This did not start out as a column. It started out as a personal problem we have been experiencing with the sewer frequently backing up into our basement during thunderstorms. Like a lot of people, we had our basement finished a number of years ago. We spent a nice chunk of cash to change it from a dusty, dirty cellar into a clean comfortable place with living facilities and a laundry room. It didn’t happen overnight – for you or me. But when the basement was finished, like you, we thought we had finally gotten ahead of the game.
Then the rains came. The latest flooding a couple of weeks ago left us demoralized. Our insurance company is tired of hearing from us. Even more than the money, the mess left behind is heartbreaking. No, this was not Katrina, but it left you wondering how much we could depend on the City if it couldn’t do anything about the devastation wrought by a short, heavy downpour.
As I said, I did not intend this as a column. My wife handled the problem the way you would and that made me interested in the response we would get, not as a columnist, but as tax-paying citizens. On the positive side, Council President Anna Verna got on the phone personally with my wife. She was understanding. She included the deputy commissioner of the Water Department in a three-way conference call to listen to our problem. We received the Water Department’s two interim reports on basement flooding. For all of that, we are very appreciative. But, when all is said and done, it is difficult to be encouraged there will be any relief from the problem for a very long while, if at all.
The Philadelphia Water Department’s own reports, dated Sept. 1, 2005, and March 1, 2006, are most revealing. The report emphasizes its capital budget for storm flood relief projects has been increased from $4 million to $10 million annually that will be used to "construct flood relief projects as the analysis identifies specific system modifications/improvements that will mitigate the flooding situation." The report details various initiatives, which are expected to take more than two years, and relies on a great deal of analysis when both the problem and solution are obvious. The report states "the existing sewer system was built on average 89 years ago." Averages being what they are, it is safe to say, in the older areas of the city, the sewer system is much older. We need a program to replace the antiquated sewer system.
Again using the Water Department’s report, it indicates our city experienced an unusual number of heavy rainfalls during 2004 and 2005. The severity of the storms has continued into 2006. About half of the top rainstorms have actually occurred during the last 10 years. So help me Al Gore, you can’t call this "unusual" anymore. Point number one then in the push for new sewers is rainfall in the area is increasing in intensity. But there is even a stronger argument.
The report touches briefly on the effect of changes in city lifestyles when this is probably the major reason for the flooding problem. Many of us have put bathroom and laundry facilities in our basements that our parents never had. Additional toilets, washbasins, etc., have taxed a sewer system that was never designed for living in the 21st century. Let me repeat: We need a new sewer system. But that’s where the report goes into denial.
Quoting from the conclusions of the March report, "Rebuilding the entire sewer system would take many years and is neither practical nor affordable to the ratepayers."
It goes on to say we need "creative solutions." No, what we needed was vision and proper city planning. It’s called rebuilding the infrastructure. A city that does not plan a phase-in of a new modern sewer system is doomed to live in the past and living in the past is essentially what this city does best. So here is what the City tells you, the homeowner, to do while it practices paralysis by analysis:
"Call the Water Department to report flooding." I really think the Water Department can already safely predict where flooding will occur, don’t you?
"Evaluate your insurance coverage." Let me give you a hint: If you are lucky enough to be covered for sewer backup and you report it every time you get water damage, your rates will go up. OK, I evaluated my coverage and it stinks like everybody else’s, now what?
"Plug, remove or elevate low-lying plumbing fixtures." Basically, go back to living like your parents did 50 years ago. Like I said, the City is back in the ’50s and wants you back there, too.
"Relocate valuables above the level of flooding." How much analysis did this suggestion take?
"Evaluate whether backwater prevention is feasible." Note to City: plumbers have told us it costs about $1,000 and probably won’t help much, if at all.
Let me offer a way to help pay for a new sewer system. The City employs the same size workforce it did when we had twice the number of citizens. How about a little downsizing?
The City has failed you, but it wants you to know it cares and, by all means, it’s studying the problem.
Tom Cardella will be – again – cleaning his finished basement next week. His column will resume July 6.
