4 ms·

Actually, water contamination by lead and other compounds is present all over the US. This isn’t an issue that should be likened to “other peoples problems” as

by ianai 7y ago

Actually, water contamination by lead and other compounds is present all over the US. This isn’t an issue that should be likened to “other peoples problems” as it’s national. I would identify it as part of the growing infrastructure crisis, though, as a New Deal type project is needed to properly address this stuff. Lead map: https://mytapscore.com/pages/the-lead-map https://mytapscore.com/pages/the-lead-map Pfas map: https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/2019_pfas_contamination/map/ https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/2019_pfas_contamination...

sokoloff 7y ago
Is there reason to think that typical good practice isn’t sufficient to manage the risk of lead exposure in distribution plumbing? (Basically pH management and water testing by the water authority and cooking with cold water by the public.)
- ianai 7y ago
  From my first link: “Although many small water systems are run well, it's often the case that they lack resources to monitor and update infrastructure in a timely fashion or manage the water's chemistry carefully. In theory, larger city water systems adjust their water's chemistry continuously to prevent health risks, but, as we've learned from Flint, this is not always the case.”
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    So perhaps rather than a New Deal digging up of millions of miles of piping, we could raise awareness and compliance with standards proven to work? That’s seems wildly less wasteful.
    - ianai 7y ago
      Iirc, once the solder is exposed to the wrong conditions the damage is done. It’s a mechanical process after that point. But even if I’m wrong about that one, simple awareness isn’t enough and municipalities lack funding to properly monitor and treat their water supplies. Hence the need for a redress of the social contract at the national level.
      - sokoloff 7y ago
        So “we can’t afford spend $Y million per year on this problem so we instead need to spend $500Y million on a project to replace all the pipes”? That doesn’t sound sensible to this taxpayer.
        ianai 7y ago
        Your taxes already have nothing to do with government spending. Their affect is to keep you from doing other things with your money. At best, taxes disincentivize bad actions and reward good through decreases/rebates. There’s the obvious tax incentive for marriage, for instance - not considering whether that’s a good or bad thing.
burfog 7y ago
That gets unfair. Towns around Flint spent their own money to fix their own pipes. They sacrificed to do the right thing. If a place like Flint now gets upgrades for free, we're rewarding irresponsibility. The voters of Flint choose to be irresponsible for decades. Do those other towns get paid for what they already did?
- ianai 7y ago
  Different places need different infrastructure projects.
- dbspin 7y ago
  Yeah, far better to insure children are poisoned to encourage their parents are properly punished for their lack of political commitment...
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  The big catastrophe that happened to Flint was caused at the state level (specifically, by a budget-cutting Republican statewide government). It wasn't anything the town of Flint had a say in.
  - coryrc 7y ago
    The people that screwed up and didn't treat the water correctly were all local employees of the local government water utility.
    - morelisp 7y ago
      Not really; one Michigan-specific consequence of the financial crisis was a takeover of city governments by state-appointed "Emergency Managers." These managers were given broad, non-democratic executive latitude. In Flint's case the appointees were Darnell Earley and Gerald Ambrose. They are currently being charged with a multitude of crimes for their actions which caused this (so are a dozen other employees, but they all reported to Earley and Ambrose) and they are responsible for the drive to "save" money, damn the consequences.

by ianai 7y ago

sokoloff 7y ago

Is there reason to think that typical good practice isn’t sufficient to manage the risk of lead exposure in distribution plumbing? (Basically pH management and water testing by the water authority and cooking with cold water by the public.)

ianai 7y ago
From my first link: “Although many small water systems are run well, it's often the case that they lack resources to monitor and update infrastructure in a timely fashion or manage the water's chemistry carefully. In theory, larger city water systems adjust their water's chemistry continuously to prevent health risks, but, as we've learned from Flint, this is not always the case.”
- sokoloff 7y ago
  So perhaps rather than a New Deal digging up of millions of miles of piping, we could raise awareness and compliance with standards proven to work? That’s seems wildly less wasteful.
  - ianai 7y ago
    Iirc, once the solder is exposed to the wrong conditions the damage is done. It’s a mechanical process after that point. But even if I’m wrong about that one, simple awareness isn’t enough and municipalities lack funding to properly monitor and treat their water supplies. Hence the need for a redress of the social contract at the national level.
    - sokoloff 7y ago
      So “we can’t afford spend $Y million per year on this problem so we instead need to spend $500Y million on a project to replace all the pipes”? That doesn’t sound sensible to this taxpayer.
      - ianai 7y ago
        Your taxes already have nothing to do with government spending. Their affect is to keep you from doing other things with your money. At best, taxes disincentivize bad actions and reward good through decreases/rebates. There’s the obvious tax incentive for marriage, for instance - not considering whether that’s a good or bad thing.

burfog 7y ago

That gets unfair. Towns around Flint spent their own money to fix their own pipes. They sacrificed to do the right thing. If a place like Flint now gets upgrades for free, we're rewarding irresponsibility. The voters of Flint choose to be irresponsible for decades. Do those other towns get paid for what they already did?

ianai 7y ago
Different places need different infrastructure projects.
dbspin 7y ago
Yeah, far better to insure children are poisoned to encourage their parents are properly punished for their lack of political commitment...
CydeWeys 7y ago
The big catastrophe that happened to Flint was caused at the state level (specifically, by a budget-cutting Republican statewide government). It wasn't anything the town of Flint had a say in.
- coryrc 7y ago
  The people that screwed up and didn't treat the water correctly were all local employees of the local government water utility.
  - morelisp 7y ago
    Not really; one Michigan-specific consequence of the financial crisis was a takeover of city governments by state-appointed "Emergency Managers." These managers were given broad, non-democratic executive latitude. In Flint's case the appointees were Darnell Earley and Gerald Ambrose. They are currently being charged with a multitude of crimes for their actions which caused this (so are a dozen other employees, but they all reported to Earley and Ambrose) and they are responsible for the drive to "save" money, damn the consequences.