Pollution in the Chesapeake Bay - Essay Example

Pollution in the Chesapeake Bay Introduction Environmental pollution is not anew phenomena in the contemporary world considering its dire effects it has had in transforming our environments for the worst of survival. It is worth noting that much of the environmental pollution begun immediately after the emergence of industrial revolution in Europe and elsewhere in the world. The growing technology witnessed upon the commencement of industrial revolution led to the creation and development of technical manufacturing process and complex manufactured products that have since led to the depletion of environment. Chesapeake Bay is one of the initially beautiful regions and that have succumbed to the unbearable effects of environmental pollution. In the revelation of Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF), Chesapeake Bay was considered among the healthiest regions in the world during early 1600s. Chesapeake was actually consisted of wetlands, resourceful lands and forest buffers that assisted in the absorption and cleansing of nutrients before getting into the water ecosystem. The filtered nutrients were allowed into the water body in their safest states harmless to the aquatic life. Chesapeake Bay Foundation in its yearly reports of health index of Chesapeake Bay of 2010 compared to 1600s indicated that in the early 1600s Chesapeake scored 100 out of 100 scales on health index. In 2010, the health index rating of Chesapeake watershed dropped to 31of the 100 scale of rating. Even up to date despite the efforts by the American government of allocating huge sums of dollar on rehabilitation of Chesapeake Watershed, it has been hard to achieve and realize substantial achievements and results. The process of restoration is taking place at a dismal rate. However, Winter indicates that the administration of President barrack Obama has shown some rays of commitment to an extent of introducing tuff and strict disciplinary measures against potentially discovered polluters. Sources of pollution in Chesapeake watershed Chesapeake Bay has an average of nine tributaries, which supplied fresh water into the watershed before industrial revolution and haphazard creation of industries that manufactured pollutant chemical substances. Among the main and recognized largest tributaries of Chesapeake Bay is the Susquehanna River initially supplied more than half capacity of the total water in the Chesapeake watershed. The James and Potomac Rivers are next largest tributaries of Chesapeake Bay. These rivers pass near industries, farmlands and homes from where hazardous chemical substances are channelled into the Chesapeake Watershed According to US Geological Survey (USGS) and with reference to its 1992 report of environmental survey, the nine tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay channelled about six hundred million pounds of nitrogen into the watershed. Of all the estimation of nitrogen channelled into the watershed, 97% emanated entered through the three major tributaries; Susquehanna, James and Potomac Rivers. As outlined by the USGS, the main pollutants carried by the tributaries of Chesapeake are majorly related to the agricultural farmlands through which the rivers flow downstream to the Chesapeake watershed. River Susquehanna is estimated to contribute the largest amount of the pollutants considering its passage through many cities and regions in the United States. Much of the agriculture related pollutants result from inorganic fertilizers used ion planting and animal wastes that compound the amount of nitrogen in the soil. USGS further connotes that between 1990 and 1992, the nine Chesapeake tributaries contributed to about thirty millions pounds of phosphorus, with 90%b of the total contributed by the three tributaries; Susquehanna, Potomac and James Rivers (Chesapeake Bay Program 15). The Potomac River is attributed to high phosphate content and thus the largest amount of contribution into the Chesapeake Watershed. River Susquehanna contributes smaller amounts of phosphorus when compared to its total contribution of water into the watershed. The phosphorus contribution by River James is linked to its high content of treated sewerage effluents (USGS). Measures taken to rehabilitate Chesapeake Bay Considering the aesthetic value and treasure attached to the Chesapeake Bay, US government has taken numerous and varied steps to monitor the rate and level of pollution occurring in the Chesapeake Watershed. Cognizable steps to rehabilitate and restore the status of the Chesapeake Wetland started in 1987 when Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia States signed pact with the Federal Government objecting to reduce pollution of the watershed to 60% by the end of 2000 (Horton 23). The individual States involved in the pact strategized measures projected to pose bans on the release of detergents rich in phosphorous, improve treatment of sewerages, controlling runoffs from farmlands, urban areas, control of pastures and protection of wetlands and forests that act as purifiers of the toxic minerals. In move to assess the scope of success made, USGS have been using integrated technologies of collecting and water samples from the individual rivers and testing on the amount of phosphorous and nitrogen contents. In further move to mitigate and control the scope of environmental degradation of the Chesapeake, US Federal Government formed a special task force named the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) mandated to ensure coordination, research and proper plan of strategies destined to rehabilitating the Chesapeake Watershed. CBF have since adopted advanced technology of using septic syste4m in removing nitrogen from the soil and the hydrosphere of Chesapeake Bay. Davies and Jan depict that the CBF have also initiated substantial plans of planting cover crops on greatest parts of the US to monitor and reduce the amount of surface runoff that carries the nitrogen and phosphorus minerals into the Chesapeake Wetland (20). In addition, CBF have made significant steps to initiate nutrients management plans and control of manures that cause environmental pollution. Moreover, CBF have displayed good focus in encouraging and implementing planting of buffer forests that will help in filtering the mineral contents of runoffs (CBF). Effects of pollution in Bay As numerously mentioned in the paper, pollution has had dire and detrimental effects on the Chesapeake Bay. The excess nitrogen channelled into the hydrosphere of the Chesapeake Bay has significantly led to deterioration of quality of water in the specific regions. The increased accumulation of nitrogen provided conditions for the growth of the algae blooms that are blamed for utilizing much of the dissolved oxygen. Reduction in the supply of oxygen in the waters of Chesapeake Bay has led to consequential deaths of fish that suffocate due to low volumes of dissolved oxygen. The blossoming of algae blooms due to oversupply of nitrogen has led to the development shades that obstruct penetration of sunlight into the waters thus denying aquatic grasses one of the basic photosynthetic essentials (Horton 33). This has since led to the death of grasses that are food supplements for fish (CBF). As mentioned by Newman, nitrogen and phosphorous contributes to the growth of cyanobacteria that is also known as blue-green algae. The cyanobacteria are known to produce infectious toxins that cause liver disease, vomiting, and nausea and skin cancers. Excess concentration of phosphorous in water leads to limited growth of aquatic plants. Additionally, excess phosphorous concentration also results to the death of aquatic lives. Counterargument The efforts by the US government in collaboration with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation to rehabilitate the Chesapeake Watershed translate to actual delineation on all the known elements that cause pollution of this initially aesthetic ecosystem. The polluting elements are noted to result from agricultural activities including the use of inorganic fertilizers in planting and rearing of livestock that release wastes that are finally leached into the rivers. Doing this will mean introduction of prohibitive measures on all the activities involving rearing of livestock in the US, which are also presumed as important sources of food for human beings. Livestock such as chicks, cattle, sheep, and others that are blamed for realising wastes that rich in nitrogen are good sources of protein and fats that are necessary for human general body development and growth. Controlling and to the worst situation stopping the use of fertilizers and animal wastes in farming will lead to depreciation in the amount and quality of nutrients found in the soil. This situation will lead to low and perhaps poor performance of the agricultural sector in the Chesapeake Watershed and the entire US. Fall in the agricultural productivity in the US will lead to food shortage and eventually long term hunger will strike the country. Restriction of agriculturally productive activities with the intents of protecting and rehabilitating Chesapeake watershed will result to upsurge in the unemployment rate in the US. Many people initially employed in the agricultural sector shall be rendered jobless and flood the other congested job markets. Furthermore, unemployment will rise due to the fact that manufacturing industries that rely on certain agricultural raw materials will face shortage of supply thus obliged to close down their operations. This will again render jobless a significant number of US citizens. Government’s proposals and steps to rehabilitate the Chesapeake Watershed will mean aggressive intervention on the urban areas and cities, most of which are industrially oriented. The intervention on the urban industries will involve restriction of emission of pollutants in the form of solid smokes into the atmosphere. The solid smokes released into the atmosphere are believed to combine with atmospheric moistures and falls inform of phosphoric, carbonic, sulphuric or nitric acid rains. The acid rains are always hazardous to the well being of living organisms including plants and animals. Government’s intervention on the urban industries will mean stop in production activities as companies will be restricted from channelling their chemical wastes into the rivers and eventually into the Chesapeake watershed. In compliance to the restriction, it will be impossible for companies to accumulate the wastes within their environments without defined spots of disposal. This will call for automatic closure of manufacturing processes and again rise in the unemployment rates. Furthermore, for the US government to ensure substantial success in its probable rehabilitation dream of the Chesapeake Watershed, it will have to mitigate and ban operations of companies that produce varieties of chemicals. This again will have detrimental effects on the US economy considering the fact that most of economic productive activities involve the use of chemicals. Conclusion The Chesapeake Bay is in critical condition and major changes need to be done to the entire watershed. Whether these changes affect the watershed or not, we have put the Bay in its current position and it needs to be “saved”. Saving Chesapeake Bay has full guarantee to the boosting of the US economy from the perspectives of agriculture and commerce. The modalities of rehabilitating and saving the Chesapeake Watershed involve integrated but simple undertakings such as planting of more trees, cultivating cover crops, controlling manure, industrial and domestic effluents and treating of sewerages before being channelled into the rivers. Methods of planting also needs to be monitored and controlled to the best of attaining controlled and manageable release of nitrogen and phosphorus into the Chesapeake Watershed. However, the steps to be considered in rehabilitating the Chesapeake Watershed should be cautious of possible effects of the rehabilitation process on the economy of the country as far as agriculture and industrial raw materials are concerned. Works cited CBF. Water Quality Issues: Nitrogen and Phosphorus Pollution. 2012. Web. < http://www.cbf.org/page.aspx?pid=913>. Chesapeake Bay Program. Chesapeake Bay program nutrient trading fundamental principles and guidelines. New York: Diane Publishing, 2001. Print. Davies, J C, and Jan Mazurek. Pollution Control in the United States: Evaluating the System. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 1998. Print. Ernst, Howard R. Chesapeake Bay Blues: Science, Politics, and the Struggle to Save the Bay. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2003. Print. Horton, Tom. Bay Country. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994. Print. Horton, Tom. Turning the Tide: Saving the Chesapeake Bay. Washington, D.C: Island Press, 2003. Print. Newman, Jeff. Bay pollution now poses health problems: Foundation study warns against increasing dangers to humans. 2009. Web. < http://ww2.somdnews.com/stories/07102009/rectop152727_32183.shtml>. USGS. Chesapeake Bay: Measuring Pollution Reduction. 1995. Web. < http://water.usgs.gov/wid/html/chesbay.html>. Winter, Brian. Scientists, Amish to fight Chesapeake Bay pollution. 2010. Web. < http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/2010-02-18-chesapeake-bay-pollution-Amish_N.htm>. Read More