Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
resources are available, might incorporate assessments of their assimilative capacities and
a corresponding allocation of maximum permissible loads. However, in numerous cases
of smaller streams and rivers, such assessments are not necessary, as it is obvious that
their assimilative capacity is limited. For example, in the case of the Marimba catchment,
the river has very limited assimilative capacity, but a more detailed examination of the
Lake Chivero assimilative capacity could be necessary for the formulation of a sound
implementation plan. In all cases, the regular monitoring of the water quality status of the
Lake would be necessary in order to control the effect of the implemented measures.
A very important aspect of the implementation of such programs is their cycling
nature, where the timeframe of implementation should be specified within a prescribed
period of time, most often several years. After the elapse of this period, the program
should be revised and a new cycle started.
6.2
Financing and economic aspects of diffuse pollution control
Providing the necessary funding for any planned activity or program in the field of water
resources is one of the basic requirements for its implementation. In many countries, such
programs are financed by the government, as part of the whole system of natural water
resources' protection and restoration. However, it is often argued that the burden for
cleaning “your own home”, or some local catchments should not be placed on the
shoulders of the whole nation. As a result, many countries have adopted the “polluter
pays” principle, which has gained momentum in its practical implementation and is
justifiable for the point sources of pollution, because in this case it is easier to identify the
polluter and the corresponding pollution load contributed to the water body. The same
principle could be applied in cases of diffuse pollution from areas where there is a single
owner, who could be identified to be responsible for the observed trends of increase in
the pollution status of the water body. However, in the vast majority of the cases of
diffuse pollution, the polluter is not defined at all, and could not be requested to sustain
the cost for the cleaning.
Another important consideration in this direction is the fact that one of the best ways
for diffuse pollution abatement lies in the implementation of prevention (source control)
measures, before the pollution has been generated. Thus, another approach to sustain the
cost of diffuse pollution control is to place the economic burden on the beneficiaries of
such types of programs, which is known as the “benefits received approach”. This
approach has two problematic issues; the first one being “the willingness to pay” of the
beneficiaries, and the second is their “ability to pay”. Obviously in the reported cases of
informal or semi-formal settlements “the ability to pay” of the beneficiaries is
questionable.
Considering the nature of diffuse pollution generation in urban areas, and the much
emphasized need for the implementation of prevention measures, as well as considering
the fact that historically, local authorities have been responsible for the management and
construction of pollution abatement structures, it could be recommended that the diffuse
pollution control should be organized, managed and financed by local authorities.
Campaigns for public awareness with respect to diffuse pollution impacts and the need
for the public to pay for such services would play a very important role in this process.
Also, the involvement and community participation is very important, as diffuse pollution
