should refer to the water that carries our wastes as “transport water.” Then in
treatment plants the pollutants can be removed from the water to end up with
plain water. The result might be far more acceptable to the public than trying
to get them to drink “reclaimed sewage.” [6]
Recognition that waste—bearing water is a means of transporüng rather
than “getting rid of” wastes might also encourage a healthy reappraisal of the
-
notion that the nearest stream is a good waste disposal site. We have, in ef—
fect, created the need for a science of water pollution by rst creating dis—
posal technology based on the supposed capacity of water to assimilate
wastes. But now the science of water pollution, like an ungrateful child, ar—
gues loudly that the parent technology of water disposal is dangerously old
fashioned and should be curbed, if not forcibly retired.
Water Conservation
‘
The degree to which such retirement is realistic depends upon
two major fac—
“
tors. One is the extent to which water scar‘city forces municipatîes and in—
dustries to reject conventional waste disposal practices in favor of water conservation. The preceding examples of wastewater reuse demonstrate this
inuence, particularly in the Southwest and West where fresh water is lim—
[
ited. The second major factor is the amount of pressure for clean water gener—
ated by‘thepublic and suibsequeny reected in pollution—control regulations.
As the riegülati0ns tighten, the incentive for water reuse grows, particularly
in
_
‘
industry. For example, the release of ammonium nitrate, a
:
\\\\ \\ \‘ ‘
‘
‘
\\
‘
'{
“