In Arizona, at least, I'm pretty sure you could use a simple, passive (and, relatively, very cheap) evaporation-condensation cycle to radically cut down on almo

In Arizona, at least, I'm pretty sure you could use a simple, passive (and, relatively, very cheap) evaporation-condensation cycle to radically cut down on almost any contamination, but that's almost not even the point. What is the point, which you correctly note, is that this is largely a case of people taking turns kicking their respective externalities down-stream (in this case literally), until it kills someone, exacerbated by ineptitude at the highest levels. To that end: how about any industry that has potentially harmful externalities be compelled to carry insurance against those things demonstrably causing harm, the premiums of which are determined significantly by how competent the policy holder's mitigation strategies are. Then we can, as needed, subsidize those mitigation strategies, applying the solution at the point of the problem, where it's not only going to be the least expensive, but also the most effective. Thus, if the rancher upstream of the lettuce farmer isn't taking care of his shit, he pays, not the farmer whose crops are contaminated by the rancher's negligence. The subsidy money ultimately goes not to incumbent insurance interests, but to the people and organizations creating new and better ways not to fuck ourselves up — which is, I think, something worth subsidizing a bit... Either that, or you pay for the damages your cost-cutting externality-imposition causes out-of-pocket, with strong statutory preferences for compensating victims over everyone else in the event of bankruptcy, because I suspect that would kill a whole lot of farms and businesses. EDITs: phrasing.