Quote of the Day provided by The Free Library


Monday, September 17, 2007

I guess a little sewage is "good enough?"


By Mark Forsythe
The Kansas City Post

I campaigned for city council talking about how we could fix our sewer problems. Even though everybody told me "you can't win with sewers" (and they were obviously right). I talked about the impending multi-billion dollar project. I talked about how unconscionable it was to dump raw sewage into Brush Creek. I talked about how it was our responsibility to clean up the mess that previous City Councils had left us. In 2007 we have the technology to stop behaving like 19th Century polluters. It will be expensive, it will be difficult, it will be unpopular, but sometimes the moral thing comes with those pesky little add-ons that politicians seeking re-election are loathe to address.

I had done the research. I had studied Louisville, Milwaukee, even St. Louis among others. There are no silver bullets to be found. To fix Kansas City's inexcusable sewer problems is going to take some intestinal fortitude. It's going to take surcharges, and yes maybe even taxes. First and foremost it's going to take a self-imposed moratorium on new connects and a system of environmental credits that only allow new connects as older sections in violation are repaired. It's going to take the establishment of an informal economy that allows the barter and purchase of these credits between developers in the built-out areas south of the river and the greenfields of the Northland. It's going to take the leadership ability to stand up and take an unpopular position. To impose a tax. To risk not being re-elected.

OR....

We do as our current Transportation and Infrastructure committee and recommend lowering the bar. We say dumping a little sewage is better than dumping a lot of sewage in our lakes and tributaries. We wring our hands and blame our upstream neighbors to the west and say things like "I don't know what we can legally do to our friends to the West" as Councilman Ed Ford stated. How about picking up the phone and giving them a call? Why the immediate adversarial tack instead of some diplomatic courtesy? Maybe our "friends to the West" are not the evil sewage barons our council is making them out to be?

“Do we care if people swim in Brush Creek, or could it just be an amenity?" Councilperson Jan Marcason asked. Yes we care! Yes we care that we can travel through space, store the entire Encyclopedia Britannica on a silicon chip smaller than the head of a pin, type a message on a computer keyboard and have it instantaneously appear around the world, but we can't stop dumping our raw sewage into Brush Creek?!

"At some point, it just doesn’t become cost effective to do that” said Councilperson Marcason last week. That's a very cavalier attitude for such an important topic. Light rail? Downtown development? Sports arenas? These are the kind of projects we can pull out our calculators and talk about the bottom line. We can say things like "good enough" or "what's the harm?" But the health and welfare of present and future Kansas Citians? When did our health and environment become "just an amenity?"

Comments on "I guess a little sewage is "good enough?""

 

Blogger doinkman said ... (9:30 AM) : 

All this talk is great and all, but to reduce CSO’s to Bruch creek from the 50 or so we have a year now to ZERO is extremely expensive. I don’t have the exact number estimate but it would be factors above the $3 billion estimate to reduce CSO’s to approx. 6 a year, which is what the draft plan to EPA will recommend. Lets assume $8-10 BILLION.

I’m an environmental engineer and I plan on living in KC for awhile so my own self-interests would be to spend as much as possible. Great job security and all…. But the law of dimensioning returns comes into play here and we need to weigh the actual public health risks of CSO’s versus the cost to eliminate them. It’s an unfortunate truth. It’s easy to waive your hands about this stuff but is swimming in Brush Creek really worth $5 + BILLION to anybody? That could buy a whole lot of miles of light rail…

 

Blogger Mark said ... (9:43 AM) : 

doinkman,

At the minimum I refuse to accept any CSO overflow in our waterways. Granted, eliminating surface runoff is akin to herding cats, but even that can be mitigated.

I'm not suggesting Brush Creek become Oceans of Fun, but for me; and as I have already admitted the election results clearly showed me I am in the wrong, but for me the goal of clean water is worth it.

 

Anonymous John Galt said ... (9:52 AM) : 

It sucks but it has to be fixed, and fixed right. I agree, good enough is not good when it comes to dumping crap in open waterways.

I have to live here too doinkman. I'd rather not have light rail than have shit flowing through my neighborhood.

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (9:54 AM) : 

What is CSO?

 

Blogger doinkman said ... (10:02 AM) : 

CSO = combined sewer overflow.

Basically in KC, stormwater (rainfall & runoff) and wastewater from your house combine into the same sewer system. The system can't handle massive flows from big KC rainstorms and, as such, overflows the combined stormwater and wastewater into Brush Creek.

 

Blogger Mark said ... (10:30 AM) : 

In my opinion the 700 lb gorilla in the room is the resistance of interests in the Northland who do not feel they should share any of the burden of aging infrastructure which is not in their councilmanic districts.

You start talking about environmental or capacity credits and you have at least four votes on the council who will resist because they fear it will stop greenfield development in their districts.

 

Anonymous mainstream said ... (10:32 AM) : 

I suggest we have further discussion on this important issue.

I think we do really need to understand the economic tradeoffs and the real environmnetal impacts.

$5B or $1B to go from a 6 to zero won't fly with anyone, including myself - and I'm a fairly extreme environmentalist.

Great discussion though. We need this scrutiny!

 

Anonymous Raymond Brasswell said ... (10:45 AM) : 

To solve the northlanders-not-wanting-to-pay-their-way problem, how about:
1. Kick everything north of the river out of KCMO.
2. Charge southbound vehicles $5.00 per car at every river crossing.
3. Think of all of the money that will be made when all of the northlanders come down for the Elton John concerts! And Chiefs games!

And while we're at it, let's build toll booths at all state line crossings and get the same out of Kansans...

Make 'em pay, or kick 'em out.

 

Anonymous Russ Johnson said ... (11:21 AM) : 

Mark,

According the work that has been done to date on this issue, Kansas City cannot achieve full compliance even if it reduces CSO to 0, due to upstream issues outside of the City boundaries. As I am not a water quality engineer, if anyone has better data or information, I would be happy to listen.

From the Conceptual Control Plan being considered by the Council, "Compliance with water quality standards for E. coli, where applicable in the Blue River and Missouri River, cannot be attained through combined sewer overflow control alone. Reductions
in other watershed loadings...are needed to attain current standards"

Thanks,

Councilman Russ Johnson

 

Blogger doinkman said ... (11:36 AM) : 

Ha! Yeah...that will promote regional KC unity. :P

...but Mark really hit the nail on the head, that this is a regional issue. The CSO infrastructure issues are limited to the old part of town, from the river to 85th, but upstream watersheds (Joco, etc) also contribute to this problem, albeit to a much lesser extent.

These types of issues require real political leadership within the entire region and within all of the KCMO bureaucracy. For instance, the public works should be pushing for permeable pavement & sidewalks, WSD should be actually maintaining the sewers & WWTP's, the building code should be requiring stormwater BMP's for new construction, the solid waste dept. should be promoting more frequent yard waste cleanup, and the politicians should be finding ways to spread the financial burden around, etc...

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (11:57 AM) : 

Remember, this issue is one of the 10 items most important on the Mayor's list! The CSO needs to be fixed--period. There are issues north of the river as well, including abandoned TIF projects that dump all sorts of junk into our sewers, that is, if it can get into the sewers without flooding. We didn't ask for the irresponsible TIF epidemic that has paved the earth and stolen our school, road, and services funding. As far as charging northlanders for coming south of the river, how about charging every car that drives north of the river to go to the airport--that includes Kansas vehicles as well. We need a regional approach, just like we need for light rail and many other projects. "If it aint broke, don't fix it" The sewers are "broke" and they must be fixed.

 

Blogger Mark said ... (12:26 PM) : 

Russ,

Thanks for contributing. It's nice to have your input.

I maintain that we can do our part, and work with the municipalities across the state line. It won't be easy, but nothing worth accomplishing ever is.

I fear we're debating different definitions of CSO. My definition requires a sanitary waste component. Surface runoff of fertilizers and petroleum products is a completely different issue.

By my definition of CSO, I agree with anonymous 11:57AM. "The CSO needs to be fixed--period."

I also maintain that we don't have any business expanding our sewer system with new connections until such a time as we can maintain what we have. Period.

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (12:45 PM) : 

Councilman Johnson,

As a northland representative, what are your feelings about the type of credit system Mark is proposing? Do you think it's fair for the northland to continue its sprawl while the rest of the city decays?

 

Blogger doinkman said ... (1:00 PM) : 

Surface runoff and CSO's are the two main causes for the same problem, which is pollution discharged into receiving waters and violating clean water stds. You can't talk about one w/o talking about the other and you can't meet the receiving water permit limits without a mitigation plan that addresses both.

The most cost effective approach is limiting stormwater flows into the sewer system itself, but you can only get so far with that approach. Then you get into the heavy engineering projects involving separating out the sanitary flows, huge tunnels and expanded WWTP's, etc.

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (1:14 PM) : 

Stick to your guns Mark. This is all about money. Isn't everything? No way the north of the river gang signs on for any type of responsible solution.

Notice how the numbers keep climbing? I'm assuming doinkman works for one of the contractors in on this bloodfest. Two billion. Four billion. Now six billion!

If the city did a little due diligence and actually went outside a 50 mile radius for some technical help the story and the numbers would change.

 

Blogger doinkman said ... (3:27 PM) : 

1:14 PM Anonymous:

KC is something of an engineering mecca for firms that study these types of issues. So, in this case going down the street is actually going to the world's experts.

P.S. If you read my posts, you would understand I was arguing for smaller projects, not larger.

 

Anonymous Eastsider said ... (3:55 PM) : 

For the price tag of $5B we should investigate relieving pollution at its source. The engineering braintrust in KC should be able to figure out how to lessen the pollution that goes into the sewers and not just how to transport it in ever larger and more costly pipe systems. I agree that all public works and capital construction agencies should be mandated to be green and spend some of the funding there first, not last. Be creative KC and don't just follow the traditional dogma.

 

Anonymous Pander Bear Hunter said ... (9:18 PM) : 

As far as Brush Creek goes, should we not be talking about an interstate compact? If that is the case Mark you should be contacting Matt Blunt, Kathleen Sebelius, Jolie Justus and a whole line of state reps.

From what I have read, the water as it crosses the state line is not that much cleaner as you move down stream.

One could pummel Councilperson Marcason all they want, especially if they are a former political opponent and considering a future run against her, but why should we try to clean up something on this side of the line when it entered the water table on THAT side of the line. It makes me curious as to where Mark plans to raise his money for his next run for office.

But of course I understand that what enters the stream West of the state line does not stink! The cavalier attitude seems to be coming from a defeated candidate who cannot accept rejection.

By the way Mark, why how do you feel about the upcoming convention of the Minutemen? If you had not been beaten so badly in the primary you would have had to worry about issues like that. You have been strangely silent on issues like that.

Yes, I believe Jan is doing a lot better than you would have done had you not lost so badly.

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (9:33 PM) : 

Pander Bear,

Shouldn't it be your precious Jan talking to Gov's Blunt and Sebelius? No she's too busy writing memos and hiring her non-profit buddies to run council retreats.

If you're going to stalk the blogs for the Marcason for mayor camp, learn how to do it. UR too obvious to even care about. What a joke.

What's the matter? Feeling the heat? It takes more than expressing concern in a memo AFTER THE FACT over bullshit like dog parks and minutemen conferences to be an effective councilman.

I hope Mark DOES run again. I'll contribute.

I hope you're not stupid enough to be posting from City Hall.

 

Anonymous Pander Bear Hunter said ... (9:45 PM) : 

Not feeling the heat, feeling the injustice of blind ambition. What "blogs" have I been stalking?

And as far as City Hall goes, when has Mark spoke out against the mayor?

If you believe in the Constitution, the Minuteman issue is a huge deal. I guess you do not. And if you believe in Due Process, also established by that tired old paper called The Constitution,then the right of the Dog Park proponents to seek redress from government is important. I guess you do not know or care about THAT either.

Give me a break, Pander Bears do not help the situation.

If Jan forgets about Constitutional tenets like Due Process, I will speak out against her. I think a failed candidate is feeling the heat and his name is Mark Forsythe.

"OMG, what if people actually like what Jan is doing?"

Mark is just trying to run the perennial campaign-until ethics laws kick in again.

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (9:58 PM) : 

Pander Bear,

Who said anything about the mayor? Keep on picking Pander. At least Mark is out there putting his name behind everything he writes. You and I are hiding behind anonymity so this whole argument is pointless isn't it?

Why don't you post your criticisms of Mark under your real identity since you're so righteous?

Yeah, didn't think so. You go away and I'll go away. Or I'll go to bed. You're boring me.

 

Anonymous Pander Bear Hunter said ... (10:21 PM) : 

The point is that Mark has been quiet about the mayor, and you just helped make my point, Mark?

 

Blogger Mark said ... (7:42 AM) : 

Good Grief,

I take the night off for more important things and here come the trolls.

Pander,

I waited six months. Ms. Marcason is no longer my opponent but my councilperson. You can cry sour grapes all you want, but my opinions remain what they are.

As you insist, I lost miserably. Stating the obvious is the refuge of the oblivious. The six people that read this blog know about my failed political career. For the record I also failed to make Ingrams 40 Under 40 for two years running, I failed in the first qualifying round to be a contestant on American Gladiators back in the 90's, and in college my band finished second in a battle of the bands contest. If it will somehow make you feel a little better I can continue to detail my shortcomings.

You seem to be certain I'm running in four years. I'm not certain of anything quite honestly. I can't remember the last time an incumbent was unseated in this town. Since you can predict the future could you kindly also give me the next four super bowl and world series champions? Having the ability to predict the future could prove very lucrative for me. Be careful about questioning people's fund-raising sources. That's a very delicate glass house.

What would you have me say about Mark Funkhouser? Would you like me to write a memo? :-)

Pander have something constructive to say about the editorial. You want to criticize me? Write me an email or write a letter to the Star. This was a pretty good discussion until you trolled in here.

 

Anonymous John Galt said ... (8:21 AM) : 

Well well well. So the Marcason apologists have discovered the internet. Attack the blogger to skirt the issue. Real original.

Fact: Marcason, along with Johnson and Ford wants the state clean water standards lowered.
Fact: Russ Johnson has not responded to a commenter asking if he would support capacity credits.
Fact: Pander Bear Hunter is a troll.

Ban her Mark. It's just someone looking to protect Jan while she shops around for mayoral supporters.

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (8:39 AM) : 

Gotta love the WPC bunch. Marcason lied to Deb Hipp and the rest of us WOOF supporters. She never came out in support of the dog park. She only kept herself "informed" which was enough to BS a bunch of political novices. Big difference. Read her worthless memo. It doesn't demand a dog park. It demands a hearing. Deb Hipp is too blind to see it. Marcason is buds with Eula Inloes! Wake up people. We've elected (sorry Mark I voted for her too) someone who wants to make a career out of lowering the bar.

Hyde Park substation. She said it was a done deal. Dog Park. She writes a memo about open meetings. Clean water. Nah, just lower the requirements.

Unlike Panda, I can see things pretty clearly. And I don't like what I see.

And worse yet, has anybody heard from Beth Gottstein? Should we file a missing councilperson report?

 

Anonymous Wingnut: Tora tora tora! said ... (9:30 AM) : 

Jesus Christ! Marcason is going to run for mayor? Cripes, Funky's pretty bad, but how much worse do you want?

I agree with the above poster and I'll add to it: Build a 20' high wall around I-435, incorporate all of the lands contained within under a unified "Kansas City" so that there is no more state line issue. Then secede from the union. We'll take care of our ownselves, thank you very much....

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (10:03 AM) : 

I thought we were discussing clean water. Why is everybody allowing themselves, including you Mark, by Panda Jerk?

Blaming our sewage problems on our upstream neighbors is a non-starter. If we do our part and the EPA comes in and finds the water is still polluted, they will head upstream and find the source. If it's not Kansas City, then our friends to the west as Ford referred to them will be the ones with a problem.

Lowering our state standards is unacceptable. Period.

 

Anonymous mainstream said ... (11:58 AM) : 

Now hold on a minute, everybody. I'll defend Jan a little bit here, on the water issue and on the sewer issue.

On the Dog Park - If I recall the letter correctly (per Prime Buzz)Jan without a doubt supports dog parks in neighborhoods. The issue with Sunnyside was a neighborhood dispute first - some neighbors wanted it and some did not. There are many of these disagreements every month within neighborhoods all over the 4th district. It's not the job of the councilperson to takes sides in every neighborhood dispute. The coucnilperson should foremost support the right public policy outcome.

Secondly, the Parks Board behaved unconscionably, in an unpredictable manner. (Mark you may say with Aggie on the board you cold have expected something like that, but you get my point).

Jan, reacted very quickly supporting the rights of the dog park propoments to ne heard, and asking for the parks board to implement a less-restrictive policy.

I think that all makes sense.

On the sewer issue, cost-benefit tradeoffs need to be fully understood before we conclude anything. I know, at least from my perspective, a lot more work needs to be done on this.

The sewer issue, which is where we started, is the issue of this post, and I very much appreciate Doinkman's perspective on these issues, and Mark for bringing it up.

 

Anonymous mainstream said ... (12:05 PM) : 

And as for my tpynig it is a porevn fcat taht poeple can raed and comphrned wrods as lnog as the frist and lsat lttres are corecrt.

:o)

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (12:28 PM) : 

The sewer issue is a classic case of taking a nice idea (hey - we should have clean water!) to absurdity. Every city in the world older than 50 years has combined sewers. Should I live in peril at the possibility that twice a year for an hour or so some sewage overflows into Brush Creek before quickly being diluted downstream?
I'd like to know the actual, documented health risks, and show me how it's worse here than cities much older than ours, before spending billions of dollars and tearing up every street and lot in the old part of the city.
Wake up - this is a make-work project. It reminds me an awful lot of the "science" behind traffic engineering, and the impending doom to society if we don't spend billions NOW.
Kevin

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (12:47 PM) : 

"Every city in the world older than 50 years has combined sewers."

Quick everybody. Let's all go jump off the bridge! All the other kids are doing it. It must be right! Is there any company that specializes in RE-installing asbestos? I hear that stuff is pretty good and every city older than 50 years has that too. What's the harm?

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (12:50 PM) : 

I have an idea. How about if each home in KC made a rain garden or used a rain barrel. Then each home could collect say 60 gallons of water per storm. Maybe if 10,000 people did this it would solve are runoff problem.

What does everyone think?

 

Blogger doinkman said ... (1:18 PM) : 

...finally were back to talking about sewage!

Thats only about 600,000 gallons and runoff on a large storm is in the neighborhood of 3-5 billion gallons. I like rain gardens and other 'green' solutions, but at some point you have to store, pump, & treat the flows to have any effect....which is also the most infrastructure and capital intensive.

I'll add that even urban areas that have completely separated systems (LA for example) have big problems w/ urban runoff into receiving waters. Some of their fecal counts in the Pacific are 10k+ directly after a first flush storm, which makes Brush Creek look like Evian.

Bottom line is that there is no easy solution to the problem and we do need to do something...just not everything.

 

Blogger Mark said ... (1:22 PM) : 

anonymous 12:47PM, good analogy about the asbestos. May I use that? :-)

anonymous 12:50PM, if you're serious about runoff control I am in agreement with you, but that only gets us part of the way there. We have to (in my obviously minority opinion) completely separate our storm sewers from our sanitary sewers.

 

Blogger Mark said ... (1:27 PM) : 

...and doinkman and I enjoy typing at the same time.

I agree in principle with what you're saying doinkman. I think I compared controlling surface runoff to herding cats? I remain firm in my (yes I still know minority) opinion that our sanitary and storm sewers must be completely separated.

I accept that apparently that makes me an unrealistic environmental whack job, but it's my opinion and while it may not jibe with the bottom line, I challenge anyone to convince me it's not moral.

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (1:39 PM) : 

Whats with all the back peddling Mark? Your starting to sound more like a politician every day.

 

Anonymous mainstream said ... (2:24 PM) : 

It's common sense. If we can get 90% there for say $4B, and it takes another $1B to $4B to grab that last 5%,what would most reasonable people do?

That's not immoral reasoning to say it's to expensive right now to get that last 5%.

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (3:03 PM) : 

Was my crack on Barnes' 10,000 Rain Gardens solution to the sewer problem , lost on everyone?

 

Anonymous mainstream said ... (3:51 PM) : 

hey hey hey. Rain gardens do actually help, and we all know they're not the answer. Give 'em a break, anon - I know everybody likes to pick on them.

But when you combine them with permeable pavement and a bunch of other things, it makes a dent in the problem.

And it's not a substitute for an infrastructural solution...

 

Blogger Mark said ... (3:58 PM) : 

anonymous 1:39PM,

Not really back pedaling to try and be political. I just know when I'm beat.

 

Anonymous Alan Birch said ... (11:32 PM) : 

Rain garden = Mosquito garden
Welcome to the midwest

 

Anonymous Adrianne said ... (11:51 PM) : 

Something must be done because this town literally stinks to high heaven. There's a barely tolerable stench that's been emanating from our sewers for the past several weeks, and it can be smelled from downtown all the way to the Plaza (Come to the intersection of 16th & Walnut after a storm and take a deep breath!) For years my friends and family have lovingly referred to North KC as "Funkytown" (insert mayoral name joke here) and now the funk has come home to roost.

 

Blogger Mark said ... (11:24 AM) : 

Actually Alan if a raingarden is done correctly it = death for mosquitoes. A properly installed raingarden drains/soaks in within 48 hours so even if the mosquitoes lay their eggs the water drains and the eggs won't hatch. At least that's the way mine works!

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (11:32 AM) : 

anon 12:47-
Well, first off, recognize that yes (gasps being heard) all asbestos is not harmful. It's only harmful if airborne and friable, which excludes anything encapsulated. But of course, a lot of people made a lot of money removing on asbestos removal.
I'm very suspcious of the "science" on this matter. Please show me the hospitalizations and deaths that have occurred as a result of our sewer system. Lots of sh*t smells, including car exhaust, factory fumes and restaurants w/ deep fat friers. Perhaps we need a $4B plan to get rid of all of that, too.

 

Anonymous mainstream said ... (10:11 PM) : 

Mark, thanks for your defense of rain gardens.

I feel a little embarrassed calling myself an environmentalist and not having one.

 

Anonymous Russ Johnson said ... (7:37 AM) : 

Just to clarify a couple of comments.

-I have never advocated for lowering state clean water standards.
-I do not know enough about capacity credits to give an informed opinion.

Thanks,

Councilman Russ Johnson

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (3:09 PM) : 

^ KC is lucky to have Councilman Russ Johnson's great leadership on this important issue.

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (4:43 PM) : 

^ ditto

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (10:01 PM) : 

you bettya. GO RUSS!!! GO RUSS!!!

To be honest I have no opinion of Russ one way or the other, except he doesn't represent the 3rd district that starts him out a notch above my concil person, who does.

Anna Moose

 

Anonymous Challange Accepted said ... (8:07 AM) : 

"I accept that apparently that makes me an unrealistic environmental whack job, but it's my opinion and while it may not jibe with the bottom line, I challenge anyone to convince me it's not moral." Said Mark

Mark if you adopt the standard you propose the work is not affordable, therefore, consistent with your standard, no aspect of the project will be done, which leaves an already bad situation to get worse -- AND THAT OUTCOME IS IMMORAL.

You stand on this sounds much less like a workable solution to an immediate problem than it sounds like a political attack on a popular member of council who you seem to want to challenge in 3.5 years. This entire blog sounds like the drip, drip, drip of the perpetual campaign.

Hmmm ... advancement of the public good vs. Mark's political career goals -- where would the moral person (i.e. not Dick Cheney) come down in that conflict?

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (2:51 PM) : 

Kansas city won't do anything about the sewage problem until people start getting sick.

 

post a comment
Google
WWW The Kansas City Post