4 ms·

Subtly attempts to frame the issue as public controlled water. A counterpoint might be that the companies with a vested interest in privitising water supplies

Subtly attempts to frame the issue as public controlled water. A counterpoint might be that the companies with a vested interest in privitising water supplies have lobbied to choke out the public systems of funding. Perhaps instead of cutting deplorable tax breaks for big business, it would be more prudent to augment the public funds to prevent your citizens from getting lead poisoning? http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/jan/30/water-privatisation-worldwide-failure-lagos-world-bank http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/jan/30/wa...

rayiner 11y ago
What big businesses are you talking about? Water in almost every U.S. city is provided by a municipal utility. E.g. in Flint, it's the Utilities Department: https://www.cityofflint.com/public-works/water-service-center https://www.cityofflint.com/public-works/water-service-cente.... Water rates are set by the city, and are just too low to cover modernization of the systems. Both the ASCE and the EPA have reported that investment in water systems is a fraction of what is required: http://geospatial.blogs.com/geospatial/2011/12/asce-report-on-the-impact-of-under-investment-in-water-infrastructure-in-the-us-.html http://geospatial.blogs.com/geospatial/2011/12/asce-report-o....
- cmiles74 11y ago
  I think they are referring to the big businesses that are either consuming the water supply or polluting the water supply.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    Do you even know if "big businesses" are even a major consumer of water in Flint? In a city (as opposed to an agricultural area), residential users are probably the primary water users. In any case, even if that were true, how is that relevant to the city charging too low a price for water to be able to replace aging lead pipes?
    - cmiles74 11y ago
      It comes down to what you think of as a "consumer" of the water. Clearly, someone was using the water to dispose of these contaminants. I admit, it's not as clear-cut as, say, the use of water by the Coca-Cola Company. Regardless, my understanding is that Flint has no money, neither the individual constituents nor the city itself. Literally no one can pay to replace these old pipes. IMHO, the reason they switched water supplies in the first place was because they couldn't afford the rising rates from their previous water source.
      - Kristine1975 11y ago
        In this case, the lead is in the water pipes, though. It's not the result of industry dumping waste into the river. (At least that's how I understand it.)
        cmiles74 11y ago
        I agree, it sounds like the water from the river is more corrosive then their last source. The water is leaching out the lead and delivering it through the faucet. Another article suggests that the pipes will now leach lead into any water source for at least a couple of months. Adding an anti-corrosive agent might have helped, but could introduce other issues (I don't know enough to know how much they would need to add and if it would be safe).
- sophacles 11y ago
  Here's a big water utility company: http://www.amwater.com/about-us/our-states.html http://www.amwater.com/about-us/our-states.html It's pretty common for water supply to be treated as a utility, with municipal monopolies provided - like cable or electricity.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    Only 15% of water utilities are private companies: http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Po-Re/Privatization-of-Water-Management.html http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Po-Re/Privatization-of-Wate.... And even, it's usually an arrangement where the city contracts with a private company to operate its water system. The companies don't own the system and prices are set by the municipalities.
jerf 11y ago
"it would be more prudent to augment the public funds to prevent your citizens from getting lead poisoning?" In the context of Flint, this argument ends up a bit moot; there's no money, anywhere. Private, public, doesn't matter, the city can't sustain itself as it is. Flint has way more infrastructure than it can support. And "evaporative cooling" is in full effect; anyone who can leave, is leaving or more likely has left. As I live in the Ann Arbor area, I can name names. Flint is a popular place to be from. A State of Emergency and the resulting external emergency assistance is the only way out of this mess for Flint, regardless. This is especially important if the recent theories about how dangerous lead poisoning is are true, with the suggestions that the majority of the cause of the crime wave in the 60s and 70s may have been due to leaded gasoline. Leading up the next generation of Flint residents could make things even harder for the city for the next 30-50 years, and Flint really doesn't need that.

rayiner 11y ago

What big businesses are you talking about? Water in almost every U.S. city is provided by a municipal utility. E.g. in Flint, it's the Utilities Department: https://www.cityofflint.com/public-works/water-service-center https://www.cityofflint.com/public-works/water-service-cente.... Water rates are set by the city, and are just too low to cover modernization of the systems. Both the ASCE and the EPA have reported that investment in water systems is a fraction of what is required: http://geospatial.blogs.com/geospatial/2011/12/asce-report-on-the-impact-of-under-investment-in-water-infrastructure-in-the-us-.html http://geospatial.blogs.com/geospatial/2011/12/asce-report-o....

cmiles74 11y ago
I think they are referring to the big businesses that are either consuming the water supply or polluting the water supply.
- rayiner 11y ago
  Do you even know if "big businesses" are even a major consumer of water in Flint? In a city (as opposed to an agricultural area), residential users are probably the primary water users. In any case, even if that were true, how is that relevant to the city charging too low a price for water to be able to replace aging lead pipes?
  - cmiles74 11y ago
    It comes down to what you think of as a "consumer" of the water. Clearly, someone was using the water to dispose of these contaminants. I admit, it's not as clear-cut as, say, the use of water by the Coca-Cola Company. Regardless, my understanding is that Flint has no money, neither the individual constituents nor the city itself. Literally no one can pay to replace these old pipes. IMHO, the reason they switched water supplies in the first place was because they couldn't afford the rising rates from their previous water source.
    - Kristine1975 11y ago
      In this case, the lead is in the water pipes, though. It's not the result of industry dumping waste into the river. (At least that's how I understand it.)
      - cmiles74 11y ago
        I agree, it sounds like the water from the river is more corrosive then their last source. The water is leaching out the lead and delivering it through the faucet. Another article suggests that the pipes will now leach lead into any water source for at least a couple of months. Adding an anti-corrosive agent might have helped, but could introduce other issues (I don't know enough to know how much they would need to add and if it would be safe).
sophacles 11y ago
Here's a big water utility company: http://www.amwater.com/about-us/our-states.html http://www.amwater.com/about-us/our-states.html It's pretty common for water supply to be treated as a utility, with municipal monopolies provided - like cable or electricity.
- rayiner 11y ago
  Only 15% of water utilities are private companies: http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Po-Re/Privatization-of-Water-Management.html http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Po-Re/Privatization-of-Wate.... And even, it's usually an arrangement where the city contracts with a private company to operate its water system. The companies don't own the system and prices are set by the municipalities.

jerf 11y ago

"it would be more prudent to augment the public funds to prevent your citizens from getting lead poisoning?" In the context of Flint, this argument ends up a bit moot; there's no money, anywhere. Private, public, doesn't matter, the city can't sustain itself as it is. Flint has way more infrastructure than it can support. And "evaporative cooling" is in full effect; anyone who can leave, is leaving or more likely has left. As I live in the Ann Arbor area, I can name names. Flint is a popular place to be from. A State of Emergency and the resulting external emergency assistance is the only way out of this mess for Flint, regardless. This is especially important if the recent theories about how dangerous lead poisoning is are true, with the suggestions that the majority of the cause of the crime wave in the 60s and 70s may have been due to leaded gasoline. Leading up the next generation of Flint residents could make things even harder for the city for the next 30-50 years, and Flint really doesn't need that.