politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Like, it feels like this should be the kind of money to put a real dent in the problem......but I worry that the corruption of local governments and the associated contractors will probably soak up a lot of this on tangential things (e.g. lead pipes crosses under this really old road at one point; guess we'll need to tear up the road for 10 miles in each direction of the cross under point and then repave the whole thing, just to be sure)
Edit: modifying example for clarity.
So, that's not actually corruption or diversion of funds for this problem, that's basically what you have to do.
A lot of pipes we know are lead, but even more are unknown because they were installed long enough ago that we're just operating under the assumption that they're either lead, old style clay, or wood.
It's entirely expected that cities will say "there's a water main under this road from 1901, so we're ripping it up and replacing the pipe and road", because that 1901 is entirely sufficient to say that pipe is shit.
You fight lead pipes by replacing all the old pipes, not by trying to selectively only get the lead ones.
I am not sure if you've seen the process through which public funding gets funneled through private companies to implement.
The decision to delegate the task to break one job apart for portions of the same job is a thing. My hometown had separate teams building a highway: one westbound one eastbound. They build things in the wrong place.
https://archive.kitsapsun.com/news/local/890000-mistake-discovered-on-highway-16-project-ep-419650199-357597121.html
I am aware of the process. I'm not sure what that has to do with "sometimes a big project takes a lot of work, and other things also have to happen to do it".
A lot of projects get a lot bigger and become a lot more work without doing much or other things.
Like a local decision to build a new police station, including shooting range requiring land clearing, versus utilizing that funding for the addressing the homeless population. It wasn't what the money was originally for, but it got moved around legally enough.
I read your article and it pretty clearly says that the problem was with the State DOT Planners and Engineers, not the construction teams.
The problem in this case wasn't with the people building the road it was with the people who planned it. AKA The Government.
Well, yes. The planners and engineers are the ones subject to all the political hands of local governments.
Certainly not implicating the construction teams themselves. (Though arguably still if one firm were building both sides they may have noticed sooner.)
Now I admit I say this from both personal experience and a tinge of disgruntlement. But my remarks regard government serving private interests over public ones, not government itself. The system that these planners operate under is one rife with regulatory capture.
Point is: there's going to be significant administrative bleed at best.
If that's really how that works, then I can see why the expense has been kicked down the line so long. I worry this allocated money won't be enough then and that we're probably talking "show" money vs "getting things done" money.
It's complicated how it's funded, but this isn't the first or last time we've allocated funds for this.
https://www.epa.gov/dwsrf
https://www.epa.gov/water-infrastructure/bipartisan-infrastructure-law-srf-funding-status
Basically, in 1996 we setup a program to make it easier for states to get federal money for water improvements, either via long term loans or grants.
The EPA then doles out the money, and it trickles back over time from loan repayments. That's why with $21 billion in funding they've provided $41 billion in investments.
Periodically Congress adds some more money to the fund, but it's largely the feds turning the massive one time costs of these projects into reasonable long term investments.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law dumped something like $50 billion into that fund, which is a lot more than it usually has, and $15 billion of which is allocated to lead pipes replacement.
After a round of assessments of pipes and applications from different water providers, the EPA put together a $3 billion package of the most high priority projects that can get started this year.
Then Biden signed the order to issue the round of funding according to EPA recommendations.
This is more like the first big paycheck after getting a new job than winning the lottery.
You just described using funds to do two things at the same time, which is efficient use of funds.
Yeah, but every dollar spent on repaving roads is a dollar that can't be spent on lead pipes.
I suppose the example I've provided is flawed in a sense though. Probably a better example would be that an intersection gets torn up to replace pipes, but the local town council insists on using his brother's asphalt company. "They might cost twice as much for the repavong, but I promise, it'll be higher quality" kinda junk.
Yes, your second example would be corruption because it is being used to intentionally benefit a specific purpose instead of the public.