Satire About Water Pollution, Following Jonathan Swift\'s

¶ … satire about water pollution, following Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" as a model. Water pollution is an important problem facing the world, but that does not mean that it cannot be viewed with humor. This argument will provide a preposterous solution to this serious issue.

It seems that everywhere one looks today; the topic of water pollution is in the news. Many people are quite tired of this constant sermonizing about water pollution and the dire circumstances the country faces if the waters continue to be polluted without end. Humbug. Water pollution is no more an issue than is crime or violence in society today, although there are many people who would have you think differently. Simply to amuse these ill-tempered beggars, this writer will entertain some of their arguments while discussing just what water pollution is, and why it is so "important."

In 1972, Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments, which were immediately vetoed by President Nixon, which shows just how much this perfect president felt about the issue of water pollution. Congress, in their endless wisdom, did not listen to the President, and overrode his veto, creating more laws in 1977 and 1981. More laws filling up the legal books and creating a nice bulge in lawyer's pockets, but doing little to clean up the nation's waterways. These laws tried to limit "point discharge" of pollution into rivers, lakes, and streams, but they, like most laws, were flawed. These researchers note, "Originally, it was expected that by gradually eliminating point source pollution discharges, the 1985 goal of no pollution discharge would be achieved which, in turn, would lead to clean water" (Freedman and Jaggi 21). The government hoped to end water pollution, but it has turned into ongoing problem with no end in sight.

Some authors believe that the growth of the suburbs has helped create more water pollution. How can that be, when the spread of cities uses more water, and often covers up existing streams, rivers, and lakes? If there is less water to worry about, how can there be more pollution? Everyone knows growth means progress, and if a few lakes disappear, so be it. In addition, many people believe that this growth adds pollutants to the groundwater, which then pollutes bodies of water far away. Who can tell where groundwater goes anyway? Some critics feel privates wells also reduces water supplies and adds to pollution. However, it is the opinion of many folk that if people in rural areas have wells, that is their problem. They should live where they have access to piped or bottled water, anyway. An expert in water pollution writes, "Added to the pressures from expanding populations in the countryside, undeveloped rural regions can also attract industrial development. Some industries contribute their own source of contamination to streams and groundwater systems" (Goldstein 120). Thus, it is not the urban sprawl that is creating water pollution, it is industry, and people should worry more about dirty industries than groundwater and issues they cannot see and touch. Besides, the water the people use and pollute is miniscule compared to all the water on the planet. Another writer notes, "Only a tiny fraction of the Earth's fresh water reservoirs is easily accessible for human use. Lakes, wetlands and rivers, however, do not comprise the remaining major fresh water compartments" (Krautz 144). Therefore, what Americans pollute is a tiny fraction of the water on the planet, so there will always be more available to use. Why worry?

Industries like paper mills and factories often add many pollutants to the waters nearby, but industries like this often deny having any effect on the waters of a region, and who can blame them? The varying degrees of pollution are difficult to measure, and even experts cannot agree on how much of a substance pollutes the water. One writer notes, "Pollution is simply a question of the degree of dilution. Any substance can become a pollutant threatening an ecosystem if its concentration is too high" (Krautz 144). Thus, if someone places his or her dirty feet in the rushing water of a stream, then some people could consider it a pollutant! That is just silly. Removing the feet from the water shows they are clean, and the water looks not one bit more dirty than before. It has already cleaned itself, just like a swimming pool cleans itself overnight.

Many contend that much of the problem with water pollution is not pollution so much, but hysteria perpetrated by a few splinter, revolutionary groups, like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace. One cannot trust anything these liberals say, they have their own agenda, plain and simple. They love to cause trouble and stir the pot. Even the government says the country does not have a big problem with water pollution. These authors state, "Water quality in the United States, while not showing vast improvement since the early 1970s is at least not getting worse" (Freedman and Jaggi 23). Thus, water pollution is not as big an issue as people make it, and the country can deal with it simply and effectively by simply ignoring the problem, and looking for bigger fish to fry. Other reports show that pollution has increased: "The number of national pollutant registers worldwide has grown rapidly in recent years, fueled by public demands for the right to know about the hazardous substances produced by local industries" (Bast 11). However, that is just because more people are reporting pollution, as the author indicates. If less people reported it, there would be less to report. The real problem is not water pollution, but that so many people are raging about it, when they could be worrying about much more important issues.

Today, environmental groups are even saying the country's very own suburban neighborhoods are hot beds of water pollution. How can that be? One hysterical writer warns, "Residential streets and driveways are inundated with oils and metals from cars and trucks, while lawns and gardens release fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides and pets deposit waste along curbsides. According to the EPA, stormwater runoff from urban areas is the leading pollutant of rivers and lakes" (Billow). Hogwash. Many Americans never fertilize their gardens, and they grow just fine. Nor do many Americans let their pets "deposit" their wastes "along curbsides," and even if they did, their wastes are biodegradable -- everyone knows that. These people take these problems to the extreme, and they are worrying about things that the country simply does not need to. Another author even wants people to create "rain gardens" to save water from running off into the streets. That is silly. How can a person garden in the rain? She also says these gardens need to be watered several times a week. Why, when they are gardens for rain? This is just another knee-jerk reaction to a problem that is so minor it barely merits mentioning.