DWSD's Wastewater Process, History and Regulation

Perhaps the best summary (16 pages, including charts and maps) of wastewater treatment at DWSD, the city department's record the past few decades and how the State of Michigan enforces state and federal clean water laws can be found on the website of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ):

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-wrd-npdes-DetroitWWTP_FS_415425_7.pdf

Excerpts:

"The sustained peak primary treatment capacity for wet-weather flows is 1,700 [million gallons per day (MGD)] and the sustained peak secondary treatment capacity for wet-weather flows is currently 930 MGD... All dry-weather flows and a significant amount of wet-weather flows receive full secondary treatment at the WWTP."  (p.3)

"There is currently no additional space at the plant where additional secondary capacity could be constructed. The DEQ has determined there are no feasible alternatives for providing secondary treatment to flows greater than 930 MGD."  (p.4)

[The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit] "... focuses on addressing three major issues. The first is providing effluent limits, solids handling requirements, and improved operations and maintenance through a robust Asset Management Program... The second is a reduction in the permitted total phosphorus loads to help reduce phosphorus loadings to Lake Erie. There are numerous sources of phosphorus loadings to Lake Erie, including the Detroit [Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP).]  Loadings reductions from point and nonpoint sources are likely needed to help reduce harmful algal blooms in Lake Erie.  The third is a new adaptive management [Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)] Control Program that recognizes the significant achievements of the Detroit CSO Control Program over the last 20 years, sets forth schedules for completion of the core CSO Control Program, expands the use of Green Infrastructure, and moves forward with the remainder of the control program..."  (pp.10-11)

"The Detroit WWTP has had periods of violations of its NPDES Permit limits and conditions over the past 35 years...After one period of violations from 1997 through 1999, a second amended consent judgment was issued in 2000. These violations largely resulted from high solids inventories accumulating at the WWTP.  The high solids inventories resulted from ineffective operations to dewater solids and remove them from the WWTP...Violations again started in September 2009 and continued until November 2011...As was the case in the late 1990s, the immediate cause was high solids inventories in the WWTP."  (p.11)

*****     *****     *****

It may be as complete a picture of DWSD as you can get, as long as you overlook a page full of high crimes and misdemeanors.

DWSD Has Chance to Foster Accounting Transparency.

If you were to look back several decades for the public institution in Michigan most shrouded in secrecy and obfuscation by reason of corruption and incompetence, it’s hard to imagine you would find one more qualified than the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD).

Traditional annual audits (1) were not, aren’t and never will be comprehensible by the public and (2) obviously didn’t reveal, stop or even slow down the laundry list of crimes and mismanagement at DWSD.  And anyone who thinks those problems are completely over at DWSD has his or her head in the sand.

But now we have available a revolutionary system for transparency, and it can be had at a discounted price.   I’m convinced that the shortest, most effective route to transparency at DWSD is through the application of Checkbook 2.0, the brainchild of John Liu, New York City’s comptroller.  Checkbook 2.0 is a readily adaptable accounting system in which an institution’s financial transactions are disclosed on a public website as they happen.

Checkbook 2.0 vacuums up, correlates and displays an institution’s revenues, expenses, budgets, payroll, projects, contracts, subcontracts and such.

The next most effective safeguard of the public interest in lieu of traditional audits, I suppose, would be annual forensic audits (which would be a lot more expensive and much less effective).

A third alternative might be annual petitions for accounting in a suburban circuit court (which would probably be even more expensive and less effective).

Karl Fogel of Open Tech Strategies, LLC wrote, “...the release of the Checkbook NYC code...is significant because of a larger initiative that accompanies it. Long before the code release, the Comptroller's Office started a serious planning process to ensure that the code could be easily adopted by other municipalities, supported by other vendors, and eventually become a long-term multi-stakeholder project...”

Rebecca Williams of the Sunlight Foundation reported, “...[T]his might be the first instance of city officials proactively and premeditatively building civic applications with the intent of having other cities -- and cities with varied software vendors at that -- use and contribute to making that software better.”

There will be a few public officials who howl in objection to the Checkbook 2.0 concept before exploring its possibilities. But there will be many others willing to consider a new way to deal with an old problem.  Let's work to generate strong public support for such an initiative.