• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

american water crisis

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
28,200
8,044
136
You are wrong as shown by the 2011 study sent to the DEQ which makes any EPA finding irrelevant.

It's a fact that you can't seem to get.

We've argued this before. If you look at the emails released by the EPA via a FOIA request EPA-R5-2015-01129900000241.pdf shows the EPA did not know if their requirements actually required the treatment or not in this situation

Thats why they had to release a new memorandum in November 2015 requiring corrosion control for situations like Flint:

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-11/documents/occt_req_memo_signed_pg_2015-11-03-155158_508.pdf

Note that they specifically call out the situation in Flint and say
and as such its not legally assertable that the EPA required Flint to to use corrosion control

(This ignores the part where the MDEQ claimed they were using corrosion control when they actually weren't)
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
18,894
1,801
126
But it is not the only water crisis in America. All across reservations in America there is a severe crisis with the quality and safety of the water available to residents.
Sadly water quality issues seem more pervasive than they should be. Ohio just had their own water crisis as well. Its unfortunate that both local governments and the EPA are letting us down when it comes to something that should be a basic offering
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
18,894
1,801
126
You are wrong as shown by the 2011 study sent to the DEQ which makes any EPA finding irrelevant.

It's a fact that you can't seem to get.
I'm sorry you don't know what 'required' means when it comes to regulations and water. The EPA's requirements did not require corrosion control. All they required in consideration of everything (including the report) was that Flint was required to test the water and, if the tests found certain levels of lead, wait something like 30-60 days and test again. If the water was again found to contain lead the city had a substantial amount of time (something like 12-18 months) to implement a lead reduction plan.

The report may have noted that Flint required corrosion control to keep lead out of the water but that is different from Flint being required to use corrosion control for the switch. Not saying thats how it should be but thats how it is

It should also be noted that the Flint Public Works department is responsible for treating the water. If the City of Flint knew about the report - why wasn't the city following the recommendations?
 
Last edited:

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
28,200
8,044
136

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
28,200
8,044
136
I'm sorry you don't know what 'required' means when it comes to regulations and water. The EPA's requirements did not require corrosion control. All they required in consideration of everything (including the report) was that Flint was required to test the water and, if the tests found certain levels of lead, wait something like 30-60 days and test again. If the water was again found to contain lead the city had a substantial amount of time (something like 12-18 months) to implement a lead reduction plan.

The report may have noted that Flint required corrosion control to keep lead out of the water but that is different from Flint being required to use corrosion control for the switch. Not saying thats how it should be but thats how it is

It should also be noted that the Flint Public Works department is responsible for treating the water. If the City of Flint knew about the report - why wasn't the city following the recommendations?
Which is precisely why the local authorities and by extension the governor deserves the blame!

If you think the EPA should be required to tell local government to do the right thing instead of expecting the local government to do the right thing then this country has even bigger issues and the EPA's budget should be as big as the defense budget.
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
18,894
1,801
126
Perhaps we should vote in more Republicans to cut the EPA's budget and limit their abilities.
As opposed to the Democratic President who appointed someone to the EPA who actively silenced not one but two lead water quality issues that we know of

Which is precisely why the local authorities and by extension the governor deserves the blame!
Snyder does not have control over all nor did he appoint all of the players in this. For example DHHS employee Robert Scott worked there before Snyder was governor. Dan Waynt was hired by Governor Granholm. If we are blaming the people who appointed people in charge of departments involved in this then how much blame do you assign to Obama since he put Susan Hedman in charge? The EPA knew there were issues with lead but she personally refused the Mayors two requests for additional information leading to 6 more months of Flint residents drinking contaminated water.

If you think the EPA should be required to tell local government to do the right thing instead of expecting the local government to do the right thing then this country has even bigger issues and the EPA's budget should be as big as the defense budget.
The EPA is already required to tell local governments what the right thing is. As for budget the EPA is not without its own issues (See: Susan Hedman) so a blank check and sweeping authority would not fix the issue.
 
Last edited:

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
28,200
8,044
136
As opposed to the Democratic President who appointed someone to the EPA who actively silenced not one but two lead water quality issues that we know of



The Governor does not have control nor did he appoint all of the players in this. For example DHHS employee Robert Scott worked there before Snyder was governor. Dan Waynt was hired by Governor Granholm. How much blame do you assign Obama for appointing someone to the EPA who silenced reports of lead issues and refused to give the Flint Mayor any sort of warning about the issue despite the Mayor asking twice about the leaked report. By your own logic he should share the blame since they knew about the issue but refused to do anything about it or warn anyone



The EPA is already required to tell local governments what the right thing is. As for budget the EPA is not without its own issues (See: Susan Hedman) so a blank check and sweeping authority would not fix the issue.
Now you are just straight up lying and adding straw man arguments to the mix?

I'm curious as to how a study given to DEQ in 2011 that stated chemical treatment would be needed, is superseded by a report from the EPA in 2014 whose findings would have been after the fact no matter what.

http://www.freep.com/story/opinion/columnists/nancy-kaffer/2015/11/07/flint-lead-water/75268692/
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
18,894
1,801
126
Now you are just straight up lying and adding straw man arguments to the mix?

I'm curious as to how a study given to DEQ in 2011 that stated chemical treatment would be needed, is superseded by a report from the EPA in 2014 whose findings would have been after the fact no matter what.
First - how is talking about responsibility for people appointed in a thread where people talk about the responsibility people have for those they appoint a strawman?

Second - no where did I say it was superseded so you mentioning a 2014 EPA report superseding any findings is completely irrelevant to the discussion. (And I am not aware of ANY EPA 2014 study so you're just making things up now unless you can't keep your facts straight and are referring to the 2015 study)

I'm not sure where your comprehension issue lies so I will try this again: Since the 2011 report is from a non-affiliated government agency it has no binding legal power or regulative authority over the Flint water supply or its treatments. I'll say that again: No binding legal power or regulative authority. Therefore that report cannot require corrosion controls. To suggest as much is to ignore the legal realities

Edit: It works this way for food too. Companies will hire independent companies (like the one I used to work for) to do audits of food production facilities. If we found FDA violations or told them certain things would be needed to stay in compliance with the FDA we could not force any change at the facility - just the company that hired us would likely not source food from there. Hell they could be putting arsenic in all their food and all we could do would be yell to the FDA about it. Only if and when the FDA decided to inspect could any change or fine be enforced. That peanut facility back years ago failed several independent audits and the FDA was notified but nothing was done until after the outbreak because non-appropriately lettered government agencies cannot regulate or enforce rules\change

Now the report can show that to maintain compliance with the EPA's lead rule the city would need to add corrosion controls. Again the report cannot force or require them to add the controls. I'm pretty sure the EPA can't even use that report to require change - they have to do their own analysis first (The FDA was like that and I have seen nothing mentioned that would indicate the EPA gets to act differently) Because of the existing regulations at the time the EPA could not force corrosion control procedures until the water supply is found to contain an excess of lead. I bolded the important part. The EPA did not notify the government until November 2015 that the lead levels were too high and that they were required to enact corrosion control procedures. This was after the Virginia Tech report had been released and 2 weeks after Flint switched back to the DWA.

Should the report have been heeded? Absolutely. Would it be stupid and tragic to ignore it and wait for the EPA to force action? Absolutely. Could the report or the EPA force Flint to add corrosion controls at the start of the project? Absolutely not.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY