They aren't disproved. You misread my statement and then decided I was wrong.

They are repeatedly. Flint actively chose not to use anti-corrosives as the article you supposedly read states. This invalidates your point that the Flint water was more corrosive, because quite simply it doesn't matter. The emergency manager made the decision not to deal with the corrosivesness of the water. It is not the level of corrosivesness but inaction by the manager that is the issue.

It is more corrosive.

Source?

If I meant water directly from Lake Huron,

So you want to compare to unlike things and call them equal? Flint had the choice to either get treated water from Detroit or find another source of water and treat it themselves.

however, the options that the city of Flint had were (a) water treated by Detroit, or (b) water they had to treat themselves from the Flint River. The water from (b) is more corrosive, and they didn't do anything about it.

No this is incorrect. Flint had the choice to obtain already treated water from Detroit or untreated Flint river water which they need to treat. Are you trying to say they would pump the Flint river water in untreated? That simply didn't happen. It was treated, just not with anti-corrosives.

Again, where did I indicate that, or imply it was an accident? I have said nothing about the intent of state officials in any post, and the general consensus is that they were at fault (which I agree with), so there's no reason for you to assume that about me.

What else am to conclude when you are going through such machinations to try and claim that the main issue is that Flint river water was more corrosive (despite all evidence).

You completely ignored the questions until I brought them up again.

not sure what this means?