Slashdot Mirror


As Cape Town Runs Out of Water, Here's a Look at Parts of Mexico City That Have Been Without Water For a Year (buzzfeed.com)

In some places, taps have been dry for over a year. People bathe their children with bottled water. A group of women has taken over water distribution from the city authorities. The future feared by millions of people across the world has already arrived in Mexico City , BuzzFeed News reports. From the report: In certain areas, people say taps go dry for months. Angry civilians have blocked off highways and squared off with riot police, wresting control of water distribution from the government. "Crime affects us deeply but if you don't have water, you can't do anything," said Marisol Fierro, part of a group of women in charge of delivering water to neighbors. Across the ocean, authorities in South Africa talk about Day Zero, when Cape Town is set to run out of water and the city is forced to shut off its taps. It has made headlines around the world, as people watch on with bated breath. But here in Iztapalapa, a sprawling, drab Mexico City borough where nearly 2 million people live, that day has already arrived, offering a window into what the future may hold for millions of people when the taps run dry. Police officers are sometimes forced to guard water trucks, popular targets for kidnappers who sell their contents for hefty prices. In other cities, politicians might promise expanded broadband, better health care, or higher wages to win votes, but in Mexico City, mayoral hopefuls have made simple access to water central to their campaigns. Reserved and quiet, Emma Pantaleon seems an unlikely protagonist at the front lines of this daily battle. Pantaleon joins Fierro and other women -- housewives who juggle child-rearing, house chores, and part-time jobs -- gathering water requests from their neighbors, coordinating trucks' routes with local authorities, and riding along to ensure the operation runs smoothly.

On a recent morning, she sat in the passenger seat of a water tanker as it revved its motor up a hill, dwarfing the dilapidated single-room houses along its path. When the driver swerved left and stepped on the brake, Pantaleon leaped out. It was a scene straight out of Mad Max: Fury Road. Pantaleon, 41, walked over to the nearest cinder block house and called out to its owner. As soon as Catalina Cortez opened the door, the driver and a helper marched in, pulling the truck's hose straight up to a plastic water storage tank taking up a third of the patio.

93 comments

  1. typo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    typo in story: "bated" breathe = "baited" breath

    1. Re:typo by FrankSchwab · · Score: 1

      Incorrect, bucko, "bated" is correct.

      There is an editing mistake, though, in that the "on with" should just be "with".

      --
      And the worms ate into his brain.
    2. Re:typo by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      It's clever how your phrasing is ambiguous as to which one of the two options you consider to be the right collocation.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re: typo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mostly uninhabited != uninhabited, and additionally, the settlers coming to the USA would have also seen a mostly uninhabited land along the same lines as SA per square mile, so.... ok.

    4. Re: typo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^This dolt has never heard of Pizarro.

    5. Re: typo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only because 90% of the native new England population had been killed by a plague when the english settlers came... Caused by contact with European visitors over the previous century.

    6. Re: typo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, being mostly migratorial societies, there just weren't many natives here. For many decades the locals lived peacefully with the new comers. It wasn't until later on during expansions, resource mining, and an understanding of white people "ownership" of nature's property that a lot of conflict/mass murder happened.

    7. Re: typo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many, if not the majority, of native Americans did not live migratory lifestyles when Europeans arrived, especially not in the North East of what is now the USA.

    8. Re:typo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not confusing, since he claimed that there was a typo. It's not a typo if it was already correct.

  2. Uh...uphill both ways? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Something doesn't add up here:

    On average, each person in Mexico City uses up 320 liters of water per day; in Iztapalapa, that number goes down to 235. Macedo, who says she watches the news all day and has several family members in the US, including some DREAMers, is acutely aware of the injustice.

    My country uses uses about 90 liters of water per citizen per day. So basically, in the place in question, they're using 2.6 times as much water as we do. And we happen to pay around $4 USD per cubic meter (despite having no shortage of it and being upstream from all our neigbours), yet they (in a subtropical region) insist on "[delivering] water ... free of charge". I think I may see a problem here...

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
    1. Re:Uh...uphill both ways? by PPH · · Score: 3, Insightful

      in Iztapalapa, that number goes down to 235

      And it's being delivered by trucks. So it means that they have the water (somewhere). It's just their distribution system that has broken down. I'm guessing that the truck solution is less economical than decent pipes. They just can't float the necessary financing in one chunk without the funds disappearing into various pockets.

      Time to send in the army, line up a few crooked politicians against a wall who are diverting maintenance funds and shoot them. Or if the army won't do it, maybe Sinaloa will.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Uh...uphill both ways? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it was originally "per family/household" and not "per person". The numbers only make sense if 4-5 people are using water.

    3. Re:Uh...uphill both ways? by maglor_83 · · Score: 1

      Yep, a few years ago Melbourne's reservoirs were running low, so the water company created a 'Target 155' (litres per person per day) campaign. I'm at a bit of a loss as to how people could use that much in the first place.

    4. Re: Uh...uphill both ways? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is no water shortage in Mexico. This water delivery by truck system happens all over Mexico. They charge for this service and has become a lucrative business. This is just pure corruption and greed to the absolute extreme, including the poor being greedy.

    5. Re:Uh...uphill both ways? by Xolotl · · Score: 1

      I think that also includes industrial usage as well as domestic usage, with the total averaged over the population. Mexico City has also long been a poster child for mismanagement and waste of water resources (something like 40% is lost to leaks, and they don't use rooftop collection systems (they actally have flooding when it rains heavily, because the water isn't collected) and so on ...).

      mexico city water crisis

      mexico water shortage

    6. Re: Uh...uphill both ways? by aberglas · · Score: 1

      In Mexico, when the army comes in, they line the few honest politicians against the wall and then steal the trucks.

      And why wouldn't they? They have the guns.

      The system in places like Mexico makes perfect sense to me. Everyone looking after their own interests. What amazes me is that things work so well in the west. It is a deeply embedded cultural notion to "do the right thing". Very odd.

    7. Re:Uh...uphill both ways? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time to send in the army, line up a few crooked politicians against a wall who are diverting maintenance funds and shoot them. Or if the army won't do it, maybe Sinaloa will.

      Problems with this:

      1) We're talking about Mexico. There would be no politicians left.

      2) Who then gets rid of the army?

    8. Re:Uh...uphill both ways? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use more than that just having a nice hot shower in the morning. And why not if I'm paying for it? Feels good to not live in a 3rd world shithole.

    9. Re:Uh...uphill both ways? by gwolf · · Score: 5, Informative

      Mexico City inhabitant here.
      The water that is delivered to our city comes partly from underground deposits, but mostly from a river system ~400Km away. The problem with Iztapalapa and similar regions is that our city is sinking - We are actually built on top of a lake. Seismic movements, natural mud compaction, and related issues can lead to pipes getting crushed and water distribution being inefficient.
      Of course, a point to be considered is that Iztapalapa was never planned - Most of it was quite hastily populated, following a series of crisis we had in the 1980s (countryside impoverishment, a big earthquake displacing many people from the center of our city). It is the poorest borough in the city, and rather than planification, it has slowly seen consolidation. So, many parts of it plainly never had any water pipes, because they never had an authorization for building.
      Should be noted - Ours is not such a lost, third-world, depressed city as some points make it sound like. It is a very depressed region, in a relatively rich and lively (and _huge_) city.

    10. Re: Uh...uphill both ways? by gwolf · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry - your participation here sounds as nonsensical as could be expected from a 2nd-amendtist.

    11. Re:Uh...uphill both ways? by gwolf · · Score: 1

      I guess you are also a local, based on your alias.

      Rooftop collection systems are basically of very little use, as we have a long (~6mo) rainy season, during which there is little point in storing water (try storing it for months, you won't want to drink it ever, besides, good luck finding where to put it!), and a long (~6mo, of course) dry season, that's when the poorer regions of the city face the worst droughts. Rooftop collection can be useful, but only for a handful of use cases.

    12. Re: Uh...uphill both ways? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Problems with this:

      1) We're talking about Mexico. There would be no politicians left.

      2) Who then gets rid of the army?

      The armed citizens exercising their second amendment ri ...

      Never mind.

      Maybe the cartels?

    13. Re: Uh...uphill both ways? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Melbourne is third world?

    14. Re:Uh...uphill both ways? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Supply and demand will sort it out. Once a gallon costs 10 bucks you, too, can live on less than 10 gallons a day.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:Uh...uphill both ways? by ZorroXXX · · Score: 1

      I am not at all doubting that there is mismanagement, but I just want to comment on the 40% lost to leak because that sounds like a quite normal number for leakage. Here in Norway many places are worse than that, and upon searching for some reference while writing this answer I see than worst in class is actually as bad as 73%.

      --
      When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").
    16. Re:Uh...uphill both ways? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Supply and demand will sort it out. Once a gallon costs 10 bucks you, too, can live on less than 10 gallons a day.

      Once a gallon costs 10 bucks, the poor will live on less than a gallon a day, have poor sanitation, worse diets as they can't cook for themselves and eat cheap fast food, disease, etc... whereas the rich live on pretty much the same as they always have.

      Water is one of the essentials of life; it's not something you can just allow the rich to have.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    17. Re:Uh...uphill both ways? by PPH · · Score: 1

      So it's an infrastructure problem, not a water shortage per se. It's just that the population growth got out ahead of the utility system.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    18. Re:Uh...uphill both ways? by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      Subsistence gardens?

    19. Re:Uh...uphill both ways? by Xolotl · · Score: 1

      Pilot miicroscale rainwater collection has been tried and seems to be successful:

      capturing rain could save Mexico City from a water crisis

      even if it only reduces the load on the tankers and pipes that would help, besides in the wet season it could be used to refill reservoirs rather than being run off into the river.

    20. Re:Uh...uphill both ways? by Xolotl · · Score: 1

      75% is extremely high, these are some numbers for various EU countries:

      from this study. The data are a little old, but only two counties in that list haave over 40% and most have far less.

      is water metered in Norway?

    21. Re:Uh...uphill both ways? by Xolotl · · Score: 1

      Typo, meant 73% of course.

    22. Re:Uh...uphill both ways? by ZorroXXX · · Score: 1

      Yes, 73% is extremely high, but water is a plentiful resource here in Norway so wasting it is less of a problem here compared to other countries. Water is only partially metered. Most commonly the consumption is estimated based on the size of the house, but you can opt in to pay for the actual consumption. I cannot promise that absolutely no places have mandatory metering, but that would be very uncommon. At least for housholds, I think maybe companies have to pay for actually usage more commonly.

      --
      When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").
    23. Re:Uh...uphill both ways? by Xolotl · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I ddin't think Norway had a water problem :) Thanks for the answer!

  3. There's plenty of water, and food by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All our problems are self made through greed, pride, obstruction, etc, etc, etc... It's pure politics all the way down. So, let's not hear all this bullshit about how we have to make sacrifices. Let's turn off the taps in New York's financial district first.

  4. So trump was right? by iamhassi · · Score: 0

    So trump was right when he said some of these countries are shithole countries?

    --
    my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    1. Re:So trump was right? by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Informative

      _Everybody_ knows they're shitholes, not even in dispute. Politicians are supposed to be more diplomatic.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:So trump was right? by bobbutts · · Score: 2

      Additionally insulting was that many of the countries are shitholes directly because of previous US policy and action.

    3. Re: So trump was right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For such an amazing patriot you're fucking ignorant about your nations history. But then ignorance and patriotism usually go hand in hand.

    4. Re: So trump was right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your dead wrong. It's nationalism and racism that go hand in hand. Patriotism is just the word that racist nationalists say they have.

    5. Re:So trump was right? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Trump's not a politician. He's never held elected office in his life and after leaving office never will again. Contrast to Obama or Hillary or Bernie Sanders, people who never had straight jobs in their lives.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    6. Re:So trump was right? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      So Trump made those people sabotage their own water system? And then steal the money meant for repairs? Seriously, you're actually going with the "blame the foreigners" narrative? Shithole countries are shitholes because of the people who live there. When they move, they don't change, they bring the shithole with them.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    7. Re:So trump was right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      He never said any such thing in public. He allegedly said it behind closed doors while trying to hammer out a compromise that would save the DACA people from possible deportation. Unfortunately Dick Durbin (D) decided it would be better to throw a hand grenade into the talks to score some political points for his party.

    8. Re:So trump was right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stupid logic. "Person X wasn't a politician until he was and he won't be a politician after he isn't anymore, so therefore he's not a politician!" Congratulations you've just described everybody who has ever held office.

      Also, note that Obama and Hillary were both lawyers for years before they were politicians among other things they did. Both will likely never hold office again, so I guess by your brilliant logic they were never politicians in the first place.

    9. Re:So trump was right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Obama and Hillary were both lawyers for years before they were politicians among other things they did. Both will likely never hold office again, so I guess by your brilliant logic they were never politicians in the first place.

      Yes, Hillary was a lawyer who worked on the file of a failed Savings and Loan (which in failed in part due to fraudulent practices), and whose billing records disappeared until just after the statute of limitations expired (and were found in the Clinton Whitehouse in 1996).

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madison_Guaranty

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/timeline2.htm

      ... Both will likely never hold office again, so I guess by your brilliant logic they were never politicians in the first place.

      You say this like it is a bad thing?

    10. Re:So trump was right? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Trump's not a politician. He's never held elected office in his life and after leaving office never will again. Contrast to Obama or Hillary or Bernie Sanders, people who never had straight jobs in their lives.

      Trump might not be a politician, but the average Joe off the street has more common sense and diplomacy than Donald Trump. Most of the time that Trump says something bad and sticks his foot in his mouth (even if the press read into it more than he meant), it's the kind of thing 95% of people would know is a stupid thing to say in front of a microphone.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    11. Re:So trump was right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Politicians are supposed to be more diplomatic.

      Being diplomatic hasn't improved anything. Sometimes what's needed is to stop sugar coating things and tell it how it is. If patience and coddling hasn't helped then perhaps a world-wide shaming will kick their butts into gear.

      I'm not arguing that Trump isn't a doofus and an asshole. I'm just saying that I don't really see the point of being "diplomatic" about how bad certain shithole countries are. What are they going to do about it? The shitholes can't even feed their people and deliver water aparently so it's not like they're going to come bomb us or anything. And if they feel ashamed enough to actually improve their countries then it seems to me like being "undiplomatic" caused a good outcome.

    12. Re:So trump was right? by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Trump's not a politician. He's never held elected office in his life and after leaving office never will again. Contrast to Obama or Hillary or Bernie Sanders, people who never had straight jobs in their lives.

      What do you mean by "straight job"? The only boss Trump has ever had was his dad who regularly bailed him out.
      He's done a great job of filling out a suit and promoting himself on TV. He talks about all the great buildings he's built but most were built by other people and Trump likely doesn't know the 1st thing about how to truly construct a building.
      Years ago, I worked for a millionaire who did construction & home renos and looked good in a suit - but he knew most of the trades to a high level of expertise and was a good draughtsman. Trump can barely scratch out a legible signature.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    13. Re:So trump was right? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Politicians are supposed to be more diplomatic

      Like it or not, being politically incorrect is one of the primary reasons that he's in office, and why he got ~$2B in free media. Many (myself included, though I did not vote for him) are sick and tired of being told what we can and can not say without some snowflake with a chip on their shoulder taking offense when we had no intention of offending them.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  5. Really Makes You Think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next time you flush your toilet, just remember how blessed you are. That's fresh water that some would fight for that you are flushing.

    1. Re:Really Makes You Think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad my turds get to go down the water slide within my home, to the city's even bigger water slide.

    2. Re:Really Makes You Think by sabri · · Score: 1

      just remember how blessed you are

      You mean: "just remember that I chose live in an area that has sufficient resources".

      I'm surprised Dubai hasn't run out of water yet.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    3. Re:Really Makes You Think by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      It gets collected from the toilets, treated in a plant, and is then ejected back into the river that Germans drink from. ;)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:Really Makes You Think by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      they don't want to pay for it.

      really the news isn't about water running out, it's about their infrastructure failing.

      due to corruption and not getting along mostly.

      I can't drink tap water where I live now, but in my native country sure, yeah. the reason is that the locals don't bother with making the water delivery network good enough because this is cheaper. of course then they have to truck around shitloads of drinking water...

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  6. Mismatch in rainfall by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

    The article claims 16-21' of rain/year and other sources I googled indicated 12 inches. If they really get 16' of rain per year I don't see them having problems. If 12" is correct, I see how they are going to have huge problems.

    1. Re:Mismatch in rainfall by gwolf · · Score: 1

      The figure I have is ~600mm a year, and that's quite a lot. However, the distribution is quite far from homogeneous. Six months of daily rains, sometimes very heavy. Six months of draught. It can be worked with, in the regions of the city that have the infrastructure. The region in question for this article was built hastily and irregularly, so it doesn't.

    2. Re:Mismatch in rainfall by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      The article claims 16-21' of rain/year and other sources I googled indicated 12 inches.

      Their legacy remains, hewn into the living rock ... of stonehenge.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  7. Re:The Pendulum Swings for South Africa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just racist. You are implying that blacks canâ(TM)t run a successful country. Hopefully the mods ban you.

  8. Rights by JBMcB · · Score: 0

    Everyone has the right to water. Everyone does *not* have the *right* to have water pumped, purified, then transported to wherever they wish to live. Someone has to pay for that. The people who should pay are those who use it.

    If there is no more water to be had in a particular area, and nobody wants to pay to get water delivered there, then you're going to have to move somewhere there is water.

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
  9. Water shortage is not the problem by Solandri · · Score: 1
    On average, 107,000 cubic kilometers of precipitation falls on land every year.

    Approximately 505,000 cubic kilometres (121,000 cu mi) of water falls as precipitation each year; 398,000 cubic kilometres (95,000 cu mi) of it over the oceans.

    With a population of 7.6 billion, that's 14 million liters per person per year (38,000 liters per person per day) of fresh water literally falling from the skies.

    Water shortages are not the problem. They're a symptom. Find out what's preventing these people from moving to an area where water (and presumably other services) are more readily available, or preventing readily available water from being made available for consumption. That will be your problem.

    1. Re:Water shortage is not the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your solution is the same as Trump's so you should change your position if you agree with his kind. He is always wrong.

      He talked about supporting forcing people to move out of Mexico City. That is what Hitler did to the Jews. He put them in ghettos to concentrate them so they could control them. Trump is talking about forcing Hitler-style ghettos in Mexico. That's how his kind be.

    2. Re: Water shortage is not the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By your logic, if there is insufficient rainfall in Mexico, but sufficient in, say, Wisconsin, Mexicans should move to Wisconsin.

  10. Irony of history by tie_guy_matt · · Score: 1

    Ironically, when the ancient Aztecs first populated the area that would become modern day Mexico City they had to deal with the fact that the only land there was a small marshy island in the middle of a giant lake. The Mexican flag features an eagle eating a snake. Legend has it that when they saw this bird eating a snake that it was a sign from the gods to found a city there. So they had to invent ways of cultivating crops while they were floating on water. Now the people in this city are running out of water to drink.

    1. Re:Irony of history by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      Modern-day Mexico City occupies quite a bit more land area than the site of that small, formerly-marshy island, the same way modern-day "Los Angeles" is unfathomably larger than the Spanish-Mexican settlement of "El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles de Porciúncula". As others have noted, the problem isn't that Mexico or Mexico City lacks water, the problem is inadequately-sized (or maintained) infrastructure.

      In Mexico City's defense... it's not always a matter of poverty or corruption, either. Water and sewer mains tend to get built beneath roads... roads that often grow into 6-8 lane divided highways by the time the original mains need to be replaced and upgraded. One does not simply close a major arterial highway for a year and a half without MAJOR political repercussions, because the life of everyone who lives nearby is going to SUCK MISERABLY for months... maybe years.

      Complicating the equation even more, the direct beneficiaries of that reconstruction usually live quite some distance away from the area where the most disruptive construction is required (as the city sprawls into new areas, new water & sewer mains get built with abundant capacity to absorb future expected growth... but ultimately feed from (or dump into) the same older mains through the city's original neighborhoods that are the ones that will need large-scale reconstruction).

      Water & sewer mains aren't cool or sexy, but they're essential municipal infrastructure that costs an ENORMOUS amount of money, and takes DECADES to plan, fund, and build. In most cases, by the time a city or county realizes it has a problem, it's ALREADY way too late to do anything about it before the problem becomes even worse.

      As someone mentioned earlier, the neighborhood in question is one that experienced unanticipated explosive growth that completely outstripped earlier city planning efforts. In this case, it was due to earthquakes... after a major disaster in a big city ANYWHERE, it's common to see a HUGE surge of new construction in nearby "greenfield" areas, because it's a lot faster (and cheaper) to build vast tracts of new homes on virgin land than it is to try "redeveloping in place". Redevelopment of existing neighborhoods is expensive and slow to begin with, and doing it in destroyed neighborhoods after a disaster is even worse. Let's suppose Developer #1 decides to rebuild a destroyed neighborhood, while developers #2-10 quickly build sprawling new suburbia across formerly-rural greenfield. By the time developer #1 finishes his first new homes, the market will be hopelessly saturated with a glut of new, cheaper homes built by the other 9 developers. Most of the time, the first new homes built on the greenfield sites will be ready to sell before the developer rebuilding the old area even manages to get the destroyed area cleared and READY to build on.

  11. Re: News for nerds by iggymanz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Actually they get plenty of water, rains in buckets, but being it's a third world shithole they don't store it.

  12. some straitforward advice by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    If it's yellow let it mellow, if it's brown flush it down. (that's what we had to do during drought conditions)

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  13. No water shortage by manu0601 · · Score: 2

    It there is a truck full of water, that means there is no water shortage, but rather a problem with water distribution network

    The pipes needs to be maintained. One common problem when private companies are in charge is that they take the money to make profits and forget to maintain the network. Is that what happened in Mexico City?

    1. Re:No water shortage by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, the Federal government is in charge of regulating and managing water and the municipal government is in charge of distributing water. So this is normal self-serving corrupt government bureaucrats and politicians, as usual. If they had private companies in charge of it, the water would actually get delivered. It's not the government supplying the clean bottled water which keeps many of these affected people alive.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    2. Re: No water shortage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do know that Mexico is selling off the fucking arterial basin to private enterprise? I'm sure that will solve everything.

    3. Re:No water shortage by gwolf · · Score: 2

      Just the opposite. The issue with Iztapalapa is the region got inhabited with no planning nor authorization following a series of crises in the 1980s; there was never planning for two million people to go live in that borough, that 30 years ago was still mostly agricultural. Water pipes weren't laid before people built their houses (in some places, they haven't been set up as of yet).
      Our local government has a quite decent, given the comparison, infrastructure system in most of the city. I live in a middle-class neighborhood, and have no problems drinking tap water; we have had some shortages in the last few years, but the situation is absolutely different from Iztapalapa's.
      Cities that have turned the water distribution to private companies are in a much, much worse mess. Bringing the water to people should not follow economic incentives. It should basically just follow the needs of the population.
      Yes, Iztapalapa badly needs their water distribution system to be set up. And then, fixed where it exists and is broken. But we don't need private companies managing it.

    4. Re:No water shortage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you will add up the bribes you will pay to get "your" water from the government you will realize it would have been much cheaper to have it bought from some private company. Been there, done that

  14. Here is the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "People bathe their children with bottled water"
    Children as in plural , stop having so many and resources go further. In a sense it is literally a problem of your own creation.

    1. Re: Here is the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah... that's not how it's worked in the history of man kind. Those with fewer children eventually died out. But If you believe this is the right course of action, then please kill yourself and save us the wait.

  15. Human infestation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, keep breeding. Then seek refuge in countries that still have resources. And then continue breeding.
    Let's kill this planet.

  16. Re: News for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Capetown does not qualify as "third world". What we are really seeing here is a "tip of the iceberg" phenomenon, caused by political conservatives who refuse to believe that the world is overpopulated, and refuse to believe that water pollution must be stopped, and refuse to believe that air pollution must be stopped, and refuse to believe in Global Warming.
    Perhaps I should remind them that when the "ozone hole" was discovered, even though political conservatives pooh-poohed it, action was taken and the production of chlorocarbons was drastically reduced. Well, it just so happens that if we think about the magnitude of chlorocarbons that affected the atmosphere and caused the ozone hole (which, by the way, is now shrinking), and compare it to the magnitude of carbon dioxide that has been dumped into the atmosphere -- the latter out-masses the former by HALF-A-MILLION TIMES . Anyone claiming that all that CO2 has no effect on the atmosphere is an idiot, period.

  17. Re: News for nerds by buchanmilne · · Score: 5, Informative

    Cumulative rainfall in Cape Town for the past 3 years (2015, 2016, 2017) is below the 20th percentile of the past 40 years, see http://www.csag.uct.ac.za/curr...

    As a result, the dams haven't been able to recover during the winter as they usually do, you can explore the details here: http://niwis.dws.gov.za/niwis2...

    The national government (run by the ANC which is largely seen to be corrupt, including the Dept of Water and Sanitatiom which over-spends their budget and has high levels of irregulat expenditure) has however not been cooperative with the provincial government and City of Caoe Town (both run by the DA, which has been highly critical of the corruption in the ANC).

    National government has built desalination plants in ANC-run cities that are less affected by the drought (e.g. Richard's Bay), but in Cape Town, the city has even had to foot the bill for the only major dam to be constructed in the Western Cape in the past 20 years (the Berg River dam).

  18. Re: News for nerds by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    Well, it just so happens that if we think about the magnitude of chlorocarbons that affected the atmosphere and caused the ozone hole (which, by the way, is now shrinking), and compare it to the magnitude of carbon dioxide that has been dumped into the atmosphere -- the latter out-masses the former by HALF-A-MILLION TIMES .

    That comparison is one of the greatest examples of dumbassery I've seen in a long time. The quantity difference is irrelevant if the effect size per unit is vastly different. Sugar and cyanide might both be bad for you but you can tolerate a fuck of a lot more sugar than cyanide.

  19. Re: News for nerds by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Actually they get plenty of water, rains in buckets, but being it's a third world shithole they don't store it.

    Store it where? There are plenty of first world cities that get massively caught out by drought just the same way as Cape Town did. Most cities have not changed the way they collect and store water in the past 20 years. Major dam and infrastructure projects can take that long to actually get completed. The problem can be somewhat offset by individuals who don't have such as long process to go through, but then everyone with enough money in Cape Town already has a water tank in their back yard.

    We can look forward to various outbreaks of disease and illness when it comes time for these people to actually drink it though.

  20. Re: News for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're a trumpdiot.

  21. Re: News for nerds by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

    Compared to population growth,dysgenics, poor governance and fossil water depletion, temperature increases aren't even a drop in the pond.

    See for yourself :
    http://sdwebx.worldbank.org/cl...

    Rainfall hardly budged from the beginning of last century.

  22. Re: News for nerds by fezzzz · · Score: 1

    My family's down to 20 liters per person per day with a sub-R1000 grey water system. We re-use the washing machine's water by catching it in a 210 liter drum. We then add some swimming pool chlorine for decontamination and bought a secondhand washing machine pump to pump it into the toilet with our unused garden hose. The washing machine's water is now also a third as the first rinse's water is used for the second load's wash and the second rinse's water is used for the second load's first rinse. If we can make is slighly neater, we'll keep the system in pace after the drought.

  23. Re: News for nerds by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    But your first world places have reservoirs, and some like California have new programs to store floodwater to lessen dependence on aquifers since that's a known issue in coming decades (solution is purely engineering problem).

    Filtering water from lakes and reservoirs to excellent quality is a long solved problem, plenty of huge cities have that as norm

  24. Re: News for nerds by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

    That's a cool setup! So efficient. Is it strange to have dark water in the toilet? My washer output goes into the garden and it is visibly not clear.

    --
    Man, you really need that seminar!
  25. Re: News for nerds by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Yes. Reservoirs that were designed between 80 and 40 years ago and not reviewed since. Cape Town isn't the first city to nearly run out of water, and it happens in the first world too.

    The point that you're missing is that unless a water crisis was addressed 10 years ago and engineering is already underway, even a first world city would have problem avoiding a potential disaster in the face of a changing climate.

  26. Re: News for nerds by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    nonsense, climate isn't changing that fast. don't be misled by hoopla over weather.

    reservoirs are being designed and built, aquifer recharging is now being done too. just engineering problems