4 ms·
What's the "faulty reasoning?" OP's reference said that many states don't provide estimates. You said > There’s a difference between knowing the status of eve
by AlbertCory 4y ago
What's the "faulty reasoning?"
OP's reference said that many states don't provide estimates. You said
> There’s a difference between knowing the status of every pipe and knowing what the system is generally made up of.
So the states don't bother asking the cities, or refuse to aggregate and estimate it, or what?
Your last paragraph also doesn't jibe with the second. If it's the homeowners' responsibility, then where does the "criminally negligent political leadership" come in?
- Spooky23 4y agoThe OP is trying to link a general statement made by an advocacy group to a GAO audit. They have nothing to do with each other. Anyone with even cursory knowledge of the problem domain knows that any water installation before a certain date is a lead line. States and the EPA mandate and audit representative testing of public water supplies. The criminal negligence in Flint was that, to save money, the state appointed leadership of the City water system knowingly obtained water from an alternate source whose water chemistry caused the lead pipes in Flint to leach out and expose people to the lead in the water. Had they treated the water appropriately, or not changed the water supply, the oxidation in the pipes would have prevented the leaching of lead into the water, as it had for a century. All of this is well documented.