Jackson, Mississippi, to go without reliable drinking water indefinitely(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Jackson, Mississippi, to go without reliable drinking water indefinitely
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/floods-knock-out-drinking-water-supply-jackson-mississippi-2022-08-30/
78 comments
[deleted]
I think you’re confusing the responsibilities of states and local municipalities.
It may surprise you to learn that Jackson is actually led by a quite liberal mayor: https://www.jacksonms.gov/departments/office-of-the-mayor/
It may surprise you to learn that Jackson is actually led by a quite liberal mayor: https://www.jacksonms.gov/departments/office-of-the-mayor/
The mayor has been begging* for funds from the state for a long time now to fix the problem though. That being said, I'm sure there is lots of local and state mismanagement that would go into causing such an embarrassment.
* https://www.wlbt.com/2022/02/17/jackson-faces-uphill-battle-...
* https://www.wlbt.com/2022/02/17/jackson-faces-uphill-battle-...
So, instead of an appropriate local bonding ballot initiative (or whatever) to fund this like every other city does, they just throw up their hands and ask for state handouts?
Maybe they are worried about the political implications of rising property taxes or water bills?
Seems like a HUGE failure by an inept local government.
Maybe they are worried about the political implications of rising property taxes or water bills?
Seems like a HUGE failure by an inept local government.
Considering Mississippi is one of the states most reliant on federal aid, I think maybe we should just say the whole state is a failure then? Maybe all of Mississippi should deal with the implications of raising their taxes even more. They’re a red state so I assume a state government official that campaigned to raise taxes wouldn’t win as easily as someone who campaigned to get federal money.
The article i link says they’re getting ~10B from the feds so they’d need add a 15% tax rate on their 3M people earning avg of 25K to pay for that. On top of the 5% they have. Thank god for them 25K income is so low that they only pay federal tax rate of ~12%.
Maybe a poor state that voted against handouts and critiques others from getting outside funding should pay their own way?
Or maybe they’re too poor and need help from the rest of society and we should help them because it’s a kind human thing to do, and not judge them for their poor financial decisions.
https://mspolicy.org/mississippi-no-longer-the-state-most-re...
The article i link says they’re getting ~10B from the feds so they’d need add a 15% tax rate on their 3M people earning avg of 25K to pay for that. On top of the 5% they have. Thank god for them 25K income is so low that they only pay federal tax rate of ~12%.
Maybe a poor state that voted against handouts and critiques others from getting outside funding should pay their own way?
Or maybe they’re too poor and need help from the rest of society and we should help them because it’s a kind human thing to do, and not judge them for their poor financial decisions.
https://mspolicy.org/mississippi-no-longer-the-state-most-re...
> The article i link says they’re getting ~10B from the feds so they’d need a ~15% tax rate on their 3M people earning avg of 25K to pay for that. Thank god for them 25K income is so low that they only pay federal tax rate of ~12%.
Huh? That isn't how that works at all. Cities issue bonds to raise the cash to pay for large projects. Those bonds are paid down over time or not at all if they just pay interest w/ no principle. A 10B project for a metro this size is a pretty manageable expense.
In this case, it seems like the local politicians simply didn't know how to do that or want to as raising taxes might make it difficult to get reelected.
The solution they seem to have arrived at is: Wait until things get so bad that there is a humanitarian crisis and the Feds have to bail us out. Which they will, because we don't want people to suffer without clean water.
So now the rest of us are made suckers as federal taxpayers are on the hook for this mismanagement/scam.
Huh? That isn't how that works at all. Cities issue bonds to raise the cash to pay for large projects. Those bonds are paid down over time or not at all if they just pay interest w/ no principle. A 10B project for a metro this size is a pretty manageable expense.
In this case, it seems like the local politicians simply didn't know how to do that or want to as raising taxes might make it difficult to get reelected.
The solution they seem to have arrived at is: Wait until things get so bad that there is a humanitarian crisis and the Feds have to bail us out. Which they will, because we don't want people to suffer without clean water.
So now the rest of us are made suckers as federal taxpayers are on the hook for this mismanagement/scam.
Every year, Mississippi the state takes money from the federal government. Money that they don’t earn through taxes levied. Every state of course does this, but Mississippi is pretty bad on a per person level and on a percent of total budget level. To cover existing budget shortfall they’d need to tax an extra 15% of income for the average resident (6k per person). For comparison California would need an extra $12 per person which is like 0.03% to cover their differences. That should set the scene for how cash strapped the state is.
Considering how dependent the state is on funding, it’s not crazy to imagine that the local municipalities would also be similarly dependent.
Jackson surely knows how to raise bonds. In Dec2021 their water and sewer bond rating was put in the “B” range (Baa) for their existing 200M in debt for the water system.
Mississippi likely just has no more money from their existing population available. And has likely started to run out of availability debt accessible.
Ps: The “rest of us” surely are suckers paying for it, but it looks like we always were. I’m in California and I’d raise my own taxes by $12 just be able to brag to red states that California takes less in “government handouts” than them. But it doesn’t matter. We’re all in one big national union working together to help each other. It doesn’t matter who is paying and who is getting re-elected - those residents need water. And fwiw, it’s not like the fed balances the budget. That’s just “free money” anyways.
Considering how dependent the state is on funding, it’s not crazy to imagine that the local municipalities would also be similarly dependent.
Jackson surely knows how to raise bonds. In Dec2021 their water and sewer bond rating was put in the “B” range (Baa) for their existing 200M in debt for the water system.
Mississippi likely just has no more money from their existing population available. And has likely started to run out of availability debt accessible.
Ps: The “rest of us” surely are suckers paying for it, but it looks like we always were. I’m in California and I’d raise my own taxes by $12 just be able to brag to red states that California takes less in “government handouts” than them. But it doesn’t matter. We’re all in one big national union working together to help each other. It doesn’t matter who is paying and who is getting re-elected - those residents need water. And fwiw, it’s not like the fed balances the budget. That’s just “free money” anyways.
do you know anything about jackson's local government, local tax base, the dynamics of power, the surrounding wealthy suburbs, or the extent of how much a repair like this would cost?
here's a primer: - https://mississippitoday.org/2021/11/08/jackson-water-crisis... - https://mississippitoday.org/2021/03/24/why-jacksons-water-s... - https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/a-mississippi-citys-...
here's a primer: - https://mississippitoday.org/2021/11/08/jackson-water-crisis... - https://mississippitoday.org/2021/03/24/why-jacksons-water-s... - https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/a-mississippi-citys-...
I do know that funding and managing local services like water, sewer, schools, police, fire dept., etc. is the responsibility of the local municipalities.
If you want to argue something else then please explain why local gov't even exists in the first place.
This is a primarily a failure of local government likely due to weak/inept leadership. Just because something like fixing your water supply is politically difficult or expensive doesn't mean you can ignore it.
If you want to argue something else then please explain why local gov't even exists in the first place.
This is a primarily a failure of local government likely due to weak/inept leadership. Just because something like fixing your water supply is politically difficult or expensive doesn't mean you can ignore it.
nobody is ignoring it. please take the time to learn about this situation before making generalizations.
The situation seems to be: inept local govt refused to pay for services they are responsible for providing because they didn’t want to raise taxes.
So, they begged for outside money (again, for something that is their responsibility) and when that didn’t work stuck by their “do nothing and blame the state” strategy which ultimately created a humanitarian crisis that leaves federal taxpayers on the hook.
Did I miss anything?
So, they begged for outside money (again, for something that is their responsibility) and when that didn’t work stuck by their “do nothing and blame the state” strategy which ultimately created a humanitarian crisis that leaves federal taxpayers on the hook.
Did I miss anything?
here's one example where they've been trying for at least a decade: https://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2013/dec/11/whats-boil...
yeah, you missed pretty much everything.
[deleted]
For @toss1 maybe, for me I was kind of expecting it.
Are you seriously saying that people in Jackson are not capable to taking care of themselves? And they need the state to do it for them?
I know nothing about Jackson, but municipalities all around the country are reliant on money flowing federal>state>local, urban>rural, etc.
There can be good reasons to subsidize infrastructure - for example, urban residents help maintain a rural farming community because they desire the agricultural products.
It’s not even clear the entire state of Mississippi is “capable of taking care of themselves” as over 40 percent of their general operating revenue is supplied by the federal government (2017 numbers) which is consistently in the top five states for receiving federal aid.
I’m not an expert, but the defensiveness seems unwarranted.
There can be good reasons to subsidize infrastructure - for example, urban residents help maintain a rural farming community because they desire the agricultural products.
It’s not even clear the entire state of Mississippi is “capable of taking care of themselves” as over 40 percent of their general operating revenue is supplied by the federal government (2017 numbers) which is consistently in the top five states for receiving federal aid.
I’m not an expert, but the defensiveness seems unwarranted.
And California is 30%, that's a difference obviously, but not such a big difference that you have to say they are unable to take care of themselves.
Water supply is a local thing, and local leaders need to take responsibility, not blame the state.
Water supply is a local thing, and local leaders need to take responsibility, not blame the state.
Fair enough. I live in neither Mississippi or California, but we really should be talking about Balance of Payments though as federal expenditures by state is only half of it. When you consider federal expenditures vs receipts, we find that California is a net per capita contributor (-$301) while Mississippi is a net per capita receiver (+$7938).
https://rockinst.org/issue-areas/fiscal-analysis/balance-of-...
https://rockinst.org/issue-areas/fiscal-analysis/balance-of-...
Mississippi isn’t able to take care of themselves as a whole!
https://mspolicy.org/mississippi-no-longer-the-state-most-re...
https://mspolicy.org/mississippi-no-longer-the-state-most-re...
They are 44%, and California is 30% - it's not that dramatic of a difference to call them "isn't able to take care of themselves".
Considering the population, California comes out to $12 of fed money per resident vs $6k in Mississippi. If I had to guess who was more likely to be self sufficient… I wouldn’t bet on Mississippi.
The average per person income in Mississippi is like 25k so that 6k is not coming from the residents excess wealth.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/federal-aid...
The average per person income in Mississippi is like 25k so that 6k is not coming from the residents excess wealth.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/federal-aid...
Meanwhile... the state government passed the largest income tax cut in its history just a few months ago. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/mississippi/articles...
Even regular tap water in many US cities is contaminated with PFAS and other pollutants.
When water does reach a house, only about 5-20% is used for cooking or drinking - the rest for watering plants, showers, toilet flushing, washing.
Is it better to just outfit each home with an under-sink reverse osmosis machine and pipe in raw reservoir water?
When water does reach a house, only about 5-20% is used for cooking or drinking - the rest for watering plants, showers, toilet flushing, washing.
Is it better to just outfit each home with an under-sink reverse osmosis machine and pipe in raw reservoir water?
Does anyone have a map of US cities without safe drinking water? I can't keep track at this point. Why isn't the EPA on this? They should have a dashboard or something by now.
[deleted]
under sink would be too inconvenient
and all the RO membrane cartridges, or millipore filter cartridges are contaminated with PFAS, anyhow. it's literally everywhere. We have to run ours for 30 minutes before taking the ultra-pure water at the lab to drop the levels down to 'baseline'. Otherwise, the built up levels blow out the instruments.
and all the RO membrane cartridges, or millipore filter cartridges are contaminated with PFAS, anyhow. it's literally everywhere. We have to run ours for 30 minutes before taking the ultra-pure water at the lab to drop the levels down to 'baseline'. Otherwise, the built up levels blow out the instruments.
30 minutes for every new filter? Or every time?
Every time. They concentrate the pfas in the water, which bleeds through the cartridge as it sits there between uses, meaning all the diffusion breakthrough has to be flushed every time.
These filters only slow down the contamination relative to water flow rate. Think Of them as big chromatography columns or frontal analysis columns
These filters only slow down the contamination relative to water flow rate. Think Of them as big chromatography columns or frontal analysis columns
Wouldn't a carbon filter work better then? If I understand them right it will keep the pfas stuck inside itself and not let it diffuse.
The filters are carbon. Every filter has breakthrough. And the filter components themselves are contaminated prior to construction. This stuff is literally everywhere
Every house could have its own treatment system…
Shouldn’t the army corp step it at some point? Shouldn’t the military be able to fly in some pumps if really needed?
The governor has to request it.
"Should" implies it's their responsibility, making them the National Bureau in Charge of Municipal Water Supply. It would be nice if they could, but they can't do it for everyone.
This reporter has been writing great informative articles on this for years
https://www.mississippifreepress.org/jackson-water-crisis-in...
https://www.mississippifreepress.org/jackson-water-crisis-in...
From the article:
> The city and state were both distributing bottled drinking water and non-potable water for toilets
Is there a risk to using untreated water from the river & reservoir to flush your toilets? Why would the city need to distribute toilet water?
> The city and state were both distributing bottled drinking water and non-potable water for toilets
Is there a risk to using untreated water from the river & reservoir to flush your toilets? Why would the city need to distribute toilet water?
There's currently no/low water pressure, so supply of even non-drinkable water is difficult.
My experience with residential toilets is the tank refills often enough with low pressure anyways. I guess they are in really bad shape if they can't even fill peoples toilet tanks.
There should be no risk to using untreated water to flush the toilet.
Presumably they are shipping two types of water- potable and non-potable. The non-potable is less difficult to produce and ship.
You can flush a toilet by dumping a bucket of water into the bowl.
Presumably they are shipping two types of water- potable and non-potable. The non-potable is less difficult to produce and ship.
You can flush a toilet by dumping a bucket of water into the bowl.
Over time, yes. Not so much a risk to humans but a risk to plumbing. As an example I have water risers on my fields that are fed by a lake. The horses also drink from this. Their water trough gets full of algae and moss. All the fittings I use have to be large enough to not get plugged up by the growth. I've tried using filters in the past but they plug up almost instantly.
A spin down filter solves for this. Manual ones are $50-$65, nice automated self cleaning ones are $175-$250. Great for well water imho to take the load off of disposable sediment filters further down the system. Depending on the make, you can typically swap out the stainless steel screens to change how aggressive your filtering is.
I might give this a shot. I've used them on wells and they are great for sediment. I wasn't sure if it would work the same with the moss but if it works that would save me from using the tank pellets.
If you have control over where your water supply is within the lake, and you're up for it, I recommend introducing lily pads, cattails, or watercress in the vicinity. Those flora will absorb the nutrients algae requires to grow, inhibiting its growth. Non uniform foreign debris near water intakes is just an overall pain :/
Unfortunately I don't. The lake is in national forest and it also powers a small hydroelectric dam.
Sounds absolutely lovely. Enjoy!
[deleted]
It’s not a risk of contamination, it is that the treatment plant pumps can’t keep the water pressure up right now. Otherwise, river water is hopefully cleaner than what you’re trying to flush. Though in Jackson, MS, I wouldn’t take that as a given.
Sounds like a nightmare cluster-duck, a whole city without water!
Imagine being in Monterrey, Mexico, a city more than ten times bigger without water.
Woah, Paolo Bacigalupi wrote "Water knife" only 7 years ago and I thought it depicts a scenario our grandkids will face.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Water_Knife
Mississippi is not in drought. At least not drought of water.
you're right that this isn't a problem of drought. it's a problem of infrastructure, money, and power. but north mississippi is in a drought. jackson isn't in north mississippi
Its kinda bonkers that golf courses and grass lawns are things allowed to thrive in areas of the US where they are not naturally occurring.
I also think its kinda crazy that humans have brought agriculture to a desert via irrigation and think that's sustainable. This is the type of thing where Federal laws/rulings are needed because there are like 4 states over consuming the water.
I also think its kinda crazy that humans have brought agriculture to a desert via irrigation and think that's sustainable. This is the type of thing where Federal laws/rulings are needed because there are like 4 states over consuming the water.
Irrigation agriculture has been a primary source of life in places like Arizona for millennia. Reducing it down to "irrigation is unsustainable" is both incorrect and unproductive. It can be made sustainable, as long as we understand the system and respect appropriate limits within that. It's likely those changes will need to be larger than anyone wants, but they're still possible in a less dramatic way than "everyone is forcibly removed from the area".
Also, that water is shipped to other countries in the form of alfalfa.
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26124989
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26124989
> places like Arizona for millennia.
Millennia? Do you have any references for this?
AFAIK the natives did not do large scale irrigation, I'll be interested to know if that was the case.
Further, my understanding is that we are getting out a multi-hundred year wet period for California and the Southwest. Before then it was particularly arid, and we are returning to that and then some. Which is all really unfortunate as most of the concentrated population settling there has been since the 1800s, when the climate was maximally accommodating.
Millennia? Do you have any references for this?
AFAIK the natives did not do large scale irrigation, I'll be interested to know if that was the case.
Further, my understanding is that we are getting out a multi-hundred year wet period for California and the Southwest. Before then it was particularly arid, and we are returning to that and then some. Which is all really unfortunate as most of the concentrated population settling there has been since the 1800s, when the climate was maximally accommodating.
Yes, I used to work as an archaeologist in the southwest. Canal irrigation in the Santa Cruz watershed is found from the late archaic period (<2000 BCE), as a well-established example. Those networks remained mainly small regional networks until the Hohokam classic period, when they built massive canal networks irrigating tens of thousands of acres and sometimes draining entire rivers dry. Many of these later canals remain still in use today (in greatly modified states), like Phoenix's Grand Canal.
> It can be made sustainable, as long as we understand the system and respect appropriate limits within that.
I think this illustrates that its sustainable on paper but the current sets of humans using the Colorado river water aren't using it sustainably though when its all added up. We can get pedantic about it but something has to change, right?
I think this illustrates that its sustainable on paper but the current sets of humans using the Colorado river water aren't using it sustainably though when its all added up. We can get pedantic about it but something has to change, right?
I don't think there's any disagreement that things have to change. The difference is whether we're talking about negotiating a difficult balance of competing interests within reasonable limits, or engaging in a political knife fight to decide who gets all the remaining water.
We need to make a conscious decision to recognize a balance is possible though and negotiate it. If we don't, the situation eventually devolves into the knife fight regardless.
We need to make a conscious decision to recognize a balance is possible though and negotiate it. If we don't, the situation eventually devolves into the knife fight regardless.
https://freakonomics.com/podcast/how-stupid-is-our-obsession...
This is a good listen/read.
This is a good listen/read.
Its future is already becoming reality in the watershed of the over-subscribed Colorado.
2022 is a remarkable year, one of a striking tipping point: in which a large number of climate change cautionary tales moved from speculative to the front page.
As with the rapid evolution of AI txt2image tools, the notable stories, milestones, data points, are coming too quickly to keep up with.
Jackson has its own specific problems, and they aren't drought-specific as others noted ITT;
but the story is nonetheless a useful addition to the growing list of examples of where our institutional and structural response to ecological and climatological challengs is grotesquely inadequate.
As in Kim Stanley Robinson's fantasies, hope seems to lie in something which today seems as unlikely as our current headlines did a few years ago: an intervention of some kind which puts actual decision-making power in the hands of policy makers and scientists who understand what is happening and the scale of response required to ride it out as a civilization.
2022 is a remarkable year, one of a striking tipping point: in which a large number of climate change cautionary tales moved from speculative to the front page.
As with the rapid evolution of AI txt2image tools, the notable stories, milestones, data points, are coming too quickly to keep up with.
Jackson has its own specific problems, and they aren't drought-specific as others noted ITT;
but the story is nonetheless a useful addition to the growing list of examples of where our institutional and structural response to ecological and climatological challengs is grotesquely inadequate.
As in Kim Stanley Robinson's fantasies, hope seems to lie in something which today seems as unlikely as our current headlines did a few years ago: an intervention of some kind which puts actual decision-making power in the hands of policy makers and scientists who understand what is happening and the scale of response required to ride it out as a civilization.
2022, USA, 100k+ town with no drinking water. Indefinitely. We've truly peaked as a civilization.
Every civilization starts building a tower.
Those at the bottom bring supplies to the top and maintain it.
Those at the top are tasked with seeing what is coming and making Wise decisions.
Those at the top forget about the needs of the bottom and instead focus only on vertical expansion.
Eventually the summit grows taller than what the base can sustain.
Then the workers at the bottom abandon the base.
The tower left unmaintained, collapses.
Those at the bottom bring supplies to the top and maintain it.
Those at the top are tasked with seeing what is coming and making Wise decisions.
Those at the top forget about the needs of the bottom and instead focus only on vertical expansion.
Eventually the summit grows taller than what the base can sustain.
Then the workers at the bottom abandon the base.
The tower left unmaintained, collapses.
indefinitely is a bit extreme. it should say "until pumps are fixed and service is restored"
When will the pumps be fixed and service be restored?
Oh, an unknown or unstated length of time? There must be a word for that...
Days. As in, *City officials said Monday evening that Jackson's water shortage "is likely to last the next couple of days."
https://www.newsweek.com/jackson-water-crisis-live-updates-1...
https://www.newsweek.com/jackson-water-crisis-live-updates-1...
Indefinitely != infinitely. It just means they do not know how long it will take.
It doesn't mean forever but it is widely understood to mean that there is no foreseeable resolution in the near future. I think most of us know to avoid the word unless we're signaling some degree of permanence.
Indefinitely doesn't imply permanence to me. I take it as meaning what it means: there is no reasonable prediction for when the situation will be resolved. Which seems correct for this case.
I think it's a mistake to roll out this word whenever you don't know how long something will take but I wish you well!
But there is a nuance to the message that is disingenuous. Diction and imagery. This isn’t a legal contract, it doesn’t matter if it is ‘technically true.’
Yeah, it sounds like this is a feud between the governor and the mayor. The mayor is ultimately responsible here and the governor is using charged language. I assume that’s to make the mayor look more derelict. Who knows what’s actually going on here.
they've been on a boil water notice since july
</sarc>
Meanwhile, it looks like some federal intervention, e.g., Army Corp of Engineers is likely needed.
More seriously, this is what we get when politicians chase "culture issues" and don't actually govern, and people care more about revenge on groups they don't like than electing people who will actually govern.
Seriously broken