It's better there

Get asked all the time where it is better to live.  Countless times when i am not living here.  Steady come the questions and I never felt like I was one to answer.  I can answer for me and that it is simple math and it's better there.  That is actually anywhere but hear.  Simple math has simple reasons.

We five percent use twenty-five percent the energy.  We actually have the resources to make the world a better place.  We don't and we should.  There, anywhere but here, if their are other resources there are other priorities.  Here is where we talk of changing the world.  There they talk about being here or here becoming there, but it is simple math simply not possible.

We need to change ourselves because we can but we don't.  It's better because they gave the race up long ago and settled on simpler priorities.  Where there are resources there: there are more vacation days and legal holidays.  You might eat with the season because that is the way eaten.  But you might not anymore?  Might like to become Las Vegas?  We seem to have answered here.

There is better except it is becoming their answer too.  It the same amount of difficulty just different problems.  Sustainability is closer there and we hardly mention.  If things get better here I'm sure we can save ourselves for a good part.  In the end we are everywhere and here and now is always better.  You continue in one direction and wonder through not knowing the location better only different; still the way forward. Still no answer given and not the first clue; depends intentions that are all out of sync.

Better

There are no conclusions
Nothing is for sure
Only what I remember
And the things they make me write

Out for awhile
Thought I'd stay
In a moment your way
How was that first mile


Made me do more than I could
Felt more than I should
Nothing wrong and nothing right
I''l just sleep here one more night

There are no conclusions
Made no resolutions
Out for awhile thought I'd stay
All these moments your away

Let me do more than I could
Now I wonder what you would


I'd make peace
Would you change the world

Find ways to make it new
Make a life
Make it love
Learn to do with
All that you would need

Where candles die
Love not try
I would change this world
Make love
Make it long

I do not know eternity
We are only friends
Something that I've heard

A Woman No one Dreams Of

I haven't an idea
There's nothing of me to write
Ink flows, what? God knows
I haven't the strength it takes
There's nothing I understand

I need a sunny day
Flowers to fill my poems
A woman no one dreams of
Starlight to set the scene
Nothing I need to understand

I haven't an idea
There's nothing for me to write
Ink flows, why? God knows
I haven't the weakness it takes
There's nothing I understand

I write to no one
Finding what I feel
There is no one who could listen
Nothing that I say

As if I think you know
There's nothing that I tell
Believe me for some reason
Here something I can do

What do I have to share
Who do I know to give
Here I find something
Something that I can hear

I write to no one
And I write to all
All those who would listen
The nothing I have to say

We were born and that was only to begin
We became right on out of the other
Little protons that love to be little places of me
As the quarks tightly hold the protons they love to be

Galaxies broken hearts and black holes
The universe is expanding and not colapsing
As you guess it would as you think it should
With dark matters and the universal equation to discuss

We analyze things to this point
Where they lose their reality
Everything becomes possible
Nothing remains done

Fault lies at my feet
I take away everything
Leave them upon one mass
One place to find to stand

Up on top of no reality
I stand and wonder of her passing

Fooled Again

It's the sad truth
Boy you knew better
Who ya gonna blame
Why'd ya ever take that train

Well you knew it was going nowhere
Yet now you say that it's not fair
You got no one else to blame
Out from the station goes the train

The tracks are all laid
No destination is ever made
You rider of your own horizon
Up in the morning son rising

Who ya gonna blame
What ya want of pain
Why'd ya bring it along
How does it fit the song

You got no one to blame
Out from the station goes the train

And it's the same song
Came around up on me
I never thought it was over
Yet it took me in surprise

From behind over the top
Jumped me wouldn't let go
Loving being fooled again
All I could do is smile

Just along for the ride
Thought someone knew
Where we were going
Down the road not feeling bad

Told all that I know
It fit the jam so well
Fused inside the chord
Lost my balance in the groove

Thrown up in the air
And it's the same song
Bird song back around

Of musings on feminism and the internet long and forgotten or seldom thought

1.        There was a greater opportunity for scientific inquiry for women and men in the seventeenth century.  The progression of science included epic battles with conservative authorities.  What did it mean to finally understand the world round?  The type of man who was easily able to adapt to new realities was a special type of person.  Their daughters would be growing in a more accepting environment.  The Baker’s daughters understood their father’s trade with the mixing of work and domestic space.  A new division was being created, but their still remained a blending that allowed daughters to display natural talents.  The scientific method worked for daughters as sons.  Inside the family direct evidence demonstrated the importance of an observation, not the gender of the witness.

            Women scientists for the most part had scientist fathers.  Just as most female artists had artist fathers.  In the early modern period, the distinction between art and science is difficult to distinguish.  Artists were invaluable in the teaching of science.  They observed and depicted the natural world.  Science made strides describing the motions of the planets and ever more complex mathematics.  In the seventeenth century, knowledge was finally becoming debatable again.  It was the awaking of the spirit of discovery.  More fathers were asking more scientific questions.  Hence, more daughters were witness to the genesis of new understanding.  The special type of person who was able to ask the logical question and gain new comprehension was the unique parent that offered their daughter the opportunity for scientific inquiry.  The postmodern period differs in that the majority is unique.  As were taught, these 1700’s were no longer so dark.

            On the more practical side, the publishers seemed to realize that there was a market out there literally untapped.  People had little understanding of economics in the early modern period (MC 281-282).  As literacy increased, more women taught their friends to read.  Although there is very little evidence for this activity to due its nature, I am comfortable with the assumption.  Special fonts were developed for women, which seems simply amazing.  This was the Internet of the day.  The architecture.  The market is an almost a self-directed power in a society with little understanding of supply and demand.

Victor Hugo called the printing press the new architecture of mankind (NotreD).  The way society passed down the code, the ethos, and the eternity.  Those lessons were for everybody.  The ritual communication left architecture and we saw grand revivalism in the cities: nothing new for a long time.  The printed word was to be the new medium of communication.  The printed word allowed more details.  Naturally, more people had new questions.

2.        The legal system shifted from an accusatorial form of justice, to an inquisitorial form of justice.  Accusers remained unknown.  Today we would consider that a violation of human rights.  That form of justice removes all liability from the accuser.  The earlier system said: you accuse, and then you prove your case.  If there is no conviction then the accuser could be held liable. 

            There was also a new strategy employed by the prosecutors.  Witchcraft was seen as committing treason against god in league with the devil.  This was heretical by nature.  They looked for marks that any women might have.  Torture was the prescribed course for confession.  The system was flawed in its tendency to frenzy.

            The common sense notions remained as the old system once believed; witchcraft was the day-to-day use of magic to do harm.  The Jewish community understood evil as the wages of sin, but the Christian authorities had the devil to blame when plausible. Maleficia was the new law, naturally linked to the devils plans.

3.        In every case that a woman was lucky enough to be in the environment to become an artist: she was denied access to anatomical theory and practice in art.  They were separated based upon common perception in the community about what was not appropriate for even the most exceptional woman.

P2      Maria Winkleman and Louise Labe were both able to excel in fields dominated by men.  Maria created calendars with her astronomer husband; working as an astronomer herself.  Louise became famous for her poetry; not an easy task for a woman of her day.

Louise believed once more women were educated men would realize how they had wronged women.  John Calvin, with little understanding of the free market, suggested she exchanged sexual favors for publication.  Maria received public rebutting as well after the death of her husband.  The academy in Berlin proclaimed, “We are ridiculed for commissioning a calendar from a woman.”  Her work was just fine in partnership with her husband, but female skill was not a generally accepted view by the authorities.

M1     Isabel of Castile and Catalina de Erauso are the opposite extremes of strategies used by women in order to create a meaningful identity.  They in fact received the ultimate recognition for their unique lives: a direct papal blessing upon their lifestyle choices.

One woman placed in a convent at four year old.   Her escape 11 years later was her next glimpse beyond the cloistered order.  She was bold enough to work for her own relatives, even as they searched for her in vain.  She had no identity at all.  She took off ignorant of the world’s social constructs.  To the amazement of all she returned to tell her story to the pope.  In the strangest turn of events since Vatican II, papa said sure my child you can continue your life as a man.  She demonstrated her strength perhaps most of all through her confirmed virginity.  So much like a man, the Pope even was comfortable with a hint of lesbian affection.

Another woman was born to be Queen in an age when no one knew what it could mean to have a female monarch.  All around your childhood a justification and consensus is built, that brings you eventually to ultimate power.  Isabella was to be a legend in reuniting Spain, what no man could do.  She had rid Europe of the Muslims and became the model of a strong Christian ruler.

The Pope, so ecstatic to have a demonstration that the church’s will was the ultimate force working in the world, delegated Isabella direct control of the Inquisition by picking the representatives.  This power no other ruler was given.  Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition.  Isabella was creating a new identity because she had none as property of the state.  She also had little direct contact with the lives of the under classes.  Her struggle to create herself seems similar to Catalina de Erauso; they were both in such unique isolation with unique educations; they became friends with the Pope.  The church did not see them as women, but as unique individuals placed on twisted and narrow paths by God.

M2     “Behind the Veil” and Laura Gowing’s article demonstrate very different type of strategies for women to gain control of their lives.  The Morsca represent a group that try to remain as distant from authority as possible.  If confrontation is forced, a woman could confess to anything in hopes that she would receive less punishment than her husband would.  The women Gowing describes are seeking a sort of formal justice under the jurisdiction of the church.  One of the chief responsibilities of a Christian woman was to maintain the piety of the household (MC 227).  “The weaker sexe, to piety more prone.” (MC 226) 

            The strategies of the women differed: one sought to minimize conflict, the other seemed to only make situations worse.  Sexual dishonor was the common accusation described in “Language, Power and the Law.”  The Morisca women kept alive vital tradition in the home.  They wanted to minimize exposure to the outside community; the Christian wives were often sought to defend the honor of their household.  Due to the importance of the outcome and the limited resources of women at the time, the majority of conflicts only grew more intense. 

            Christian women believed that Jesus presented himself in quiet corners, not to the world at once (MC).  Therefore, they would need to stand strong against the evils of the world.  The Morisca were simply distrusted by their repressors and wanted to survive.  In Gowing’s article, the women were mostly Christian neighbors in dispute.  Neither group is able to take ultimate control of their lives.  As cultures clash, so do neighbors is the only lesson common to both articles.  The Morisca women were seen as exotic and were perceived as untrustworthy.  By the same process, an untrustworthy woman neighbor is perceived as a threat to honor.

E         The first thing I noticed about “Dangerous Beauty” was the lack of the everyday activity.  No one goes to the bathroom.  Once I read Cohen’s article I could see the difficulties faced.  From a modern perspective, it is impossible for a filmmaker to separate the contemporary self from the sensibilities of their audience.  This is similar to much of the source materials available.  Court documents were written for a specific audience as well.  Cohen described the toughest reality we confront, “the paradox of a woman supposedly shameless initiating the defense of an honor she supposedly does not have.” (Cohen 206)  Each case seems to bring more ambiguity to the subject.

            The movie as an artistic vision seems content to pull the timeless tale of impossible odds and victory that is even more impossible.  What the movie fails to do, as have historians, is fill in the time specific context of life for a prostitute in the sixteenth century.  Some lived near other courtesans, but others were in the hustle and bustle of various neighborhoods.  Overall, the movie formula is familiar and any fault seems to be with the historians.  The resolution provided by the primary sources is murky at best.  New discoveries are probably the best chance of a clearer picture.

            In contrast, the movie “Elizabeth” (which is also available at the Cleveland library 3 copies each) focuses on the moments behind the History.  There is an attempt to depict what historians describe as history.  This is what is missing from the movie “Dangerous Beauty.”  Unfortunately, it is also missing from the historical record.

Why Storm Water

ENV Policy Fall 2003

There are simple reasons to be concerned about storm water.  For the environmental planner, phase II implementation of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Regulations (NPDES) represents the new frontier and the new battle with Nonpoint source pollution; “Usually nonspecific, sources that are released in various ways at many points in the environment” (Marsh 203).  Storm water is the primary vehicle of this type of pollution in both the rural and urban settings.  As agriculture runoff is exempt from the current policy debate this paper will focus on the problem of urban storm water control.

The problem of agricultural runoff is especially acute in industrial farming, but the exclusion of this sector underlines the difficulties inherent in Nonpoint source pollution control.  Policy for the urban field has been continually delayed over the last decades and most observers have accepted the increased costs associated. 

Most urban growth occurs in the urban fringe areas outside of core cities.  For example, between 1970 and 1980, the population of incorporated cities with a population of 100,000 or more (Phase I Cities) increased by only 0.6 million, with populations of many of these cities decreasing.  Between 1970 and 1980, the population of urbanized areas outside of cities with a population of 100,000 or more increased 30 times more (an increase of 18.9 million) than the population of these core cities.  This is important from a stormwater perspective as numerous studies (e.g., NURP) have shown that it is much more cost effective to develop measures to prevent or reduce pollutants in stormwater during new development than it is to correct these problems later on (EPA qtd in U.S. Senate 376)

  Research indicates that implementation of phase II storm water controls offer great promise to improve the public health.  An opportunity for environmental scientists to quantify theses costs and those associated with delay will develop as we reduce the amount of Nonpoint source pollution.  In contrast to the policy debates of the last few decades based on speculation, real data will developed to evaluate the real cost-benefit relationship in reducing the impact of storm water.  Currently the EPA has offered a guide for cost-benefit analysis: the value of a reducing fatal risks per human life can be averaged or best guessed at $4.8 million (EPA  90).  This represents something that can be tested over time.

The NPDES has been successful in controlling point sources of pollution.  Many of the realities of controlling emissions are common sense.  The passage of the Clean Water Act made it possible to quickly attack discrete point sources by regulating primarily what industry was putting out of the end of their pipes.  It certainly made sense to attack the more obvious problems first.

Beyond common sense, the perspective required is environmental planning, which includes land development, land use, waste disposal, watershed management and water supply among other aspects (Marsh 3).  A watershed is defined by where storm water will eventually drain; areas that drain to a different point are part of a separate watershed (Ferguson 50).  Political boundaries were not drawn with any acknowledgement of the drainage pattern and this requires communities to work together across jurisdictions.  Point sources are located in specific municipalities and cooperation was not as crucial for regulating.

History of Regulation

The Refuse Act of 1899 gave the Federal Government a role in regulating pollution discharges into surface waters; a permit system for these releases was developed between 1969 and 1972 (Arbuckle 1).  The changes developed were written into the Water Pollution Control act of 1972 (Marsh 202).  Political and legal battles were the primary response and lead to new amendments in 1977 and the name we have come to know: the Clean Water Act (CWA) (Arbuckle 2).

Early expectations of the measures have not been realized, more than 1000 communities still have combined sewer systems (CSS) that dump raw sewage during storms; cost estimates for replacing these old structure are at about $20 million per linear mile (Marsh 202).  As point sources have been tightly regulated, Nonpoint has become a larger problem with increased development.  Not only did we put off the problem of storm water, but we have continued to grow as communities with traditional approaches.

One unique aspect the EPA has reported, “NURP (Nationwide Urban Runoff Program) and other studies have verified that even mean concentration of pollutants in urban runoff from residential and commercial area remains relatively constant from one area to another” (U.S. Senate 377).  This must have some relation to the similarities of building materials, commercial developments and lifestyles throughout the United States.  Basically the problem is bad everywhere.

Storm Water Pollution System

In the urban context, contaminants that result from all types of land use represent the production stage.  Runoff is the removal phase and delivery is accomplished through a system of gutters, ditches, storm drains and sewers.  This is the reality that planning and management faces; the first goal in controlling storm water is to slow the flow to allow infiltration and the settling of contaminants (Marsh 202-207).  

Impervious surfaces and traditional development practices have all worked to speed the delivery phase as the primary design  focus has been flood control (Dennison 19).  Storm water has become a leading source of contamination in numerous bodies of water.  In 1998, seven thousand days of beach closings was one of the many consequences (Bowen 19).  The EPA has long stated, “pollution from diffuse sources, such as runoff from agricultural, urban areas, construction sites, land disposal and resource extraction, is sited by the states as the leading cause of water quality impairments” (qtd in Skoch 1087).

Phase I Storm Water Controls

Storm water control is dealt with in section 402 of the CWA of 1987 (Skoch 1088).  Phase I rules were issued in November of 1990; they applied to 217 areas with municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) and a population of 100,000 or more (Dennisan 34-36).  MS4s “can include roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters ditches, man-made channels, and storm drains” (Vasquez 22).  Also included for regulation was storm water associated with industrial activities unless they discharge into CSS.  In comparison, phase II will apply to 100 communities in the North East Ohio alone (NOACA 6).

Industrial activity was defined by the Ninth Circuit court of appeals in 1992 in the case American Mining Congress v. EPA; the plaintive had argued that the word activity only applied to the present time, but the court disagreed and ruled phase I rules were applicable to inactive mines (Skoch 1089).  Almost every aspect of the CWA has been contested down to the meaning of the word activity.

The National Resource Defense Council (NRDC) contested an exemption for oil and gas exploration.  The Ninth Circuit essentially ruled that the definition of contamination was for the EPA administrator to decide; the exemption applied to discharges free of contaminants (Skoch 1091).  Important legislation often requires the interpretation of the court and implementation of NPDES has often hinged on battles over simple word usage and supposed intent.

Implementation has been a difficult fight for industry, municipalities and environmental groups.  By 2000, over 800 more MS4s  were included in phase I; of a total 1059, 1017 received or were completing their permits (Harrop 774).  The easy part of the EPA’s two tier attack against storm water was finally showing results.  However, only industrial sites must reach levels in their discharges that will not compromise water quality standards; MS4s in contrast must, “reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent possible” (Harrop 779).

During the debate to once again amend the CWA in 1993, the NRDC provided a compelling outline of the delays in regulating storm water up to that time.  They outlined extensions to deadlines and the creation of the phased permitting by congress in 1987 (U.S. Senate 375).  The action was due to frustration with the EPA as was remarked:

…stormwater runoff from urban areas contain large volumes of toxic materials and other pollutants.  Since 1972, municipal separate storm sewers have been subject to point source permit requirements of the Clean Water Act.  However, EPA only recently began to develop a permit program for these sources (U.S. Senate 374).

Senator Stafford added:

as my colleagues know, I generally do not support willingly any delays in environment programs especially a program to control a source of toxic pollution as important as this one is.  EPA should have developed this program long ago.  Unfortunately it did not (U.S. Senate 377).

Phase II Storm Water Controls

The CWA amendments of 1987 were the birth of the two tiered approach the EPA has followed.  First the congress offered blanket extension through October 1, 1992 for all storm water discharges (CWA 159)  They directed rules to be established for large MS4s by 1989, medium MS4s by 1991 and small MS4s by 1993 (Harrop 773).  The deadline was missed for the large municipalities and as mentioned above phase I rules were issued in 1990, combining the large and medium category.

Amendments to the CWA in 1994 forbid any effluent limitations until December 31, 2009 for storm water discharges; another deadline among many that has been extended.  There was a demand for “reasonable progress toward attainment of applicable waster quality standards (Water Quality Act 1994 81-82). Six year beyond the congressional deadline, EPA finally completed phase II rules in December of 1999 (Harrop 777).  A deadline was set for March 10, 2003 for compliance with these rules; smaller municipalities should have programs in place or risk EPA enforcement (Vasquez 22).  In practice this could include a project to develop a plan.  The City of Euclid currently is involved with other municipalities to develop a phase II project for the Euclid Creek watershed.  A planning process to develop implementation goals begun in earnest in 2003 and is currently scheduled to conclude next year.

Phase II will involve over 8,000 cities and counties and requires plans that involve six goals:

·        Public education and outreach

·        Public participation and involvement

·        Illegal discharge detection and elimination

·        Construction-site runoff control

·        Post-construction runoff control

·        Pollution prevention and municipal good housekeeping (Vasquez 24)

Implementation is not based on numeric effluent limits on pollution levels.  Storm water is difficult to quantify and a basic lack of knowledge is a serious barrier; in essence MS4s do not have to meet any measurable goals (Harrop 776).  The requirements are for the municipalities to engage in best management practices (BMPs).  Clearly these regulations are a step in the right direction, but there design and the thirty year policy debate foreshadows a long battle ahead.

BMPs or non structural measures can include simple aspects like street cleaning and educating the public of the role they can play in pollution control (Butler and Davies 434).  Model ordinances are also a key factor that allow a community to take advantages of successes in other communities.  NOACA recommends for communities in Northeast Ohio a model two step ordinance for construction that requires stabilization of the site after initial work (9).  Best management techniques are widely shared; in controlling storm water any success gains attention in the environmental planning community.

The efficiency at which BMPs can reduce pollutants remains unclear, but having a clear measure of water quality offers a community the chance to evaluate their impact (Harrop 782).  This type of environmental monitoring will offer planners new concrete data for policy debates.  Perhaps Nonpoint source pollution can be eliminated in the long-term through the implementation of NPDES permits, but during this process data must be gathered to fill in the holes of our knowledge.  David Pyzoha offers a fitting truism, “simply put, you cannot solve what you cannot define.  You can not solve anything without support” (14)

Erwin Ordeal, then executive director of the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District, testified to congress in 1990, “It now seems we have come full circle because, in spite of significant water quality improvements, we are still grappling today with the issue of how best to provide the funding support needed to address the unfinished water quality agenda” (Reauthorization of FWPCA 60).  Real data and real funding have been a constant objective for every stake holder in the storm water debate.

Pollution control is not the only concern for the cities involved.  Their problems range from storm sewers collapsing in spring thaws, intersections flooding due to new housing developments, surface waters nutrient loading, and millions of dollars in flood damage (Pyzoha 13).  These associated problems with storm water represent a quantifiable impact on the budgets of these cities and seem to offer a greater incentive than public health.  Rational environmental planning can reduce costs in the long-term.

The wide-ranging regulations of the CWA make permitting for wastewater and stormwater discharges an area of particular interest for local governments.  The complexities of meeting permit requirements are increasing, as the challenges of maintaining water quality in areas with growing populations and thriving industry multiply (Keyworth and McNurney 140).

The public health impact is difficult to quantify, but “the effects of health risks touch us all in many ways, and actions to address health at the population level benefit everyone in society (Institute of Medicine 180).  Education of both policy makers and the public is vital in this debate. 

 Cleveland – Collinwood and Nottingham

Nottingham Village shows little resemblance to the community that once thrived along the last mile of Euclid Creek.  In the 1960’s construction of the Lakeland freeway destroyed any semblance of village life.  The Nottingham school and countless historical sites were destroyed to make the trip to the suburbs seamless.

  First transportation, in the form of railroads, helped the village of Nottingham develop into one of the most wondrous places in Cleveland.  To the north were Euclid Beach and an adjoining resort community; to the south lived the workers from the railroads and all those services in support.  In a time before mass media the neighborhood was the source of information; the community was vibrant.

Second transportation, in the form of a freeway, extended the transportation corridor and ripped the heart of a historic and wonderful way of life.  Residents began moving to the newer suburbs and left a hole in the community that to this day has not been addressed.  Out migration in the absence of rational environmental planning has increased the costs of NPDES phase II implementation to both the core and fringe city.

Councilman Polensak, the representative from Collinwood and Nottingham, at a public utilities committee meeting in 2002 questioned Keith Riley, from the Ohio EPA, about this very problem:

What are you really doing to get a handle on what is taking place in the suburban communities that contribute so much to the problems that we are experiencing in the City of Cleveland and along the Lakefront?  Because it’s like, we are looked upon like we are second class.  Who cares if they dump sewage? It is all going to go down hill.  We are not going to get it, because it goes in Cleveland, and who cares about those folks down there?  So I would like to know what the Ohio EPA really does?  Because, it is not only water quality and storm water quality, but, then I look throughout the Greater Cleveland area and, specifically, at the city of Cleveland and I see these old abandoned factories laced with all kinds of hazardous material that have been abandoned by some of the biggest companies, like Fortune 500 companies, and, again, they just waltzed away (144).

In response Mr. Riley began on the defense:

I agree with you, wholeheartedly, that the Ohio EPA has not been charged in dealing with storm-volume problems that face many of our communities.  Whether you are in the suburbs or whether you are in Downtown, Cleveland, it is an issue that has been under-regulated since it was incurred by the Clean Water Act.  Basically you can pave every square inch of Ohio and flood everybody out.  Up until the nineties, we had no storm water regulations (145).

Later in his testimony, Mr. Riley remarked that they are coming “pretty late in the game” and that they now see that eighty-five percent of the remaining pollution is related to storm water (147).  According to Martin Freedman and Bikki Jaggi in their economic analysis of environmental regulations, the EPA tried a balanced approached that would not threaten the viability of business, “Unfortunately, this cooperative process has made the achievement of the original goal of clean waterways by 1985 more of a dream than a reality” (253).

The regulations had withstood the Reagan administrations insistence on cost-benefit justification.  Freedman and Jaggi continued, “We have no doubt that from a societal perspective, the benefits of environmental legislation outweigh the cost” (253).  In the long-term, as mentioned above, we should gain a better picture of the benefits if we are consistent in our data collection.

Socioeconomic status has been directly linked to a “gradient in health status.”  Poor communities, like Collinwood, on top of other problems must deal with greater environmental stressors (Institute of Medicine 60).  The storm water running down the hill to Cleveland may eventually slow, but today it grows faster with each development in the upper watershed.

 Conclusions

Out migration from the City of Cleveland coupled with constant development in the fringe cities represents an increase to the cost of storm water mitigation.  Nonpoint source pollution as a primary problem is a fact of life in the short-term.  The NPDES regulations are not flawed in any specific way, but the policy debate and delays have had real impacts on the public health.

As Nonpoint source pollution in the long-term is brought under control an opportunity exists to asses the true cost-benefit of the CWA.  That data will certainly be used to the advantage of environmental planners in future policy debates.

Freedman and Jaggi in their final analysis concluded, “the approach that would probably be most successful in achieving clean air and water and maintaining a vibrant economy is one that allows for experimentation and encourages cooperation among business, government and environmentalists” (261).  The more data planners acquire: the more they will be listened.

Whether or not we can meet water quality standards is not guaranteed without a minimum performance standard; the Ninth circuit court has left the decision to apply tougher requirement to the discretion of the EPA and other permitting authorities (Harrop 195).  Public participation and education campaigns to raise awareness will be essential for further improvements in the water quality arena.

One Idea

Looking into the issue of storm water control in Cleveland, one is forced to return to the problem of out migration that has increased costs for the implementation of NPDES.  Essentially Cleveland has lost half of its population in the last thirty years; that translates to a far less dense  core city. 

What strikes me as I travel up the watershed to my sisters house is that I have a choice of ten transportation corridors to use.  In general I change with each trip and randomly find congestion.  If the traffic patterns were studied closely it seems that Cleveland doesn’t need that many roads.

My idea would be to remove certain roads and transform an area into pedestrian islands that make use of innovated development strategies.  An important aspect would be measures to slow the storm water.  Granted up the watershed there are real problems, but does Cleveland need that many roads to repair given the decline in density?

Innovative urban redevelopment can address many of the critical issue facing Cleveland and the region as a whole.  Perhaps even the occasional urban canyon could be transformed into something approaching a natural one. 

Appendix I: One Possible Focal Point

  I believe there should be a park in honor of Louis Moses at St. Clair and Nottingham Road tied to a Main Street TOD.  Mr. Moses, the son of Mary Dille and Augustus Moses (a real estate pioneer), was one of the most successful and respected developers in Nottingham Village up through 1917.  The City owns land along Euclid Creek and could use the initiative to help with phase II storm water control.

In 1912, Louis Moses served as the secretary for the Cuyahoga Park Board; among the first of four community leaders appointed.  He was instrumental in the formal creation of the park system and specifically in the protection of the Euclid Creek Reservation, which he envisioned as much larger.

In 1917, Louis Moses bought stock in the Land Title Abstract and Trust company.  By 1918, he was a member of the board; in 1919, he was president.  In 1932, the name was changed to the Land Title Guarantee and Trust Company and it was the largest title insurance company in Ohio.  Louis Moses would remain president until his death in 1952.

In 1917, with the passage of the Park District Act and creation of the Cleveland Metro parks Mr. Moses was one of the first three appointed to the board.  Through 1928, he served as the Vice President of the board and was elected president in 1929; leaving in 1930 due to business pressures during the great depression; he later served again as Vice President from 1937 through 1939.

It does not fall to the lot of many men to be present at the birth of an idea, to nurture that idea, and over many years to protect it and to guide it and give intelligent direction to its growth.  Not many reap the satisfactions which come to one who realizes that he, thru sacrifices of time and effort, has made contributions which have made his community a better place for all citizens to live in.  Such must have been the satisfaction which came to Louis A. Moses as viewed the progressive development of Cleveland Metropolitan Park System. ^[1]

Whereas, it was the good fortune of the community that in addition to his business acumen and the development of his own interests he was able to devote so much of his time to building up the great Metropolitan Park System.  His expert knowledge of land values was of immeasurable benefit in laying out that park system.  In his careful concern with the city’s needs he helped materially to build the network of parks into one of the country’s finest.  The park system was only a portion of his interest, for he identified himself with all worthy movements that would advance this city towards its commercial and cultural objectives.  Builders of vision such as Mr. Moses are too rare.  His dedication has left in the Metropolitan Park System a lasting memorial.^[2]

Historical Preservation can be the vital tool to help this neighborhood of Cleveland.  Nottingham’s future is connected with both North and South Collinwood as city planners currently divide the neighborhood.  The division is artificial due to the freeway dividing the neighborhood.  Best practice environmental planning is done at the watershed level and the key issue a TOD could address by creating a new focal point connecting the village and its geology.

Nottingham Village has a revitalization program developing at St. Clair and Nottingham.  The local hardware store is the first example of the storefront project of Cleveland helping improve the neighborhood.  An expansion of this work can be created through the “Main Street Concept,” which is attempting to revitalize historic neighborhoods throughout the country.

To the west is the historic five-point’s commercial district and to the east is the old world section of East 185^th.  Connecting the history and the historic neighborhoods offers a wealth of opportunity; all that is required is more research, desire and the will of the community.

Past and future success of Cleveland is directly connected to Nottingham Village.  History is one of our greatest resources and like other must be dug up and refined before we lose it forever.

Bibliography

Arbuckle, J. Gordon. “Introduction and Overview of the Clean Water Act.” Clean Water Handbook. Ed. J. Gordon Arbuckle and Russel Randle. Rockville, Ma: Government Institutes, Inc. 1993.

Bowen, Gary. “A Drain on the Budget: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Regulations.” American City and County. 118, i3 (March 1, 2003)

Butler, David and Davies, John. Urban Drainage. New York and London: E & F Spon. 2000.

Cleveland City Council. Public Utilities Committee Meeting: October 2002. Cleveland Public Library: Public Administration. 2003.

Dennison, Mark. Storm Water Discharges: Regulatory Compliance and Best Management Practices, New York and London: Lewis Publishers. 1996.

Fergusan, Bruce. Introduction to Stormwater. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 1998.

Freedman, Martin and Jaggi, Bikki. Air and Water Pollution Regulation: Accomplishments and Economic Consequences. London: Quorum Books. 1993.

Harrop, Stacy. “Municipal Separate Storm Systems: Is Compliance with State Water Quality Standards Only a Pipe Dream?” Environmental Law. 31, i3 (Summer 2001), 767-805.

Institute of Medicine. The Future of the Public’s Health. Washington: The National Academies Press. 2003.

Keyworth, Mark and McNurney, John. “Waste Water and Stomwater Discharges.” Municipal Environmental Compliance Manual. ed. Dowden, Lisa.  London and Ann Arbor: Lewis Publishers. 1995.

Marsh, William. Landscape Planning: Environmental Applications. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. 1998.

NOACA. “NOACA Model Approach to Phase II Storm Water Management Plan.” NOACA Governing Board. 2003

Pyszoha, David. Implementing a Stormwater Management Program. London and Ann Arbor: Lewis Publishers. 1994.

Skoch, Edwin. “Regulation of Storm Water Discharges Under the Clean Water Act.” Environmental Law. 23, n3 (July 1993), 1087-1105

U.S. EPA. “Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analysis.” Office of the Administrator. 2000.

U.S. Congress. The Clean Water Act as Amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987: Public Law 100-4. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. 1988

U.S. House of Representatives. Reauthorization of the Federal Water Pollution Act, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Water Resources. 101-64. Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1991

U.S. House of Representatives. The Water Quality Act of 1994, and Issues related to Clean Water Act Reauthorization, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. Hr 3948. Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1995

U.S. Senate. Reauthorization of the Clean Water Act, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Clean Water, Fisheries and Wildlife, S. Hrg. 103-328. Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1993.

Vasquez, Ralph. “Second Wave of Federal Stormwater Rules to Soak Small Towns Nationwide.” Public Management. 85, i2 (March 2003), 22.

---

[1] Cleveland Metropolitan Park District, Cleveland Ohio. Resolution 2787 passed at the news of Louis Moses’ death in 1952.

[2] Cleveland City Council, Resolution No. 668-52; April 9, 1952