Skip to main content

Chelsea Reduces Water Treatment Capacity In Face of Lawsuit

Chelsea city council decided at their meeting on the 14th of this month to shut down one of their reverse osmosis water softeners in an effort to placate Chelsea Investment Group, LLC in their lawsuit against the City and the City Manager. The full story in the Chelsea Standard explains the reasoning for this in detail, but I'll rehash a bit.

The reverse osmosis process of softening the water has a byproduct that must be disposed. In 2002-2003, the City took a short-cut to comply with Michigan Department of Environmental Quality rules and ran the discharge into the Chelsea Wastewater Treatment Plant and keep the money from the Drinking Water Revolving Fund, which was tied to a schedule. Which was great when the projection for waste to be disposed was a max of 125,000 gallons, but the City is actually pumping out 414,000 gallons at peak, with an average of 250,000 gallons per day. Tied to the Library issue from earlier this year, you'd think the City needs a math tutor. But, I digress.

The net-net of this is that at peak times (or any time the treatment plant can't handle the output), the City will be delivering hard water to residents who paid for soft water. Just to point out what's got me in a huff, they're going to deliver hard water to me when I paid for softened water. I'm not really that upset with it being hard water; I grew up on well water so I know it's not going to kill me. What I do resent is paying for something I'm not getting. I also resent the fact that the City has once again taken what seems like hasty action. The move is obviously an attempt to make the lawsuit go away, but, unless the paper is leaving something out, they didn't even check to make sure the Investment Group would accept the conciliation.

Robert Ponte, a lawyer here in Chelsea, wrote in his Letter to the Editor in the 23 March edition of the Chelsea Standard:

Doing the expedient act got is into this mess. There is no reason to believe that doing the next expedient act will get us out of anything except the developer's lawsuit. My question is, who does the quick fix serve? Does it serve anyone but the developer?


Despite their rhetorical nature, the questions deserve honest answers. I have a hard time believing that the City truly has anything in mind except getting rid of the lawsuit. This move serves no one in the City except those who belong to the lawsuit, who bullied their way into the development in the first place.

Robert has called for residents to support (either financially or in spirit) hiring a qualified professional to look at "getting out of this mess" but emailing him at rponteesq@sbcglobal.net. Sounds like a good suggestion and I would encourage all Chelsea residents to get in touch with Mr. Ponte.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Happy Retirement Pat Sweeny!

In a previous life, I was an active member of the West Michigan Shores Chapter of the STC. I met a lot of really cool people there and learned a lot about what it meant to be not just a technical writer, but more about how technical writers can break out of the mold and accomplish things.

One of the people who did that was Pat Sweeny. Pat is (or was, by this point) the President and owner of The Bishop Company, a contract do-it-all house; they document, streamline and illustrate your process, and they do it damn well. Pat was one of the first people in that chapter to "get it", which is to say, he and his company understand that technical writing isn't going to be a department for very much longer, it's going to be a business.

He had the foresight to actually make it a business, but he also had something else. Pat was forever trying to better those around him. He would come to meetings (which was a big step beyond most people) and teach you things. Or he would come to …

Google Inbox: A classic Google product

My work domain (an EDU) recently had Google Inbox enabled so I had a good chance to try it out. My personal email is relatively quiet and, I believe, doesn't provide a good Inbox experience. Work is more active and requires actual management, something I've tossed many a tool at over the years. As part of my work life, I supported the Google Apps for EDU installation here and took a pretty extensive presentation to campus about how to manage large amounts of email.

Inbox is a classic Google product: the distillation of a number of excellent ideas into a set of half-complete features built for a use case most people don't meet. We've seen this in the past in products like ChromeVox, Google's Chrome extension for accessibility. ChromeVox works great on ChromeOS devices, but completely ignores the point that most users of accessibility tech (AT) don't have or want ChromeOS devices and come to services with their AT in tow. ChromeVox also ignores decades of convent…

Evernote

Evernote, for better or worse, is the best note-taking service for my needs. It works across all my devices/computers/modes. It's fairly easy to get stuff into it. Hell, they even have 2-Factor authentication. The Windows app is a little clunky and my girlfriend and I have never been able to get shared notes to work properly (conflicted note! three times in the same grocery trip!), but what service is perfect? At least they have nice socks.

Everything, in fact, is pretty good as long as you don't screw up. And screw up I did. I'm not very regular about making backups, but I do make them every month or so. Once you figure out how to create a backup, that is.

There's a helpful Export Note option (which turns into Export Notes when you select multiple notes HINT). The export process is essentially opening All Notes, selecting every note, and then choosing Export Notes. Or something like that; Evernote never tells you, you're left to figure it out on your own. The file…