4 ms·

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 wat

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?
- AlotOfReading 2y ago
  It's still local governments designing the water treatment systems, working with suppliers and local polluters, designating water source uses, setting the local quality standards (which may be different than the federal standards), collecting monitoring data, granting discharge permits, getting funding, handling lawsuits, filing state level reports, and so on. I'm barely even scratching the surface of how much is involved with modern infrastructure either. I don't understand why you think an agency nationally coordinating all the local governments' efforts and making reports to Congress should exist at any level below the federal.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    Well yeah, execution has to happen locally. But you did open this with a "Do you think water systems are managed at the federal level? They're not.". And I'm not sure why you think that because you seem to be describing a situation where the EPA, at the federal level, is in fact managing water systems. Obviously we have a terminology disagreement here somewhere. I mean, if there was a software engineer designing systems, working with vendors, setting his own standards that were higher than company standards, collecting monitoring data, managing permissions, yada yada, we would still have to acknowledge that he was not the manager in the region, he is an employee and the manager is someone else. He is managing some aspects of the situation, no doubt, but if we ask "who is managing all this" the conventional answer isn't the developer, but the developer's manager. "Management" is typically reserved for the senior managers in the area monitoring the outcomes and setting high-level standards. By analogy, the EPA is attempting to manage water systems at the Federal level. Do parts of that chain of logic seem questionable to you? Is it possible that when you say "managed" you mean what I would call "executed"? > I don't understand why you think an agency nationally coordinating all the local governments' efforts and making reports to Congress should exist at any level below the federal. I recommend asking questions if you don't understand something. It works well for me. This (drinking water) is a critical system. Centralised management is too risky, if something goes off the rails then it'd affect drinking water across an entire country. It is better to have disparate systems where failure is more localised. Right now, the headline suggests <10% of the US is at risk. Trading that for a situation where there is a <10% chance that all of the US is at risk is actually making the risk profile worse. The chance of a problem is the same because nothing has been done to lower the triggers, but the consequences are substantially worse because the system is trying to centralise under the EPA. The EPA shouldn't be in a position where local authorities feel they have to sue them to keep the system decentralised, they shouldn't be trying to manage local operations.

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?

AlotOfReading 2y ago
It's still local governments designing the water treatment systems, working with suppliers and local polluters, designating water source uses, setting the local quality standards (which may be different than the federal standards), collecting monitoring data, granting discharge permits, getting funding, handling lawsuits, filing state level reports, and so on. I'm barely even scratching the surface of how much is involved with modern infrastructure either. I don't understand why you think an agency nationally coordinating all the local governments' efforts and making reports to Congress should exist at any level below the federal.
- roenxi 2y ago
  Well yeah, execution has to happen locally. But you did open this with a "Do you think water systems are managed at the federal level? They're not.". And I'm not sure why you think that because you seem to be describing a situation where the EPA, at the federal level, is in fact managing water systems. Obviously we have a terminology disagreement here somewhere. I mean, if there was a software engineer designing systems, working with vendors, setting his own standards that were higher than company standards, collecting monitoring data, managing permissions, yada yada, we would still have to acknowledge that he was not the manager in the region, he is an employee and the manager is someone else. He is managing some aspects of the situation, no doubt, but if we ask "who is managing all this" the conventional answer isn't the developer, but the developer's manager. "Management" is typically reserved for the senior managers in the area monitoring the outcomes and setting high-level standards. By analogy, the EPA is attempting to manage water systems at the Federal level. Do parts of that chain of logic seem questionable to you? Is it possible that when you say "managed" you mean what I would call "executed"? > I don't understand why you think an agency nationally coordinating all the local governments' efforts and making reports to Congress should exist at any level below the federal. I recommend asking questions if you don't understand something. It works well for me. This (drinking water) is a critical system. Centralised management is too risky, if something goes off the rails then it'd affect drinking water across an entire country. It is better to have disparate systems where failure is more localised. Right now, the headline suggests <10% of the US is at risk. Trading that for a situation where there is a <10% chance that all of the US is at risk is actually making the risk profile worse. The chance of a problem is the same because nothing has been done to lower the triggers, but the consequences are substantially worse because the system is trying to centralise under the EPA. The EPA shouldn't be in a position where local authorities feel they have to sue them to keep the system decentralised, they shouldn't be trying to manage local operations.