20.1% between 2002 and 2003. River-edge parcel values improved at a faster rate than properties in the rest of the city. EAV baseline across the city increased 17.29% during the same period. This was a total dollar increase of $405 million, or a $202.5 million annual increase.

The active birding population in the four county metro areas of Chicago area is approximately 1 million. Each birder has a net economic value of $35 per day when he or she leaves home to bird. Birders average a little more than seven trips per year, which equals $257 million in the area annually.

The four county Chicago Metropolitan area economy, benefits from 708,000 anglers who generate $435 million in retail sales. Anglers spend, on average, $37 per day for fishing expenses including transportation, food, lodging, bait, and gear.The annual economic benefit of anglers fishing in rivers and streams in the Chicago metropolitan area is $92 million annually.

While each of these benefits corresponds to a slightly different geographic region we have attempted to where possible limit our analysis to the four county Chicago metropolitan area The three recreation activities we identified produce a total economic regional benefit of $356 million annually.

[i] The Chicago River: an illustrated history and guide to the river and its waterways.

[ii] www.lrc.usace.army.mil/co-o/Chi_Lock_02.htm

[iii] Bagstad, Ken. 2006. Valuing ecosystem services in the Chicago region. Chicago Wilderness Journal 4:18-16.

[iv] USACE, 1986. Chicago underflow plan final phase I GDM feasibility report and environmental assessment.

[v]Ibid (McCook = $87 m), + (Thornton = $31m), + (O’Hare = $12 m) Total= $130 million

[vi] Solzman, David M. 1966. Waterway industrial sites: a Chicago case study, p. 77.

[vii] USFS. 2001. Birding in the United States: a demographic and economic analysis.

[viii] ibid

[ix] Census data 2004 Illinois population= 12,713,634. Cook = 5,327,777. Dupage = 928,718. Lake = 692,895. Will = 613,849, Four County Total= 7,563,239 or (59%)

[x] http://dnr.state.il.us/fish/fishfacts.htm 1.2 million X.59% = 708,000. $736,575,125 in retail sales x .59% = $435,000,000

[xi] Ibid. $1,600,000,000 x .59 = $944,000,000

[xii] 10,000 rental trips, Flatwater Classic, Friends guided trips

[xiii] Cook, Dupage, Kane, Kankakee, Kendall, Lake, McHenry, Will

[xiv] Birding= $257m + Fishing=$92 m + Paddling= $7m. Total $356 m

[xv] The federal portion includes a $167 million reimbursement to the MWRDGC for the Thornton reservoir.

Essay 3: Protecting Public Health

2007-04-12T11:28:00.000-06:00

Chicago is home to several nationally recognized rowing teams and kayakers that rely on the river to train every day. Common sense dictates that in a world class city like Chicago these student and adult athletes, as well as recreational rowers and paddlers, should be able to utilize this great resource without concern for the water quality and its effects on their physical health.

Dr. Erin Argyilan- Lincoln Park rower

Contamination by bacteria and other micro-organisms significantly limits a variety of waterway uses, including recreational activities in which humans contact the water directly. The MWRD operates three water reclamation plants on the Chicago River system: the Northside, Stickney, and Calumet, which process the combined sewer flow and release the treated effluent into the river. The treatment process reduces the volume of solids and other compounds that degrade water quality. But the treated effluent, which makes up approximately 70% of the river’s annual flow, also contains elevated levels of bacteria and pathogens at levels higher than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recommends for human contact.

Biological wastewater treatment processes work by promoting the rapid growth of microbial species that consume and digest waste products found in the water. The final process at most large sewer treatment plants involves killing off as many undesirable bacteria and other pathogens as possible. The elevated levels of bacteria and pathogens in the Chicago Waterways can be attributed to an absence of any state regulatory requirement for the disinfection of effluent, and they are one of the few major wastewater facilities in the country that is not required to disinfect.

This relatively unique situation was highlighted in a 2000 study by the Openlands Project, the Civic Federation, and the Friends of the Chicago River. It found that of 23 sewage treatment agencies classified by the USEPA as “major dischargers,” the MWRD was the only one that does not disinfect its effluent or otherwise meet bacterial contamination standards of limits. However, the MWRD complies almost 100% with existing permits. Permit limits, however, are weak—or in the case of bacteria, nonexistent—for much of the river.

There are a number of technologies that are used to disinfect wastewater effluent and protect public health. Chlorination is the most widely used disinfectant at both water and wastewater treatment plants in the Untied States. Chlorine reacts rapidly with water and can inactivate a wide range of pathogens. However the use of chlorine disinfection of wastewater can result in adverse environmental impacts due to the residual chlorine in the water after treatment and the formation of toxic compounds that negatively affect aquatic life and human health. In the mid 1980’s when the MWRD stopped using chlorine to disinfect wastewater, biodiversity of fish in the Chicago area waterways dramatically increased.

Ultraviolet (UV) irradiation has become the second most common method after chlorination. It is a process that changes the biochemical properties of pathogens when they are exposed to UV light. This process is also energy intensive, but maintenance is simple and does not require skills beyond changing lightbulbs, and cleaning the arrays.

Ozone is a very strong oxidizing agent and can be used in disinfection because it reacts to both organic and inorganic compounds in wastewater. An ozone disinfection system first transfers ozone into the wastewater where the ozone can make contact with the pathogens. Contact time is usually 10 to 15 minutes. Ozone disinfection is relatively expensive because the equipment used is complex and difficult to maintain and operate. The process to generate ozone is also an electricity intensive one.

In recognition of the growing recreational use of the Chicago Area Waterways, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) is completing a Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) of the Chicago Area Waterways to evaluate upgrading the use designations. As the Chart shows: in 2004 sampling data of bacteria counts at all three water treatment facilities are significantly higher downstream from the water reclamation facilities.

IEPA has recommended that the Chicago River’s designated use be upgraded to an E. Coli bacteria standard of 1030 cfu/100 ml during the primary recreational period of March 1 through November 30. This would require disinfection at Northside and Calumet plants. The third plant Stickney was not included in the IEPA recommendations because of the lower levels of recreation in that reach of the river.

Friends of the Chicago River, supports the IEPA’s proposed upgrades of water quality standards to protect public health and we recommend the use of ultraviolet irradiation (UV) as the preferred disinfection technology.

•Disinfecting the effluent on the Chicago waterways is the correct policy because recreational use of the river is growing and this is the solution most protective public health.

•Independent polling confirms that the public supports clean water. In a 2005 national opinion survey, Luntz Research found that an overwhelming majority of the public, 91 percent, agree that ‘‘if, as a country, we are willing to invest over $30 billion dollars a year on highways and more than $8 billion a year on our airways, we certainly should be willing to make the necessary investments in our nation’s rivers, lakes and oceans.’

•The cost is manageable. It has been estimated that the cost of disinfection for two of the three water reclamation facilities using ultraviolet (UV) technology is $84 million annually. (Capital cost + O&M + Debt service) The per person cost $.042 per day

Essay 2: Stormwater Management

2007-04-09T14:33:00.000-06:00

“So the task before us is nothing less than a dramatic change in the way we think about and talk about and manage our freshwater resources. Every time we think about stormwater management, let's think about drinking water management instead. Every time we talk about managing stormwater, let's talk about managing drinking water. Today we treat rainwater as if it were a misbehaving student: We send it to detention. We send it to detention until we can figure out how to get it away from us permanently.

Let me suggest that there is another path. The sustainable cities of the future will be those that are most successful at changing their own culture, that make the transition from viewing stormwater as a problem to viewing rainwater as a liquid asset to be captured, treasured, saved and not squandered.” - Debra Shore MWRD Commissioner 2006

Managing the water that falls to the ground as rain, or snow has been fundamentally connected with the development Northeastern Illinois from its earliest days. Prior to settlement of the region, most of this relatively clean water would soak into the ground and over time become stored in underground aquifers or it would collect in wetlands areas and runoff the land to form streams and rivers that emptied into Lake Michigan or the Illinois River.

As the watershed became developed for agriculture and covered with buildings, roads and houses, the land area available to absorb precipitation was reduced, flooding was common and strategies to move this water more efficiently were adopted. Rivers and streams were routinely channelized, to increase the volume of water they could handle.

To facilitate the movement of stormwater and for sanitary waste disposal Chicago passed ordinances in the Mid-1800’s, requiring that buildings be lifted and backfilled as much as 14 feet above their original level to accommodate the installation of underground sewers.

Today we continue to grapple with managing stormwater, and balancing the need to reduce flooding, and improve the quality of our area surface waters. Because of our success improving the efficiency that we move stormwater, we are now confronting problems associated with both the volume and velocity of the water we dump into the system. Stormwater and CSOs churn up toxic sediments, load excessive nutrients, reduce dissolved oxygen levels, and elevate levels of harmful bacteria and pathogens. On the Chicago River, the Illinois EPA lists stormwater runoff and CSOs as sources of pollution problems or impairments on every stretch of the Chicago River.

The effects of combined sewer overflows on this environment extend far beyond the storm’s immediate consequences. Recent modeling of storm events’ impact on dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in the Chicago River have shown that while volume, strength of pollutant loadings, and frequency of CSOs at a particular location differ dramatically according to the location, intensity, and duration of rainfall events, DO may be impaired in the Chicago River for more than 10 days after combined sewer overflow events in the North Branch, Main Stem, and South Branch of the Chicago River.[i]

To provide some perspective, this means that in 2006, stormwater runoff and combined sewer overflows—in addition to churning up toxic sediments, loading excessive nutrients, and elevating levels of harmful bacteria and pathogens—probably reduced DO levels in some portion of the Chicago River every week of the year.[ii] Reduced DO levels place stress on aquatic life.

In order to best manage stormwater and to eliminate CSOs, we must first complete the phase two TARP reservoirs, and then increase our use of green infrastructure throughout the watershed to reduce the volume and velocity of stormwater entering the sewer system.

TARP is the recognized long-term control plan for reducing CSOs. Friends of the Chicago River[iii] support the timely completion of the Phase Two reservoirs. When it was proposed in 1972, TARP was scheduled to be completed in 1981. Current estimates place the reservoirs’ completion in 2023, 42 years later than originally planned.

We believe that it is time to discuss alternative methods to finance the completion of the Phase Two reservoirs if federal funding before the current proposed date of 2025. It will require $269 million in local funds and $455 million in federal funding.[iv] If the total cost of this project were financed locally, it would cost $36.2 million a year for 20 years.

Managing stormwater in the separated sewer areas.

The North Branch Chicago River (NBCR) watershed is long and narrow, following the shape of three low glacial moraines that run parallel to the shoreline of Lake Michigan. The valleys between these moraines are the current locations of the Skokie River and the Middle and West Forks. Prior to development, the three forks of the North Branch were small streams in relatively undefined channels that meandered through ponds, marshes, wet prairies, prairies, savannas and woodlands. During the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, the three forks were ditched and the surrounding land was drained for agriculture.

Today, the headwaters of the Chicago River, the northern reaches of the three tributaries, are intermittent in flow and interspersed with wetlands. In the developed areas of the headwaters, fingers of the river originate from surface drainage into underground pipes and ditches. All three forks of the river in Lake County have been significantly modified for drainage. As the three forks of the North Branch flow into Cook County, the character of the North Branch changes to a more natural channel with frequent meandering. The channels of the river grow larger, are more deeply entrenched and wider, as the tributaries flow southward into Chicago.

Based on their active involvement in the watershed, Friends received an Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Section 319 grant in 1996 to develop a more formal watershed partnership and strategy for restoring and managing the North Branch watershed. At this time Friends began an ongoing relationship with the Lake County Stormwater Management Commission (LCSMC) to assist in project activities within the Lake County portion of the watershed. Since 1999 the North Branch Watershed Project (NBWP) has approved 45 projects for $2,441,089 in Section 319 funds, at a total project cost of $9,337,681. All of these projects address impacts caused by stormwater in the 95 square mile NBCR watershed.

In 2004 the NBWP completed work on the North Branch of the Chicago River Open Space (Green Infrastructure) Plan. The Open Space Plan identifies, and suggests appropriate management activities for, parcels in the North Branch watershed that are essential to preserving water quality and enhancing habitat. It is a goal of the Open Space Plan to preserve at least 25% of the watershed as open space to avoid further water quality and habitat degradation.

A key component of that plan was a comprehensive inventory and prioritization of open and partially open parcels throughout the watershed. Once identified, green infrastructure action plans were developed for each parcel that provided direction for stakeholders on actions they can undertake to preserve open space in their respective jurisdictions. In addition to providing direction for how to preserve open space, the plan also specified how open lands can be better managed to provide greater ecological, water quality, recreation and flood damage reduction benefits. The plan also provides a description of best management practice tools and recommendations for restoring and managing natural areas, floodplains and wetlands in a greenway system that also features general locations for recreational trails.

Managing stormwater in the combined sewer areas.

In 2005, the Illinois legislature gave MWRD the responsibility to manage stormwater in Cook County. The MWRD is currently implementing a countywide stormwater management plan and developing a stormwater ordinance.

Historically, watershed planning in the combined sewer areas of Chicago has focused almost exclusively on large, structurally engineered capital projects for flood control, while water quality, habitat, and ecological sustainability have received lower priority.

Over the decades, the design and performance goals of stormwater management techniques have evolved. In the first phase, stormwater control efforts were designed to address flooding and peak discharges from storm events. Over time, water quality management parameters were added to identify controls for all major pollutants found in urban runoff. Now best practices in stormwater management techniques use ecologically sustainable parameters. This integrated approach uses biological, chemical, and physical criteria to define performance.

The watershed plans developed by Friends of the Chicago River and the Lake County Stormwater Management Commission for the separated sewer area of the North Branch of the Chicago River have adopted ecologically sustainable methods in their planning. Many of those control measures will be effective in reducing CSOs in the combined sewer areas. Based on our experience gained controlling stormwater in the North Branch, we believe that as detailed watershed plans are developed for the combined sewer areas they should incorporate the following guidelines.

· Stormwater plans should weigh improving water quality equally with retaining flood water and reducing flood damage. On-the-ground projects that reduce flooding as well as improve water quality should be given preference over single-function projects.

· Increasing the amount of available in-stream and riparian habitat should be a secondary goal of stormwater plans, with preference given to stormwater control projects that increase habitat while reducing flood damage, storing flood water, and improving water quality.

· Stormwater management plans must be built, where possible, around the concept of on-site storage and landscape-based control measures or green infrastructure. · The watershed plans currently under development in Cook County should, within sub-watersheds, include hard numerical benchmarks and goals for reducing the volume and velocity of stormwater runoff that is directed into the sewer system.

· Stormwater plans should identify best management practice(bmp) zones within watersheds and educate the public about appropriate stormwater management techniques for the geology, hydrology, amount of impervious cover, slope, and land cover of each watershed. These bmp zones should have clearly defined numerical targets to reduce the velocity and volume of water entering the sewer system.

· Stormwater management plans must operate from a watershed perspective, as well as create planning partnerships within the watershed that cross political boundaries such as county, city, or state lines when appropriate. Current City of Chicago and MWRD draft ordinances use this perspective.

· Existing watershed and stormwater management plans should be included in the development of new stormwater plans, and opportunities for public input in the stormwater planning process through the watershed councils should be created.

[i] MWRDGC report 05-12: Verification of a continuous water quality model under uncertain storm loads in the Chicago waterway system, August 2005, p. 102.

[ii] Data from January through July 2006.

[iii] www.mwrd.org

[iv] The federal portion includes a $167 million reimbursement to the MWRDGC for the Thornton reservoir.

Essay 1 :The Future of the Chicago River

2007-03-29T10:49:00.000-06:00

SETTING THE STAGE

“The Chicago River is the city’s most neglected natural resource. It is overshadowed by Lake Michigan, disdained by environmentalists and outdoorsman alike, neglected, fouled, and abused by industry and by all the rest of us. Nonetheless, it is the second greatest gift that nature has bestowed on this city.”

–Robert Cassidy, Chicago Magazine, 1979

Prior to settlement of the region, the Chicago River was a slow, shallow, meandering stream that drained marshes, woodlands, and prairies into Lake Michigan. After Americans settled in the area, they dredged, straightened and built seawalls along the river to better accommodate commercial shipping. With its position as the most important transportation hub in the Midwest secure, the population grew dramatically. In 1833 the population was estimated at 350, but by 1890 it was over 1,000,000.[i]

The river became an open sewer for sanitary and industrial waste. After heavy rains it overflowed its banks and carried disease into Lake Michigan and public drinking water supplies. In 1889, the Chicago Sanitary District (CSD), which later became the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRD), was created to protect drinking water supplies and improve the river’s deplorable condition. Stormwater control and sewerage polices of the time called for combining sanitary and stormwater sewers. This type of sewer system directed stormwater runoff and sanitary sewage through one pipe directly to the river. As the region continued to grow however, it outstripped the river’s ability to contain the volume of stormwater and sewage

The commonly recognized solution at the time was dilution, in this case using fresh water from Lake Michigan to flush the system. The Chicago Sanitary District began working to reverse the flow of the river away from Lake Michigan in order to drain sewage and industrial waste away from the lake—the city’s drinking water source—and to accommodate commercial barge traffic. In 1910, the North Shore Channel was completed to drain sewage away from Lake Michigan in the North Branch.

In the 1920s the Chicago Sanitary District built three treatment facilities to handle the stormwater runoff and sewage discharges, and this system functioned until the 1950s, when its capacity was again frequently overwhelmed during high rainfall events. Approximately 100 times a year, rainfall amounts made the combined sewer system overflow and dump pollution into the river. During particularly heavy storms, the amount of water and sewage raised the river’s level past flood stage, which flooded basements across the city and suburbs and forced the MWRD to open the locks so that the river could flow into Lake Michigan.

To control flooding and reduce combined sewer overflows (CSOs), the MWRD developed the Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP). Phase One of TARP, which has been completed, is widely credited for the dramatic water quality improvements since the first section came online in the late 1980s. Phase One represented 109.4 miles of deep, large diameter tunnels that capture the pollutant load that would normally enter the river when the system overflows. Because this “first flush” pollution contains material that has accumulated in the system since the last rain event, it is the most contaminated. Phase One of the plan captures approximately 85% of the CSOs from a 375 square mile area consisting of Chicago and 51 suburban communities>[ii].

To complete Phase Two (the reservoir portion) of TARP, three reservoirs must be constructed to capture and hold stormwater and sewage until water treatment plants can process it. This phase is designed to capture 95% of the remaining CSOs. The complete system is estimated to capture 99% of CSOs.

The O’Hare Reservoir was the first to be completed, in 1998. With a 350-million-gallon capacity, it stores the runoff from the 10-year, 12-hour rainfall event.[iii]

The Thornton Reservoir, which will serve the Little Calumet region, is being constructed in two stages. The first stage: a temporary transitional reservoir that can hold 3.1 billion gallons. This reservoir was completed in 2003. The second stage, the Thornton Composite Reservoir, will have a capacity of 7.9 billion gallons[iv] and is scheduled to be completed by 2014.

The McCook Reservoir will be finished in two stages and provide 10 billion gallons of storage. Stage One is due for completion in 2014, with Stage Two completed in 2023.

THE RIVER’S RECOVERY

Since Robert Cassidy described a “friendless river that decades of abuse and neglect had transformed from a great natural resource into an open sewer,” the water quality in the Chicago River has made a remarkable comeback. In 1984, the Illinois Pollution Control Board eliminated the fecal coliform water quality standard for water bodies classified as secondary contact (the majority of the Chicago River). Before then, MWRD had used chlorine to disinfect effluent as part of the treatment process; it discontinued this practice because of harmful effects on aquatic health. Currently, MWRD does not disinfect wastewater effluent on the Chicago River.

Another of the primary reasons water quality in the river has improved is the requirement that the MWRD operate a pretreatment program for controlling discharges from industrial and commercial facilities. In 1985, the USEPA approved the program, and it was made a component of the district’s discharge permits. This program significantly reduced the amount of toxic metals and other pollutants released into the river

One indicator of a healthy river ecosystem is species diversity. Since the early 1970s, the MWRD has conducted fish population surveys.

CHART 1

BIODIVERSITY INDEX OF FISH SPECIES IN CHICAGO AND

CALUMET RIVER SYSTEMS BETWEEN 1974 AND 2005

Source: MWRD

The MWRD data shows that as the river’s water quality has improved, the aquatic ecosystem’s biodiversity has rebounded. The number of fish species in the river has increased from 10 in 1974 to 68 in 2005.

The greater Chicago region boasts 111 freshwater fish species–85 native, 16 non-native, and 10 hybrid. Many of these species are now also present in the Chicago River. As the river’s water quality continues to improve, we hope that several once-present species may again become viable. These include the longnose gar, cisco, grass pickerel, and freshwater drum.

Longnose Gar

Freshwater drum

Source: USFWS

Likewise, the Chicago River is again providing a critical habitat for migrating birds. More than 300 bird species have been seen within the region, including threatened black-crowned night herons. The riparian or riverbank areas are being restored to improve habitat and water quality, and improved riverfront parks and public access have increased the Chicago River’s recreational fishing and paddling use.

[i] US Bureau of the Census, 1950

[ii]USARCE Chicago land Underflow Plan Final Phase 1 GDM, Feasibility and Environmental Assessment 1986

[iii] ibid

[iv] This includes 3.1 billion gallons of non-TARP over bank flood relief from Thorn Creek.

Conserve water, our liquid asset

2007-03-26T11:28:00.000-06:00

Here is a letter from Debra Shore that was printed in the Chicago Sun Times

Since today is World Water Day, let's conduct a thought experiment: Imagine a day without water. Brush your teeth in the morning with toothpaste and saliva. (No rinsing!). No shower, no bath, no washing your face. No flushing the toilet. No coffee or tea. No pop, no milk, no juice (the major ingredient in all these? Water). No chats by the water cooler. No shampoo at the gym. No rocks for the Scotch, no dip in the pool. You get my drift? Our dependence on water links us -- happily, mysteriously -- with much of the rest of creation. The very fiber of our being is, in fact, liquid: We humans are approximately 70 percent water. And while we can live for a month or so without food, we can survive a mere five to seven days without water. So why are we so cavalier about the single element upon which our lives utterly depend? I had a friend who lived for a time in Santa Fe. She kept a bucket in the shower and captured the water as she waited for it to warm up enough to shower, then used this to water her garden. A perfectly reasonable practice -- and one that seems entirely foreign to most of us. We who live near one of the world's great lakes are truly fortunate. Most of us have access to ample fresh water. But this may not always be the case. Even in our region, some communities dependent on groundwater are experiencing localized water shortages. And in fast-developing areas on the fringes of the metropolis, the problems of water supply will only grow. As a recent article in the New Yorker stated, ''If a large bucket were to represent all the seawater on the planet, and a coffee cup the amount of freshwater frozen in glaciers, only a teaspoon would remain for us to drink.'' Yet we who live near the Great Lakes are still the lucky ones. With efforts to conserve, we can enhance our supply and meet future needs. Chicago is poised to have a robust economy for the rest of this century due to its access to freshwater and transportation infrastructure. But the rest of the world will be watching. Will we in the Chicago region be responsible stewards of this irreplaceable resource, or will we be wasteful?

Debra Shore, commissioner,

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

History Swims in the Chicago River too!

2007-02-27T16:31:00.000-06:00

Here is an editorial from the New York Times on Feb 25th., that reflects a principle that we could use in Chicago:

History Swims in the Bronx

How clean can the Bronx River get? And how much biological diversity can such an urban river sustain? These are the questions posed by the recent appearance of a male beaver, lodge and all, in the Bronx. Unlike the manatee that swam up the Hudson last year — its species has never called New York home — beavers were synonymous with this city until they were trapped out 200 years ago. Like so many species, they display an extraordinary tolerance for the presence of humans, as long as humans are able to leave them alone.

One beaver and one lodge is not exactly a colony of beavers, nor does one beaver certify the health of the Bronx River. But such a pilgrimage downstream, from wherever this beaver originates, would have been impossible even a decade ago. The river then was choked with debris, and its waters looked more like sludge than anything potable. It has taken all this time — and some $15 million in federal money — to bring the river back. We will always be measuring the state of its health against the pollution of the 1970s and ’80s, and never against the river as it looked before European settlement. But the goal of guaranteeing the richest diversity compatible with human presence is what we should strive for, and the presence of this beaver is a sign of at least partial success.

The long-term prospects for a sizable beaver population in the Bronx are not great. The reason is not water quality. It is habitat. Beavers cannot make dams out of asphalt and concrete; they make them out of trees, preferably young ones. And until the forests of the Bronx return, we probably cannot hope for too much in the way of beavers. But then we may not have discovered yet just how adaptable Castor canadensis really is.

President's Fiscal Year 2008 Budget for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Civil Works Released

2007-02-05T14:25:00.000-06:00

The President's Budget for fiscal year 2008 (FY08) transmitted
to Congress today includes $4.871 billion in new federal funding
for the Civil Works program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Mr. John Paul Woodley Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, said, "This civil works budget is the highest ever to
be forwarded to Congress, and it provides critical funding for the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to continue to contribute to the
nation's economic and environmental well being.
"The budget funds the planning, design and construction of
projects for the three main water resources mission areas of the
Corps, which are commercial navigation, flood and coastal storm
damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration, and gives
 priority to those projects that will provide a high return on the nation's
 investment. The budget also emphasizes the performance of existing
Civil Works projects by funding their operation, maintenance and
rehabilitation at a level 9 percent higher than last year's budget,"
Woodley continued.

The FY08 Army Civil Works budget information, including a
state-by-state breakdown, will be available at: Budget

Changing The Way We Think About Water

2007-01-23T16:23:00.000-06:00

This appeared in the Daily Southtown

January 19, 2007

By Debra Shore

On Jan. 17, 1900, a group of exhausted workers and nervous commissioners stood on the banks of the Sanitary and Ship Canal and watched as the dam at Lockport was lowered, making the final connection between Lake Michigan and the Des Plaines River and reversing the flow of the Chicago River. In that instant, when lake water began flowing through the canal into the Des Plaines River, Chicago's future as a robust metropolis was assured.

This grand act preserved the integrity of Chicago's drinking water supply -- Lake Michigan -- by sending sewage downstream instead of into the lake, and it protected the city's residents from diseases caused by poor sanitation. Ultimately, the Sanitary District (now called the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District) would build treatment plants throughout Cook County, including the world's largest, at Stickney, and would undertake another massive engineering project -- the Tunnel and Reservoir Plan, known as Deep Tunnel -- to reduce pollution caused by stormwater overflows.

But the diversion of water from Lake Michigan caused by the river's reversal means we take more water from the lake than we put back. We pull a billion gallons a day from Lake Michigan for residential and industrial use -- sometimes more -- and return almost none of it. At the same time, we take the billions of gallons of rainwater that fall each year on Cook County and hustle nearly all of it into our sewers, where it becomes contaminated. We pay to treat it and then send it downstream where it eventually becomes New Orleans' problem.

The Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission predicts the region's overall population will reach more than 10 million people by 2030. More people means a greater demand for our water supply. Those of us who have access to Lake Michigan for our drinking water will come under increasing scrutiny for our water use from those who don't. Are we acting as responsible stewards of this precious resource, or are we wasteful?

The challenge for us is to begin to think about and to talk about stormwater -- all the rain and snow that falls on our region -- as drinking water. The 35 inches that fall on Cook County each year amount to more than 500 billion gallons of fresh, clean water. There are only two places our drinking water comes from: surface water, primarily Lake Michigan, or from the ground. And those sources are replenished by rain.

So the task before us is nothing less than a dramatic change in the way we think about and talk about and manage our freshwater resources. Every time we think about stormwater management, let's think about drinking water management instead. Every time we talk about managing stormwater, let's talk about managing drinking water.

Today we treat rainwater as if it were a misbehaving student: We send it to detention. We send it to detention until we can figure out how to get it away from us permanently.

Let me suggest that there is another path. The sustainable cities of the future will be those that are most successful at changing their own culture, that make the transition from viewing stormwater as a problem to viewing rainwater as a liquid asset to be captured, treasured, saved and not squandered.

Clearly we can have a profound influence on our environment, for good and for ill. Fortunately, the water reclamation district is poised to be a national leader in the area of water resources management, as it so often has been in the past. It is rich with energetic, creative, thoughtful employees and has benefited from sound, smart direction from the board.

I believe we have a chance here, a rare moment in time, when together we can set the course for generations -- toward a sustainable, harmonious, healthy relationship with nearby nature -- or not.

In a very real sense, it is what we do in our lifetimes that will determine whether we have succeeded. We can change the culture. We can act as caring stewards. We can treat and manage water as a priceless liquid asset.

Debra Shore is a commissioner of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District.

MWRD Study Session on TARP Reservoir

2007-01-16T10:54:00.000-06:00

MWRD Commissioner Frank Avila, Chairman of the Committee on Engineering has scheduled a Study Session for Tueday, January 23, 2007, at 10:00 AM, in the Board Room, 100 East Erie St., Chicago Il.

The purpose of the Study session is for an update on the progress of the design and construction of the McCook Reservior, agreement with Vulcan Materials Company, funding for the project and meeting affirmative action goals.

These meetings are open to the public.

Fishing in the Chicago River

2007-01-11T14:07:00.000-06:00

Since Robert Cassidy described a “friendless river that decades of abuse and neglect had transformed from a great natural resource into an open sewer,” in Chicago Magazine, the Chicago River has made a remarkable comeback. In 1984, the Illinois Pollution Control Baord eliminated the fecal coliform water quality standard for water bodies classified as secondary contact (the majority of the Chicago River). Before then, MWRD has used chlorine to disinfect effluent as part of the treatment process; it discontinued this practice because of harmful effects on aquatic health. Currently, MWRD does not disinfect wastewater effluent on the Chicago River.

Another of the primary reasons water quality has improved: the requirement that the MWRD operate a pretreatment program for controlling discharges from industrial and commercial facilities. In 1985, the USEPA approved the program, and it was made a component of the district’s discharge permits. This program significantly reduced the amount of toxic metals and other pollutants released into the river.

One indicator of a healthy river ecosystem is species diversity. Since the early 1970s, the MWRD has conducted fish population surveys. The MWRD data shows that as the river’s water quality has improved, the aquatic ecosystem’s biodiversity has rebounded. The number of fish species in the river has increased from 10 in 1974 to 68 in 2005.

Federal Earmarks for TARP at Risk

2007-01-04T17:12:00.000-06:00

Crain's Business is reporting that $17.5 million in additional federal funding for completing TARP is currently on hold as a number of federal earmarks are being cut. $27.5 million in funding is now expected.

If we are serious about cleaning up the river and enjoying the direct economic benefits that clearly outweigh the costs, it is time to have the conversation about finding alternative sources of revenue including local sources.

Friends comments on MWRD 2007 budget

2007-01-03T16:19:00.000-06:00

At the December 13th Board of Commissioners meeting to approve the 2007 MWRD budget, John Quail from Friends of the Chicago River presented these comments.

To the Board of Commissioners:

My name is John Quail and I am the manager of watershed projects for the Friends of the Chicago River. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear today and give testimony on the 2007 Budget.

We have some specific comments on budget items, and then have some general clarifying comments and questions.

Stormwater management: We are very enthusiastic about the potential of this department, and would like to respectfully offer these thoughts.

We would recommend that the assistant public information rep position is filled by someone with communications experience using green infrastructure techniques, and best management practices. It would also be helpful if this person had experience in community outreach and relations, because we believe that the overall success of this program will be dependent on proactive outreach and communications.
We would also like to see a separate line item allocation for research and development within the stormwater management division. We foresee the need for pilot projects that will be developed in the field to solve unique management problems, and as the District has done in so many areas in the past, to push the envelope of the knowledge base of what is possible for the region.

2. Energy: We see some potential areas for long term cost savings.

Given that electricity prices under Illinois’s current form of deregulation are likely to remain volatile for the immediate future, we recommend that the district consider price stability as a significant factor in addition to reliability, and price. An evaluation of stable pricing options would certainly include renewable resources like wind, and cogeneration. An example of this would be the state of the art treatment facilities like the City of Ottawa’s Pickard Centre, which uses digesters to capture methane gas and carbon dioxide from the wastewater treatment process and converts 32 percent of the available energy in the digester gas to electrical energy (electricity) and 48 percent to thermal energy (heat).
Financing of this type of program might be available from the federal clean renewable energy bond program which is going to issue $500 million in 0% bonds in 2007.

3. TARP: McCook Reservoir. With the completion of stage one overburden removal in 2006, is it planned that the stage one portion come online ahead of the completion of stage two as it would help reduce CSO’s.

4. Budget priorities (Master Plans): Maintaining the District’s infrastructure clearly needs to be the highest priority and we understand that the Master plan recommendations of $2.1 billion will absorb the District’s entire available non-referendum debt capacity through its sunset in 2016. It would be helpful to understand the relationship between the proportion of these master plans that are required under current regulation or industry best practices and the portion that is elective, or optional? This is relevant given that because of funding limitations we are still 15+ years away from completing TARP.

Chicago water supply issues

2007-01-03T13:10:00.000-06:00

Happy New Year! and a good time to add changing your personal relationship with water to your new year's resolutions. To stimulate your thinking you should read the Winter 2007 issue of Chicago Wilderness magazine. There is the first part of a special report by Jerry Dennis on regional water issues. Water: Demand and Supply

"But is the supply truly limitless? Can we be certain it will remain clean? What of those parts of the region that depend solely on groundwater — are those supplies diminishing, or secure? How much is enough for people and healthy ecosystems"

This is definitely an issue that we will be hearing about in 2007

Winds of change are blowing at the MWRD

2006-12-07T12:21:00.000-06:00

At its annual meeting on Tuesday, The MWRD installed commissioners Terry O'Brien, Patricia Horton, and Debra Shore. It was a a fine event with appropriate pomp and circumstance. However when Debra Shore gave her remarks I could feel that a fresh and clean wind was rising. Here is a partial transcript of her remarks:

I am so honored to be joining the board of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District and there are many reasons I think this is an especially propitious moment to do so.

This is an agency with a noble history – and a storied past. Chicago became the great American metropolis because of what environmental historian William Cronon called “the intersecting geographies of nature and capital.” What Cronon meant was human capital as well as financial resources – the creativity, vision, energy and agency of city planners and leaders, including sanitary and civil engineers, who made no little plans, who dreamt big, and who helped to make our region so vibrant and robust.

I believe that Chicago is poised to become Nature’s Metropolis for the 21^st century and if it does, it will be because of ecology and economy combined, those intersecting geographies of nature and capital. This agency has an absolutely key role to play.

Let me quote from a recent article about water by Michael Spector.

“Philosophers and economists at least since Copernicus have noted that, although no substance is more valuable than water, none is more likely to be free,” Spector writes. “In “The Wealth of Nations,’’ Adam Smith called this the “diamond-water paradox”: although water is essential for life, and the value of diamonds is mostly aesthetic, the price of water has always been far lower than that of diamonds.”

Let’s think about this for a moment. Most of us can get along without diamonds. We can even manage without single malt scotch, though that may come as a surprise to some of you in this audience. But none of us can survive without water.

Spector says, “Water that dinosaurs drank is still consumed by humans, and the amount of freshwater on earth has not changed significantly for millions of years. But that doesn’t mean it’s available when or where it is needed. Nearly all of the earth’s water is in the ocean. Only three per cent is even theoretically available for humans to drink. Most of that is locked in polar ice caps and glaciers, or deeply embedded in layers of rock. If a large bucket were to represent all the seawater on the planet, and a coffee cup the amount of freshwater frozen in glaciers, only a teaspoon would remain for us to drink.”

What does this mean for us here on the shores of a great lake?

The Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission predicts that the region’s overall population will reach more than 10 million people by 2030. This continued growth will mean increases in the demand for water throughout the region, even in Cook County.

Next add the likely effects of global climate change.

“At the current rate of emissions growth,” writes Elizabeth Kolbert in a recent article, “carbon dioxide concentration in our atmosphere will top five hundred parts per million—roughly double pre-industrial levels—by the middle of this century. It is expected that such an increase will produce an eventual global temperature rise of between three and a half and seven degrees Fahrenheit, and that this, in turn, will prompt a string of disasters, including fiercer hurricanes, more deadly droughts, the disappearance of most remaining glaciers, the melting of the Arctic ice cap, and the inundation of many of the world’s major coastal cities.”

If these projections are correct, one result may be dramatically higher migration of people from the coasts of America to the heartland, right here, where we have freshwater resources. And since our reversal of the Chicago River creates a diversion of water from Lake Michigan, we will be the subject of increasing scrutiny for our use of water by people in this country and around the world. Are we doing everything we can to conserve, to be wise stewards of this precious irreplaceable resource, or are we wasteful?

So the challenge that lies before us is this: that we begin to think about and to talk about storm water as drinking water.

There are only two places our drinking water comes from: The Lake, and other surface water or from the ground. And those sources are replenished by rain.

Everytime you think about stormwater management, change the term to drinking water management. Every time we talk about managing stormwater, talk about managing drinking water. Because the task before us is nothing less than a dramatic change in the way we think about and talk about and manage our freshwater resources.

Today we treat rainwater as if it were a misbehaving student: we send it to detention. We send it to detention until we can figure out how to get it away from us permanently.

We take fresh water, hustle it into our sewers where it becomes contaminated, we then pay to treat it, and then we send it downstream where it eventually becomes New Orleans’ problem.

Let me suggest that there is another path. The sustainable cities of the future will be those that are most successful at changing the culture, that make the transition from viewing stormwater as a problem to viewing rainwater as a liquid asset to be captured, treasured, saved and not squandered.

Fortunately the Water Reclamation District is poised to be a national leader in this arena, as it has so often in the past. It is rich with energetic, creative, thoughtful employees and has benefitted from sound, smart direction from the board.

I believe we have a chance here, a rare moment in time, when together we can set the course for generations -- toward a sustainable, harmonious, healthy relationship with nearby nature -- or not.

The work is worthy, our time is short. Let us begin.

Illinois Pollution Control Board hearing on Dissolved Oxygen

2006-11-28T16:39:00.000-06:00

The IPCB is currently involved in a rulemaking to determine appropriate levels for dissolved oxygen(DO) in Illinois Rivers and Creeks. They are taking public comments on the rulemaking (R04-25) until December 20th. This is potentially a very significant issue for the Chicago River because it will determine the standards for the North Branch that is not exempted because it is part of the Use Attainability Analysis (UAA)

Case Details

If you would like to more information on issues that Friends think are important to comment on contact me and I would be happy to fill you in.

New MWRD study on Health Risks in Chicago River

2006-11-21T13:40:00.000-06:00

The MWRD has just posted to their website a new study assessing the health risks of recreational use of the Chicago River during dry weather. They evaluated the risk from a variety of coliforms, viruses and other pathogens and found that total expected illnesses per 1,000 exposures is below the EPA criteria, and conclude that there is no justification for effluent disinfection at Northside, Calumet or Stickney Plants. The second half of the study will evaluate the risk from wet weather conditions including those related to CSO events.

Yellow Crowned Night Heron

2006-11-17T15:58:00.000-06:00

Clean Water Principles

2006-11-17T15:39:00.000-06:00

Clean Water for the Chicago River

The Chicago River weaves its way through our communities; it binds neighbor-hoods, towns and cities together. Its waters bring life to a startling array of flora and fauna, a scenic respite for residents, and economic opportunities for local businesses. Protecting its waters and wildlife, its recreational possibilities, and its role in commerce and as a transportation corridor is imperative to protecting this region’s economic, social and environmental health.

1. WHEREAS clean water is everyone’s right and responsibility, we support collaborations between government, business, and individuals to achieve the goal of a clean, healthy Chicago River.

2. WHEREAS the Chicago River system is a combination of natural and man-made channels and canals, we support working to preserve and enhance the character of the Chicago River and its uses for plants, animals and humans.

3. WHEREAS the Chicago River is impacted by any action taken within its watershed, we support efforts to improve the health of the Chicago River undertaken from a watershed perspective.

4. WHEREAS the Chicago River is affected by all land use in its watershed and the retention of open space is crucial, we support protecting and maintaining the current amount of open space within the watershed.

5. WHEREAS stormwater is a valuable natural resource, we support preserving, protecting, and utilizing the stormwater that falls within the Chicago River watershed.

6. WHEREAS there are numerous methods for controlling stormwater, which is integral to the improved health of the Chicago River, we support the development and use of green infrastructure to protect stormwater and the Chicago River.

7. WHEREAS it is critical to employ a fiscally responsible approach to clean water infrastructure, we support developing local financial incentives for funding clean water initiatives especially for updating aging sewage infrastructure, utilizing bioengineering techniques along riverbanks, and installing green infrastructure throughout the watershed.

8. WHEREAS Phase One of the Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP) has dramatically improved the health of the Chicago River, and completing the Phase Two reservoirs is a critical component in an overall strategy to restore the aquatic health of the river, we support developing additional (non-federal) financing mechanisms to ensure TARP is completed as soon as possible.

9. WHEREAS combined sewer overflows (CSOs) are the remnants of an outdated infrastructure system and a major impairment to the aquatic health of the Chicago River, we support developing a timeline for the total elimination of CSOs on the Chicago River through effective stormwater management and completing TARP.

10. WHEREAS the Illinois EPA is currently conducting a Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) on the Chicago River Waterway System to assess if the Chicago River has appropriate water quality standards to protect people and wildlife, we support an upgrade in water quality standards and the implementation of methods to meet them.

11. WHEREAS public use of the Chicago River for paddling, fishing, and other recreational activities is growing, and effluent from water reclamation facilities on the Chicago River contains levels of bacteria and other pathogens that are incompatible with this increasing use, we support cost effective disinfection of all effluent from water reclamation facilities on the Chicago River to protect public health.

12. WHEREAS community support through individual efforts contribute to the health and future of the Chicago River, we encourage citizens to participate in river improvement activities at a local level, including involvement in Friends of the Chicago River’s annual stewardship event, Chicago River Day.

Name:
Organization:
Email:
Date:

Please return to tgmain@gmail.com

Public Comments on Chicago NPDES permits due

2006-11-13T15:11:00.001-06:00

In accordance with the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit IL0045012 from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) to develop and implement an “O & M Plan” for the management of the City of Chicago, sewer system.

The DWM has received tentative IEPA approval of the O&M Plan.

The record is now open to receive written comments on the O & M Plan. Written comments must be postmarked by midnight November 25, 2006. The DWM will respond to all written comments by December 25, 2006.

Comments need not be notarized and should be mailed to:

O&M Public Notification
Plan Comments
c/o Department of Water Management
1000 E. Ohio St. Room 313, EL 51
Chicago, IL 60611

To review the plans:

O&M Plan Appendices

O&M Plan Pollution Control Measures

2006-11-10T14:07:00.000-06:00

Once again, Chicago’s ever-evolving relationship with its river is changing fundamentally. For much of the last 150 years, the river has been treated as an open sewer, hostile to its citizens’ health and the natural environment. It now supports a diverse and growing variety of aquatic life. In the past, Chicago fenced off the river and discouraged public access. Today, the city is developing a downtown riverwalk and planning a series of parks and a greenbelt trail system along the entire length of the river’s edge. Whereas in previous years the river was an economic liability to nearby property owners, it is now a highly valued amenity driving citywide residential and commercial redevelopment

Today we have the opportunity to recommit to both the river and a brighter economic future by investing in policies that improve the river. In the early years of this new century, global competition to attract industries and information economy workers is heating up. Just as our previous investments in the river directly contributed to our current economic success, so does new public investment in restoring the river’s health strengthen our competitive global advantage in attracting the industries and knowledge workers who value a clean natural environment and a high quality of life.

This blog is where our online campaign to clean up the Chicago River will operate, we want you to join in the discussion and the growing community.

2006-11-10T13:37:00.000-06:00