Although the freshly-fallen snow blankets our Salt Institute offices, overall, the North American winter has been mild-to-normal. So it came as no surprise when the Canadian Press headlined "Sifto Salt laying off 80 people at its salt mine in Goderich, Ont." The company explained that it was reducing from 7-days-a-week production to five, normal for this time of year.

All the company's stockpiles are filled to capacity, the Compass Minerals' unit added.

Think back just one year ago, when road agencies were bemoaning the difficulty of obtaining sufficient deicing salt to stay ahead of winter and keep roads safe and passable.

It's a quiet victory, but let's declare the battle won which the salt industry began two years ago in trying to recover from back-to-back severe winters (with record salt sales) which totally depleted supplies from mines to regional stockpiles to customer salt sheds. Perhaps the lessons learned about the need for improved customer on-site storage are beginning to make a difference.

Well done, salt industry.

This past week, the US House of Representatives, by a close 217-212 vote, passed a "jobs bill" directing more than $35 billion in highway and transit spending (and $30 million for barge-related improvements on the Mississippi). The money is intended to "stimulate" jobs in constructing more roads. This same week, headlines blared about people dying and businesses and industries being paralyzed by snowstorms for which overwhelmed road agency winter maintenance operations. No doubt, the increased public spending on building more roads will create jobs -- next Spring or Summer. But short-sightedly refusing to spend what we need right now is not only costing us lives and livelihoods right now, but it's also contributing to tax revenue shortfalls as taxes on worker earnings and commercial sales taxes take huge hits when impassible roads gridlock transportation. A study by Global Insight confirms these costs .

Let's "stimulate" highway operations and save jobs on "Main Street"!

Last week, in the aftermath of the DC area's paralyzing snowstorm, the Washington Post ran an article by Ashley Halsey III "D.C. region gets what it pays for when it comes to snow removal ." The article noted that a northern Michigan city received more than 7 feet of snow (compared to 2 feet in DC) and yet the roads were cleared with little disruption in normal activities. The annual cost of this level of service was put at $11,055 a year per lane mile. In contrast, the District of Columbia spends $5,636 annually for each mile for which it provides snowfighting service and this storm produced a government shut-down, widespread closures and extensive disruption.

Public comments to the online story were all over the lot; some considered the DC response laughable (e.g. "Giving out parking tickets is about the only thing DC does efficiently. As the nation's capital it is a joke.") while others defended the public works snowfighting crews. Many noted the inherent flaw by the author comparing a small city in a snowy rural region with a major city in an area with infrequent winter storms.

The larger lesson probably deals more with service level than budget. And that owes largely to the "wisdom of crowds" as displayed in the online comments. Had Petroskey, MI run a story on snowfighting, the comments would almost certainly have reflected its residents' insistent demand that winter not be allowed to hamstring their lives. The DC comments, on the other hand, are notably ambivalent and diverse. DC will get better snowfighting when it demands it -- budgets reflect citizens' expectations.

One could imagine a mayor of Petoskey who responded to a major snowstorm with the efficiency of the DC crews would become the next Michael Bilandic (see Wikipedia , 5th paragraph). But his job's safe in DC. The public doesn't expect good snowfighting. So the story might better be headlined "D.C. region gets what is wants when it comes to snow removal."

It could be better. It might cost more. That's democracy.