« ForrigeFortsett »
Exhibit 1.-B. Coli index, raw Ohio River water at Ashland, Ky., waterworks intake, from January 1921 to December 1936—Continued
(Average per 100 cubic centimeters)
10, 800 23, 600 24, 700 9, 700
25, 400 8, 550
13, 745 17, 800 5, 285 13,000
8, 170 10, 900 16, 900 12, 000 6, 700
20, 032 16, 553 26, 197 21,883 27, 530 20, 267
8, 158 4, 600
6,500 9, 400 9, 650 2, 700 7,000 15,000 22, 400 16, 360 32, 800 30, 548 28, 500 56,000
Total. Average. Maximum Minimum.
256, 853 21, 405 56, 000 2, 750
Chemical costs in dollars per million gallons, Ashland waterworks, Ashland,
Chemical costs in dollars per million gallons, Ashland waterworks, Ashland, Ky.
Hamilton County lies largely between dams 36 and 37 on the Ohio River and between Little Miami and Great Miami Rivers. This pool provides the public water supply for both the Ohio and Kentucky communities. At this point the pool also receives the sewage from these same communities.
Exhibit 11 shows the Little Miami River drainage area and the population tributary to this watershed. The majority of the population in this watershed contributes raw sewage to this stream. However, several of the smaller municipalities have undertaken the construction of sewerage systems including sewage disposal, the most recent being the city of Wilmington, Ohio.
Exhibit 2 depicts the situation at the mouth of the Little Miami River. It will be observed that the point of confluence of the Little Miami River and the Ohio River has shifted some 1,700 feet upstream as the result of the 1936 flood. The topography is such that it is entirely possible that this point of confluence may continue to shift upstream until the Little Miami River will discharge directly toward the Cincinnati and Covington waterworks intakes. At present it is directly opposite the Newport, Ky., intake. The Little Miami receives a daily contribution of approximately 12,000,000 gallons of raw sewage near its mouth. The continued and probable increased contribution provides a continuing and increasing evil to successful operation of the waterworks system for the greater Cincinnati area. Exhibit 2 also indicates general studies undertaken by Hamilton County looking toward the treatment and disposal of the sewage at this point.
1 Not printed.
Exhibit 3 1 is a series of sewerage studies for the same area.
Exhibit 5 gives an indication of the condition of the Great Miami River. This data was compiled from daily observations and indicates a pollution index 20 times greater than the United States Public Health standard allowable.
Exhibit 6 2 shows diagrammatically the induction of sewage from Hamilton County to the pool at Cincinnati. Thus sewers contributing wastes from the Kentucky area are not shown.
Exhibit 7 shows the same sewers in profile. It will be observed that the undulations of the river bottom lend themselves as settling reservoirs so that in periods of extreme dry weather the opportunity for septic action to take place is considerable and with continued abuse the stream will become entirely unfit for public use and, it is possible, may no longer respond to treatment for human consumption,
1. Why is it necessary to prevent the pollution of streams by sewage and industrial wastes?
Prevention of water-borne diseases (such as typhoid fever, dysentery, diarrhea); protection of public water supplies, bathing beaches, shellfish-producing areas, and aquatic life; conservation of natural resources, including recreational facilities.
2. What is the general situation with respect to the disposal of sewage and wastes in the United States?
Situation is chaotic. No concerted, uniform, or national comprehensive corrective program. Only about 40 percent of the total urban population reside in communities which have some kind of sewage treatment other than disposal by discharging untreated sewage into near-by bodies of water. The sewage from more than 40,000,000 people in urban communities is discharged without any treatment. The situation with respect to industrial wastes indicates very little control of such wastes for the protection of the general public and national resources.
3. In what sections of the United States are there serious conditions of polluted streams?
In practically all sections of the United States where there are any concentrations of population, seriously polluted streams exist. In the past, the easiest and cheapest way of getting rid of domestic and industrial wastes has been to discharge them where possible into the nearest stream and let water carriage and the self-purification capacity of the stream take care of the problem, frequently to the detriment of the stream and of water consumers farther downstream.
4. What have State and local authorities done to remedy these conditions in seriously polluted areas?
1 Not printed.
In the absence of funds and public support as expressed by legislative enactments, State authorities have carried out investigations and made recommendations to the extent of their facilities. Local authorities have not given much consideration to communities farther downstream, except where some local condition has caused a demand for action on the part of their own citizens.
5. In what respects have these efforts lacked in success?
Primarily because of lack of funds and an organization carrying out a national program, these efforts have usually accomplished the minimum necessary in a given situation.
6. What has the Public Health Service done with respect to stream pollution in the past?
Limited by existing laws to research and investigative procedures, the Public Health Service, since 1912, insofar as funds have permitted, has investigated the sanitary condition of coastal and shellfish areas, certain sections of the Great Lakes, and inland rivers as the Ohio, Illinois, and upper Mississippi. It' has developed the factors and natural laws governing self-purification of streams, has developed standards of quality; and the technique and laboratory procedures for effective stream sanitation investigations.
7. What are the present limits of Public Health Service authority in stream-pollution matters?
To investigate, to study, and to advise State and local authorities when requested. No special appropriations except general research funds have been made available in the past, subject to varying limitations of scope.
8. What are the limits of State health-department authority in stream-pollution matters?
State pollution laws have developed under the police power of the State to protect public health. The laws of 14 States afford practically no control. Twenty-six States have laws that afford partial or incomplete control. Eight States have laws which appear to permit a maximum degree of control.
9. Are the State laws for the control of stream pollution adequate and properly enforced?
The greatest defect of existing State laws is exemption or exception therefrom of specific industries or municipalities, or certain areas and and rivers. Nineteen States have laws containing one or more exceptions. This inadequacy of enforcement does not tend to efficient stream-pollution control.
10. Why are local authorities apathetic to stream-pollution control?
Because of the fact that the pollution introduced by their municipalities is carried downstream, whereas the pollution reaching their municipalities has been reduced by dilution and self-purification to the extent that citizens have tolerated the condition.
11. Why have some cities constructed sewage-disposal works prior to water treatment plants, and vice versa?
Because of local conditions and local agitation. In Milwaukee, a sewage treatment works was constructed prior to a water-filtration plant because local interests demanded it. In Chicago, the need for water purification has been overshadowed by the drainage canal litigation, resulting in sewage plant construction and reliance on chlorination alone for water supply protection. In the Ohio Valley, water plants have been constructed first because pollution upstream affecting the local water supply has overshadowed any interest as to the effects of the local sewage discharge upon the downstream communities.
12. What diseases are contracted from polluted streams?
By the ingestion of pathogenic organisms from sewage-polluted waters, it is possible to contract cholera (not present in the United States), typhoid fever, diarrhea, amoebic and bacillary dysentery, and other acute intestinal disturbances. By bathing in sewagepolluted waters, infections of eye, ear, nose, throat, and skin, such as mastoiditis, rhinitis, otitis, and furunculosis, have been known to be contracted.
13. What is the extent in the United States of such diseases?
In general, the tendency has been a decrease for diseases such as typhoid fever, due to improved public water supplies and sanitation. Typhoid fever morbidity has decreased from a general average of 20.6 deaths per 100,000 population for 74 cities in 1910 to a general average of 1.89 deaths per 100,000 population for 81 cities in 1928. The general typhoid fever death rate in 1934 was 3.5 per 100,000, and the dysentery death rate was 1.7 per 100,000 population. However, epidemics involving polluted streams or bodies of water occasionally occur, as the Chamberlain, N. Dak., typhoid fever epidemic of December 1932, with 282 cases and 29 deaths in a population of approximately 1,500 people; the recent outbreak of 100,000 or more cases of intestinal disturbances in Milwaukee, Wis.; and the Niagara River pollution "wave” of March 1933, resulting in an outbreak of diarrhea in Niagara Falls, N. Y., due to the sewage from Buffalo, N. Y.
14. Why do not cities obtain their public water supplies from ground water or upland sources and therefore continue to let the rivers serve as open sewers?
In many sections of the United States, such as the Great Lakes region and the Ohio Valley basin, ground water and upland sources of supply are insufficient, and recourse must be had to the polluted rivers and lakes for the raw water supplies. For years, communities in these regions have alternately filtered or chlorinated the polluted waters to make them fit for drinking and then repolluted these bodies of water with their sewage and industrial wastes until the pollution load on water treatment processes is fast approaching a dangerous degree.
15. What is the general condition of harbor waters, bathing beaches, and shellfish areas along the seacoast?
Harbor waters are in general badly polluted because of the discharge of raw sewage. Bathing beaches in proximity to the large cities likewise show the effects of the pollution from the nearby cities. Large areas of valuable shellfish grounds have been condemned because of pollution.
16. Are the harbors and bathing beaches along the Great Lakes polluted?
Similar conditions exist along the Great Lakes, aggravated by the use of the lake water also for drinking purposes. Some cities have built water filtration plants and others have constructed sewage disposal works, but in few instances have both kinds of plants, which are vitally needed, been constructed.
17. Can these conditions be prevented by pollution control and sewage treatment?
By measures for the reduction and elimination of serious stream pollution by proper methods of sewage and industrial waste treatment,