• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ohio's 4th largest city has no drinking water

The water is safe. Its just been announced. The fear mongering and threats to socialize the private sector can stop now.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
We can cut down on erosion from farms that leech in the phosphorus by increasing buffer strips. In my state the rivers that feed into the Maumee are chocolate brown after a heavy rain. You rarely see this when you cross the line into Michigan that takes the issue more seriously and the farm lobby is much weaker.

A couple of years ago I attended a public meeting to stop the dredging if a local river. The farmers in the area wanted the river straightened out to move water out as fast as possible. This would not fly in Michigan.
Click to expand...

Doesn't really matter. Heavy rain, no matter what, will wash it into the river. Ohio has gotten alot of rain fall this spring and summer so fertilizer never had a chance to settle.
 
Samhain said:
The issue is how we use the lake. The infrastructure is doing exactly what it was designed to do.

When too much water is taken into the storm system, we flush raw sewage into the lake, sometimes tens of millions of gallons.
Click to expand...

Sewer systems in general, infrastructure. I bet 4 billion would go along way. Oh, wait. We need to spend 4 billion on the illegals.
 
Summerwind said:
Okay, that bolded part is just drama, please. Drinking, dish, and toothbrush water is a mere fraction of the uses for city water supplies. PULLEEEASE can we ever get to the point where we can discuss rationally present things or are we all just loving the drama too much.
Click to expand...

Drinking water is probably kind of important.
 
jmotivator said:
I'm pointing out your idiotic comment overlooks that the people of Toledo are currently living off of bottled water produced by the big evil private sector.
Click to expand...

They didn't "produce" the water. They put it in a bottle. Unless they've come up with a way to combine 2 hydrogens and 1 oxygen in a lab at such a price that it's profitable. ("You didn't make that" - which in this case is true)

Regardless, getting a drink of water should be a basic human right. Not a privilege you pay for.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Sewer systems in general, infrastructure. I bet 4 billion would go along way. Oh, wait. We need to spend 4 billion on the illegals.
Click to expand...

And if Obama said "Hey let's spend 4 billion on infrastructure" the GOP would be OK with it???
 
sangha said:
No drinking water?

Just another one of the many benefits the "free market" provides. I'm sure that private businesses will provide a solution.
Click to expand...

So spot on, send in the government to fix it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
austrianecon said:
Well it's the most fertile land in Ohio (being ex-swamp land) so it's a bit easier said then done. Especially when that area relies on farming related industry more and more.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was easy, but going without water isn't easy either.
 
`
Water may soon be the next Oil. (figuratively speaking) While I am relatively close to Lake Michigan, I get my water from an aquifer and still have it tested four times a year.
 
Paxaeon said:
`
Water may soon be the next Oil. (figuratively speaking) While I am relatively close to Lake Michigan, I get my water from an aquifer and still have it tested four times a year.
Click to expand...

Ask T. Boone Pickens. He was buying up all the water rights in Texas when he was peddling his plan a few years ago.
 
rocket88 said:
They didn't "produce" the water. They put it in a bottle. Unless they've come up with a way to combine 2 hydrogens and 1 oxygen in a lab at such a price that it's profitable. ("You didn't make that" - which in this case is true)

Regardless, getting a drink of water should be a basic human right. Not a privilege you pay for.
Click to expand...

Hahahah! You guys have yourselves so turned around. Do you honestly think that public water is free?
 
jmotivator said:
Hahahah! You guys have yourselves so turned around. Do you honestly think that public water is free?
Click to expand...

It is significantly less costly than bottled water. It is supplied at no cost to people in most public buildings (ever have to pay for a water fountain?)

Doesn't the right to live come in to play here, or do you lose that after birth? Is that really the conservative position here? No right to life after birth? No right to water? What's next, no right to breathe?
 
Then use his pen. I don't see him ram rodding it through.
 
rocket88 said:
It is significantly less costly than bottled water. It is supplied at no cost to people in most public buildings (ever have to pay for a water fountain?)
Click to expand...

Nope. Even in public buildings they pay their water bill. They just pay the bill with your money. And I haven't seen a public water fountain I would want to drink out of in 30 years.

Doesn't the right to live come in to play here, or do you lose that after birth? Is that really the conservative position here? No right to life after birth? No right to water? What's next, no right to breathe?
Click to expand...

All this "free water" is being paid for. Do you assume that utility workers work for free? I mean seriously dude, you are smarter than your argument.
 
austrianecon said:
Ask T. Boone Pickens. He was buying up all the water rights in Texas when he was peddling his plan a few years ago.
Click to expand...
`
In Wisconsin at least, all the potable water is owned and controlled by "public utilities". The water isn't free per se, I mean you pay a water bill tax, but it is still very, very cheap here. I would be opposed to it becoming controlled by a for-profit business.
 
sangha said:
No drinking water?

Just another one of the many benefits the "free market" provides. I'm sure that private businesses will provide a solution.
Click to expand...

Actually the trillions of dollars Obama has spent since coming into office might have contributed to remedying problems like this but, despite those trillions, there has been nothing to show for it except ever increasing debt.
 
apdst said:
The water is safe. Its just been announced. The fear mongering and threats to socialize the private sector can stop now.
Click to expand...

I'm curious to see how many people will think "Hmmm, that could have been worse, maybe I should do something to make sure I'm not affected as much next time". Or more accurately, how many will just go back to Facebook and fantasy football and be caught completely off guard again next time.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Sewer systems in general, infrastructure. I bet 4 billion would go along way. Oh, wait. We need to spend 4 billion on the illegals.
Click to expand...

I dislike this argument. It's not like we have $4 billion burning a hole in our pockets, looking for the most beneficial place to be spent, it is that there is enough screaming and hand wringing, plus a healthy dose of the inability of most to understand or care how much money that really is, that it will be manufactured (borrowed) so that everybody feels better.
 
tech30528 said:
I'm curious to see how many people will think "Hmmm, that could have been worse, maybe I should do something to make sure I'm not affected as much next time". Or more accurately, how many will just go back to Facebook and fantasy football and be caught completely off guard again next time.
Click to expand...

That and will the city and state governments say, "we might want to look into an alternate water source, because we got lucky and next time we might not be so lucky".
 
apdst said:
That and will the city and state governments say, "we might want to look into an alternate water source, because we got lucky and next time we might not be so lucky".
Click to expand...

Here in the Los Angeles area, the Department of Water & Power is a monopoly that pays it's people more than any other agency. It also has the most lucrative benefits package, and it turns over it's orchestrated surpluses to the City of Los Angeles to the tune of $10's to $100's of millions every year.

Of course replacing 90 year old water mains like the one that burst near UCLA is not high on the priority list. This is government at work. Pay, and payoffs, are more important than the mission.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom