In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports swimming boating and fish ing among their favorite recreational activities The Mason River flowing through the city is rarely used for these pursuits however and the city park department devotes little of

Mason City is being tasked with a decision: should it invest additional dollars in its budget toward city river clean up? The argument currently calls for the city government to proceed with this effort. However, the argument is predicated on various bold assumptions that must be critically evaluated before the city moves forward. If the following four assumptions prove unwarranted, then Mason City may need to reconsider the validity of this project.
First, the argument assumes that cleaning up the river will increase the frequency of water sports on the river. If this is true, it would make sense to clean up the river. However, the argument could be unwarranted since residents who favor water sports may be enjoying these activities at a different location currently. If residents are enjoying these sports at a different location, such as an ocean or lake, then cleaning up the river may not necessarily drive up the popularity of Mason River for water sports. If this argument proves unwarranted, then it may be a waste of increase in budget for that intended outcome.
In addition, the argument rests on the assumption that increasing the city’s dollars toward river clean up will result in a cleaner river. However, an increase in funds is not enough. Comparing to a real-world example, the Biden Administration just released the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which allows billions of dollars for state use in infrastructure revitalization. However, the existence of this money is not enough. State’s need to go through an arduous process of gathering stakeholders, developing a plan, applying for the funds, winning and receiving the funds, and launching a successful project, battling bureaucracy and competing priorities along the way. The Mason City government will experience similar hurdles that may prevent or slow down the use of funds for river clean-up.
Moreover, the argument indirectly asserts that an increase in the use of Mason River for water sports is a favorable outcome that is deserving of city budgetary support. While this is a noble claim, it may not stand to reason. The author of the argument should ask themselves, why is it so important for water sports to increase? In assessing this question, they should also consider whether the weight of the importance of water sports usage on Mason River is more important than other pressing city concerns, such as healthcare, public safety, infrastructure, education, and more. It is important to evaluate this assumption in the context of the broader needs of the community. If there are other pressing needs in Mason City, and especially if funds are tight as they are for many local governments, then it may not be justifiable to increase funding for a non-priority need such as water sports.
Finally, the entire argument is predicated on the assumption that the city government is the best-positioned entity to tackle the issue of cleaning up the river. There may be other reasons to clean up the river besides water sports, such as health reasons. This may even hold more weight than the desire to increase water sports. However, imagine that the root of the uncleanliness of Mason River is a result of a factory upstream that is dumping harmful pollution into the river. The proper authorities to intervene here may extend well beyond the Mason City government and what they are able to accomplish in their purview. In this situation, it would be important to involve the company that is the source of the pollution, as well as the state government, and perhaps even the federal government (e.g., the Environmental Protection Agency). Mason City should perform a root cause problem solving to understand the source of the river’s lack of quality and smell, and only then decide if it is solely best positioned to simply increase its budget. If this is not the case, then the increase of city government funds toward maintaining the river may not be enough.
Maintaining recreational facilities is certainly a noble and justifiable cause, especially when evaluated on its own. Rivers play an important role in the ecosystem and affect people, wildlife, and businesses. The prevalence of the decimation of wildlife in the United States, as well as cancers, can be linked to toxic river pollution. Moreover, the ability to enjoy public spaces and the outdoors is very important for the health of Individuals and communities. However, there are many nuances that must be considered to appropriately allocate public resources. Mason City must evaluate its assumptions regarding the causes and effects of the river’s state, and carefully decide whether the allocation of funds is warranted.