Jackson’s water crisis: latest updates(wjtv.com)
wjtv.com
Jackson’s water crisis: latest updates
https://www.wjtv.com/news/jacksons-water-crisis/jacksons-water-crisis-the-latest-updates/
221 comments
> EPA reporting that the city tried to hide for more than a year
Sounds like the mayor hid the EPA report from the city council. Not sure how something like that can happen.
Sounds like the mayor hid the EPA report from the city council. Not sure how something like that can happen.
And then, like in many cases of malfeasance, the mayor and others involved tried to deflect blame by claiming they were victims of a racist system. This made the situation even more toxic. It's embarrassing that the press uncritically amplified these claims without actually investigating or understanding what was going on.
This does show the strength of our federal system, though. The local politics had a failure by putting in this mayor who is well outside of mainstream politics. This resulted in problems, such as the the water system not being operated properly. Eventually, the state got involved and raised the alarm, but like any messenger, they took a few arrows for their efforts. Eventually the feds got involved, and the Army Corps was able to put things on a better path.
This does show the strength of our federal system, though. The local politics had a failure by putting in this mayor who is well outside of mainstream politics. This resulted in problems, such as the the water system not being operated properly. Eventually, the state got involved and raised the alarm, but like any messenger, they took a few arrows for their efforts. Eventually the feds got involved, and the Army Corps was able to put things on a better path.
I'm sorry but the way that blog looks, the types of comments it attracts, and the general tenor of the text makes me reluctant to take it at face value.
Do you have a citation for your claim that this is some of the best reporting?
Do you have a citation for your claim that this is some of the best reporting?
This is a very late reply, but he's put together one of those posts that explains why the locals trust him at http://kingfish1935.blogspot.com/2022/09/how-jacksons-water-...
Not completely disinterested, and maybe there are things about which you don't trust him, but his citations are excellent. Lots of raw data to work with.
Not completely disinterested, and maybe there are things about which you don't trust him, but his citations are excellent. Lots of raw data to work with.
He certainly has some... unusual commenters, but really, he's about the best there is, unless you're on one of his hobby-horse topics that I've really failed to get excited about. (The water situation is not one, although the mayor's habit of trying to hide what his administration is doing from the press is.)
I live locally.
I live locally.
I'm quite sure you wouldn't take it face value.
I've been reading Kingfish's blog for a long time... since 2008. And it reminds me why I left Mississippi every time I look at it. Kingfish isn't a web developer or a technologist (hence the *.blogspot.com domain and not something along the lines of www.kingfish.news like those of us in tech would have).
Kingfish is a just your garden variety blogger. His identity is already known, and he's considered to be controversial, but a truth teller: https://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2017/jan/23/city-vetti...
He leans conservative, and although the so-called 'elite' media outlets consider that to be a crime nowadays, it isn't.
I've been reading Kingfish's blog for a long time... since 2008. And it reminds me why I left Mississippi every time I look at it. Kingfish isn't a web developer or a technologist (hence the *.blogspot.com domain and not something along the lines of www.kingfish.news like those of us in tech would have).
Kingfish is a just your garden variety blogger. His identity is already known, and he's considered to be controversial, but a truth teller: https://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2017/jan/23/city-vetti...
He leans conservative, and although the so-called 'elite' media outlets consider that to be a crime nowadays, it isn't.
> This content is not available in your country/region.
At least they are not spitting in my face and telling me that I matter and they would loooove to be available in my region. I like this concise message better.
Here's a mirror for the poor souls like me: https://archive.ph/sdyh3
At least they are not spitting in my face and telling me that I matter and they would loooove to be available in my region. I like this concise message better.
Here's a mirror for the poor souls like me: https://archive.ph/sdyh3
What region, if you don’t mind saying?
A lot of American local news sites started blocking all of Europe after GDPR went into effect, it's probably that.
What I still don’t get is: wouldn’t it still be worth enough money to segment the traffic onto something that doesn’t do any tracking and at least throw Adsense on it?
it seems to be for sites like archive.to anyway
These are entire networks doing this probably running a core CMS.
it seems to be for sites like archive.to anyway
These are entire networks doing this probably running a core CMS.
No, because there are likely so many trackers embedded, with nobody really knowing where they are, that they'd basically have to engineer an entirely new site.
The fixed engineering cost is the problem here.
The fixed engineering cost is the problem here.
You can hack your way around that stuff. Just add a CSP policy telling the browsers that any connection except to wjtv.com should be blocked, problem solved. Granted, your trackers can actually handle having their connection broken without breaking the entire rest of the site.
This obviously won't help if you for example sell your backend access.log to the highest bidder, or do backend tracking somehow.
This obviously won't help if you for example sell your backend access.log to the highest bidder, or do backend tracking somehow.
That would likely break way too much content.
It’s a local media outfit. Their international traffic is probably just this single article.
In which case it would cost nothing to turn off tracking instead of turning off the entire article.
But it would be embarrassing to admit they can make such a thing.
But it would be embarrassing to admit they can make such a thing.
actually it would cost engineering time/money. those engineers are likely contractors or some of the highest paid folks at the paper who are likely barely staffed and dealing with the page load of a big article.
They already showed their willingness to spend money on a cutoff. They could have done a different cutoff instead.
Why would they do that? The problem they were intending to solve is their legal liability.
The problem that Europeans can’t read their news without ads is not a problem they want to solve. They don’t want people reading their news without ads.
The problem that Europeans can’t read their news without ads is not a problem they want to solve. They don’t want people reading their news without ads.
The premise of this line of comments is that the international traffic is so small it's not even worth making an adsense account.
Given that premise, there's no reason to want Europeans blocked other than spite or embarrassment.
Simply not caring enough to put in extra effort wouldn't look so bad, but that's why I'm pointing out there's no real difference in effort.
Given that premise, there's no reason to want Europeans blocked other than spite or embarrassment.
Simply not caring enough to put in extra effort wouldn't look so bad, but that's why I'm pointing out there's no real difference in effort.
> Given that premise, there's no reason to want Europeans blocked other than spite or embarrassment.
Yes, there is another reason: legal liability under GDPR.
Yes, there is another reason: legal liability under GDPR.
if(maxmind.lookup(request.ip).isInEU()) { return 451 }
if(maxmind.lookup(request.ip).isInEU()) { return $body_text }
> It is way easier than setting up some alternative revenue stream and ensuring that it is compliant.
The premise of this comment chain is already that we are NOT setting that up. My previous comment was NOT suggesting we set one up.
It costs to comply with GDPR even if you are doing no tracking.
1. If GDPR applies to you and you are not in the Union you must have a designated representing in the Union to receive GPDR requests (both from individuals wishing to exercise their GDPR rights and from regulators). So right off the bat you have to engage some service in the Union to handle that for you. There are such services that aren't very expensive, but it is something you have to deal with.
2. IP addresses are personal data according to many GDPR experts. Normal logging that is done by most web servers leaves you with a GDPR burden to deal with. It seems likely that storing this would be allowed without the need to obtain explicit consent because there is a legitimate business interest to that logging, but you still have to deal with requests from people to delete their data. So more hassle.
3. You will have to keep up with developments as regulators rule on the meaning if the tons of subjecting things in GDPR.
If you are not in the Union but people who are in the Union use your site GDPR applies if either you are:
A. offering goods or services to them (free or paid), or
B. monitoring their behavior as far as their behavior takes place in the Union.
For A you have to envisage offering goods or services to them. The mere fact that they can reach your site and use it is not sufficient.
If you aren't monitoring behavior in a way that makes B apply, then whether or not GDPR applies comes down to whether or not you envisaged offering goods and services to people in the Union. That's a fairly subjective thing and I don't think there have been enough cases involving that yet for it to be clear just what that means.
Blocking EU visitors makes it clear you did not envisage serving them saving you all the aforementioned hassles and annoyances.
1. If GDPR applies to you and you are not in the Union you must have a designated representing in the Union to receive GPDR requests (both from individuals wishing to exercise their GDPR rights and from regulators). So right off the bat you have to engage some service in the Union to handle that for you. There are such services that aren't very expensive, but it is something you have to deal with.
2. IP addresses are personal data according to many GDPR experts. Normal logging that is done by most web servers leaves you with a GDPR burden to deal with. It seems likely that storing this would be allowed without the need to obtain explicit consent because there is a legitimate business interest to that logging, but you still have to deal with requests from people to delete their data. So more hassle.
3. You will have to keep up with developments as regulators rule on the meaning if the tons of subjecting things in GDPR.
If you are not in the Union but people who are in the Union use your site GDPR applies if either you are:
A. offering goods or services to them (free or paid), or
B. monitoring their behavior as far as their behavior takes place in the Union.
For A you have to envisage offering goods or services to them. The mere fact that they can reach your site and use it is not sufficient.
If you aren't monitoring behavior in a way that makes B apply, then whether or not GDPR applies comes down to whether or not you envisaged offering goods and services to people in the Union. That's a fairly subjective thing and I don't think there have been enough cases involving that yet for it to be clear just what that means.
Blocking EU visitors makes it clear you did not envisage serving them saving you all the aforementioned hassles and annoyances.
If IP address logging is enough to count as monitoring, then sending a block page doesn't fix the problem.
If you're confident enough that you have a non-tracking response to EU citizens, then you already did the hard part, and you might as well dump the article contents into that response.
If you're confident enough that you have a non-tracking response to EU citizens, then you already did the hard part, and you might as well dump the article contents into that response.
Logging IP addresses looks like it counts as storing personal data of the visitor, but it isn't at all clear that it counts as "monitoring of their behavior as far as their behavior takes place within the Union" which is what monitoring has to do for that to be a bases for GDPR to apply.
There's a recital (Recital 24) that elaborates on that part of GDPR. From that:
> In order to determine whether a processing activity can be considered to monitor the behaviour of data subjects, it should be ascertained whether natural persons are tracked on the internet including potential subsequent use of personal data processing techniques which consist of profiling a natural person, particularly in order to take decisions concerning her or him or for analysing or predicting her or his personal preferences, behaviours and attitudes.
A simple IP based location block doesn't seem like it really fits that, and so wouldn't snare you via the "monitoring of their behavior as far as their behavior takes place within the Union" part of the GDPR's territorial scope article (Article 3 section 2(b)).
If that's the case, then whether or not GDPR applies comes down to whether or not you envisaged offering goods and services to people in the Union (Article 3 section 2(a) and Recital 23).
Blocking would be intended to show that you did not envisage doing so. That gets you out of needing to have a representative in the Union and needing to deal with data deletion requests.
There's a recital (Recital 24) that elaborates on that part of GDPR. From that:
> In order to determine whether a processing activity can be considered to monitor the behaviour of data subjects, it should be ascertained whether natural persons are tracked on the internet including potential subsequent use of personal data processing techniques which consist of profiling a natural person, particularly in order to take decisions concerning her or him or for analysing or predicting her or his personal preferences, behaviours and attitudes.
A simple IP based location block doesn't seem like it really fits that, and so wouldn't snare you via the "monitoring of their behavior as far as their behavior takes place within the Union" part of the GDPR's territorial scope article (Article 3 section 2(b)).
If that's the case, then whether or not GDPR applies comes down to whether or not you envisaged offering goods and services to people in the Union (Article 3 section 2(a) and Recital 23).
Blocking would be intended to show that you did not envisage doing so. That gets you out of needing to have a representative in the Union and needing to deal with data deletion requests.
The hard part isn’t not tracking, it’s convincing hostile regulators that you are in fact not tracking. Sometimes they want 8–14 week delays before launching features: https://gdpr-info.eu/art-36-gdpr/
Seems like a business opportunity: a load balancing rule that sends EU requests to your log-free tracker-stripping static file-generating server appliance (possibly EU hosted) which has google Adsense on it and a GDPR responder that responds to every GDPR request specifying all that.
If that were true, they wouldn't even have to worry about the GDPR. But it's almost never a "local media outfit" in the traditional sense; they're owned by a huge media company worth billions. And they might have to care about GDPR.
Ne star is the largest tv station owner in USA. I’m guessing the business model is consolidating everything onto as few back end setups as possible:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexstar_Media_Group
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexstar_Media_Group
Because their intended audience is American, their monetization partners are likely just compliant with American law.
No. Europeans are pretty poor compared to Americans, so it's not worth going out of your way to scrounge for a few relatively low-return clicks, especially given the legal risk.
What I still don't get is: Wouldn't it be worth it for the EU to fix the silly GDPR cookie requirements?
They burden sites & users with billions of extra meaningless interactions every month for no net gain in privacy – and possibly a net loss, by training users to habitually dismiss such popups without thought.
They burden sites & users with billions of extra meaningless interactions every month for no net gain in privacy – and possibly a net loss, by training users to habitually dismiss such popups without thought.
They impose no burden if you make everything opt in at the point it's required rather than on first page load. Every cookie notice is there by choice because the site operator doesn't care about smooth UX.
So, in a theoretical world that doesn't exist, where every website does extra engineering to defer a disclosure until later, it's less of a burden. (But still a burden at that later point.)
Can you point out a few prominent sites using your preferred approach, so I'm sure what you mean?
In our actual world, the disclosure/opt-in requirement is a major burden, because essentially all of the practicioner/implementers, and the specialist firms now powering disclosure popups, have decided their best way to comply is the first-load pop-up mess we've got now. (That's likely because: there's immense value in being able to track sessions-of-use, for adjusting design, even before any commerce or specific-identity info is disclosed. And that value flows not just to the websites: it helps adjust content/UI for the users, as well.)
Given the actual, observed state-of-the-world, for years now, it would make more sense for the singlular governing entity that created the problem – the EU – to fix this, rather than the millions of diverse websites worldwide.
At the very least, the EU could waive the opt-in requirements for any browser which offers some baseline of user-controlled cookie-blocking – which the ~half-dozen relevant browser engines could easily add. That'd be a far more rational, low total compliance cost, high user-agency solution.
Competition & user self-help had practically wiped annoying modal popups from the web. Then the EU's clumsy, oblivious regulators brought them back.
Can you point out a few prominent sites using your preferred approach, so I'm sure what you mean?
In our actual world, the disclosure/opt-in requirement is a major burden, because essentially all of the practicioner/implementers, and the specialist firms now powering disclosure popups, have decided their best way to comply is the first-load pop-up mess we've got now. (That's likely because: there's immense value in being able to track sessions-of-use, for adjusting design, even before any commerce or specific-identity info is disclosed. And that value flows not just to the websites: it helps adjust content/UI for the users, as well.)
Given the actual, observed state-of-the-world, for years now, it would make more sense for the singlular governing entity that created the problem – the EU – to fix this, rather than the millions of diverse websites worldwide.
At the very least, the EU could waive the opt-in requirements for any browser which offers some baseline of user-controlled cookie-blocking – which the ~half-dozen relevant browser engines could easily add. That'd be a far more rational, low total compliance cost, high user-agency solution.
Competition & user self-help had practically wiped annoying modal popups from the web. Then the EU's clumsy, oblivious regulators brought them back.
> track sessions-of-use, for adjusting design, even before any commerce or specific-identity info is disclosed. And that value flows not just to the websites: it helps adjust content/UI for the users, as well.
Tracking (regardless of whether cookies or other methods are used - the dumb idea that GDPR only cares about cookies needs to die) for essential purposes such as maintaining state for shopping carts/user preferences/etc does not require disclosure nor consent.
Tracking (regardless of whether cookies or other methods are used - the dumb idea that GDPR only cares about cookies needs to die) for essential purposes such as maintaining state for shopping carts/user preferences/etc does not require disclosure nor consent.
That essentially every professionally-developed website I visit seems to have concluded differently makes me doubt your analysis - or, if your analysis is technically true, that that analysis is relevant to real websites' needs.
agree, cookie popups should just be banned entirely, sites should be required to default to the minimal cookies required to implement the site's functionality, and users can opt-in to analytics if they want
That's literally what the regulation stipulates. The vast majority of consent pop-ups you see are not compliant.
The problem is a lack of enforcement so widespread that entire businesses now specialize (and thrive!) in providing non-compliant consent flows as a service.
The problem is a lack of enforcement so widespread that entire businesses now specialize (and thrive!) in providing non-compliant consent flows as a service.
The cookie warnings feels a lot like the Prop 65 warning of the internet
Let’s say I have a site that tracks the shit out of people. And my target is USA.
Someone from Europe visits my page. How am I responsible for something they do?
Someone from Europe visits my page. How am I responsible for something they do?
[deleted]
Seeing the same in Sweden
[deleted]
Personally, I don't really understand these water crises in the US. They already had issues in Flint (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_water_crisis) and now in Jackson? Why is so difficult to get safe drinking water in the US?
The main issue is that water system maintenance in the US is funded by the locality. The locality may be a city, town, county, or some other kind of governmental overlay.
Some localities have dedicated funding sources for the water system, and some localities pull the funding from the general fund. As an example, my water bills are paid directly to a water company, which is a public utility company that handles all the water stuff. Other cities might issue the bills, collect the water money, and spend it on "something else."
The main issue IMO is that maintenance can be expensive, and nobody really notices if you defer maintenance for 30 years until the system fails. Until then you can spend that water money on pet projects and retire. At that point it's someone else's problem.
The same issue occurs with road and bridge maintenance, which are usually prime targets for politicians looking for money to fund their projects. Very few cities in the US spend enough money on road/bridge/infrastructure maintenance, because other constituencies want that money.
In many ways that's why water districts that are politically independent are better, but I've never seen any actual surveys on that.
Some localities have dedicated funding sources for the water system, and some localities pull the funding from the general fund. As an example, my water bills are paid directly to a water company, which is a public utility company that handles all the water stuff. Other cities might issue the bills, collect the water money, and spend it on "something else."
The main issue IMO is that maintenance can be expensive, and nobody really notices if you defer maintenance for 30 years until the system fails. Until then you can spend that water money on pet projects and retire. At that point it's someone else's problem.
The same issue occurs with road and bridge maintenance, which are usually prime targets for politicians looking for money to fund their projects. Very few cities in the US spend enough money on road/bridge/infrastructure maintenance, because other constituencies want that money.
In many ways that's why water districts that are politically independent are better, but I've never seen any actual surveys on that.
Expanding on that a bit:
Many suburban towns rely on growth for a large portion of their revenue. When growth eventually slows they no longer have enough money coming in to the meet their maintenance costs. Strong Towns calls this the “Growth Ponzi Scheme”:
- https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/8/28/the-growth-pon...
- https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/5/14/americas-growt...
Many suburban towns rely on growth for a large portion of their revenue. When growth eventually slows they no longer have enough money coming in to the meet their maintenance costs. Strong Towns calls this the “Growth Ponzi Scheme”:
- https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/8/28/the-growth-pon...
- https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/5/14/americas-growt...
On top of that some areas outright collapse and are left with a bunch of infrastructure they can't support. The US doesn't really have any good mechanism for dealing with the "single-industry town where the industry collapses". There are a significant number of these in the more rural areas of the country, mining towns and such where the mines dried up and left town. There's no method to un-deploy infrastructure and in fact in many places there's intentional barriers to "right-sizing". Sometimes you can rip out paved roads and replace them with (cheaper to maintain) gravel roads etc but there's just a lot of miles to maintain regardless, suburban sprawl is a problem but rural/ex-rural sprawl is massive in the US.
In these areas, what is left is often essentially government welfare. The area runs on social-security checks (which go a long way with cheap cost-of-living, as long as gas prices aren't too high) and government jobs - prisons, military installations, civil positions. And I'm not talking about farm areas etc - that's a local industry too, there are a lot of ex-rural areas where it's almost completely unimproved, the types of places surrounding national forests etc.
What's more, these regions tend to be extremely infrastructure-heavy, there are a lot of miles of road and power-lines per resident, and while sure they don't have sewer, the US's road and power and communications infrastructure are heavily state- and federal-subsidized, state and federal governments chip in a lot on road and power spending. It's effectively a massive transfer of wealth out to regions that are economically unproductive, and while you can argue for or against that as a position, it's pretty unquestionable that money flows out of urban centers and into rural ones, both from government spending and also from service mandates that benefit these uneconomic operating areas (eg in power/telcom).
It's another whole layer on the "growth ponzi scheme" - sometimes the ponzi doesn't just lose its growth, but the market can collapse underneath it too. And it's exceedingly rare that the government entities themselves ever are dissolved as a result - the expectation is that government services are a one-way ratchet.
In these areas, what is left is often essentially government welfare. The area runs on social-security checks (which go a long way with cheap cost-of-living, as long as gas prices aren't too high) and government jobs - prisons, military installations, civil positions. And I'm not talking about farm areas etc - that's a local industry too, there are a lot of ex-rural areas where it's almost completely unimproved, the types of places surrounding national forests etc.
What's more, these regions tend to be extremely infrastructure-heavy, there are a lot of miles of road and power-lines per resident, and while sure they don't have sewer, the US's road and power and communications infrastructure are heavily state- and federal-subsidized, state and federal governments chip in a lot on road and power spending. It's effectively a massive transfer of wealth out to regions that are economically unproductive, and while you can argue for or against that as a position, it's pretty unquestionable that money flows out of urban centers and into rural ones, both from government spending and also from service mandates that benefit these uneconomic operating areas (eg in power/telcom).
It's another whole layer on the "growth ponzi scheme" - sometimes the ponzi doesn't just lose its growth, but the market can collapse underneath it too. And it's exceedingly rare that the government entities themselves ever are dissolved as a result - the expectation is that government services are a one-way ratchet.
You forgot to mention the massive transfer of wealth the other way due to government jobs: the best paying government jobs and most of the government jobs are overwhelmingly in urban areas. What do you think Washington, D.C. would be economically if the Federal Government wasn't located there?
Excellent recommendation.
Just got my two Strong Towns books yesterday, looking forward to diving in!
Just got my two Strong Towns books yesterday, looking forward to diving in!
They make this argument without the financials. Is the property tax and service fee really not enough to maintain the infrastructure or are the municipalities redirecting resources that should be spent for maintaining infrastructure on other items?
From watching some Strong Towns videos I really do think that for many towns the property tax revnue coming in really isn't enough to support their maintenance costs. Especially for sprawling low density developments where every single family home takes up at leasthalf an acre. And I suspect part of the problem is that maintenance costs have also been growing faster than inflation and increasing property taxes are politically infeasible.
> The main issue is that water system maintenance in the US is funded by the locality
Isn't that a good argument that it should be run by the state government instead?
Local government in the US has so much power, compared to many other countries. It makes you wonder if that's a mistake, and if greater centralisation would produce better outcomes.
Isn't that a good argument that it should be run by the state government instead?
Local government in the US has so much power, compared to many other countries. It makes you wonder if that's a mistake, and if greater centralisation would produce better outcomes.
> Isn't that a good argument that it should be run by the state government instead?
Sometimes, the state has other skewed motives and will spend the money received from federal governement for unintended causes. This happened in Missouri as well.
Mississippi used welfare money for needy families to pay Brett Favre for motivational speeches
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/mississippi-welfare-...
Sometimes, the state has other skewed motives and will spend the money received from federal governement for unintended causes. This happened in Missouri as well.
Mississippi used welfare money for needy families to pay Brett Favre for motivational speeches
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/mississippi-welfare-...
Do other developed countries have these kinds of problems?
I get the impression that governments in the US are unusually corrupt, at least by the standards of the English-speaking world.
I get the impression that governments in the US are unusually corrupt, at least by the standards of the English-speaking world.
Well, lobbying in other countries means talking with politicians. In the US it means giving them money so they pass the laws you want. While this is seen as perfectly fine in the US, in other countries they call that bribing, which is illegal.
No no no no, you are so wrong! You don't give money to the politician, that would be bribery.
You give it to their re-election fund. Because that is free speech.
You give it to their re-election fund. Because that is free speech.
So basically, it's legalized corruption in the US.
Well, if it were illegal, then rich folks might go to prison, and we can't have that, now can we!?
My pet theory is it's for the same reason public and public-ish housing works better everywhere else (from Vienna and Singapore to even ex-USSR) - robust private sector, in jobs and housing. In other places the alternatives may be limited/very expensive/not much better, so the public housing/jobs retain a mix of all kinds of people. I think in Singapore they used to emphasize luring the best people into government jobs, even; not sure how well it works in practice in the long term.
In the USA, private sector can provide much better housing, and much better jobs, for most people, so anyone capable of leaving the public ones does. So, public housing eventually becomes dominated by the least functional members of society, and public sector, with the exception of the idealists and the corrupt, mostly retains the incompetents.
The process is self-perpetuating too. Govt aside, in a tech company it's really hard to maintain a semi-crappy department given that people can leave - either it needs to be cleaned up and fixed, or the best developers will leave and it will just become crappy.
In the USA, private sector can provide much better housing, and much better jobs, for most people, so anyone capable of leaving the public ones does. So, public housing eventually becomes dominated by the least functional members of society, and public sector, with the exception of the idealists and the corrupt, mostly retains the incompetents.
The process is self-perpetuating too. Govt aside, in a tech company it's really hard to maintain a semi-crappy department given that people can leave - either it needs to be cleaned up and fixed, or the best developers will leave and it will just become crappy.
I'm not fully following the situation in the US, so I don't know if it's a fair comparison or not. But I have seen some issues north of the border here in Canada over my lifetime.
I think there are reports of bad water fairly often in First Nations communities, but I haven't followed the topic too closely. Some recent information: https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/first-nations-water-drink...
And another one I sort of remember more than 20 years ago was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkerton_E._coli_outbreak
But these seem to pale in comparison to the limited stories I've heard out of the US. The Flint water crisis, and some of the poorer communities in the US. I do believe water systems are incredibly expensive infrastructure, even for those of us living next to the great lakes.
I think there are reports of bad water fairly often in First Nations communities, but I haven't followed the topic too closely. Some recent information: https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/first-nations-water-drink...
And another one I sort of remember more than 20 years ago was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkerton_E._coli_outbreak
But these seem to pale in comparison to the limited stories I've heard out of the US. The Flint water crisis, and some of the poorer communities in the US. I do believe water systems are incredibly expensive infrastructure, even for those of us living next to the great lakes.
I was looking for anything objective to back up my impressions and I found the 2021 Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index – https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2021
Looking at major English speaking countries – New Zealand comes 1st as least corrupt country in world (equal with Denmark and Finland); UK is 11th; Canada and Ireland are equal 13th (along with Austria, Estonia and Iceland); Australia is equal 18th (with Belgium, Japan and Uruguay). The US is equal 27th, with Chile. So yes, among major English-speaking countries, the US is the most corrupt.
Looking at major English speaking countries – New Zealand comes 1st as least corrupt country in world (equal with Denmark and Finland); UK is 11th; Canada and Ireland are equal 13th (along with Austria, Estonia and Iceland); Australia is equal 18th (with Belgium, Japan and Uruguay). The US is equal 27th, with Chile. So yes, among major English-speaking countries, the US is the most corrupt.
Taleb was telling for some time that this can also be due to (over) reporting scandals in US and other western countries and is actually the best way to deal with corruption - expose, elect someone else and prosecute.
If press is controlled by power, you might end up with no corruption published, yet a corrupt system underneath.
https://mobile.twitter.com/nntaleb/status/144068888518967706...
https://mobile.twitter.com/nntaleb/status/144068888518967706...
> Do other developed countries have these kinds of problems?
The short answer is 'Yes'.
The long answer is 'Yes, they do.' It may be more prevalent in the US, because of its particular political climate, but its omnipresent.
The short answer is 'Yes'.
The long answer is 'Yes, they do.' It may be more prevalent in the US, because of its particular political climate, but its omnipresent.
If we are asking specifically about state governments diverting federal funds earmarked for a particular purpose into something completely unrelated – I honestly cannot think of any instance of that ever happening in Australia. I'm not saying it has never happened, but I'm not aware of any examples. Have any Canadian provinces done that? Any of the UK's devolved administrations? I am thinking that particular form of corruption may well be, in the English-speaking world, somewhat unique to the US.
How would you even know? Maybe the US is just particularly bad at covering up corruption.
[deleted]
[deleted]
The USA is very much not corrupt by world standards. But our corruption ranking is well below other English speaking countries.
Looking at https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2021/index/usa I'm worried by how much more corrupt we became after Trump got into power.
Looking at https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2021/index/usa I'm worried by how much more corrupt we became after Trump got into power.
There’s no “corruption ranking”, only corruption perception ranking. People who dislike a government will perceive more corruption regardless of the reality, and vice versa. Similarly, people who are hardly scraping by will likely perceive more corruption compared to those living more prosperously, even if there’s no corruption at all.
[deleted]
The problem is that there has been over a century and a half of histrionic propaganda within the United States asserting that government can’t do anything right, government and regulation are the root of all societal problems, the only proper role for government is to preserve property rights, and so on, starting around the late 1840s for some reason.
So there have been multiple generations of Americans who have marinated in this their entire lives, resulting in large populations who assume more local control is always better, people only deserve what they can afford themselves individually, and so on—and entire societal systems built atop the ensuing systematic deprivation.
At the same time, there’s also an almost North Korean degree of jingoistic “we’re the pinnacle of human achievement” nationalism so any change to the status quo is opposed even by those who would directly benefit because they don’t really believe it’s possible for things to be any better. After all, if they could be, they would be, because We’re The Best! So if things are bad, well, they’re worse everywhere else so quit complaining.
This is why Americans get such culture shock going elsewhere in the world. They see that others can actually have a society that’s just as good or better, and they have to figure out how to integrate that into their worldview.
TL;DR: Many things in the US stay as bad as they do because multiple generations have been brainwashed into thinking they’re the best they can be.
So there have been multiple generations of Americans who have marinated in this their entire lives, resulting in large populations who assume more local control is always better, people only deserve what they can afford themselves individually, and so on—and entire societal systems built atop the ensuing systematic deprivation.
At the same time, there’s also an almost North Korean degree of jingoistic “we’re the pinnacle of human achievement” nationalism so any change to the status quo is opposed even by those who would directly benefit because they don’t really believe it’s possible for things to be any better. After all, if they could be, they would be, because We’re The Best! So if things are bad, well, they’re worse everywhere else so quit complaining.
This is why Americans get such culture shock going elsewhere in the world. They see that others can actually have a society that’s just as good or better, and they have to figure out how to integrate that into their worldview.
TL;DR: Many things in the US stay as bad as they do because multiple generations have been brainwashed into thinking they’re the best they can be.
This aligns with my lived experience where many smart, well educated, affluent Americans I met had a shockingly limited understanding of how things work in other parts of the world.
If water utilities were private, they would be significantly more accountable for their actions. Both criminally and civilly. DA's don't prosecute their own, because that's career suicide. City council and employees have qualified immunity.
We give government special protections that prevent public accountability because it's expected that democracy effectively puts competent people into office. We are continually proving this to be wrong. Our election and powers structure is not accurate to the voter base. Most of these positions go in challenged, because people can't quit their job to fill a government role.
Further, private companies can't keep passing the ball like governments do. They can't pull from other funds, and they have contracted duties. Even better if the company is a co-op.
We give government special protections that prevent public accountability because it's expected that democracy effectively puts competent people into office. We are continually proving this to be wrong. Our election and powers structure is not accurate to the voter base. Most of these positions go in challenged, because people can't quit their job to fill a government role.
Further, private companies can't keep passing the ball like governments do. They can't pull from other funds, and they have contracted duties. Even better if the company is a co-op.
> If water utilities were private, they would be significantly more accountable for their actions. Both criminally and civilly.
Tricky to swim in English rivers or beaches at the moment because they're covered in human shit. We have privatised water companies, and there's a good argument that privatisation made it worse.
People on HN think privatisation solves everything, despite the countless examples that show otherwise.
Tricky to swim in English rivers or beaches at the moment because they're covered in human shit. We have privatised water companies, and there's a good argument that privatisation made it worse.
People on HN think privatisation solves everything, despite the countless examples that show otherwise.
The US has by far the highest number of immigrants, so apparently it’s not just Americans who’ve been “brainwashed.”
Not by a long shot.
This statement is outright wrong. See this table[0] for details.
[0] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/mapped-immigration-by-co...
This statement is outright wrong. See this table[0] for details.
[0] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/mapped-immigration-by-co...
I said number of immigrants not percentage of population. There are at least 50 million immigrants living in the US.
Fair enough.
Apologies for misinterpreting you.
Apologies for misinterpreting you.
Fluoride propaganda has put fluoride into drinking water in most USA water systems, which are locally controlled. Interesting how Europe mostly does not fluoridate tap water.
As usual, Europe is complicated…
Some of Europe fluoridates tap water. Much of Europe has adequate fluoride levels naturally. Some countries supply fluoride in table salt instead of water. Some have insufficient natural fluoride levels and do nothing. Some have too much fluoride naturally in their water.
Some of Europe fluoridates tap water. Much of Europe has adequate fluoride levels naturally. Some countries supply fluoride in table salt instead of water. Some have insufficient natural fluoride levels and do nothing. Some have too much fluoride naturally in their water.
So naturally, when people prefer a certain policy, it must be because they've been "marinated" in it, and "brainwashed"? And it's "an almost North Korean degree of jingoistic .. nationalism"? It can't be that they made up their own minds?
You've just illustrated why so many people dislike "the elites". The public are adults. They decide what's in their interests and what isn't, even if it isn't what you think it should be.
You've just illustrated why so many people dislike "the elites". The public are adults. They decide what's in their interests and what isn't, even if it isn't what you think it should be.
> And it's "an almost North Korean degree of jingoistic .. nationalism"? It can't be that they made up their own minds?
In the fifth grade, I was sent home as punishment for not saying the "Pledge of Allegiance" in public school.
It's always been about brainwashing. Always has.
> You've just illustrated why so many people dislike "the elites". The public are adults. They decide what's in their interests and what isn't, even if it isn't what you think it should be.
I've seen what an adult is. "You've been alive for 18 years". That's it. No knowledge checks. No requirement of anything, really.
And your response cements this pervasive idea that "My ignorant opinion is worth just as much as your well studied scientific opinion". That's what our society is facing right now, on every public forum.
In the fifth grade, I was sent home as punishment for not saying the "Pledge of Allegiance" in public school.
It's always been about brainwashing. Always has.
> You've just illustrated why so many people dislike "the elites". The public are adults. They decide what's in their interests and what isn't, even if it isn't what you think it should be.
I've seen what an adult is. "You've been alive for 18 years". That's it. No knowledge checks. No requirement of anything, really.
And your response cements this pervasive idea that "My ignorant opinion is worth just as much as your well studied scientific opinion". That's what our society is facing right now, on every public forum.
I've seen what an adult is. "You've been alive for 18 years". That's it. No knowledge checks. No requirement of anything, really.
the most striking experience of this i was able to observe in US boy scouts. there were two boys of similar age who were close friends, until one of them turned 18. he then was made an assistant scout master. some time later the two friends had a falling out because the younger one did not respect his older friend as a leader. it's not that he wasn't qualified as a leader. they probably both were, but that birthday made one be the leader of the other, instead of allowing them to remain peers.
the most striking experience of this i was able to observe in US boy scouts. there were two boys of similar age who were close friends, until one of them turned 18. he then was made an assistant scout master. some time later the two friends had a falling out because the younger one did not respect his older friend as a leader. it's not that he wasn't qualified as a leader. they probably both were, but that birthday made one be the leader of the other, instead of allowing them to remain peers.
Please don't post in the flamewar style, and please edit swipes out of your comments here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Way to double down on the elitism. I'm so sorry that happened to you.
Your "well studied scientific opinion" is nothing more than propaganda of a more refined form. Or at least it flatters you to call it "refined."
Your "well studied scientific opinion" is nothing more than propaganda of a more refined form. Or at least it flatters you to call it "refined."
Please don't post in the flamewar style, and please edit swipes out of your comments here. We've had to ask you this before.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The Flint crisis started while the city was being run by a state-appointed emergency manager, not an elected Mayor.
Not true. Water maintenance problems start years before.
I don't remember the details, but at some point Flint changed its water supplier over the protests of the water bureau. Different water -> different chemical composition -> more leaching (wikipedia says it was in 2014).
I don't remember the details, but at some point Flint changed its water supplier over the protests of the water bureau. Different water -> different chemical composition -> more leaching (wikipedia says it was in 2014).
The change happened with the emergency manager in place and was signed off by the state government. Moreover, the change was TO Detroit water and Detroit was also being run by the state at the time.
Canada is even more federalized than the US in many ways and it works great. It's something that is strongly defended politically and culturally (provinces control things like healthcare insurance). Municipalities are also very powerful.
Almost certainly yes (and one could similarly make a good argument for federalizing a lot of our services).
However, having services run by larger jurisdictions is directly at odds with the American need to ensure that the "haves" have distinctly better living conditions than the "have nots," and so this is a political non-starter. Put another way: poor services (such as healthcare, schools, and even potable water) are a design feature, not a bug, of American civics.
However, having services run by larger jurisdictions is directly at odds with the American need to ensure that the "haves" have distinctly better living conditions than the "have nots," and so this is a political non-starter. Put another way: poor services (such as healthcare, schools, and even potable water) are a design feature, not a bug, of American civics.
The other issue is state governments can also direct funds away from cities to the state legislators favorite pet projects. Look at the decades of underfunding of NYC's transit system for examples.
Billions for Ukraine but nothing for Jackson
Ukraine isn't funneling it's defense funding to Brett Farve now is it
>Why is so difficult to get safe drinking water in the US?
There was a fire at the water treatment plant in Jackson about a year and a half ago. It took the main water pumps offline, leaving the city with only the smaller emergency backup pumps.
The city refused to repair the damage. The EPA stepped in, but a bit too late.
>Jackson has 45 days to tell the EPA how and when it will repair damage caused by a fire that broke out last April at the O.B. Curtis Water Treatment Plant.
This week, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a notice of noncompliance to the city for failing to repair or replace a damaged electrical panel at the plant.
In addition to telling EPA when and how repairs will be made, the city also must meet with the federal regulatory agency to “show cause why the EPA should not initiate legal proceedings” against the city as a result.
The notice comes about nine months after a fire broke out at the O.B. Curtis plant, shutting down the plant’s high-service pumps.
During a November 8, 2021 inspection of the facility, “the pumps remained out of service, with no target date by the city to put the pumps back into service,” the letter states. “The loss of the pumps has caused multiple elevated tanks to be low or empty and has caused certain areas of the distribution system to have sustained low water pressure.”
https://www.wlbt.com/2022/01/28/epa-cites-jackson-failing-re...
The emergency backup pumps eventually failed too, and the city had no water.
There was a fire at the water treatment plant in Jackson about a year and a half ago. It took the main water pumps offline, leaving the city with only the smaller emergency backup pumps.
The city refused to repair the damage. The EPA stepped in, but a bit too late.
>Jackson has 45 days to tell the EPA how and when it will repair damage caused by a fire that broke out last April at the O.B. Curtis Water Treatment Plant.
This week, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a notice of noncompliance to the city for failing to repair or replace a damaged electrical panel at the plant.
In addition to telling EPA when and how repairs will be made, the city also must meet with the federal regulatory agency to “show cause why the EPA should not initiate legal proceedings” against the city as a result.
The notice comes about nine months after a fire broke out at the O.B. Curtis plant, shutting down the plant’s high-service pumps.
During a November 8, 2021 inspection of the facility, “the pumps remained out of service, with no target date by the city to put the pumps back into service,” the letter states. “The loss of the pumps has caused multiple elevated tanks to be low or empty and has caused certain areas of the distribution system to have sustained low water pressure.”
https://www.wlbt.com/2022/01/28/epa-cites-jackson-failing-re...
The emergency backup pumps eventually failed too, and the city had no water.
>> The city refused to repair the damage.
That's the weirdest part. Why?!
That's the weirdest part. Why?!
Almost certainly because they don't have the money.
Mississippi is a very poor and underdeveloped state.
Mississippi is a very poor and underdeveloped state.
Jackson is incredibly corrupt.
US cities boomed in the 20th century and are geographically large, with large infrastructure. The gradual collapse of industry has led to such cities emptying out to the suburbs beyond a city’s relatively tight administrative boundary, particularly since the 1980s. The ever-reducing tax base is unable to maintain the boom-time infrastructure.
Cities are blue and so in a red state the government sits back and lets it fail, while the federal government is powerless to intervene until the point of failure. Many other factors layer on top but this is the core of the issue.
Interestingly where I grew up in the U.K. this situation would be impossible because the cities boomed in the Victorian era and so are more compact while the administrative boundary of the city spans a much larger area, including suburbs of the core city itself, so the rise of motorcar suburbanites did not deprive the city of its tax base. We experienced the same trend - the collapse of industry in parallel with the rise of the motorcar leading to wealthy suburbs and a poor urban core. But we had the money to invest in redevelopment.
Cities are blue and so in a red state the government sits back and lets it fail, while the federal government is powerless to intervene until the point of failure. Many other factors layer on top but this is the core of the issue.
Interestingly where I grew up in the U.K. this situation would be impossible because the cities boomed in the Victorian era and so are more compact while the administrative boundary of the city spans a much larger area, including suburbs of the core city itself, so the rise of motorcar suburbanites did not deprive the city of its tax base. We experienced the same trend - the collapse of industry in parallel with the rise of the motorcar leading to wealthy suburbs and a poor urban core. But we had the money to invest in redevelopment.
Aren’t most cities also part of a county in the US, and therefore include the suburbs? I was under the impression that where I live, Richmond, Virginia, is somewhat unique how the city is totally independent.
Yes but US counties are part of the state government. Roughly speaking city governments are independent and the county is not “above” it (technically it’s not quite that simple). A classic edge-case where I live is that San Francisco is both a city and a county.
Many US suburbs choose to incorporate into their own “cities”, in order to avoid being administered by the county, or annexed by a nearby city, so that they may tax commerce (think local strip mall or big box) instead of just property.
Many US suburbs choose to incorporate into their own “cities”, in order to avoid being administered by the county, or annexed by a nearby city, so that they may tax commerce (think local strip mall or big box) instead of just property.
The US has 50 states, and there is wide variety in how each of those states handle counties. In one extreme, you have Virginia, where counties are the most local form of government (and cities are independent of counties, not to be confused with consolidated city-counties); on the other extreme, you have Massachusetts, where counties are basically just administrative boundaries for the state. And in between, you have different levels of county power versus state or more local (city/town/township) control.
This is not accurate. The relationship between counties, municipalities, and the States that contain them is very diverse in the US. None of this generalizes well.
Ok, yes, yes it varies based on state. America!
Some of the suburbs, some states. Jackson is somewhat unusual in that only three towns that would be considered suburbs are in the same county as the bulk of the city itself. Northern suburbs are a second county, and eastern ones yet a third.
Even then, though, cities cannot usually tax outside their boundaries, and county tax rates will be lower (often much, although you're also going to get rural levels of government services in return for your rural-level taxes - the suburbs generally have their own police, schools, fire, etc., rather than relying on the county).
Even then, though, cities cannot usually tax outside their boundaries, and county tax rates will be lower (often much, although you're also going to get rural levels of government services in return for your rural-level taxes - the suburbs generally have their own police, schools, fire, etc., rather than relying on the county).
Indeed, but in most if not all states, counties are severely constrained in terms of how much money they can raise and distribute (or re-distribute, if you will). The powers of governmental entities within the state are controlled by the state.
It isn't. These places are a thousand miles apart, these occurences are years apart, and they happened for completely different reasons.
In Flint's case, their local government just did something stupid. That's not a "pattern of poor water quality."
In Flint's case, their local government just did something stupid. That's not a "pattern of poor water quality."
The Flint water case was due to the _State_ government's interventions, not the local government. The former Republican governor is right now facing criminal charges for his role in the crisis. https://www.wsaz.com/2021/01/12/michigan-plans-to-charge-ex-...
andirk(1)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32795779
Local governments are given more freedom than in many other countries. Most areas of the US are just fine; I have never lived somewhere with dangerous water.
Local governments are given more freedom than in many other countries. Most areas of the US are just fine; I have never lived somewhere with dangerous water.
Another aspect is sprawl really that leads to the issues other mentioned. Since the US has loads of sprawl it's just to expensive to maintain all of the suburbs, in fact it's really only because of federal funding that a lot of sprawl isn't insolvent yet because spreading out utilities and roads over wide areas with such a low tax base is a fundamentally unsustainable venture. Eventually, you'll find pockets that just don't have the money and see issues like Flint and now Jackson.
That is a completely inaccurate view of both Flint and Jackson, both of which experienced issues due to incompetence, not lack of money.
Everyone everywhere could use more money, but in both cities the fault was at the central pumping station, and was not due to a lack of money.
Jackson wants $1 bil to replace every pipe in their city - that might be nice to do, but it's not what caused the failure.
Everyone everywhere could use more money, but in both cities the fault was at the central pumping station, and was not due to a lack of money.
Jackson wants $1 bil to replace every pipe in their city - that might be nice to do, but it's not what caused the failure.
The original story of lack of funds due to people leaving was debunked when Corps cleaned intake filters and found the start button, all within a couple days. Maybe the $1B emergency was on purpose or just incompetence.
Water issues in Flint and Jackson does not equal difficulty getting safe drinking water in the US. It means there were water system problems in Flint and Jackson. It's a big country.
Almost nowhere in the history of the world does safe drinking water flow freely out of the tap. The US has been one of the exceptions due to the tireless efforts of professionals working under a political system that saw itself as stewards of all citizens present and future and treated public goods as apolitical entities to be shepherded rather than used as political footballs. That is no longer true and water crises are just the tip of the iceberg.
I sort of wonder if the problem might actually be that it isn't enough of a football. Infrastructure is seen as a generally good thing. This means that every politician will of course say "blah blah I'm going to fix the water blah blah." But when push comes to shove, it isn't a wedge issue, it doesn't excite their voters in a partisan manner. Nobody is opposed to it, it can't be used as a concession.
I imagine the response, in most cases, to a party asking the other to sacrifice a core interest for an infrastructure win is "you can't use 'providing basic services to your constituents' as a bargaining chip, you should want to do that anyway."
I imagine the response, in most cases, to a party asking the other to sacrifice a core interest for an infrastructure win is "you can't use 'providing basic services to your constituents' as a bargaining chip, you should want to do that anyway."
I don’t know about that. I suspect this may be again a case where reality has a liberal bias. Cities in California don’t have these problems, at least not for months at a time.
California trends to have problems with electricity instead.
The argument presented by strongtowns is that suburban sprawl and associated infrastructure is a ticking time bomb financially, because federal dollars fund the construction, but localities are responsible for upkeep and eventual replacement.
... which they can't keep up on. So in 20-40 years, the water supply and roads and other infrastructure decline without any means for replacement.
Sure, perhaps with intelligent setting aside of funds, localities could handle it, but that kind of long term thinking is really hard to expect to happen across all local governments without some sort of federal mandate. Plus, there is always a hidden assumption that you let things get bad and wait for a federal bailout. In some ways, some dramatic crisis like this is exactly as planned.
Finally, we are talking about Mississippi. The South is unquestionably more corrupt at the local and state levels, going back to the reconstruction and post reconstruction eras after the civil war and the intense entrenched racism.
All you really need to do is look at how the South collects more federal aid than blue states, yet Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi routinely rank in the bottom ten for public education by states. Their universities are noteworthy for SEC football and little else.
Things are compounded by the fact that these are frankly really really poor states. It is a bit unfair to cast them as horribly corrupt when Illinois and New York also aren't exactly poster children. BUT, Louisiana/Alabama/Mississippi don't have floods of northerners enriching them like Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina. People do go to New Orleans for tourism, but that's about it, and I'd posit that New Orleans likely still has not recovered from Hurricane Katrina.
Finally, politically these states are owned by vehemently far right anti-government Republicans, and have been for decades. They are all horrendously gerrymandered, so reform is basically impossible. As California shows, when any party has long term control of a government, corruption and incompetence results, and it's only worse when one of the pillars of your party is to hate the government you run. Which gives full license to corruption.
... which they can't keep up on. So in 20-40 years, the water supply and roads and other infrastructure decline without any means for replacement.
Sure, perhaps with intelligent setting aside of funds, localities could handle it, but that kind of long term thinking is really hard to expect to happen across all local governments without some sort of federal mandate. Plus, there is always a hidden assumption that you let things get bad and wait for a federal bailout. In some ways, some dramatic crisis like this is exactly as planned.
Finally, we are talking about Mississippi. The South is unquestionably more corrupt at the local and state levels, going back to the reconstruction and post reconstruction eras after the civil war and the intense entrenched racism.
All you really need to do is look at how the South collects more federal aid than blue states, yet Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi routinely rank in the bottom ten for public education by states. Their universities are noteworthy for SEC football and little else.
Things are compounded by the fact that these are frankly really really poor states. It is a bit unfair to cast them as horribly corrupt when Illinois and New York also aren't exactly poster children. BUT, Louisiana/Alabama/Mississippi don't have floods of northerners enriching them like Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina. People do go to New Orleans for tourism, but that's about it, and I'd posit that New Orleans likely still has not recovered from Hurricane Katrina.
Finally, politically these states are owned by vehemently far right anti-government Republicans, and have been for decades. They are all horrendously gerrymandered, so reform is basically impossible. As California shows, when any party has long term control of a government, corruption and incompetence results, and it's only worse when one of the pillars of your party is to hate the government you run. Which gives full license to corruption.
> All you really need to do is look at how the South collects more federal aid than blue states,
It's extremely misleading to portray the dichotomy as between "the south" and "blue states". Note that red states outside of the south generally score very highly on metrics like income, educational outcomes, quality of life, quality of infrastructure, net tax receipts, etc.
The thing that makes southern states shitty is not the fact that they're red. You can tease out the Simpson's paradox here - go ahead and check average federal aid receipts in southern states after splitting the population by political affiliation. There's a very blue subpopulation in southern states that accounts for a vastly disproportionate fraction of federal spending.
> yet Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi routinely rank in the bottom ten for public education by states
Why do you qualify this with "yet"? This is perfectly expected if you understand the causal factors here.
It's extremely misleading to portray the dichotomy as between "the south" and "blue states". Note that red states outside of the south generally score very highly on metrics like income, educational outcomes, quality of life, quality of infrastructure, net tax receipts, etc.
The thing that makes southern states shitty is not the fact that they're red. You can tease out the Simpson's paradox here - go ahead and check average federal aid receipts in southern states after splitting the population by political affiliation. There's a very blue subpopulation in southern states that accounts for a vastly disproportionate fraction of federal spending.
> yet Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi routinely rank in the bottom ten for public education by states
Why do you qualify this with "yet"? This is perfectly expected if you understand the causal factors here.
Um, the causal factors being decades of republican control that is hostile to public education?
You are generally correct on why and to whom the money goes to in these states, but the fact remains that money goes to these states and not a lot of progress happens. You can say it's the usual intractability of poverty, but at some point you take "Republican State/Local Government" + "Federal Funds" and see they get squandered.
And thus, black water from faucets.
There are lots of federal funds (thanks to congress) that isn't directly dispensed to citizens. Instead it gets granted to the states for their oversight and control, I believe Medicaid works like this, or it did at some point. I leave it as an exercise to the reader as to what happens to state-allocated federal funds in a deeply racist state with gerrymandering specifically designed to maintain white control of government.
You are generally correct on why and to whom the money goes to in these states, but the fact remains that money goes to these states and not a lot of progress happens. You can say it's the usual intractability of poverty, but at some point you take "Republican State/Local Government" + "Federal Funds" and see they get squandered.
And thus, black water from faucets.
There are lots of federal funds (thanks to congress) that isn't directly dispensed to citizens. Instead it gets granted to the states for their oversight and control, I believe Medicaid works like this, or it did at some point. I leave it as an exercise to the reader as to what happens to state-allocated federal funds in a deeply racist state with gerrymandering specifically designed to maintain white control of government.
> This is perfectly expected if you understand the causal factors here.
What are the causal factors?
What are the causal factors?
> without some sort of federal mandate.
It's a State problem to fix with incentives or mandates.
It's a State problem to fix with incentives or mandates.
Should it be, though?
Forget the US constitution entirely, in the abstract why should a country not mandate that if a municipality provide water service, that it be safe to drink? Is that inherently different from setting minimum standards for pollution etc? The water's still unsafe to drink regardless of the cause.
It seems like often there's an "is/ought" thing going on with Americans, people look at the design of the american system and say that X feature is great, without considering the actual impact that feature has had.
Forget the US constitution entirely, in the abstract why should a country not mandate that if a municipality provide water service, that it be safe to drink? Is that inherently different from setting minimum standards for pollution etc? The water's still unsafe to drink regardless of the cause.
It seems like often there's an "is/ought" thing going on with Americans, people look at the design of the american system and say that X feature is great, without considering the actual impact that feature has had.
> why should a country not mandate that if a municipality provide water service, that it be safe to drink?
The US does mandate this.
https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/drinking-water-regulations
And the EPA started taking action in Jackson more than a year ago: https://www.epa.gov/ms/jackson-ms-drinking-water
The problem is that local leaders have the ability to just suck at their job and not make smart long term decisions. And often, this is caused by local opinions about spending priorities and opinions on the role of government.
The US does mandate this.
https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/drinking-water-regulations
And the EPA started taking action in Jackson more than a year ago: https://www.epa.gov/ms/jackson-ms-drinking-water
The problem is that local leaders have the ability to just suck at their job and not make smart long term decisions. And often, this is caused by local opinions about spending priorities and opinions on the role of government.
Managing / paying for these things is a local issue. Poor communities are in less position to deal with these things.
Most others do fine.
Most others do fine.
This is not about lack of funds. Places around the world much poorer than poor US municipalities manage to have working water supply.
It’s the combination of limited funds and mismanagement.
You can have water infrastructure with minimal money if you spend money wisely. If you have plenty of money you can mismanage your money with little consequence. It’s when you have both mismanagement and limited funds that problems arise.
You can have water infrastructure with minimal money if you spend money wisely. If you have plenty of money you can mismanage your money with little consequence. It’s when you have both mismanagement and limited funds that problems arise.
I don’t think that your first sentence has anything to do with the rest of them.
If you need it spelled out, the second sentence points out that you can have working water supply with little funds, and so if the failing US municipalities cannot manage to have working water supply despite having a lot more funds than other places, the problem does not stem from the lack of funds.
I think in large part it’s due to how economically divided American society is in terms of where people live. Places like New York have excellent water - the wealthy and poor live side by side. But a huge part of this country live in suburbs and rural areas that are strongly divided on economic lines, any thus those with means are not exposed to and do not care about the quality of infrastructure in poorer areas.
Also, metro area balkanization is sometimes the point; a wealthy area of Atlanta recently tried to secede. Merging them is out of the question too as a political third rail.
Regional balkanization has a lot of issues; not only are poor areas left with few resources and projects lack coordination and get expensively duplicated, but also they tend to compete with each other to offer tax breaks to companies, and in the end the region gives a big tax break to a company that most likely would’ve located somewhere in the region anyways.
Regional balkanization has a lot of issues; not only are poor areas left with few resources and projects lack coordination and get expensively duplicated, but also they tend to compete with each other to offer tax breaks to companies, and in the end the region gives a big tax break to a company that most likely would’ve located somewhere in the region anyways.
This is the key observation: these kinds of profound utility failures only happen in municipalities where the wealthy have removed themselves from the tax base. This comes in innumerable forms, but one of the most common is building their own little (unsustainable) suburban enclaves beyond the political borders of the cities they draw their salaries from.
> these kinds of profound utility failures only happen in municipalities where the wealthy have removed themselves
The Corps got it running in a couple days. It was incompetence that caused the problem, and I doubt you will argue that poor people are less smart.
The Corps got it running in a couple days. It was incompetence that caused the problem, and I doubt you will argue that poor people are less smart.
The fact that the Army Corps of Engineers can fix a municipal water system has absolutely no bearing on whether or not said water system was inadequately funded or incompetently managed.
It's not a "smart or not smart" thing: wealthy areas demand (and receive) adequate attention and funding for their public utilities. Incompetence on the municipal level is a symptom.
It's not a "smart or not smart" thing: wealthy areas demand (and receive) adequate attention and funding for their public utilities. Incompetence on the municipal level is a symptom.
Did these water issues arise because of incompetence or lack of funds? I know Flint's crisis was not related to lack of funds. So many comments keep harping on funds.
These are connected factors: a lack of adequate funding belies insufficient municipal interest in utilities, which breeds an environment of incompetence.
And yes, Flint's water crisis was absolutely connected to a lack of funds. It was directly precipitated by the city's declaration of a financial emergency[1], which in turn caused the city to seek cheaper water sources.
[1]: https://www.mlive.com/news/flint/2011/11/former_acting_mayor...
And yes, Flint's water crisis was absolutely connected to a lack of funds. It was directly precipitated by the city's declaration of a financial emergency[1], which in turn caused the city to seek cheaper water sources.
[1]: https://www.mlive.com/news/flint/2011/11/former_acting_mayor...
The link says who will be in charge, not that there was a true emergency requiring switching the perfectly working fresh water source to disgusting water. The state governor took over most operations due to the "emergency" and poisoned thousands of people who will be poisoned for life, and got away with it. I credit that to criminal negligence, or to be nice, incompetence, but hardly an actual budget issue. https://apnews.com/article/health-crime-michigan-indictments...
What kind of “smoking gun” are you looking for? In every public timeline of the Flint crisis, the budget emergency immediately precedes the decision to save money by using a different municipal water source. Are we expected to believe that the decision to save money on water was entirely unconnected to the city’s financial status? That beggars belief.
Lack of funds and incompetence can both exist simultaneously.
There was a large, federally subsidized post-war investment in infrastructure across the country. A lot of that infrastructure is more expensive to maintain than the local tax base can fully afford. Federal help is not forthcoming. Hence…
The state government of Mississippi, probably one of the worst in the developed world, has been known to impede Jackson from receiving block grants it is eligible for. A massive scandal is coming to a head where a whistleblower allegedly discovered that 70 million dollars of federal welfare funds where diverted to the ex-governors slush fund which he used to enrich allies such as Brett Favre. In a state that consistently finishes last along any dimension important to measure.
Top 99% of US water quality is better than many European countries. Only a few extremely shitty cities have serious water problems like this.
As a former US and current (20 yr +) EU resident, I'd like to see the list of EU countries you are referring to. Because your statement does not seem to match my lived experience.
Yeah I fail to see how two incidents in different cities years apart spells some sort of trend about water in the US. We have thousands of cities. What country has 100% water uptime?
Are the Corps of Engineers like a roving squad of problem solvers? What is their mandate?
Engineering corps always also have civil responsibilities. For instance, in the United States, the Army Corps of engineers is responsible for dredging canals.
Providing drinking water to a population is one of the archetypal roles of military engineers.
Providing drinking water to a population is one of the archetypal roles of military engineers.
Since it’s a weekend, if people have time, here’s the classic narrative summary by John McPhee of the Mississippi delta and the role of the Corps: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1987/02/23/atchafalaya
Just wanted to say thanks for the recommendation. Excellent article though it took me a few days to finish.
"Atchafalaya" is one of four articles compiled into a book, The Control of Nature, that is also excellent. One other of the four that I remember from that book is about how erosion shapes the Los Angeles basin -- "Los Angeles Against the Mountains".
They also have a huge presence in nearby Vicksburg (waterways), so it might have been an easy resource to call on.
[deleted]
Division of the Army, in wartime they're tasked with building the infrastructure to support the army. Like temporary (or permanent) bridges, buildings, bunkers, etc. In peace time they can use their skills at home to support infrastructure.
Given the size of the armed forces, assigning some percentage to domestic infrastructure seems like a fantastically good idea.
It's a somewhat unusual arrangement though, to have a division of the armed forces perform essentially civilian functions, isn't it?
Maybe not globally – gendarmerie come to mind – but certainly in the English-speaking world?
Maybe not globally – gendarmerie come to mind – but certainly in the English-speaking world?
The current US military budget (#1 highest globally) is fitting for a country who is currently at war with the next 5-10 highest military budget countries. And since theyre allies with most of those countries, and at war with none of them, and since both political parties' #1 marching order is to increase that budget, I for one would enjoy seeing that faction be used to aid domestic infrastructure.
Unusual, but very sensible. Military is trained to operate in chaotic environments where basic facilities (transport, communications, supply, ...) cannot be counted on.
Seems perfect for response to natural disasters, which seem to be becoming more common these days.
The military is about much much more than fighting/killing.
Seems perfect for response to natural disasters, which seem to be becoming more common these days.
The military is about much much more than fighting/killing.
It's an unusual arrangement, but it is absolutely something other countries should be adopting. Canada's equivalent thereof (as well as its equivalent to FEMA) was completely not up to the task when it came to last year's flooding in BC.
They are a division of the US Army.
When they're not actively destroying the Mississippi Delta through incompetence.
I assume you're referring to the Old River Control Structure?
I know it's a controversial project, but the alternative -- to let the Mississippi divert itself away from New Orleans and Baton Rouge -- would be an unthinkable economic (and social) catastrophe. So I don't think it can be chalked up to mere incompetence.
(Yes, I know and agree that the ORCS has been environmentally destructive. But what's a workable alternative?)
I know it's a controversial project, but the alternative -- to let the Mississippi divert itself away from New Orleans and Baton Rouge -- would be an unthinkable economic (and social) catastrophe. So I don't think it can be chalked up to mere incompetence.
(Yes, I know and agree that the ORCS has been environmentally destructive. But what's a workable alternative?)
> let the Mississippi divert itself away from New Orleans and Baton Rouge
This is perfectly workable, while I understand YMMV
> would be an unthinkable economic (and social) catastrophe.
Not only is it thinkable, it could be done responsibly, today. The ORCS will continue to fail (at irregular intervals), which will cause catastrophe as these events do. At some point, it will be decided that the system is no longer worth maintaining. Might as well rip the band-aid off by setting a specific date and start making a graduated change. If you didn't move out after Katrina[1], I don't think you can be convinced anyway.
[1] there was a 29% reduction in New Orleans population, post katrina
This is perfectly workable, while I understand YMMV
> would be an unthinkable economic (and social) catastrophe.
Not only is it thinkable, it could be done responsibly, today. The ORCS will continue to fail (at irregular intervals), which will cause catastrophe as these events do. At some point, it will be decided that the system is no longer worth maintaining. Might as well rip the band-aid off by setting a specific date and start making a graduated change. If you didn't move out after Katrina[1], I don't think you can be convinced anyway.
[1] there was a 29% reduction in New Orleans population, post katrina
> Not only is it thinkable, it could be done responsibly, today.
How?
You have a metro area of 1.3 million which is totally economically dependent on the river. A huge volume of freight moves through the delta daily. Billions of dollars of port infrastructure have been built in New Orleans and Baton Rouge.
Even disregarding the social cost -- which would be huge, given the high levels of poverty in New Orleans -- the pure economic cost would quickly rack into the tens or hundreds of billions. And tens of billions more would be required to make the new course navigable, rebuild port infrastructure, build new cities to serve the port, relocate workers from other parts of the country, etc.
And even then the river could just change its course again in two years or twenty or fifty.
How?
You have a metro area of 1.3 million which is totally economically dependent on the river. A huge volume of freight moves through the delta daily. Billions of dollars of port infrastructure have been built in New Orleans and Baton Rouge.
Even disregarding the social cost -- which would be huge, given the high levels of poverty in New Orleans -- the pure economic cost would quickly rack into the tens or hundreds of billions. And tens of billions more would be required to make the new course navigable, rebuild port infrastructure, build new cities to serve the port, relocate workers from other parts of the country, etc.
And even then the river could just change its course again in two years or twenty or fifty.
Not to mention the time it would take to rebuild the industry that is between Baton Rouge and New Orleans. That combined with the fact that the major shipping route to deep water ports to export ag commodities (corn, wheat, soy) to the rest of the world would effectively be halted for probably a year would mean a multi-trillion dollar arrow to the knee for the US.
There's been an enormous amount of PR done on the behalf of the Army Core of Engineers ever since people figured out that New Orleans was their fault.
New Orleans even being able to continue existing at all is due to the Army Corps Of Engineers. The Old River Control Structure keeps it from flooding too hard, and a LOT of resources go into keeping the river along its current route so that NOLA can continue as the premier port for the mid-west to import and export from/to the world.
How much would it cost if the river diverted? Would a huge part of Louisiana need to be geo-engineered to restore the literal bloodflow of US trade (in the East)? There would be dozens of states that would be hosed economically if the Mississippi entrance were to be blocked.
It would cost a shitload. Morgan City would have to be build up tremendously, since that is likely where the bulk of the flow would end up, through the Atchafalaya river, basin, and delta.
New Orleans and Baton Rouge would see one of the most dramatic economic implosions seen in the modern world. Akin to, and possibly worse, than the hollowing out of many formerly prosperous rust belt cities.
There would also most likely be a lot of people displaced by allowing the Mississippi/Atchafalaya to meander at will, since the channels to handle that amount of water if left to its own devices are simply not there. You'd end up with an absolutely enormous floodplain between the current paths of those two rivers. My family is from the bayous between that area. The highest place in town was an artificial hill in a park 20-30 feet high.
All in all, it's probably better ecologically to simply let the rivers meander as they will, but economically it is in the city, state, and region's best interests to maintain the status quo.
New Orleans and Baton Rouge would see one of the most dramatic economic implosions seen in the modern world. Akin to, and possibly worse, than the hollowing out of many formerly prosperous rust belt cities.
There would also most likely be a lot of people displaced by allowing the Mississippi/Atchafalaya to meander at will, since the channels to handle that amount of water if left to its own devices are simply not there. You'd end up with an absolutely enormous floodplain between the current paths of those two rivers. My family is from the bayous between that area. The highest place in town was an artificial hill in a park 20-30 feet high.
All in all, it's probably better ecologically to simply let the rivers meander as they will, but economically it is in the city, state, and region's best interests to maintain the status quo.
And why didn't they get these guys to fix Flint's water issues?
I dont know, but as general commentary:
Lead poisoning is not so easy to fix. You have to replace extensive amounts of lead pipe and/or find and remedy another source and then treat the existing poisoning which doctors aren't so talented at.
Most doctors aren't well versed in chelation protocols. Even if you replace all the lead pipes, the problem isn't resolved. You still need medical care.
Lead poisoning is not so easy to fix. You have to replace extensive amounts of lead pipe and/or find and remedy another source and then treat the existing poisoning which doctors aren't so talented at.
Most doctors aren't well versed in chelation protocols. Even if you replace all the lead pipes, the problem isn't resolved. You still need medical care.
My understanding of the Flint water issue was the introduction of corrosive water that caused the lead pipes to leech lead. The fix wasn't "Make repair at the one point of failure" but "Replace every water pipe in the 34.1 square mile city."
Flint had to replace their pipes before it could be fixed. But it was fixed in 2019, anyone who still posts “the US is bad because Flint doesn’t have working water” is just lying to you.
What do you mean? Flint is still replacing lead service lines as they're found.
https://cityofflint.wpengine.com/progress-report-on-flint-wa...
https://cityofflint.wpengine.com/progress-report-on-flint-wa...
Merely having lead pipes isn’t the problem as long as they’re not degraded. As I said, the water quality has been fine for years now.
OP has heavily editorialized the title. Actual title is "Jackson’s Water Crisis: The latest updates" and the article states that the Army corps of Engineers arrived sometime prior to Sept 2.
[deleted]
[deleted]
OP gave an accurate summary of the most important events of the article, occurring around sept. 1st. If you had to condense this article to a maximally informative 1-line title, that's a pretty decent job
Whether or not it's a decent job doesn't change the fact that it's an editorialization. The chief addition by the submitter ("resolved within 24 hours") doesn't match the timeline given in the article and isn't even claimed within it.
According to the article the Corps arrived 10 days ago and the boil water notice is still in effect, so the only factual part of the editorialized headline appears to be "Jackson, MS".
Anyway, you'd expect the federal government to be able to repair a water treatment facility in a tiny city within a few days.
Anyway, you'd expect the federal government to be able to repair a water treatment facility in a tiny city within a few days.
(disclaimer: I'm not a resident or any kind of expert, but I did read the article down to ~August 30th.)
The "crisis" referred to appears to mean the recent loss of pressure throughout the system, which happened after the boil water advisory, active since July 29th. The boil water advisory should be considered a crisis of its own, I agree, but the loss of pressure meant many could not get even basic washing and toilet use done, which made international news.
The article is written in a difficult to follow reverse chronological format, but it is clear from its contents that ~24 hours after the arrival of the Corps (at a time when other services were already working on the problem and had likely made big progress), pressure in the system was increased to about 86 psi and nearly the entire system had water supply again: the immediate, primary, news-worthy crisis was then resolved, and has since stayed resolved.
Beyond that, work has been done to achieve the higher target pressure desired (also done), get production up and clean out contaminated tanks and beds (mostly done), and to set things up for the full test needed to remove the advisory (not yet done, but anticipated to be soon).
The headline is a strange fact to pick out in all this, but it does seem to be essentially true.
The "crisis" referred to appears to mean the recent loss of pressure throughout the system, which happened after the boil water advisory, active since July 29th. The boil water advisory should be considered a crisis of its own, I agree, but the loss of pressure meant many could not get even basic washing and toilet use done, which made international news.
The article is written in a difficult to follow reverse chronological format, but it is clear from its contents that ~24 hours after the arrival of the Corps (at a time when other services were already working on the problem and had likely made big progress), pressure in the system was increased to about 86 psi and nearly the entire system had water supply again: the immediate, primary, news-worthy crisis was then resolved, and has since stayed resolved.
Beyond that, work has been done to achieve the higher target pressure desired (also done), get production up and clean out contaminated tanks and beds (mostly done), and to set things up for the full test needed to remove the advisory (not yet done, but anticipated to be soon).
The headline is a strange fact to pick out in all this, but it does seem to be essentially true.
They may have water now, but it isn't drinkable.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/sep/10/running-wate...
I don't know if the rules have changed (or if it was a state or federal rule), but when we lost water pressure due to a hurricane, the boil water advisory had to be maintained for 72 hours after pressure had been restored purely for regulatory reasons.
(This isn't a knock on the regulation--it actually makes a lot of sense. A loss of water pressure means that groundwater can seep into the water pipes where previously clean water was leaking into groundwater, and it will take a couple of days for any such intruded groundwater to be flushed out of the water pipes. This is merely me trying to point out that a boil water advisory being maintained after a pressure loss doesn't contradict the possibility that the problem has actually been fixed.)
(This isn't a knock on the regulation--it actually makes a lot of sense. A loss of water pressure means that groundwater can seep into the water pipes where previously clean water was leaking into groundwater, and it will take a couple of days for any such intruded groundwater to be flushed out of the water pipes. This is merely me trying to point out that a boil water advisory being maintained after a pressure loss doesn't contradict the possibility that the problem has actually been fixed.)
It's not a strange fact, it's another way of saying that the leadership of Jackson is so incompetent that they can't even fix something that takes just 24 hours to repair once competent people arrive onsite.
From you news you might imagine they had some huge disaster that would take weeks to fix, but actually it's pure incompetence.
From you news you might imagine they had some huge disaster that would take weeks to fix, but actually it's pure incompetence.
A serious water crisis like this can be attributed to lack of funds, a series of unfortunate events, and/or incompetence. Flint was incompetence but more like intentional criminal acts. If the Corps fixed the Jackson issues in a day or two, then those state/local officials are not fit for their jobs. Right? What am I missing?
No it’s racism by the water treatment plant designers
Sounds like both are true: The problems have been fixed already, but the notice is still in effect because they need to flush out the distribution pipes and that just takes time.
I mean not really. You're expecting them to change infrastructure that's failed in a few days when the time involved in manual labor alone would take more than just a few days without even assessing the situation on why it failed and what's the best way to fix the solution.
This stuff isn’t super complicated, but it needs to be funded.
My spouse was in a leadership position in a municipal water utility for several years. You have to make capital investments to maintain pumps, filtration systems and have operational funds to perform testing and repairs.
Municipal government often struggles with capital investment, especially in states that tightly regulate the ability of cities to bond or wherever the governor has the ability to control municipal authorities. There’s a “starve the beast” philosophy in some quarters that creates issues like this.
Money is usually the root cause. Incompetence is usually the result.
Another common dumb move is selling the water system to a private entity. Because governments are both more efficient and have a lower cost structure for raising capital, in the long run that leads to higher utility rates and deferred investment.
My spouse was in a leadership position in a municipal water utility for several years. You have to make capital investments to maintain pumps, filtration systems and have operational funds to perform testing and repairs.
Municipal government often struggles with capital investment, especially in states that tightly regulate the ability of cities to bond or wherever the governor has the ability to control municipal authorities. There’s a “starve the beast” philosophy in some quarters that creates issues like this.
Money is usually the root cause. Incompetence is usually the result.
Another common dumb move is selling the water system to a private entity. Because governments are both more efficient and have a lower cost structure for raising capital, in the long run that leads to higher utility rates and deferred investment.
It is funded. But the corrupt government of Jackson squandered it. https://www.wapt.com/amp/article/jackson-mayor-accuses-city-...
Chattanooga, TN has a similar size and no water crisis. As does dozens of other similarly sized towns. Other towns in Mississippi also don’t have the issue.
Water is entirely a municipal responsibility and Jackson is a horribly run city.
https://www.mississippifreepress.org/26791/no-efforts-to-rec...
Chattanooga, TN has a similar size and no water crisis. As does dozens of other similarly sized towns. Other towns in Mississippi also don’t have the issue.
Water is entirely a municipal responsibility and Jackson is a horribly run city.
https://www.mississippifreepress.org/26791/no-efforts-to-rec...
The first article is about trash collection. It might show accusations of corruption, but otherwise doesn't seem related to water.
The second article never alleges corruption. It does say Governor Reeves "[never spoke] to the mayor directly about the ongoing crisis." I'm not sure if the whole crisis is about the number of water operators, which it focuses on.
The second article never alleges corruption. It does say Governor Reeves "[never spoke] to the mayor directly about the ongoing crisis." I'm not sure if the whole crisis is about the number of water operators, which it focuses on.
$ fixes everything
Governments aren’t more efficient and don’t have a lower cost structure. Anyone that believes otherwise has never been involved with government projects.
I think they are just expecting the title of the post to be accurate. If the issue cannot be resolved in 24 hours the post should not say it was resolved in 24 hours.
> Anyway, you'd expect the federal government to be able to repair a water treatment facility in a tiny city within a few days.
Sounds like a short timeframe to me?
Sounds like a short timeframe to me?
Ok, we've reverted the title. Submitted title was "Jackson MS water crisis resolved within 24 hours of Corps of Engr on site".
Submitters: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Submitters: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Jackson is 1/3rd the size of New York City (114 sq. mi. vs 302 sq. mi.).
You're mistaking the tiny population of 150,000 or so as a proxy for it's size.
You're mistaking the tiny population of 150,000 or so as a proxy for it's size.
There seems to be a lot of misinformation going on with Jackson’s water situation. It’s disconcerting to see this level of “fog of war” happening in a state capital.
I’ve seen everything from completely irreparable forever to already fixed being reported within days of each other.
I’ve seen everything from completely irreparable forever to already fixed being reported within days of each other.
It totally depends on who you want to believe.
Ask people in Jackson, they'll tell you it's the evil Republican leaders' faults.
Ask all the people that moved out of Jackson to the surrounding cities of Madison, Ridgeland, Flowood, etc. and they'll tell you it's corruption in the city legislature.
Ask people in Jackson, they'll tell you it's the evil Republican leaders' faults.
Ask all the people that moved out of Jackson to the surrounding cities of Madison, Ridgeland, Flowood, etc. and they'll tell you it's corruption in the city legislature.
It is also worth looking at who is moving out and who is staying, and the broader long-term implications for the functioning of a community when looking at certain patterns over time.
The middle class are moving out. The upper middle class already left. The wealthy already left.
The very wealthy enclave of people who are keeping the barbarians at the gate of Eastover are staying, but not for long. Even though these people own houses that are 100+ years old - many of them family homes - they know it's only a matter of time until some drugged up lowlife stumbles into their yard and causes trouble. I don't know what'll become of all those beautiful homes in Eastover, but if this continues, I guess they'll be sold on the cheap and written off as a loss?
Looks like it's already happening - https://www.trulia.com/p/ms/jackson/2733-quail-run-rd-jackso...
You'll know for sure it's bad when the Holmans move out of Jackson, if they haven't already. If you're wondering who they are, watch the movie The Help. Hilly Holbrook is based on Sondra Holman, although of course they'll deny it to their dying day.
If, when you said, "look who's moving out and look who's staying", you meant "black people are staying and white people are moving out," that's not really accurate, it's that there's a significant Venn diagram overlap with poor people and black people. Jackson has been around 80% black for a *very* long time now. It really is just coming down to "those with money" and "those without money".
The very wealthy enclave of people who are keeping the barbarians at the gate of Eastover are staying, but not for long. Even though these people own houses that are 100+ years old - many of them family homes - they know it's only a matter of time until some drugged up lowlife stumbles into their yard and causes trouble. I don't know what'll become of all those beautiful homes in Eastover, but if this continues, I guess they'll be sold on the cheap and written off as a loss?
Looks like it's already happening - https://www.trulia.com/p/ms/jackson/2733-quail-run-rd-jackso...
You'll know for sure it's bad when the Holmans move out of Jackson, if they haven't already. If you're wondering who they are, watch the movie The Help. Hilly Holbrook is based on Sondra Holman, although of course they'll deny it to their dying day.
If, when you said, "look who's moving out and look who's staying", you meant "black people are staying and white people are moving out," that's not really accurate, it's that there's a significant Venn diagram overlap with poor people and black people. Jackson has been around 80% black for a *very* long time now. It really is just coming down to "those with money" and "those without money".
I can absolutely believe that a mid size, poor city in Mississippi is extremely corrupt and incompetent. That others don’t is wild to me.
This is one of those comical cases where the State and its complicit media has proven to be so utterly untrustworthy that I put more trust on social media reports from people living there.
Note that "more" does not mean "complete".
Note that "more" does not mean "complete".
In a complicated network like a municipal water system, the problem can be both "fixed" and flushing out contamination weeks later.
[deleted]
The site was instrumental in uncovering the EPA reporting that the city tried to hide for more than a year and has direct sources involved in the operation of the plant.