Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let me guess; inflation is still high, so we need another “Inflation Reduction Act” focused on printing money to fund the replacement of all lead pipes across the country.
Status:
"Let this year be over..."
(set 19 days ago)
Location: Where my bills arrive
19,219 posts, read 17,083,204 times
Reputation: 15537
Why is a proposal to help resolve the lead pipe issue so wrong, the effects of lead is on the rise and for many older cities the cost is too high for their available money to pay for it. Even "President Donald Trump's administration addressed lead in water, issuing new standards just before the end of his term" and start thing rolling to identify problem areas.
Why is a proposal to help resolve the lead pipe issue so wrong, the effects of lead is on the rise and for many older cities the cost is too high for their available money to pay for it. Even "President Donald Trump's administration addressed lead in water, issuing new standards just before the end of his term" and start thing rolling to identify problem areas.
It's not but he only allocated $15 billion for it. If the cost is $54 billion why not pay for the whole thing ?
That bill sent $47 billion to Ukraine with no issue.
Putting these "mandates" on cities mean the cities will have to raise taxes on the residents.
Not a good thing to do in inflationary times.
Most cities can barely afford to maintain their existing water piping infrastructure but now comes this from the Biden camp:
WASHINGTON -- Most U.S. cities would have to replace lead water pipes within 10 years under strict new rules proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency as the Biden administration moves to reduce lead in drinking water and prevent public health crises like the ones in Flint, Michigan and Washington, D.C.
Status:
"Let this year be over..."
(set 19 days ago)
Location: Where my bills arrive
19,219 posts, read 17,083,204 times
Reputation: 15537
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMSRetired
It's not but he only allocated $15 billion for it. If the cost is $54 billion why not pay for the whole thing ?
That bill sent $47 billion to Ukraine with no issue.
Putting these "mandates" on cities mean the cities will have to raise taxes on the residents.
Not a good thing to do in inflationary times.
The Ukraine has nothing to do with it as this is a proposal to change the existing law which as the article says
"The public will have a chance to comment on the proposal and the agency expects to publish a final version of the rule in the Fall of 2024. There is then a waiting period before it goes into effect."
As for paying it the article also says "We strongly, strongly encourage water utilities to pay for it," and "Additional federal funds are available to improve water infrastructure and the EPA is providing smaller communities with extra help. Some states, however, have been slower to attack the problem - a handful declined the first round of federal lead pipe funds."
So once again if its not mandated at the Federal Level they aren't going to do it, Jackson Mississippi comes to mind of a broken water system that the state won't address.....
The Ukraine has nothing to do with it as this is a proposal to change the existing law which as the article says
"The public will have a chance to comment on the proposal and the agency expects to publish a final version of the rule in the Fall of 2024. There is then a waiting period before it goes into effect."
As for paying it the article also says "We strongly, strongly encourage water utilities to pay for it," and "Additional federal funds are available to improve water infrastructure and the EPA is providing smaller communities with extra help. Some states, however, have been slower to attack the problem - a handful declined the first round of federal lead pipe funds."
So once again if its not mandated at the Federal Level they aren't going to do it, Jackson Mississippi comes to mind of a broken water system that the state won't address.....
Yes it does. Money was allocated in the Infrastructure Bill for this...$15 billion.
We gave Ukraine $47 billion for covid shots in that same bill.
Now residents will have to be taxed to pay for this "mandate".
This isn't some "new" proposal. The infrastructure bill had it and that got passed in 2021.
Most cities can barely afford to maintain their existing water piping infrastructure but now comes this from the Biden camp:
WASHINGTON -- Most U.S. cities would have to replace lead water pipes within 10 years under strict new rules proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency as the Biden administration moves to reduce lead in drinking water and prevent public health crises like the ones in Flint, Michigan and Washington, D.C.
It's not but he only allocated $15 billion for it. If the cost is $54 billion why not pay for the whole thing ?
That bill sent $47 billion to Ukraine with no issue.
Putting these "mandates" on cities mean the cities will have to raise taxes on the residents.
Not a good thing to do in inflationary times.
The cities are stone cold broke and Biden & regime know it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
