Posted on

Maple Field revisited : Does better Drainage simply push flooding down stream ?

High_School_Flood_theridgewoodblog.net

file photo by Boyd Loving

Maple Field revisited : Does better Drainage simply push flooding down stream ? 
August  11,2012
the staff  of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, During the original debate over the turfing of Maple Field residents and this blog raised concerns over field drainage and  where the run off was actually going to go going to .

RHSFfieldflood_theridgewood-blog

 

file photo by Boyd Loving

The REAC issued a study claiming : “Perhaps the most important environmental benefit at Maple Park is the improvement of the storm water runoff management in the flood plain (this will be discussed in more detail on page 21). According to the Department of Parks and Recreation’s records,the peak storm water runoff into the Ho-Ho-Kus Brook was reduced over 95% for a “2-year storm” event and over 94% for a “ 10-year storm” event.In fact, today the peak runoff in a “10-year storm” event is 72% lower than it was for a “2-year storm” event with the previous non-engineered natural grass surface and water capture/drainage system .
(https://ridgewoodreac.com/REAC%20Synthetic%20Turf%20Assessment%20FINAL-2.pdf)

Several readers have since wondered if with the addition of the turf at Maple, the turf at Stevens and RHS Stadium are we simply over whelming the HoHo Kus Brooks ability to carry water down stream  , especially given that the Village is not the only town with turf fields along the its banks .

4 thoughts on “Maple Field revisited : Does better Drainage simply push flooding down stream ?

  1. That REAC report, its first major public document, was a tremendous disappointment, demonstrating that they were in the hands of the sports people and quickly eliminating any hope that the group would support and defend what it’s supposed to.

    A referendum said, “No turf.”

    The slide show presentation at the DEP hearing at the Ed Center was overwhelmingly against the synthetic turf, with ample scientific proof and other supportive research.

    So of course we got the turf.

    The synthetic turf project was a travesty that we will be living with, and paying for, for decades.

  2. If you do ‘t actually fix the problem then you are just pushing it off on someone else. Just pretend not to know any better.

  3. Yes, just pushing it downstream.

    Sorry Lodi.

  4. This was on the Patch this mrng…love the positioning of the Valley sponsorship (not).

    Oh yeah, the sports groups want to add lights to Maple Field (again)….c’mon Bernie, don’t be such a shill for the second-generation Villigers !

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *