Pure Water or Pure Bull

The sky is falling again. This week the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) warns us that unless we take action, there might be something wrong with our water.

The quality and safety of our drinking water is the envy of the world, we have Federal, State, and Municipal agencies dealing with the issue; and yet we are expected to believe that without the whining of these nannies an unbelievable disaster will befall us. Well here is what these nannies want us to be alarmed about.

Their release impressively datelined WASHINGTON (June 11, 2003) warns us that "Deteriorating water works, pollution, and outdated treatment technology are combining to deliver drinking water that might pose health risks to many residents in 19 of America's largest cities . . ." Might pose heath risks, sounds serious at first read, but isn’t this the reason for an EPA in the first place? If it’s not true the Clean Water Act is a waste of time and treasure.

"The report authors concluded that infrastructure and other water supply problems in these and other municipalities might pose health risks to some residents . . ." Might, some, this is very frightening stuff! The report is an endless stream of maybes. "The tap water in some cities might pose health risks to vulnerable consumers . . . "

"Although the report does not advise residents to stop drinking tap water . . . " Of course not, how could they? They offer nothing but their concern that there might be a problem. "Echoing recommendations by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NRDC also urged (such as those on chemotherapy or people with HIV/AIDS) consult with health care providers regarding the safety of their tap water." People who have serious immune system problems have more important things to talk to their doctor about than tap water. This is the classic leftist bait and switch. We have a problem that ‘may’ be a threat to pregnant women, infants and those with compromised immune systems passed off as a serious concern for all.

A note of amusement occurs when they sight in their report comments from Dr. David Ozonoff, a professor at Boston University's School of Public Health. He reports that, "Clean drinking water has been one of the major public health triumphs of the past 100 years. We've figured out how to build very efficient water delivery systems." Notice that the Clean Water Act has been around for 25 years. If, for 75 years prior, we were triumphant why was the CWA passed in the first place?

Of course one has to be careful at a liberal university so Ozonoff adds, "But these systems can either provide safe drinking water, or deliver poisons and harmful organisms into every home, school and workplace." My God! No! The same thing can be used for good and for evil. "One misstep can lead to disaster . . ." Just one? Even after a 100 years of ‘triumphs’? "So we must vigorously protect our watersheds and use the best technology to purify our tap water." As opposed to what? Shoot the wildlife and use inferior technology? Do bears shit in the watershed?

"The report found that recent Bush administration actions threaten the purity of U.S. tap water." Well, now we know who’s to blame for this string of maybes. That scoundrel! "For example, the administration . . . has refused to reinstate a Superfund law provision that forces corporations to pay into a fund to clean up hazardous waste sites." That bastard! We all remember Superfund; we all know how effective that was. It was super fun! The lawsuits kept thousands of people employed, the lawyers got rich and nothing got cleaned up. It was the model for the even more popular soak the tobacco companies campaign we have today. Most of the money goes to lawyers and what is left is spent on everything under the sun, except health care.

"The Bush administration is more concerned about protecting corporate polluters than protecting public health," said Erik Olsen. (He’s the Mrs. Doubtfire that runs the place.) Well, duh! Everybody knows Bush is evil. He invented the axis of evil. I picture him at night dumping barrels of sludge into kiddy pools. "Proposals to end Clean Water Act protection for most streams, creeks and wetlands will jeopardize city efforts to provide pure drinking water for its residents." What proposals, where are these unnamed proposals? What happened to the 75 years before the CWA where we triumphed? As a scare tactic that’s a pretty feeble effort.

"To protect drinking water, the report recommended that states and cities upgrade drinking water treatment facilities," What a novel idea, why didn’t I think of that. I’ll get my checkbook. "Invest in water conservation measures," Group showers? "And replace or update pipes and water distribution system components." Olsen also made the point that there are components in Washington DC that date back to the Lincoln administration. How embarrassing for us! In Europe they have components that date back to the Romans.

"The report also recommended that state and municipal authorities adopt standards, and purchase land or easements -- which restrict land use to safeguard water -- to protect watersheds and areas above aquifers draining into water supplies." Voila! Restrict land use, the leftist agenda. The control of private property for the "public good". Without absolute property rights, no other rights are possible. Who gets to decide what is good? NAMBLA, perhaps? Their idea of the public good is old men having sex with little boys.

On their web site additional material appears: "part of their mission is to see that -- local, state and federal –conspire to protect your water supply and ensure that pure, safe and good-tasting water is supplied to your home." These agencies hardly need any encouragement to conspire, and how they can guarantee "good tasting" is beyond me. Good tasting to whom? Is water supposed to have a taste? I hope not.

"For example, cancer-causing arsenic is currently present in the drinking water of 22 million Americans at average levels of 5 ppb, well below a new EPA standard for arsenic of 10 ppb that will go into effect in 2006. Now they are applauding the hateful Bush. It’s called situational ethics.

"Yet scientists now know that there is no safe level of arsenic in drinking water." They do not, and if they did it wouldn’t make any difference. Arsenic is water-soluble. No matter how hard you tried there would always be trace elements of heavy metals like Arsenic in our water, so some level had damn well better be safe. They recommend, keeping "contaminants out of tap water such as arsenic or radon that occurs in water as a result of leaching or release of the contaminant from rock." How in hell are we going to do that?

Their favorite whipping boy is the city of Fresno that has a problem with Nitrates; a by-product of the fertilizers used in this largely agricultural community. But, according to a study by the Center for Environmental Research and the Department of Agronomy at Cornell University:

"Nitrate is one of the most common groundwater contaminants in rural areas. So far, the only studies linking nitrate in drinking water with cancer have involved nitrate levels that are quite high (at or above 100-200 mg/l nitrate-N)." Municipal systems keep it to 10 mg/l nitrate-N. The only real and immediate danger with nitrates is to new borns and disappears if they are breast-fed or their formula is diluted with bottled water for the first 6 months.

According to the same study, "Eighty to 90 percent of the nitrates most people consume come from vegetables . . . meat products account for less than 10 percent of nitrate in the diet." Perhaps we should ban vegetables. Just to be safe.

" A city's first step is identifying where pollution is coming from." It’s those damn bears! " Once these sources are known, the water utility, city planners and citizens of a municipality must work together to figure out how to reduce the threat of contamination. Land purchases often prove useful, allowing the water utility to establish a pollution-free zone around source waters. " Let’s see, I wonder how much private property would have to be seized to placate them? An area the size of Texas? This whole get back to nature idea is felonious anyway. Those of you who have traveled to natural, non-industrial pestholes of Asia know they have to boil their water before they can drink it. When was the last time we had an outbreak of Cholera in this country?

"Utilities may also ban boating and other recreational activities on these waters," What? Now they want to ban recreation? One of the goals of the CWA is to promote recreation: "(2) it is the national goal that wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water be achieved by July 1, 1983 . . ."

This and many other public action groups prove one thing, that if you can’t find a good paying job, you can always invent one. It takes no talent or ability. The truth is these organizations devote their greatest effort to self-perpetuation. If they can’t find something to whine about the jig is up and they have to get a real job.

Local, State and Federal Governments seem to have this problem pretty well covered, some would say too well. The NRDC is clearly out of touch with the intent of Congress and the science of what is even possible.

The gruel is pretty thin here, I think they better start thumbing through the want ads.

More liberal tripe! There's a water crisis so let's implement costly and restrictive laws so that less water can be distributed and at greater expense. This is right up there with DC trying to get rid of chlorine in their water. They almost destroyed their water system. The true agenda here is to stifle development by making water harder to distribute.

As a water professional, I can tell you there is no 'water crises' in the US or in any industrialized nation. Water treatment is so far advanced that in some areas 'reclaimed' water is being considered for use in municiple systems. Reclaimed water is nothing more than treated sewage. Even though this recycled water has been treated to the level of potable water, customers for some reason, prefer their water to have not been through the toilet cycle.

For the tiny percentage of the population whose immune systems have been so compromised that an inocuous bug like cryptosporidium presents a danger, the least of their worries is readily available municiple water. In short, advocacy outfits like the one above and the people who listen to them are just time and money wasters.

Water treatment is so far advanced that in some areas 'reclaimed' water is being considered for use in municiple systems. Reclaimed water is nothing more than treated sewage.

I'm working on such a system now. The problem is, its 90% scam. Their idea of "reclaiming" the water is to dispose it in a spray irrigation feild that's being hyped as reclaimed irrigation, but what they don't explain is why anyone would want to irrigate a fallow field full of weeds in the first place. It is just a devious way to latch onto federal grant money and to skirt the (admitedly often perverse) land application requirements.

In systems I have studied that really do seek to reclaim the water, the processing of the WWTP effluent borders on the rediculous: sand filtration - micro-filtration - ultra-filtration - RO and UV disinfection for anything that could have gotten through (or grown after) such a gauntlet. I'm surprised they don't triple steam distill it then inject a secret health formula of minerals for "vitality". It probably costs 10 bucks a gallon by the time they are done with it - just so they can spray it on fields full of weeds.

"Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)"

Let us parse together.

This organization "defends" "Natural Resources". Against what do they "defend" resources? Why, against exploitation; in other words, against being used.

A resource that cannot be exploited is not a resource.

If I told you there was a mountain of pure platinum on Venus, would it be a "resource"? Would it require "defense"?

The NRDC is in the business of denying to the human race the resources that it needs--and incidentally placed here by God for its use. Forever.

They are not "pro-nature"; they are anti-human.

--Boris

Like the Constitution guarantee's clean drinking water.

No sense going off the ideological deep-end on this issue.
Provision of public infrastructure such as water supply and wastewater treatment systems is a legitimate government function.

I don't agree with the ever-tightening "standards" pushed by bureaucrats with nothing better to do. Current standards are good enough. But population growth IS pushing existing systems to the limit, and aged systems ARE in need of repair and upgrade. It is a serious issue that needs to be addressed.

Regrettably, aging infrastructure has much to do with politicians who defer maintenance to pay for votes, er I mean, social programs.

Yeah. Infrastructure is something voters take for granted when it's working well.
"Out of sight, out of mind."
Nobody ever wants to spend any money on it until AFTER it craps out.
Pretty dang sad, IMHO. Certainly not the brightest way to go about things.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.