Another is the use of DDT, which has not been shown to be harmful to humans, but
indirectly has particularly affected the eggs of certain fish and birds. In society’s total
concern for the environment, these impacts are also valid concerns. The problem
then arises about how one evaluates a new substance that appears to have no
deleterious impact at the moment, but may in the future. We certainly cannot ban
every new substance. The answer probably lies in continued evaluation and monitoring of any new substances, particularly those that are or are suspected of being
related to other substances that have been shown to be deleterious. However, there
must also be provision to remove a substance from the priority pollutant list if it has
been proven over a long period of time not to be harmful to humans or the
environment.
Another condition that has not been evaluated is the risk-benefit ratio. As an
example, DDT has been shown to have saved on the order of 500 million lives,
particularly in preventing malaria. It is now on the priority pollutant list primarily
because of its impact on organisms other than humans. There must be some means of
evaluating a substance to determine whether its adverse effects may be more than
offset by its benefits.
Of some concern must also be cost; however, cost related to human health must
be the final evaluation. Costs for analysis of trace quantities of certain toxics may
represent a significant cost to a small water supply system. A question may arise
about the need for such a complete analysis for every water supply system. Obviously some evaluation must be made of the potential harm or pollution of water
supply systems. A water supply not subject to contamination may not need a
complete analysis; however, where potentially toxic chemicals are in the area or in
the ground, it is advisable to monitor water supply systems to assure that such
contaminants do not reach the public through the water supply system.
There is no simple solution to the concern for toxic materials in the aquatic
environment. What is essential is continued monitoring for the presence of toxic
materials and a rational evaluation of the impact of these potentially toxic materials
upon humans.
13 Goals of Water Pollution Control
Goals should not be the conclusion of any discussion of water pollution control.
They should be the reason for establishing some procedure for pollution control.
Once proper goals are established, one can make some reasonable decisions in terms
of what is necessary and how they may be accomplished. However, some goals have
already been established, and it is assumed that the previous information will aid in
reaching the prescribed goals.
The goals of water pollution control have been summarized briefly: to provide
fishable, swimmable, and drinkable water. Public Law 92-500 passed by the US
6 Basic Hydrology, Water Resources, and DAF Boat Plant for Lake Restoration
289
indirectly has particularly affected the eggs of certain fish and birds. In society’s total
concern for the environment, these impacts are also valid concerns. The problem
then arises about how one evaluates a new substance that appears to have no
deleterious impact at the moment, but may in the future. We certainly cannot ban
every new substance. The answer probably lies in continued evaluation and monitoring of any new substances, particularly those that are or are suspected of being
related to other substances that have been shown to be deleterious. However, there
must also be provision to remove a substance from the priority pollutant list if it has
been proven over a long period of time not to be harmful to humans or the
environment.
Another condition that has not been evaluated is the risk-benefit ratio. As an
example, DDT has been shown to have saved on the order of 500 million lives,
particularly in preventing malaria. It is now on the priority pollutant list primarily
because of its impact on organisms other than humans. There must be some means of
evaluating a substance to determine whether its adverse effects may be more than
offset by its benefits.
Of some concern must also be cost; however, cost related to human health must
be the final evaluation. Costs for analysis of trace quantities of certain toxics may
represent a significant cost to a small water supply system. A question may arise
about the need for such a complete analysis for every water supply system. Obviously some evaluation must be made of the potential harm or pollution of water
supply systems. A water supply not subject to contamination may not need a
complete analysis; however, where potentially toxic chemicals are in the area or in
the ground, it is advisable to monitor water supply systems to assure that such
contaminants do not reach the public through the water supply system.
There is no simple solution to the concern for toxic materials in the aquatic
environment. What is essential is continued monitoring for the presence of toxic
materials and a rational evaluation of the impact of these potentially toxic materials
upon humans.
13 Goals of Water Pollution Control
Goals should not be the conclusion of any discussion of water pollution control.
They should be the reason for establishing some procedure for pollution control.
Once proper goals are established, one can make some reasonable decisions in terms
of what is necessary and how they may be accomplished. However, some goals have
already been established, and it is assumed that the previous information will aid in
reaching the prescribed goals.
The goals of water pollution control have been summarized briefly: to provide
fishable, swimmable, and drinkable water. Public Law 92-500 passed by the US
6 Basic Hydrology, Water Resources, and DAF Boat Plant for Lake Restoration
289