How the Michigan state government poisoned the children of Flint

[AUDub 12,283]

Informative article from Orac over at Respectful Insolence.

As a result of its longstanding financial problems, in 2011 Governor Rick Snyder appointed an emergency manager of the city’s finances. Michigan has a law that allows the governor to appoint an Emergency Financial Manager to take control of a local financial unit, such as a city or a school district after a review finds the unit’s financial situation is deemed precarious enough that a financial emergency exists. Emergency managers have broad, some would say undemocratic, powers to reorganize departments, reduce pay, modify employee contracts, and outsource work. Detroit was just under the control of an emergency manager who filed for chapter 9 bankruptcy, a process that went surprisingly well, all things considering. The same can’t be said of Flint. It went through five emergency managers over the last four years, although two of them were the same. First it was Michael Brown. Then it was Ed Kurtz. Then it was Michael Brown again. Then it was Darnell Earley. Then it was Jerry Ambrose. The names, however, aren’t important. What they did is.

This is the disaster I’m referring to:

Flint’s drinking water became contaminated with lead in 2014 after switching its supply source from Lake Huron to the more polluted and corrosive Flint River. The move — a cost-cutting measure while the city was under the control of a state-appointed emergency manager — resulted in a spike in lead levels in children, which causes permanent brain damage. A recent preliminary report from a task force appointed by Snyder placed most of the blame on the state Department of Environmental Quality and prompted the Dec. 29 resignation of DEQ Director Dan Wyant.

What happened? There were higher concentrations of salt in Flint River water, which led to corrosion of the lead welds in the copper pipes that carried the water to the city. Detroit’s less corrosive water had flowed through the pipes for decades without a problem, but it didn’t take long after the switch was made in April 2014 for elevated lead content to be noticed. Why was the switch made? Here the story gets a bit complicated. In 2010, the Flint City Council voted to join the new Karegnondi Water Authority. Construction of a pipeline from Lake Huron to Flint was begun and is scheduled to be completed in 2016. In April 2014, the emergency manager switched from purchasing treated Lake Huron water from Detroit, as it had done for 50 years, to getting water from the Flint River as a temporary measure until the pipeline was completed. The reason? When Flint joined the Karegnondi Water Authority, the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department terminated its 35-year contract with the city. To continue to purchase Detroit water, Flint would have to renegotiate a short-term contract, at a higher cost. Basically, switching to river water saved Flint between $5 million and $7 million a year. That’s why the emergency manager did it.

Here’s the even bigger kicker. Even using the Flint River water, the City of Flint could have prevented the corrosion of its copper and lead pipes relatively inexpensively:

Marc Edwards, a professor at Virginia Tech who has been testing Flint water, says treatment could have corrected much of the problem early on — for as little as $100 a day — but officials in the city of 100,000 people didn’t take action.

“There is no question that if the city had followed the minimum requirements under federal law that none of this would have happened,” said Edwards, who obtained the Muchmore email through a Michigan Freedom of Information Act request.

One hundred dollars a day would equal a mere $36,500 a year, a pittance in a budget of millions. To save $36,500 a year or maybe a little more, the city failed to treat the Flint River water, leaving it corrosive and able to leach lead and copper from the aging pipes used to transport it. As a consequence, an as yet unknown number of children have been poisoned with lead, which is most damaging to the developing brain. This can result in developmental delay, decreased IQ, decreased hearing, and ADHD. There will be behavioral problems. Lead exposure has even been linked to violent crime. Flint will be paying for this ecological disaster for decades. They’re still paying financially now. It’s not even clear whether the switch back to Detroit water (from Lake Huron) is in time.

Heads need to roll, including that of Governor Snyder.

[RunInRed 19,637]

This is really sad but should serve as a good lessons for those who continue to want to cut funding, undo EPA regulations, etc.

[AURaptor 1,137]

This is really sad but should serve as a good lessons for those who continue to want to cut funding, undo EPA regulations, etc.

Looks like it was poor decision making ( or criminal ) and not having anything to do w/ the funding issues of the EPA.

[ShocksMyBrain 10,240]

NPR had a woman resident on a day or two ago talking about the effects of this on her and her from a monetary standpoint. She managed to deplete her savings due to the amount of bottled water she's been forced to buy. As well as replacing water heaters.

When asked why she doesn't move, it's illegal to sell her home while having knowledge of the dangerous water supply.

I believe she's one of the people heading up a lawsuit.

[RunInRed 19,637]

This is really sad but should serve as a good lessons for those who continue to want to cut funding, undo EPA regulations, etc.

Looks like it was poor decision making ( or criminal ) and not having anything to do w/ the funding issues of the EPA.

Actually ...

In 2012, Snyder signed a law allowing the state to appoint emergency managers to oversee financially struggling municipalities, despite voters' rejection of a similar measure. A year later, when Flint was being run by a Snyder-appointed emergency manager, the city began drawing its drinking water from the Flint River, instead of continuing to purchase treated Lake Huron water from Detroit.

That was meant to be a temporary move until a new water supply could come online. But when the notoriously polluted river's water started flowing through the city's pipes in April 2014, the city failed to treat it with the anti-corrosion additives required by federal law. Soon, both lead and iron from those pipes was pouring into Flint's homes.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/flint-water-rick-snyder-michigan-217995#ixzz3xkrDunvv

[AURaptor 1,137]

So ?

the city failed to treat it with the anti-corrosion additives required by federal law. Soon, both lead and iron from those pipes was pouring into Flint's homes.

And more regulation would have kept them from breaking the law even more ? I don't get this as proof of there being need for yet MORE $ when the problem was caught , as is.

[RunInRed 19,637]

So ?

the city failed to treat it with the anti-corrosion additives required by federal law. Soon, both lead and iron from those pipes was pouring into Flint's homes.

And more regulation would have kept them from breaking the law even more ? I don't get this as proof of there being need for yet MORE $ when the problem was caught , as is.

No they just needed to follow the laws and quit trying to cut funding/services. I understand they were trying to solve budget problems but water is pretty foundational, no?

[TexasTiger 15,959]

This is really sad but should serve as a good lessons for those who continue to want to cut funding, undo EPA regulations, etc.

It should, but as Raptor has proven some folks just repel reason.

[DKW 86 8,215]

Not treating that water, that was criminal folks.

[JoeBags7277 760]

This is really sad but should serve as a good lessons for those who continue to want to cut funding, undo EPA regulations, etc.

Totes. How in the world did anyone drink clean water before 1970?

[cptau 169]

Plenty of blame to go around...........

http://gregbranchwor...agedy-in-flint/

We’ve all read and heard a lot about the water situation in Flint. We’re hearing most of it from Democrats, who are citing this as an example of the evils of Republican leadership and all sorts of other hyperbole.

Rachel Maddow, among others, has (nauseatingly endlessly) blamed it on Michigan’s emergency financial manager law.

So much noise. So much misinformation. So little time.

If you’d like to know what really happened here, read on, but be warned: it’s long. If you’re the TL;DR type (Too Lazy; Don’t Reach), skip to the last subhead. The conclusions won’t make sense to you, but then maybe you don’t want it to.

The Tragedy’s Roots

For more than 50 years, Flint bought its water – treated and ready to serve – from Detroit. In recent years, Detroit has – like most cities with wholesale water customers, like Saginaw – has raised its rates to reflect the rising costs of maintaining aging systems. Detroit, according to Flint (and most of its other wholesale customers) was really jacking prices up.

Keep in mind that all of Saginaw’s wholesale customers say the same thing at every rate increase, and some – Frankenmuth most recently – have, over the years, threatened to build their own systems or find another source.

In order to be able to control its own water destiny, Flint’s city council and its mayor voted to join the Karegnondi water authority. It’s something they’d been talking about – and tried once before – since the 1960s. They finally got enough municipalities behind them to make the deal work. They announced the deal in 2013, with a target of getting water from Lake Huron through the new system sometime in 2016. Council voted 7-1 on the decision, which was later signed off on by the city’s EFM.

The Kiss-Off

The very next day Detroit’s water and sewer board notified Flint that it was exercising its right to terminate Flint’s 50-year-old contract in one year. Two years before their new source would be completed.

Why did Detroit do this? Because they were pissed off and thought, apparently, it would a nice F-U with which to send off their largest water customer.

Flint, realizing it was high and dry, needed to find an interim water source to keep things going until the new system was up. They hired a consulting firm, which looked at several options. One of them was to continue with Detroit, and there were negotiations over interim rates. The only news report of that process simply says “negotiations broke down.” Which tells me that Detroit wasn’t offering enough K-Y for what they were asking Flint to take when it bent over.

The study concluded that the best bet was to draw from the Flint River.

The Flint River, where the water gets drawn from, isn’t terribly “polluted.” As Michigan rivers go, it’s fairly typical. A little industrial pollution, but a ton of silt and agricultural runoff – it’s draining more than 1,300 square miles, most of it farmland. But it’s water that’s very treatable with modern treatment technology. And it’s always been the backup source.

The final decision to use the Flint River as an interim source rather than Detroit appears to have been made by the EFM (at this time, Darnell Earley. He claims the decision was made by the state; former Mayor Walling says it was made by Earley). Earley note at the time that it would save Flint $12 million over the two years of the contract. Not much of a bargain in hindsight, but nobody had foreknowledge of the screw-up and cover-up to come.

So Flint’s water department is asked to start treating its own water – something it hasn’t done regularly in at least 40 years, if ever. The water guys told the mayor and Council and Earley, “sure, we can do that.”

The First Screw-Up

Apparently, they couldn’t. I’m speculating here: They had little or no experience in treating raw water. I don’t know if they read a book, took a seminar or watched a how-to on YouTube, but either way, they started treating the water as if it were being run through a modern distribution system of plastic and copper pipes.

It’s not. It’s running through a 100-plus-year-old system of cast iron mains and lead service lines.

This is common. It’s what nearly every older city in Michigan has. I have a lead service line in my house – probably in every house I’ve lived in, in fact – but have never shown elevated lead levels, nor have my kids.

And that’s because something interesting happens with lead water lines. The inner surface of the lead pipe builds up a layer of lead oxide — the “lead” that makes “lead crystal” as clear and brilliant as it is. While still toxic itself, it is less prone to leaching. It coats the inside of the pipe and prevents elemental lead from leaching into the water.

But only if the pH balance of the water is just right. If it’s not (and I’ll not go into the chemistry involved except to say pH is an indicator of free ions that can create the galvanic activity), metals will start to corrode.

There are well-documented protocols for corrosion control for municipal water systems. They were not followed in this case – from what I can see, because the agency charged with monitoring that activity, the Michigan DEQ, simply didn’t require it.

As soon as they started running that water through the system, the free hydrogen and hydroxyl ions started eating the lead oxide from the lead service lines, and causing the iron mains to rust. That’s why you see so many pictures of brown water from Flint – it’s rust from the iron service. When it leaves the tower, it’s perfectly clear (and perfectly, safely drinkable). It’s just either too acid or too alkaline.

The Cover-Up

Evidence suggests the DEQ did not check to see if a corrosion control program was in place. When people started complaining, the DEQ shrugged. Maybe somebody knew they had screwed up. Maybe nobody did, although the chain of evidence seems to suggest they were just too arrogant to pay attention to anyone who had anything to say about it. This isn’t surprising, coming from an agency whose director has a degree in food science, an MBA in finance and spent the previous few years of his career managing a entrepreneurship incubator. That’s what happens when you give important cabinet-level jobs to people who help you politically … but that’s another story.

DEQ is responsible for overseeing testing of water supplies. And when Flint tested its water, DEQ staff made Flint fudge the results. They threw out samples that had high lead levels.

And, I’m going to guess, told the Governor and his staff, all along, that everything was fine, this was much ado about nothing: “Look, Mr. Governor, Flint’s testing says the water’s fine.” The US EPA, charged with oversight of the whole shooting match, also dropped the ball.

The Recap

• 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.
  
• 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.
  
• Flint’s leadership and GOP-appointed EFM make a well-deliberated decision to draw water from the Flint River.
  
• 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 …
  
• 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.
  
• US EPA is aware of a problem, but apparently trusted the kids playing in the DEQ sandbox to fix things.
  

Personally, I think Detroit needs to be held accountable for starting the snowball down the hill. And I think there are people in the DEQ who should be prosecuted for reckless endangerment and fraud.

The Governor? His accountability lies in the creation of the corporate culture that allowed DEQ’s hubris to let it happen.

The Detroit Water Board members, I’m guessing, aren’t Republicans. The Flint water department staff who were in over their heads weren’t Republicans. The DEQ staff is probably a mix.

The Even Larger Tragedy

This is a huge public health disaster. And we Americans like our big, bad disasters in black and white. We want to blame it on one bad guy and reward one good guy. We’re not real good at nuance and chains of events … especially if they clash with our political beliefs.

Every Democrat in the country is calling for Gov. Snyder’s head and blaming it purely on the Republican governor and his emergency financial manager law. And not only are they ignoring the guys in the black hats who actually caused the problem, they’re really ignoring the victims. Worse, they’re using them as a tool to gain a political advantage. And that’s even larger tragedy.

That’s not what Flint’s children need right now. People need to focus on them, and not on their hatred of all things Republican.

Update 1/19/2016

This has been updated to reflect new information. And let me be very clear: I am not paid to be an investigative reporter, and this is not a news outlet. This is strictly my opinion, and it is based on news accounts. Some facts are not known, in large part because of the lack of transparency in the office of a governor who promised to be transparent. And as I learn new facts that contradict information I had in here, I will so note them.

None of this changes my overall point. There is a big difference between blame and accountability — and which you use will have a lot to say about the results you get in the end. Blame and outrage will help Hillary Clinton in the primaries, and it will help Michael Moore sell his next film. But the people of Flint can’t drink blame, and they can’t bathe their kids in outrage. We know exactly what the problem is. Let’s get the best people to work on fixing it. After that, we can start the floggings. And there are people here who should be flogged.

[AURaptor 1,137]

So ?

the city failed to treat it with the anti-corrosion additives required by federal law. Soon, both lead and iron from those pipes was pouring into Flint's homes.

And more regulation would have kept them from breaking the law even more ? I don't get this as proof of there being need for yet MORE $ when the problem was caught , as is.

No they just needed to follow the laws and quit trying to cut funding/services. I understand they were trying to solve budget problems but water is pretty foundational, no?

Agreed. Absolutely. They failed big time in the trust dept.

[quietfan 233]

A horrible story. I certainly hope that all those that are criminally responsible (Democrat, Republican, or independent) are brought to justice.

The US Census Bureau estimates the population of Flint in 2014 as 99,000 (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26/2629000.html ). So the $36,500 per year needed to treat the water amounts to a mere $0.37 per person per year (about 3 pennies each month), a figure that almost no one have would noticed in increased utility fees. ...certainly a drop in the bucket (to use a water analogy) compared to what I image total costs will be from lawsuits and the long term (lifetime) costs to the local economy due to loss of productivity and on-going expenses of those children stunted by lead poisoning.

What are the costs of remediation of the problem now? (Perhaps it was mentioned in one of the quoted articles and I missed it.) That is, is it now just a case of properly treating the water from here on, or is the damage to the pipes irreversible? Will the corrosion/leaching of the lead joints instantly cease to be a problem if the water is properly pre-treated from this point, or are more expensive repairs necessary?

[RunInRed 19,637]

Also I'll add, if you continue to want to cut funding for the EPA and state-level public health and safety regulatory agencies (some advocate for eliminating them all together), it certainly makes it harder and in some cases impossible, to monitor and enforce the very "basic" standards we need.

If anything good comes out of this, it's this 'Exhibit A' counter punch for those who try to push these cuts in the future.

[homersapien 12,851]

So ?

the city failed to treat it with the anti-corrosion additives required by federal law. Soon, both lead and iron from those pipes was pouring into Flint's homes.

And more regulation would have kept them from breaking the law even more ? I don't get this as proof of there being need for yet MORE $ when the problem was caught , as is.

Uh, I think the argument is against those who would support de-regulation of such things such as water quality. No one suggested that more regulations were necessary in this case.

But then, since when have you ever argued with what was actually written?

[homersapien 12,851]

A horrible story. I certainly hope that all those that are criminally responsible (Democrat, Republican, or independent) are brought to justice.

The US Census Bureau estimates the population of Flint in 2014 as 99,000 (http://quickfacts.ce...26/2629000.html ). So the $36,500 per year needed to treat the water amounts to a mere $0.37 per person per year (about 3 pennies each month), a figure that almost no one have would noticed in increased utility fees. ...certainly a drop in the bucket (to use a water analogy) compared to what I image total costs will be from lawsuits and the long term (lifetime) costs to the local economy due to loss of productivity and on-going expenses of those children stunted by lead poisoning.

What are the costs of remediation of the problem now? (Perhaps it was mentioned in one of the quoted articles and I missed it.) That is, is it now just a case of properly treating the water from here on, or is the damage to the pipes irreversible? Will the corrosion/leaching of the lead joints instantly cease to be a problem if the water is properly pre-treated from this point, or are more expensive repairs necessary?

Furthermore, I am not sure if lead poisoning can really be treated after the fact.

[AURaptor 1,137]

They DO get enough $ to regulate. That's not the issue. What is the issue is how that $ is used, and if a state chooses to NOT make prudent, safety based choices as the law dictates, that's on THEM. You don't just toss more $ at the problem, and then declare " Problem fixed ! " . You make PEOPLE accountable, those in office answer to decisions THEY make. This nonsense of of insulating your position ( and your tail ) by claiming you didn't have enough $ ... sorry, doesn't float.

[AUDub 12,283]

A horrible story. I certainly hope that all those that are criminally responsible (Democrat, Republican, or independent) are brought to justice.

The US Census Bureau estimates the population of Flint in 2014 as 99,000 (http://quickfacts.ce...26/2629000.html ). So the $36,500 per year needed to treat the water amounts to a mere $0.37 per person per year (about 3 pennies each month), a figure that almost no one have would noticed in increased utility fees. ...certainly a drop in the bucket (to use a water analogy) compared to what I image total costs will be from lawsuits and the long term (lifetime) costs to the local economy due to loss of productivity and on-going expenses of those children stunted by lead poisoning.

What are the costs of remediation of the problem now? (Perhaps it was mentioned in one of the quoted articles and I missed it.) That is, is it now just a case of properly treating the water from here on, or is the damage to the pipes irreversible? Will the corrosion/leaching of the lead joints instantly cease to be a problem if the water is properly pre-treated from this point, or are more expensive repairs necessary?

Furthermore, I am not sure if lead poisoning can really be treated after the fact.

The effects on cognition and the central nervous system are not treatable.

[quietfan 233]

A horrible story. I certainly hope that all those that are criminally responsible (Democrat, Republican, or independent) are brought to justice.

The US Census Bureau estimates the population of Flint in 2014 as 99,000 (http://quickfacts.ce...26/2629000.html ). So the $36,500 per year needed to treat the water amounts to a mere $0.37 per person per year (about 3 pennies each month), a figure that almost no one have would noticed in increased utility fees. ...certainly a drop in the bucket (to use a water analogy) compared to what I image total costs will be from lawsuits and the long term (lifetime) costs to the local economy due to loss of productivity and on-going expenses of those children stunted by lead poisoning.

What are the costs of remediation of the problem now? (Perhaps it was mentioned in one of the quoted articles and I missed it.) That is, is it now just a case of properly treating the water from here on, or is the damage to the pipes irreversible? Will the corrosion/leaching of the lead joints instantly cease to be a problem if the water is properly pre-treated from this point, or are more expensive repairs necessary?

Furthermore, I am not sure if lead poisoning can really be treated after the fact.

The effects on cognition and the central nervous system are not treatable.

That's my understanding also: The damage done to the children & their development is irreversible. In adults, where growth and development have largely ceased, I think the body can reduce some some lead (or other heavy metal) buildup with time--a lot of time--provided the lead doesn't kill you first! But don't quote me on that, I'm not an M.D.

[RunInRed 19,637]

They DO get enough $ to regulate. That's not the issue. What is the issue is how that $ is used, and if a state chooses to NOT make prudent, safety based choices as the law dictates, that's on THEM. You don't just toss more $ at the problem, and then declare " Problem fixed ! " . You make PEOPLE accountable, those in office answer to decisions THEY make. This nonsense of of insulating your position ( and your tail ) by claiming you didn't have enough $ ... sorry, doesn't float.

So you are in favor of keeping current funding levels and regulations? Just confirming ...

[RunInRed 19,637]

Just one recent example but essentially the GOP position ...

47 Republican Senators Want To Block The EPA’s Clean Water Rule

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA), along with 46 of her Republican colleagues, introduced a joint resolution Thursday “disapproving” of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Waters of the United States rule, a recently-added addition to the Clean Water Act that clarifies the EPA’s jurisdiction over some streams and wetlands.

The rule has been criticized as EPA overreach that will hurt business and has been subject to several lawsuits, from states as well as business groups, and legislation seeking to nullify it.

“Hardworking Iowans don’t need more Washington bureaucrats from the EPA telling our job creators how best to use their land,” Ernst said in a statement on the resolution, which seeks to block the rule.

The rule, developed with the Army Corps of Engineers using what a White House spokesman called “the best science available” to determine how waterways are connected, protects two million miles of streams and 20 million acres of wetlands that the Clean Water Act did not clearly cover before. The EPA estimates that a third of Americans get their drinking water from sources connected to the added waterways.

A bill in the Senate already seeks to nullify the rule. That bill, introduced by Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), passed the Senate Environment and Public Works committee in June in an 11-9 vote split cleanly along party lines, with only Republicans supporting it. President Obama has said he would veto any legislation stopping the rule.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/09/18/3703024/senate-republicans-disapprove-of-waters-rule/

[RunInRed 19,637]

An older article (2014) but again emphasis the party platform ...

The GOP’s plans for environmental regulation are hardly a secret. The Senate’s new leadership includes a majority leader who promised he would “get the EPA reined in,” an environmental chairman who thinks global warming is a hoax, and a newly elected senator who would like to eliminate the EPA altogether.

Their most publicized plan is to derail the Obama administration’s proposed cuts to carbon pollution, but there are plenty of other, lesser-known EPA targets that are equally at risk. Republicans are attempting to…

Limit the Clean Water Act

This spring, the EPA proposed a rule to answer a question that has lingered for at least a decade: Which streams and wetlands does the 42-year-old Clean Water Act protect? The EPA’s rule makes previously unregulated waters subject to new pollution restrictions—and that has made conservatives furious. The EPA says these streams and wetlands are important to both drinking water supplies and wildlife. There are already 30 Republican senators who have already signed onto legislation to prevent this rule.

https://newrepublic.com/article/120228/what-expect-gop-war-epa

[homersapien 12,851]

They DO get enough $ to regulate. That's not the issue. What is the issue is how that $ is used, and if a state chooses to NOT make prudent, safety based choices as the law dictates, that's on THEM. You don't just toss more $ at the problem, and then declare " Problem fixed ! " . You make PEOPLE accountable, those in office answer to decisions THEY make. This nonsense of of insulating your position ( and your tail ) by claiming you didn't have enough $ ... sorry, doesn't float.

No kidding. After all, you are the only person that has brought it up. :-\

[AFTiger 282]

This is really sad but should serve as a good lessons for those who continue to want to cut funding, undo EPA regulations, etc.

Looks like it was poor decision making ( or criminal ) and not having anything to do w/ the funding issues of the EPA.

But the EPA withheld the facts. So funding not the problem.

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

RinRed, some of what the Corps of Engineers did here in FL for the wetlands set the state back and they had to finally reverse what they had done and allow the natural flow of the wetlands down here that runs from the central of the state to the everglades. Sometimes the corps gets into its own way and the way that the wetlands behave....some of those great EPA rules also allows them to have control and say so on ponds in your back yard even if you built them....that is way to much control in my opinion...do we need clean water? Sure, I am all for it but this case if about people not doing their job, this could have been avoided if the people in charge of the water treatment plant had added the additive then this would have been avoided. It has nothing to do with new rules money etc...people saying that it is the governors fault and he should step down without knowing what he knew are mainly doing it because he is a republican.