5 ms·

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,

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.

masonic 11y ago
That's the common spin of the moment. 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_council_approves_re.html 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.
- bilbo0s 11y ago
  Don't know much about the Flint situation. But if everything you said is true... Why... on Earth... would the supposedly competent State authorities who took over, switch the water supply??? 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.
- DannoHung 11y ago
  Not accurate. The link you pointed to was about a vote to switch to a mixed water source mostly coming from the lake and partially from the river. The appointed emergency manager was solely responsible for completely switching to the river water.
- at-fates-hands 11y ago
  I guess I'm not really sure what Detroit thought would happen. 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.
  - mikeyouse 11y ago
    It's worth noting that 'Detroit' didn't necessarily make this decision as much as the state-appointed emergency manager there did.. It's ugly times for many nearly-bankrupt cities as they look for new revenue sources from desperately poor populations. These EMs have wide mandates to cut costs and raise revenue without any real oversight, it's an absolute crises of democracy.
- willvarfar 11y ago
  This article is a recap of "a detailed Rolling Stone article" which says: "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-michigan-20160122#ixzz3yAxjm7s1 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 :)
- lbenes 11y ago
  Everyone puts a spin on things but your twisting the facts around just as badly. For example you claimed they "saved $19 mil" when in reality, the switch had the "potential to save" based on estimated increases in water cost over the next 8 years. Also that's not what the vote was for. Basically everything you said has some truth to it with details changed/omitted to make the governor look better/dems look worse.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  The lead leaching is primarily from household pipes. 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.
- throwaway5752 11y ago
  "And switching back to Detroit water doesn't solve the lead problem in the mains, although it may be less acute." 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.
  - ugexe 11y ago
    Reverting to the old water source doesn't just revert the corrosion process that has already been started
    - justin66 11y ago
      I read somewhere that they're putting chemicals in (phosphates?) to try to help fix things in that regard.
- justin66 11y ago
  > The city council vote to switch was 7-1, with 6 Democrats voting "yes". 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.
- analog31 11y ago
  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. Detroit and Flint are both under management of the state government. So it strikes me that they are not really independent municipalities.
- kafkaesq 11y ago
  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. 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.
ocschwar 11y ago
The scary thing is some of the political hacks Snyder put in place in the DEQ are so used to being political hacks that it never occurred to them that deliberately biasing lead tests to come out low is, well, WRONG
Shivetya 11y ago
the real distressing issue is that it is suspected that many cities are under reporting numbers inadvertently or purposefully through long term numbers games.
jMyles 11y ago
Governments are generally (but not always) staffed by people of questionable competence in the relevant fields, but once this incompetence is at risk of being revealed, the imperative is always to obfuscate. 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.
- hengheng 11y ago
  Funny how well it works in most other places to put shared infrastructure in the hands of the public. Maybe this is not about principle, but about implementation?
  - a3n 11y ago
    Indeed. Any model can work. I think clean water is potentially more dangerous in the hands of private business who must make a profit, for the cost and safety issues born by forced customers. The case in Flint is, I hope, a relative anomaly. I'm surprised Home Depot hasn't had a run on pitchforks and tiki torches.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    It's largely about massive economic churn. The population of Flint shrunk by about 1/2 since 1960 (a good portion of the decrease has happened since 1990). The infrastructure and obligations entered into by a city of 175,000 are now being serviced by a city of 98,000. That would be hard to manage even if there were no mistakes made (and not fully funding pension programs at the time the employee is working is a massive mistake, leaving today's smaller population on the hook for yesterday's municipal services.).
  - lbhnact 11y ago
    Well, speaking as someone who has actually enforced the Clean Water Act while in service to the public as an officer in the Coast Guard, and having traveled the globe with an eye for maritime commerce and water quality as a whitewater enthusiast, I can say that the United States does a good job compared to most of the rest of the world. '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?
Symmetry 11y ago
I think this is the best summary of the situation I've found 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-flint/ 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.
- skuhn 11y ago
  The narrative given by that article around Detroit's actions isn't very compelling to me. Just claiming that they "got pissy" and so forth doesn't make it so. 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-flint-water-switch-was-not-about-money-records-show/ http://motorcitymuckraker.com/2016/01/23/gov-snyder-lied-fli... [2] http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2015/10/mayor_city_administrator.html http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2015/10/mayor_city...

masonic 11y ago

That's the common spin of the moment. 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_council_approves_re.html 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.

bilbo0s 11y ago
Don't know much about the Flint situation. But if everything you said is true... Why... on Earth... would the supposedly competent State authorities who took over, switch the water supply??? 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.
DannoHung 11y ago
Not accurate. The link you pointed to was about a vote to switch to a mixed water source mostly coming from the lake and partially from the river. The appointed emergency manager was solely responsible for completely switching to the river water.
at-fates-hands 11y ago
I guess I'm not really sure what Detroit thought would happen. 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.
- mikeyouse 11y ago
  It's worth noting that 'Detroit' didn't necessarily make this decision as much as the state-appointed emergency manager there did.. It's ugly times for many nearly-bankrupt cities as they look for new revenue sources from desperately poor populations. These EMs have wide mandates to cut costs and raise revenue without any real oversight, it's an absolute crises of democracy.
willvarfar 11y ago
This article is a recap of "a detailed Rolling Stone article" which says: "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-michigan-20160122#ixzz3yAxjm7s1 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 :)
lbenes 11y ago
Everyone puts a spin on things but your twisting the facts around just as badly. For example you claimed they "saved $19 mil" when in reality, the switch had the "potential to save" based on estimated increases in water cost over the next 8 years. Also that's not what the vote was for. Basically everything you said has some truth to it with details changed/omitted to make the governor look better/dems look worse.
maxerickson 11y ago
The lead leaching is primarily from household pipes. 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.
throwaway5752 11y ago
"And switching back to Detroit water doesn't solve the lead problem in the mains, although it may be less acute." 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.
- ugexe 11y ago
  Reverting to the old water source doesn't just revert the corrosion process that has already been started
  - justin66 11y ago
    I read somewhere that they're putting chemicals in (phosphates?) to try to help fix things in that regard.
justin66 11y ago
> The city council vote to switch was 7-1, with 6 Democrats voting "yes". 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.
analog31 11y ago
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. Detroit and Flint are both under management of the state government. So it strikes me that they are not really independent municipalities.
kafkaesq 11y ago
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. 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.

ocschwar 11y ago

The scary thing is some of the political hacks Snyder put in place in the DEQ are so used to being political hacks that it never occurred to them that deliberately biasing lead tests to come out low is, well, WRONG

Shivetya 11y ago

the real distressing issue is that it is suspected that many cities are under reporting numbers inadvertently or purposefully through long term numbers games.

jMyles 11y ago

Governments are generally (but not always) staffed by people of questionable competence in the relevant fields, but once this incompetence is at risk of being revealed, the imperative is always to obfuscate. 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.

hengheng 11y ago
Funny how well it works in most other places to put shared infrastructure in the hands of the public. Maybe this is not about principle, but about implementation?
- a3n 11y ago
  Indeed. Any model can work. I think clean water is potentially more dangerous in the hands of private business who must make a profit, for the cost and safety issues born by forced customers. The case in Flint is, I hope, a relative anomaly. I'm surprised Home Depot hasn't had a run on pitchforks and tiki torches.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  It's largely about massive economic churn. The population of Flint shrunk by about 1/2 since 1960 (a good portion of the decrease has happened since 1990). The infrastructure and obligations entered into by a city of 175,000 are now being serviced by a city of 98,000. That would be hard to manage even if there were no mistakes made (and not fully funding pension programs at the time the employee is working is a massive mistake, leaving today's smaller population on the hook for yesterday's municipal services.).
- lbhnact 11y ago
  Well, speaking as someone who has actually enforced the Clean Water Act while in service to the public as an officer in the Coast Guard, and having traveled the globe with an eye for maritime commerce and water quality as a whitewater enthusiast, I can say that the United States does a good job compared to most of the rest of the world. '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?

Symmetry 11y ago

I think this is the best summary of the situation I've found 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-flint/ 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.

skuhn 11y ago
The narrative given by that article around Detroit's actions isn't very compelling to me. Just claiming that they "got pissy" and so forth doesn't make it so. 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-flint-water-switch-was-not-about-money-records-show/ http://motorcitymuckraker.com/2016/01/23/gov-snyder-lied-fli... [2] http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2015/10/mayor_city_administrator.html http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2015/10/mayor_city...