Tag Archives: Drawing Detroit

Underground Storage Tanks in Metro-Detroit, and Beyond, Pose Environmental Problems

by Drawing Detroit | Leave a comment

On Feb. 21, 2022, anglers on the Huron River in downtown Flat Rock, Michigan, noticed an oily sheen on the surface of the water near Flat Rock Metal, a steel processing company. Following investigation by the emergency response branch of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the source was determined to be a leaking 10,000-gallon underground storage tank located underneath Flat Rock Metal’s headquarters. The building was originally constructed by Henry Ford approximately 100 years prior and originally operated as the Ford Motor Company Lamp Factory. Flat Rock Metal purchased the building from Ford in the 1980s, and neither the owners nor the State of Michigan claim to have known about the tank until this incident occurred (Dickson, 2022; Ellison, 2022; House, 2022).

Underground storage tanks (USTs) are tanks with associated pipe systems that contain at least 10 percent of their volume underground. USTs that contain petroleum or other hazardous substances, such as those found at gas stations, industrial plants, and municipal facilities, are regulated at both the federal and state level; these are also referred to as non-residential USTs. Smaller USTs frequently found at older residential properties and farmsteads that would have been originally used to store heating oil are not covered by these same rules.

The primary source of regulation for non-residential USTs nationally is the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which requires owners to inspect USTs every three years and retain records of doing so (EPA, 2024a). In Michigan, Part 201 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act of 1994 (NREPA) revolves around remediation for any environmental contamination. Part 213 of this same act focuses specifically on leaking USTs, mandating that owners/operators perform corrective actions such as assessment, cleanup, removal, and monitoring, among others. The following maps show facilities in violation of Part 201 or Part 213 in the City of Detroit and in Macomb and Oakland counties.

The map above shows that there are 2,323 Detroit USTs in violation of the regulations mentioned above. The highest concentration of these UST sites is along Detroit’s riverfront, where many industrial sites are located. The map of Oakland and Macomb counties below shows that the concentration of USTs tends to be along major travel corridors (Gratiot Avenue, Van Dyke, I-275 and 8 Mile Road) and in the area surrounding the City of Pontiac).

As of 2024, Michigan remains one of only 10 U.S. states without an approved UST program, alongside the other Great Lakes states of Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio, and New York. According to the EPA, to receive program approval, states must establish standards for program criteria that are not less restrictive than federal standards, provide for enforcement of regulations, and, at a minimum, regulate the same USTs are also regulated by the federal government (EPA, 2024b). In Michigan, USTs are regulated by two different State departments. The Department of Energy, Great Lakes, and the Environment (EGLE) transferred much of the oversight of USTs and aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) to the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) in 2012. The Remediation and Redevelopment Division of EGLE still reviews assessment and closure reports following the detection of a release from a UST (EGLE, n.d.).

The most common reasons for leaking USTs are corrosion and faulty installation of the tanks and/or associated piping. While more modern USTs are usually constructed using double-walled fiberglass, many of the decades-old USTs were constructed out of bare steel, which, over time, breaks down to soft ore. The rate at which this happens depends on soil characteristics, groundwater chemistry, and weather (Wang et al., 2009). According to the EPA’s UST mapping tool, the UST Finder, 405 USTs in the City of Detroit are currently in use with “active” status, and 899 are currently in use with “active – expired” status (meaning their permit is expired but they remain in use). Of the total active/active-expired facilities, nearly 11 percent are identified as having asphalt-coated or bare steel construction (EPA, 2024c). 

Drinking water in the City of Detroit and the inner ring suburbs is drawn primarily from surface water in the Detroit River (Great Lakes Water Authority, n.d.). While the immediate threat of leaking USTs is to groundwater, contaminants will eventually discharge back into the nearest stream or water body as part of the hydrologic cycle (U.S. Geological Survey, 2019). However, a number of the USTs with recorded releases in the metropolitan area outside of Detroit are located within groundwater wellhead protection areas (EPA, 2024c; EGLE, 2024), further highlighting the need for regulation, and removal, of USTs.  

The overall best solution to leaking USTs is the systematic removal of them and remediation of the surrounding areas where they were installed. Professionals from variety of disciplines will be needed to effectively implement this solution, including geologists, environmental engineers, public health officials, planners, and communication professionals. Currently, many removal and remediation projects are initiated only after a release from a leaking UST. Recently, EGLE’s Remediation and Redevelopment Division launched the Remediation Information Data Exchange (RIDE), which allows the public to view information about contaminated facilities. However, the State of Michigan and the EPA regional office must actively work together to develop an approved program that meets the federal agency’s requirements. At the same time, a more active program removal of leaking tanks should be undertaken by the State and local governments along with a steady pace of legal action to force owners or former owners to clean up their mess.

References

Department of Energy, Great Lakes, and Environment (EGLE). (n.d.). Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Program. https://www.michigan.gov/egle/about/organization/Remediation-and-Redevelopment/lust 

Department of Energy, Great Lakes, and Environment (EGLE). (2024, April 16). Wellhead Protection Areas. https://gis-egle.hub.arcgis.com/datasets/wellhead-protection-areas-whpa/explore?location=42.623196%2C-83.298896%2C12.99

Dickson, J. D. (2022, March 4). Underground storage tank believed culprit in Flat Rock spill. The Detroit News. https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/wayne-county/2022/03/04/flat-rock-chemical-spill-huron-river-likely-underground-storage-tank/9374643002/ 

Ellison, G. (2022, March 4). Century-old buried storage tank the culprit in Huron River oil leak. MLive. https://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2022/03/century-old-buried-storage-tank-the-culprit-in-huron-river-oil-leak.html 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2024a, January 12). Inspecting underground storage tanks: 2005 Energy Policy Act. https://www.epa.gov/ust/inspecting-underground-storage-tanks-2005-energy-policy-act 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2024b, July 15). State underground storage tank programs. https://www.epa.gov/ust/state-underground-storage-tank-ust-programs#how  

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2024c, February 23). UST Finder. https://www.epa.gov/ust/ust-finder 

Great Lakes Water Authority. (n.d.). Our Water System. https://www.glwater.org/our-system/water-system/

House, K. (2022, March 2). Flat Rock’s second chemical spill points to hazards of underground tanks. Bridge Michigan. https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-environment-watch/flat-rocks-second-chemical-spill-points-hazards-underground-tanks 

U.S. Geological Survey. (2019, March 2). Groundwater/Surface Water Interaction. https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-resources/science/groundwatersurface-water-interaction#:~:text=Surface%20water%20seeps%20into%20the,and%20groundwater%20quality%20and%20quantity. 

Wang, L. K., Shammas, N. K., Wang, P., & Clesceri, N. L. (Eds). (2009). Remediation of sites contaminated by underground storage tank releases. Handbook of advanced industrial and hazardous wastes treatment (pp. 687-758). Taylor & Francis Group.

Education on the November ballot in Detroit and beyond

by Drawing Detroit | Leave a comment

While there are no statewide proposals on the November ballot this year, Detroit residents will be asked to weigh in on two education-related measures.

Following years of financial crises at Detroit Public Schools (DPS), that entity now exists only to collect property taxes and pay down its legacy debt. As a replacement the Detroit Public Schools Community District (DPSCD) oversees and operates public education in the city. DPSCD funding is on the ballot as Proposal S (on the ballot, the full title is “School District of The City of Detroit Proposal S: Operating Millage Restoration”). This proposal asks voters to restore the millage rate that non-homestead, commercial property owners pay by increasing it 6 mills, or $6 for every $1,000 of a property’s taxable value. According to DPSCD officials, the revenue earned from this millage restoration would help DPS pay off its debt. If this happens, DPSCD would be able to use future-generated property tax revenue to fund other DPSCD needs. DPSCD is holding virtual information sessions for those with questions about Proposal S on Wednesday, Oct. 30 and Monday, Nov. 4. Voters are also being asked to choose three DPSCD Board members in the nonpartisan section of the ballot.

The other proposal on the ballot in Detroit is to support the Wayne County Regional Educational Service Agency (Wayne RESA). The Wayne RESA is an intermediate school district that helps to support the 33 local school districts and 97 charter schools (also known as public school academies) across Wayne County, including DPSCD. Detroiters and other Wayne County residents will be asked to vote on the Wayne RESA “Renewal of Regional Enhancement Millage Proposal,” which seeks to renew a property tax millage of 1.98 on all property, equating to $1.98 for every $1,000 of taxable value. According to the proposal language,  if passed, this revenue will be distributed across the Wayne RESA service area on an “equal per pupil basis” for six years, beginning in 2028. Voters originally approved the Wayne RESA millage in 2016 and supported its renewal in 2020. 

Other communities across southeast Michigan also being asked to vote on school district operating millages and bond proposals for infrastructure improvements include: 

  • Livingston County: Livingston Educational Service Agency (Livingston ESA)
  • Macomb County: L’Anse Creuse Public Schools, Memphis Community Schools, South Lake Schools, Van Dyke Public Schools, Warren Consolidated Schools
  • Oakland County: Almont Community Schools, Clarkston Community Schools, Farmington Public Schools, Madison District Public Schools, Troy School District, Walled Lake Consolidated Schools
  • St. Clair County: East China School District, Marysville Public Schools
  • Wayne County: Airport Community Schools (also in Monroe County), Gibraltar School District (2), Flat Rock Community Schools (also in Monroe County), Wayne-Westland Community Schools
  • Washtenaw County: Milan Area Schools (also in Monroe County), Lincoln Consolidated School District (also in Wayne County), Washtenaw Intermediate School District (WISD), Whitmore Lake Public Schools

According to a recent analysis by Bridge Michigan and Gongwer News Service-Michigan, support for school bond proposals across the state has been decreasing in both Democratic-leaning and Republican-leaning districts for the past several years. 

Thirty-Five Southeastern Michigan Communities Identified as Disadvantaged Due to Environmental Burdens

by Drawing Detroit | Leave a comment

There are 35 communities in Southeastern Michigan described as Justice40 communities by local, state and federal government agencies because they have Census tracts that face underinvestment and have higher rates of pollutants than their neighboring communities.  Throughout the United States there are  27,251 Census tracts that are identified as disadvantaged by the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (.gov) (CEJST). CEJST identifies census tracts as disadvantaged if they meet the threshold for environmental and/or climate burdens, along with an associated socio-economic burden.

With communities across the nation facing such disadvantages, President Joe Biden signed several Executive Orders into law that focus on helping such disadvantaged areas tackling climate change and addressing environmental injustices through dedicated funding and priorities.

The Justice 40 initiative sets a goal for federal and state investment in pollution remediation and reduction, climate change mitigation, and sustainability while ensuring that 40 percent of related federal investments reach disadvantaged communities, including to the 35 Justice40 communities in Southeastern Michigan. These 35 communities with identified disadvantaged Census tracts are: 

As noted, the CJEST tool helps to identify which Census tracts, and communities, that are deemed disadvantaged because they meet the threshold for environmental and/or climate burdens, along with an associated socio-economic burden.These burdens, and the criteria that helps determine if a community/Census tract are disadvantaged are described below, per the CEJST.

Climate change: at or above the 90th percentile for expected agriculture loss rate OR expected building loss rate OR expected population loss rate OR projected flood risk OR projected wildfire risk;

Energy: at or above the 90th percentile for energy cost OR PM2.5 in the air;

Health: at or above the 90th percentile for asthma OR diabetes OR heart disease OR low life expectancy;

Housing: Experienced historic underinvestment OR are at or above the 90th percentile for housing cost OR lack of green space OR lack of indoor plumbing OR lead paint;

Legacy pollution: have at least one abandoned mine land OR Formerly Used Defense Sites OR are at or above the 90th percentile for proximity to hazardous waste facilities OR proximity to Superfund sites (National Priorities List (NPL)) OR proximity to Risk Management Plan (RMP) facilities;

Transportation: at or above the 90th percentile for diesel particulate matter exposure OR transportation barriers OR traffic proximity and volume;

Water and wastewater: at or above the 90th percentile for underground storage tanks and releases OR wastewater discharge;

Workforce development: at or above the 90th percentile for linguistic isolation OR low median income OR poverty OR unemployment and have more than 10 percent of people ages 25 years or older whose high school education is less than a high school diploma.

Additionally, all categories (except workforce development) include the criteria that the Census tract is at or above the 65th percentile for low income.

The map below is a screenshot from the Equity Emphasis Tool created by the Southeastern Michigan Council of Governments, which shows communities/Census tracts that meet the threshold for environmental and/or climate burdens, per the CEJST. The map also highlights the equity, and inequity, of the region based on criteria such as income, race, sex, disability, education, access to transportation and age.The areas highlighted in blue are the census tracts deemed as disadvantaged because they meet the threshold for environmental and/or climate burdens, along with an associated socio-economic burden.

 

The first map above does show that the number of areas deemed disadvantaged by the CEJST map expands beyond the areas with high Equity Emphasis index scores. This is likely because the Equity Emphasis index scores are based on socioeconomic data while the CEJST designations also look at environmental factors, such as potential flood and wildfire risks of an area and proximity to underground storage tanks.

Detroit, its inner-ring suburbs and the City of Pontiac are highlighted in both the CEJST and Equity Emphasis maps, again highlighting how socioeconomic data impacts policy decisions, or lack thereof, related to the environment.

While the data above highlights where the focus areas of the Justice40 Initiative are, it is also important to understand what type of investments will be made in these areas.

The categories of investment are: climate change, clean energy and energy efficiency, clean transit, affordable and sustainable housing, training and workforce development, remediation and reduction of legacy pollution, and the development of critical clean water and wastewater infrastructure.

Moving forward we will carefully dig into the specifics of what criteria have made some Southeastern Michigan’s communities Justice40 Communities, and what funding they are receiving to mitigate future social, economic and environmental injustices.

Crime In Detroit is Declining, Again

by Drawing Detroit | Leave a comment

Crime in Detroit is declining again. Nearly all major categories of crime decreased in the first six months of this year. Murder, sexual assault and robberies, were all down — by double digits year to date. Among violent crime, only simple assault increased. Aggravated assault is down recently, but not below pre-Covid levels.

Among property crimes, damage to property dropped by double digits, while burglary and larceny fell by single digits so far this year. Auto theft peaked in late 2022, but has come down since then, though police are challenged by new technological techniques that thieves are using.

These declines are good news for Detroit, helping to overcome a bad reputation that has held Detroit back for decades.

Note, though, the “again.”

Detroit, like many major cities, had seen massive declines in crime over recent decades until these were halted by the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath. Covid reversed the decreases for several years, but then crime levels headed back down. FBI data on crime levels lags somewhat, but it confirms a temporary COVID increase that has been replaced by a post-COVID decrease in crime rates in Detroit.

The FBI data also suggests one cause for decrease, an increase in clearance rates (i.e., the extent to which a perpetrator is caught). This is one several causes of the drop in crime. The clearance rate increase indicates that the police are getting better at their jobs.

They don’t catch every perpetrator, but they are catching about double the number they were—a huge improvement. This, in turn, points to other things Detroit’s police are doing well. These include:

Targeting high crime areas. For over a decade now they have been identifying hot spots for crime and completing proactive patrols in those areas, providing more protection for citizens and increasing the risk for criminals who might be planning a crime. The criminals often decide that the crime is too risky, and those decisions lead to reduced crime rates.


Using technology and working with community organizations to reduce violence. The city has experimented with using cameras at gas stations and other locations, and it has used a gunshot detection system to identify where guns are fired in the city so they can target crimes as they occur. At the same time they have engaged residents in some neighborhoods to identify and engage people at the greatest risk of violence, who are then helped to pursue a different path.


Tracking down repeat offenders. Criminals on parole or probation, who commit additional crimes, now are far more likely to find themselves back in police custody. Partly this because of increasing close cooperation between police and corrections officers. Higher quality data tracking of the probationers and parolees and their crimes accelerates this process.


Sustained partnerships with federal, state and local agencies that include aggressive investigation and prosecution of the relatively small number of individuals responsible for the most violence in the community.


One important reason that crime is falling in Detroit is beyond the control of the police. This is a reduction in the number and percentage of youth in the city. The 2010 Census and the 2022 American Community Survey document a decline in the number of children in Detroit and a stronger decline in youth 15 to 24. This is the cohort that has historically had the most difficulty getting jobs and who have long been represented disproportionately in crimes. These trends are projected to continue with Detroit’s population gradually getting older with fewer and fewer youth.

A final question: Are Detroiters recognizing these changes? Two surveys by the University of Michigan indicate that Detroiters are seeing the declines that the crime statistics show. Comparing 2019 data to 2021 data the UM data indicates that fewer Detroiters were victims of crime in each category from auto theft to physical attacks. A majority or nearly a majority said police were doing a good job in 2018, 2020 and 2021.

Not all were so positive. Younger people, in particular, were far less likely to believe that the police were doing a good job. The data indicate young people are more likely to have had “forceful” interactions with the police.

Overall, Detroit police are now more representative of the people they police. They are better trained. They use more technology. Many are good at engaging with the community. They have fewer youth to police. The economy has been good, reducing the negative impact of unemployment on crime. All these trends are converging to reduce crime levels. It’s time to applaud the progress and find ever more new and inventive ways to continue the positive trends in the city.

This piece can also be found in Crain’s Detroit here, as an Op-Ed written by Lyke Thompson.

Metro-Detroit CPI Rises and New Builds Decline

by Drawing Detroit | Leave a comment

Michigan’s unemployment rate continues to remain stable and below 5 percent, a trend that has occurred since June of 2022. In January of 2024, the State of Michigan’s unemployment rate was 4 percent. While this a good sign, Michigan Labor Market Information Director Wayne Rourke was recently quoted in a Michigan Public Radio article saying that the job market in Michigan is beginning to cool off. He did add though that the job market is still good.

In Detroit, the 2023-2028 Economic Outlook produced as part of the City of Detroit-University Economic Analysis Partnership between U of M, the City of Detroit, Michigan State University and Wayne State University, shows even more optimism. According to report, payroll jobs are expected to increase by 3,000 in 2023 and by 8,900 from now until 2028. Such growth will is expected to decrease Detroit’s unemployment rate to 7.2 percent in 2028. Detroit’s unemployment rate was 8.2 percent in January of 2024, which was a slight increase from where it was in November and December of 2023.

When comparing the unemployment rates of the seven counties in Southeastern Michigan between January of 2023 and January of 2024 we again see signs of economic optimism, with unemployment rates being down or remaining stable for all seven counties. Monroe County had the largest decrease in its unemployment rate between January 2023 and January 2024 at 0.7 percent; it also had the highest unemployment rate in January of 2023 at 4.9 percent. In January of 2024, Wayne County had the highest unemployment rate at 4.7 percent, which is what it was the year before too. Washtenaw County had the lowest unemployment at 2.9 percent in January of 2024.

The charts below show the percent changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) on a month-to-month basis and a year-to-year basis for each month in years 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024 in the Midwest Region. The CPI is a measure that examines the weighted average of prices of consumer goods and services, such as transportation, food, energy, housing and medical care. It is calculated by taking price changes for each item in the predetermined group of goods and averaging them.

The first  chart below highlights how the CPI changed on a month-to-month basis between 2019 and 2024. Currently in 2024, the region’s prices were up 0.6 percent in the month of February. The highlights for the change include:

•Overall food prices remained unchanged, but the price of meat, fish, poultry and eggs increase 0.5 percent.

•The energy index increased by 4 percent over the month, due almost entirely to an increased price in gasoline (8 percent). There was a 1.5 percent increase in natural gas services too though.

•Rent (+0.4 percent) and apparel (+ 3.1 percent) also contributed to the increase in the month-to-month CPI increase. This increase was slightly offset by the 0.9 percent decrease in medical care services though.

When examining the second chart, which shows how prices changed on a year-to-year basis,  we see how the CPI advanced by 2.8 percent from the last year.

In January of 2024 the CPI was reported to be 2.8 percent above what it was the year prior, meaning consumer prices continue to rise. Contributing factors to the continued increase in the CPI include

•Food prices increasing 2.2 percent over the last year, with “away from home” food prices increasing 3.9 percent

•The cost of electricity decreased by 5.1 percent, with the 11.3 percent decline in the price of natural gas slightly offsetting the 4.5 percent increase in prices paid for electricity.

•Owners’ equivalent rent of residences increasing 6.5 percent and rent of primary residence increasing 6.3 percent.

Home prices in Metro-Detroit for 2023 again set a record. In December of 2023, the average price of a single-family dwelling sold in December of 2023 was $182,890, according to the Case Shiller Index. In January of 2023, the average price of single-family dwellings sold was $168,300, which is a $14,590 difference from what the average prices were at the end of the year. While average home prices during the first six months of 2023 remained on par with what they were in 2022, the data shows that price began to increase again in latter part of the year.

Between December of 2023 and 2022 the average price of a single-family dwelling increased $13,400; between December of 2023 and 2020 the price increased $41,230 and between December of 2023 and 2014 the average price has increased $85,900.

With the cost of home prices increasing, it also appears the number of building permits being pulled in Southeast Michigan have been declining overall since 2021. The number of single-family dwelling building permits pulled in March of 2021 was the peak between then and now. At that time, 618 single-family dwelling building permits were pulled. The highest number of single-family dwelling building permits pulled in 2023 was 494 (March, 2023). While Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer said in her 2024 State of the State address that we need more housing to decrease the cost to purchase/rent a home, building is actually declining.

According to a February 2024 Detroit Free Press article, some reasons for the decline in building new single-family dwelling units are the cost to build, modest statewide population growth and a shortage of skilled trade workers. Also, increased costs to build a home means those homes cost more to purchase, which is also proving to be difficult in today’s economy.

Cost of Water Continues to Rise in Southeast Michigan, Ratepayers Foot the Bill

by Drawing Detroit | Leave a comment

Water rates have grown for most ratepayers across Southeastern Michigan for years, whether it be from the increases passed down to wholesale customers by the Great Lakes Water Authority and/or the increases passed down from the municipalities to their citizens. These increases, in short, are based on the servicing of debt and the cost of delivering clean and safe drinking to residents across the region. As Michigan’s infrastructure continues to age, ratepayers and government entities will have to foot the bill to ensure that the necessary replacement and improvements continue.

In Southeastern Michigan there are 86 communities that are part of the Great Lakes Water Authority (GLWA) system. This system officially went online in 2016 after approval by Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties in 2014 with the promise to provide improved services to the former Detroit Water and Sewer Department (DWSD) customers. The approval of the GLWA meant that all former DWSD wholesale customers (who are local government entities) became customers of the GLWA. The exception was the City of Detroit, which continued to own and operate its own system.  At the time of the creation of this regional authority there was a promise that annual overall budget increases would be 4 percent or less. As the GLWA passes on more water and sewer (we are not exploring sewer system charges in this post) increases for one local city or townships could go above 4 percent. However, according to the annual budgets produced by the GLWA, water system increases for suburban wholesale customers have not exceeded 4 percent, except in Fiscal Year 2017.

As the chart below shows, Fiscal Year 2017 had an overall increase of 4.3 percent.  Fiscal Year 2018 had an increase of 2 percent. Fiscal Year 2019 had the lowest increase for water charges for suburban wholesale member partners at 1.7 percent. For Fiscal Year 2024 the increase is 2.75 percent.

These percentage increases are passed down to the communities who purchase wholesale water from the GLWA, but water rate increases for these communities’ ratepayers are not always in line with the increases passed down by the GLWA. Rather, municipalities typically add their own operating costs on top of GLWA’s charges, according to the GLWA’s explanation of charges. These rates are known as the retail rates and are ultimately what customers pay.

At the same time, the GLWA may pass down standard rate increases to their wholesale customers  as costs per million cubic feet (mcf) based on who the customer is. These rates vary according to whether the wholesale customer has the ability to store water, how many ratepayers there are in a community  and the distance and elevation of the community from where the water is being transported from. There is no standard commodity rate for individual communities. It is important to note that the GLWA charges at an mcf rate while local communities charge at centrum cubic feet (ccf) rate[1]. While this does not allow for a simple comparison between the two rates (wholesale v ratepayer), there is an even deeper explanation on why there is not an apples-to-apples comparison between wholesale and ratepayer rates.

As noted, retail water rates are set by elected boards, often at the recommendation of their finance and public works departments. These recommended rates are based on the wholesale prices communities pay to GLWA, the investment needed to maintain and update the city or township’s infrastructure, debt service and their staffing levels. Water rates can also be lower but fees such as a “water meter fee,” which is a fixed cost on the bill, can account for a “lower” water rate (in appearance only). Also, the elected bodies may choose not to pass on increased costs from the GLWA or for infrastructure investment.

Because of how retail water rates are set, which vary from how wholesale rates are set, there is not an easy comparison between these either. GLWA’s wholesale rates are based on the fixed monthly charge and the wholesale commodity rate charged to communities. These charges are determined by the amount of water usage by each community as well as the distance and elevation of that community from the water source (it takes more energy to pump water uphill or long distances than it does to pump it to areas near the source). The local water storage capacity of each member community can affect the rates they pay because when a community can store water they don’t need to purchase it at higher, or “peak,” rates.

The GLWA adopted wholesale rates for communities can be found here. While a comprehensive of list of retail rates does not exist, the above chart shows a comparison of retail water rates amongst several communities in South Oakland County (data provided by the South Oakland County Water Association), along with the rates for Allen Park, Washington Township and Detroit. The chart shows that Detroit, which sets its own rate, has the lowest water rate of the communities. Detroit purchases its water from the Detroit Water and Sewer Department, and not GLWA. The City of Southfield has the highest retail water rate at $5.79 per ccf. Washington Township, which is 36 miles from Detroit, has a retail water rate of $3.24 per ccfs.

The elements of water rates are important to understand as the public debates the potential creation of a statewide affordability fund for low-income residents to access. It should also be noted that part of the revenue the GLWA earns from its customers goes into the Water Residential Assistance Program (WRAP). With this program,0.5 percent of the GLWA’s revenues go into an Income Based Plan that provides bill credits to eligible households. This plan makes it so that the water bill does not exceed 3 percent of household income for up to two years (or ongoing for households with senior citizens and persons with permanent disabilities).

This post demonstrates not only how complicated our water system is, but also the way in which rates are determined. The true cost of delivering clean water is only a piece of the equation, and that varies from one community to the next. Even with such fluctuation in what ratepayers/taxpayers pay for their water, one thing is certain, rates are only increasing. Water infrastructure is aging, the cost of electricity (used to help deliver water) is increasing, staffing costs are increasing and clean water remains a necessity for life. With such factors coming into play in determining already complicated retail water rates, a reliable source of assistance for those in need can, and should be, a constant. For this reason we support the proposed State of Michigan plan to add a $2 flat fee on all our monthly bills to help the poor pay for their water. No one should have to go without water.

[1] A centrum cubic feet equals 100 cubic feet or approximately 748 gallons of water.

Proposed Michigan Water Affordability Bill Meets Opposition

by Drawing Detroit | Leave a comment

Access to clean water and the ability to afford it is boiling over to a new proposal to help households with their water bills. Recently, Democratic lawmakers in the Michigan House of Representatives and the State Senate introduced bills that, if passed, would create a statewide affordability fund for low-income residents to access. The fund would be created by charging a $2 monthly fee to water customers across the state.

This proposal, discussed in detail below, is now drawing fire from Macomb County leaders and Republicans who say it will primarily benefit Detroiters.

 According to a bill analysis by the Senate Fiscal Agency (SFA), the estimated amount collected in the proposed water affordability fund, assuming  all 2.5 million retail water meters in Michigan were subject to the $2 per month funding factor fee would be $90 million. When the fund reaches $90 million, 3 percent of the monies, or $2.7 million, could be allocated for administrative costs associated with the program. The remainder of that assumed initial balance, $87.3 million, would be available for:

  • Actual administrative costs of the water providers, which would be limited to 15 percent of the balance in the Fund which after 18 months could be estimated at $13.1 million;
  • Payment or advancement to providers for income-based bill discounts; income-based bill caps, or income-based rates;
  • Arrearage payments;
  • Water loss mitigation programs.

Those eligible to benefit from this program would be customers who had a household income of up to 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines or who was eligible for certain assistance programs. Eligible customers for this program, which would be housed under the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, would not pay more than 3 percent of their household income on a water bill.

This program has been lauded by some and opposed by others. In recent weeks, Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan, the Oakland County Board of Commissioners, Oakland County Executive David Coulter, Royal Oak, Harper Woods and Warren officials, Oakland County Water Resource Commissioner Jim Nash and Wayne County Deputy County Executive Assad I. Turfe have come out in support of the bills to create this fund. Area organizations, such as the United Way of Southeastern Michigan, Clean Water Action, the Sierra Club Michigan Chapter and American Waterworks Association, have also come out in support of the proposed bills. Supporters of these bills have discussed how water affordability is a human right, and these programs will allow that human right to continue for thousands of households.

Macomb County Public Works Commissioner Candice Miller is the most vocal official against the bills, stating it would only increase water bills for customers and that there already is access to water affordability programs. She says it will primarily benefit Detroiters. Seventeen Macomb County communities agree with Miller and have passed resolutions opposing the bills that could create the statewide water affordability programs. Those 17 communities are:

  • Armada (Village)
  • Bruce Township
  • Center Line
  • Chesterfield Township
  • Clinton Township
  • Fraser
  • Harrison Township
  • Memphis
  • Mount Clemens
  • Lenox Township
  • Macomb Township
  • New Haven
  • Roseville
  • Shelby Township
  • St. Clair Shores
  • Sterling Heights
  • Washington Township

The Macomb County Board of Commissioners also voted to take a stance against the bills, and ultimately the proposed fund.

According to Miller, water affordability programs, such as the Water Residential Assistance Program (WRAP) administered by the Great Lakes Water Authority (GLWA) are not fully used as is. The counter argument to this is that programs such as WRAP offer short-term support for those in need of assistance and other programs, such as the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department’s Lifeline Plan, have a one-off funding mechanism (ARPA) funds, and more sustainable funding mechanisms are needed. Additionally, there is no statewide assistance program, rather there are various affordability programs depending on the water provider and the location of the ratepayer. There are worries though that the proposed state affordable water fund would primarily support Detroit residents, according to a January, 2024 C&G News article.

According to the proposed bills, eligible customers are households whose income does not exceed 200 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines or who meets any of the following requirements:

  • Has received assistance from a State Emergency Relief Program within the past year.
  • Receives food assistance under the Federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) administered by State.
  • Receives medical assistance administered under the Act. Receives assistance under the Michigan Energy Assistance Program.
  • Receives assistance under the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, And Children (WIC). Receives supplemental security income
  • Receives assistance under the Weatherization Assistance Program.

According to the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, in 2020 more than 317,000 Michigan households were behind on their water bills and facing shutoffs. Furthermore, if looking at eligibility requirements as set out by the proposed bills, there were 309,101 families in Southeastern Michigan who were living at least 200 percent of the poverty level and 190,113 households with Supplemental Security Income (SSI), cash public assistance income, or Food Stamps/SNAP benefits in 2022, according to the US Census Bureau.

According to the Census data, Wayne County had the highest number of families living at least 200 percent below the poverty level at 133,492, followed by Macomb County at 44,218 and Oakland County at 41,037. Looking at the total number of families in Southeastern Michigan who live at least 200 percent below the poverty level, minus Wayne County, there are 124,568. In total, there are 258,060 families living 200 percent below the poverty line in Southeastern Michigan and 48 percent of those families live in either Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair or Washtenaw counties. Furthermore, with there being 309,101 total families in Michigan that live 200 percent below the poverty line, Wayne County families account for less than half that total.

When looking at the number of families who received Supplemental Security Income (SSI), cash public assistance income, or Food Stamps/SNAP benefits in 2022 it was Wayne County that had the highest number of households, by far, at 47,646. Macomb County had the second highest number of households at 18,792 and Oakland County had the third highest number of households at 16,100. In Michigan in 2022 there were 190,113 families who received some type of assistance and Southeastern Michigan families make up 50 percent of that number.

So, while those who oppose the proposed bills claim the funds from the statewide water bill support program would primarily be filtered to Detroiters, the data shown above tells a different story.

The numbers certainly show there are families who are likely in need of utility bill support and $24 a year per household could go a long way for many. However, annually that number can increase by up to 10 percent to a maximum of $3 per retail water meter per month, according to the Senate Fiscal Agency bill analysis. If these bills are to become law and the program is created there needs to be strong program support, ensuring those in need and eligible for the program are aware of the benefit and have assistance in applying for the benefits. The monies, if charged to ratepayers, need to be used to support those in need throughout the state and ensure access to clean and fresh water.

Michigan Recycling Trends Upward, More Efforts Needed to Offset Waste Disposal

by Drawing Detroit | Leave a comment

With a re-ignited commitment to sustainability, the State of Michigan has experienced an increase in the amount of materials being recycled. According to a 2023 report  (2023 Michigan Recycling: State of the State) by the Michigan Department of Energy, Great Lakes and Environment (EGLE), Michigan’s recycling rate increased 35 percent since prior to 2019 to 2022. This report states that Michigan now has a 19 percent recycling rate, in part because of greater access to and greater funding for this key element in sustainability. According to the report, more than $460 million has been invested in recycling for everything from new technology to equipment upgrades to hiring new employees since 2019.

As Michigan continues to up its commitment to recycling efforts, it is important to understand just what is being recycled in the state and how much. According to the 2023 EGLE Recycling Report, 620,494 tons of materials were recycled in Michigan last year, with paper and paper products making up majority of those materials being recycled. According to the breakdown in the report, there was about 339,000 tons of paper and paper materials recycled in 2022. Ferrous materials, which are metals that contain iron, were the second most recycled items in 2022 with there being about 110,000 tons.  Ferrous materials also had the largest percent change increase in the number of tons recycled between 2021 and 2022 at 443 percent. Single stream recycling materials (which are all recyclables, including newspaper, cardboard, plastic, aluminum and junk mail that are eventually sorted into various commodity streams for sale to markets) had the largest year-to-year percent change decrease at 51 percent. There was also a year-to-year percent change decrease for paper and paper products at 9 percent.

While understanding what is being recycled is important, understanding the resources available for residents and businesses to recycle may be even more important. According to the 2023 EGLE Recycling Report, 75 percent of Michigan households, or about 2.9 million households, have access to curbside recycling or drop-off locations. Digging deeper into this statistic, according to a University of Michigan March 2022 Michigan Public Policy Survey on Recycling, the majority of counties (which are viewed as different than local jurisdictions such as cities, townships and villages) provide access to a drop-off recycling facility (78%) household hazard waste collection (77%) and household electronic equipment collection (71%). Fifty-three percent of counties provide curbside recycling services (shown in Chart 4), and 41 percent of local jurisdictions provide those services (Chart 5).

Chart 6 digs deeper into how those curbside recycling services are provided, as described in the survey. According to the survey, 49 percent of Michigan local government jurisdictions contract with a private entity to provide curbside recycling services, and 35 percent of those jurisdictions have their residents directly contract with a private entity for such services. It is important to remember that these jurisdictions range from populations of 1,000 or less to 30,000 or more. Seventy-eight percent of jurisdictions with populations of 30,000 or more contract with a private entity to provide curbside recycling services to their residents while 47 percent of jurisdictions with populations between 5,000 and 10,000 have their residents directly contract with a private entity, and 40 percent of jurisdictions with populations between 1,500 and 5,000 also have their residents directly contract with a private entity.

Through the data highlighted we know that there are various levels of recycling services provided to residents and businesses to make this sustainability effort easier. We also know that it is not just the state’s priority to increase recycling rates, but also local jurisdictions’. For example, of the $460 million invested in recycling over the last several years,  about 80 percent of it has come from local government, nonprofits, and businesses across the state. But, while  our efforts are increasing, the amount of waste Michigan accepted into its landfills increased between 2021 ( 50,918,462 tons) and 2022 (51,990,037 tons). It is important to note that the amount of waste Michigan dumped into its landfills decreased between 2021 and 2022, but the amount it accepted from Canada and other U.S. states increased. Overall, 76 percent of the waste in Michigan’s landfills is from Michigan, 18.6 percent is from Canada and 5.3 percent is from other states.

The State of Michigan has made great strides in its commitment to recycling, with greater transparency, more data and more resources available. But the other key piece of addressing Michigan’s (and the country’s) climate change issue is reducing the amount of waste that goes into landfills through reduction of consumption. Additionally, the practice of accepting solid waste from other states and countries must also be halted.

Municipalities Embracing Programs to Combat Climate Change

by Drawing Detroit | Leave a comment

The impacts of climate change are growing every year, and while those impacts vary by location, they are evident and growing. As individuals we directly impact climate change through our behaviors, for better or worse, and while personal actions can bring great change, governmental policies and programs can have lasting effects. We often hear about the climate action policies and programs set forth by the federal and state government, but local governments are stepping forward to combat climate change as well. Through the creation of sustainability offices and positions, the implementation of climate action plans, the building of climate resiliency hubs, and more, local governments throughout Michigan are stepping up to improve their residents’ quality of life.

Some noteworthy examples of local government sustainability practices and programs include:

Ann Arbor: In 2022 a 20-year, 1 mill climate-action tax proposal was approved by voters to provide funds for the city to investment in renewable energy and other initiatives that will allow Ann Arbor to reach carbon-neutrality, or the A2Zero goal, by 2030. The millage revenue will fund programs and services that will include rebates for households and businesses to use solar or geothermal energy and make energy-efficiency upgrades, the growth of accessibility of electric vehicle chargers, the creation of rain gardens, more tree plantings and increases in recycling, composting, pedestrian/cycling infrastructure and more. In addition to having community support for climate action programs, Ann Arbor also has a Sustainability Office dedicated to the sense of urgency required to combat and alleviate the impacts of climate change. The work of this office is guided by the Ann Arbor Carbon Neutrality Plan: A2ZERO. Ann Arbor’s commitment to carbon neutrality is clear, not only through its adopted policies but also through its funding allocations. From staffing to a contract selection process that prioritizes outside organizations with sustainability practices, Ann Arbor’s commitment to improving the environment, and lives, through sustainable practices is clear.

Detroit: The state’s largest city has a Sustainability Office with the mission of leading initiatives that reduce emissions, increase resiliency and improve residents’ quality of life. This office carries out items from the City’s Climate Action Agenda and Strategy, administrates Detroit’s Solar Neighborhood Initiative and aims to reduce waste and accelerate energy efficiency in Detroit. The Solar Neighborhood Initiative is one of the many programs being implemented to combat climate change. This program aims to turn 250 acres of vacant land in the city into solar energy centers that will generate enough clean energy to offset the electricity used currently by 127 city buildings. The locations will be selected in early 2024.

Additionally, Detroit just opened its first Resilience Hub at AB Ford Park called the Lenox Center, which is located on the city’s east side near the Detroit River. The Lenox Center is one of three resilience centers being brought to the eastside of Detroit through the Resilient Eastside Initiative. The other two are the Eastside Community Network’s headquarters at Stoudamire Wellness Hub near Conner and Warren, and Brilliant Detroit’s literacy center in the Chandler Park neighborhood. The Resilient Eastside Initiative is a collaborative effort between the Eastside Community Network (ECN), the City of Detroit, Brilliant Detroit, and Elevate, a nonprofit based in Chicago. Resilience hubs were built to be able withstand many of the impacts of climate change, serve as centers for emergency management, reduce carbon pollution and bring a community together regularly.

Macomb County: Through the Resilient Macomb project, a land use and community development project focused on the natural resources in Harrison and Chesterfield townships, New Baltimore and St. Clair Shores (all along Lake St. Clair), management of the areas climate variability and its impacts were studied. This project focused on the coastal issues of the area (flooding, water quality) and how they can be addressed while improving the economic opportunities in the area. This study/report was developed by the Land Information Access Association (LIAA), a nonprofit community service and planning organization headquartered in Traverse City, Michigan, and is now in the process of being implemented.

Monroe County: The Resilient Monroe was sponsored by the City of Monroe, Frenchtown Charter Township and Monroe Charter Township and resulted in a Resilient Monroe Resource Atlas. This atlas provides several recommendations focused on increasing use of multi-modal transportation, supporting local agriculture and buying from such producers, and protecting water systems. The document also focuses on growing the area’s economy while understanding the changing environment. 

While these are some notable programs and policies in place by local government entities to combat climate change and promote sustainability, many others are also doing what they can. For example, the City of Ferndale has a sustainability coordinator and office that focuses on programs such as their Waste Reduction and Recycling Master Plan and their Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report. Cities throughout the state are installing rain gardens to help prevent flooding and promote natural landscaping. Sustainability citizen groups administrated by municipalities, all with the goal of bringing buy-in to sustainable practices, also occur throughout the state. Regional organizations, such as the Southeastern Michigan Council of Governments and the Michigan Municipal League host seminars, pull together municipal leaders for greater thought power and create programs all aimed reducing the impacts of climate change and increasing resiliency.

To witness such steps occurring beyond the state and federal levels is inspiring, but remaining committed to the implementation is key, as is weaving the principles of sustainability into all goals, policies and programs. As has already been shown, climate change is impacting Southeast Michigan through more heat waves, flooding and extreme precipitation events. To combat these impacts, and the impacts of our actions at a global scale, both large and small changes in how we conduct our lives-from grocery shopping to the work we perform to how obtain our energy and beyond-must be altered, with the goals being centered around carbon neutrality and sustainability. The programs and policies discussed in this post can serve as guide posts for all municipalities to explore and tailor to their communities’ makeup and needs.

Michigan’s Minimum Wage Increases, Changes Could Still Be Coming

by Drawing Detroit | Leave a comment

Michigan’s minimum wage increased to $10.33 on Jan. 1, 2024, in accordance with the Improved Workforce Opportunity Wage Act of 2018. Under the law as it currently stands, the minimum wage is set to increase to $12.05 an hour by 2030, depending on the state’s unemployment rate. Furthermore, the tipped wage rate will increase to $3.93 an hour. Depending on a Michigan State Supreme Court ruling though, the hourly rate improvements could shift.

In 2018 a petition to increase Michigan’s minimum wage to $12 by 2022, while also accounting for inflation, received 280,000 signatures from voters. The Republican-led Michigan Legislature at the time adopted the language of the petition but then amended the language. These amendments slowed plans to increase Michigan’s minimum wage and also eliminated the plan to eventually eliminate the lower tipped wage in restaurants, instead maintaining the wage rate at 38 percent of the full minimum wage. This issue has been in Michigan Courts, with the focus specifically being on the legality of the legislature adopting petition language and then amending it. The Michigan Court of Appeals issued an opinion ruling that found the Michigan Legislature did not act unconstitutionally when it adopted petition language and amended in the same session in 2018. This opinion has been appealed and the issue is now being taken up by the Michigan Supreme Court.

As is shown in the chart below, Michigan’s minimum wage has been steadily increasing since 2015 when it was $8.15 an hour. Prior to that it plateaued at $7.40 an hour between 2009 to 2013. Michigan’s minimum wage also remained stagnant between 1998 and 2006, 1981 to  1997, 1976 to 1978, 1972 to 1975 and 1968 to 1971, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

In theory, increasing the minimum wage will also increase the earnings of most low-wage workers. With a minimum wage of $10.33 an hour in 2024, a full-time worker earning that wage could make about $21,400 a year, assuming they worked 40 hours a week for a full year. This would be an increase, if making the same assumptions, from an annual salary of about $20,500 a year with an hourly rate of $10.10 (2023 minimum wage).  According to the US Census Bureau, less than 10 percent of households in each county in Southeast Michigan made between $15,000 and $24,999 a year in 2022. So, even with a minimum wage increase, many of those households earning below $25,000 a year will remain under that threshold. This is a threshold that is below the poverty level for a family of four.

According to Healthcare.gov, an individual earning $13,590 or below in 2022 was considered to be living at or below the poverty level, this number increased to $14,580 in 2023. For a family of four the poverty level was $27,750 in 2022 and $30,000 in 2023.

In 2022, the year for which the most recent data is available, Wayne County had the highest percentage of households living at or below the poverty level in the seven-county region at 20.2 percent. Monroe, St. Clair and Washtenaw counties were the only other ones in the region with more than 10 percent of households living at or below the poverty level. Wayne County also had the highest percentage of households earning between $15,000 and $24,999 a year at 9.3 percent. Furthermore, Wayne County had the lowest median household income in the region at $55,867. Livingston County had the lowest percentage of households living at or below the poverty level in 2022 at 4.9 percent and had the highest median income at $100,139.

So, while the minimum wage increased in Michigan, and helping those with among the lowest earnings in the state, the gap between the minimum wage and a living wage still exists. A living wage is the hourly rate that an individual in a household must earn to support his or herself and their family. According to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, $16.27 an hour is the amount an individual needs to earn to make a living wage.

An increased minimum wage not only increases the earnings of some of Michigan’s lowest earning workers, but it also has been shown to have positive impacts on physical and mental health, well-being and educational outcomes.