|
Nov. 22,
2005
Sewerage
district dumps off blame
Journal Sentinel Article
Nov. 21, 2005
MMSD
must stop dumping
By Lynn E. Broaddus, Ph.D., M.B.A
Executive Director
Once again we are hearing a familiar refrain from Milwaukee
Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) officials: “The public
doesn’t understand our woes; We never promised to end sewage
overflows”. Now they hope to take it a step further with plans
for a public relations effort aimed to convince complaining
citizens that some sewage in our water is good for the
region’s economy.
Before any of our property taxes or sewer fees gets diverted
to yet another MMSD public relations contract, I’d like to set
the record straight: Yes, MMSD did promise to end Sanitary
Sewer Overflows (SSOs). A limited number of overflows are
permitted in the combined region of our sewer system, but
overflows from the separated sewer area are virtually always
illegal and we were promised that they would end.
MMSD promised to end SSOs when it created the deep tunnel, and
it again promised to eliminate SSOs when it agreed to the
conditions of the permit that allows it to operate. Yet
sanitary sewer overflows continue to occur nearly every year,
and are now the subject of two separate legal battles.
Some would have us believe that the only way to end SSOs is to
spend additional billions building our way out of the problem.
But that simply isn’t the case. Last year Mayor Barrett’s own
Independent MMSD Audit Committee stated that ending sanitary
sewer overflows “is a realistic and necessary goal.” Other
cities have done it, and we can do it too.
To start with, we need to address the nearly 30% of sanitary
sewer overflows that are caused by equipment or mechanical
problems. These overflows are not related to rain, and
eliminating them requires more attention to quality control
and appropriate back-ups in critical places.
But the 70% of overflows that represent the biggest individual
events are tied to what comes into the system. Our volume of
sanitary sewage increases dramatically when rainwater comes in
through illegal hook-ups (‘inflow’), or cracked pipes
(‘infiltration’). Other cities with similar problems,
including Miami, Florida, have taken a systematic approach to
identifying the sources of the problems and fixing them
one-by-one. As a result, Miami was able to eliminate 85% of
its identified problems, and eliminate all sanitary sewer
overflows for storms up to four inches of rain. If Miami can
do it, certainly Milwaukee can as well.
But Miami had something that Milwaukee does not – they had a
sewerage agency that recognized the problem and decided to
tackle it head on.
Systematically taking on inflow and infiltration, or I/I as
some know it, is an investment in our region. Unlike digging a
bigger tunnel or building a new treatment plant, this is a
smart investment that should pay for itself by reducing the
volumes going to our treatment plants, and by ultimately
keeping our water cleaner. And, like a leaking roof, this is a
problem that gets worse when ignored, and is then harder to
fix.
The ratepayers who finance the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage
District do not need the pandering of a sales and marketing
campaign to get us to accept the unacceptable. Instead, we
need leadership to acknowledge the problem of sanitary sewer
overflows and then lay out a systematic and strategic approach
to fixing it. If we have enough money to pay for questionable
public relations efforts, surely we can find a way to tackle
our real problems.
Nov. 16, 2005
MMSD takes its case to public
Journal Sentinel Article
Nov.
8, 2005
MMSD refuses to settle
As you
may have read, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel ran an article
Monday concerning the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage
District's (MMS D's) unwillingness to settle with the
Department of Justice for violating its permit during
the spring 2004 overflows. Friends of Milwaukee's Rivers and
the Alliance for the Great Lakes have been down this road
before - we have willingly entered into settlement discussions
with MMSD a number of times over the past four years, and each
time discussions have broken down.
We were
especially intrigued by the Attorney General's attempt to
bring a global settlement - one that would bring closure to
all sewage overflow violations for the past ten years. It
makes sense to us solve both legal cases at once - the
solutions to our case and the state's case are one and the
same, so why not solve them both at once?
Today's
paper carried a follow-up article referring to an MMSD press
release regarding flow-monitoring equipment they would have
to install as part of the proposed settlement, saying it would
cost between $20 and $30 million. I don't know if their cost
estimates are accurate or not, but it seems to me that
flow-monitoring equipment is essential to the effective
management of a sewage collection and treatment system.
In
fact, the 2004 “Mayor’s Independent MMSD Audit Committee”
recommended that MMSD “develop a continual I/I (Inflow and
Infiltration) management program that .....must be:
enforceable (and) measurable." Doesn't that mean
flow-monitoring equipment? If you're like me, you're probably
surprised that such equipment isn't already in place. You
might also hypothesize, as I do, that this expenditure could
easily lead to long-term cost savings because it would help
MMSD pinpoint where the worst problems are within its
system, and help it to target and prioritize repairs,
improvements, and replacements. $20 million is a small price
to pay relative to MMSD's overall capital budget, especially
if it might reduce other long-term expenditures.
Mayor
Barrett was quoted in today's article as saying "I hope we can
resume discussions that will end the litigation." Let's hope
that with his leadership, this just might happen.
Nov. 8, 2005
MMSD reconsiders tax burden
Journal Sentinel Article
Nov. 6, 2005
MMSD rejected deal to settle
Journal Sentinel Article |
