Fogdog
Well-Known Member
The crisis in Flint illustrates the high cost of cost reduction gone bad. As @Flaming Pie pointed out, this disaster was not inevitable if the Flint River water had been properly treated. I'm talking about more than the $100/day cost of phosphate-treatment but also clean-up to remove other pollutants. It wouldn't have been cheap but so is the cost of doing it wrong. Cannot trust politicians with this kind of engineering, which is the only way this could have happened. There is no way the conversion to Flint River water was given a green light by staff engineers..They're talking 40 man crew coming down from Lansing and they can do 2 homes per day, I don't know how many crews they have in Flint
But just running the numbers I do have:
40 x 2 = 80 @ day
80 x 5 = 400@week
400 x 50 = 20,000 homes @ year
I used 50 weeks as my guide because of Holidays and such.
I have no idea how many homes need to be done.
Now using FP's idea of having water stations they can do like they did during the oil embargo odd/even addresses, 50 gallons per 10,000 gallon tanker that's 200 homes @day. ( cooking, drink water, wash clothes) it will be hard but doable or use other towns with clean water for bathing. Gyms, firehouses, bathhouses or Churches.
B4L
Projected cost savings at the beginning of the use of Flint River water: $5,000,000 over 2 years
Costs due to lead exposure and mitigation:
Replacing pipes, estimates vary wildly:
- my estimate: 20,000 homes at minimum cost of $3000 per install = $60,000,000 to replace pipes by pulling out old and replacing with new (Lansing cost numbers);
- Democratic senators from MI are submitting a bill that budgets $400,000,000 to replace pipes, I wonder where that number came from?
- MI has budgeted $55,000,000 to replace pipes, low balling again? In any case, this has not yet been approved in MI legislature.
Societal cost due to lead exposure in children;
Annual cost of childhood lead exposure in Michigan is $300M before this episode began (Risk Science Center at the University of Michigan):
Cost to population in Flint is not published anywhere,
Total costs of lead poisoning of children include,
decreases in lifetime earnings,
additional criminal justice system expenditures,
health expenditures to diagnose and lead positioning and lead-linked attention deficit disorder
additional special education expenditures
So, let me do a back of the envelope calculation:
- 2010, percent of MI children with elevated lead in blood = 2.4% (10 yr avg est.) ; Number of children 18 yrs and under = 2.2M;
- number of children with elevated lead in blood = 52,000 children est. 18 yrs and under
- Cost per year = 300M; cost per child per year = $5800/yr est.
- percent of children in Flint affected by elevated lead in blood = 4% (prior to this, Flint/Genesee county was among the lowest grouping for lead exposure)
Number of children (5 yrs and under) affected in Flint and back of envelope cost estimate:
- 99000 total population * 8% children 5 yrs and under * 4% children with elevated lead in blood = 320 children under 5 yrs of age
- Lifetime cost of Flint River caused lead exposure to children = 320 kids * $5,800/yr * 70 years = $130,000,000 lifetime cost est.
Inital cost estimates: 60M to replace pipes + $130M total cost from poisoning Flint children = $200M rough number with +/-$100M due to error.
In any case, that $5M projected water cost savings ended up costing between $100M to $300M. Not to mention the intangible and immense hardship placed upon the families in Flint.
Those same senators that budgeted $400M in a bill in US Congress to replace lead pipes also budgeted $200M for "immediate and long-term health care needs of people who may have ingested the lead". Seems that the senators do back of the envelope calculations too. This makes me wonder how far off was the budget of $55M to replace Flint City lead pipes that Michigan lawmakers have yet to fund.
But Republicans in Congress are skeptical that it can be funded.
"I think we need to be careful here because while we all have sympathy for what's happened in Flint, this is primarily a local and state responsibility," Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Senate Republican told reporters in the Capitol. "Given the fact that we have about 19 trillion in debt I think it's fair to ask do we want to have the federal government replacing all the infrastructure put in place by cities and states all across the country."
Does this not sound like Snyder and his rat pack all over again? Once again, we see how focusing and prioritizing cost reduction misses the whole point of government. And done wrong ends up costing more than doing nothing.
Didn't somebody important once describe government -- our government "of the people, by the people, and for the people"?