The XYZ contractor can go and post about the poor work of the sub but that's their thing. We are talking about the end user here, the farmer/indians. They were the customer and they get to complain about the contractor, not the sub.
They may "get" to, but that's not actually accurate is it?
When you manufacture a firearm for a customer, do you allow that customer to stand over your shoulder at the lathe or mill, admonishing you to ream here, counterbore there, chamfer this? Not simply adding design input, but telling you how to do the job? Or do you remind them that they are the customer, (which is the EPA in this case) who has contracted you, the professional, to do a job? "Please allow me to do my job, I don't need micromanaging??"
That's how I see it...the Navajo's weren't the customer, the EPA was. The way I read that article, any contract made was between the EPA (customer), and the trucking firm (contractor. I fully agree that the EPA must stand for PART of the blame...but not all. And the media should not twist and manipulate facts simply for the sake of sensationalism, but rather report the issue without regard to political agendas.
That's my beef with this whole thing. It's become too easy to blame government for our own shortcomings.
Let's look closely at where accountability needs to be: Whether guns or lawn mowers, once a safe functioning product has been provided, it is the user, not the manufacturer who is the accountable party. When it comes to an agency in charge of safe water, the EPA, not any other party, is accountable. To delegate the responsibility is to have no accountability. Which is where govt bureaucracies like to position themselves. We shouldn't be discussing whether the EPA should pay for the damage caused. Rather, the EPA should not be so inept as to be implicit in these sort of events. How hard is it to keep containment walls from being breached?
