OT: Can someone in the know explain what's happening with the lead in Flint?
Over the last couple weeks, I've seen a couple of pieces about a disaster in Flint with exposure to lead caused by switching away from Detroit water. Now it is front page news in the Chicago Tribune. What's going on? Obviously, I can google this, and find different articles. If there is coverage that's particularly informative and not sensationalistic, it'd be interesting to get a better feel for what has happened and for what's going to happen going forward.
EDIT: In other words, I don't want to read the kind of bad journalistic hit job perpetrated on Michigan by the Freep, but get a better handle on who messed up, the repercussions, and what's happening now.
January 5th, 2016 at 11:02 PM ^
Actually, your best bet might be to Google it. This will very quickly devolve into a political shitshow if left here.
January 6th, 2016 at 12:03 AM ^
There's no reason why it should. Our governor, with help from his emergency manager in Flint, tried to save money and ended up poisoning people. Then, he and the DEQ tried to deny that people were being poisoned until the evidence was overwhelming.
It's really not much more complicated than that, and it isn't a political issue. It's just a tragedy.
January 6th, 2016 at 12:20 AM ^
*sigh* But you are making it a political issue.
FWIW the decision to pull Flint off the Detroit water system was jointly made by both the appointed emergency manager AND the Flint City Council in 2013.
For those who don't want to click Freep links;
"Flint was under a state-appointed emergency manager in 2013 when the manager -- with the support of the City Council -- opted to split with the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department, which had been supplying the city with drinking water from Lake Huron, and join the Karegnondi Water Authority (KWA), which is building a new pipeline to Lake Huron. As a cost-cutting measure, the emergency manager -- with the backing of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality -- opted to draw and treat water from the Flint River while waiting for the new pipeline to be completed, after Flint and Detroit couldn't agree to an interim supply price."
January 6th, 2016 at 12:51 AM ^
Yes, together, the decision was made to move Flint to KWA with the goal of sourcing water from the new pipeline to Lake Huron. Meanwhile, Detroit's emergency manager Kevyn Orr decided to terminate the contract with Flint before the completion of the pipeline, resulting in a decision from Flint's emergency manager and the DEQ to draw water from the Flint River.
But wait! Even after termination of the contract, the DWSD still offered to supply Flint with water in the interim. Who rejected that offer? None other than Flint's emergency manager:
"A March 7, 2014, letter from then-Flint emergency manager Darnell Earley to the DWSD, obtained by the ACLU of Michigan, shows Earley declined the DWSD's offer to continue selling water to Flint after the termination of the contract in April of 2014, saying "the Flint Water Treatment Plant will be fully operational and capable of treating Flint River water prior to the date of termination."
Then, once people were poisoned and the DEQ could no longer shamefully obfuscate (not to mention outright lie), Snyder issues an apology to the people of Flint, fires the Director of the DEQ, fires the spokesman of the DEQ, and calls it his greatest failure of 2015.
And you want to place blame on the city council? Ho Lee Fuk.
January 6th, 2016 at 8:03 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 6th, 2016 at 1:29 PM ^
He implied that the decision that lead to the lead posinoing was OKed by city council. It was not. The decision for a new water authority was. The EM was impatient and while that water authority was being built decided to try to treat the river water as a cost cutting measure. This was not OKed by city council, and the river water is what caused the problems.
January 6th, 2016 at 1:29 PM ^
He implied that the decision that lead to the lead posinoing was OKed by city council. It was not. The decision for a new water authority was. The EM was impatient and while that water authority was being built decided to try to treat the river water as a cost cutting measure. This was not OKed by city council, and the river water is what caused the problems.
January 6th, 2016 at 1:29 PM ^
He implied that the decision that lead to the lead posinoing was OKed by city council. It was not. The decision for a new water authority was. The EM was impatient and while that water authority was being built decided to try to treat the river water as a cost cutting measure. This was not OKed by city council, and the river water is what caused the problems.
January 6th, 2016 at 11:34 AM ^
The issue is that the river water is so polluted that it caused lead to leach from the pipes. It's highly corrosive, which also causes chlorine to be dispelled faster (potentially leading to an increase in pathogens). It's a money issue, and a cover-up issue, and an environmental issue.
January 6th, 2016 at 8:37 AM ^
January 6th, 2016 at 11:26 AM ^
I seriously doubt this is all the governors fault
January 6th, 2016 at 12:15 PM ^
January 5th, 2016 at 11:55 PM ^
January 5th, 2016 at 11:59 PM ^
Gets caught up in environmental protections and regulations and how to spend resources, which are all political issues.
January 6th, 2016 at 12:05 AM ^
How to spend resources? Huh? I think we can all agree that in the cost-benefit analysis of environmental protection, people drinking lead is probably not a desirable outcome.
January 6th, 2016 at 8:46 AM ^
Maybe I should have said how to get the money to spend on such things. Taxes.
January 6th, 2016 at 9:55 AM ^
January 6th, 2016 at 11:36 AM ^
The issue isn't that the water isn't treated. The problem is that the water is so corrosive due to pollution that standard water treatment protocols didn't work. That's why so much lead is getting into it; it's leaching it away from the pipes.
January 6th, 2016 at 11:57 AM ^
GETTING the money is the controversial part. There's a lot of hardcore opposition to all taxes.
January 6th, 2016 at 12:55 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 6th, 2016 at 1:23 PM ^
for brevity!
January 6th, 2016 at 1:25 PM ^
for this thread.
January 6th, 2016 at 2:56 AM ^
Yep. If politics could be left out, sure... but...
It's difficult to avoid politics when changes to a municipal water supply were made by government appointed managers both at the supply and demand ends, both appointed by the same government. You'd thing they would have communicated better about the switch (unless they did.)
To say there was malicious intent is to ignore what the most obvious and likely objective was: to save money. There are ways to save money and ways to save money safely. China is a great example of how to just do things on the cheap. Every now & then we hear about some disaster that resulted from something that was done as cheap as possible. Proper inspections cost money. Most of the time you can get away without inspecting something properly. When you don't, a town in Texas blows up because a company had something like 500 times the legal limit of an explosive. Or Flint residents have to ask for a glass of "no lead" water.
Hell, politics is the reason Ann Arbor is where the University of Michigan sits. It was founded in Detroit, which was also the state capitol. Upstate reps felt Detroit had too much power, so they voted to move the capitol. Ann Arbor & Lansing were the two choices. When Lansing won the seat of power, AA was given UM. (I have often wondered how much different Detroit & Michigan would be if Detroit had kept both.)
I doubt anything will come of this other than it being used big-time in the next governor's race, but since Snyder won't be running it's a moot point. It will be interesting if there was any form of coverup though. All it takes is a text about just doing something rather than inspecting further.
January 5th, 2016 at 11:02 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 5th, 2016 at 11:02 PM ^
January 5th, 2016 at 11:03 PM ^
January 5th, 2016 at 11:31 PM ^
noope. dude, i saw you do it
January 5th, 2016 at 11:04 PM ^
The gist of it is that they switched from sourcing clean Detroit water to water from the Flint River. The water from the river was tested as not having lead and was going to get filtrated, but the corrosiveness of the water leached lead out of the pipes and the lead didn't get filtrated.
January 5th, 2016 at 11:10 PM ^
January 6th, 2016 at 8:54 AM ^
I don't know the exact problem in this case but I work in the water industry in Ohio. Here, most of the lead in our supply system is located in "goosenecks" and leaded fittings. A lead gooseneck was used to attach an old galvanized service to the water main because you can't bend iron pipe. Before mechanical joint (MJ) fittings became popular, leaded fittings, mostly tees, were sealed with strips of lead pounded into place.
We have an active program to replace all of our old galvanized services with copper. The service material can easily be checked by digging out around the curb shutoff valve to verify the material and then the service is scheduled for replacement. The problem is that only takes care of the "city side". The property owner is responsible for their side of the service. Most people, especially landlords, don't want to bother with the expense until they have a problem with the line.
January 5th, 2016 at 11:12 PM ^
Flint used to get its water from Detroit. Gov. Snyder, The emergency manager and mayor decided to save costs by using flint river water, but they didn't add all the additives that Detroit does. Because they didn't do this, the water was rough on the old lead infrastructure that Flint has. So the pipes are damaged. Recently they switched back to Detroit, but the damage to the pipes has already occurred.
There are other things existing about cover ups and stuff. But that's the story
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 6th, 2016 at 12:04 AM ^
The city of Detroit is partially to blame too. Once Flint decided they were going to change sources, Detroit jacked up the price of the water to squeeze as much money as they could out of Flint before they were gone. That caused Flint to speed things up and they obviously rushed it too much. But it may be the cover-ups that are worst of all.
NPR Michigan radio had a bunch of stories on it. I'm sure you can search their site
January 6th, 2016 at 8:49 AM ^
Don't you think the increase in pricing and the timing of Flint pulling out could be a coincidence? I mean, back when this switch happened, Detroit had a huge problem with people just not paying their water bills. Or maybe a combination of the two. Without the Flint people paying for Detroit water, Detroit could no longer handle the people who don't pay water bills, and increased the price for people who are honest enough to pay. Now that Flint is back in the fold, you don't hear about the water shut offs and stuff we were hearing a year ago.
January 5th, 2016 at 11:05 PM ^
Basically due to some decisions related to the Emergency Manager in Detroit, Flint had to switch water supplies. The new one is contaminated with lead, which is a serious neurotoxin. The Michigan EPA knew about the elevated lead levels for 8 months and sat on it, thus there is a massive lawsuit. Today, Gov. Snyder declared it a state of emergency.
Saying anything more would move into politics, but that's about the bare bones facts of the matter.
January 5th, 2016 at 11:12 PM ^
Wow. Just wow. Yeah, steer clear of politics. Still, sounds like a complete nightmare, and a horrible side affect caused by decisions made. The worst thing you say is the prior knowledge of the problem by the Michigan EPA and their failure to do anything. Thanks for laying this out succinctly and clearly.
January 5th, 2016 at 11:35 PM ^
It's impossible kto steer clear of politics while talking about this topic. I grew up in Flint. I go back frequently. I have several friends who are effected by this. I won't go in to my own opinions on this here. Suffice it to say, any discussion devoles into a political shit show no matter how hard you try to only stick to the facts. Your best bet is to google, read, and draw your own conclusions...
January 6th, 2016 at 2:43 PM ^
I grew up there too. The part that amazes me is the idea that anyone ever thought that river would be an acceptable source of water for the city.
When I was a little boy back in the '60's, one of the many rules of growing up was NEVER go in the river. Don't drink it, don't swim in it, don't eat anything from it - hell, my mother would've been happy if we'd never gone near it. And when I was a student at UM-Flint, I would park on the opposite side of the river and walk to campus over the dam bridge. There was always a sickly smell coming up from the mist, the aroma of chemicals and rot. Through my whole life, that smell was always there.
So when I heard that the city had been drawing its drinking water from the river, I thought, "Wow - there must be some really effective way to make that stuff safe to drink. Isn't that amazing!" Turns out my assumption, and that decision, were way off.
January 5th, 2016 at 11:14 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 6th, 2016 at 6:01 AM ^
So, the bottom line as to why there is lead contamination is because an additive, let's call it an anti-leachant, was not added to the water supply from the Flint River which was probably acidic?
We recently sold a house that was on well water and which had acidic water that we treated with a calcium oxide base to neutralize the acidity in the water and keep our copper pipes from dissolving.
I'm not a Michigan resident and could care less about your state politics, but wouldn't this be on the heads of the engineers/chemists that analyze the water and adjust the input of additives accordingly?
January 6th, 2016 at 7:54 AM ^
Probably not, as it's not the engineers/chemists that decide how to spend/allocate money. It's one thing to clearly and forcefully report that an expense is a good idea or even required in the face of some potential problem. It's quite another for individuals in positions of authority (who almost universally lack technical backgrounds) to act, especially when high costs are involved, as recommended.
January 6th, 2016 at 11:45 AM ^
You have technical people who are tasked with the job of constantly monitoring the various components that find their way into city water systems and who, in theory, make adjustments to additives to ensure certain levels of water purity.
It would seem that something got lost along the way as it would make zero sense for any politician that wanted his/her political life to have a future to allow a city's water supply to beconme contaminated with lead over money.
January 5th, 2016 at 11:18 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 5th, 2016 at 11:26 PM ^
Oops--exactly like Making a Murderer.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 5th, 2016 at 11:29 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 5th, 2016 at 11:26 PM ^
My impression from out of state is that it is hard to discuss this topic without getting political fast. I think this post skirts that landmine pretty well; I'm really not sure much else can be said without the thread getting nuked.
January 5th, 2016 at 11:26 PM ^
Watching this situation from afar is unreal. It gets worse and worse and the neurotoxin issue you raised is so terrifying and awful. Forgive the hyperbole but I cant help but fear the entire city has been turned into one superfund site. I dont know how theyre going to resolve this mess and in what timeframe. And all to save money.
January 5th, 2016 at 11:37 PM ^
What's especially bad is that there's a theory and a fair amount of correlation backing it up that basically leaded gasoline is responsible for the massive crime wave in the second half of the 20th century (roughly 1970 - 1994). It poisoned children's brains and short circuited their ability to make good decisions. Which makes this an ongoing disaster which would all kinds of increased resources to Flint for generations, which it obviously doesn't have currently.
January 6th, 2016 at 1:46 AM ^
Somebody watched the new Cosmos remake :)
It's a shame that government takes decades to acknowledge the work and validity of scientists all because of the corrupting influence of the almighty dollar.
Oh well. When Florida's underwater, we'll learn the hard way in a century. There's no turning back from that one.