\
\
£:
We know the problem
of water pollution
is increasing. During the past 20
years,
the city of Chicago has had to increase the amount of chlorine used [as a
l
disinfectant] to achieve water safety from 15 to 25 pounds per million gallons.
Î
This is an increase of 67 percent.
We have had to increase the activated car—
?
bon dosage to remove objectionable odors and tastes from 24 to 41 pounds per
.
million gallons, and other chemicals used to remove suspended matter from
103 to 119 pounds per
million gallons. These are increases of 71 and 15 per—
.
cent, respectively.
Symptomatîc Treatment
'
-
A careful look at the individual ills besetting Lake Michigan—and representa—
tive of those plaguing water resources elsewhere—reveals certain conceptual
aws in water pollution control that, until they are corrected, make solutions
%;
seem remote.
ËÊg—=
Dioersion.
As an example of how these problems have developed, let us
ÎÏÎËî
consider Chicago ahnost a century ago when it began to break the link beÊÎÏÏ;
tween sewage and drinking water. The main countermeasure employed was
ÎËË
something called diversion. This simply meant—and means today—routing
È
sewage or other polluted material away from one area and into another.
?
When the city was younger, the Chicago River had received Chicago’s sanitary and industrial wastes, but unfortunately that river carried the wastes to
=’B
Lake Michigan and dumped them where the city withdrew its drinking wa—
‘
ter.
First, water intake tunnels were built two miles ont into the lake. Then,
;
m 1871, the Illinois and Michigan Canal was modied to force the Chicago
River to carry its load of wastes the other way—into the Illinois hinterland. It
seemed in the 18705 that sewage outlet and water intake had been safely sepä
arated. By 1885, however, increased drainage into the Chicago River had
_
..
forced
the river to return to its natural ow into Lake Michigan—a ow
==
—
WhlCh became a disease—bearing ood in August of that year. To solve this
problem,
canal was opened in 1900 joining the Chicago River with the Des
.)
_
ïËËÎ ÊZZÏ XËlich
into the Illinois
River and then into the Mis—
,
.
and industrial wasÎerseSflil
t,
e Clncago R1ver, today bearing treated sewage
,_
,
ows westward 1nto Illmois rather than eastward into
_ç
Chicago swater supply.
_
All
tlns seemed line
to Chicago residents, but Canadians and people living
â
lÎ'°}ÎÎË
states bordermg the Great Lakes feared their own water supplies
äîî ChÏËÊÈÎd£âÊ3ÊÎ ChÏCÊgO
a result, the amount of water
the city was limitedb adnî_Oï_n al
Despite parallel li}I’nitaülmstraäive
and court decisions.
that can be Withdrawn else
0ns t°
the
amount of Lake Michigan water
_
_
where m Illmors, heavil
o
ulated submbs north
of Chicago (desrgnated the North Sh
S
'
y“
p -'p
ized to plan similar divers'
h
ore
an1tary D1st1 1ct) have been author—
lake. The SYStems would (im
SC em
es to keep their waste efuents out Of the
_
_
vert àscharges from a series of rimar commu—
nity waste treatment plants for further treatment elseWh€rP d t>h
e an
en carry
6
Assault on (: Lake
\
£:
We know the problem
of water pollution
is increasing. During the past 20
years,
the city of Chicago has had to increase the amount of chlorine used [as a
l
disinfectant] to achieve water safety from 15 to 25 pounds per million gallons.
Î
This is an increase of 67 percent.
We have had to increase the activated car—
?
bon dosage to remove objectionable odors and tastes from 24 to 41 pounds per
.
million gallons, and other chemicals used to remove suspended matter from
103 to 119 pounds per
million gallons. These are increases of 71 and 15 per—
.
cent, respectively.
Symptomatîc Treatment
'
-
A careful look at the individual ills besetting Lake Michigan—and representa—
tive of those plaguing water resources elsewhere—reveals certain conceptual
aws in water pollution control that, until they are corrected, make solutions
%;
seem remote.
ËÊg—=
Dioersion.
As an example of how these problems have developed, let us
ÎÏÎËî
consider Chicago ahnost a century ago when it began to break the link beÊÎÏÏ;
tween sewage and drinking water. The main countermeasure employed was
ÎËË
something called diversion. This simply meant—and means today—routing
È
sewage or other polluted material away from one area and into another.
?
When the city was younger, the Chicago River had received Chicago’s sanitary and industrial wastes, but unfortunately that river carried the wastes to
=’B
Lake Michigan and dumped them where the city withdrew its drinking wa—
‘
ter.
First, water intake tunnels were built two miles ont into the lake. Then,
;
m 1871, the Illinois and Michigan Canal was modied to force the Chicago
River to carry its load of wastes the other way—into the Illinois hinterland. It
seemed in the 18705 that sewage outlet and water intake had been safely sepä
arated. By 1885, however, increased drainage into the Chicago River had
_
..
forced
the river to return to its natural ow into Lake Michigan—a ow
==
—
WhlCh became a disease—bearing ood in August of that year. To solve this
problem,
canal was opened in 1900 joining the Chicago River with the Des
.)
_
ïËËÎ ÊZZÏ XËlich
into the Illinois
River and then into the Mis—
,
.
and industrial wasÎerseSflil
t,
e Clncago R1ver, today bearing treated sewage
,_
,
ows westward 1nto Illmois rather than eastward into
_ç
Chicago swater supply.
_
All
tlns seemed line
to Chicago residents, but Canadians and people living
â
lÎ'°}ÎÎË
states bordermg the Great Lakes feared their own water supplies
äîî ChÏËÊÈÎd£âÊ3ÊÎ ChÏCÊgO
a result, the amount of water
the city was limitedb adnî_Oï_n al
Despite parallel li}I’nitaülmstraäive
and court decisions.
that can be Withdrawn else
0ns t°
the
amount of Lake Michigan water
_
_
where m Illmors, heavil
o
ulated submbs north
of Chicago (desrgnated the North Sh
S
'
y“
p -'p
ized to plan similar divers'
h
ore
an1tary D1st1 1ct) have been author—
lake. The SYStems would (im
SC em
es to keep their waste efuents out Of the
_
_
vert àscharges from a series of rimar commu—
nity waste treatment plants for further treatment elseWh€rP d t>h
e an
en carry
6
Assault on (: Lake