Robert Neville writes:

The ban itself, it turns out, has helped the river very little. A year after it
went into effect, supporters conveniently forgot their promises of reductions in
the 15 percent to 20 percent range and trumpeted news that phosphorus flowing
into the citys water-treatment plant had declined by 10.7 percent, to just 181
pounds per day.

Cheaters or some other unidentified source?

Buried in the accounts was a remark by the plants manager
admitting that because the new phosphorus filtration system was so efficient,
nearly all of the in-flowing phosphorus was getting filtered out
anyway.

Looks like they spared no expense with the water treatment plant.
Removing phosphorus is expensive:

http://www.lenntech.com/phosphorous-removal.htm

Phosphate removal is currently achieved largely by chemical
precipitation, which is expensive and causes an increase of sludge
volume by up to 40%.


I have no dog in this. Our dishwasher cleans fine.

--
Dan Espen