Folks,
In the past several weeks, there have been several public email messages, newspaper articles and blog posts made about this SSWWEP. Some of these materials have contained factual errors regarding this study and its objectives and findings. It is not possible nor appropriate for the City to comb through every web post or news article comment made to correct errors. However, in instances where that information is distributed directly to CAC members, or published in the newspaper, we feel that it is important to correct factual errors with the CAC for your benefit. We feel that this will help you assemble a a factual picture of the system, data collected and analysis performed, so that you can make unbiased decision based on facts.
We are addressing below an email received by Irv Mermelstein on 1-20-2014. The message was addressed to me, and Mr. Mermelstein indicates in the message that it was sent to some CAC members. Following the procedure described above, we are sharing the message and our response with the entire CAC. There were numerous factual errors in the message, and we have addressed the most significant ones below. The original email is attached as a PDF for your reference.
Take care,
Robert
--------------
Response to Mr. Mermelstein’s email to Mr. Robert Czachorski, “FDDP
Effectiveness Study Preliminary Post-FDD Survey Results,” dated January 20,
2014.
Introduction
Contrary
to Mr. Mermelstein’s assumptions and assertions otherwise, the City is
committed to conducting an evaluation of our sanitary sewer system to: 1)
assess the effectiveness of the FDD program to date, 2) evaluate the risks of
future basement backups from the sanitary sewer system, and 3) evaluate
alternatives to address those risk.
In February of 2013, the City contracted OHM Advisors, along with several
sub-consultant (OHM), to conduct the
aforementioned evaluation. In
conjunction with this evaluation, the City formed a Citizens Advisor Committee
(CAC) to evaluate the results and make a recommendation to City Council
regarding the most effective methods to mitigate future basement backups, as
indicated by the engineering data provided by OHM and in alignment with our
community values. From the onset of the
project, the City committed itself to creating and implementing a robust public
engagement process which has or will include: public and CAC meetings, a project
library on the City website, a survey of 2350 FDD homeowners, and access to OHM
and City project team members by Ann Arbor citizens. We believe the City has been transparent and
open about the SSWWE project from day one and the project has met all of its
technical and public engagement milestones.
In conclusion, we have implemented a well established and transparent
process consistent with our community values and City legal code to conduct the
study, engage the public, and develop a plan for the sanitary sewer
system.
False Allegations
Unfortunately,
there are several items in Mr. Mermelstein’s January 20 email that are not true. We strongly believe that the CAC needs
factual knowledge about the SSWWEP and should not be burdened with falsehoods
as they all approach important decisions on this project. The items in question are detailed below.
1. "First, it proves that the FDDP City-wide is a
failure after 12 years as a program to control sewer backups. It has not done
that. The 29% of homeowners in your survey were not supposed to have
sewer backups anymore because (or so Mr. Fleetham has been telling the CAC
for months now) their neighbors had FDDs completed too,"
The
statement about Mr. Fleetham is false. Mr. Fleetham has not been telling the
CAC that residents should not have basement backups anymore. In fact, Mr.
Fleetham facilitated the preparation of the survey with the CAC for the very
reason of determining whether residences were experiencing backups and/or
water in the basement.
Furthermore,
we take exception to the characterization of the FDD program as a City-wide
failure to control (sanitary) sewer backups. This conclusion is not
supported by the flow data evaluation, and actual reports of basement backups
during recent large storm events. In fact, this information suggests that the
FDD program has been very effective at reducing wet weather flows to the
sanitary sewer system, decreasing the actual frequency of sanitary sewer
backups, and has significantly decreased the risk of basement backups.
In addition, the survey results contradict the assertion regarding the failure
of the FDD program. The survey says 45%
of the respondents would recommend a sump pump to a neighbor; almost twice as
many as would not. The 278 respondents reported relief from water or sanitary
backups in their basements, almost twice as many who reported new water and/or
sanitary backup after FDD. Also, the
survey recorded numerous positive comments from citizens who no longer have to
endure sanitary backups in the basements.
2. "Second, it (the survey) proves false the arguments
by the City Attorney's Office to the CAC in person on January 9 and in memos to
the CAC in November, and at other times in writing, that FDDs "benefit
the property, its owner and its occupants because they help prevent
sanitary sewage backups into the property's basement, which is a known health
hazard."
The
survey results do not prove false that the FDD program has helped
prevent sanitary sewage basement backups. As outlined above, the survey results
show just the opposite - a significant reduction in the number of residence
that experience sanitary backup in the basement. This conclusion is
supported by the flow evaluation and the actual number of basement backups
reported in recent large storms. The reduction in the risk of basement backup
will be quantified with the risk assessment and hydraulic modeling, which are
the next steps in the study.
It is
also important to point out that while the survey shows some issues with rain
water flooding / seepage / dampness following FDD, issues from rain
water poses a far less health risk than sanitary sewage backups into basements.
The City is currently developing a plan to collect information to address
remaining flooding issues.
3. "The City Attorney’s Office told the CAC on January
9, and in memos to the CAC before that date, that there was no likelihood
of meritorious lawsuits about FDDs."
This
statement is false. At the January 9th
CAC meeting, the City Attorney did not tell the CAC that there was no
likelihood of meritorious lawsuits about FDDs. Rather, she opined that the
likelihood of the FDD program being found illegal was very low and she
presented a review of her written report that formed the basis of that opinion,
citing several cases. She highlighted the ease with which a lawsuit can be
filed, and indicated that it is entirely possible that one would be filed on
the project, especially in light of all of the threats that you have been
making. The CAC then concurred with a suggestion by the facilitator to consider
FDD legal until told otherwise, for the purpose of completing their duty and
making a recommendation to City Council.
4. "OHM Advisors is not seriously going to steer a CAC
now (with litigation imminent by one of the 26%) toward the study of the option
of continuing a program to require thousands of homeowners to help the
City flood their own homes with storm water by means of FDDs."
The
implication in this statement is false. OHM is not steering the CAC in any
direction. As outlined above, OHM has been asked to conduct an unbiased
evaluation of our system and the alternatives available to us, and to work with
a Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) to evaluate the results. The CAC will be
steering the process and making recommendations to City Council.
There are no comments.