It’s hard to imagine a less propitious location for a major city than Chicago other than, perhaps, St. Petersburg in Russia with which it has much in common. Both were built on swamps, on the banks of major bodies of water, and are notorious for bad weather. No “city on a hill” this. It’s pretty much the opposite.
Chicago’s history since its very founding has featured a struggle with the water, famously variable. This history was punctuated by heroic engineering efforts starting with the Illinois and Michigan Canal (whose building may have brought my Irish ancestors to Chicago) to the raising of downtown Chicago about eight feet (by hand) to reversing the flow of the Chicago River to the most recent, the Deep Tunnel project, started about 50 years ago and still under way. If you’re interested that history is recounted in an article in the New York Times, mostly notable for its eye-catching photographs and graphics.
I’m not sure the authors made their point which I gather is that Chicago is threatened by anthropogenic climate change. Not that anthropogenic climate change is no risk but it’s just one among many risks and in the case of Chicago water has been a risk that has reared its head roughly every 20 years since 1834. Obviously, the reason that Chicago must deal with such challenges is less climate change than its location. What I believe the authors miss is why Chicago can’t address such problems as emerge in the same way as it has in the past: with sweat and money.
The late Mayor Richard J. Daley dubbed Chicago “the city that works”. Why has Chicago stopped working? I’m open to other explanations but I think it’s because Chicago has changed from a city dedicated to providing jobs for ordinary people to a city dedicated to providing compensation to past and present public employees beyond what the private sector would have provided. To whatever extent that’s the case it is an instance of the “cat and rat farm” I’ve mentioned before, a form of perpetual motion scheme which like all such schemes can never work.
The piece seemed to glide over what I suspect is a significant issue, which is combined sewers for sanitary and stormwater. This is a problem in a lot of older cities and expensive to address. Its what makes heavy rains toxic events and what poses a risk to the water supply. My sewer bill has tripled over the last several years pursuant to an EPA consent decree to replace X miles of combined sewer each year. But it doesn’t look like Chicago is doing that, it appears to be replacing older combined sewers with larger combined sewers and tunnels. And the last sentence seems like a not-so-veiled threat to downstream communities that if it fails, it will be dumping all of this sewage into the Mississippi River valley. I think replacement would be a good federal infrastructure project.
The piece glides over a lot. As an example if doesn’t really address the Deep Tunnel project which is ongoing and has been for 40 years.