Lead pipes are disproportionately located in old cities, which are disproportionately Democratic. Chicago (Democratic stronghold, origin of Obama) installed new lead plumbing until at least the 1980s at the behest of the unions, many decades after every other city had given them up (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/sep/22/us-lead-indu...). So if it's delayed, it will be by Democrats.

The last people installing these were 50 years ago. What does the political leanings of these cities today have to do with it?

To the extent that most cities already have programs to dig up and replace old goosenecks, most would probably support some additional federal enforcement.

Chicago is not one of those cities that have transitioned to Democratic control recently - they haven't had a Republican mayor since 1933. Even NYC had one as recently as 2012 or so.

Unfunded mandates are not going to be popular, no matter which political party does so. Reading the article, it appears that the federal government has provided about half of the EPA-estimated cost of replacing all these pipes. So that means either states paying for the rest or forcing customers (i.e., ordinary people and businesses) to cover the cost. Since the COVID-related tax income flush has trickled off, state budgets will be tight, so this will probably have to be funded with a tax increase or water bill increase (functionally the same as a tax).

Go back and re-read the prior comment. Then think about it.

You'll then understand that fixing things, currently or in the near future, it will be the current leadership that has much of the blame or applaud coming to them.

I get that Chicago is a right-wing bogeyman and that's probably why you brought it up (I looked for other pop right-wing stuff in your comment history and was not disappointed) but the issue of cities or utilities with a high density of lead pipes needing longer is addressed in the rule, and they're granted an extended timeline. There's no reason they can't get started when everyone else does.

https://apnews.com/article/lead-epa-flint-discrimination-bid...

I hope to gain wisdom from all political perspectives. Also, I'm from Chicago, and my link was from The Guardian.

Apologies - you certainly are entitled to your strong opinions about your local politics!

There's enough left-wingnut commentary in your single post to not be disappointed.

You are so blinded by jealousy that you missed the point on the prior comment.

What’s the point of this comment? Seems needlessly inflammatory.

Even if they did oppose, it would likely be on the grounds of the cost, which is worth it, but still a valid complaint.

It’s provocative but there is a valid topic in how many reasonable activities which are unambiguously good end up getting opposed purely because the right-wing doesn’t want to recognize a positive linked to a Democrat. I remember impassioned pleas about the historic loss of incandescent light bulbs, leaded gasoline, etc. and knee jerk opposition to things like network neutrality or reducing pollution reduction from cars or power plants which is known to be killing people.

This matters a lot at the moment because we need to significantly decarbonize our economy and the same people have been staunchly opposing that.

> opposed purely because the right-wing doesn’t want to recognize a positive linked to a Democrat

It's certainly not just about who gets credit. I mean, there's also the question of whether other people's children's health is worth saving if it's going to increase a utility bill. Or the looming spectre of tax dollars spent on making someone else's life better, rather than one's own life.

I was thinking especially of a conversation I once had with my wife's coworker's spouse who was at the time a Republican environmental lobbyist. That sounds even more oxymoronic now than it did back then but he said that he used to have fairly good results getting coalitions together because even if they disagreed on a lot, especially in the West there were a lot Republican who liked to hike, fish, hunt, etc. and were willing to strike deals which would protect those natural environments. That didn't always work – e.g. ranchers were never going to support restoring wolves to their natural habitat – but he felt that over the years he'd been able to help get a fair amount of good done.

According to him, that stopped being even conceivable the day Obama was elected and people like Mitch McConnell made it very clear to everyone in the party that there were to be no deals of any sort which could give Obama any sort of accomplishment, not even things which had previously been generally uncontroversial. It was apparently quite frankly stated that anyone who did so would have the national party and the right-wing media machine targeting them during the next primary as if they were a Democrat, even if it was something like getting something like a highway project in their state. They knew how Bush had been able to campaign for re-election on things like “No Child Left Behind” and Medicare part D which had only passed with some Democratic votes and were determined not to allow that to happen in reverse, just as we're seeing now.

I'm really curious if someone will go ask Joe The Plumber what he thinks. Internets say 30% of plumbers are unionized, so maybe that could be spun as the motivation.

He passed away earlier this year.