Talk:Flint water crisis/Archive 1

inaccuracy and missing information
There are several inaccurate attack pieces by the state media that have disregarded the facts plus given that it is in the response section, so that make it difficult to remove. Resignations that may have to do with the election of a new mayor were added as if they were caused by the crisis, which I have fixed. There is nothing regarding earlier bacterial and TTM in the water, which were the original issues which were resolved by adding more chlorine, which caused the stripping the pipes to bring in the lead. Nor any about the lack of citizens with water issue cooperation when requesting to test at their homes to allow them to pin point localized issues. Nothing on early Mayor abusing the Water and Sewer Fund to spend on General Fund expenses instead of updating the water lines that caused his recall and the first Financial emergency in the city. There is also the fact that the city's pipeline records are on index cards, which make it hard to select a proper water test site. Also, this was a factor in the Flint Mayoral election. Spshu (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please find a reliable source for your claims and add the missing facts then. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Duh, of course, but the point is that this article isn't showing the complete picture yet, not that there isn't some good research here. Two, I cannot force newspapers to report the facts that they report then fail to mention in their editorial, which in part contradict by the whole background section on the water switch, which I added. What I have laid out above is a substantial amount of research that I though I might point out if other editors wish to to joint in and finding the sources for. Unlike other on WP, that demand that I find source for their unsourced sentence and paragraphs, I will not add them until source. Spshu (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources aren't limited to news agencies. They can be any published document as long as it's fact based and unbiased. TomCat4680 (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There are some pieces about the index cards - I may add these sometime over the next few days. Neutralitytalk 01:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Is above average relevant?
The phrase "proportion of infants and children with above-average levels of lead in their blood had nearly doubled" doesn't add much understanding to the subject. First, for a symmetric population distribution, 50% would be above average to begin with, so doubling that would imply a huge shift. Of course, this is probably a situation in which the median is below the average. Second, the statement implies that the average lead level is somehow a health standard. The average, we would hope, is way below the level of concern. 24.23.243.160 (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point; there's almost certainly a more clear and specific way to present this. Anyone want to take a crack at it. Neutralitytalk 02:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I find it best just to put in direct quotes from the source so the meaning isn't distorted. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * this is a cut and paste from the washington post copy. you do sympathize with the doctor how to communicate a massive shift in levels in a population. Duckduckstop (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you
... to all the editors that contributed to this article. It is shaping up nicely and it is very informative. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. This is a horrible tragedy. My heart goes out to all the people affected. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a crime scene. The rhetoric of tragedy just drives people away from helping. There is work to do and there are jail sentences to give out. Please do not turn this into a merely sentimentalist effort. The people of Flint already have their answers (more Maury Povich, reality TV logic). They want action. 199.58.81.144 (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nobody has been charged with any crimes and there's been plenty of action! TomCat4680 (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The whole thing is a crime. What action? The money? $80 Million for a $1.5 Billion project? What action are you seeing? All I see is day time talk show gossip about "answers and explanations". That's self-delusion. Do we want justice or do we want a Behind the Music feel-good episode? 199.58.81.144 (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What about the National Guardsmen, Red Cross, police and firemen, volunteer groups, etc. that have been walking door to door in sub-freezing temperatures delivering water and supplies for the last few weeks???? They're doing nothing???? Or what about all of the donations of money and water from around the country??? That's nothing????? How much of this article have you actually read??? Your comments are offensive and downright ignorant. Go back on Twitter to complain and stop making this page a forum. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks to all the contributors! I think it is shaping up to be an informative piece that I think people will be going to. What a disaster. Neutralitytalk 01:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This piece has no mention of Operation Flint, an effort for two years to get action on this crime. How did you miss this when the hashtags #OpFlint, #ArrestGovSnyder, and #ArrestSnyder have been active for a long time? 199.58.81.144 (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Twitter hashtags aren't considered reliable sources since anyone can post anything with them. They're basically just a forum. TomCat4680 (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hashtags are a canary that there is an event happening. #OpFlint like #Occupy represents a movement not a discussion. Definitely not a forum. Are we unable to do basic forest for the trees here? Ignoring hashtags means ignoring people who contributed heavily to educating the public. It's like saying Claudette Colvin's refusal to give up her bus seat doesn't count in the civil rights story because she was a pregnant teen not an officially trained activist. We have actual product placement on this site (be honest, it's advertising) but hashtags are too much. 199.58.81.144 (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The Flint Journal said it best: "Flint water crisis is bigger than a hashtag". Sitting around writing on Twitter and pointing fingers isn't going to help these kids who are scarred for life. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I added a news blurb about Operation Flint's bottle drive last weekend too. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Future section
The section entitled "Future" needs more than just one sentence saying they plan on joining the KWA at some point. In the more immediate future, what are the plans to mitigate the problem with the damaged pipes? Even if KWA had its pipeline tomorrow, the pipes have problems that need to be reversed. What is being considered? Hermanoere (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * See the Costs of infrastructure repairs and medical treatment section. First they have to figure out how much it will cost to replace the old system. There's been a few different amounts tossed around. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Good source
I don't have time to incorporate some of the info in this article at the moment, but I wanted to flag this very well-written long-form piece:


 * Anna Maria Barry-Jester, What Went Wrong In Flint, FiveThirtyEight (January 26, 2016).

Anyone is welcome to take a crack at making the appropriate additions. Neutralitytalk 19:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Unsure; inviting discussion
—about the section Celebrity and corporate donations. Starting to become an unwieldy list that may fall foul of WP:NOTEVERYTHING: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." It may be de rigeur for celeb PR at the moment, but the simple question is, is it encyclopedic? Thoughts, ladies and gents? Keri (talk) 10:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The point of the section is to show the outpouring of support for Flint, not "celeb PR". I suppose it could be trimmed down a little bit though. TomCat4680 (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not against a paragraph or two describing "the outpouring of support for Flint", I just wonder if a list of individual donations is really the best way to portray that support. A list that could become extremely long, too. Keri (talk) 11:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There was a paragraph in the section above it already, but it was getting so long I decided it needed its own section. TomCat4680 (talk) 12:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Edit: I've trimmed down the section a bit so it flows better. TomCat4680 (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Article seems rather accusatory
Not sure if this violates any wikipedia rules, but it just seems out of place.

"Had the agreement between Flint and DWSD not been cancelled and Flint continued to receive DWSD water during the construction of KWA, the following events would not have happened as Flint river water would not have been the primary interim water source." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:6000:628:9D94:B135:87E7:5454 (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, that statement was tacked on unnecessarily. I removed it. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's relevant as a statement and opinion that many activists have been making. 199.58.81.144 (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Opinions aren't facts and activists aren't experts. TomCat4680 (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Reporting an opinion as a counterpoint to lukewarm media is representing the larger truth. This article gives the impression that people want resignations when in fact they want arrests. Welcome to limp democracy. 199.58.81.144 (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The "Arrest Snyder" hashtag was started by Michael Moore, whose comments are already noted here repeatedly, with sources. Jesse Jackson agreed with him and his statements and sources for them are here too. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This article still has a lot of original research and biased claims asking the motives of DWSD, which is not encyclopedic. Example: "it is not clear why DWSD terminated the agreement in 2013 as they could have received revenue for at least two additional years and they did not have a buyer waiting to take over the Flint water." I am removing this line and others like it." If you think it belongs then state who's opinion this is.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.48.108 (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Flint water crisis -> Michigan water crisis?
I've been reading up on a few sources that state that the water pollution problem is not limited to Flint, but is also occurring in a number of cities across Michigan as well.1 2 3 I don't want to bring up a page move discussion just yet, as I don't believe there would be a consensus for such a move, but would it be possible to rewrite the article so that the focus isn't solely on Flint? Philip Terry Graham 20:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it's possible. None of those cities are in a federal state of emergency or experiencing major public health crises. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Note that the Detroit News link is not about water contamination - as that article explains, "In much of the state where lead is a problem, the source of poisoning has been the traditional culprits: old lead paint on homes built before 1978 and lead residue in dust and soil." So the issue in the other cities isn't water - it's old housing stock with toxic lead paint. So material like that should go into out articles on lead paint and lead abatement (we probably should have an article specifically on lead abatement in the United States.) The other links do note the problem of lead piping, but the issue there is more general and less crisis-level than in Flint.  We probably should have a general article on lead pipes in the United States, though, that provides an overview. Neutralitytalk 02:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Jan 30 press conference from mayor and EPA report higher than expected lead levels in sampled water
Forgive me for not simply adding this to the article, but I've not yet managed to assimilate or understand these reports.

Here are some possibly useful links on the testing

Tarrintoo (talk) 07:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

water for some state workers
The current wording makes it seem that this has to do with the current crisis when it is a separate issue. the current wording is: "Emails obtained by Progress Michigan indicate that Michigan state officials were trucking in bottled water to some of their own employees stationed in Flint as early as January 2015, long before telling residents of the contamination.[4]" As noted by ABC news and other outlets this is NOT lead, ad unrelated to the current containments. It is based on certain buildings in which the state was the landlord and therefore responsible for a landlord, failing on other water quality issues. At the very least the current wording has to reflecting Progress Michigan claims as contested: "Caleb Buhs, a spokesman for the agency that manages state buildings, says the water coolers began in January 2015 after Flint had flunked some drinking water standards apart from the lead contamination that has caused the current crisis. He says the water coolers still are supplied to a state building in Flint. Employees can also use the drinking fountains. Buhs says it was a decision "we made as the building owner" http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/latest-pistons-owner-offers-10m-resolve-flint-woes-36570021 73.132.139.167 (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It does have to with the crisis, which was triggered by the disconnect from Detroit Water, but not with the current lead phase. There just isn't a section yet on the bacteria and TTMs which cause the city to add more chlorine thus expediting the lead leaching into the water. I have corrected it to reflect the TTM issue. At the time of the TTMs. You could have edit yourself. Spshu (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Detroit Water and Sewerage Department offered to Reduce their Water sell prices to Flint
Please review this article, which may be a useful counterpoint to the somewhat biased tenor of this Wiki. The article references a memo in which DWSD offers to dramatically reduce their sell prices to Flint. It is not at all uncommon in negotiations for a party to make major capitulations, even last minute. If DWSD did make this offer, it would completely alter the cost savings/ business case justifications upon which the critical decisions were being made to a) make a switch from DWSD at all, b) to resurrect the Karegnondi Water Authority pipeline and c) to float municipal bonds to fund the KWA. When DWSD made this price reduction offer, all actions should have been stopped until the business cases/ cost justification financial models were re-run. So the unanswered question is, "Did they?" a: Shazbat01 (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Detroit Water has played fast and lose with their numbers. The article already indicates that the city look at and rejected Detroit Water's last offer on April 16th. The city has been in negotiation with Flint over water cost since 1990s. DWSD made the decision to kick off Flint placing the city on notice April 17, a day after Flint EM signed the KWA water supply agreement. That was Detroit's strategy to get Flint to haul any decision on the KWA given that the EMs were dealing with the issue since 2012, I would think that they would know their cost structure and would have to halt every thing to make a determination. The Thnkprogress.org is incorrect and I informed them of a major issue with it. Don't understand your b) or c) as the KWA pipeline was never halted to the point of needing to be "resurrect"ed and votes for KWA bonds occurred by Genesee County Commission.The KWA would go on with out Flint but with out Flint the size of the pipes would be smaller. Spshu (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Erroneous and Inadequate Timeline
Th article states: "In January 2015, a public meeting was held, where citizens complained about the "bad water." This is misleading, since in fact the residents first complained about the water's taste, smell and appearance from the get go. Compare The  Wsshington Post  "APRIL 2014: In an effort to save money, Flint begins drawing its water from the Flint River instead of relying on water from Detroit. The move is considered temporary while the city waits to connect to a new regional water system. Residents immediately complain about the smell, taste and appearance of the water. They also raise health concerns, reporting rashes, hair loss and other problems." Nothing of this is mentioned in the article, nor the entire series of missteps and misrepresenations that ensued during the remainder of 2014. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/a-timeline-of-the-water-crisis-in-flint-michigan/2016/01/16/cc4d32a2-bc63-11e5-85cd-5ad59bc19432_story.html   Orthotox (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Feel free to correct or delete any inaccuracies then, along as you include a reliable and unbiased source. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The page also fails to credit Lee-Anne Walters, the Flint citizen who alerted Prof. Edwards and del Toral to the problem. I hope these sources are credible enough: http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/01/23/virginia-tech-expert-helped-expose-flint-water-crisis/79251004; http://www.roanoke.com/news/education/higher_education/virginia_tech/virginia-tech-researchers-fought-for-flint-in-water-crisis/article_56fb09da-9e6a-5e11-9085-b48893e2380d.html; http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/the-contempt-that-poisoned-flints-water; http://michiganradio.org/post/after-blowing-whistle-flints-water-epa-rogue-employee-has-been-silent-until-now#stream/0; http://michiganradio.org/post/mom-helped-uncover-what-was-really-going-flint-s-water#stream/0; http://abcnews.go.com/US/epa-worker-details-discovery-flints-contaminated-water/story?id=36448812. Telcia (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I added her name with one of the sources you posted. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not misleading. While, there were complaints from the beginning, the city did hold meeting at which they complained. They also refused at one to give information so the city could send out some one to test. Spshu (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Why did Flint start using Detroit water in the first place
Why did Flint start using Detroit water in the first place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.21.53 (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Good question. Flint began buying Detroit water in 1967. See here: "Flint's first water treatment plant was built in 1917. The original red brick building stands a few hundred yards from the present facility, and looks a lot like an abandoned automobile factory. Many of the square panes of glass are smashed in, and Wright said the roof collapsed a few years back. The city built a second facility, the current plant, in 1952, but it would only operate fully until 1967, when the city stopped treating its own water and started buying it from Detroit. During the peak of Flint’s prosperity and population, when sprawling factories turned thousands of GM cars off production lines, both plants together pumped 100 million gallons of water per day. Today, with most of those factories shuttered and the city’s population significantly depleted, the Flint plant was only pumping about 16 million gallons daily when it last operated in October." Neutralitytalk 19:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Great find! I was wondering that myself. Plus I love learning about local history. TomCat4680 (talk) 08:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It goes back to a 1960s profiteering scandal involving a planned pipeline from Lake Huron to Flint which was abandoned because of that scandal.  Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Under section History to 2014, as written, you infer that the Flint EM simply approved the Flint City Council's decision to resurrect and switch to the Karegnondi Water Authority (KWA) pipeline. Please review this article on the topic of resurrecting the Karegnondi Water Authority, which states that the Flint EM played a very active role in advocating for resurrecting funding for and thus switching to the KWA. It also states that an independent report commissioned by the Michigan State Treasury was against resurrecting the KWA pipeline, but that the Flint EM pushed it through. It also suggests there was a secondary (or primary?) motive for resurrecting the KWA, which is to provide water to areas along the KWA route that gas developers want to frack: Also see the source interview markmaynard.com cites: Shazbat01 (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)shazbat01

←Resurrect the KWA? It was never defunct and was just recently started. Secondly, MarkMaynard.com clearly states it is a blog not a news outlet, so what he says is not considered a reliable source of information for WP. And just to be complete in absolutely destroying the blog post of Maynard's... The first Markmaynard.com post is also based on an interview with Flint attorney Alec Gibbs, who is suing over retirees' health insurance changes (consolidating down to a few instead of 30 different programs). The KWA is spear headed by DEMOCRATIC Genesee County Drain Commissioner Jeff Wright, who is the CEO of the KWA, not any Republican state led operation. And it was built due to near or double digit percentage increases in Detroit Water cost and general disregard and expectation that Flint should take as much cost on to subsidize Detroit Water (this may have triggered the Detroit water termination notices as Detroit had to actual bill their core territory residents for the full cost). This total demolished this key statement: "Toward the end of our interview, Gibbs mentions that the decision to move Flint off of Detroit water, and instead build a pipeline from Lake Huron, was likely made in part because Snyder and the Republicans wanted to bring water west from Lake Huron in order to service fracking operations along that route…" The KWA pipeline was going to built whether or not Flint signed on. Flint City Council already approved starting (founding member after all) and votes to switch to the KWA for Water just before the announcement in 2011 of the new financial emergency and again under the EM in March 2013. Synder also indicated to ABC12 News that he would be hands off on the water issue as the local residents would have to live with it long term that EMs in Detroit and Flint were to include the local government in the decision making process. Spshu (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)