this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2024

852 points (97.5% liked)

politics

19145 readers

2228 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

outrageousmatter@lemmy.world

aidan@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

852

Pete Buttigieg forced to explain that lead is poisonous to obtuse Republican (www.lgbtqnation.com)

submitted 8 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

129 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Drinking lead can damage people's brains, but Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach opposes a plan to remove lead water pipes.

…

In their letter, the attorneys general wrote, “[The plan] sets an almost impossible timeline, will cost billions and will infringe on the rights of the States and their residents – all for benefits that may be entirely speculative.”

Kobach repeated this nearly verbatim in a March 7 post on X (formerly Twitter).

Buttigieg responded by writing, “The benefit of not being lead poisoned is not speculative. It is enormous. And because lead poisoning leads to irreversible cognitive harm, massive economic loss, and even higher crime rates, this work represents one of the best returns on public investment ever observed.”

(page 3) 32 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] drphungky@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (4 children)

Did no one read the article? All of his complaints are correct! Replacing old city pipes, that are almost assuredly covered in years of internal layers to mitigate lead leaking, will have a negligible to possibly even negative effect on lead at the tap. Even Brookings said so in their study! Buttigieg is getting a total pass here ignoring the real issues raised by just rebutting about how lead is bad, when they're both saying that. So tired of people scoring cheap political points on soundbites, and Buttigieg doesn't usually fall prey to that sort of thing.

Yes, the funding should have been higher, but if we've only got 15 million to work with, it might actually make more sense to do targeted fixes in low income communities in old residential buildings, where you're most likely to have lead effects actually being felt at the tap from (relatively) newer lead pipe still in walls. But that would be expensive and much harder than just replacing water mains, so they're doing the easy less-important work first, rather than getting the biggest bang for their buck.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 0 points 8 months ago (4 children)

The KS AG has a point; if it's expected to cost $47B, but the actual funding amount is $15B (...which is the fault of Republicans), then the plan may not have a significant effect for the families that are most at-risk, e.g., poor families in old, poorly maintained homes. The obvious solution is to increase the appropriation.

[–] derf82@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

As a water professional working for a utility, it will cost way more than that.

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

As a regulator for water resources I know industries will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars flying attorneys across the country to debate the validity of a $1000 field penalty for an illicit direct discharge to waters of the state and US.

It is often safe to say if the industry's argument is talking cost and funding alone, then they have no legitimate or technical justification to oppose. Their cash reserves are at stake either way.

[–] derf82@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Water utilities are generally not wealthy corporations and will not be doing this. Many are municipally owned. However, having a mandate that will massively strain contractor resources and the supply chain to get replacement materials will massively raise the cost.

Not to mention, most utilities do not know where the lead connections are. A lot more will have to be dug up and checked to verify the material. That has its own expense.

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago

There are private water systems, and yes, my comment was more regarding industries with permitted discharges, which is slightly tangental.

But yeah thar is generally why utilities are not penalized for violations and compliance with things like drinking water standards are often not directly enforced. However the opposition to the requirement for drinking water quality standards to be met are not technically justified by financial burdens.

This is a common hurdle for industries and utilities alike whose operations have exceeded their capacity to maintain.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments