5 ms·

Do you think water systems are managed at the federal level? They're not. Municipal water supplies are primarily managed by local and state agencies. The feds

Do you think water systems are managed at the federal level? They're not. Municipal water supplies are primarily managed by local and state agencies. The feds get involved when there are environmental issues (EPA) or something directly under the federal prerogative comes up like federal lands, standardisation, the army, or interstate cooperation.

roenxi 2y ago
So from your comment it seems you see a body that is basically advisory. Would I be correct in assuming you see no issue with getting rid of the parts of the EPA that deal in water? They don't sound like they do anything particularly important. They were probably overstepping their mandate with the cybersecurity stuff if your view is accurate; nobody needs to sue them if they don't exercise any control. Those functions could be wholly coordinated by the states or direct communication between relevant bodies by the way.
- forgetfreeman 2y ago
  When presented with an issue that poses a real and present danger to the drinking water supply of citizens of this country your contribution is pearl clutching over notional mandates? To be clear, in your opinion "overstepping their mandate" is the bigger threat here? Here's a wild idea, how about we return to the concept of actual governance for the first time in a few decades and actually empower the EPA with both budget and enforcement rights to ensure that local and state run systems that our fellow citizens rely on aren't falling through the cracks?
  - roenxi 2y ago
    > ...your contribution is pearl clutching over notional mandates... > Here's a wild idea, how about we return to the concept of actual governance for the first time in a few decades... These two ideas are actually somewhat contradictory, I recommend picking one. You can't return to good governance by ignoring governance every time you think something needs to be done. And you don't need the EPA to be involved to defend against these sort of risks. In fact, standardising the IT approach through the EPA will might increase the risk since any vulnerabilities will be more likely to be standardised. Highly heterogeneous systems are expensive and difficult to cripple. If an adversary wants to attack there is a single point of failure they can target - the EPA process.
    - d4mi3n 2y ago
      > In fact, standardising the IT approach through the EPA will might increase the risk since any vulnerabilities will be more likely to be standardised. Highly heterogeneous systems are expensive and difficult to cripple. This is not a safe assumption to make. As an example: Standardized patching programs are very basic and reduce a lot of this risk. Without them (or incentive/budget for them), it’s typical for most private and public orgs to end up with pretty bad security posture. This is a known failure state that results in many known vulnerabilities that can be trivially exploited, regardless of how heterogeneous these various networks are. Sadly, from what I’ve seen in the news and in various reports, I don’t think many regional organizations have the funding, expertise, or incentive to run effective security programs.
    - forgetfreeman 2y ago
      Clearly you need someone involved to defend against these sort of risks as they are demonstrably not being addressed currently. May as well involve the EPA, they already exist and water is already a thing they do. Given we're already discussing a diverse mix of insecure systems "heterogeneity" isn't much of a talking point. You're proposing local and state governments spend orders of magnitude more taxpayer money on duplication of effort. In a forum that generally favors efficiency this seems out of place.
      - roenxi 2y ago
        They are being addressed. By the headline something like >90% of the US isn't affected. If it was a more centralised system, there'd be a 90% chance it was all working and a 10% chance that the incompetent local officials were incompetent EPA officials instead, standardising everyone on insecure systems with nobody able to overrule them. It'd make a bad situation into an all-or-nothing gamble with substantially worse worst-case performance. > You're proposing local and state governments spend orders of magnitude more taxpayer money on duplication of effort. Doubt it. The expenses are going to be mostly capital and operating ones that can't be avoided.
        dartos 2y ago
  - 015a 2y ago
    There's many people who would reasonably disagree with a course like this, because there are no elected positions in the EPA. The whole "overstepping their mandate" thing is perceived as a very real and present threat among MAGA people, for this reason specifically. This is the whole notion of "The Swamp" Trump was going to drain; unelected career bureaucrats.
    - forgetfreeman 2y ago
      That they would disagree isn't in question. That their position is reasonable is, however, very much up for debate. Career bureaucrats are literally the pool of experience and expertise that make government agencies function, to the extent that's possible given legislative hobbles. The only thing that gets drained when these people are replaced by elected officials or private industry is expertise and theoretically sane incentives.
      - dartos 2y ago
        It’s funny how it seems we care more about years of expertise for the engineers on our software teams than the people running government. There’s a balance that needs to be struck between new blood with fresh perspectives and old guard with decades of experience navigating Washington politics.
- AlotOfReading 2y ago
  The EPA is specifically mandated to do this in the clean water act. They're not overstepping at all, and neither is CISA.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    I dunno, there seems to be a logical issue here. You've told me that water systems aren't managed at the federal level, and I take you at face value. So if, as toomuchtodo points out, Republicans are having to sue the EPA to stop them from managing water systems it is clear that the EPA is overstepping their mandate. If they do in fact have a mandate to manage water systems and the Republicans aren't simply and obviously in the correct moral and legal position here, then this idea that they don't have a mandate must be discarded and they are in fact managing water systems at the federal level. As can be seen from my earlier posts, I agree with the Republican lawyers & what appears to be your position - the EPA shouldn't be managing water systems. Leave it to the state & local authorities, the results will be better overall. If they are alarmed over something they can report it all they like, but they shouldn't be the ones to try and fix it.
    - AlotOfReading 2y ago
      They have a mandate to monitor and set standards for water systems. That's what they're doing here. Implementing those standards is left up to the municipal water supplies that actually manage the water systems. Similarly, CISA has a mandate to monitor and strengthen infrastructure cybersecurity. There's no contradictions here. If you have questions on the extent of the EPA's mandate and why, you'll probably find the Wikipedia page a better resource than me.
      - roenxi 2y ago
        I'm not actually asking questions about the EPA here, this is more an exploration of what you think. > They have a mandate to monitor and set standards for water systems. So we've found a point of disagreement, because that is pretty much my definition of management. IMO, to a reasonable approximation, management is the process of monitoring a situation and setting standards that people must meet. What do you think management involves, and what would separate the work of, say, senior management from what the EPA is doing? If the power to monitor and set standards isn't the heart of management, what is?

roenxi 2y ago

So from your comment it seems you see a body that is basically advisory. Would I be correct in assuming you see no issue with getting rid of the parts of the EPA that deal in water? They don't sound like they do anything particularly important. They were probably overstepping their mandate with the cybersecurity stuff if your view is accurate; nobody needs to sue them if they don't exercise any control. Those functions could be wholly coordinated by the states or direct communication between relevant bodies by the way.

forgetfreeman 2y ago
When presented with an issue that poses a real and present danger to the drinking water supply of citizens of this country your contribution is pearl clutching over notional mandates? To be clear, in your opinion "overstepping their mandate" is the bigger threat here? Here's a wild idea, how about we return to the concept of actual governance for the first time in a few decades and actually empower the EPA with both budget and enforcement rights to ensure that local and state run systems that our fellow citizens rely on aren't falling through the cracks?
- roenxi 2y ago
  > ...your contribution is pearl clutching over notional mandates... > Here's a wild idea, how about we return to the concept of actual governance for the first time in a few decades... These two ideas are actually somewhat contradictory, I recommend picking one. You can't return to good governance by ignoring governance every time you think something needs to be done. And you don't need the EPA to be involved to defend against these sort of risks. In fact, standardising the IT approach through the EPA will might increase the risk since any vulnerabilities will be more likely to be standardised. Highly heterogeneous systems are expensive and difficult to cripple. If an adversary wants to attack there is a single point of failure they can target - the EPA process.
  - d4mi3n 2y ago
    > In fact, standardising the IT approach through the EPA will might increase the risk since any vulnerabilities will be more likely to be standardised. Highly heterogeneous systems are expensive and difficult to cripple. This is not a safe assumption to make. As an example: Standardized patching programs are very basic and reduce a lot of this risk. Without them (or incentive/budget for them), it’s typical for most private and public orgs to end up with pretty bad security posture. This is a known failure state that results in many known vulnerabilities that can be trivially exploited, regardless of how heterogeneous these various networks are. Sadly, from what I’ve seen in the news and in various reports, I don’t think many regional organizations have the funding, expertise, or incentive to run effective security programs.
  - forgetfreeman 2y ago
    Clearly you need someone involved to defend against these sort of risks as they are demonstrably not being addressed currently. May as well involve the EPA, they already exist and water is already a thing they do. Given we're already discussing a diverse mix of insecure systems "heterogeneity" isn't much of a talking point. You're proposing local and state governments spend orders of magnitude more taxpayer money on duplication of effort. In a forum that generally favors efficiency this seems out of place.
    - roenxi 2y ago
      They are being addressed. By the headline something like >90% of the US isn't affected. If it was a more centralised system, there'd be a 90% chance it was all working and a 10% chance that the incompetent local officials were incompetent EPA officials instead, standardising everyone on insecure systems with nobody able to overrule them. It'd make a bad situation into an all-or-nothing gamble with substantially worse worst-case performance. > You're proposing local and state governments spend orders of magnitude more taxpayer money on duplication of effort. Doubt it. The expenses are going to be mostly capital and operating ones that can't be avoided.
      - dartos 2y ago
- 015a 2y ago
  There's many people who would reasonably disagree with a course like this, because there are no elected positions in the EPA. The whole "overstepping their mandate" thing is perceived as a very real and present threat among MAGA people, for this reason specifically. This is the whole notion of "The Swamp" Trump was going to drain; unelected career bureaucrats.
  - forgetfreeman 2y ago
    That they would disagree isn't in question. That their position is reasonable is, however, very much up for debate. Career bureaucrats are literally the pool of experience and expertise that make government agencies function, to the extent that's possible given legislative hobbles. The only thing that gets drained when these people are replaced by elected officials or private industry is expertise and theoretically sane incentives.
    - dartos 2y ago
      It’s funny how it seems we care more about years of expertise for the engineers on our software teams than the people running government. There’s a balance that needs to be struck between new blood with fresh perspectives and old guard with decades of experience navigating Washington politics.
AlotOfReading 2y ago
The EPA is specifically mandated to do this in the clean water act. They're not overstepping at all, and neither is CISA.
- roenxi 2y ago
  I dunno, there seems to be a logical issue here. You've told me that water systems aren't managed at the federal level, and I take you at face value. So if, as toomuchtodo points out, Republicans are having to sue the EPA to stop them from managing water systems it is clear that the EPA is overstepping their mandate. If they do in fact have a mandate to manage water systems and the Republicans aren't simply and obviously in the correct moral and legal position here, then this idea that they don't have a mandate must be discarded and they are in fact managing water systems at the federal level. As can be seen from my earlier posts, I agree with the Republican lawyers & what appears to be your position - the EPA shouldn't be managing water systems. Leave it to the state & local authorities, the results will be better overall. If they are alarmed over something they can report it all they like, but they shouldn't be the ones to try and fix it.
  - AlotOfReading 2y ago
    They have a mandate to monitor and set standards for water systems. That's what they're doing here. Implementing those standards is left up to the municipal water supplies that actually manage the water systems. Similarly, CISA has a mandate to monitor and strengthen infrastructure cybersecurity. There's no contradictions here. If you have questions on the extent of the EPA's mandate and why, you'll probably find the Wikipedia page a better resource than me.
    - roenxi 2y ago
      I'm not actually asking questions about the EPA here, this is more an exploration of what you think. > They have a mandate to monitor and set standards for water systems. So we've found a point of disagreement, because that is pretty much my definition of management. IMO, to a reasonable approximation, management is the process of monitoring a situation and setting standards that people must meet. What do you think management involves, and what would separate the work of, say, senior management from what the EPA is doing? If the power to monitor and set standards isn't the heart of management, what is?