RSS

Tag Archives: damage

Will future stormwater cause more flooding or even a train derailment?

Go to myvaresources.com and go to the photo galleries link. One of the photo galleries listed there is the postflood one. Those are photos taken on a walk down the railroad tracks. As I pointed out to Town Council members last night, they really should look at them. Erosion of the banks (on the side where more asphalt paving is coming and the owner has had to add 2 drains to keep his property from flooding – both of which dump onto the bank of land I’ve photographed) washed down debris onto the track (I removed that), and there are piles of dirt and gravel that have pressed up against the outside rail and comes to within 1/4″ of the top of the rail in places. There is also one place where a power line is being pulled down by large limbs and trees that are on their way down that slope as well.

Hope the town is aware of this State Code:

§ 15.2-5149. Interference with railroad structures.

Whenever any railroad tracks, pipes, poles, wires, conduits or other structures or facilities which are located in, along, across, over or under any public road, street, highway, alley or other public right-of-way become an obstruction to, interfere with or are endangered by the construction, operation or maintenance of any system of the authority, the unit having ownership, control or jurisdiction over such public road, street, highway, alley or other public right-of-way may, as the exercise of an essential governmental function, order the safeguarding, maintaining, relocating, rebuilding, removing or replacing of such railroad tracks, pipes, poles, wires, conduits or other structures or facilities by the owner thereof at the expense of the authority, subject to the provisions of § 25.1-102.

(Code 1950, § 15-764.12; 1950, p. 1318; 1954, c. 554; 1958, cc. 400, 402; 1960, c. 430; 1962, cc. 130, 623, § 15.1-1250; 1968, cc. 355, 556; 1970, cc. 444, 617; 1972, c. 161; 1979, c. 280; 1980, c. 159; 1981, c. 610; 1983, c. 422; 1984, c. 554; 1994, c. 477; 1997, c. 587.)

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on May 20, 2009 in Economic Development, Environment, Historic Preservation, Land Use

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Stormwater Management Ordinances for Town of Christiansburg are MIA

I have dropped a lot of hints to see if people would look but nobody has mentioned anything yet. The Town of Christiansburg has posted the Town’s Code on its new and improved website.

At the webpage you will find options to be able to see or download individual chapter or the overall ordinance. Funny thing is that (I haven’t finished the line-by line analysis yet) in the individual Chapters there is a Chapter 10 Erosion and Sediment Control. It is a 14 page .pdf document.

Now, if you go to the full copy of the Code, Chapter 10 is titled: Erosion and Sediment Control and Stormwater Management. It is 47 pages long and broken down into 3 sections. These sections are: Article I. Erosion and Sediment Control, Article II. Stormwater Management, Article III. Illicit Discharge.

Maybe that is what was meant by the State of Virginia directive that the Town must update it’s Storm Water Management section of the Town Code. Maybe it was to remove it from visibility in order to be able to ignore it more effectively. Maybe the Town is actually working on the updates, but such a note should be found. Where is this update that was ordered? If the codes were out of complaince was that a significant part of why all of the flooding occurred.

What happened here was what is known as Urban Flooding, Flooding due to increases in impervious surfaces and sections of disturbed land surface. T he same amount of water fall would NOT have had the same impact 5 or 10 years ago.

I can just see the new real estate ads now: Free Personal Flotation Devices with Every Home Purchase!

New photos on myvaresources.com. Check ‘em out!

This omission in the Codes would be funny if the very thing that got me started on this whole process had not been the fact that I raised an issue on parking and was told I had no standing. To prove the point, I was provided a copy of the relevant State Code that did show that I had no standing. Unfortunately, the copy I was given was not complete. I went to the actual State Code and found that the lines that were omitted clearly stated that I did have standing and my request was valid. Once someone lies to me I never believe that person again without checking out what that person said. In this case the person was the Town of Christiansburg. Over time, they have proven that my beliefs were well founded.

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on May 19, 2009 in Citizen Participation, Land Use

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Is Crab Creek shrinking? NOT!

Crab Creek begins in Christiansburg, runs through the center of the Town and meanders out into the County. I’ve got some photos of some of the nice features of the Creek on my website.

I began looking more closely at Crab Creek when I found out that it was being damaged by runoff because of developments and stormwater. And I did a blog specifically related to Stormwater.

The Roanoke Times article provided more information.

Heavy rains fuel isolated flooding

The final piece came in the form of a statement by a property owner:

McCoy said Crab Creek floods every five to 10 years. “Each flood, it gets worse,” he said. “We’ve had a few floods,” Vickie McCoy said, “but nothing like this.”

Well, unless the average amount of water in a raindrop has increased, or the creek bed has shrunk, you have to look at some other reason for a pattern of flooding that is worsening over time. That common element is the loss of pervious surfaces.

Wikipedia reports:

Because impervious surfaces (parking lots, roads, buildings, compacted soil) do not allow rain to infiltrate into the ground, more runoff is generated than in the undeveloped condition. This additional runoff can erode watercourses (streams and rivers) as well as cause flooding when the stormwater collection system is overwhelmed by the additional flow. Because the water is flushed out of the watershed during the storm event, little infiltrates the soil, replenishes groundwater, or supplies stream baseflow in dry weather.[3]

We have existed in what is essentially considered a drought condition for the last decade. Decisions were made by the Town of Christiansburg to allow rapid growth with huge expansions in the amount of impervious surfaces. Well, the water has to go somewhere. Maybe you don’t care because it doesn’t affect you. Or does it? Will it affect your insurance rates as these flood damage claims continue to climb over the years when we go back into normal water fall patterns? Will it affect the value of your property? It is obvious from the statements in the Times article that Christiansburg residents are not the only ones who will suffer the consequences. The storm water doesn’t stop in Christiansburg, it continues on down the Creek doing damage, creating fear, potentially spreading disease and providing great breeding grounds for mosquitos (that also carry disease).

Decisions made by Town Council affect more than just Christianburg residents. Issues of stormwater have been brought before Town Council before and those citizens with the courage to complain have been brushed aside and/or laughed at by those in power.

It is time for this type of arrogance and ignorance to stop. We need to elect Town Council members who take the job seriously. We need to elect Town Council members who get accurate information and follow their own codes. We need Town Council members who will make sure that the codes of the town are followed by those who work for the town. For instance:

From Chapter 25 of the Town Code (found on myvaresources.com and at christiansburg.org):

Sec. 25-4. Grading–Plans to show elevation or lowering.
Whenever the paving, grading or making of sidewalks or streets anywhere in the Town is ordered by the Town Council, it shall be the duty of the Town Manager, when in his opinion such street or sidewalk should be so graded as to raise or lower the same materially with reference to the property of abutting lot owners, to make his plans of such improvement, showing accurately in feet and tenths of feet the elevation or lowering of the street with reference to such adjacent property. (Code 1972, Sec 25-4)
State law reference(s)–Grading streets, etc., Code of Virginia, Sec 15.1-368 et seq.

Sec. 25-5. Same–Waiver of damages by property owners.
Before proceeding with the work mentioned in Section 25-4, the Town Manager shall obtain from the owners of the property to be affected by such change of grade a written waiver of all damages. If such property owners refuse to sign such waiver, the Town Manager shall report
the situation to the Town Council and receive authority from that body before proceeding with the work.
(Code 1972, Sec 25-5)

It would seem that in situations such as the one in Cambria where the road surface was raised higher than the entrances to buildings, this would be an appropriate step to take. It was not done.

I’ve gone around Town looking at other areas where the same situation has evolved. Is this incompetence, arrogance, or a combination of both?

What do you, as a citizen, have a right to expect from your town? Is this what you are happy with?

I’m still waiting to see the updated stormwater management code that the State came in and required Christiansburg to complete.

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on May 16, 2009 in Land Use

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Storm water Management? Duh! Christiansburg VA gets an “F”

Okay, so you make estimates on stormwater based upon recent years flow. You don’t take into consideration that recent years are essentially drought years. Then the rain comes and what happens. We currently have flooding all over the Town of Christiansburg.

Despite the fact that the Town was out fighting stormwater problems during a fairly light rain a few days ago (I’ll get those pics up when I can), a bigger rain comes and low and behold, the Cambria Emporium has a new mud floor, the Historic Cambria Depot has a watermark about 16″ up from ground level on the side of the building.

Some of this can be attributed, I’m sure, to the fact that a local business’s dumpster turned over and blocked the one extra drain in the area that diverts stormwater under the railroad and into the Creek. (By the way, the Creek level is fine, it never flooded.)

Some of this, particularly given how extensive this flood damage has been throughout the town, is more likely due to poor planning for stormwater management.

By the way, did you know that per the Town Code any work done on streets/sidewalks, etc. that raises the level of that entity requires that the Town Manager provide written notices to adjacent property owners and that waivers are obtained before the work begins? (Just a quick aside.)

Please let me know what you are hearing as to the flooding in Christiansburg. I want to know where it occurred and, if possible, the types of damage done. Thus far, I have heard that a tremendous amount of it has been in the Mall area. (Let’s see….massive, expansive development, poor stormwater management, and flooding? Is there a relationship?)

So I guess the goal of saving taxpayer money by taking shortcuts only works if you live on the higest property in Town.

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,