I haven’t posted much about the water/health/political problem in Flint, Michigan. At this point I just want to mention one thing. I think it was a system failure. That’s an idea that’s pretty common on the libertarian sites but almost nowhere else.
Did race play a part in the failure? Absolutely. But that’s part of the system failure and unless we start recognizing the nature of the failure we’re going to have a lot more similar or even worse failures.
Well, Flint managed not to drop tons of lead into its water supply for many years. Weird how when an authoritarian numbers-guy from the business world comes into power, this just happened. What a coincidence! There are other culprits here–the EPA, for example, but this was a direct illustration of what occurs when you have people of limited imagination operating with sanctioned contempt for the environment and local communities in total control.
I have not followed it very much, but they were supposed to add something to the water to keep the lead from leaching into the water. Obviously, they did not add it, but I do not know why. I do not know how safe it would be or for how long. Apparently now, there is no easy way to fix the problem.
Whatever the original costs they saved, they have increased them by a magnitude or more, and this is just the water system.
TB, the number I heard was that the additive would have cost about $100 a day. I’m wondering how big Flint’s budget is, as that $36,500 a year isn’t a small number, but it’s not a large one, either. Less than the cost of one municipal employee, for example.
Of course, that’s the number I’ve heard, not read in something that would be (presumably) better sourced than “THEY”.
I don’t know that it was a system failure. Most of the coverage is political and does not even attempt to describe the system, which I think has two parts:
1. Municipalities that want to provide water to its community have to design a water supply system. This design must satisfy state and federal environmental regulations and be sealed by a professional engineer.
2. Once the system is completed, the community water provider must designate a certified operator to manage the water supply. The minimum education and training requirements for this license are established by the feds, but the states can add more.
Since it is difficult for regulations to anticipate all issues that may arise in a given situation, this system is based upon regulations
that include a requirement that a competent person be identified and be in charge overall of the design and operation of the water supply. And that person or persons name is almost certainly not any of the politicians whose names are bandied about.
(I don’t know whether any of the individuals committed malpractice or not; it’s just these people exist and that is who the regulators will bring an enforcement action if regulations or professional obligations were not met)
I think it’s possible that everybody followed regulations, met their professional obligations, made reasonable decisions, and the problem still happened. That’s what I would designate a system failure.
Before the Flint story broke, I’d been reading a similar local story, involving a suburb of Springfield that got fed up with buying the city’s water and decided to create its own drinking water district. (Part of the rich history of water/sewer wars btw/ municipalities)
The problem was that they were going from water supplied by an aboveground lake to an underground well. Entirely different treatment needs, and the film that developed from the lake water became loose from the elements in the well water. Customers immediately complained of the drinkability of the water due to odors, coloration, a filmy texture and sediment. The water was scaling on sinks and tubs and equipment was damaged due to what I suspect are particulates of iron and manganese. This has continued for a couple of years, and other than some exceedances of chlorine standards, the water passes public health standards, though by most accounts that make it to the paper, the water is undrinkable.
FWIW, the suburb is middle class and about 95% white. The homes are almost all less than 50 years old, so probably no lead, but if there is, it would be on individual service lines.
I think it’s clearly a system failure, although the apparent squabbling among regulating agencies and various finance authorities may take reasonable decisions off the table.
In essence, the planned conversion from Detroit water to new Lake Huron pipeline water was delayed. Money, technical and turf battles ensued. Meanwhile, the longstanding backup system brought on line, Flints, suffered an unexpected problem – relatively acidic water leached away the protective residue on the old lead pipes. This was known relatively early. They could have treated the water, (very cheaply) or waded in and reconnected to Detroit until completion of the Huron pipeline. But as I say, money and turf battles, enabled by technical squabbles had all the agencies playing who’s on first.
A system failure. And a lesson for those who extoll government. If there ever was a legitimate time for government to do whatever it took this was it. But governments have been so busy handing out money for the wrong things and playing their little games they are all broke and dysfunctional.
PS- I have no idea where the racial thing comes from. It seems a governmental body money and turf war pure and simple.
The bottom line is that there was nothing that made it necessary for Flint to use its river for water. The city council decided in 2012 not to use it. It was the emergency manager who hired outside consultants to examine it as a possibility after 2012, and it was the emergency manager who made the decision to go with the river even though using Detroit as a costlier short-term option was available. So it was an unforced error. Generally speaking, unforced errors are doubled-down on until there’s nowhere left to go, which is what the governor’s office did. They denied everything until it blew up.
Reason posted a persuasive counter argument against the Flint water debacle being solely all Snyder’s fault. Apparently what recently discovered documents are positing this project was undertaken more as an infrastructure enhancement, rather than a cost-saving measure from a private-sector oriented Republican governor.
Then, there is the aspect of giving scrutiny to the Dept of Environment Quality regarding their own sloppiness, in the timely heeding of complaints generated by the public at the get go, about the discoloration, etc. of the water.
And, like so many other cities around the country, struggling with fiscal problems, there is the constant undertow of under-funded pensions plaguing the viability of economical growth:
C’mon, jan. Don’t spoil his anti-Republican rant……
@Guarneri: The day after Flint voted to join a group building an independent water supply, Detroit exercised a right to terminate the water contract in one year. Its hard to tell whether subsequent negotiations with Detroit were in good faith or what that really means. These two municipal corporations seem to be acting in their own interests and that of their citizens. Detroit likes residents of other cities to help subsidize water costs for their own residents, and use the water supply as leverage for development. Flint wants independence and lower water costs for its residents. The final best offer from Detroit appears to have been for a 20% reduction in water cost with a 30 year term. It would be interesting if Detroit offered a two-year term, but I suspect not.
PD
That sounds right. One would have to be familiar with the details to know if 20% off for 30, or flat (or even a premium) for 2 as a bridge would make sense to a Flint. In any event, it was local politics and financial dickering that put this in motion. Then the inevitable whoops’s took hold. My current understanding is that the raw money, not to speak of the subsequent human costs, to treat vs what they will now pay is so laughably lopsided it just makes one shake ones head.
Keystone Cops.
@Jan, I think “Reason” is making a number of assumptions that don’t add up. First, that document is Detroit’s sales pitch to get Flint to agree to a 30 year contract. Whether it would save Flint money is something Flint would have to decide using its own information.
Assuming those numbers are correct, that Detroit is offering to cut its previous water costs by 48%, this was only offered after Flint voted to get water from somewhere else and Detroit terminated the contract. Flint made its decision when those rates were double what is being claimed here. Its very slopping reasoning to assume that Flint’s decision earlier was based upon something that had not happened yet. Plus, it was a harsh negotiating tactic, and people don’t always react positively to such.
Finally, Reason does not appear to understand that cities, run by Republicans or Democrats, urban or suburban, utilize their control of water and sewer for development and annexation purposes. For example, Flint would like to offer water contracts to businesses that locate in Flint at a reduced price, and that probably makes sense, so long as Flint recoups its variable costs.
(The City of Springfield made a last offer to the departing suburb to charge its residents the same rate as the city charges its residents, but the offer was rejected, because the suburb thought it could provide water cheaper (turns out not to be true) and it would release them from an annexation agreement with the City)
Flint’s decision to build a pipeline really has nothing to do with the choice to use the river as a short-term water supply. I suspect that in the flurry of lawsuits we’re going to see a lot of blame-shifting between the people hired to examine the possibility, the state, and the governor’s emergency manager. No one is going to take any responsibility for what the emergency manager signed off on.
MM: The law requires licensed/certified professionals to sign off on public health matters, so your assumptions are all wrong. Environmental laws create accountability by designating certified/licensed individuals that are ultimately responsible. In any event, all of those other entities enjoy sovereign immunity.
Given what happened and how long it took, I’m not seeing any accountability. In fact, the entire argument that somehow this had to happen because Flint was poor and in Dave’s words–“everybody followed regulations, met their professional obligations, made reasonable decisions”–is based on there being no accountability. Some licensed firm examined the possibility of the Flint river being used. They either gave bad advice or good advice, which was obviously not followed. That’s where accountability begins. Go to the source and see who did what. Lead poisoning is not a recent discovery. There is absolutely no excuse for having let it happen.