4 ms·

This stuff makes for great quips and lots of internet virtue points but odds are this was just a line item among many that "needed" to be done to Flint's infras

This stuff makes for great quips and lots of internet virtue points but odds are this was just a line item among many that "needed" to be done to Flint's infrastructure to meet federal guidelines. They're not rich enough to do it all. There's no way for anyone with any authority to actually do things decide what is and isn't important because a) politics and b) every department thinks their stuff is most critical. Most of the time most of the stuff manages to get done without causing any sort of crisis but there's always the risk. Construing this as the inevitable result of some ill-advised liberty binge is simply lying. Flint didn't care about thumbing their nose at the EPA. Their mistake was being poor, incompetent and unlucky simultaneously. If they were rich they could have out spent their own stupid. If they were smart they'd have figured out there was a problem and treated it before it god bad. If they were lucky there never would have been a problem.

mikeyouse 5y ago
Seems pretty clear that whoever was responsible for this specific cost/benefit calculation was wrong though?
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  Everything is 20-20 with hindsight. If a school bus went through a rusted out guard rail killing a bunch of kids you'd be hearing about that instead. There is no winning in these kinds of situations, you just try your best and hope to not be the unlucky one who presided over something that went south. Of course sucking at your job makes it harder to get it right but even if you're good the risk is always there. The ironic thing is the people of Flint can probably relate to this dilema a heck of a lot better than a bunch of HNers who have no frame of reference for this kind of thing.
  - mikeyouse 5y ago
    Putting morons in charge of critical water infrastructure is literally a case study in municipal fuckups. "Don't poison your town" isn't a hard call, especially when the incremental cost is on the order of thousands of dollars per year, not tens of thousands. Full wiki background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkerton_E._coli_outbreak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkerton_E._coli_outbreak Case study: http://scceh.com/Portals/6/Env_Health/consumer_protection/drinking_water/Walkerton.pdf?ver=eoadg0EvweM5N-fp2ZEHNw%3d%3d http://scceh.com/Portals/6/Env_Health/consumer_protection/dr... Literally everyone who has been within 100yds of a muni water system knows the stakes for this stuff.
  - MomoXenosaga 5y ago
    The only winning move is to live in a rich city. Something to keep in mind the next time HN starts ranting about working remotely.
dane-pgp 5y ago
> They're not rich enough to do it all. But we're not talking about doing it all, we're talking about meeting its minimum legal requirements. If a city doesn't have enough money to do that, then presumably it should declare bankruptcy.
- throwaway09223 5y ago
  There are plenty of municipal entities who can't afford to meet various minimum legal requirements. Furthermore, it's not always clear what severity is attached to various compliance requirements. Bankruptcy can cancel debt, but it can't create new funding. If the money isn't there, it isn't there.
  - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
    Flint switched water supplies then failed to properly treat the new one. Severe budget constraints would have had them staying with the already not-poisonous supply.
    - shadowgovt 5y ago
      In general, it would have... Except in this case, a larger municipality more or less bought out Flint's stake in the old water supply. Flint didn't have the money to not get the old supply turned away from them.
      - rbanffy 5y ago
        I just love the way markets self regulate.
      - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
        Appreciate the additional info.
      - 8note 5y ago
        That still sounds like somebody went on a liberty binge. Why are towns competing for clean water sources by how much they can pay to a provider?
gumby 5y ago
I think you have not been following this situation. It wasn’t something overlooked — there were plenty of alarms ringing (articles in the local and national press, posturing by the governor and certain legislators etc). I agree what you mention can happen. That’s not the situation here.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
> They're not rich enough to do it all. That kind of indicates Flint shouldn't have switched their water supply if they couldn't afford to do it w/o lead-poisoning the population.

mikeyouse 5y ago

Seems pretty clear that whoever was responsible for this specific cost/benefit calculation was wrong though?

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
Everything is 20-20 with hindsight. If a school bus went through a rusted out guard rail killing a bunch of kids you'd be hearing about that instead. There is no winning in these kinds of situations, you just try your best and hope to not be the unlucky one who presided over something that went south. Of course sucking at your job makes it harder to get it right but even if you're good the risk is always there. The ironic thing is the people of Flint can probably relate to this dilema a heck of a lot better than a bunch of HNers who have no frame of reference for this kind of thing.
- mikeyouse 5y ago
  Putting morons in charge of critical water infrastructure is literally a case study in municipal fuckups. "Don't poison your town" isn't a hard call, especially when the incremental cost is on the order of thousands of dollars per year, not tens of thousands. Full wiki background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkerton_E._coli_outbreak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkerton_E._coli_outbreak Case study: http://scceh.com/Portals/6/Env_Health/consumer_protection/drinking_water/Walkerton.pdf?ver=eoadg0EvweM5N-fp2ZEHNw%3d%3d http://scceh.com/Portals/6/Env_Health/consumer_protection/dr... Literally everyone who has been within 100yds of a muni water system knows the stakes for this stuff.
- MomoXenosaga 5y ago
  The only winning move is to live in a rich city. Something to keep in mind the next time HN starts ranting about working remotely.

dane-pgp 5y ago

> They're not rich enough to do it all. But we're not talking about doing it all, we're talking about meeting its minimum legal requirements. If a city doesn't have enough money to do that, then presumably it should declare bankruptcy.

throwaway09223 5y ago
There are plenty of municipal entities who can't afford to meet various minimum legal requirements. Furthermore, it's not always clear what severity is attached to various compliance requirements. Bankruptcy can cancel debt, but it can't create new funding. If the money isn't there, it isn't there.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  Flint switched water supplies then failed to properly treat the new one. Severe budget constraints would have had them staying with the already not-poisonous supply.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    In general, it would have... Except in this case, a larger municipality more or less bought out Flint's stake in the old water supply. Flint didn't have the money to not get the old supply turned away from them.
    - rbanffy 5y ago
      I just love the way markets self regulate.
    - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
      Appreciate the additional info.
    - 8note 5y ago
      That still sounds like somebody went on a liberty binge. Why are towns competing for clean water sources by how much they can pay to a provider?

gumby 5y ago

I think you have not been following this situation. It wasn’t something overlooked — there were plenty of alarms ringing (articles in the local and national press, posturing by the governor and certain legislators etc). I agree what you mention can happen. That’s not the situation here.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

WarOnPrivacy 5y ago

> They're not rich enough to do it all. That kind of indicates Flint shouldn't have switched their water supply if they couldn't afford to do it w/o lead-poisoning the population.