For some time now, a story has been circulating about how the voters of San Francisco will be asked whether to decide whether to name a local sewage plant after George W. Bush. The media coverage has been consistent: The story is considered to be a) funny and b) perfectly logical. Sewage is the lowest of the low, so it perfectly suits a president with some of the lowest approval rates in history. Don’t get me wrong. George W. Bush deserves disdain. But in my view, putting his name to a sewage works has the opposite effect. The flush toilet and wastewater system have saved millions of lives. Before sewers were put in in 19th century London, one toddler out of two died from shit-related diseases – cholera, dysentery, hepatitis – and afterwards most didn’t. Child mortality dropped by a fifth. So if I were George W., I’d be proud to have my name on a wastewater treatment plant. But he doesn’t deserve it; under his regime, wastewater funding has been cut. There will be a shortfall in funding over the next ten years if the next president doesn’t sort things out, and crumbling, overloaded sewers will be more crumbling and overloaded.
Not that it’s entirely Bush’s fault (for once): I read of one survey that found that taxpayers – in the UK, but I bet it translates – objected to a £5 increase in their water rates to pay for wastewater treatment improvements. That’s probably because they’re sick of reading about privatized water utilities posting large profits yet complaining they can’t afford proper upkeep. Even so, the fact that the average American family spends more on soft drinks – or pop, as we call it – than on wastewater treatment charges would suggest there’s some room for manoeuvre. Less pop. More activated sludge.