matter of time; in other specific cases, there may be other problems that will have to
be resolved.
Over the years the approach to pollution control enforcement has changed,
although both approaches were included in the first act. These approaches were
(a) effluent discharge limits and (b) stream quality limits. Initially discharge limits
were set for each industry and permits issued to control the amount of a pollutant that
may be discharged over a given period of time. This simplified enforcement and
evened out treatment costs within an industry. It also lessened the moving of an
industry from a state where standards were high to a state with lower standards, since
standards were similar throughout the USA. Recently the total maximum daily load
(TMDL) concept has gained popularity in which each stream or watershed is
evaluated for its ability to absorb a given amount of a pollutant while remaining
within its desired stream quality standards. Whereas this is more equitable from the
standpoint of the stream, it does require considerable more information, both to set
the standards and to enforce them. In addition, standards may have to be set for any
potential pollutant that may be discharged into a specific stream. This is more
difficult than previous standards based on only BOD loading or dissolved oxygen
levels in the stream. Also, it may encourage an industry to move to a less polluted
river, thereby allowing it to utilize a larger share of the allowable load, while
simultaneously decreasing the quality of the river. Both approaches have their
valid points.
One of the major concerns in any effort or program, whether it be that of the
Federal or local government or of any other organization, is who is to be the
beneficiary of the energy expended. There are two major directions to which
pollution control efforts can be directed. One is to improve the quality of the
environment for the sake of the environment and the other is to improve the quality
of the environment for the sake of society. There is no clear-cut distinction between
the two because in general what benefits the environment also benefits humankind.
However, there are specific instances where benefits to the environment may not
have any obvious benefit to humans; thus, certain individuals may question the
expenditure of public monies that will not directly benefit the public.
It is the author’s belief that there is room for both points of view. There are cases
in which the environment is and should be the sole direct beneficiary of any control
practice. For example, there are areas of the Adirondack Park in New York that are to
be preserved as “forever wild.” Even airplanes are not allowed into these areas to
land on the lakes to provide for hiking, hunting, or fishing. Large areas of Alaska
have been set aside as wilderness area in which humans are viewed as unwanted
interlopers. Many areas of Africa are presently wildlife areas that will have to be
preserved if we hope to salvage some of the rarer animals. In some instances it has
been questioned whether we really need certain of these rare animals. They may
have no direct benefit to humans and in some cases, aside from hunting expeditions
that benefit only a very small number of individuals, they could probably be allowed
to become extinct without any serious impact upon the environment. On the other
hand, we must consider that humankind is also a part of the environment and not the
6 Basic Hydrology, Water Resources, and DAF Boat Plant for Lake Restoration
291
be resolved.
Over the years the approach to pollution control enforcement has changed,
although both approaches were included in the first act. These approaches were
(a) effluent discharge limits and (b) stream quality limits. Initially discharge limits
were set for each industry and permits issued to control the amount of a pollutant that
may be discharged over a given period of time. This simplified enforcement and
evened out treatment costs within an industry. It also lessened the moving of an
industry from a state where standards were high to a state with lower standards, since
standards were similar throughout the USA. Recently the total maximum daily load
(TMDL) concept has gained popularity in which each stream or watershed is
evaluated for its ability to absorb a given amount of a pollutant while remaining
within its desired stream quality standards. Whereas this is more equitable from the
standpoint of the stream, it does require considerable more information, both to set
the standards and to enforce them. In addition, standards may have to be set for any
potential pollutant that may be discharged into a specific stream. This is more
difficult than previous standards based on only BOD loading or dissolved oxygen
levels in the stream. Also, it may encourage an industry to move to a less polluted
river, thereby allowing it to utilize a larger share of the allowable load, while
simultaneously decreasing the quality of the river. Both approaches have their
valid points.
One of the major concerns in any effort or program, whether it be that of the
Federal or local government or of any other organization, is who is to be the
beneficiary of the energy expended. There are two major directions to which
pollution control efforts can be directed. One is to improve the quality of the
environment for the sake of the environment and the other is to improve the quality
of the environment for the sake of society. There is no clear-cut distinction between
the two because in general what benefits the environment also benefits humankind.
However, there are specific instances where benefits to the environment may not
have any obvious benefit to humans; thus, certain individuals may question the
expenditure of public monies that will not directly benefit the public.
It is the author’s belief that there is room for both points of view. There are cases
in which the environment is and should be the sole direct beneficiary of any control
practice. For example, there are areas of the Adirondack Park in New York that are to
be preserved as “forever wild.” Even airplanes are not allowed into these areas to
land on the lakes to provide for hiking, hunting, or fishing. Large areas of Alaska
have been set aside as wilderness area in which humans are viewed as unwanted
interlopers. Many areas of Africa are presently wildlife areas that will have to be
preserved if we hope to salvage some of the rarer animals. In some instances it has
been questioned whether we really need certain of these rare animals. They may
have no direct benefit to humans and in some cases, aside from hunting expeditions
that benefit only a very small number of individuals, they could probably be allowed
to become extinct without any serious impact upon the environment. On the other
hand, we must consider that humankind is also a part of the environment and not the
6 Basic Hydrology, Water Resources, and DAF Boat Plant for Lake Restoration
291