FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91  
92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   >>   >|  
way. There can be no doubt that if the flowing waters of the Basin are to be put back in good condition and kept that way under population pressures that are in prospect, flow augmentation in some places is going to be an important tool. In the upper estuary, however, its usefulness appears to be far more limited. The plan proposed in the _Army Report_ of 1963, in line with a Public Health Service approach emphasized in the 1961 Water Pollution Control Act, was designed to provide an eventual minimum flow into the upper estuary of 3100 cubic feet per second, or around two billion gallons per day, for the purpose of dealing with treatment-plant effluents and miscellaneous pollution. But more recent investigations have raised strong doubt as to whether such augmentation could do the job in the estuary with its huge volume of water, and its slow, tide-baffled currents that greatly lessen its assimilative capacity. In terms of dissolved oxygen, dilution of such a body of water for quality improvement appears to decrease in unit effectiveness as the volume of dilution is stepped up, which means that past a certain minimal point of improvement it gets expensive and requires unreasonable amounts of storage. In terms of nutrients, one authority has calculated that about 20,000 cubic feet per second would be required to reduce the nutrient level in the upper estuary to a point where it would be only twice that of a normal and healthily "rich" section of the upper Chesapeake Bay. Some augmentation below the point of diminishing returns will undoubtedly be needed, not only for the estuary but to keep the river alive in its gorge above Washington during periods of low flow. But as a main tool for the metropolitan river, it will not substitute for achievement of the best possible standard treatment followed by advanced treatment and other techniques. Obviously, just as in water supply, an ultimate cure for water quality ills is going to consist of a "mix" of solutions, different techniques being applied to the situations they are best suited to deal with, and combinations of them being worked out where combinations are what is indicated. Already the same kind of sophisticated mathematical models of given bodies of water--including the Potomac--that are being used to study solutions for water supply problems are being put to use on water quality as well, weighing the benefits and drawbacks of various combinations of means. And,
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91  
92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
estuary
 

augmentation

 

combinations

 
quality
 

treatment

 

dilution

 

supply

 

volume

 

techniques

 

solutions


appears

 
improvement
 

Washington

 
authority
 
required
 

calculated

 

needed

 

Chesapeake

 

section

 

periods


healthily

 

undoubtedly

 

normal

 

reduce

 

nutrient

 
diminishing
 

returns

 

Obviously

 

mathematical

 

sophisticated


models

 

bodies

 
Already
 

including

 

Potomac

 

benefits

 

weighing

 

drawbacks

 

problems

 

worked


advanced
 
nutrients
 

standard

 

metropolitan

 

substitute

 
achievement
 

ultimate

 
situations
 
suited
 

applied