Powell: Waterbury water disaster is a political lesson for all of Connecticut

By CHRIS POWELL

Waterbury suffered another catastrophic breakdown of its water system this month, the second since September, with most of the city and parts of its suburbs having to go without water for several days.
In both breakdowns city employees worked heroically around the clock to repair the damage, which was caused by the rupture of century-old piping.

Waterbury now plans to spend millions of dollars to replace old pipes and valves. But as indicated by the recent disasters and the smaller pipe breaks the city often suffers, the improvements should have been made long ago.

Waterbury is hardly alone in its neglect of infrastructure. The neglect of Hartford's sewer system has been notorious and only this year started to get serious attention when it was noted that the worst damage was occurring in the city's poorest neighborhood. Other municipalities in Connecticut are also living with old and potentially troublesome piping.

Why? It's ordinary politics. As journalist James Reston said, all politics is based on the indifference of the majority. The public seldom cares much and pays little attention, so the squeaky wheels -- and palms -- get the grease.

Basic infrastructure can be expensive and there is no influential constituency for maintenance and improvements until a vital system collapses and most people suffer from it and reluctantly concede that to fix the problem money must be spent and taxes probably raised.

Elected officials know that it's easy to raise the money for basic infrastructure when it collapses, but it's hard to raise money for infrastructure when it seems to be working and is competing with all other demands on government, many of which come from influential constituencies.

So elected officials may not worry much about infrastructure collapses, knowing that repair money will always be made available after a collapse, even if repairs cost far more than good maintenance would have.

Connecticut's most influential constituency, unionized government employees, even has a special system of law to ensure its contentment: binding arbitration of union contracts. The law removes from the ordinary democratic process control of government employee compensation, which is most state and municipal government spending.

These days the people of the Waterbury area particularly and people throughout the state generally might do well to ask themselves: Why is there no binding arbitration for neglected basic infrastructure? Why is there no binding arbitration for, say, some other recently publicized failures of state government policy, the neglected needs of the homeless mentally ill and autistic children and their families?

Why has Governor Lamont promised 4.5% raises for unionized state employees but nothing for the homeless mentally ill and autistic children?

It's because the special interests are always mobilized politically while the public interest is seldom mobilized, mainly because journalism about serious issues, like literacy generally, is declining and because elected officials lack the courage to risk offending special interests by trying to mobilize the public interest, which is usually contrary to the special interest.

If Connecticut ever wants a better public life, it will need a better public.

END COURTHOUSE SANCTUARY: A Wisconsin state judge has just been convicted in federal court of obstructing enforcement of federal immigration law. She helped an illegal immigrant evade arrest in her courthouse.

Courthouses are good places for catching lawbreakers, since many lawbreakers are chronic. On average non-citizens may be better behaved than citizens, but this doesn't really excuse illegal immigration, as supporters of illegal immigration suggest; the average is no consolation to people who have been wronged by someone in the group with the better average.

The Wisconsin case impugns Connecticut's latest law obstructing immigration law enforcement, a law purporting to prohibit federal agents from making arrests in state courthouses. The law's nonsensical rationale is that everyone should feel safe in a Connecticut courthouse -- even people violating immigration law.

So what is to happen if, as in Wisconsin, court officials in Connecticut help illegal immigrants evade arrest? And why should someone breaking immigration law feel safe anywhere?

Chris Powell has written about Connecticut government and politics for many years. (CPowell@cox.net) His column archive is here.