Quantcast

Comments about ‘Utah facing $1.2 billion-dollar water pollution problem’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, May 17 2013 5:00 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
DN Subscriber
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Another unfunded mandate, to "fix" problems with marginal impact on public safety.

Perhaps nice to pursue if we had unlimited funds, but we do not.

Elections have consequences. Sometimes very bad consequences. This is far from the worst.

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

It is good to see Utah taking proactive measures. Fixing a problem is always much more costly then preventing one. I would much rather spend 10 cents today to not pay a dollar later.

Ted
Saint George, UT

The EPA, IRS, Obamacare and other federal agencies are inventing ways to financially force us out of existence. How did it get tot his point??? Or is self destruction inevitable with all so-called intelligent societies?

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

We're so selfish and frothing at the mouth mad at government we'll poison ourselves to prevent government from saving us. Nice.

pmaier
Stansbury, UT

Pity if not published
EPA never implemented the Clean Water Act, because it used an essential test incorrect and not only ignored 60% of the oxygen exerting pollution in sewage, but also all the nitrogenous (urine and protein) waste, while this waste, besides exerting an oxygen demand also is a fertilizer for algae and for each pound will stimulate the growth of about 20 pound of algae, which, when it dies will exert an oxygen demand, thus contributing to the dead zones now experiencing in most open waters.
Utah State's Science Council (Major Becker was a member)in 1984 unanimously recommended that this test be corrected, but was rejected by the governor.. Only Salt Lake Councilman Mabey insisted that the city would test correctly and one day correct testing showed that the 120 million dollar expansion was not necessary and the city saved millions. Every attempt to correct this test after 1984 failed and now the State finally, although aware of since 1982, acknowledges that nitrogenous waste is causing a problem. So much for protecting our environment, but kudos for protecting the egos of those in charge of water pollution and all that because of an incorrect applied test.

peterM
Stansbury, UT

EPA never implemented the Clean Water Act, because it used an essential test incorrect and not only ignored 60% of the oxygen exerting pollution in sewage, but also all the nitrogenous (urine and protein) waste, while this waste, besides exerting an oxygen demand also is a fertilizer for algae and for each pound will stimulate the growth of about 20 pound of algae, which, when it dies will exert an oxygen demand, thus contributing to the dead zones now experiencing in most open waters.
Utah State's Science Council (Major Becker was a member)in 1984 unanimously recommended that this test be corrected, but was rejected by the governor.. Only Salt Lake Councilman Mabey insisted that the city would test correctly and one day correct testing showed that the 120 million dollar expansion was not necessary and the city saved millions. Every attempt to correct this test after 1984 failed and now the State finally, although aware of since 1982, acknowledges that nitrogenous waste is causing a problem. So much for protecting our environment, but kudos for protecting the egos of those in charge of water pollution and all that because of an incorrect applied test.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

"Pollution? What pollution?" -- Utah Legislature

one old man
Ogden, UT

It's okay. We'll soon run out of water anyway. Remember, we're in the last days aren't we?

  • 8:26 p.m. May 18, 2013
  • Like (1)
  • Top comment
Reasonable Person
Layton, UT

One Old Man --

If we're not in the Last Days, we're sure trying to make 'em come true.

one old man
Ogden, UT

Agreed, Reasonable Person. Doing a good job of it, too, aren't we?

The Lord will be saved a lot of work if He just stands back and lets us humans keep doing what we're doing.

Johnny Triumph
American Fork, UT

So can Utah Lake be rid of Carp then too?

Dr. M.
Provo, UT

The nutrient issue has little to do with disease and filth, but rather is primarily to do with recreation and aesthetics. Most natural waters in Utah below alpine lakes are naturally moderately high to very high in nutrients and biologically are very productive. By the time water reaches our basin valleys where most of the wastewater is generated and discharged, most waters naturally have more nutrients in them than aquatic plants (mainly algae) can use. Therefore adding more nutrients or taking some away has little to no effect on plant growth and water quality--other non-nutrient factors are, in fact, usually controlling the growth. This means that in many cases nutrient removal will have very small benefits, but the costs are astronomical (the $450 million in the first round is probably seriously under-estimated, as well) A prime example is Utah Lake--It is naturally very productive (eutrophic), and after subtracting all of the nutrients contributed by human-caused effluents and nonpoint sources would still have more than enough nutrients to make it eutrophic--like it naturally is. This whole nutrient issue needs to be reconsidered--and then be based on science, not ideology.

Dr. M.
Provo, UT

Re: PeterM--
The State has not made very clear just why they want to remove nitrogen--I don't think it is to reduce the oxygen demand, but rather their desire is largely linked to possible reduction of algae growth. But in my opinion this line of reasoning is seriously flawed--phosphorus and nitrogen removal will have very limited, if any, water quality benefits along the Wasatch front since the Jordan River, the marshlands and the Great Salt Lake are nearly all naturally nutrient rich. This means that even if all of nutrients added by human activities were removed it would not likely significantly reduce algae and other aquatic plant growth. Hopefully more and more people (and leaders) will recognize that the nutrient issue needs to have an illuminating spotlight turned on it, to ensure that the $100s of millions are not spent unless water quality benefits gained will be at least of the same order of magnitude as the costs--I think benefits (better water quality) are rather puny in most cases..

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments