The Sewer Problem
I want to examine one very prosaic example of a public policy of the kind I described in my last post, one that would benefit everyone and especially working people—an effort to improve the functioning of our sewer system.
Philadelphia, like many old Northeastern cities, suffers from outdated sewers. New cities have what are called separate or two-pipe sewer systems. There have sanitary sewers, which handle waste water from our sinks, showers, and toilets. They also have storm sewers than handle rainful. Those two systems are entirely separate. The sanitary sewers take waste water to sewage treatment plants where the water is filtered and cleaned before it flows back into rivers and the ocean. The storm sewers take rainfall directly to rivers and oceans.
Older cities like Philadelphia have what is called a combined or one-pipe sewer system. Waste water and storm water flow into one set of pipes. And all of this water goes into sewage treatment plants before it is discharged. Or, at least, that is the theory. The problem we have, however, is that when the system is overtaxed by a major storm, two awful things happen. One is that the sewers and treatment plants reach capacity and emergency gates are opened allowing some part of the sewers output—including untreated waste water—to flow directly into the Delaware and Schuylkill rivers. This is, to say the least, not desirable from an environmental point of view and subjects Philadelphia to the threat of lawsuits from the Environmental Protection Agency.
Our combined sewers also harm individual Philadelphians. Roughly 22% of Philadelphians have flooded basements every year. Some of those basement flood because of structural problems and deterioration. But many of them flood because our storm sewers get overwhelmed and either can’t take storm water away quickly enough or because they back up into people’s homes. And remember, it is not just rain water that backs up—because of our combined sewers, many Philadephians have the horrible experience of raw, albeit diluted, waste water backing up into their homes.
We’re All In This Together When it Comes to Sewers
This happens everywhere in the city, from Chestnut Hill to Southwest Philadelphia. But here, as in many other areas, the problems tend to be worst in poor and working class neighborhoods. The river wards are particularly hard hit but so are communites in North Philadelphia and Southwest Philadelphia.
These problems are getting worse, for two reasons. The Water Department puts much of the blame on the increasing severity of storms which come more frequently and are more intense, dropping more water on the city in a shorter period of time. Residents often blame new development—this is a frequent concern of folks in Pennsport who have seen a great deal of suburban style development along the waterfront in their community.
(This is a good place to stop for a moment and offer a hat tip to John Dougherty, who is not only the head of IBEW Local 98 but is also the president of the Pennsport Civic Association. He has been talking and writing about the sewer problem and other similar problems for some time now. An article he wrote for the Public Record about this issue appeared the same week that I wrote about Neighborhood Networks. Unfortunately it is no longer accessible on the Public Record website.)
Whether the problem to this point has been mainly about storm water or development, the problem in the future is likely to be new development. One of the barriers to the continued rebuilding of Philadelphia is our inadequate sewers. If we don’t begin to work towards a solution of the sewer problem, sewer overflows and backflows will become more serious. And eventually the EPA may step in with steep fines that may force us to restrain further development.
What Can We Do?
There are a number of possible solutions to our sewers problems. Some folks would like to see us entirely rebuild our sewer system, replacing our one pipe system with a two pipe. And they argue that the city has not been aggressive enough in seeking Federal aid to do this. I don’t know the details and would presume that here, as elsewhere, Federal support for urban areas has been declining. But we have some members of Congress and Senators who are not slouches when it comes to bringing us money from Washington. This is certainly an area where we need it.
There are places in the city where converting the sewer system to a two pipe system is necessary and possible. This may be the only way to help some of the communities most affected by flooding, such as Pennsport. However, to replace our one pipe system with a two pipe system citywide would be enormously expensive.
And there are other alternatives. The most promising are a number of new (and old) technologies that keep storm run-off from entering the sewer system. All of these technologies have one basic aim—to allow storm water to sink into the ground rather than to flow into the storm sewers. This is an old-fashioned aim. That’s where most of the storm water goes in rural areas and the only reason we need storm sewers is because, in build-up urban areas, our buildings and roads and sidewalks prevent storm water from reaching the ground.
Allowing storm water to enter the ground has an additional advantage besides reducing the burden on our sewers. Run-off from streets and parking lots contain a lot of pollutants including that which remains from spills of engine oil and gasoline. Water flowing into storm sewers and rivers, takes along these pollutants, some of which cannot be removed by treatment plants. If, however, storm water sinks into the ground, our rivers are protected.
How To Let Storm Water Sink Into The Ground
One way to do this is to replace our impermeable pavement and sidewalks with new, permeable materials.
A second is to create more open space. As a result of NTI, we have cleared many lots in the city. Most of them should be redeveloped. Some of them, however, should be left open, giving us vest pocket parks and small playgrounds in areas of the city that have too few of them now.
A third is to plant more trees. Planting trees properly with the kinds of pits that help them get the water they need, can substantially reduce run-off. We need to be planting more trees for other reasons as well, to increase oxygen and reduce carbon dioxide levels in the city, to reduce cooling bills by providing shade in the summer, and for aesthetic reasons.
A fourth is to encourage green roofs. This is a fairly new technology that is being widely adopted in some cities, such as Chicago. Planting grass, or more substantial gardens on the roofs of buildings, can suck up a great deal of water that otherwise would enter the storm sewers. They also reduce heating and cooling costs for buildings.
A fifth is to build containment tanks to hold accumulated water during storms. These tanks can then gradually release water into the ground or into the sewer system after the storm has passed and the demand on the system has been reduced.
A sixth is to use grey water systems. In large and small buildings alike, storm water can be collected and recycled back into toilets. This would, of course, require a change in building codes. We saw last summer that the plumber’s union is resistant to some new building practices, such as waterless urinals. And, the city still will not allow PVC to be used for sewer pipes, even though the costs of construction are reduced when this is allowed. I think that some creative leadership can overcome these difficulties. Grey water systems actually require more plumbing work than usual construction methods. Indeed, the increased plumbing work they require might be far more than that which is lost when waterless urinals are used. So I suggest that it is time to engage our unions and developers in some discussions about how we can rethinking our building codes so as to create more sustainable buildings and reduce contruction costs while possibly increasing the need for labor.
Let’s Get Started
None of these technologies are perfect. For example, permeable sidewalks can get gunked up over time and have to be power-washed. Of course, it wouldn’t be such a terrible idea to power-wash our sidewalks from time to time for other reasons. (One friend suggests that power-washing a good metaphor for what this city needs in many respects.)
Nor are these technologies cost free. However there is no reason we can’t begin to require new construction to adopt them. The city already requires large building projects to contain the first 1 inch of rainful on-side until after the storm has passed. We should raise that to 2 inches and require it for smaller building projects as well.
More importantly, we can’t solve our sewer problems just be modifying new construction. It is time to start retrofitting older buildings with green roofs and older parking lots with permeable materials. This can be very costly in the short term. But over the long term, they reduce costs. So a low interest loan program, together with some new regulations, would encourage building owners to make the investment in green technologies. And, since ultimately these technologies reduce costs, providing such program might be especially helpful to businesses in low income areas.
Our sewer problems are not especially exciting. And it might seem that a discussion of public utilities takes us pretty far from a concern for social justice. But, here and elsewhere, good public policies that benefit all of us have a way of particularly helping those with low incomes. Reducing the burden on our combined sewer system, and replacing it where necessary with at separate storm and sanitary sewers, benefits everyone by, among other things, reducing pollution and eliminating potential barriers to development. But these ideas would especially help those in working class communities who find their basements flooded on a regular basis.
And, because these public polices recognize that we’re all in this together, they can help bind the people and neighborhoods of a diverse city like Philadelphia together.