I'm actually happy we lost to St. Louis
 By Mark ForsytheThe Kansas City Post No I'm not talking about the Cardinals coming to town to fatten their stats on our hapless Royals. St. Louis has beat Kansas City to federal court. It seems the EPA has grown tired of waiting for St. Louis to remedy its combined sewer problems that regularly discharge raw sewage into streams and lakes after a heavy rain. Sound familiar? Filed in federal court this past Monday, the suit alleges that more than 500 million gallons of raw sewage overflowed into waterways in violation of the Clean Water Act from Jan. 1, 2000, to Dec. 31, 2005. Everyone involved seems surprised because supposedly St. Louis had an "agreement" with the EPA. St. Louis contends that it has prepared a long-range plan to deal with the combined-sewage overflows. Once again, this sounds vaguely familiar. The EPA has decided they don't like the "long" in "long-range" and are going to hasten the plan. Having just competed in the Dragon Boat races on Brush Creek last Saturday it's readily apparent that everyone knows we have a sewage problem in Kansas City. Nobody was concerned about getting wet, we were concerned about getting sick. We should not have to live like that in 2007. Heck, we shouldn't have had to live like that in 1907! The Region 7 offices for the EPA are in Kansas City, Kansas. If the EPA can see all the way down I-70 to the problems in St. Louis, is it too much of a stretch to assume they can see the short distance to Brush Creek? Previous administrations in Kansas City have not had the political will to fix this problem. Unfortunately it's beginning to look like a lawsuit from the federal government is our only hope. |
posted by Mark at 10:00 AM
Comments on "I'm actually happy we lost to St. Louis"
-
doinkman said ... (1:04 PM) :
-
mainstream said ... (2:06 PM) :
-
Mark said ... (3:38 PM) :
-
idan said ... (10:42 PM) :
-
doinkman said ... (11:10 PM) :
-
Mark said ... (7:33 AM) :
-
Mark said ... (7:36 AM) :
-
doinkman said ... (8:45 AM) :
-
idan said ... (10:25 PM) :
-
Michelled said ... (4:05 PM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (10:01 PM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (11:39 PM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (1:28 PM) :
-
Frank said ... (3:54 PM) :
post a commentI’m an environmental engineer so I know a little bit about this. . .
This is simply the nature of CSO regulations and it’s happened to several other cities (LA, Baton Rouge, Detroit, Cincinnati, etc…) to push them along. Although KC has been dragging our feet on this, we’ve been much more proactive that St. Louis, so I think it’s less likely (so long as we continue making progress) that EPA is going to tighten the screws on us.
The scope of the problem is almost unfathomable. Because our system is combined and separating the system would involve tearing up every single street and pipe in the urban core, we have a huge amount of rainwater mixing with the dirty stuff to deal with during every one of our Midwestern thunderstorms. We can either treat this water at the rate if falls to the ground, or store it for a brief period (~48hrs) in which we then pump it out and treat it. Both of these options require massive public infrastructure investments. Think 30 ft dia tunnels 100+ feet deep or hugely expanded WWTP’s. Last estimate I heard was 3-5 BILLION over 20+ yrs.
I think it’s a little unfair to suggest that previous administrations haven’t had the political will to solve this. It’s just not as easy to snap your fingers and have a solution (I know that’s not what your suggesting ) . It has to be studied for years and years to define the problem and weight the various alternatives. KC is in the middle of this intensive study process, and although it’s far from perfect, we are making progress. Rest assured that KC is one of the greatest cities in terms of engineering consultant firms solving these problems and some of the brightest are working to solve this issue in their own backyard. I’m not working on it, but lots of my colleagues are.
For my own two cents, there is something we should be doing right now regarding the yard waste issue. KCMO residents only get a couple yard waste pickups a year, and unfortunately it grows year round, which means is often begins to accumulate in the gutters. Then, after any major flush all that biological muck gets sent straight into the system, and eventually to Brush Creek or Little Blue River, and it only provides the fuel necessary for biological organisms to thrive. Of course, this is less likely to cause fecal coliform levels, which are directly caused by sanitary overflows. Still, this can only help and it’s relatively easy to collect this along the street gutters. There are other little things that everybody can do that each have a small impact, things like disconnecting downspouts to the system, and even rain gardens. That’s one issue that Kay Barnes really lead the charge on, even though it wont make a huge difference in the big picture it brought a lot of attention to the issue.
Hey Doinkmeister - good post.
You know, there are about 5 issues that are the most important in this city, and it seems like we (as voters and policymakers) have a collective case if "Issue Alzheimer's". Occasionally we wake up and say "this is a big problem, who's on it, and how are we goingto manage it?" then we go back to sleep, and then a few months later we ask the same question again.
That's why I appreciate your posts, Forsythe.
Doinkman - it would be nice to have an understanding of the ongoing process that we're using to manage this issue - somewhat successfully, it sounds.
This information is important and useful, because it gives us a credible and effective basis for holding our elected officials accountable.
If I want to ask Jan Marcusan, or Ed Ford, what's the progress on the sewer system issue today - I am at a distinct disadvantage, because I have no way of knowing whether they're answering the question correctly and focusing on the right things.
doinkman,
I'm no Environmental Engineer but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night... Actually I attended a half-day seminar on the Brush Creek watershed problem. It was attended by engineers, EPA, and city officials from both sides of the state line. I learned a great deal.
One thing I learned was the Clean Water Act has been around in its current form since 1972. At one time, there were federal dollars to help municipalities come into compliance. Kansas City never applied.
We've known about our sewer problem since the 70's. If it hasn't been ignored, that means we've been in the planning stages for over 30 years now? That's a lot of planning! We got to the moon in under a decade. This must be some plan.
Yes it's a big problem and yes it will cost billions and yes it can't be remedied overnight, but previous administrations have chosen to concentrate on sports stadiums, Brush Creek beautification & Union Station, and downtown revitalization as priorities.
If we're in such good shape, why as recently as 2005 has the EPA been knocking on doors in my neighborhood asking to inspect peoples' basements and telling them they're collecting data for a potential lawsuit?
Things are happening. Not fast but they are happening.
The engineering firm I work for has been designing a sewer separation project in KCMO for the last year (and there are others going on). But this is just the bottom of the sewer basin, i.e the "tree trunk". Over time the city will have to work its way up the tree to separate and replace all the upstream "branches" on EVERY street. It is a giagantic task.
At a previous firm I worked on phased sewer separation project at the Downtown Airport. Early phases of the project were completed in the '90s. But the final phases were put on hold after 9/11, as airport funds were focused on security.
I heard a historian remark at a luncheon once that Octave Chanute (designer and builder of the Hannibal bridge and an early KC planner) was a proponent of "separated" sewers way back in the mid/late 1800's! But the city fathers didn't take the advice when building our system. Maybe it is true, maybe it isn't. Either way, we will pay for it now.
Glad you picked up on this Mark. It is an important issue... but not sexy like so many issues the public can get behind.
It is especially important because it keeps me employed!
The Clean Water Act may have been around since 1972 but the enforcement of its provisions has evolved significantly over the years. Initially, the regulations focused more on point-source discharges, like a wastewater treatment plant or industrial sites. It’s much easier to deal with something bad coming out the end of a solid pipe than a perforated pipe…
But over the years the regulations have slowly tightened up, and we are now at a point where non-point sources (CSO’s, and even urban runoff in separated systems) are being limited to smaller and smaller concentrations…
We didn’t even stop building CSO’s until the early 60’s and it’s only been ‘on the radar’ for 10…maybe 15 years. Yes, KC could have been more proactive in dealing with this issue…but it’s one of those issues (sustainable energy) that will require a regulation or policy nudges to make it happen. In the meantime the technology has gotten a whole lot better and is still constantly advancing, w/ cool names like high-rate ballasted flocculation, and there is still a whole lot of federal dough for these projects.
KC submits the final long-term plan, July 08’ I believe. EPA will read it and decide how much they like it and then the negotiations or litigation will begin. I’m far from an expert in the law part, but my understanding is that EPA has some very smart lawyers and if it’s gets to that point, they are prepared. So, I’m going to be optimistic and say the EPA pulling samples doesn’t mean there is an eminent lawsuit, but instead they are just doing their job.
The big ?...as always… is how are we going to pay for it…?
High-rate ballasted flocculation? Sounds sweet! I want one.
iDan,
Another engineer? I had no idea I had such a technical audience. I guess I need to up my game.
Maybe Monday's post will be on practical uses of third order non-linear differential equations. Hold on to your hats, it'll be a real scorcher. ;-)
ohhhh nooooo!!!!
no differential equations!!! I haven't looked at that stuff since I programmed my calculator to cheat on the final.
Well, we all have a cross to bare. Taking calc 2 and differential equations a couple times was my cross. I carry many others, but those are a couple of the early ones.
Now let's go fix some sewers!!! Who's with me?!?
I have a rain barrel. :-)
When this city leaves the theory stages and voluntarily enters the reality stage, maybe we will make progress.
As we type, poor planning and lack of any action now has us in trouble with the Clean Air Act as well. This is NOT coincidence, folks. Some seem content to stick thier head in the sand, offer PR solutions and quote engineering thesis papers. Where has that gotten us so far?
We need a plan and we need action. Neither will come without some serious pain. I hope this mayor (and this council) has the fortitude to stand up to detractors and do what is right.
So far, Funkhouser seems to have that gene. I am not so sure about the council.
I was thinking of getting a rain barrel. Where could I get a 55 to 60 gallon plastic barrel?
"I was thinking of getting a rain barrel. Where could I get a 55 to 60 gallon plastic barrel?"
Last time I was there Habitat Restore had the barrel and hardware.
They are are on Duramus, just north of Front street and Chouteau
...was reading another KC blog [http://doczplace.blogspot.com/2007/06/my-home-town-is-reletively-small-and.html] on the same subject: seems doinkman is right about when the report is being turned in (or was it Sept?) and $$$, though this guy thinks the new council will be buffaloed into NOT implementing the plan by business interests..
interesting site, but too new to judge