What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Flint, Michigan lead poisoning in water supply (1 Viewer)

I'm just making you guys live up to your own self-declared standards. You are the ones who care deeply about the general welfare of the public and stand up for the little guy, right?

http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/drinking_water_erp_2009.pdf

See Page 11 under "Trial and Implementation of the Enforcement Response Policy and Targeting". Penalties for non-compliance apparently include administrative sanction, state and federal civil suits, and state and federal criminal cases to be possibly referred to the Attorney General.

 
I'm just making you guys live up to your own self-declared standards. You are the ones who care deeply about the general welfare of the public and stand up for the little guy, right?

http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/drinking_water_erp_2009.pdf

See Page 11 under "Trial and Implementation of the Enforcement Response Policy and Targeting". Penalties for non-compliance apparently include administrative sanction, state and federal civil suits, and state and federal criminal cases to be possibly referred to the Attorney General.
Yeah, you have no idea what you're talking about. This is only a memorandum, not a law or regulation, and it deals with enforcement (punishing people for screwing up), not oversight and preventative measures. Also the section you cited addresses only a "trial period"- the memo is six years old, it's not clear that it's even applicable. But that's kind of second to this having nothing to do with federal oversight/prevention/emergency response responsibilities here, only their ability to punish those who did have responsibility and screwed it up.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I haven't read the whole thread, so I'm not sure whether this has been posted already, but it seems like a worthwhile read:

The real tragedy in Flint

By Greg Branch
Nice read. The section about Detroit trying to screw them out of spite seems a little off. Detroit was willing to negotiate a short-term contract to supply water while Flint was building its new pipeline, but Flint declined.

http://flintwaterstudy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/2015-11-16-SDWA-Notice-of-Intent-to-Sue-Flint-FINAL.pdf

The City’s contract with Detroit was set to expire in April 2014, at least eighteen months before the KWA pipeline was scheduled to be completed.8 Faced with a year-and-a-half gap in the City’s water supply, the Emergency Manager declined to negotiate a short-term contract with Detroit and decided instead to use the Flint River as a primary drinking-water source. 9
And the citation states:

9 Letter from Darnell Earley, Emergency Manager, to Sue McCormick, Detroit Water & Sewer Dep’t (Mar. 7, 2014) (explaining that the City “has actively pursued using the Flint River as a temporary water source” instead of accepting Detroit’s offer to provide water to the City) (attached as Ex. 10).
The actual letter from Earley to McCormick states:

Darnell Earley, ICMA-CM, MPA
Emergency Manager
ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION

March 7,2014

Ms. Sue McCormick
Detroit Water and Sewer Department
Detroit, Michigan

RE: DWSD Water Rates

Dear Ms. McCormick:
Thank you for the correspondence dated February 12, 2014 which provides Flint with the
option of continuing to purchase water from DWSD following the termination of the
current contract as of April 17, 2014.

Following DWSD’s April 17, 2013 notice of termination of the water service contract
between the City of Flint and DWSD, the City of Flint has actively pursued using the
Flint River as a temporary water source while the KWA pipeline is being constructed.
We expect that the Flint Water Treatment Plant will be fully operational and capable of
treating Flint River water prior to the date of termination. In that case, there will be no
need for Flint to continue purchasing water to serve its residents and businesses after
April 17, 2014.
I understand the sentiment of those here saying they should fix it first then figure out who's at fault. But, really, I expect the "fix" and investigation should not interfere with each other and would probably involve completely different sets of people (assuming MDEQ isn't investigating itself :doh: ) . I see no reason to delay either.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I haven't read the whole thread, so I'm not sure whether this has been posted already, but it seems like a worthwhile read:

The real tragedy in Flint

By Greg Branch
Nice read. The section about Detroit trying to screw them out of spite them off seems a little off. Detroit was willing to negotiate a short-term contract to supply water while Flint was building its new pipeline, but Flint declined.

http://flintwaterstudy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/2015-11-16-SDWA-Notice-of-Intent-to-Sue-Flint-FINAL.pdf

The City’s contract with Detroit was set to expire in April 2014, at least eighteen months before the KWA pipeline was scheduled to be completed.8 Faced with a year-and-a-half gap in the City’s water supply, the Emergency Manager declined to negotiate a short-term contract with Detroit and decided instead to use the Flint River as a primary drinking-water source. 9
And the citation states:

9 Letter from Darnell Earley, Emergency Manager, to Sue McCormick, Detroit Water & Sewer Dep’t (Mar. 7, 2014) (explaining that the City “has actively pursued using the Flint River as a temporary water source” instead of accepting Detroit’s offer to provide water to the City) (attached as Ex. 10).
The actual letter from Earley to McCormick states:

Thank you for the correspondence dated February 12, 2014 which provides Flint with the option of continuing to purchase water from DWSD following the termination of the current contract as of April 17, 2014. Following DWSD’s April 17, 2013 notice of termination of the water service contract between the City of Flint and DWSD, the City of Flint has actively pursued using the Flint River as a temporary water source while the KWA pipeline is being constructed. We expect that the Flint Water Treatment Plant will be fully operational and capable of treating Flint River water prior to the date of termination. In that case, there will be no need for Flint to continue purchasing water to serve its residents and businesses after April 17, 2014.
I understand the sentiment of those here saying they should fix it first then figure out who's at fault. But, really, I expect the "fix" and investigation should not interfere with each other and would probably involve completely different sets of people (assuming MDEQ isn't investigating itself :doh: ) . I see no reason to delay either.
by February 2014, I'm sure that they had already invested in cutting over to Flint water

 
I'm just making you guys live up to your own self-declared standards. You are the ones who care deeply about the general welfare of the public and stand up for the little guy, right?

http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/drinking_water_erp_2009.pdf

See Page 11 under "Trial and Implementation of the Enforcement Response Policy and Targeting". Penalties for non-compliance apparently include administrative sanction, state and federal civil suits, and state and federal criminal cases to be possibly referred to the Attorney General.
Yeah, you have no idea what you're talking about. This is only a memorandum, not a law or regulation, and it deals with enforcement (punishing people for screwing up), not oversight and preventative measures. Also the section you cited addresses only a "trial period"- the memo is six years old, it's not clear that it's even applicable. But that's kind of second to this having nothing to do with federal oversight/prevention/emergency response responsibilities here, only their ability to punish those who did have responsibility and screwed it up.
What part of the following do you not understand?

Attached is a new enforcement approach designed to help our nation's public water systems comply with the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. This new approach replaces the existing contaminant by contaminant compliance strategy with one that focuses enforcement attention on the drinking water systems with the most serious or repealed violations.
I would think that corrosive drinking water that is highly contaminated with lead and which is being actively used by a city of 100,000 people would qualify as a "most serious" violation. Nobody is saying the EPA is in charge of day-to-day operations and there is plenty of blame to go around. But they knew about the possibility of this problem in February 2015, confirmed it as of last April, and still did absolutely nothing in the intervening six months to ensure enforcement of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974. That is gross incompetence.

I know from personal experience that federal agencies are quite capable of moving rapidly when it suits their purposes. I guess sometimes it just takes a little negative political attention to get the ball rolling.

 
So the Environmental Protection Agency confirmed Flint's water problems as far back as April 2015 and did nothing about it? And now the current administration is denying the city a 'major disaster zone' declaration? Call me cynical, but it sure seems like there's a lot of C.Y.A. going on and political games being played with the predicament being used for maximum effect against the Republican governor of Michigan.

Yes, I perfectly understand that disaster zone declarations are typically made for natural disasters, not man-made events. However, concern over taking executive actions which conflict with statutory language has never stopped this president before. I find it impossible to believe that the same people who apparently have zero compunction about racking up +/- 10 trillion dollars of absolute debt over the last seven years are suddenly seriously concerned about spending an extra $28 million to help avert a potential health crisis.
This was discussed earlier. The EPA is not wrong from my understanding. Water systems are controlled by the state with federal oversight. I am not aware of any mechanism that would allow the feds to step into the role that the states are regulated to play. I also cant imagine republicans giving up that kind of control.
:lmao:

The EPA just conducted a massive expansion of its oversight of U.S. streams and wetlands with the Clean Waters Rule. You're seriously trying to tell me that they have absolutely no ability whatsoever to enforce their own legally required standards and monitoring techniques? I need to pass this information along to some of my developer acquaintances who have had multi-million dollar projects shut down by the inadvertent disturbance of dry, barren ditches that are for some reason declared jurisdictional wetlands.

And that still doesn't explain why the Feds aren't doing more to help after the fact.
You do realize that those are two completely separate issues right.

I appreciate someone that makes a laughing face on an issue he has no idea about. As they say ignorance is bliss

 
I'm just making you guys live up to your own self-declared standards. You are the ones who care deeply about the general welfare of the public and stand up for the little guy, right?

http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/drinking_water_erp_2009.pdf

See Page 11 under "Trial and Implementation of the Enforcement Response Policy and Targeting". Penalties for non-compliance apparently include administrative sanction, state and federal civil suits, and state and federal criminal cases to be possibly referred to the Attorney General.
Yeah, you have no idea what you're talking about. This is only a memorandum, not a law or regulation, and it deals with enforcement (punishing people for screwing up), not oversight and preventative measures. Also the section you cited addresses only a "trial period"- the memo is six years old, it's not clear that it's even applicable. But that's kind of second to this having nothing to do with federal oversight/prevention/emergency response responsibilities here, only their ability to punish those who did have responsibility and screwed it up.
What part of the following do you not understand?

Attached is a new enforcement approach designed to help our nation's public water systems comply with the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. This new approach replaces the existing contaminant by contaminant compliance strategy with one that focuses enforcement attention on the drinking water systems with the most serious or repealed violations.
I would think that corrosive drinking water that is highly contaminated with lead and which is being actively used by a city of 100,000 people would qualify as a "most serious" violation. Nobody is saying the EPA is in charge of day-to-day operations and there is plenty of blame to go around. But they knew about the possibility of this problem in February 2015, confirmed it as of last April, and still did absolutely nothing in the intervening six months to ensure enforcement of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974. That is gross incompetence.

I know from personal experience that federal agencies are quite capable of moving rapidly when it suits their purposes. I guess sometimes it just takes a little negative political attention to get the ball rolling.
Again the response is typical however. If the EPA identifies an issue they contact the DEQ to address the issue. If the DEQ spent 6 months dancing around, fixing reports, doing re-testing in locations with little to no potential of exposing the corrosion the EPA would have been satisfied. The EPA does not operate from the stance that State Agencies are actively trying to lie to it...at least not in my experience. They often work from a 'benefit of the doubt' situation and allow states time to respond and explain.

 
I'm just making you guys live up to your own self-declared standards. You are the ones who care deeply about the general welfare of the public and stand up for the little guy, right?

http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/drinking_water_erp_2009.pdf

See Page 11 under "Trial and Implementation of the Enforcement Response Policy and Targeting". Penalties for non-compliance apparently include administrative sanction, state and federal civil suits, and state and federal criminal cases to be possibly referred to the Attorney General.
Yeah, you have no idea what you're talking about. This is only a memorandum, not a law or regulation, and it deals with enforcement (punishing people for screwing up), not oversight and preventative measures. Also the section you cited addresses only a "trial period"- the memo is six years old, it's not clear that it's even applicable. But that's kind of second to this having nothing to do with federal oversight/prevention/emergency response responsibilities here, only their ability to punish those who did have responsibility and screwed it up.
What part of the following do you not understand?

Attached is a new enforcement approach designed to help our nation's public water systems comply with the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. This new approach replaces the existing contaminant by contaminant compliance strategy with one that focuses enforcement attention on the drinking water systems with the most serious or repealed violations.
I would think that corrosive drinking water that is highly contaminated with lead and which is being actively used by a city of 100,000 people would qualify as a "most serious" violation. Nobody is saying the EPA is in charge of day-to-day operations and there is plenty of blame to go around. But they knew about the possibility of this problem in February 2015, confirmed it as of last April, and still did absolutely nothing in the intervening six months to ensure enforcement of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974. That is gross incompetence.

I know from personal experience that federal agencies are quite capable of moving rapidly when it suits their purposes. I guess sometimes it just takes a little negative political attention to get the ball rolling.
I understand all of it. I deal with federal admin stuff all the time.

What part of "enforcement approach" do you not understand? The fundamental premise, it seems. Enforcement deals with punishing violations, not oversight or prevention.

What part of "law or regulation" do you not understand? I don't know all that much about the SDWA but I do know that the responsibilities under the law are largely delegated to the states. I'm waiting for you to cite me the statutory or regulatory provision that directs or authorizes the feds to do something that they did not do here.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've been floowing this but I haven't seen anything about a fix. What if anything can be done?
Rapidly rebuild the water lines I would think.I wonder if there is a way to internally coat them to prevent leeching for a short period of time. The rebuilding is going to take awhile.
No way to internally coat them quickly or effectively...only solution is a rebuild really depending on the severity of corrosion. You would need to cctv the whole system to start. The system also probably has varying pipe materials so each leg may require a different response.
Yep. There are a number of companies out there with pipe sliplining or epoxy coating technologies, insituform being one of them that I am familiar with, that purport to be able to rehabilitate an existing pipe without replacement. These technologies have been used in a number of communities in the Northeast, and while they have had some success, the combination of water infiltration through cracks and pipe joints, differing expansion and contraction from the underlying substrate pipe with temperature change, and the winter freeze / thaw cycle make some of these solutions less than ideal in northern climates. The other issue with the installation of these technologies is that, even though there is no excavation and replacement, the pipe still must be televised and then taken out of service for the liner to be installed or the epoxy to be applied. So even where conditions are optimal for these technologies, it is not a fast process.To address Meatwad's earlier questions, the need for orthophosphates or other water chemistry is directly related to the quality and chemical makeup of the water. The lower the pH of the raw water, the more orthophosphate or other water treatment chemistry you will need to add. If a water has a naturally high pH and is low in minerals and dissolved solids, the water supplier may need to add little to no orthophosphate. So it all depends, basically.

In general, and digging back into my memories from 20 years ago so killface please correct me if I am wrong, you want to have a pH in the pipes of about 7.5 or so. Lower pH water will result in lead, copper, and other metals leaching out into the water supply. Adding a sequestrant such as orthophosphate at this point in time would reduce the corrosivity, however until such time as the lead has a chance to oxidize or otherwise form a non or less reactive matrix (basically, it skins over chemically), it will continue to leach into the water supply, albeit at a decreasing rate. How long that will take is anyone's guess.
Plus it depends on the soil conditions and depth of the pipes. Relining a pipe can sometimes be as expensive as traditional trench and replace techniques. Much like anything in engineering there is no cookie cutter solution.

In terms of water pH, it's not just pH but a combination of pH, alkalinity and water hardness that contribute to pipe corrosion and the rates. I actually haven't worked on or heard of a lot of systems that use orthophosphates to control corrosion. It's yet another sign of incompetence because most places have moved beyond that and replaced pipes with modern versions so they don't have to worry about it.
True; dusted off my notes and most of the systems I dealt with on Long Island (groundwater sole source aquifer) used lime or sometimes soda ash to buffer the system as the pH of the groundwater there was fairly low - think around 5.5 on average - with orthophosphates, etc.mostly used for areas with high iron.

 
I'm just making you guys live up to your own self-declared standards. You are the ones who care deeply about the general welfare of the public and stand up for the little guy, right?

http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/drinking_water_erp_2009.pdf

See Page 11 under "Trial and Implementation of the Enforcement Response Policy and Targeting". Penalties for non-compliance apparently include administrative sanction, state and federal civil suits, and state and federal criminal cases to be possibly referred to the Attorney General.
Please stop. You are doing yourself no favors; at least one poster here deals with EPA regs on a daily basis and you do not have the foggiest idea about what you are saying regarding the applicability of the statutes.

Please see the referenced letter from the emergency (mis)manager a few posts back. It is very telling regarding who was in charge of the decisionmaking at that time.

 
http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/flint-water-crisis/2016/01/21/congress-call-snyder-flint-water-crisis/79122730/

Congress to call Snyder to testify on Flint water crisis

Todd Spangler, Detroit Free Press 2:55 p.m. EST January 21, 2016

U.S. Rep. Brenda Lawrence says House Oversight Committee will hold hearing on Flint lead-in-water crisis on Feb. 3

WASHINGTON — A U.S. House committee is expected to hold a hearing Wednesday, Feb. 3, on the Flint water crisis and the government’s response to high lead levels in drinking water there, U.S. Rep. Brenda Lawrence’s office said Thursday.

And Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, who has apologized for the state’s handling of reports of high lead levels in Flint’s drinking water after it switched to the Flint River as its water source, is expected to be among those invited to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

A spokeswoman for the committee did not immediately return a request for comment on the hearing, which would be the first congressional inquiry into the crisis. President Barack Obama signed an emergency designation for Genesee County and Flint last Saturday and the Federal Emergency Management Agency is supplying water and water filters to residents.

Lawrence, D-Southfield, a week ago sent a letter to leaders of the committee, of which she is a member, asking for the hearing, saying it's Congress' responsibility to address "a man-made disaster created by the poor policy decisions of elected and career government officials."

So far, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality has taken the brunt of the blame for not requiring corrosion control treatments at the Flint water plant once it switched from Detroit-supplied water to more corrosive water from the Flint River as a temporary cost-savings move.

It wasn’t immediately apparent whether the hearing would be a full committee or subcommittee hearing. Lawrence’s office, however, said that besides Snyder, Chairman Jason Cheffetz, R-Utah, has accepted her suggestions for other invitees as well, including Dan Wyant, who resigned as MDEQ’s director in the wake of the crisis; EPA Region 5 Director Susan Hedman, and Flint Mayor Karen Weaver.

Also to be invited were Dr. Mona Hanna-Atissha, a pediatric doctor at Hurley Medical Center in Flint, whose findings of elevated lead levels in children’s blood spurred outside investigations into the crisis, and Virginia Tech Professor Mark Edwards, a specialist who brought a team to Flint to study the level of lead in the city’s drinking water.

It wasn’t immediately known if the invitees would accept, decline or ask to send someone in their place.
 
purplehaze67 said:
http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/flint-water-crisis/2016/01/21/congress-call-snyder-flint-water-crisis/79122730/

Also to be invited were Dr. Mona Hanna-Atissha, a pediatric doctor at Hurley Medical Center in Flint, whose findings of elevated lead levels in children’s blood spurred outside investigations into the crisis, and Virginia Tech Professor Mark Edwards, a specialist who brought a team to Flint to study the level of lead in the city’s drinking water.

It wasn’t immediately known if the invitees would accept, decline or ask to send someone in their place.
The doctor did a very good thing. She should definitely go.

 
timschochet said:
Hey TPW, just curious: after Hurricane Katrina did you blame the federal government? Or was it state and local that was the problem?
They were all culpable. But FEMA sure got their sorry asses in gear once adequate pressure was brought to bear. The Bush administration was absolutely hammered by the press to the point where it played a role in his party's huge losses in the 2006 elections. Nothing of the sort is happening here.

Please stop. You are doing yourself no favors; at least one poster here deals with EPA regs on a daily basis and you do not have the foggiest idea about what you are saying regarding the applicability of the statutes.
I have dealt with both the EPA and the US Army Corps of Engineers dozens of times regarding water quality and hydrology issues over the years as part of my work. I have personally seen them have operations shut down in a matter of hours for violations. Its you who have no idea of what you speak. The lion's share of the blame might not fall on them but they are partially culpable and should not be given a pass just because it doesn't fit with your political priorities.

 
timschochet said:
Hey TPW, just curious: after Hurricane Katrina did you blame the federal government? Or was it state and local that was the problem?
They were all culpable. But FEMA sure got their sorry asses in gear once adequate pressure was brought to bear. The Bush administration was absolutely hammered by the press to the point where it played a role in his party's huge losses in the 2006 elections. Nothing of the sort is happening here.

Please stop. You are doing yourself no favors; at least one poster here deals with EPA regs on a daily basis and you do not have the foggiest idea about what you are saying regarding the applicability of the statutes.
I have dealt with both the EPA and the US Army Corps of Engineers dozens of times regarding water quality and hydrology issues over the years as part of my work. I have personally seen them have operations shut down in a matter of hours for violations. Its you who have no idea of what you speak. The lion's share of the blame might not fall on them but they are partially culpable and should not be given a pass just because it doesn't fit with your political priorities.
:lmao: My political priorities do not enter into this. This is a failure with many sets of fingerprints. It has nothing to do with giving anyone, including EPA, a pass; it has to do with why people were exposed to unsafe drinking water over a too-long period of time. Those decisions were not the responsibility or under the purview of EPA when they were made.

 
http://flintwaterstudy.org/2016/01/del-torals-heroic-effort-was-ultimately-vetted-in-the-blood-lead-of-flints-children/

At what point did EPA notify the country health department, regarding its opinion that MDEQ was not following Federal law, so they could make an informed decision about communicating risks to the public about the health impacts of high lead in their drinking water?

More importantly, why should Flint’s children be allowed to drink lead contaminated water, unprotected by Federal law, while EPA and MDEQ spend months politely wrangling over jurisdiction, technicalities and legalities?

Our FOIA revealed that in early July, Hedman actually apologized to Flint Mayor Dayne Walling for Miguel Del Toral’s memo detailing the imminent peril of Flint’s children
EPA also silenced Del Toral, and stood by as outsiders in communication with Hedman publicly discredited him. On September 8th 2015 Mayor Dayne Walling commented on the Del Toral letter:

“Walling said Weaver is making a mistake by citing a letter from “one individual staff person” who does not speak for U.S. EPA. “It’s dangerous for a candidate to make allegations that are not based on fact,” Walling said.

As late as September 29th 2015, MDEQ’s Brad Wurfel told NPR that:

“…the report was the work of a “rogue employee” and promised the final report — not yet released — would tell a much different story”
 
timschochet said:
Hey TPW, just curious: after Hurricane Katrina did you blame the federal government? Or was it state and local that was the problem?
They were all culpable. But FEMA sure got their sorry asses in gear once adequate pressure was brought to bear. The Bush administration was absolutely hammered by the press to the point where it played a role in his party's huge losses in the 2006 elections. Nothing of the sort is happening here.

Please stop. You are doing yourself no favors; at least one poster here deals with EPA regs on a daily basis and you do not have the foggiest idea about what you are saying regarding the applicability of the statutes.
I have dealt with both the EPA and the US Army Corps of Engineers dozens of times regarding water quality and hydrology issues over the years as part of my work. I have personally seen them have operations shut down in a matter of hours for violations. Its you who have no idea of what you speak. The lion's share of the blame might not fall on them but they are partially culpable and should not be given a pass just because it doesn't fit with your political priorities.
Have to love the guy arguing with the drinking water engineers because he worked a couple of times with the feds on hydrology issues....your expertise knows no bounds!!!

I flew on a plane maybe I should start designing them...

 
On another note, the city was under a judicial order from a local judge to reduce water rates by 35%, so there was legal pressure to cut costs.
Who the hell cares. Can you imagine for one second this was your children that had been drinking this water. There is no way that people didn't know and there is no way the process didn't unfold with political pressure influencing engineering decisions. It just does not happen that way in the industry that they would have unknowingly done something like this.
I understand the results and why people are angry. But accusations of doing this on purpose seem farfetched. It seems like a lot of mistakes made by numerous people besides the ones Maddows is targeting. Tons of incompetence and tons of CYA. But this is not Hitler trying to exterminate Jews as some have implied.
Even if you're right about this (and I have no idea)- if the CYA caused more people to get sick because fixing the issue was delayed, that's just as bad as making the deliberate decision in the first place.
I can guarantee somewhere along the line someone circumvented the rules behind very closed doors to make this decision and they would have had the facts right in front of their face
Not in a million years can you guarantee something like that.

 
This whole exchange is sort of mind boggling:

Back in early 2015, emails from concerned EPA officials asked Michigan regulators whether Flint was treating to control corrosion. State officials said yes. When the EPA asked what kind of treatment, there seemed to be a reversal. One email says plainly: Flint is currently not practicing corrosion control treatment.

But that admission appeared to yield little consequence from the EPA.

When Michigan Radio asked in November if Flint broke federal rules by not having a corrosion control treatment plan, the U.S. EPA said the question was relatively complex.

Emails show at least one EPA employee believes Flint was required to treat the water to help prevent lead corrosion.
The EPA region that I deal with would have been on us like a diaper to verify what was going on in the first paragraph. Even so, it should never have had to rise to that level. Those are questions that MDEQ and rhe health department - who have more direct jurisdiction over water supply - should have been asking the City. And they should have had the raw water results available to direct them to treat.

It just leads to so many questions nas to where the system failed the people. Who runs the water supply permitting program in Michigan, DEQ or DOH? The City, I imagine, would have had to apply for a permit mod to use the Flint River. Who reviewed the mod request? Did they have sampling data sufficient to fully assess the quality of the water? Do they have the regulatory backup to require treatment? If so, was it imposed? If it was, did Flint blow them off? If not, why not? Did they have valid sampling results or were they falsified? Was the permit engineer directed to remove the requirement by someone higher up the food chain? Did DOH or DEQ review any sampling results or conduct any sampling? When sampling was conducted and the results came back looking like ####, why did they not enforce?

However, all of those questions would be moot if the decision to take water from the Flint River would have been correctly denied. Whoever made that decision is ultimately culpable.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
On another note, the city was under a judicial order from a local judge to reduce water rates by 35%, so there was legal pressure to cut costs.
Who the hell cares. Can you imagine for one second this was your children that had been drinking this water. There is no way that people didn't know and there is no way the process didn't unfold with political pressure influencing engineering decisions. It just does not happen that way in the industry that they would have unknowingly done something like this.
I understand the results and why people are angry. But accusations of doing this on purpose seem farfetched. It seems like a lot of mistakes made by numerous people besides the ones Maddows is targeting. Tons of incompetence and tons of CYA. But this is not Hitler trying to exterminate Jews as some have implied.
Even if you're right about this (and I have no idea)- if the CYA caused more people to get sick because fixing the issue was delayed, that's just as bad as making the deliberate decision in the first place.
I can guarantee somewhere along the line someone circumvented the rules behind very closed doors to make this decision and they would have had the facts right in front of their face
Not in a million years can you guarantee something like that.
He is far more likely - like 99% chance - right than wrong. No engineer that I know would put their stamp on the line for this. This was some sort of calculated decision made by people who care more about $ than what is the right thing to do. They gambled, the people of Flint lost.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
On another note, the city was under a judicial order from a local judge to reduce water rates by 35%, so there was legal pressure to cut costs.
Who the hell cares. Can you imagine for one second this was your children that had been drinking this water. There is no way that people didn't know and there is no way the process didn't unfold with political pressure influencing engineering decisions. It just does not happen that way in the industry that they would have unknowingly done something like this.
I understand the results and why people are angry. But accusations of doing this on purpose seem farfetched. It seems like a lot of mistakes made by numerous people besides the ones Maddows is targeting. Tons of incompetence and tons of CYA. But this is not Hitler trying to exterminate Jews as some have implied.
Even if you're right about this (and I have no idea)- if the CYA caused more people to get sick because fixing the issue was delayed, that's just as bad as making the deliberate decision in the first place.
I can guarantee somewhere along the line someone circumvented the rules behind very closed doors to make this decision and they would have had the facts right in front of their face
Not in a million years can you guarantee something like that.
He is far more likely - like 99% chance - right than wrong. No engineer that I know would put their stamp on the line for this. This was some sort of calculated decision made by people who care more about $ than what is the right thing to do. They gambled, the people of Flint lost.
Disagree. Maybe more like 50% chance. I personally think some terrible egregious mistakes were made, but I find it incredibly, and I mean incredibly hard to think that people, who know they would be held responsible, would, behind closed doors, intentionally make the choices they made with factual knowledge in front of them. I'm not buying that angle.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Going out on a limb here, but your water shouldn't be the color of Iced Tea unless of course it is Iced Tea......I would hope anybody who turned on their tap and had brown water coming out, didn't actually drink it....It should not have taken a year to figure out something was wrong...

 
On another note, the city was under a judicial order from a local judge to reduce water rates by 35%, so there was legal pressure to cut costs.
Who the hell cares. Can you imagine for one second this was your children that had been drinking this water. There is no way that people didn't know and there is no way the process didn't unfold with political pressure influencing engineering decisions. It just does not happen that way in the industry that they would have unknowingly done something like this.
I understand the results and why people are angry. But accusations of doing this on purpose seem farfetched. It seems like a lot of mistakes made by numerous people besides the ones Maddows is targeting. Tons of incompetence and tons of CYA. But this is not Hitler trying to exterminate Jews as some have implied.
Even if you're right about this (and I have no idea)- if the CYA caused more people to get sick because fixing the issue was delayed, that's just as bad as making the deliberate decision in the first place.
I can guarantee somewhere along the line someone circumvented the rules behind very closed doors to make this decision and they would have had the facts right in front of their face
Not in a million years can you guarantee something like that.
He is far more likely - like 99% chance - right than wrong. No engineer that I know would put their stamp on the line for this. This was some sort of calculated decision made by people who care more about $ than what is the right thing to do. They gambled, the people of Flint lost.
Disagree. Maybe more like 50% chance. I personally think some terrible egregious mistakes were made, but I find it incredibly, and I mean incredibly hard to think that people, who know they would be held responsible, would, behind closed doors, intentionally make the choices they made with factual knowledge in front of them. I'm not buying that angle.
The bolded is the issue - the people involved figured they would never be held accountable.

 
Going out on a limb here, but your water shouldn't be the color of Iced Tea unless of course it is Iced Tea......I would hope anybody who turned on their tap and had brown water coming out, didn't actually drink it....It should not have taken a year to figure out something was wrong...
It didn't take a year to figure out something was wrong, but it did take a long time before anyone gave a damn. Sad.

 
On another note, the city was under a judicial order from a local judge to reduce water rates by 35%, so there was legal pressure to cut costs.
Who the hell cares. Can you imagine for one second this was your children that had been drinking this water. There is no way that people didn't know and there is no way the process didn't unfold with political pressure influencing engineering decisions. It just does not happen that way in the industry that they would have unknowingly done something like this.
I understand the results and why people are angry. But accusations of doing this on purpose seem farfetched. It seems like a lot of mistakes made by numerous people besides the ones Maddows is targeting. Tons of incompetence and tons of CYA. But this is not Hitler trying to exterminate Jews as some have implied.
Even if you're right about this (and I have no idea)- if the CYA caused more people to get sick because fixing the issue was delayed, that's just as bad as making the deliberate decision in the first place.
I can guarantee somewhere along the line someone circumvented the rules behind very closed doors to make this decision and they would have had the facts right in front of their face
Not in a million years can you guarantee something like that.
He is far more likely - like 99% chance - right than wrong. No engineer that I know would put their stamp on the line for this. This was some sort of calculated decision made by people who care more about $ than what is the right thing to do. They gambled, the people of Flint lost.
:shrug:

The delay in releasing the information was clearly due to beaurocratic wrangling on who was responsible and what to do. There is definitely responsibility there, although I'm skeptical about being able to prove criminality. The governor released his emails and it's not much clearer.

I have yet to see any malice in making the decision to begin with. It still looks like a combination of local, state, and federal agencies not communicating, screwing up responsibilities, making poor assumptions about who was doing what, etc. It's much easier when you can point the finger at one bad guy, but it often doesn't work like that. If all the decision-makers aren't on the same page, throughout the process, big screw-ups can happen.

The easiest fall guy would be Snyder. More because it's his state than any direct fault.

 
I don't disagree that there are plenty of vectors on the cause radar; believe me, we deal with it all the time here. It's a function of too many duties falling on too few people with a lot of involvement from the regulated entities, enviros, and elected officials. The realities of regulation in the 21st century.

I am looking at it strictly from the engineering perspective; in a vacuum, with competent engineers and health department professionals making the decisions, this should never have happened. But... It did. Somehow a lot of outside influences or incompetency, perhaps both, perhaps related, entered the process. And that is where the screwups occur.

 
I ran across this today. A different perspective, for sure.

From a USA Today guest opinion piece:

"What happened in Flint starting in 2013 needlessly risked the health of thousands of people who deserve better, exposing anyone who drank tap water to poisonous lead that never should have been there. Of this, there is no question.

But it also true that the health threat in Flint is being exaggerated. While plenty of questions remain about who is most at fault and who is most at risk, one thing is for sure: Flint residents of only a decade ago would have counted themselves lucky to suffer the lead “poisoning” rates plaguing the city today."

Entire piece here: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/01/22/flint-water-lead-poison-michigan-health-column/79019134/

 
Good lord...sounds like I need to install some sort of monitor on the water coming into my home before the infrastructure breaks down...they're just straight poisoning people.

 
Wonder how much our water has to do with so many birth defects and high rates of allergies and afflictions that seems to be plaguing each generation at a seemingly higher rate.

 
tdoss said:
Wonder how much our water has to do with so many birth defects and high rates of allergies and afflictions that seems to be plaguing each generation at a seemingly higher rate.
Nothing. Overall water quality has greatly improved over time.

 
tdoss said:
Good lord...sounds like I need to install some sort of monitor on the water coming into my home before the infrastructure breaks down...they're just straight poisoning people.
Tap water is for losers. I only drink bottled water from Starbucks

 
tdoss said:
Wonder how much our water has to do with so many birth defects and high rates of allergies and afflictions that seems to be plaguing each generation at a seemingly higher rate.
Nothing. Overall water quality has greatly improved over time.
Cool...I'll go back to worrying about how white or black certain awards ceremonies are...

 
I gotta think water filtration companies are going to do well from this...might be a good investment.

Can't imagine what this will cost to fix in Flint and then all the lawsuits...BILLIONS.

 
Gov Synder said he takes responsibility for the water crisis in Flint, but in the same breath blamed civil servants. God this guy is a complete doosh.

On second thought, sadly, more likely it is just part of the politician persona.

 
Ditka Butkus said:
Going out on a limb here, but your water shouldn't be the color of Iced Tea unless of course it is Iced Tea......I would hope anybody who turned on their tap and had brown water coming out, didn't actually drink it....It should not have taken a year to figure out something was wrong...
Rusty water doesn't necessarily mean something is wrong with the larger water supply. My city has great water, but my old house, due to old galvanized pipes, would pump out brown water if I was out of town for a couple weeks and it stood stagnant in the pipes. Similarly, if an external water main broke, you'd get the foggy water shown in the other clips. I think the news just loves showing that clip for a "Look how bad the water is!" response. The damaging lead really wouldn't be visible... which is too bad, actually.

 
Wonder how much our water has to do with so many birth defects and high rates of allergies and afflictions that seems to be plaguing each generation at a seemingly higher rate.
Nothing. Overall water quality has greatly improved over time.
Actually water quality is decreasing in a lot of jurisdictions mostly because of estrogens in the water which are difficult to remove, drugs (anti-depressants etc...) and decaying infrastructure. THMs have also become a major cause of concern that are difficult to manage in the systems

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Going out on a limb here, but your water shouldn't be the color of Iced Tea unless of course it is Iced Tea......I would hope anybody who turned on their tap and had brown water coming out, didn't actually drink it....It should not have taken a year to figure out something was wrong...
Rusty water doesn't necessarily mean something is wrong with the larger water supply. My city has great water, but my old house, due to old galvanized pipes, would pump out brown water if I was out of town for a couple weeks and it stood stagnant in the pipes. Similarly, if an external water main broke, you'd get the foggy water shown in the other clips. I think the news just loves showing that clip for a "Look how bad the water is!" response. The damaging lead really wouldn't be visible... which is too bad, actually.
While true, the difference in this situation is that your cloudy stagnant water will clear itself if you run the tap for a minute...this wasn't the case in Flint and that is a massive sign that the something is in fact wrong. Plus it's one thing when it happens in a house because of pipes, it's another when it is system wide

 
Former Flint Emergency Manager Darnell Earley will not testify before a Michigan congressional committee and has hired legal counsel. The Governor can compel him to testify, but there is no indication that will happen.

Can't wait for Rove! to deflect blame from a Republican governor who certainly has his reasons.

I can't believe Snyder hasn't stepped down, he's a true menace to society.

 
My in-laws are in town this week from Michigan. They live in the suburbs not too far away from Flint. This is a national nightmare that needs to be the lead story every single day on every single news program and paper in the country. There's no solution in sight. They are talking about buying people out of their homes and relocating them. Bars, restaurants etc are closing up. They can't do anything. This is beyond a disaster.

And yet, I watched some of the Republican Debates and the Iowa Caucuses. Was Flint a topic of conversation for any of the candidates? I didn't watch all the debates nor the coverage of Iowa, but in review of sound bytes, I didn't hear the word "Flint" at all. This needs to be a bigger story than it is. This country needs to help these people out.

It's frigging sad, man. If these people were wealthy and white, well......hold on. If they were wealthy and white this never would have happened. The poor and the forgotten have no voice and nobody advocating for them in this country. Oh, sure...Michael Moore is here to rescue of course, but all he wants to do is demonize the republicans.

 
Sounds like the FBI is now involved...

It's a disgrace that this was really only brought to light and continually covered by one person.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top