Thursday, May 4, 2017

More About Dumped Cement

Yesterday's post about dumping leftover cement, which I now know is correctly called "concrete washout," in an area off North Second Street adjacent to North Bay inspired Mark Orton to investigate further--both on site and online. He reports what he learned on his blog Current Matters: "Concrete Dumping--more than a local Hudson nuisance." The first picture below, showing a mound of hardened concrete extending down to a stream that runs into the Hudson River, is from Orton's blog. The other pictures, showing both accumulated concrete and discarded rubble on the site, were provided by the South Bay Task Force.
Photo: Mark Orton

Photo: South Bay Task Force
Photo: South Bay Task Force
Photo: South Bay Task Force
Photo: South Bay Task Force
  COPYRIGHT 2017 CAROLE OSTERINK
at

13 comments:

  1. Peter MeyerMay 4, 2017 at 7:03 PM

    Thanks Mark and Carole. This is a long process, taking back the land, and every little bit helps. Education, information, transparency, communication -- it's all so important. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. unheimlichMay 4, 2017 at 8:11 PM

    The creek itself, into which the concrete washout plume flows, is the boundary of the NYSDOS-designated "Stockport Creek and Flats Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat."

    In this specific habitat's "Rating Form," listed among the State's concerns were activities which might "degrade water quality, increase turbidity, [and] increase sedimentation."

    Today, the HPD stated that the matter is being investigated by the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation. This is very good news.

    But the truck driver was surely in earnest when he expressed his belief that the City had allowed the practice. Was he possibly referring to the winks and nods of the old guard, a.k.a. the Old Boys? Who would doubt it?!

    To add to the previous comment, it's long-past time we left Hudson's former corruptions behind. It will take a focused effort to move the ball down the court, and maybe eventually into the 21st century.

    News flash: we're not there yet.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Carole OsterinkMay 5, 2017 at 2:53 AM

    Virginia Martin made the following comment on "What Price Floating Docks?" She clearly meant it for this post:

    Mark Orton said "This is why we have government regulations." Linguist George Lakoff would say the term “regulations" is ill-considered. He’d say they’re protections. This is why we have government protections.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Virginia MartinMay 5, 2017 at 6:43 AM

      Hah! Yes! Thank you, Carole!

      Delete
    2. MarkMay 7, 2017 at 9:19 AM

      Carole,
      Thanks for the note about the word "regulation" and the Lakovian suggestion. Words do count. This is a time when we need to recover from forty years of people in both parties bad mouthing government. Reagan had his Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." and Bill Clinton ended Glass-Steagal and launched the super-charged speculation and gambling of Wall St.

      To speak more effectively about the role of government I will try out "protections". On the surface it seems that it should work without carrying all of the baggage of "regulations".

      Mark Orton

      Delete
    3. MarkMay 7, 2017 at 11:22 AM

      More about appropriate words here: Regulations vs Protections - more than just words

      http://currentmatters.markorton.com/2017/05/regulations-vs-protections-more-than-just-words/

      Mark Orton

      Delete
  4. danMay 5, 2017 at 8:49 AM

    I can't believe your complaining about these beautiful free walkways to the water. They are weatherproof and provide a rough surface to scrape your boots on when they get muddy. Why can't we be more grateful that the cement company cares so much about the marriage of aesthetics in environments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. unheimlichMay 5, 2017 at 10:18 AM

      In the City's other bay, another issue involving cement is regularly presented as a "significant benefit" to City residents. But what I doubted before is now behind me; you've opened my mind to the less obvious benefits of placing trust in the goodwill of cement and mining companies.

      (Come to think of it, for those who assume that the South Bay proposal isn't ultimately cement-related, I've decided to sell off all of my Manhattan bridges and am currently looking for buyers.)

      Delete
  5. PewtetraMay 5, 2017 at 9:38 AM

    Not all that long ago, contractors tried to dump leftover cement in Prison Alley but were called out by an alert citizen.

    ReplyDelete
  6. leonardo sideriMay 5, 2017 at 8:40 PM

    Is this problem of disposing of left over cement unique to Hudson ... is it a problem in other areas of the county?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. unheimlichMay 5, 2017 at 9:12 PM

      Good question, but having it dumped at or near a Hudson River wetlands must be a special privilege restricted to a few riverside communities.

      Delete
  7. Virginia MartinMay 7, 2017 at 8:42 AM

    Best practices for dealing with concrete washout have, of course, been identified and are easy to find. It seems that much of that material can be recycled! Given the dangers that it poses to the environment, given that it has a pH of 12, where Drano is 13.5, it certainly should be dealt with carefully. See https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-11/documents/concretewashout_0.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  8. 1RiparianMay 7, 2017 at 9:18 AM

    Three and a quarter million cubic yards of cement went into the building of the Hoover Dam. Water flows through it and people downstream don't glow in the dark.

    A fraction of that amount could be used to encase the county dump with a much needed storm water drain that would forever define the North Bay's high watermark.

    The Hudson/Greenport waterfront is built on three hills, connect storm drains to treatment plants at the base of Mt Merino and up in the second north bay and both City's are ready for growth through 2117.

    ReplyDelete