What I remember about Flint water crisis was how state government lied
freep.com
freep.com
What he did in appointing an emergency manager in Detroit who shepherded it through bankruptcy was simply nothing short of amazing. But two other emergency managers in Flint and Benton Harbor were complete and utter disasters. He led a lot of reforms that only an outsider could accomplish but he will be remembered solely for the abominable disaster in Flint.
If the Flint water crisis is one of the largest in state government, state governments are doing an exceedingly good job:
"Even at the height of the crisis, testing in children showed blood lead levels that were essentially the same as the Michigan average and far lower than Detroit, which had a safe water supply the entire time. During the whole of the crisis (which encompassed 18 months in 2014-15), the number of Flint children with elevated lead levels was 3.9%. In Detroit it was 8.1%."
-- https://jabberwocking.com/the-tragedy-of-flint-is-not-what-m...
Then what you're saying makes perfect sense. In government he cast a bunch of bets, most were disasters and one worked out well.
As a local person following the situation, it was hard to tell what was really going on and where opinion pieces (like this and many of the linked articles) were pointing. I suspect people screwed up at all levels and want to just defer blame to the other political party.
I don't much care what happens to individuals. First concern is the victims. But the victims were cared for somewhat, but nowhere near the point where they'd not suffer damage.
Instead, the law was modified to minimize what the government paid ...
That statement carries as much water as "100% of people that breathe air will die."
https://www.bridgemi.com/truth-squad-companion/years-missed-...
"Two days before former state Treasurer Andy Dillon formally recommended moving
Flint off Detroit water, a Michigan Department of Environmental Quality drinking
water safety regulator warned that using the Flint River would pose increased
public health risk"The need to protect sources of water with more alkalinity is a largely ignored lesson of this crisis.
(but of course if you try to do any research on water ph you run headlong into the crackpot crowd trying to shill alkaline water machines)
If you're downstream of a bunch of 19th-century dye factory locations, you may be better off with bottled water.
If your tap water is of high quality, bottled water is likely worse due to microplastics from the bottle.
It was like drinking straight from the lake in the spring.*
*may not be wise
(Jokes aside yes Chicago water is phenomenal and Geneva, IL is even better. Take a tour some day or try out the local brewerys that use that water. https://www.geneva.il.us/516/Water-Treatment-Plant)
A government can inefficiently check over and over again that the supply it is providing is pure. A corporation is only beholding to its shareholders, where inefficiency is always a negative, regardless of its positive externalities.
What if it's mostly competent, but the agency in charge of the water supply is the bad apple that spoils the whole bunch?
If a bottled water company decided they could save a tiny amount switching to a plastic type that was legal but might give you cancer in 10 years, do you trust them not to do that?
Anyone making that decision is thinking short term. By the time the harm becomes public they've enriched themselves and left.
Government is less likely to knowingly poison you, and is probably about equally likely to unknowingly poison you.
Private companies are not immune from consequences.
I agree that it's still possible to be poisoned by bottled water, but there are a greater number of incentives in place to lessen the likelihood of it happening.
So, if you cannot trust government, you cannot trust private companies to not poison you either. I guess it's possible to have governments break down just enough to screw up the local water supply while not quite rolling in the bed with multinational companies yet, but I doubt such an arrangement would be stable for long.
The company declared bankruptcy rather than pay the cleanup bills, but the owner and executives just started a new one, hired the same management, and everything is fine (for them), since taxpayers paid for the cleanup?
I think the name of the company was "Freedom Industries", which makes it even more of a typical american "urban legend", but it is actually true.
[edit] just looked it up, its called "Elk river cheminal spill" on wikipedia, and the exec actually used the same address and the same phone number to set up Lexycon LLC, the new company: they know they'll get away, they don't care to hide anymore.
Better hope that new brand isn't just the old one with a new label slapped on.
1. https://hackaday.com/2022/04/02/monitoring-water-quality-usi...
One way of knowing would be that you can see trustworthy water testing. That there are consequences (political, legal) for public officials when there is wrongdoing. That society seems to function.
How would you know a company bottling water isn't incompetent?
That's the biggest "if" I've ever seen.
Same goes for corporations, especially bigger ones.
Do companies like Coke and Pepsi do that?
When you bottle spring water as it comes out of the spring, now that’s very different.
*Except in Flynt.
Bottled water also has around a 1600x markup.
In my view, the problem is that we have no chance of upgrading any infrastructure in the US ever. Consider that most tax dollars go to the Federal government and go to wars and entitlements.
The small bit of tax dollars left for local governments, the ones who would need to undertake infrastructure renewal projects locally, is simply nowhere near enough to fix the problem.
The same problem exists in many domains. Roads covered in potholes, power grid unsuitable for installing superchargers, last mile broadband owned by monopoly players with no incentive to improve upon it, long lines at government offices and months of wait time for things as simple as building permits, property values decimated by failing school systems, and polluting industries grandfathered in and allowed to pollute in unconscionable ways.
I really hate that word. People apply it in a derogatory way to social security, which is funded through a separate tax, and has its own pile of money. The only way it really affects the federal budget is when they borrow from that fund or have to pay back into it.
SS taxes aren't general revenue. And any part of other revenue paying for SS is actually repaying the loan taken out by treasury.
That doesn't mean that none of the existing uses are worthwhile, just that we are unlikely to see political changes that result in significant infrastructure investment.
>no chance of upgrading any infrastructure ever
The recent huge federal infrastructure bill included $50 billion for various kinds of water projects.
The senseless commentary of people whose statements are based on nothing but gut feelings infuriates me. It does not belong here.
Law enforcement bears the brunt of accusations for doing this publicly, followed closely by the military (at least in the U.S.) but the dishonesty is pervasive at all levels in the midst of formalisms of transparency and rectitude.
The only thing that makes it memorable in the case of Flint is the magnitude of the media blowback.