Wow, I was under the impression that the Flint situation was primarily driven by bad policy put in place by people who didn't really know what they were doing, but it seems like there was a lot more nefarious action than that.
1) Flint’s elected leadership makes what is actually a solid, sound decision that will, in the long run, save the city millions of dollars and give it more control over its destiny – and, because it positions Flint as a wholesale supplier of water, possibly enhance revenues for them.
2) Detroit Water Board decides to be spoiled and pissy and leaves Flint with no good options for the two years before its pipeline is built.
3) Flint’s leadership and GOP-appointed EFM make a well-deliberated decision to draw water from the Flint River.
4) Flint’s water staff – the people in Flint who are the experts on this sort of thing – apparently aren’t up to the task. And the people they count on to oversee and help them …
5) The Michigan DEQ, is completely asleep at the switch. And once they discover their mistake, they lie about it and ask Flint to help them lie.
6) US EPA is aware of a problem, but apparently trusted the kids playing in the DEQ sandbox to fix things.
http://gregbranchwords.com/2016/01/17/the-real-tragedy-in-fl...
Most of the steps are understandable mistakes but Detroit's water board acted badly and I think some people in the Michigan DEQ need to face prosecution.
In fact, there appears to be some evidence to the contrary. There are articles which claim DWSD offered a substantially lower rate in order to retain Flint's business during negotiations [1] and that they agreed to waive the (sizable) re-activation fee [2] when Flint began to second guess their decision.
Besides, let's keep in mind that Detroit is also an aging, near bankrupt city with far more obligations than tax payers. Both Flint and Detroit have been (or were) taken over by governor appointed emergency managers. This is a tragedy and the appropriate heads should roll, but the blame should be assigned based on hard evidence.
[1] http://motorcitymuckraker.com/2016/01/23/gov-snyder-lied-fli...
[2] http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2015/10/mayor_city...
What they aren't saying is why Flint switched its supply: the Detroit system drastically raised its fees to Flint (the switch saved $19 million over the first 8 years alone), and Flint was broke as it is. The city council vote to switch was 7-1, with 6 Democrats voting "yes".
http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2013/03/flint_city...
Many articles try to imply that the lead came from the new water supplier; in fact, it leached from lead pipes the existing system used as its water mains.
Yes, despite all these years of knowing the dangers of lead, neither Flint nor Detroit made any attempt to clear lead from their water delivery systems, and EPA rules allowed testing to be based on long periods of letting taps run to clear as many contaminants as possible first.
And switching back to Detroit water doesn't solve the lead problem in the mains, although it may be less acute.
The awful color of the Flint water that gets shown is from iron that has leached out of the mains.
The reason switching back to Detroit water doesn't solve anything is because the chemical scale that normally keeps much plumbing material from leaching into the water was disrupted by the improperly treated river water (they could have adjusted the PH during treatment) and has not yet reformed. The Detroit water supply is not itself full of lead or whatever.
"The transfer from Detroit to Flint water was just another bottom-line move. Flint was switching over in 2017 to a new pipeline that would serve the middle of the state with water from Lake Huron. (The city council cast a symbolic 7-1 vote in favor of the new pipeline. The state would later try to use this as a protective fig leaf to claim the city had approved drinking river water.) Detroit's emergency manager asked the state to intervene in the switch, and when that failed, the utility told the city of Flint that its contract would be terminated in one year. The problem then was what to do between 2014 and 2017. Snyder's Flint emergency managers – four cycled in and out like scrubs in an AAU hoops game – chose the Flint River rather than renegotiating with the petulant Detroit water utility."
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/who-poisoned-flint...
PS TIL when you copy-paste from rollingstone.com, it automatically adds the credit to the quote! Worth trying just to see it in action :)
I don't know why you threw that bit in there but it's worth noting that the lone dissenting vote wanted to get ALL of the city's water from the Flint River, which wouldn't have helped anything. (and switching to 100% river water is what they ended up doing anyway, isn't it?)
> Many articles try to imply that the lead came from the new water supplier; in fact, it leached from lead pipes the existing system used as its water mains.
To be precise, the new, different chemistry of the water affected the existing lead pipes. The lead pipes were not leaching dangerous levels of lead prior to the switchover and there is no evidence they were in danger of doing so.
The appointed emergency manager was solely responsible for completely switching to the river water.
Detroit and Flint are both under management of the state government. So it strikes me that they are not really independent municipalities.
It does solve it. The Detroit water has lower chloride levels than the Flint River sourced water, so the lead in the service lines and solder won't leach above acceptable limits. There's lead in old mains and service lines everywhere in the country, particularly in lines put in place before the mid 20th century. And the cost to remove them in places like Flint is high because the frost line is so deep.
I haven't read any articles which say that. The consistent narrative has been that that the (drastically) increased lead levels by late 2014 resulted from an influx of corrosive agents into the municipal water system (perhaps exacerbated by a decision not to add anti-corrosive agents to counteract this effect).
I haven't read any source which claims the increased lead levels "came from the new water supplier." They all seem quite clear as to the basic cause-and-effect relationship, in fact.
When you raise the rates on a bankrupt city, what did they think Flint would do? Go deeper into debt from another city that's already bankrupt as well? Or cut a bunch of corners and make do with the old, outdated system? Even GM stopped using the river water since it was so corrosive.
I'm not pinning this on Detroit since there were a host of failures along the way, but the raising of the fees essentially started the ball rolling.
My understanding is that the entire reason the state "hacks" were in charge is because they were supposed to be more competent and less corrupt than the local government. The more I discover about this situation, the more I see that this was never the case. Some places are just corrupt and inept from top to bottom.
Replacing inept liberals with conservatives is a good idea... in THEORY. The problem is... the conservatives, apparently, are even more inept. The people in Michigan really need to clean house. Their governor and his cronies would be a good start. But I don't think I would stop there.
All that said... I can't really be talking too badly about the Michigan and its people. I'm from a small town in Wisconsin. And here we are embroiled in Heaven only knows how many scandals. It's not just Steven Avery and suddenly missing money. Here we have things going on FAR more troubling than that. I mean... at least in Michigan you guys have leaders who, presumably, INADVERTENTLY poison your kids. Here... (Lincoln Hills)... the leaders and their cronies were using the little boys they'd incarcerate for sexual gratification ON PURPOSE. Fully aware, and with full intent.
Wisconsin's scandals are kind of the reason that I don't throw stones at other states. I just thought the particular case of Flint was so egregious as to be "Wisconsin-esque" for lack of a better word. I wish I could say... "Well... at least we aren't Michigan." But even in Michigan they probably don't have anything approaching that level of barbarity.
Of all things to put in the hands of government, water seems among the worst. Of course, putting it in the hands of Nestle and other huge corporations is probably even worse. We need water anarchy.
'Shared infrastructure in the hands of the public' means government or regulated monopoly.
The local government, with greater pressure from local industry failed in this case, which in my reading, is an argument for greater federal control.
What other way to implement the granting of a special privilege, oversight and judgment, is there for something like water quality? Yelp?
You use the word "funny" in a way that suggests it's a coincidence, but let me introduce a different explanation:
In a landmass controlled by imperialistic government, as the USA is today, "public" and "government" have little discernible overlap.
That may explain why public services (I'm thinking especially of health care) work so well in present-day Europe but not in the USA.
I'm surprised Home Depot hasn't had a run on pitchforks and tiki torches.
If there's one thing that we can all agree is a moral infraction, it's polluting the life blood.