3 ms·
I think they are referring to the big businesses that are either consuming the water supply or polluting the water supply.
by 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 agoDo 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 agoIt 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 agoIn 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 agoI 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).