@BC, randomly picking you, but you seem to be in the know about random political things, current and historical :D.

@Manuel, if I remember, you are from Brazil, so in the hemisphere. Maybe you can speak to this.

Hey schopenhauer1. I am not from Brazil; I live in the Dominican Republic.

I do recall recently reading that Mexico City is not at all far from a severe water crisis. But I do not know much more than this.

I do recall recently reading that Mexico City is not at all far from a severe water crisis. But I do not know much more than this. — Manuel

Ah no problems. Not sure how I thought Brazil, sorry! Does the DR also have similar water problems.. if a tourist went there are they advised to drink out of bottles only, even for brushing teeth? If so, what is it that would prevent governments from doing an absolute overhaul.. I am not saying it's practical even, but rather, why wouldn't that be the ideal.. It seems like it's just a known thing that everyone puts up with. Again, I know the solution isn't easy, but I am talking the politics, ideals, and rhetoric surrounding it.. Like a "Space Race" for potable water.

I think that kind of depends on where you stay. We get lots of tourists going to the beach, if you stay at one of those resorts, the water would be good enough for teeth brushing, but not for drinking. For most other things, it usually safer to drink bottled water.

Last I heard, the capital here, Santo Domingo, will run out of water by 2050 if growth continues at the current pace, which is a lot. I suspect 2050 is kind of optimistic, honestly.

Not good in Brazil, nor in Mexico, nor here, nor in almost any place in the world. By the looks of it, the water crisis will be much exacerbated if nothing massive is done by governments.

Indeed, thanks for the response!
A couple things to note.. There are two things we are discussing, and they are a bit diferent:
1) The water shortage problem, and that affects almost every country, or at least parts of every country with significant resource strain, etc.

2) The water potability problem. This seems to affect certain countries. Latin America, as you mentioned is quite well-known for this, especially because they are widely visited by vacationers who are warned to bring bottled water, etc.

My question is more about 2- the potability problem. In the DR, if it is known that the water is not very safe to drink without gastrointestinal problems, due to high rates of microbes, why wouldn't there be a country-wide initiative by political factions/politicians to rehaul the whole system?

Now, before we get into the practicality of it, we must agree that ideals and reality can be different. For example, the ideal is for world peace, even if you maintain a functioning and well-trained army because the reality is that this isn't the case. So, why wouldn't there be MAJOR political drives for potable water, being that water is so essential to a healthy life?

Randomly responding.

I know almost nothing about Mexico City's water problems or politics, which is no obstacle for offering an opinion on the matter.

No city on earth has perfectly pure water pouring from its pipes. Why isn't everybody sick? Because the locals have developed tolerance for (at least some of) the bacteria, viruses, and other organisms that might be (probably are) in the water. A traveler from outside the US might become mildly ill from water in an American city.

Fresh water, without respect to its cleanliness, is becoming scarcer in many countries around the world, including the US. Why? Heavy use, for one. A lot of water is used for agriculture. Some industries use a lot of water, and water is wasted from leaking distribution pipes. Global warming is reducing the supply of fresh water in many parts of the world.

Were I traveling to Mexico City, I might bring some iodine tablets to drop into a pitcher of tap water for brushing and rinsing. For larger amounts of water, say 5 gallons, a little calcium hypochlorite would do the trick.

Why doesn't Mexico do something about the water?

Cost, for one. Fresh water, and its flip side--sewage--are expensive infrastructure to build, maintain, and operate. The cleaner the water and the better the sewage treatment, the higher the cost. About 9 million people live in Mexico City, so...

Efficient Effective and Persistent Effort are required to solve large urban infrastructure problems. Perhaps the 3 Es are somewhat lacking.

First World Countries suffer the water problems too. Up until the 1980s, the metropolitan Twin Cities area had combined storm and sanitary sewers. Fine during dry weather. When it rained a lot, the combined sewers overflowed into the Mississippi River--shit and all. States downstream -- particularly Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois found this annoying, and sued to force the cities to separate the sewers. It took a decade and a lot of digging, but the sewers were separated and water quality below the Twin Cities was improved.

Calculate how many toilets the water for New Orleans has passed through. Still, the water in NOLA is pretty clean.

Mexico will clean up their water as soon as they solve the cartel problem.

My question is more about 2- the potability problem. In the DR, if it is known that the water is not very safe to drink without gastrointestinal problems, due to high rates of microbes, why wouldn't there be a country-wide initiative by political factions/politicians to rehaul the whole system? — schopenhauer1

I assume that it isn't enough of an issue such that it merits being taken care of. If the current system works for now, then that's how they'll do it. I don't think it's a massive issue for most tourists, so if they don't complain en masse, then there is little incentive to do anything.

Keep in mind that many governments in these countries tend to be significantly more corrupt than developed countries (generally speaking) such that any public initiative actually taking off and working, is a semi-miracle.

In short, there is (currently) no incentive to worry about potable water. It will become an issue when it is too late.

All of this is speculation.

The water potability problem — schopenhauer1

I don't know. Why aren't people nice to each other?

Much of Africa, Latin America, and Asia have both water supply and potability problems. Solving these problems for rural and urban areas requires different kinds of solutions -- all involving a great deal of time, effort, and cash.

London started building its big sewer system starting around 1860. New York built its first aqueduct for drinking water around the same time. All that was just a start -- cities all over the world have to work on their water and sewer infrastructure all the time to keep it running,

Much of Africa, Latin America, and Asia have both water supply and potability problems. Solving these problems for rural and urban areas requires different kinds of solutions -- all involving a great deal of time, effort, and cash. — BC

Right, and I acknowledged the reality vs the ideal. But my question was why that wouldn’t it be priority number 1. Why isn’t there an Agua Potable party? It’s a measurable policy goal. It’s unifying. And it’s really important. Why wouldn’t that be THE major rhetoric in political aspirations?

Apparently, the problems aren't bad enough yet for enough of the people or the elites. And there are more seemingly immediate and pressing problems impacting large, mostly urban populations like crime, housing, unemployment, healthcare, etc than water scarcity & potability at the moment. Short-term reacting tends to be prioritized over near & long-term planning under the prevailing conditions of resource & fiscal scarcity especially, though not exclusively, in developing (non-G7) countries like Mexico. We're smug or negligent, chattering primates who amuse ourselves watching the proverbial frog slowly boil and still bet heavily (despite the data-trends) on "thoughts & prayers" to work that old magic. :sparkle:

Just my 2 pesos, señor..

Apparently, the problems aren't bad enough yet for enough of the people or the elites. And there are more seemingly immediate and pressing problems impacting large, mostly urban populations like crime, housing, unemployment, healthcare, etc than water scarcity & potability at the moment. Short-term reacting tends to be prioritized over near & long-term planning under the prevailing conditions of resource & fiscal scarcity especially, though not exclusively, in developing (non-G7) countries like Mexico. We're smug or negligent, chattering primates who amuse ourselves watching the proverbial frog slowly boil and still bet heavily (despite the data-trends) on "thoughts & prayers" to work that old magic. :sparkle:

Just my 2 pesos, señor.. — 180 Proof

Indeed. And I'm not going to say I know whether big infrastructure projects help or hurt the economy in developing countries, but I would imagine some of the problems you mention can be partially resolved (at least as the building projects happen) in building an improved national infrastructure for a water system with less bacteria, parasites, and amoebas that would be harmful to the population. Of course, all of this relies on large revenues and spending. There may be a case for some Keynsian demand-side deficit spending though. But again, wouldn't know the political economics of such large projects. I think of something like the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956 in the US or Trans-European Transport Networks (TEN-T) in Europe, or Chinese and Japanese bullet train rails, etc. But this large project would have more at stake and more important, because water is a basis for survival. Transportation is important, but not as important.

"Survival" of the many (re: clean water scarcity like accelerating climate change) isn't "as important" structurally to the few as ... "transportation". A million down to perhaps fifty thousand people provide more than enough robust, genetic diversity to withstand even acute man-made extinction pressures, so, as a species, we have a 7.999 billion surplus population as far as our elite movers & shakers (i.e. financier-fiscal planners) are likely concerned.

Mexico will clean up their water as soon as they solve the cartel problem. — BC

Not to be pessimistic, but I really doubt that.

Just like a lot of large cities here in Latin America, Mexico cities has grown without a lot of planning happening. Whole areas have been taken over by people moving in from the country to the cities, these areas are nearly always without permissions or environmental studies. Many of them are set up along river banks and most of them do not have running water, electricity nor sewage systems. They also tend to go up the sides of hills that have no other use
Many of the cities do not have anything more than the old sewage system from when it was a town, and there are lots that do not have even that but depend on septic tanks for each house.
Because of the rapid expansion of a lot of the cities over the past 50 or so years, many of the newer areas do not have even basic storm drain and those that do are usually just an open ditch alongside the road.

The cost of implementation of water, sewage and drainage systems for these cities would astronomical and far beyond the capability of many of the local authorities even with the support of central governments.

Thank you. This is the kind of response I was looking for. It looks like you are pretty familiar with the issues surrounding water. Do you know the reasons why politicians don’t even bring it up as a goal, even if it’s not 100% possible to provide clean water in all of Mexico? Why wouldn’t it be like something akin to a space race or something with lofty goals that maybe would take many years? It would also create jobs, I would imagine. Why would clean water not be a part of any comprehensive national infrastructure plan?

A similar phenomenon has been taking place around cities like Nairobi, Kenya. Kenyans who can no longer make a living as marginal farmers move to an urban center. The built-up and serviced city center isn't designed to absorb new populations. The rural-to-urban transferees put up whatever housing they can, all crowded together. There are, of course, no provisions for fresh water, sewer, paving, drainage, and so on. Why, one might ask, would anybody put up with this? Partly because they didn't have freshwater, sewer, paving, drainage, and so on where they came from, and there are more opportunities in Nairobi, even if one is living in an a very makeshift community.

I grew up in a house with one cold water tap. Hot water had to be heated on the stove. There was one wash bowl (a bowl, not a plumbing fixture), and one toilet for 7 people. No tub. No shower. Was this a great privation? Were we ridiculed at school? No, because more than a few rural families lacked an indoor toilet and had no indoor running water. Did they think it was terrible to live that way? No.

Would I be happy going back to a wash bowl and taking a bath in a galvanized tub with a skimpy amount of water? Of course not. But it's one's recent history that determines whether one is moving up in the world, or not.

But my question was why that wouldn’t it be priority number 1. — schopenhauer1

If you get a stone in your shoe, you will remove it right away because it is immediately too uncomfortable. If you can get water somewhere, even if it is inconvenient and maybe not all that clean, one will adapt. If all of the water--pure or putrid--is gone. dried up, one will pull up stakes. People will make many accommodations where putting up with third best is better than nothing.

Life is full of examples, and not trivial ones, of people adjusting to poor conditions--because despite their low quality and inconvenience, they are just passable enough.

People who are trying very hard to earn enough money for food, clothing, shelter, maybe school for their children, and so on, likely do not have a lot of energy left over at the end of the day, Being poor in a poor country is exhausting. Organizing for clean water, good schools, better control of the sewage in the street, better wages (or wages at all), and so on takes more energy than the people have left at the end of the day.

Clean water is something a good government can, should, ought, and must supply to its citizens with the least resources. Alas, many governments are pretty bad. The point is, heavy infrastructure takes top-down effort.

People who are trying very hard to earn enough money for food, clothing, shelter, maybe school for their children, and so on, likely do not have a lot of energy left over at the end of the day, Being poor in a poor country is exhausting. Organizing for clean water, good schools, better control of the sewage in the street, better wages (or wages at all), and so on takes more energy than the people have left at the end of the day.

Clean water is something a good government can, should, ought, and must supply to its citizens with the least resources. Alas, many governments are pretty bad. The point is, heavy infrastructure takes top-down effort. — BC

Agreed. But I wonder if much of the billions of dollars goes into Coca-Cola for their bottled water and services related to that, rather than maintain an adequate public water supply..

No doubt there are places in the US even that have questionable water.. smelly water in California perhaps, or hazardous water in Flint, or brown water in Mississippi, but usually not large amounts of contaminants in widespread areas. I believe it to be more the old pipes that need to be redone. Also, there seems to be more limestone and sandstone which provides less initial groundwater filtration before it gets to the pipes. Mix that together with poor drainage and sewage, it will all make for bad water. Of course, there are probably municipalities that have better supplies than others, maybe more pristine than some US areas, but that is not the norm I believe. Also, it is precisely because water is so decentralized that many things probably don't get done outside the people running the poor districts. It seems to be something though that you would think would be a good target for unifying a national policy. "Aqua Potable Para Todos!" or "Viva Aqua Potable!".

Agreed. But I wonder if much of the billions of dollars goes into Coca-Cola for their bottled water and services related to that, rather than maintain an adequate public water supply.. — schopenhauer1

Elko New Market, a small but growing Twin Cities (Minnesota) suburb in Scott County, uses about 125 million gallons of water a year. The City Council last year offered more than $3 million in subsidies to California-based Niagara Bottling, which sells bottled water to Walmart and Costco, to open a plant in Elko New Market. The company plans eventually to draw 310 million gallons of city water a year to bottle, ship and sell across the country.

.

I don't like it. First, $3 million in subsidy smells like a city council desperate to get some sort of development project going, We don't know how much Niagara Water will pay for the water, or how much the large scale pumping will disrupt the water quality for locals. We don't know how long Niagara's pumping can go on before the acquirer is depleted.

A gallon of water sold in wasteful and polluting small plastic bottles is worth much more to business that the ordinary uses the local people use the water for. So, the locals get screwed.

Hmm, seems to be suspicious. Interestingly, here’s a recent article about water shortage in Mexico and US-Mexican border. Doesn’t look good.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/17/climate/water-conflict-us-mexico-heat-drought/index.html

Do you know the reasons why politicians don’t even bring it up as a goal, even if it’s not 100% possible to provide clean water in all of Mexico? — schopenhauer1

Not exactly sure whether they do or not bring it up in Mexico, I live further south, but here it is now usually local authorities that are responsible for water and sewage. There used to be a national water service but it became unmanageable as so many towns and cities grow. So it is not really a national political issue any more except for rivers and reservoirs.

Why wouldn’t it be like something akin to a space race or something with lofty goals that maybe would take many years? — schopenhauer1

Politicians come and go every 5 years in Mexico, and spend most of their time trying to get through today to worry too much about tomorrow.
Yes they pass laws to try and control abuse of the land, forests and water, yes they have sanitation laws, and yes they all sorts of wonderful ideas about how things could be made better.
But what they don't have are the means and methods to enforce the laws. I don't have any figures for Mexico, but here there are about 250 police officers for every 100,000 people. As you can guess there is not a lot that they can do.

It would also create jobs, I would imagine. Why would clean water not be a part of any comprehensive national infrastructure plan? — schopenhauer1

Jobs like that cost money that is not available to the authorities whether local or national. People would have to pay more taxes to make the money available. Apart from there being a lot of informal labor that do not pay taxes, corruption also means that those that do, business and industries, find ways to pay less by arguing that the informal commercial section is taking away their business and profits.

And if you go into the rural areas then there is very little that can be done because there is little money available.

A similar phenomenon has been taking place around cities like Nairobi, Kenya. — BC

Yep, there are lots of places around the world that this has happened in. It is like a replay of the early industrial revolution in Europe, except that here they are not even modernizing the farms to produce more food.

I lived in a house with a kitchen sink and an outhouse with cold water only, but the rent was cheap. You got by or you got ahead and moved up to something better.
Individuals have that opportunity, towns, cities and countries don't really.

It's good to bring these issues to the fore, not because we hand-wringing Cassandras need more reason for anxious predictions of doom, but because they are the facts of life and death.

The Southwest Quarter of the US and a Northern Quarter of Mexico have been (as far as I know) dry lands for many centuries. Not perpetually bone-dry, but rarely generously wet. As a result, population levels in these areas have always been appropriately low to match the carrying capacity of the land. The balance began to tip in the 19th century, with the westward expansion of the US. Major imbalance between water demand and water supply got going in the 20th century, as a result of population growth in the whole region.

The people and industries (factories and farms) that operate in this area have become water-debtors, and they are in deep and deepening debt. Just for example, the unsustainable city of Phoenix, AZ (pop. 1.6 million) operates a power plant solely to run the pumps that suck up water from the Colorado River and lift it over the mountains. California, Nevada, Arizona, Mexico, et al have claims on the Colorado that exceed conceivable supply.

The point is, there are no easy, cheap, convenient, or pleasant solutions to the shortfall of water supply, short of people, agriculture, and industry leaving for somewhere else (don't ask me where they should go).

This is a global problem, brought on by growing populations conflicting with climate change--8,000,000,000+ vs 1.5º+. Rain is becoming even more unpredictable than it has always been, between being the extremes of absence and falling in crop-wrecking, infrastructure-ruining, people-killing deluges.

There are problems too large to be managed into submission. My own Cassandra Prophecy is that global warming will create more and varied problems which will be insurmountable in many places.

Priorities? Certainly, some problems are more important than other problems, but those with the most resources in reserve are going to decide what problems are dealt with first. For many problems, help is NOT on the way.

Individuals have that opportunity, towns, cities and countries don't really. — Sir2u

Exactly.

Not quite comparable, but might otherwise be informative:

On Jun 5, a critical piece of water supply infrastructure broke in the Canadian city of Calgary (pop 1.3m).
On Jun 15, a local emergency was declared.
So far, it seems like residents are fairly good at cutting down water usage, following statements by city officials, though moving into warmer days and fixing the problems taking time.