»
‘
,.
_
.
…
…»
r
_
.
‘—1
€?“
°
»,
{‘
,
‘
«
"
:
7
,:
—
,
,
,
««…,\«
,«â…«;
\
"«.
\\
\ \\\\\
«
“
W*5CNÊ"Ë,«;\,
,
w
« :«>“é,
î»c1,«
*
“
«“:
‘—‘
.
,,”«°5
;
\\î«
‘
,
5“«u>
««
,»
:f*«\\,…
<,îy
:
,,
…»:
»"«'”‘Jîî
\.
z— :
3:?:Âî‘
p\,\»«î«,» -.,
“
\_
\‘««:,«m«<
«<;
»
.
Î*°/,
<
«
_«————“
«x\”“« »
““\>
»
,
\;ÇË“£°9°
,€p \«\« »!
: °
,
…!Æ
…
,
…
““«‘Î:\»“
î \_
>}“« 33
‘
‘
,
«
«W«
…«
.
,
\
«» …“\“\«N
‘,
«
=
«.
@
«î“°«°“«
«\
«ï
,
«M,,
”
«”‘
…
=
=
,…w—ww»:
::…
««»
*
««N ;«;»
‘
.:
,
,*KonsasÇqtym
,
,«
‘
«î,,,ë
«
\«ÊÎ
*‘\«”
««
…
,, ,»;f,\,
»»
—
l
Water drawn from Lake Michigan recenves Chicago wastes and us then dwerted mto
the Illinois River. This keeps polluhon out of the lake, but m spnte of the treatment
the waste receives before lt passes mto the nver, l'f presents some problems down—
stream.
:
second of the Mrssrssrppr Puver by canal mto Texas. Increased flow of the Mrs—
.
.
srssrppr aclneved by d1versron of the Great Lakes m1ght 1nsure that the water
could be drawn off w1thout lowermg the level of the lower Mrssrssrppr and
hence drsmptmg navrgaüon.
C
|
,
‘
-
.
‘
.
'
°
'
Dzlutæon.
The Great Lakes d1versron scheme was 1ust1ed pr1mary rn
economrc terms, wrth consrderable we1ght gwen
to savmgs 1n both mumc1pal
waste treatment costs and power plant equ1pment. Waste treatment savmgs
; —
would occur becausethe mcr_eased stream ow from d1versron would p10_.
’
u
.
|
'
.
mote low—ow augmentatwn and dzlutæon, two other elements m the lex1con
.
'
o
.
o
'
of conventronal waste treatment theory. When stream ow 1s art1c1ally 1ncreased or
can more effect1vely d11ute polluted water; thrs 1n—
;;
_
:‘
.
,
.
'
,
,
.
.
,
‘\
creases the
capacrty for d1ssolved oxygen and bmlogrcal act1vrty,
..
»
.
,
_
_
'
a
w1th a consequent 1mproved degradaüon of orgamc
wastes [5] and a lessened
need for mvestment m treatment facrhües. However, many long—hved pollu—
.
‘
.
‘
‘
.
-
tants have ulümate b1ologreal effects nomatter how thoroughly dlluted; nu—
‘
'
’
”
_
.
.
.
‘
":_‘,‘
tnents would surv1ve to produce eut10phrcaüon and other long—hved pollu—
,,
.
.
.
.g
.
_
_
,.'…}
tants reqmrmg expensrve advanced treatment for removal would srmply be
”;
washed down the rrver.
;
’
—
Monumental
and ecologrcal quesüons
were
n
.
.
°t consrdered by the GTeL—kesŒYÇ!$10planners, however. For example,
sunl1ght m1ght reach a
of bottom plant hfe m the already
8
Assault on (: Lake
Ÿ
“
‘
:
:
':
::
H
H
,
] …
‘
,.
_
.
…
…»
r
_
.
‘—1
€?“
°
»,
{‘
,
‘
«
"
:
7
,:
—
,
,
,
««…,\«
,«â…«;
\
"«.
\\
\ \\\\\
«
“
W*5CNÊ"Ë,«;\,
,
w
« :«>“é,
î»c1,«
*
“
«“:
‘—‘
.
,,”«°5
;
\\î«
‘
,
5“«u>
««
,»
:f*«\\,…
<,îy
:
,,
…»:
»"«'”‘Jîî
\.
z— :
3:?:Âî‘
p\,\»«î«,» -.,
“
\_
\‘««:,«m«<
«<;
»
.
Î*°/,
<
«
_«————“
«x\”“« »
““\>
»
,
\;ÇË“£°9°
,€p \«\« »!
: °
,
…!Æ
…
,
…
““«‘Î:\»“
î \_
>}“« 33
‘
‘
,
«
«W«
…«
.
,
\
«» …“\“\«N
‘,
«
=
«.
@
«î“°«°“«
«\
«ï
,
«M,,
”
«”‘
…
=
=
,…w—ww»:
::…
««»
*
««N ;«;»
‘
.:
,
,*KonsasÇqtym
,
,«
‘
«î,,,ë
«
\«ÊÎ
*‘\«”
««
…
,, ,»;f,\,
»»
—
l
Water drawn from Lake Michigan recenves Chicago wastes and us then dwerted mto
the Illinois River. This keeps polluhon out of the lake, but m spnte of the treatment
the waste receives before lt passes mto the nver, l'f presents some problems down—
stream.
:
second of the Mrssrssrppr Puver by canal mto Texas. Increased flow of the Mrs—
.
.
srssrppr aclneved by d1versron of the Great Lakes m1ght 1nsure that the water
could be drawn off w1thout lowermg the level of the lower Mrssrssrppr and
hence drsmptmg navrgaüon.
C
|
,
‘
-
.
‘
.
'
°
'
Dzlutæon.
The Great Lakes d1versron scheme was 1ust1ed pr1mary rn
economrc terms, wrth consrderable we1ght gwen
to savmgs 1n both mumc1pal
waste treatment costs and power plant equ1pment. Waste treatment savmgs
; —
would occur becausethe mcr_eased stream ow from d1versron would p10_.
’
u
.
|
'
.
mote low—ow augmentatwn and dzlutæon, two other elements m the lex1con
.
'
o
.
o
'
of conventronal waste treatment theory. When stream ow 1s art1c1ally 1ncreased or
can more effect1vely d11ute polluted water; thrs 1n—
;;
_
:‘
.
,
.
'
,
,
.
.
,
‘\
creases the
capacrty for d1ssolved oxygen and bmlogrcal act1vrty,
..
»
.
,
_
_
'
a
w1th a consequent 1mproved degradaüon of orgamc
wastes [5] and a lessened
need for mvestment m treatment facrhües. However, many long—hved pollu—
.
‘
.
‘
‘
.
-
tants have ulümate b1ologreal effects nomatter how thoroughly dlluted; nu—
‘
'
’
”
_
.
.
.
‘
":_‘,‘
tnents would surv1ve to produce eut10phrcaüon and other long—hved pollu—
,,
.
.
.
.g
.
_
_
,.'…}
tants reqmrmg expensrve advanced treatment for removal would srmply be
”;
washed down the rrver.
;
’
—
Monumental
and ecologrcal quesüons
were
n
.
.
°t consrdered by the GTeL—kesŒYÇ!$10planners, however. For example,
sunl1ght m1ght reach a
of bottom plant hfe m the already
8
Assault on (: Lake
Ÿ
“
‘
:
:
':
::
H
H
,
] …