A tale of two cities (and two sewers)

I was a bit surprised to read that the City of Detroit is dumping raw sewage into nearby rivers and streams, because, well, that's the sort of thing that's not supposed to happen in advanced Western countries:

Metro Detroit's outdated sewage systems regularly violate the law by dumping raw and partially treated human waste into rivers, streams and lakes that provide recreation and drinking water to more than 3 million people, a Free Press analysis of state records found.

In the last two years, sewer systems in more than three dozen communities dumped a combined 80 billion gallons of raw and partially treated human waste into waterways.

The waste is causing record levels of bacteria in the water, forcing bans on fishing, swimming and kayaking in popular spots such as Lake St. Clair and the Clinton and Rouge rivers.

"We still treat the Great Lakes and their tributaries as open sewers," said Hugh McDiarmid Jr., spokesman for the Michigan Environmental Council. "It's a judgment we make as a society and government. What is the cost we are willing to pay to address this problem?"

I don't know, but we should all be comforted to read that at least it's illegal! The piece points out that Detroit is in violation of the Clean Water Act. I suspect there's some sort of double standard at work here. While I can't prove it, I just have a feeling that if a wealthy subdivision were caught dumping its sewage into nearby rivers, the EPA would get a court order, and maybe even condemn the entire subdivision out of existence.

Interestingly, the city of Scranton, PA was sued by the EPA (under the same Clean Water Act that Detroit is violating) for dumping only one billion gallons of sewage-tainted water. In contrast, Detroit dumped 80 billion gallons. Detroit has approximately twelve times the population of Scranton, but generates 80 times more sewage.

Yet Scranton gets cited. What's up with that?

Might this come down to income? I don't know. Both cities are economically depressed and both seem strapped for cash.

Scranton (population 72,485) gets by on a $77 million budget, although it's tight:

The mayor of Scranton released his new budget Friday. There are no new taxes, but the new spending plan may still bother some people.

The city is spending about $850,000 less in this budget than in last year's. Taxes are not going up, but some city officials say some workers will lose their jobs if the $77 million budget is passed.

The 2010 budget for the city of Scranton means 27 city positions will be eliminated. Officials said it also means taxes will not be increased. Still the job cuts didn't sit well with some taxpayers.

"If it's a position that was filled, then fill it. Don't eliminate it. Evidently the clause must have called for it somewhere along the line," said Virgil Argenta of Scranton.

Ed Zelinski, who lives in Scranton, wasn't sure. "Well I hate to see people laid off, but on the other hand I hate to see taxes raised, so you have two things going against each other," he said.

City Business Administrator Stuart Renda explained why the cuts are being made saying, "While you're not increasing revenue, we're trying maintain revenue. You have to look to your expenditure costs to balance that budget."

To do that, city officials said they have eliminated an entire division of the department of public works, the traffic maintenance division. Five workers will be laid off and the work will be done by private contractors starting next year. Eight empty firefighter positions were not filled this year, and if the budget passes, they will not be filled. Some administrative workers in city hall will also find themselves without a job.

Scranton Mayor Chris Doherty said the cuts are necessary. "You have to deal with what you have," he said. "The job of being a leader is. Here's the revenues that have come in, we always have a philosophy of moving forward. By the same token, you have to work harder."

They sound like the kind of bureaucrats who strive for something resembling efficiency -- you know, the sort who would most likely comply with a court order to stop dumping sewage, even if that meant raising fees and cutting costs elsewhere to do it.

As to Detroit (population 912,062), the population might be 12 times higher, but its budget deficit alone is $300 million -- almost four times the entire budget of Scranton.

Moreover, its assets exceed its liabilities by 1.3 billion:

As the city closed its 2008 fiscal year, its assets exceeded its liabilities by $1.3 billion, but its unrestricted funds -- the money that is not tied up in laws or regulations dedicating it to a particular purpose -- were more than $500 million in deficit. It currently has a total estimated operating deficit in the $300 million range.
The city's financial mismanagement is legendary, of course:
As The News reported, the audit also revealed astonishingly sloppy money handling, including not refunding overpayments of taxes, not aggressively collecting outstanding debts and delegating operation of a computer program tracking unpaid property taxes to an outside contractor, leaving the city with no ability to maintain oversight over the program. In addition, the city until recently didn't keep an updated list of its bank accounts.
If a private company operated this way, the executives would be looking at prison time. I guess Detroit's last mayor did get some prison time, but that still doesn't offer a clue to the budget

It took some doing to find out what Detroit's alleged "budget" might be. In 2007, it was reported to be $1.7 billion, but last year, Mayor Cockrel announced that it would be $3.6 billion. (More than double. And despite this, Detroit has demanded a $10 billion bailout.)

So, why would a city with twelve times the population of another city need to spend 46 times the money on its budget?

Could it be the income of the population?

Here's Scranton:

The median income for a household in the city was $28,805, and the median income for a family was $41,642. Males had a median income of $30,829 versus $21,858 for females. The per capita income for the city was $16,174. Found below the poverty line are 15.0% of the population, 10.7% of families, 18.9% of those under age 18 and 12.0% of those at least age 65.
And here's Detroit:
....median household income in the city was $29,526, and the median income for a family was $33,853. Males had a median income of $33,381 versus $26,749 for females. The per capita income for the city was $14,717. 26.1% of the population and 21.7% of families were below the poverty line. Out of the total population, 34.5% of those under the age of 18 and 18.6% of those 65 and older were living below the poverty line.
Frankly, I'm not seeing all that huge a difference in income levels of the population. Detroit is clearly poorer, but not 46 times poorer. And why would a city with 12 times the population discharge 80 times more raw sewage? Why the disparity in enforcement of the environmental laws?

Might it be that the EPA only targets municipalities that are likely to comply? If so, that's a hell of a way to enforce the law. If I as a homeowner got caught discharging my sewage into a creek, I could expect to be fined, maybe imprisoned. (Apparently, the rules also apply to cities like Scranton.)

But when a lawless city like Detroit does it, there's no enforcement, and it becomes everyone else's problem.

I think this illustrates a growing trend. Laws are written for -- and enforced against -- the law abiding.

posted by Eric on 01.19.10 at 02:28 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/9257






Comments

There's not quite enough to tell from the story linked to say what's going on. Detroit's sewage problem is already known and there's a plan in action on it (http://www.nrdc.org/water/drinking/uscities/pdf/detroit.pdf page 136 ish). Cities are sued all of the time over this kind of issue (being a Chicagoan, I'm kind of sensitive to the topic of sewage treatment, with our previously, and soon to be litigated again water usage..)

Given that I believe they have a combined sewer overflow (being both sanitary and stormwater), they are allowed a couple of "overflow events" a year (because sometimes, one get's too much rainfall to treat, and other considerations, like flooding, come into play).

One of things about a lot of the EPA's rules in water treatment is that they tend to be more about how one is treating the water, and what plans there are, as opposed to just the results (which makes sense because some places have worse water to begin with for reasons outside their control). Detroit's results are probably in the same place as scranton's, but scranton apparently violated rules concerning paperwork (they had permits for 69 outflows, but in reality had 80. stuff like that in the actual lawsuit), and therefore opened themselves up to a suit (we could also bring up the idea that someone cared enough to sue scranton, but no one seems to care about detroit. If one looked hard enough, I'm sure there's cause)

bellisaurius   ·  January 19, 2010 03:19 PM

One of things about a lot of the EPA's rules in water treatment is that they tend to be more about how one is treating the water, and what plans there are, as opposed to just the results

That just plain stupid. It's the same thing liberals like those in Detroit always say about what they do, "but we care so much!". I don't care how good your intentions are, if you aren't getting results you deserve to be fired and your programs scrapped. EPA wouldn't give a factory owner that kind of buddy-buddy treatment.

Bob Smith   ·  January 19, 2010 07:04 PM

LOL. Glad I left 33 years ago.

The EPA will blame all the burbs, fine them and the money will be given to Detroit, LOL.

Thomas   ·  January 20, 2010 04:25 AM

Being treatment focused has several advantages, bob. The epa doesn't have the resources to go around checking the effluents of all the systems of the US, so making sure they're at least up to date on the technology and practices means that a certain acceptable level of quality at an acceptable price can be ascertained.

Not the best system, but pretty efficient for the given funding.

bellisaurius   ·  January 20, 2010 10:30 AM

Milwaukee does the same thing, and is the reason Chicago beaches are closed so much during the summer.

Their sewage systems cannot handle the size of their city, and instead of spending the money to upgrade, they dump it in Lake Michigan, letting every single city to the south deal with it.

plutosdad   ·  January 21, 2010 10:00 AM

Post a comment

You may use basic HTML for formatting.





Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)


January 2010
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail



Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives



Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits