U.S.

Cracks Reported On Bridge Days Before Collapse

Published

8 years ago

March 19, 2018

Police in Miami-Dade County successfully removed two vehicles with three bodies inside from the rubble of Thursday’s pedestrian bridge collapse near the campus of Florida International University, according to Miami-Dade police Director Juan Perez.

That leaves at least two people who may still be buried in the rubble. Police warned that the final death toll won’t be known until all the vehicles have been removed, according to CNN.

The latest disturbing news from the accident comes after it was reported Friday that an engineer for the company that designed the bridge called a Florida Department of Transportation employee to warn about “some cracking” visible on the underside of the bridge. However, the state employee was out on assignment that day, and the call – from W. Denney Pate of FIGG Bridge Engineers – went unanswered until Friday, the day AFTER the deadly collapse, per the Wall Street Journal.

To be sure, the engineer who reported the cracking noted that, while the damage should be repaired, it didn’t appear urgent.

“We’ve taken a look at it and, uh, obviously some repairs or whatever will have to be done,” Pate said.

“But from a safety perspective, we don’t see that there’s any issue there so we’re not concerned about it from that perspective, although obviously the cracking is not good and something’s going to have to be, ya know, done to repair that.”

The Florida DOT issued a statement claiming that any safety issues with the project were the responsibility of the bridge’s design team.

Four vehicles remain stuck in the rubble. Police believe six people have died from the collapse – including the three whose bodies were recovered Saturday morning.
(Read The Rest Of The Story)

Iowa

“Despite What You All Think”: Nearly $150 Million in New Water Commitments Follow Reynolds’ Defense of Iowa’s Record

Published

3 hours ago

July 18, 2026

Pepe Jones

Gov. Kim Reynolds defended Iowa’s water-quality efforts and the stewardship of farmers during a May 1 press conference. In the weeks that followed, the state and federal governments committed approximately $148.3 million in clearly identifiable new water funding and financing.

During a May 1, 2026, press conference announcing Iowa’s “Farm to Faucet” proposal, Gov. Kim Reynolds pushed back when reporters questioned the condition of Iowa’s water.

“Despite what you all think,” Reynolds told the group of reporters before defending Iowa’s investments and arguing that farmers care about protecting their land because they intend to pass it down to their children.

The governor’s defense came as Iowa continued confronting concerns involving nitrates, lead pipes, PFAS contamination, aging treatment facilities and rural water infrastructure. Reynolds announced what her administration promoted as a nearly $320 million water-quality package spanning 12 years. The proposal was signed into law on June 1 and took effect July 1.

How Much of the $320 Million Is Actually New?

The nearly $320 million headline does not represent $320 million in entirely new state spending.

The Iowa Department of Agriculture’s own announcement states that the legislation works partly by “re-directing existing dollars.” Approximately $76 million can be clearly identified as new or additional state funding:

$52 million over 12 years for conservation practices in the Greater Des Moines watershed.
$6 million over 12 years for additional water-quality monitoring, based on an additional $500,000 annually.
$8 million as a one-time investment in drinking-water and wastewater treatment grants.
$10 million to establish the Rural Iowa Infrastructure Bank, which will provide low-interest loans for smaller communities.

That equals approximately $76 million in clearly new state commitments—about 24% of the administration’s advertised $320 million package.

Another $25 million is designated for Central Iowa Water Works to expand nitrate-removal capacity. However, the state says that money will come from the existing balance of an underused program, meaning it is redirected funding rather than an entirely new appropriation. Other portions of the $320 million package similarly involve restructuring existing water-excise-tax revenue and moving money between programs.

More Than $72 Million in Federal Support Followed

Separate from Reynolds’ state package, federal agencies announced approximately $72.3 million in water-related funding and financing for Iowa after her May 1 comments.

The documented federal commitments include:

$46.116 million announced by the Environmental Protection Agency on May 20 for identifying and replacing lead service lines.
$9.457 million announced by the EPA on May 19 for PFAS testing, planning and treatment projects in small or disadvantaged Iowa communities.
$344,000 announced on June 26 for small and rural drinking-water systems.
$16.373 million announced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for rural Iowa water infrastructure, including new wells, a treatment plant, a water tower and pipelines. Of that amount, approximately $15.5 million consists of loans and $874,000 consists of grants.

The federal money addresses several different problems, including lead exposure, PFAS, insufficient rural water supplies and aging infrastructure. It should not be presented as though every dollar directly addresses agricultural nitrate runoff.

The Combined Total

Since Reynolds’ May 1 remarks, the clearly identifiable commitments are:

New state funding: approximately $76 million
Federal funding and financing: approximately $72.3 million
Combined total: approximately $148.3 million

These numbers represent appropriations, allotments, grants, loan funds and financing commitments. They do not mean that all $148.3 million has already been spent or that the projects have been completed.

The state portion is also spread across as many as 12 years, while several federal awards will flow through state or local programs before construction begins.

Still, the scale and timing of the investments matter. Reynolds told reporters, “Despite what you all think,” while defending Iowa’s water record. Yet within weeks, her administration signed a major water package and federal agencies committed tens of millions more to Iowa’s lead pipes, PFAS contamination, nitrate-treatment capacity and struggling rural water systems.

Investment is welcome, but the funding itself demonstrates that Iowa faces real and costly water challenges. The final measure of success will not be the size of a press-release headline. It will be whether nitrate levels decline, unsafe pipes are removed, rural systems become reliable and Iowa residents can trust the water flowing from their faucets.