Public pays for anti-tax sentiment

The lead-contaminated water in Flint, Michigan, poisoned children because state officials wanted to save money — first by switching to a cheaper water source, and second by failing to use chemicals that would have prevented lead from leaching out of aging pipes.

Over the past few years, other cities, including the nation’s capital, have experienced similar delays in reporting and fixing lead contamination, and similar challenges to financing needed water system overhauls.

Most Americans can still count on clean water, but those who manage our aging water infrastructure hope that the Flint controversy draws attention to the need for major investments to rebuild water systems that are nearing the end of their useful lives.

The biggest obstacle is successive rounds of federal, state and local budget cuts, in part due to the recession, but also due to the persistent anti-tax sentiments of American voters.

The New York Times reports that the federal Environmental Protection Agency budget for protecting drinking water has shrunk by 15 percent since 2006, and its staff has been reduced by 10 percent.

The same investigation also reports that in 2013, the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators said federal officials had slashed drinking-water grants, 17 states had cut drinking-water budgets by more than a fifth, and 27 had cut spending on full-time employees.

Providing and protecting clean water is a defining characteristic of a functional government, and paying for it is not optional. Perhaps no issue so clearly illustrates Oliver Wendell Holmes’ observation that “taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.”

This story was originally published March 8, 2016 at 1:30 PM with the headline "Public pays for anti-tax sentiment."