Editor’s note: The following opinion essay was was written by Valerie Seiling Jacobs. She is an attorney, former co-chair of Save Westport Now and a longtime Westport resident.
_________________________________
Last week, we learned that construction of the new Long Lots School will be delayed for at least a year due, in part, to issues regarding “water retention.”
The irony here is that many people in town warned the Building Committee, as well as P&Z, that this would be an issue given the size and topography of the site — and especially if they persisted in ripping out the Westport Community Gardens, which act like a giant sponge.
We kept asking: How will they be able to handle all the water — especially during construction, when building coverage (and hence, impermeable surface) will be double what it is now — and especially given the huge uptick in rainfall due to climate change?
That neighborhood was already plagued by drainage issues, we noted. It would be foolhardy, we said, to rip out the gardens and replace it with an athletic field, especially one covered with artificial turf, which not only creates a risk of PFAS and microplastic contamination (for details on the health and environmental hazards posed by artificial turf, click here), but also increases the risk of flooding due to the required compaction of the soil, the addition of a membrane, and the lack of vegetation.
That neighborhood was already plagued by drainage issues, we noted. It would be foolhardy, we said, to rip out the gardens and replace it with an athletic field, especially one covered with artificial turf, which not only creates a risk of PFAS and microplastic contamination …
Indeed, Wilton faced this precise problem last month when its artificial turf field (and surrounding facilities) were flooded following a storm that dumped significant rain around the state.
According to Wilton’s athletic director, the field was “a lake” with mud and logs and coconut infill everywhere — and with water under the turf and “bubbling” up in spots. The cost to repair is now estimated to exceed $200,000, and that does not include the cost of fixing the track which was also damaged.
Moreover, according to the latest report, the field will not reopen for at least another week. Lest you think that this is an isolated event, you should note that this was the was the second time in three years that the field was damaged by heavy rains and rendered unusable.
Indeed, following a storm in 2021, the field was closed for six weeks. Climate change is clearly wreaking havoc with these fields and creating significant drainage issues.
It’s time for the committee to rethink the removal of the gardens and the installation of this new field. At the very least, they need to abandon the idea of using artificial turf.
We were lucky a few weeks ago — at least compared to Wilton, Southbury and other towns — but our luck is bound to run out at some point and it is not fair to ask the neighbors to assume the increased drainage risk associated with this product.
We were lucky a few weeks ago — at least compared to Wilton, Southbury and other towns — but our luck is bound to run out at some point and it is not fair to ask the neighbors to assume the increased drainage risk associated with this product. Nor is it fair to ask residents to drink contaminated water or breathe microplastics — just so that athletes can get more playing time — a rationale that I note may no longer hold water (pun intended) given the post-storm downtime associated with these turf fields.
I urge the committee to tap into the extraordinary human capital that Westport has to offer — the architects, engineers, environmentalists and other residents with relevant expertise — who will gladly donate their time and talent to help arrive at the best possible outcome for all, in the shortest time possible.
Perhaps if we work together, we can get this project back on track so that parents and children will get the new school they so desperately want.
I think the last line is more accurately that they DESPERATELY DESERVE
There are many misleading claims in this opinion piece, and the purpose seems to be to protect one entity at the cost of all others.
Let’s start shall we!
First, let’s just say that the new water retention to be built as part of the new school project is the only solution to help retain more of the water and reduce pressure on neighbors. Many neighbors know this and are looking forward to this being put in place. If the engineers need a bit more time to design this properly, then we should just be patient and reap the benefits that this solution will bring to the community.
Second, the recommendation by the LLS building committee is to replace the upper fields with natural grass, not turf as you allude to. The existing upper fields we have are grass and they work just fine.
Third, garden plots do not retain more water than grass. It is a known fact that the garden needs less water than grass, and also grass covers more area than garden plots with dirt and compacted paths in between.
Lastly, alternative ideas have already come forward from the community. We don’t need to wait for more suggestions just to serve one purpose. At this point we just want to wait for the final designs, go through the various town approvals, so we can finally start the construction.
Gardens and forests retain a lot more water than grass. Especially compacted grass fields.
Please do a quick Google search on water retention – gardens versus grass.
Also, a shout out to our good friends at Penn State University… Go Nittany Lions!
Benefit of forests in water retention:
https://ecosystems.psu.edu/research/centers/private-forests/news/for-water-quality-creating-woods-instead-of-lawns#:~:text=Your%20lawn%2C%20because%20of%20grass,in%20the%20same%20time%20frame.
Gardens and forests retain a lot more water than grass. Especially compacted grass fields.
Please do a quick Google search on water retention – gardens versus grass.
Also, a shout out to our good friends at Penn State University… Go Nittany Lions!
Benefit of forests in water retention:
https://ecosystems.psu.edu/research/centers/private-forests/news/for-water-quality-creating-woods-instead-of-lawns#:~:text=Your%20lawn%2C%20because%20of%20grass,in%20the%20same%20time%20frame.
You say gardens and forests retain a lot more water, yet the link you provide discusses only forests. As you may know, the property has a very large wooded area in the back of the school, and there are no plans to deforest that area to build the new school.
Also, in case you missed it, the water retention system that will be built as part of the new construction will retain far more water than the gardens or the lawn would, and that’s an important design that the neighbors and the P&Z are very much interested in.
Paragraph 6 of the Penn State article…”Interestingly, most lawns are very poor at absorbing water – in fact, they are only a little better than pavement! Your lawn, because of grass root structure and soil compaction, can only absorb about 2 inches of water per hour compared to a forest that can handle 14 inches or more in the same time frame. In the ideal scenario, water does not move across the land – instead, it should move into the soil.”
Also….
https://www.tallahassee.com/story/life/home-garden/2017/08/31/turn-your-soil-into-sponge-capture-rain-drier-days/614221001/#
https://s3.wp.wsu.edu/uploads/sites/403/2015/03/wood-chips.pdf
Basic soil science teaches us that the more compacted the soil is, the less water it retains. The notion that the wood chip pathways throughout a Community Garden are compacted is wrong.
The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station can verify the superior water retention abilities of loamy soils, mulch and woodchips as well. Not the sexiest topic to pursue, but it is to the point.
And yes, as has been discussed, there will be pumps that the town will rely on to push water uphill to retention basins that will require carving up the environment to store water.
And yes, there are plans in the works to destroy parts or all of the preserve that has been created around the gardens and buffering the neighbors. The preserve is meant to re-create native New England forest, and it has proven to be highly successful thus far.
Oh, and those gardeners are eating the pets, also.
Infiltration rate is the rate that soil can absorb the water in its depth and store it to its water capacity. A sandy loam soil, common in our area, can store about 0.10-0.12 inch of water per inch of depth. The infiltration rate is around 0.8-1 inch per hour. Runoff occurs when the precipitation rate is higher than the infiltration rate. As long as it is below that rate, water will infiltrate into the soil, some will be stored, and the rest will make its way deeper and deeper.
Soil mixed with organic matter can hold more water, and soil amendments can even be applied to the lawn to improve its properties. But that can only be done to the first few inches of depth. Moreover, the garden plots covers 50-60% of the area, and the wood chip filled areas are not going to have more capacity than a grass field. And when you consider evapotranspiration, which depletes the water from the soil, here the lawn field has more surface and absorbs more of the water.
There is really no clear or significant difference between the two when you consider all aspects. But this is not a contest as much as you would like to make it one. Each serves a purpose or function, and there is a need for both.
What is most important though is that neither are a solution for the requirement to retain a once in a 100-year storm event. A water storage system is necessary and required to offset the runoff from impervious surfaces such as school footprint, and paved areas.
We’re doing ChatGPT now? OK. Not very original, but here it goes:
**Rebuttal to Joe Nader’s Chat GPT essay: on Infiltration and Stormwater Management**
1. **Infiltration Rate and Soil Storage Capacity**
Nader states that the infiltration rate of sandy loam soil is around 0.8 to 1 inch per hour and that the soil can store 0.10 to 0.12 inches of water per inch of depth. While this may be accurate for sandy loam, it oversimplifies the complex dynamics of water infiltration and storage, especially when considering organic matter, soil amendments, and deeper soil layers. Studies show that increasing organic content and improving soil structure through compost or mulch not only enhances the top few inches but can also create a longer-lasting impact by improving soil permeability and water retention in deeper layers. The claim that amendments are effective only in the top few inches overlooks the fact that even surface improvements can substantially impact overall water dynamics, reducing runoff.
2. **Comparing Garden Plots and Grass Fields**
Nader implies that garden plots and wood chip-filled areas don’t provide more capacity for water retention than a grass field. However, research consistently shows that gardens with organic mulch or wood chips dramatically improve water infiltration and reduce evaporation. These plots also benefit from root structures that promote deep infiltration, and the irregular surface of garden beds slows down runoff, allowing more time for infiltration compared to a smooth, compacted grass surface. Furthermore, the type of vegetation used in gardens—such as native plants and shrubs—can improve water retention, reduce evapotranspiration, and increase infiltration capacity beyond that of lawns.
3. **Evapotranspiration in Lawns vs. Gardens**
Nader argues that lawns have more surface area to absorb water and potentially contribute to evapotranspiration. However, this argument assumes that evapotranspiration is more beneficial than retaining water in the soil. While grass might transpire more, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s better at retaining water. A garden plot with dense plant cover, particularly with mulching and drought-resistant plants, can reduce evapotranspiration while enhancing deep infiltration. Furthermore, the ability of soil to hold water through the incorporation of organic matter often makes garden plots more effective at managing water than grass fields, especially under drought conditions or when rainfall exceeds the grass’s absorption rate.
4. **Effectiveness in Managing Stormwater**
Nader dismisses the idea that either garden plots or lawns can handle a 100-year storm event, suggesting that only a water storage system can manage runoff from impervious surfaces. While engineered solutions may indeed be necessary for extreme stormwater management, it underestimates the role of natural landscapes in mitigating storm impacts. A well-designed garden or vegetative landscape can reduce runoff, increase infiltration, and improve water quality by filtering pollutants. Implementing rain gardens, bioswales, and other green infrastructure solutions in concert with traditional stormwater systems can significantly offset the amount of water that needs to be managed through artificial storage systems.
5. **Conclusion: The Value of Green Infrastructure**
While Nader emphasizes that both lawns and gardens serve a purpose, his argument downplays the significant role that garden plots, wood chips, and organic soil management play in sustainable stormwater management. Lawns may have aesthetic and functional value, but gardens, with their ability to improve soil health, retain water, and promote biodiversity, offer critical ecosystem services. In addressing stormwater challenges, especially under changing climate conditions, integrating green infrastructure like garden plots is a more resilient and sustainable strategy than relying solely on artificial water storage systems.
This counterargument emphasizes the potential benefits of garden plots and organic matter in managing water infiltration and runoff, addressing the limitations in Nader’s points and offering a broader perspective on sustainable stormwater management.
I did not use ChatGPT or any other AI tools.
Do you think your ChatGPT rebuttal is meaningful or appropriate to this discussion?
Absolutely spot on. Did you read it, Joe?
100% on-point. I’m sure that a soccer dad will invent outrage, but we all know that the LLSBC was hand-picked by the FS to serve people like him.
I still don’t understand why Town didn’t utilize the body that was created to oversee these plans, to oversee these plans. (Well, I do understand that the FS wanted to a body that would rubber stamp the 21st soccer field and destroy the 1 Community Garden.) It is a total embarrassment to Westport.
Contrary to the town’s various and ill-advised special-interest rationales, there is no need to raze the garden in order to BUILD AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. Period.
This weekend, I cheered on the Wilton Warriors football team from the sidelines of Westport’s Romano Field. (They defeated Westport.) I enjoyed participating in this joyous community of little athletes. My nephew is Coach, and my 8-yr-old grand nephew one of the players. Everyone on the team calls me Aunt Toni. It is pure joy for me and my husband to support these games.
Romano Field is a massive turf field. As the games prevailed, one after another, elementary aged kids and their families and friends gathered. Many others were also there, jogging, dog walking and otherwise enjoying the spectacular day.
Later that afternoon, across town at the Westport Community Garden, there was little joy as I took my last harvest of tomatoes and dahlias, and began the process of tearing down Plot 38. I dismantled the trellises that were painstakingly made by my husband a decade ago. Roses were dug and potted up for the move. I glanced at the horseradish that refuses to die, and thought that perhaps the Long Lots Committee will finally accomplish what I failed to do: get rid of the horseradish!
I took b-roll video of the exquisite garden scenes and sounds, anxious about the day my cameras will also capture the destruction of this beautiful place.
It doesn’t have to be. And, as Ms. Seiling Jacobs says so eloquently, it shouldn’t be.
Clarification to the comment above….”alternative ideas” have already come forward from highly skilled Westporters. Many of those ideas should be revisited by the LLBS before Westport must face even more project delays and cost increases (case in point: a complex water retention system that will somehow hold back the water runoff from such a massive construction project).
On a related note, Ms Seiling Jacob’s has done a huge service to Westport by providing comprehensive information on the well-documented health and environmental dangers of artificial turf. At the very least, the LLBC should abandon any idea of using artificial turf anywhere on the site.
What a strange piece this is. The current delay for the build is in large part due to coordinated efforts from community garden advocates that took place months ago. The result of that delay campaign was a revised 8-24 that included a place for a rebuilt garden when construction is completed. The point of this article will surely be lost on the majority of us.
Correction.
The gardeners and those who understand and care about the multiple benefits that the Westport Community Gardens and Long Lots Preserve bring to this town have been pleading to save the garden and the preserve surrounding it since they were first made aware of the plans to destroy them.
Nothing the gardeners, or anyone affiliated with supporting the gardens, have done has delayed this project by one minute.
The only tangible delay that we know of is the First Selectwomen’s decision to submit an 8-24 from before the election to after the election.
Continuing to promote a QAnon theory that the gardeners have delayed the new school project is wrong and hurtful. I would hope, in this educated community, that nobody would buy that hogwash or whatever bridge is being sold along with it.
And they will build their costly “lake” for water retention without adhering to state law mandating competitive bidding for school projects, just as they did with the architect and building manager awards. Holding interviews with respondents to requests for qualifications is not the same as binding, written, secret bids.