In article ,
spdf wrote:
| Doug McLaren wrote:
|
| To not allow Wal-Mart to build there just because of the aquifer
| seems a bit silly
|
| The problem with building over the recharge zone isn't that you will
| somehow "block off" water from getting into the aquifer. The water
| gets in there no matter what you do. The problem is that Wal-Mart
| draws enormous amounts of traffic, which deposit all sorts of
| automotive pollutants, and when it rains, all those pollutants go
| straight into the aquifer.

The recharge zone is *huge*, roughly 1500 square miles. Are you
suggesting that no `superstores' be built on it? But homes and
smaller stores are ok?

| Homes are different from Wal-Mart because homes are rather small
| sources of pollution, whereas Wal-Mart is a whopping huge one. All
| those homes probably contribute less pollution to the aquifer in a
| year than a Wal-Mart would in a day.

So, how many cars will this Wal-Mart bring to the city then?

You must not be talking about cars that are already in the city,
because if they don't go to Wal-Mart for their groceries, they'll go
down to the HEB or Randals a few blocks away, depositing their
polutants there. Either way, the total amount of polutants isn't
going to change much. And if the alternate grocery store is within
the recharge zone (quite likely) all those polutants still go in the
aquifer.

--
Doug McLaren, Dime is money.