A few days ago, the NY Times ran a piece in their series Toxic Waters about the alarming rate of rupturing water mains in many cities across America (“Saving U.S. Water and Sewer Systems Would Be Costly,” March 14th, 2010). Baltimore is certainly no stranger to this, being one of the oldest cities in the union – pipe bursts are a regular occurrence, often times resulting in millions in damage and a resulting lack of usable water.
Luckily, Baltimore has a local supply of harbor water just perfect for drinking and flushing!
George Hawkins, the centerpiece of the article, proposed the hard option of citizens possibly paying more for their water in order to offset the cost of overhauling the decrepit infrastructure. While giving a speech to a crowd of people in Dupont, this interesting bit popped up:
Mr. Hawkins, who at 49 has the bubbling energy of a toddler and the physique of an aging professor — told the crowd that the average age of the city’s water pipes was 76, nearly four times that of the oldest city bus. With a smile, he described how old pipes have spilled untreated sewage into rivers near homes.“I don’t care why these pipes aren’t working!” one of the residents yelled. “I pay $60 a month for water! I just want my toilet to flush! Why do I need to know how it works?”
Interesting, that level of ignorance in such a wealthy area. Or maybe not, point being – would you pay more for water if you knew your neighborhood wouldn’t flood in the next 70 years or so?
Update: From Alternet comes another story of looming water-based catastrophe in California. I’m living just north of LA at the moment and I can tell you first hand these people have strange priorities when it comes to water.
I read the article a few days ago, and the quote from the $60 man bugged me both then and now. It’s further evidence that people don’t understand that things in this world aren’t free. Maybe there’s an argument to be made that we all pay taxes, so shouldn’t that cover infrastructure? Well, maybe, but until you actually read the budget, you have no idea just how insanely subsidized $60/month might be (or conversely, overpriced). You might say I’m making an assumption that he hasn’t gone through the budget, but the kind of person who’s disengaged enough to shout down a speaker explaining the problem with (paraphrasing) “I don’t care how it works, but it’s too expensive!” strikes me as having a shoe that fits.
Yeah not that I want to get into a diatribe on the government’s place in all of our lives but maintaining infrastructure is certainly in the top 2, to complain about having to possibly pay more for water – temporarily as a best case scenario – makes about as much sense as complaining about having to fix your own roof to prevent leaks. “I don’t know how this magical roof works but I shouldn’t have to pay more just to keep it working!!”
Though I have to imagine the 60 dollar figure is probably on a quarterly basis? I’ve honestly never seen a water bill that high even in Baltimore.
also holy crap muke, that article from the update is terrifying
Yes, quite. I believe the research shows that investment in public infrastructure is way down from its height during the post-war boom. Water is an interesting case because we don’t even think about where it comes from or where it goes, despite being one of those, you know, cornerstones of modern civilization. As a consequence, things are unbalanced. I’d love to track down some city workers in Baltimore and find out about how the city and state manage water.
As a small example, I live in a house north of LA, a place of perenial droughts and series water shortages across five or so states on the Colorado River. The house has sprinkles that running every morning, rain or shine, even in the dead patch between the house and a retaining wall. It’s insane.