ADVERTISEMENT

There were eight swimming advisories in place at seven state beaches in Iowa over the Fourth of July holiday weekend

An article in the Des Moines Register today states that the DSM Waterworks is considering DRILLING for water though that is very rare for a city. (Wells alone would dry up. The city relies on the rivers.)
But the cost of cleaning up all that farm runoff is steadily rising and they are hoping to mix well water in with the river water to make the process cheaper.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Joes Place
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
This is the reason Iowa can’t have some nice things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moral
@Finance85 — in my opinion this is worse than SF shoplifting.* And, yes, I consider this a type of theft.

*This is not an "acceptance" of SF shoplifting.
OK. So you think it's worse than theft. Are you actually trying make some comparison of two completely unrelated wrongs?
 
OK. So you think it's worse than theft. Are you actually trying make some comparison of two completely unrelated wrongs?
These are not unrelated. This is my point. You want people to care about some dumbass purse? Build a society that clearly values humans over the dollar. Water over the dollar. This is the society we have created. It's all related, to some degree or another.

Maybe in your mind they are unrelated. I don't think they are entirely unrelated. History tells me I'm right.

Do I think the shoplifter is thinking about water in Iowa while shoplifting? Of course not.

Maybe we're just not good discussion companions. I think you like to focus on things and assume them separate and consider them in isolation. I like to look at things broadly, compare them to similar circumstances in history, draw parallels, attempt to diagnose, etc.

I don't accept theft.

I accept you, though.
 
These are not unrelated. This is my point. You want people to care about some dumbass purse? Build a society that clearly values humans over the dollar. Water over the dollar. This is the society we have created. It's all related, to some degree or another.

Maybe in your mind they are unrelated. I don't think they are entirely unrelated. History tells me I'm right.

Do I think the shoplifter is thinking about water in Iowa while shoplifting? Of course not.

Maybe we're just not good discussion companions. I think you like to focus on things and assume them separate and consider them in isolation. I like to look at things broadly, compare them to similar circumstances in history, draw parallels, attempt to diagnose, etc.

I don't accept theft.

I accept you, though.

Both are examples of "Externalized Costs"

With the acceptance of shoplifting (or failing to prosecute it), the externalized costs fall to the vendor, and to anyone else who shops there, because to stay in business the vendor must increase the prices of everything else to cover his losses OR pay higher insurance premiums over lost merchandise.


With the water/herbicide/waste runoff, farmers are being allowed to pollute a public resource, which everyone who needs that resource must pay much higher costs to clean the water, while the private farmers hold no liability for their pollution.
 
Both are examples of "Externalized Costs"

With the acceptance of shoplifting (or failing to prosecute it), the externalized costs fall to the vendor, and to anyone else who shops there, because to stay in business the vendor must increase the prices of everything else to cover his losses OR pay higher insurance premiums over lost merchandise.


With the water/herbicide/waste runoff, farmers are being allowed to pollute a public resource, which everyone who needs that resource must pay much higher costs to clean the water, while the private farmers hold no liability for their pollution.
Yep, and if there's one thing we've seen time and time again is that individuals and businesses never "voluntarily internalize" their Externalities unless required to by regulation.
 
I talked to a DNR guy who told me there is an emerging line of thought that the e. coli found in these beach monitoring programs is actually a self-sustaining phenomenon. That it actually grows in the wet sand.

That is not to excuse human pollution, which is obviously occurring as well. But, much of this may be a natural ecological issue, from geese and wildlife, and then the resulting bacteria adapting to grow well in a beach environment.
 
How clean is the river water running out of DSM?
I believe Des Moines puts the nitrates back into the water as it is processed to be discharged. It’s too expensive to pay to dispose of all that upstream pollution, so they put it back in the water and the GOP junta that runs this state is fine with that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KFSuperStar
Yep, and if there's one thing we've seen time and time again is that individuals and businesses never "voluntarily internalize" their Externalities unless required to by regulation.

And, in the case of selectively choosing to NOT criminalize shoplifting, it's eliminating a societal "regulation". Dishonest people will take advantage of that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mthawkeyes
I believe Des Moines puts the nitrates back into the water as it is processed to be discharged. It’s too expensive to pay to dispose of all that upstream pollution, so they put it back in the water and the GOP junta that runs this state is fine with that.

I'm surprised they'd be allowed to do that. Even if it is 'putting it back', that would still be considered dumping a regulated waste into a water of the state.
 
ridiculous-chris-parnell-1422362957.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thunderlips71
I'm surprised they'd be allowed to do that. Even if it is 'putting it back', that would still be considered dumping a regulated waste into a water of the state.
They did do it for years, but it seems like Des Moines is transitioning to a system where the nitrates are pulled out, and then disposed of. What would be the argument for allowing upstream users to pollute the river, then penalize Des Moines for doing so? But, it’s nice of them to pull the s*** out.
https://www.kcrg.com/content/news/D...proves-nitrate-removal-process-508901231.html
 
Non point source vs point source.
If they could pin point the upstream source, and take action, they would.
But, they can’t let a water supply remove diluted contaminants, concentrate them, and then dump them downstream.
 
Non point source vs point source.
If they could pin point the upstream source, and take action, they would.
But, they can’t let a water supply remove diluted contaminants, concentrate them, and then dump them downstream.
Okay, but they did let Des Moines do that for years.
 
Okay, but they did let Des Moines do that for years.

Which is surprising and against all the current rules I believe.
It’s actually a really tough catch 22 to fix.

For example: A subdivision finds arsenic in their water supply. They want to remove it to protect the homeowners. But, can’t afford to continually collect and legally dispose of the concentrated arsenic left over after treatment.

So, nothing happens and the water supply remains in violation, and providing potentially unsafe water to residents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mthawkeyes
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT