Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EPA gives Flint $100M to help repair pipes

detroitnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 198 posts

Re: EPA gives Flint $100M to help repair pipes

#11

Post by toomuchtodo »

maxerickson wrote: post #8
pstuart wrote: post #4

And how much did the city originally "save"? This affair should be poster child for being pennywise and pound foolish with our infrastructure.

Framing it that way misses an important part of the story. It was the institutional and regulatory failure during the switch away from Detroit city water that made the lead an emergency. Part of the reason that happened is that Flint had depopulated and was basically a failed city. It's not acceptable that it happened, but it didn't happen just because Flint was trying to skimp on infrastructure 40,50,60 years ago.

They skimped (ie entirely did not use) on corrosion inhibitors when the water supply was switched. I believe those are the "savings" OP was referring to.

"By not adding a corrosion inhibitor, Flint was going to save about $140 per day. "

http://theconversation.com/the-science-behind-the-flint-wate...

"Replacement of Flint’s lead service lines, which is the only permanent solution to address its lead vulnerability, is estimated to cost up to $1.5 billion, according to Flint’s mayor, Karen Weaver."

Re: EPA gives Flint $100M to help repair pipes

#12

Post by maxerickson »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #11
maxerickson wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Framing it that way misses an important part of the story. It was the institutional and regulatory failure during the switch away from Detroit city water that made the lead an emergency. Part of the reason that happened is that Flint had depopulated and was basically a failed city. It's not acceptable that it happened, but it didn't happen just because Flint was trying to skimp on infrastructure 40,50,60 years ago.

They skimped (ie entirely did not use) on corrosion inhibitors when the water supply was switched. I believe those are the "savings" OP was referring to. "By not adding a corrosion inhibitor, Flint was going to save about $140 per day. " http://theconversation.com/the-science-behind-the-flint-wate... "Replacement of Flint’s lead service lines, which is the only permanent solution to address its lead vulnerability, is…

Yeah, that it was a financial decision is an institutional and regulatory failure. It shouldn't have even been on the table to switch without properly treating the different source water.

Re: EPA gives Flint $100M to help repair pipes

#13

Post by toomuchtodo »

maxerickson wrote: post #12
toomuchtodo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They skimped (ie entirely did not use) on corrosion inhibitors when the water supply was switched. I believe those are the "savings" OP was referring to. "By not adding a corrosion inhibitor, Flint was going to save about $140 per day. " http://theconversation.com/the-science-behind-the-flint-wate... "Replacement of Flint’s lead service lines, which is the only permanent solution to address its lead vulnerability, is…

Yeah, that it was a financial decision is an institutional and regulatory failure. It shouldn't have even been on the table to switch without properly treating the different source water.

Well, when your state is broke, you try to cut corners. You cut the wrong corners, people are maimed or are killed.

So, I suppose I agree with you that its institutional and regulatory failures in the most general of ways, similar to how Enron would have been considered "a breakdown in internal controls". And those responsible should go to prison and have civil penalties inflicted on them. Has that happened? I don't know.

Re: EPA gives Flint $100M to help repair pipes

#15

Post by diogenescynic »

maxerickson wrote: post #8
pstuart wrote: post #4

And how much did the city originally "save"? This affair should be poster child for being pennywise and pound foolish with our infrastructure.

Framing it that way misses an important part of the story. It was the institutional and regulatory failure during the switch away from Detroit city water that made the lead an emergency. Part of the reason that happened is that Flint had depopulated and was basically a failed city. It's not acceptable that it happened, but it didn't happen just because Flint was trying to skimp on infrastructure 40,50,60 years ago.

You're acting like this was forced on them from budget cuts. The city manager was warned about exactly this happening and still went ahead and did it because it was the city manager is appointed by their corrupt Republican governor [1]. The city manager should not have been able to make those decisions without a much more thorough vetting process.

1: http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2016/02/flint_wate...

Re: EPA gives Flint $100M to help repair pipes

#18

Post by [deleted] »

dragonwriter wrote: post #3
overcast wrote: post #2

"The state of Michigan is contributing matching funds of $20 million for a total award of $120 million." So, not really matching?

"matching funds" can (and very often do) have matching ratios other than 1:1; it's the general term for a required proportional cobtribution.

[deleted]

Re: EPA gives Flint $100M to help repair pipes

#19

Post by bpodgursky »

diogenescynic wrote: post #15
maxerickson wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Framing it that way misses an important part of the story. It was the institutional and regulatory failure during the switch away from Detroit city water that made the lead an emergency. Part of the reason that happened is that Flint had depopulated and was basically a failed city. It's not acceptable that it happened, but it didn't happen just because Flint was trying to skimp on infrastructure 40,50,60 years ago.

You're acting like this was forced on them from budget cuts. The city manager was warned about exactly this happening and still went ahead and did it because it was the city manager is appointed by their corrupt Republican governor [1]. The city manager should not have been able to make those decisions without a much more thorough vetting process. 1: http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2016/02/flint_wate...

The city manager was only appointed after Flint became effectively a failed city, and the state took over management.

In the US, cities manage their own municipal services including water supplies. The state only intervenes when the city runs out of money to provide basic services to their inhabitants -- and this happens very rarely.

If Flint had had a functioning government, the state appointees would have had nothing to do with the water supply.

It's a tragedy what happened, but at the point a city is unable to provide the most basic of services to its citizens like clean water, I think we need to consider whether it is worth pumping money into a city, or just call it quits and provide relocation funds to the remaining inhabitants, to get them to a region with actual economic activity.

Re: EPA gives Flint $100M to help repair pipes

#20

Post by stouset »

clumsysmurf wrote: post #17

Flint is one of thousands of places in the US with poisonous levels of lead. I wonder how this administration plans on dealing with it: http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-lead-...

> I wonder how this administration plans on dealing with it.

That's a pretty bold assumption you're making in that statement.

Post reply on HN