Published: August 06, 2009 02:18 am      

LETTERS: August 6, 2009

Reader: Runoff water has been ignored too long by New Albany politics



I was happy to read in The Tribune’s July 24, 2009, edition that the New Albany Stormwater Board is finally considering enforcement of a city ordinance that requires developers to contain the stormwater runoff created by their developments. If this had been in place and enforced during the past 30 years, New Albany’s citizens would not be up in arms now about the abominable flooding problems that uncontrolled development has created, or about the additional taxes the city wants to fix the problem.

A Tribune article three years ago quoted a statement that I made to the New Albany Stormwater Board: “There is little difference between someone damaging my property by throwing a rock through my window or by directing their stormwater onto my property or into my house.”

The aggravation and the costs are often similar.

At a recent New Albany City Council meeting, numerous persons commented that 10, 20 or 30 years ago, they did not have a flooding problem where they lived. The problems, they agreed, have developed as more and more property has been built upon, creating large impervious surface areas that cause immediate runoff and downstream flooding. Wal-Mart, the Industrial Park and other Grant Line Road corridor businesses were identified as some of the culprits.

The New Albany Planning Commission and stormwater board have approved every development without regard to the stormwater runoff that would be created. Their only requirement — when there was a requirement — was that developments run their drain pipes into nearby creeks or storm sewers — which drained into nearby creeks. This has provided for the drainage of water away from these developments, but it has not reduced the runoff or the effects of the stormwater. It simply moved the stormwater downstream in tsunami force, so that it becomes someone else’s problem.

New Albany is in the 11th hour in dealing with this problem. For the past 30 years, the planning and zoning commissions, the city council and past mayors have been made aware of the growing problem along Slate Run Creek (and others). They did nothing. Now, there is precious little space left for retention ponds to control this instant runoff.

Not only do I support having development rules tightened, I would like to see all further development in the county dependent upon a “Zero Impact” policy — a policy that requires the retention/control of all stormwater before a development plan can be approved.

I would also like to see all current major stormwater contributors — such as Wal-Mart, Indiana University Southeast, and the Industrial Park — required to retroactively develop a stormwater control system that will reverse and reduce our present runoff.

Cleaning creeks and drains is a start and will help some flooded neighborhoods, but it will only make the runoff problems downstream worse as this backed-up water finds its way downstream to their neighbors even faster. Hundreds of mature trees and hundreds of tons of valuable topsoil have been lost along Slate Run Creek and other tributaries during the past 20 years because of the torrents of water that they are not capable of controlling. Twenty more years of runoff at the current level is unacceptable.

We must do everything possible to reduce runoff levels that the creeks are capable of handling. Other cities have done it and New Albany can too.

— Dennis Feiock, New Albany



Local doctor talks health care reform

The present debate on health care reform is focusing on the need for a public health care plan option. The major insurance companies are spending millions in advertising and lobbying efforts to convince us that a public health care plan option is a bad idea. Of course, such a plan that would compete for their market share would be bad for their business.

I contend a public health care option is an extremely attractive concept. In fact, we have a public health care plan already in place — it is called Medicare. Compared to private, investor-owned, for-profit insurance organizations, Medicare is very efficient. Medicare has a low operating cost. Administrative cost of private insurers run 40 percent to 50 percent, whereas for Medicare administrative, cost are less than 5 percent.

Medicare tells providers what will be covered and how much they will pay for each service provided. Compare that to five to 10 major insurance companies, each of which has multiple plans with different levels of reimbursement and different rules for covered services.

A public health care plan should be a Republican party priority. This would be a great asset to big and small business. Health care obligations to present and past employees would go away — this sounds like a good stimulus package to me.

We do not have to spend that much more than we are already spending for a universal health care plan. Off the top, we can save 40 percent to 50 percent in administrative costs. These savings will provide health care for presently unemployed and uninsured. Of course, a small payroll tax of 3 percent to 5 percent would be required; however, this would still be less than the $16,000 to $17,000 a year we are presently paying for a typical family health care plan.

If the present level of money spent by major insurance carriers on advertising — check the number of full page ads in news media — were spent on actual health care services, this would not require more money to be put into the system. The same could be said for prescription drug advertising. Money spent by the private for-profit insurance industry on fighting claims, issuing denials and weeding out the sick would be redirected to providing services.

A public plan that competes with private plans is a dangerous situation. This will certainly lead to profitable patients in private plans and unprofitable patients in a public plan. What we need is a public plan for all — Universal Health Care, or HB 676.

Do not be afraid of a public plan. After all, this is America — we have public universities, public libraries and even public roads. Just as our roads and highways are open to all, so should our health care system be open to all.

— Richard P. Gardner, M.D., New Albany