Flint Water: A Political Football. Part 6

We kinda know now that what was going on in Flint from April of 2014 to July 2 of 2015 was being downplayed by the EPA, MDEQ, and Flint.

There are a number of reasons for this, some of them valid, other not so much.  I can speculate as to why I think this happened, and I probably will at the end if I can make a good argument.

Right now I want to be able to show a reasonable person that what was known at the time should have lead to a different approach.  Forget hindsight in this case. Was there data known that should have moved the response in a different direction?

The "political football" comment the Governor's chief of staff made on July 22, 2015 is based on the prevailing attitude at that time.  Don't blame him for that conclusion.  That's the input he has been getting from all the players who have a responsibility to protect the public.

On July 2, the head of the Midwest region of the EPA, Susan Hedman, tells the Flint mayor that “it would be premature to draw any conclusions” based on Del Toral's draft EPA memo that is now out in the public.  That comment, in context, was directed at the ACLU who is asking questions.

Still...the data...

If you were the mayor of Flint, and all this was going on, and you aren't a public health official, you aren't a toxicologist, you aren't a water operator, and the Head of the EPA's region tells you “it would be premature to draw any conclusions” - and nothing else of substance - what would you conclude about your water "crisis" going on?

All of this downplaying, or at best "bad choice of words," leads to this statement on September 25th from the Governor's chief of staff:

The DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality) and DCH (Department of Community Health) feel that some in Flint are taking the very sensitive issue of children's exposure to lead and trying to turn it into a political football claiming the departments are underestimating the impacts on the populations and particularly trying to shift responsibility to the state,

 July 2nd to September 25th, we have the Governor's office, the MDEQ, and the EPA doing what?

July 9th the ACLU press release is issued.  Del Toral is quoted - as a private citizen - telling the ACLU:

I don’t want to scare people unnecessarily, but there is absolutely a problem in Flint that needs to be addressed right away.

We also learn from the ACLU this:

According to Del Toral, Flint should be adding corrosion-control chemicals designed to help keep lead and copper in pipes from leaching into drinking water. Doing so is required by federal regulations, wrote Del Toral in his memo.

We have discussed this EPA memo in detail already.  What we find out from the ACLU is how Flint sees this:

"To our knowledge, that is inaccurate,” said Flint spokesman Lorenz. “Before the plant was placed in operation, the City (and our engineering firm) had numerous discussions with DEQ personnel and inquired if corrosion-control chemicals – typically phosphates --needed to be included in the treatment process. The use of these chemicals was not required or mandated.”

This statement perplexes the heck out of me.  It shows a complete lack of understanding of the city's responsibility under the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR). When the plant was built has nothing to do with corrosion control responsibilities.  That's why under the LCR you sample every year.

Now let's look at this letter from the MDEQ to Flint dated August 17, 2015:

As you can see, the Flint Spokesman, Lorenz, has been,,,err,,,misinformed. Who is advising these folks in Flint?

Let's also look at the ACLU's concern that has now been pointed out.

The Walters family surely isn’t alone in dealing with the threat of lead-laced drinking water. About half of Flint’s 40,000 homes are a half-century old or older, built at a time when water service lines were typically made of lead.

That's the concern I went with as well when I looked at the data presented in the Del Total memo.

Regardless of the LCR requirements on when to report, there is now evidence of lead leaching into the water caused by the City's failure to treat. If triple digit lead results were seen in a house without lead plumbing, what is happening to homes with lead plumbing?

To me, that's a reasonable and prudent approach to take if your concern is protecting public health.

Look, I am trying to remain as neutral and objective as I can, but I am finding it increasingly hard to not conclude gross incompetence as the mitigating factor for the City of Flint and the MDEQ.

Back to the timeline.  May 9th the ACLU story breaks. How does the city respond?

Flint's mayor drinks water from tap to prove it's safe 

July 10, Susan Hedman sends out a benign press release:

Not much in terms of emails takes place until August 23 when Marc Edwards with Virginia Tech informs all the parties of their Flint Water Study group that they have formed.

About one month later in September, MDEQ spokesperson Brad Wurfel writes:

Mr. Wurfel also resigns after a task force cited department failures in addressing the Flint water crisis.

In a letter to Gov. Rick Snyder, the Flint Water Advisory Task Force pegged the "substance and tone" of the department's communications as one of three failures, along with failing to correctly interpret lead and copper rule and a regulatory failure.

On September 21st the MDEQ is responding as if the lead in the water is just as normal as it has always been.  Mr. Wurfel also states that the water "presently meets all state and federal water quality standards."  That's false as Del Toral's EPA memo states.

"Throughout 2015, as the public raised concerns and as independent studies and testing were conducted and brought to the attention of MDEQ, the agency's response was often one of aggressive dismissal, belittlement, and attempts to discredit these efforts and the individuals involved," noted the task force's letter. "We find both the tone and substance of many MDEQ public statements to be completely unacceptable."

After his resignation Mr. Wurfel is quoted stating:

There's no denying it, the Department of Communications could have been better...the department was doing its best with highly technical information that frequently changed. When the department realized it looked like it had made a mistake, it admitted that.

My sympathies are guarded here.  On September 21st, the MDEQ was still not catching on.

Remember this from the Del Toral EPA memo?

But as they say on infomercials selling us all kinds of stuff, "but wait there's more!"


Next post: Flint Water: A Political Football.  Part 7