[BCNnet] Swainson's Hawks & Water Supply
Scott Carpenter
Scott Carpenter" <scott_carpenter@sbcglobal.net
Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:36:18 -0600
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0110_01C3DAB4.27898C00
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'd appreciate any feedback on the following thoughts concerning the =
potential development and threat to Swainson's Hawks in the Hampshire, =
IL area.
It seems that one way to stop the development is via water allocation. =
My understanding is that there are three potential sources of water for =
new developments in northeast Illinois: (1) Lake Michigan, (2) surface =
water, and (3) ground water. Regarding Lake Michigan water, there is =
water rationing (ever since the supreme court made IL pay back the other =
states using Lake Michigan water for IL's "overuse"?). Regarding =
surface water, it should not be too difficult to stop a new dam in the =
region. Regarding ground water, the aquifer is already being =
overpumped.
If all of the above is accurate, it seems like a logical step would be =
to get the city council/developers to make known on the public record =
their plans for addressing the water supply for any new developments. =
In particular, how would they deliver the water? How much demand would =
this place on the current system? I'm no expert, but it seems like both =
the "raw" water and "treated" water issues would need to be addressed. =
It seems likely that no matter what option they choose, any new =
development in Hampshire would threaten the existing water supply.
If their proposed solution is to utilize surface water, I'm under the =
impression they would have to go through the Office of Water Resources =
(OWR) of the IDNR. If their plan is to use groundwater, they would have =
to get the geologic survey involved. If they want to work with =
wetlands, I'm under the impression they would need a permit (404?) from =
the Natural History Survey (?) in order to be compliant with the =
National Wetlands Inventory regulations. If they intend to fill =
wetlands in an existing floodplain, they would need approval from the =
Army Corps of Engineers.
I'm quite inexperienced in dealing with these issues, so would =
appreciate any insight (back-channel is fine) into the accuracy of the =
above statements, as well as the likelihood of being able to use them to =
stop the development.
Scott Carpenter
Hyde Park/Chicago
scott_carpenter@sbcglobal.net
------=_NextPart_000_0110_01C3DAB4.27898C00
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1276" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I'd appreciate any feedback on the =
following=20
thoughts concerning the potential development and threat to Swainson's =
Hawks in=20
the Hampshire, IL area.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>It seems that one way to stop the =
development is=20
via water allocation. My understanding is that there are three =
potential=20
sources of water for new developments in northeast Illinois: (1) =
Lake=20
Michigan, (2) surface water, and (3) ground water. Regarding =
Lake=20
Michigan water, there is water rationing (ever since the supreme =
court made=20
IL pay back the other states using Lake Michigan water for IL's=20
"overuse"?). Regarding surface water, it should not be too =
difficult to=20
stop a new dam in the region. Regarding ground water, the aquifer =
is=20
already being overpumped.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>If all of the above is accurate, it =
seems like a=20
logical step would be to get the city council/developers to make known =
on the=20
public record their plans for addressing the water supply for any new=20
developments. In particular, how would they deliver the =
water? How=20
much demand would this place on the current system? I'm no expert, =
but it=20
seems like both the "raw" water and "treated" water issues would need to =
be=20
addressed. It seems likely that no matter what option they choose, =
any new=20
development in Hampshire would threaten the existing water =
supply.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>If their proposed solution is to =
utilize surface=20
water, I'm under the impression they would have to go through the Office =
of=20
Water Resources (OWR) of the IDNR. If their plan is to use =
groundwater,=20
they would have to get the geologic survey involved. If they want =
to work=20
with wetlands, I'm under the impression they would need a permit (404?) =
from the=20
Natural History Survey (?) in order to be compliant with the National =
Wetlands=20
Inventory regulations. If they intend to fill wetlands in an =
existing=20
floodplain, they would need approval from the Army Corps of=20
Engineers.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I'm quite inexperienced in dealing with =
these=20
issues, so would appreciate any insight (back-channel is fine) into the =
accuracy=20
of the above statements, as well as the likelihood of being able to use =
them to=20
stop the development.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Scott Carpenter</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Hyde Park/Chicago</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><A=20
href=3D"mailto:scott_carpenter@sbcglobal.net">scott_carpenter@sbcglobal.n=
et</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0110_01C3DAB4.27898C00--