4 ms·

This is a public health disaster. It's tough to really fathom the number of children across the country that will suffer mental and behavioral problems for life

This is a public health disaster. It's tough to really fathom the number of children across the country that will suffer mental and behavioral problems for life because of this. Why are there not more lawsuits? Is the scope of the damage too difficult to quantify, or the negligent parties too diffuse/remote to sue? As much as our litigation-based culture is vilified, it can help spur action by changing the cost/benefit of doing nothing and force companies/governments to step up and fix this before more people are hurt. The risk of Mesothelioma lawsuits, for example, help add some seriousness to asbestos exposure claims.

nerdponx 10y ago
Too diffuse. This is a classic "principal-agent" problem.
ianai 10y ago
I'd bet that's down the road. Only recently has testing your water for lead/etc become cheap, easy, and relevant. If you tested your water for lead 10 years ago society would probably label you paranoid - still might in many places.
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  > If you tested your water for lead 10 years ago society would probably label you paranoid New York City sends you a free lead test kit, if you ask for it [1]. [1] http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/1266/water-lead-test-kit-request http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/1266/water-lead-te...
h4nkoslo 10y ago
There are a shitload of lawsuits, whenever a plausible plaintiff can be found.
- RawData 10y ago
  Yeah but who do you sue if the old flaky paint in the house you own causes your kid to get lead poisoning?
rayiner 10y ago
Okay, so you sue Flint. Then what? It has no money. If it had money, it would have invested in its water infrastructure. That's the case all over the country. When I was there, the legal clinic at Northwestern University was working on, among other things, Clean Water Act issues. They did a report on water quality--tons of municipalities in Illinois failed to meet standards. But lawsuits would have been pointless. Almost all of these are tiny municipal water utilities that have no money. The problem is only going to get worse. Municipal budgets are in shambles and taxes will go up to make ends meet. Raising water rates--which are far too low--to pay for new infrastructure will be politically intractable.

nerdponx 10y ago

Too diffuse. This is a classic "principal-agent" problem.

ianai 10y ago

I'd bet that's down the road. Only recently has testing your water for lead/etc become cheap, easy, and relevant. If you tested your water for lead 10 years ago society would probably label you paranoid - still might in many places.

JumpCrisscross 10y ago
> If you tested your water for lead 10 years ago society would probably label you paranoid New York City sends you a free lead test kit, if you ask for it [1]. [1] http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/1266/water-lead-test-kit-request http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/1266/water-lead-te...

h4nkoslo 10y ago

There are a shitload of lawsuits, whenever a plausible plaintiff can be found.

RawData 10y ago
Yeah but who do you sue if the old flaky paint in the house you own causes your kid to get lead poisoning?

rayiner 10y ago

Okay, so you sue Flint. Then what? It has no money. If it had money, it would have invested in its water infrastructure. That's the case all over the country. When I was there, the legal clinic at Northwestern University was working on, among other things, Clean Water Act issues. They did a report on water quality--tons of municipalities in Illinois failed to meet standards. But lawsuits would have been pointless. Almost all of these are tiny municipal water utilities that have no money. The problem is only going to get worse. Municipal budgets are in shambles and taxes will go up to make ends meet. Raising water rates--which are far too low--to pay for new infrastructure will be politically intractable.