phates in surface waters is difcult to determine because, unlike mtrogen,
È
phosphorus is more readily adsorbed to soil particles and does not move mto
ground water. Much, however, may be contributed by soil erosion [28].
Coniroversial Issues
'
The ecological controversy surrounding the question of which nutrient is re—
_’
sponsible for eutrophication has become a political and economic issue as
well. Consideration has been given to the removal of phosphates either from
sewage eluent or from detergents. The rst suggestion, considered in more
detail presently, has been made because technological methods for the
moval of phosphorus, unlike those for nitrates, are available; the rationale for
the second suggestion is that approximately 30 percent of all phosphates
…
found in surface waters come from detergents. A number of state and local
-
governing bodies have moved to ban the use of detergents containing phos—
phates. At the federal level, some congressmen prefer to see phosphates
banned from all detergents—a suggestion that has naturally met with much;
opposition from the soap and detergent industry. A report from the
mittee on Government Operations, based on April 1970 hearings before the
Conservation and Natural Resources Subcommittee concerning
and detergents, summarizes the scope of the arguments [29]. Indüstry’s rSt
»
claim is that phosphorus has not been proven to be the cause of eu—
.
trophication since phosphorus is not the only nutrient necessary to nor is it al—
ways the limiting factor in eutrophication. This argument is based primarin
on a number of articles written by L. E. Kuentzel, a scientist associated With
!
the Wyandotte
Company (one of 20 major polluters of Lake Eric)
[30], which state that bacteria grow-symbioticay
With the bac—
te'ria providing the carbon dioxide from which the algae obtain carbon. Thus,
in some cases, carbon dioxide rather than phosphorus may be the limiting factOr, according to Kuentzel’s argument. A second line of reasoning taken by
'
the'sOap‘ and-detergent industry is based on an article written by C. N. Saw—
'
‘
yer,whosè study of a number of Wisconsin lakes showed that an increase of
phosphorus above .01() mg/l caused eutrophication in those lakes. From this,
the‘industry concludes that adding more phosphates to an already eutrophic
lake Will
further harm the situation since there is already more than
enoughmaterial available for algal growth. The related argument by industry
Ëf
is that re_”mooiêzg phosphates from detergents won’t help since there is so‘ much
eutrophicaü0n already. =
'
.
“
ScietiStsWhÔ testied at'the cotrgressional hearings, as well as other
entiStS working
the points raised by proporients of phps= ,
phàtë
Question of whether or not phosphate
1
the
Was
phosphate is not the only
g
essaiy forplantgrowthandtha‘c the limitiÿfactor may change in any
‘
of Water from time to, tune asthe 11ütriét— “input Changes and in turn changes
of
However, studies have provided good êVΑ
.
dencethat phosphorusis thehmlüng factoringa number of lakes.
.
n
136
Overfed
,
…
,
________
…_ ;Ç}m ‘i___________‘lW… \_M"ll“l
È
phosphorus is more readily adsorbed to soil particles and does not move mto
ground water. Much, however, may be contributed by soil erosion [28].
Coniroversial Issues
'
The ecological controversy surrounding the question of which nutrient is re—
_’
sponsible for eutrophication has become a political and economic issue as
well. Consideration has been given to the removal of phosphates either from
sewage eluent or from detergents. The rst suggestion, considered in more
detail presently, has been made because technological methods for the
moval of phosphorus, unlike those for nitrates, are available; the rationale for
the second suggestion is that approximately 30 percent of all phosphates
…
found in surface waters come from detergents. A number of state and local
-
governing bodies have moved to ban the use of detergents containing phos—
phates. At the federal level, some congressmen prefer to see phosphates
banned from all detergents—a suggestion that has naturally met with much;
opposition from the soap and detergent industry. A report from the
mittee on Government Operations, based on April 1970 hearings before the
Conservation and Natural Resources Subcommittee concerning
and detergents, summarizes the scope of the arguments [29]. Indüstry’s rSt
»
claim is that phosphorus has not been proven to be the cause of eu—
.
trophication since phosphorus is not the only nutrient necessary to nor is it al—
ways the limiting factor in eutrophication. This argument is based primarin
on a number of articles written by L. E. Kuentzel, a scientist associated With
!
the Wyandotte
Company (one of 20 major polluters of Lake Eric)
[30], which state that bacteria grow-symbioticay
With the bac—
te'ria providing the carbon dioxide from which the algae obtain carbon. Thus,
in some cases, carbon dioxide rather than phosphorus may be the limiting factOr, according to Kuentzel’s argument. A second line of reasoning taken by
'
the'sOap‘ and-detergent industry is based on an article written by C. N. Saw—
'
‘
yer,whosè study of a number of Wisconsin lakes showed that an increase of
phosphorus above .01() mg/l caused eutrophication in those lakes. From this,
the‘industry concludes that adding more phosphates to an already eutrophic
lake Will
further harm the situation since there is already more than
enoughmaterial available for algal growth. The related argument by industry
Ëf
is that re_”mooiêzg phosphates from detergents won’t help since there is so‘ much
eutrophicaü0n already. =
'
.
“
ScietiStsWhÔ testied at'the cotrgressional hearings, as well as other
entiStS working
the points raised by proporients of phps= ,
phàtë
Question of whether or not phosphate
1
the
Was
phosphate is not the only
g
essaiy forplantgrowthandtha‘c the limitiÿfactor may change in any
‘
of Water from time to, tune asthe 11ütriét— “input Changes and in turn changes
of
However, studies have provided good êVΑ
.
dencethat phosphorusis thehmlüng factoringa number of lakes.
.
n
136
Overfed
,
…
,
________
…_ ;Ç}m ‘i___________‘lW… \_M"ll“l