Don't drink the water!!!!!!!!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I just spent an hour trying to determine what they mean by "corrosive". I could not determine that. I did get the impression that it is better that the water remains on the alkaline side of the pH scale, but the information I found regarding what is best is all over the place. There's also mention of high chloride levels, "maybe" due to road salt contamination of local rivers. The lack of factual information to the general population is astounding. Try Googling "Flint water pH".

The other impression made on me is that mistakes and confusion exists at all levels of management, from the very lowest people with direct management decisions all the way up through federal (EPA) levels.

We can speculate as much as we want, but it will take a year or more to sort this mess out regarding blame.
 
So Flint, unable to manage it's own finances was, for a second time since 2000, under state management. The mayor elect didn't even appeal the latest state takeover.

So does a state takeover of the cities finances mean they no longer have the responsible to run a city water infrastructure? Were all the city water employees fired and replaced with cronies from the state?

Who decided not to treat the water for corrosion? Was that the appointed emergency manager's call or the local water department?

That's the real question. If the emergency manager siad don't do it, I'll buy what you are selling. But if that was still the call of the local team, they need to own it.

Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer
Originally Posted By: javacontour
I'm still asking why a governor is responsible for a LOCAL issue? Water is the purview of the municipal government.

Why were they not doing their job?


Don't read much, do you?

Flint is under the control of an emergency manager who is appointed by and reports directly to the governor. On multiple occasions, the emergency manage has overrode local government on the water issue.

If you can't make the association between the decisions made individual who was appointed by the governor as being part of the governors purview, not the purview of local government, I can't help you.
 
Originally Posted By: madRiver

The state took control of the water supply from the City of Flint as they could not afford the water bill to Detroit supply. The state intervened (governor administration) and offered Detroit river water as alternative. Unfortunately the corrosive nature was not treated well enough and state allowed treatment plan to go through. The calls to state (water) agency under governer admin and governor ignored acknowledgement of issue of corrosive water eating peoples lead pipes and poisoning population.

GM's plant in Flint would not use it either as it was too corrosive for their own auto plant!

Blame goes to state agency and of course the lead there governor for ignoring the issue and sticking to this cost cutting measure. The issue I guess can be painted as rich republican governor not caring about black poor city and issues. But reality it was a fail of agencies and I think party blaming does not do much here except direct attention at an issue.


The state didn't only take control of the water supply. Flint is under the purview of an emergency manager. Normal local government still occurs in Flint, but it is overseen by the EM who can effectively override any decision.

Detroit water is expensive. Flint is poor. To reduce costs, Flint decided to join a less-expensive regional water authority that would pull and treat water from Lake Huron. There is nothing wrong with this decision and it really is in Flint's best interest. However, this regional water authority was not complete and is (still) not ready to treat and distribute water. When Detroit Water caught wind of this, they told Flint they can go pound sand and refused to renew Flint's purchase agreement to buy water from Detroit once their current contract expired. Yes, it was a jerk move by Detroit Water and Sewer, but perfectly legal and one of the possible outcomes Flint *should* have accounted for. This left Flint in a lurch, as there would be a 3 year gap between when their contract was up with Detroit and when the regional water authority would be complete. This all happened back in 2011.

To fill this gap, it was decided by the Flint city council and agreed upon by the EM to reactivate Flint's mothballed (for nearly 50 years) water treatment facility and begin pulling water from the Flint River.

This is where it went really sideways. Within a month of switching to Flint River water in early-Spring 2014, residents were protesting the water quality... something they never did with Detroit water. It was deemed "safe" and residents were told it only looked and smelled bad, but it was perfectly safe to use. Until it wasn't. Fecal coliform was found and a number of boil water orderes were issued. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality got involved at this point. The coliform was reduced, but TTHM levels were way, WAY high. TTHM is a byproduct of chemical treatment of water. DEQ was again involved and a consultant was brought in to recommend corrections. Again, all of this was ok'd by the EM. Lots of money was spent.

On more than one occasion, the Flint city council suggested switching back to Detroit water. Eventually, they voted 7-1 to switch back to Detroit water. Detroit water even offered to skip the $4 million reconnection fee. This motion was squashed by the EM, who admonished the council for even voting on such a thing. This was taken to court. The court sided with the EM's decision, but used the opportunity to prevent any water shut-offs from residents who refused to pay for the poopy water.

That brings us to Fall 2015. Coliform and TTHM issues are behind, but apparently the Flint water authority can't keep pH in check and it is causing lead to leach from solder joints in areas that used such construction methods.

This is the rough timeline. Sometime today, all of the governor's emails related to Flint water in 2013-2014 will be released. There is some question about what he did or didn't know and what action he did or didn't take. I guess we'll know soon.

At this point, people are looking for someone to blame. There is a lot to go around.

Detroit Water and Sewer being jerks.
A revolving door of emergency managers (three in as many years) with no lasting accountability of their decisions.
Emergency managers overriding the will of local government.
Michigan DEQ waiting too long to take real action.
A governor deaf to Flint residents screaming about water quality.
 
Originally Posted By: javacontour
So Flint, unable to manage it's own finances was, for a second time since 2000, under state management. The mayor elect didn't even appeal the latest state takeover.

So does a state takeover of the cities finances mean they no longer have the responsible to run a city water infrastructure? Were all the city water employees fired and replaced with cronies from the state?

Who decided not to treat the water for corrosion? Was that the appointed emergency manager's call or the local water department?

That's the real question. If the emergency manager siad don't do it, I'll buy what you are selling. But if that was still the call of the local team, they need to own it.



City council said reconnect to Detroit. This was the call of the local team. This was the local government being responsible for their infrastructure.

Emergency manager said don't do it. The EM is his guy and now it's on the governor to "own it".
 
Did the EM also say don't treat the river water to standard?

It's one thing to say go to a less expensive supply. It's another to say don't treat it to standard.
 
We recently went through a water related issue in our community. Our city council wanted to sell off the water infrastructure to a vendor such as Illinois American Water. Citizens made it kwown we want local control, not remote, centralized management.

Citizens matter, but they have to get involved before things become a crisis. How many in Flint were holding government accountable before the financial crisis, let alone the water crisis?

How did they let the city get so far underwater fiscally speaking?
 
Awww, the joys of big city living, high taxes, loud neighborhoods, scandals, crowed doctors offices, high parking lot charges, .............not in Cookeville tn.....slow and steady here, sunsets, roll up the sidewalks,,,we can still see the stars out where I live, can you?
 
Originally Posted By: doitmyself
I just spent an hour trying to determine what they mean by "corrosive". I could not determine that. I did get the impression that it is better that the water remains on the alkaline side of the pH scale, but the information I found regarding what is best is all over the place. There's also mention of high chloride levels, "maybe" due to road salt contamination of local rivers. The lack of factual information to the general population is astounding. Try Googling "Flint water pH".

The other impression made on me is that mistakes and confusion exists at all levels of management, from the very lowest people with direct management decisions all the way up through federal (EPA) levels.

We can speculate as much as we want, but it will take a year or more to sort this mess out regarding blame.


Now that it has become politicized on a national scale, the truth will never be known.
 
Originally Posted By: CourierDriver
Awww, the joys of big city living, high taxes, loud neighborhoods, scandals, crowed doctors offices, high parking lot charges, .............not in Cookeville tn.....slow and steady here, sunsets, roll up the sidewalks,,,we can still see the stars out where I live, can you?


Cookeville, TN? I took a summer course at Tennessee Tech there many decades ago! I enjoyed my time in Cookeville.
 
Originally Posted By: doitmyself
I just spent an hour trying to determine what they mean by "corrosive". I could not determine that. I did get the impression that it is better that the water remains on the alkaline side of the pH scale, but the information I found regarding what is best is all over the place. There's also mention of high chloride levels, "maybe" due to road salt contamination of local rivers. The lack of factual information to the general population is astounding. Try Googling "Flint water pH".

The other impression made on me is that mistakes and confusion exists at all levels of management, from the very lowest people with direct management decisions all the way up through federal (EPA) levels.

We can speculate as much as we want, but it will take a year or more to sort this mess out regarding blame.


Low pH means the water is acidic, and attacks lead pipes. The pH scale goes from 1-14, and the low end is acidic, while the high end is basic. A pH of 7 is neutral.
 
It's not so much the fact the pipes are lead but the low pH is attacking the mineral coating and exposing the lead pipes.
 
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Low pH means the water is acidic, and attacks lead pipes. The pH scale goes from 1-14, and the low end is acidic, while the high end is basic. A pH of 7 is neutral.


LOL, I manage greenhouse water and am well aware of pH chemistry.

My point was that after perusing the mighty internet for one hour, I could not come up with consistent explanations for what the term "corrosive" actually meant for the Flint situation. One source stated that the river water pH starts around pH 8.4 and after the city's treatment process it ended up at pH 7.3. Not exactly corrosive. Other sources talked of pH as high as 11 and lower than 7. One source implied that it would be better to maintain the water slightly acidic. Other sources blame the corrosive effects of elevated chloride levels, possibly from road salt runoff in the local rivers.

My initial impression is that to effectively prevent the water from eroding the existing pipe scale layer that protects lead from getting into the water, the water must be maintained at a very precise alkaline level somewhere above 7.5 pH.

Some sources imply that the difference of +/- 0.5 pH somewhere in the range of 7 and 8 is enough make the water "corrosive". It is difficult to maintain water at +/- 0.5 pH because the source varies and there are synergistic chemical reactions that vary daily or weekly (at least in my experience). At their level, they should have pH sensors and injectors that adjust the pH constantly.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Like many cities such as Chicago and our own Milwaukee, the laterals to homes are often lead pipes. I know for a fact that the City of Milwaukee keeps close control over the pH of city water to minimize leaching into the domestic water supply. In areas with ground water supplies it is less of a concern since a protective coating of various carbonates will form on the inside of the pipe. But when the supply is very low hardness surface water (such as around the Great Lakes) cities must be careful with their water quality to prevent excessive lead levels.

Up until the mid-1980s Chicago still sanctioned the use of lead service pipes. It wasn't actually prohibited until 1986.


We had lead pipes when I was a kid. My wife and daughter would probably say that explains a lot!
 
Originally Posted By: doitmyself
LOL, I manage greenhouse water and am well aware of pH chemistry.

My point was that after perusing the mighty internet for one hour, I could not come up with consistent explanations for what the term "corrosive" actually meant for the Flint situation. One source stated that the river water pH starts around pH 8.4 and after the city's treatment process it ended up at pH 7.3. Not exactly corrosive. Other sources talked of pH as high as 11 and lower than 7. One source implied that it would be better to maintain the water slightly acidic. Other sources blame the corrosive effects of elevated chloride levels, possibly from road salt runoff in the local rivers.

My initial impression is that to effectively prevent the water from eroding the existing pipe scale layer that protects lead from getting into the water, the water must be maintained at a very precise alkaline level somewhere above 7.5 pH.

Some sources imply that the difference of +/- 0.5 pH somewhere in the range of 7 and 8 is enough make the water "corrosive". It is difficult to maintain water at +/- 0.5 pH because the source varies and there are synergistic chemical reactions that vary daily or weekly (at least in my experience). At their level, they should have pH sensors and injectors that adjust the pH constantly.


It's not a simple thing...I've been on a project through most of 2015, looking at what happens in similar metallurgies, with various water sources.

Metals like lead and copper have different valance states Lead can have 2+ or 4+, Copper 1+ or 2+, Iron 2+ or 3+, and depending on what's in the water can have different "optimum" pH ranges to form protective oxides/scales, depending on the anions.

In a varying supply they can set up corrosion cells between the scales, oxides, and base metals, and never form an equilibrium.

We were only looking at corrosion life and heat transfer affecting scale, not the ppm of metals in a drinking water supply.
 
Hmmm, that's not exactly what I'm getting from this article:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430072/flint-lead-water-scandal?s1POe6EJd5REXUdq.01

The emergency manager, appointed by the governor and a member of the governors opposing party is saying the wheels were in motion before he got there.

The bottom line is Flint and really only Flint is responsible for it's destiny. If they failed to manage their city and needed help from the state, they can't then go back and blame the state for the help they get.

Keep the affairs of your city in order and you won't need help from distant parties with little or no stake in the outcome.

Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer
Originally Posted By: javacontour
So Flint, unable to manage it's own finances was, for a second time since 2000, under state management. The mayor elect didn't even appeal the latest state takeover.

So does a state takeover of the cities finances mean they no longer have the responsible to run a city water infrastructure? Were all the city water employees fired and replaced with cronies from the state?

Who decided not to treat the water for corrosion? Was that the appointed emergency manager's call or the local water department?

That's the real question. If the emergency manager siad don't do it, I'll buy what you are selling. But if that was still the call of the local team, they need to own it.



City council said reconnect to Detroit. This was the call of the local team. This was the local government being responsible for their infrastructure.

Emergency manager said don't do it. The EM is his guy and now it's on the governor to "own it".
 
Hello mr. horsepressure: Here we go, from the above article.

In sum: The Democratic government of a Democratic city destroys that city’s finances so thoroughly that it must go into state receivership; a Democratic emergency manager signs off on a consensus plan to use a temporary water source; the municipal authorities in that Democratic city responsible for treating and monitoring drinking water fail to do their job; a state agency whose employees work under the tender attention of SEIU Local 517 fails to do its job overseeing the local authorities; Barack Obama’s EPA, having been informed about the issue, keeps mum.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430072/flint-lead-water-scandal?s1POe6EJd5REXUdq.01


Oh those pesky facts, getting in the way again. Keep spinning it, not everyone is buying the Baloney...
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Gotta quit watching MSNBC...


That's cute, considering you cite The National Review, a media outlet who doesn't ever *try* to hide their bias. Maybe I should start citing Gawker as a fair and balanced (see what I did there) news outlet.

Besides that, your National Review article AGREES with me:

Quote:
So while those who fault Governor Snyder are not entirely wrong,


Unlike others here who would completely put the governor in the clear, even your source says he shoulders some of the fault.

I also like the redirection toward Flint's financial problems instead of the water problems. If you can't argue the state blew it, shift focus.

Here's another fact, one that was highlighted when Michigan's governor released all (but not really all) of his emails.

On March 15th, Veolia North America returned the results of a study commissioned by the City of Flint. Remember, Veolia was brought on as an expert to study and solve these issues. Their recommendation was to spend $50,000 on corrosion control chemicals. In hindsight, that was a really good idea. Interestingly, the study was only commissioned because of the color and odor of the water, so any toxins leaching into the water were not studied or reported. Again, hindsight, but it doesn't seem like so much of a stretch to think if corrosion that was causing discoloration and smell could cause something worse.

Anyway, the real curious part is who this study was addressed to when it was complete. It wasn't addressed to the city, it was addressed directly to the emergency manage. See, even the consultant operated with the understanding that nothing happened without the emergency managers approval. He controlled the flow of money and he was the ultimate decision maker on what was addressed and what was not.

Unfortunately, corrosion control was not addressed.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/mi...ntrol/79119240/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Mainia
Drinking and driving, a reminder you never want to be in.
2 3
Replies
42
Views
2K
JeffKeryk
B
Who's never traveled outside of the United States?
12 13 14
Replies
260
Views
5K
mark pruett
T
Why do lawyers always say to refuse a field sobriety tests? What if you dont drink?
4 5 6
Replies
114
Views
3K
rijndael
walterjay
Do you drink filtered water
4 5 6
Replies
119
Views
5K
oilboy123
y_p_w
Alimentation Couche-Tard looking to buy 7-Eleven
Replies
16
Views
1K
TimeFlies
Back
Top Bottom