Will New Jersey be the Next Flint, MI?

Evidently, Christie is signing bill that will have a major effect on our water:

Chris Christie just privatized New Jersey's water. Good luck with that, New Jersey

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/02/05/1480426/-Chris-Christie-just-privatized-New-Jersey-s-water-Good-luck-with-that-New-Jersey

Um, Flint was about a public water utility. It would not have happened if the government was not in the water business.

bramzzoinks said:

Um, Flint was about a public water utility. It would not have happened if the government was not in the water business.

Flint was about saving money. Businesses are the masters at cutting corners for the purpose of increasing profits. 

bramzzoinks said:

Um, Flint was about a public water utility. It would not have happened if the government was not in the water business.

I don't think it makes a difference.  Flint is a small, predominantly African American, lower middle class town. As such, it will get short shrift. Admittedly this current fiasco is an incredible example of mismanagement from the local level through to the governor's office. The bottom line is that poor towns - regardless of whether they are white, Black or brown will receive less than adequate services and as a result the living conditions for people in those communities will be dangerous and sub standard.

Here in NJ we're no better- we just don't pay attention to it. There have been higher than healthy lead levels in several NJ towns for years, worse than in Flint and the 'government' here just vetoed a plan to alleviate the problem.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2016/02/11_cities_in_jersey_have_more_lead-affected_kids_t.html

Clean water is going to be the oil of this century.  Wars will be fought over it.  Unfortunately any politician who suggests infrastructure spending and tax increases will get nowhere, as we won't spend preventative money in advance, only complain after the fact when our water is polluted.

I love the way Hillary is using this tragedy to make her compassion points.

bramzzoinks said:

Um, Flint was about a public water utility. It would not have happened if the government was not in the water business.

Please provide evidence to back this statement.

Watched the Republican debate tonight.  No mention of Flint or lead.  Would have been a good question, especially for Christie, who bragged about his great leadership in New Jersey.  

dk50b said:

bramzzoinks said:

Um, Flint was about a public water utility. It would not have happened if the government was not in the water business.

Please provide evidence to back this statement.

Not seeing it either.

flimbro said:

bramzzoinks said:

Um, Flint was about a public water utility. It would not have happened if the government was not in the water business.

I don't think it makes a difference.  Flint is a small, predominantly African American, lower middle class town. As such, it will get short shrift. Admittedly this current fiasco is an incredible example of mismanagement from the local level through to the governor's office. The bottom line is that poor towns - regardless of whether they are white, Black or brown will receive less than adequate services and as a result the living conditions for people in those communities will be dangerous and sub standard.

Here in NJ we're no better- we just don't pay attention to it. There have been higher than healthy lead levels in several NJ towns for years, worse than in Flint and the 'government' here just vetoed a plan to alleviate the problem.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2016/02/11_cities_in_jersey_have_more_lead-affected_kids_t.html

Small point - there are no safe lead levels.

BCC said:

flimbro said:

bramzzoinks said:

Um, Flint was about a public water utility. It would not have happened if the government was not in the water business.

I don't think it makes a difference.  Flint is a small, predominantly African American, lower middle class town. As such, it will get short shrift. Admittedly this current fiasco is an incredible example of mismanagement from the local level through to the governor's office. The bottom line is that poor towns - regardless of whether they are white, Black or brown will receive less than adequate services and as a result the living conditions for people in those communities will be dangerous and sub standard.

Here in NJ we're no better- we just don't pay attention to it. There have been higher than healthy lead levels in several NJ towns for years, worse than in Flint and the 'government' here just vetoed a plan to alleviate the problem.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2016/02/11_cities_in_jersey_have_more_lead-affected_kids_t.html

Small point - there are no safe lead levels.

Of course not. I used the phrase 'higher than healthy' to make the point that acceptable levels per government agencies had been exceeded and not that any level of lead was acceptable. A bigger conversation, especially here in water challenged SO, might be our easy acceptance and embrace of 'safe levels' of any harmful element. 

BCC said:

flimbro said:

bramzzoinks said:

Um, Flint was about a public water utility. It would not have happened if the government was not in the water business.

I don't think it makes a difference.  Flint is a small, predominantly African American, lower middle class town. As such, it will get short shrift. Admittedly this current fiasco is an incredible example of mismanagement from the local level through to the governor's office. The bottom line is that poor towns - regardless of whether they are white, Black or brown will receive less than adequate services and as a result the living conditions for people in those communities will be dangerous and sub standard.

Here in NJ we're no better- we just don't pay attention to it. There have been higher than healthy lead levels in several NJ towns for years, worse than in Flint and the 'government' here just vetoed a plan to alleviate the problem.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2016/02/11_cities_in_jersey_have_more_lead-affected_kids_t.html

Small point - there are no safe lead levels.

That, of course, isn't true.  At some level of lead exposure, there is no detectable affect on children.  I am not suggesting we are any where near those low levels in too many towns, but there will never be 0 levels of lead.

nan said:

Watched the Republican debate tonight.  No mention of Flint or lead.  Would have been a good question, especially for Christie, who bragged about his great leadership in New Jersey.  

I have a very good idea how each would have answered. Bush, Christie and Kasich would have talked about how Governors have to deal with real issues and make real decisions unlike Senators. Rubio would have blamed Obama. Cruz would have blamed "Government". Trump would have said that it proves America is no Great anymore and he is going to change that. And Dr. Carson would have said that he's a Doctor, the only candidate with real knowledge of health issues.

tjohn said:

BCC said:

flimbro said:

bramzzoinks said:

Um, Flint was about a public water utility. It would not have happened if the government was not in the water business.

I don't think it makes a difference.  Flint is a small, predominantly African American, lower middle class town. As such, it will get short shrift. Admittedly this current fiasco is an incredible example of mismanagement from the local level through to the governor's office. The bottom line is that poor towns - regardless of whether they are white, Black or brown will receive less than adequate services and as a result the living conditions for people in those communities will be dangerous and sub standard.

Here in NJ we're no better- we just don't pay attention to it. There have been higher than healthy lead levels in several NJ towns for years, worse than in Flint and the 'government' here just vetoed a plan to alleviate the problem.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2016/02/11_cities_in_jersey_have_more_lead-affected_kids_t.html

Small point - there are no safe lead levels.

That, of course, isn't true.  At some level of lead exposure, there is no detectable affect on children.  I am not suggesting we are any where near those low levels in too many towns, but there will never be 0 levels of lead.

Protecting children from exposure to lead is important to lifelong good health. No safe blood lead level
in children has been identified. Even low levels of lead in blood have been shown to affect IQ, ability to pay attention, and academic achievement. And effects of lead exposure cannot be corrected.

The most important step parents, doctors, and others can take is to prevent lead exposure before it
occurs

http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/ACCLPP/blood_lead_levels.htm

No amount of lead is safe. Eliminating all lead exposure in our environment is our best course of action.

New findings from NIEHS-supported grantees, as well as the NTP have found many adverse health effects in both children and adults at blood lead levels below 10 micrograms per deciliter (μg/dL) and for
some below 5 μg/dL.

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/lead/

LOST said:

nan said:

Watched the Republican debate tonight.  No mention of Flint or lead.  Would have been a good question, especially for Christie, who bragged about his great leadership in New Jersey.  

I have a very good idea how each would have answered. Bush, Christie and Kasich would have talked about how Governors have to deal with real issues and make real decisions unlike Senators. Rubio would have blamed Obama. Cruz would have blamed "Government". Trump would have said that it proves America is no Great anymore and he is going to change that. And Dr. Carson would have said that he's a Doctor, the only candidate with real knowledge of health issues.

That's a good guess.  What we would not hear is Christie admitting there is a problem and taking responsibility to get it fixed.  Instead, he will blame it on Democrats and follow with more claims of gubernatorial greatness.

bramzzoinks said:

Um, Flint was about a public water utility. It would not have happened if the government was not in the water business.

Private water sounds OK as long as it is well regulated. Isn't that how it is in Maplewood and South Orange and many other NJ towns?

Public water is also OK. Either way, there need to be checks and balances in the form of mutual distrust.

From Robert Roe: As much as I am careful to wade in on a MOL discussion, I can relay the following: (please pardon any typos.)     1.  The water in Maplewood from NJ American Water Company is not particularly corrosive.  It is slightly to moderately hard, meaning that it has calcium and magnesium that tend to coat the inside of pipes.   To this water is added a phosphate reducing additive that further reduces corrosiveness.  The pH is controlled to about 7.0.   Thus, the public water in Maplewood should be very low in lead even if there are old leaded pipes.  However, if you remember any high school chemistry, you may recall that water is the universal solvent.  The NJAWC routinely does testing that shows very low levels of lead in water below NJDEP standards.   2. The water mains are not lead.  3.  NJAWC is systematically removing all water main to water curb shut off valves that may contain lead that they are aware of.   4.  If the water supply line from your house to the curb shut off valve is old lead pipe, then the homeowner is responsible to replace this pipe if they wish.  5.  If you might have old lead solder in the faucets in your home, any danger from lead can be removed by simply running the water for 10-15 seconds to flush out water that may have been stagnant in the faucet for a lengthy period of time. 6.  In the spring of each year, NJAWC routinely flushes it water mains of rust and sand.  They publicize this work and they have a web site.   If your water turns brownish color, it is almost certainly due to a fire hydrant being opened to flush water.  The water is safe to drink,but doing laundry should wait until the water runs clear.  7.  If you want further testing, there are private laboratories that do this work.  

The very high source of lead in Maplewood homes is the old lead paint that is mostly found on old windows, porches and exterior walls.   Maplewood was the first town in NJ to require lead safe paint removal by house painters.   We were 16 years ahead of the Federal EPA on this.  But, much lead paint still remains on Maplewood houses.   Insist that painters that you hire follow the lead safe paint procedures.   A really good clean up following the work is essential.  

The Health Dept. does, as time permits,inspect homes for apparent lead hazards upon request.  If you need a top to bottom inspection, there are private companies that do this work. 

Hope this helps and call me if you have further questions.  

Tom_Reingold said:

bramzzoinks said:

Um, Flint was about a public water utility. It would not have happened if the government was not in the water business.

Private water sounds OK as long as it is well regulated. Isn't that how it is in Maplewood and South Orange and many other NJ towns?

Public water is also OK. Either way, there need to be checks and balances in the form of mutual distrust.

What does that mean?

pmartinezv said:

bramzzoinks said:

Um, Flint was about a public water utility. It would not have happened if the government was not in the water business.

Flint was about saving money. Businesses are the masters at cutting corners for the purpose of increasing profits. 

Actually,  my understanding is that the corrosiveness of the water could have been mitigated by adding a phosphate as robertroe mentions above.  I also understand that this process is relatively cheap.  About $50,000 a year.  

I'd also mention that Flint has severe fiscal issues.  Literally, everyone was onboard with changing the water source.  It was the interim solution where things went terribly awry.

By distrust, I mean regulators should verify that the company is doing what it should be doing. If the water is government run, there should be a separate agency that does the regulation.

Tom_Reingold said:

By distrust, I mean regulators should verify that the company is doing what it should be doing. If the water is government run, there should be a separate agency that does the regulation.

Flint had that arrangement,  but they have toxic water.

The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, the state agency that is responsible for implementing federal EPA environmental standards and ensure water standards, ignored citizen concerns that there was something wrong with the water they were getting from the new Flint River water system. The city had temporarily switched to this system after deciding against renewing a 30-year contract with its existing supplier, the Detroit Water and Sewage Department that wanted Flint to pay higher rates and more stranded costs. (This was like asking someone who is struggling to prevent the roof on his/her house from collapsing to pay for a lavish home insurance policy.)

The EPA allowed the DEQ to perform a faulty test to measure water quality that totally failed to catch the problem. That’s not all that the EPA did wrong, however. Even after it realized that the DEQ wasn’t taking a simple step necessary to prevent lead poisoning – namely adding phosphorous – it did absolutely nothing. It didn’t go public with this information; it didn’t warn residents that they should take steps to protect themselves. It basically fiddled as Flint residents were getting poisoned. What’s even more infuriating? It would have cost less than $50,000 annually to add the phosphorous.

The local mayor was even worse than the EPA. If the EPA passively allowed residents to poison themselves, the mayor actively encouraged them to do so. He told them that there was nothing wrong with the water and they’d be wasting their “precious” money by buying bottled water.  This, incidentally, was after GM stopped using this water because it was corroding auto parts.

The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services dismissed tests showing a spike in lead levels in blood tests of local residents after the switch to Flint River as a “seasonal anomaly.

@RobertRoe:  Thanks very much for the informative post.

nan said:

Evidently, Christie is signing bill that will have a major effect on our water:

Chris Christie just privatized New Jersey's water. Good luck with that, New Jersey


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/02/05/1480426/-Chris-Christie-just-privatized-New-Jersey-s-water-Good-luck-with-that-New-Jersey

Oh, the drama.

First, Christie is not privatizing NJ's water. The legislation allows the fast tracking, the removing of layers of bureaucracy when a municipality decides to move their water supply to a private entity.

Second, its the Democratic party controlled legislature which passed and sent this bill to the governor. If the legislation is reprehensible, then blame should be spread, not concentrated on Christie.

terp said:

pmartinezv said:

bramzzoinks said:

Um, Flint was about a public water utility. It would not have happened if the government was not in the water business.

Flint was about saving money. Businesses are the masters at cutting corners for the purpose of increasing profits. 

Actually,  my understanding is that the corrosiveness of the water could have been mitigated by adding a phosphate as robertroe mentions above.  I also understand that this process is relatively cheap.  About $50,000 a year.  

I'd also mention that Flint has severe fiscal issues.  Literally, everyone was onboard with changing the water source.  It was the interim solution where things went terribly awry.

Nevertheless, this in no way excuses the water experts for their failure to consider the corrosiveness of the water.

Tom_Reingold said:

bramzzoinks said:

Um, Flint was about a public water utility. It would not have happened if the government was not in the water business.

Private water sounds OK as long as it is well regulated. Isn't that how it is in Maplewood and South Orange and many other NJ towns?

Well, South Orange's water is a disaster...

Tom_Reingold said:

Private water sounds OK as long as it is well regulated. Isn't that how it is in Maplewood and South Orange and many other NJ towns?

Public water is also OK. Either way, there need to be checks and balances in the form of mutual distrust.

We moved here from Long Island and our privatized water bill was a 500% increase from our public water bill with no difference in quality.  Our Private garbage collection was much more restrictive and just a new bill since it was a public service in LI.  So what is the advantage of privatization?

privatization only benefits the public  if there is genuine competition.  We only have one water system.

well put FilmCarp.

Does anyone know the source(s) of the NJ-Am water that Maplewood uses?

BTW, it's not just lead in water that could be dangerous. A recent study suggests we face a wide-spread problem of estrogen contamination of public water (as indicated by high percentage of intersex fish specimens).

http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/16/02/08/tests-on-fish-raise-new-concerns-on-estrogen-contamination-of-drinking-water/

CHRIS CHRISTIE QUIETLY SIGNS WATER PRIVATIZATION LAW TO BENEFIT HIS DONORS–MEDIA IGNORES IT

http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/environment/chris-christie-quietly-signs-water-privatization-law-to-benefit-his-donors-media-ignores-it/