Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
philosophical implications of the situation. The environmentalists explained that
most of the pollution constantly pouring into the Rachel River would be eliminated
when the city's new wastewater treatment plant came on line and that specific
point-
source pollution
would be eliminated. They explained that the state agricultural
department and their environmental staff were working with farmers along the lower
river course to modify their farming practices and pesticide treatment regimes to
help control the most destructive types of
nonpoint-source pollution
. The environ-
mentalists explained that the Rachel River dam's current fish ladder was incorrectly
configured but could be modified with minor retrofitting.
The environmentalists went on to explain that the overfishing by foreign fishing
fleets off the Pacific Coast was a problem that the federal government was working
to resolve with the governments involved. The environmentalists explained that the
state of Washington and the federal government were also addressing a problem
with the Native Americans fishing the downriver locations, before the salmon ever
reached the dam. Both governmental entities were negotiating with the local tribes
on this problem. Meanwhile, local tribes had litigation pending against the state and
federal government to determine who actually owned fishing rights to the Rachel
River and the salmon.
The final problem was thermal pollution from the factories, which was making
the Rachel River unfavorable for spawning, decreasing salmon food supply, and kill-
ing off the young salmon fry. The environmentalists explained that to correct this
problem, the outfalls from the factories would have to be changed and relocated. The
environmentalists also recommended construction of a channel basin whereby the
ready-to-release salmon fry could be released in a favorable environment, at ambi-
ent stream temperatures. This would give them a controlled one-way route to safe
downstream locations where they could thrive until it was time to migrate to the sea.
After many debates and newspaper editorials, the city officials put the matter to a
vote and voted to fund the projects needed to solve the salmon problem in the Rachel
River. Some short-term projects are already showing positive signs of change, long-
term projects are underway, and the Rachel River is on its way to recovery. In short,
scientists are professionals who study to find
the
answer to a problem through scien-
tific analysis and study. Their interest is in pure science. The environmentalists (also
scientists) can arrive at the same causal conclusions as general scientists, but they
are also able to factor in socioeconomic, political, and cultural influences, as well.
But, wait! It's not over yet. Concerns over disruption of the wild salmon gene pool
by hatchery trout are drawing attention from environmentalists, conservationists,
and wildlife biologists. Hatchery- or farm-raised stock of any kind is susceptible to
problems caused by, among other things, a lack of free genetic mixing and the spread
of disease, infection, and parasites, as well as reinforcement of negative character-
istics. When escaped hatchery salmon breed with wild salmon, the genetic strain is
changed and diseases can be transmitted. Many problems can arise.
Yes, many problems arise and solutions are constantly sought. When nature's
natural processes are interrupted, changed, or manipulated in any way, humans need
to adjust to the changes, but so does Mother Nature. The question is are the human-
made changes to natural surroundings a good or bad thing? It depends. On what? It
depends on your point of view.
