The Problem of Surface Water Acidification - Coursework Example

Running Header: LESSONS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF AQUATIC POLLUTION Management of Aquatic Pollution Your Instructor March 23, 2009 Management of Aquatic Pollution The quandary of surface water acidity is intricately correlated to the discharge of contaminant chemicals like sulphur and nitrogen mostly from fossil fuels and the reduction of nitrogen resulting from agricultural production. Other pollutants are waste discharges from industrial developments and human settlements mostly from the urban areas that have continued to contaminate water sources. However other sources of pollution have recently been identified as resulting from naturally occurring chemicals like arsenic and fluoride. Although there has been a marked effort by authorities and environmental agencies to contain this phenomenon on its detrimental effect on clean water and agricultural products, the main concern is that these pollutants are also impacting negatively on the bird populations and other aquatic forms (Haliwell et al, 456). There has nonetheless been a significant decline in acidic levels on the surface waters since their peak levels in the late 1970s on a number of areas within the United Kingdom especially in sulphuric acidity. This has been credited to local and international policy regulations and legislations e.g. the Convention of Long Range Trans-Boundary Air Pollution and the European Union. They include the Gothenburg Protocol of 1999, the Large Combustion Plants Directive, and the National Emissions Ceilings Directive associated with the Clean Air for Europe programme. A more recent directive is the European Union Water Framework Directive (WFD) that advocates for all surface waters good ecological status by 2016. This includes not only human life but also the biological status of aquatic life like fish, phytoplankton, and macrophytes that depend on collective practical steps aimed at reducing acidic emissions. This European Union (EU) Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) has been hailed as one of the most significant water legislation Acts in along time that seeks to rationalise the existing legislations by establishing an integrated European approach to the proposals of river basin development and water management. The main aspirations of the ordinance were: to check any further deterioration while offering fortification and improvement to the importance of aquatic ecosystems and correlated wetlands; propping up a sustainable consumption of water system; diminishing water contamination from precedence substances; averting the decline in the importance and progression of groundwater pollution; and further enhancement to measures aimed at curbing floods and droughts and associated effects (Potter et al, 4). Mining has been cited as one of the major hindrances to attaining the EU’s Water Framework Directives objectives in the UK. This is due to the extensive pollution of mine waters within Wales and the northern and western parts of England. Estimates by the National Rivers Authority indicate river pollution of more than 400km through coal mines and in more than 200km of metal mines. In efforts to ascertain future environmental impact of pollution, a simulated model to assess the effect of the acidic levels was enacted: MAGIC (Model of Acidification of Groundwater in Catchments) in three areas that have high water acid sensitive levels. This simulation done at Galloway, the Pennines, and Wales was aimed at determining the chemical, biological, and ecological position by 2016 and 2036 (Haliwell at el, 457). The model replicated observed base cation and acid anion concentrations that indicated the acid neutralising capacity (ANC) using the Gothenburg Protocol will be achieved for Galloway at 100 percent, the Pennines at 86 percent, and Wales at 100 percent. The tests indicated a possibility of an attainment of ‘good status’ for biological resurgence but less promise in the chemical conditions by 2016 until may be reduced by higher nitrogen seepage by 2036. Substantial lessons can be learned from the study of policies endorsed for the control of surface and safe drinking water as means of practising the same tenants in other aquatic forms. Pollution of the surface water, groundwater and river beds usually has corresponding effect on the marine life as the pollution eventually seeps to the large waters of the lakes and sea. The World Health Organisation (WHO) indicates that safe drinking water as one of the unalienable basic human rights for human development and health (Thompson et al, 19). The same analogy should be extended for the often defenceless aquatic life that often times is beleaguered by the bad behaviour of humans on the surface in the selfless indulgence. The WHO (2003) Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality gives an outline of approaches to dealing with both microbial and chemical pollutants to be used for setting up minimum national standards for curbing pollution while incorporating individual countries’ cultural, social-economic conditions as well as the local environmental conditions prevailing. Whenever there is a credible verification of chemical contamination backed by factual occurrence of high toxic levels, if the contaminant chemical has been identified internationally and has been proposed for inclusion in the World Health Organisation’s Pesticide Evaluation Scheme (WHOPES) programme of possible water pollutants. WHOPES lists a formidable list of approximately 200 toxic chemicals as potential or proven contaminants. Some of the preliminary fundamental lessons derived from surface water acidity control measures are for the need to form a committee that will work harmoniously to enact policy and legislation aimed at curbing the problem of aquatic water pollution and management. This can include the public health department, ecological, water resources, water distribution, husbandry, geological, manufacturing, and business-related authorities which will consequently elect an interagency committee that will transcend all the sectors in analysing the problems. The committee can then review existing local and international standards, strategy, and rules. This gives the committee a foundation for developing their localised rules and regulations. Each constituency will already have identified the glaringly verifiable problems affecting its jurisdiction or marine biology; hence will be one of the principle agendas. This may include industrial pollution affecting the fishing industry, emigration of marine life, loss of exotic sea plant like coral among others. The committee also considers the economic implications of any decision their come up with as lack of funding always constrains the planned strategy. Other constraints are in form of expert human resource, lack of appropriate equipment for sampling and testing, as well as in enforcing rules. The committee is therefore obligated to considering sourcing for funding or involving non-state actors who can provide the necessary human and equipment resources. This include environmental groups both local and international, academic institutions, and private business who must be enticed through tax relief or other ways. The committee therefore must identify the priorities that must be the precursor to other more elaborate measures in the aquatic water pollution and safety management. This can be isolated to the specific chemicals that pose that have been factually identified in the specific location or country, rather than the popular international toxins that may not be a priority to the local situation. The most common chemicals that plague the waterways are fluoride, arsenic, and selenium. These are naturally occurring chemicals that provide major contamination in a lot of countries and which are distributed through the groundwater. Another naturally occurring chemical is nitrate. This is mostly distributed as result of disproportionate application of fertilizers whether organic or inorganic, coupled with improper crop and animal husbandry practices and sewage disposal. They are found in both groundwater and the surface water hence predictably spread the microbial contamination to the sea or marine areas. Other common chemicals are iron and manganese which can be found globally although they are not particularly potent toxins though are the main cause of water ‘soiling’ or discolouration. This affects fish, planktons and other marine life as they disrupt the ecological system in the seabed. Another potent chemical which has been a major pollutant to water services around the world is lead. It has been attributed to causing severe health problems in humans and non-humans. Its presence or seepage to the aquatic waters is therefore a major concern among environmentalists. It’s mainly attributed to constructions building materials and other industrial activities but can also be sourced in mining areas. Agricultural activity has been identified as one of the major sources of pollution in both surface and groundwater. It also a major contributor to the deterioration of aquatic waters affecting marine biology as the organic and inorganic chemicals used in farming activities find there way to the sea. Similarly, poor farming methods contribute to the disturbance of ecological balance as acidic content from rocks and groundwater seep into the sea. Large-scale surface silt and deposits of exotic plants like the water hyacinth also disrupt the existing marine colonies that are forced to emigrate further upstream or downstream additionally contributing to the disruption. In Scotland where water resources are prone to agricultural diffuse pollution which impinges on the quality of the waters is affected by agro nutrients like phosphorus and nitrogen. Lessons from the much studied Chesapeake Bay Program suggest better nutrient control methods, buffer strips, and stream-bank fencing to enforce conservation. Communities must also be enlightened and state support provided funding and resources (Aukerman, 262). The most common pollutant among agricultural chemicals is nitrate and pesticides. Other less malevolent toxins are human sewerage, manures, and fertilisers that lead to algal blooms growth in stagnant waters. They also endanger the marine life in shallow lakes which are surrounded by heavy agricultural activity which use irrigation methods and lethal chemicals like the flower or horticultural farms that apply and discharge harmful compounds to the aquatic inhabitants. The hazardous chemicals also destroy the aquatic plant-life therein. The regulatory authorities are thus must legislate against the use of these substances and weed them out from large-scale agricultural or garden use. Another agricultural supplement applied is biosloids, a residue of the compound, organic and material treatment of urban and industrial residue from septic tank treatment procedures. This may contain some metallic elements depending on the source hence prove pollutant. This is especially harmful when municipal authorities and manufacturing plants deposit raw sewage directly into the sea. This leads to direct contamination of aquatic life if agricultural and industries waste is allowed to seep into the sea. The environmental authorities must constantly keep a tight control over the agricultural activities including enforcing proper farming techniques to deter any detrimental effect on the marine biology or other aquatic forms. Agricultural pollution is also upheld through the use of pesticides, herbicides and other substance used to control insects, weeds, and fungal infections. The World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends conscientious use and administration of some pathogens to avoid seepage into the aquatic areas (Thompson et al, 63). The contamination levels are largely dependent on local rainfall and the adsorption into the soils. Agricultural contamination can also occur whenever poor disposal of excess chemicals, cleaning, uncontrolled mixing sites, and poor storage facilities are observed. The large amount of water used in agricultural farming often exposes the risk of leaching nitrates and other toxins especially in irrigation to contamination levels. Pollution is also linked to direct human activities within their settlements mostly in the urban centres where contamination usually occurs in the water supply and sewerage systems. Urban centres often carelessly discharge water treatment affluent directly into the waterways or the sea. However depending on the affluent, discharge into the sea is less harmful as the waste water may contain nitrogen. Municipalities are encouraged to formulate strategies aimed at recycling of the wastewaters to reduce pollution and for conservation purposes. Domestic or household waste is usually contaminated by an assortment of chemicals like phenols, ammonia, nitrate, and heavy metals which vary over time. The urban runoff or sewage system contain chemical and microbial pollutants which are byproducts of vehicles leaking fuel, exhaust fumes emitting lead, worn metal filings, tyres or rubber, and industrial leakages finding their way into the storm-water. Public health methods employed by the local authorities have also led to unnecessary pollution of water. The use of unregulated herbicides or pesticides in the urban areas may inject harmful toxins like atrazine. Authorities have therefore discerned the potential contaminants hence careful application of chemicals for prevention and control of pests is scrupulously observed by referring to the dispensing regulatory authorities. This include larvicides like chlorpyrifos, the contentious dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), and pyriproxyfen which are applied for the management of the water larval stages of insects (BGS, 1) Pollution from industrial waste has been noted as the most abhorrent among other prominent contaminants. This is found mainly in the mining areas (extractive mineral ore or fossil oil sites) or among urban industrial plants that leak dangerous chemicals to the environment. Insolvent metal like lead, chemicals such as cyanide pose a significant danger to both surface water but also to the aquatic marine inhabitants. Mineral processing chemicals, acid mine drainage (AMD) and other industrial affluent from mines and manufacturing processing plants contain many harmful substances. These plants include the heavy metal, textile dyeing, tannery, paper industries, and electrical works among others. These potential contaminants must be identified to avoid possible pollution and have to be closely regulated by the concerned authorities. Abandoned industrial site or brownstones are also potential aquatic health hazard zones as they may contain harmful acidic water and insolvent chemicals lurking within or leaking through the groundwater. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), AMD is the most detrimental environmental hazard in mining sites especially in areas where mineral and coal deposits are encompassed by sulphide minerals like pyrite (Thompson et al, 81). This has the potential of releasing sulphuric acid upon oxidation reducing water pH levels drastically hence causing higher metal concentrations. This acid destroys vegetation, aquatic life and acidic elements like ferric hydroxides that permeate the water. A study of the river Gaunless catchment area in County Durham, UK on mine pollution concluded that 45 percent of the iron load to river Gaunless was due to diffuse sources during dry spells, and over 95 percent of the iron load due to diffuse sources in the wet periods as a result of surface runoff and re-suspension of sludge from riverbeds (Mayes, Jarvis, and Younger, 504).Coastal contamination of seawater exposes people to health vulnerability as fish/shellfish populations get contaminated. This was experienced in the mercury contamination in the Minamata infection epidemic in Japan in 1956. Marine pollution exposure from these chemicals is primarily from polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and dioxins (Kjellstrom at el, 820). In Australia, the Murray-Darling river system acidic levels are at critical stage after years of neglect as toxic waste was carelessly deposited there. This has affected its salinity, acidity, temperature and nutrient levels hence directly affecting the proximate lakes Alexandria and Albert which are laden with iron-sulphide rich soils which form sulphuric acid upon exposure. Similarly, sideronatrite a highly acidic mineral soil coupled with the sulphuric acid has accumulated in large quantities to over 240,000 tonnes. This has the possibility of leaking to the nearby lakes threatening aquatic life, fish, algae, and micro-organisms. According to CSIRO, (Land and Water Research Institute in Adelaide) Rob Fitzpatrick, “Acid dissolves aluminium, arsenic, zinc and lead which could contaminate water supplies” (CSIRO, 1). CSIRO suggests the flushing of the lakes with marine water to lower the corrosive pH levels. Other more enduring solutions are growing acid-resistant soils and spreading alkaline lime to stem or neutralize the acidic waters (CSIRO, 1). Surface water acidification pollution mainly from extractive industries has forced the environmental authorities to enact a number of punitive regulations that govern ecological conservation and exposure. These essentially require the halting of chemical pollution along waterways and the control of waste disposal or affluent into the aquatic seawaters. There have been extensive policies aimed at encouraging a reduction in the use of biodegradable products and integrated pest control management to preserve waterways. Proper treatment of dangerous waste and the recycling of materials are propagated to ensure waste accumulation reduction and their leaching into waterways must be practised to avoid further pollution. All these measures have a corresponding effect on the control of marine or other aquatic forms pollution. The same conservation policies and techniques equally applicable to other aquatic contaminated areas like groundwater and seawater that face the same toxic problems and are a danger to both plants and animals whether on the surface or marine locations. According to Kjellstrom, Lodh, McMichael and others (p827), there are very many substantial benefits to be gained by implementing pollution control measures. This advantages range from financial rewards to the industries in terms of less production costs, to health benefits, and the actual saving of lives if the implementation of conservation measures is conscientiously practised. The savings due to the associated burden of disease will be considerable while the economic benefits of healthier populations are invaluable. These benefits have been quantified through many studies across various countries to conclusively allude to the beneficial adoption of conservative methods through reduction of pollutants within the environment (Kjellstrom at el, 827-8). The enduring lessons from studies of surface water acidic pollution applicable to other aquatic forms are that chemical control measures from the various pollutants who either deliberately and unconsciously deposit affluent toxic material to the waterways is for a stringent control of their activities and the authorities ensuring that the minimum policy rules and requirements are followed as set by various agencies. The EU Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) is good benchmark for authorities while the World Health Organisation provides the recommended measures with a list of the internationally accepted toxic chemicals that need to be controlled. Most aquatic forms face identical environmental problems hence can be collectively controlled by the authorities and private enterprises through observing the recommended conservation strategies. Works Cited Aukerman, Cynthia J. "Agricultural Diffuse Pollution Controls: Lessons For Scotland From The Chesapeake Bay Watershed." Journal Of Land Use: [Vol. 20:1 2004: 191-268. BGS. "Assessing Risk to Groundwater from On-Site Sanitation,." 2001. British Geological Survey. 21 March 2009 . CSIRO. "Australian Lakes Generate Sulphuric Rain." 2006. Softpedia. 22 March 2009 . Hugh Potter, Brian Bone, Joanne Forster, Phil Chatfield and Graham Tate. "The Environment Agency’s approach to Mining Pollution." Environment Agency Research Fellowship for Mines 2006: 1-15. "The Environment Agency’s Approach to Mining Pollution." Mayes, William M., Jarvis, Adam P., Younger, Paul L. "Assessing the Importance of Diffuse Mine Water Pollution: A Case Study from County Durham, UK." 9th International Mine Water Congress 2003: 497-505. R.C. Haliwell, A. Jenkins, R.C. Ferrier and B.J. Cosby. "Uplands, Modelling the Recovery Of Surface Water Chemistry And The Ecological Implications In The British." Hydrology and Earth Sciences 2003: 456-466. Terrence Thompson, John Fawell, Shoichi Kunikane, Darryl Jackson, Stephen Appleyard, Philip Callan, Jamie Bartram, Philip Kingston. Chemical safety of drinking water : assessing priorities for risk management. Risk Assessment. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2007. Tord Kjellstrom, Madhumita Lodh, Tony McMichael,Geetha Ranmuthugala, Rupendra Shrestha, and Sally Kingsland. Air and Water Pollution: Burden and Strategies for Control. Geneva: World Health Organization (WHO), 2004. USEE., Utah Society for Environmental Education. "Salt Lake County Storm Water Quality Education Lesson and Activity Plans." Storm Water Quality: Lesson And Activity Plans. Salt Lake City: Utah Society for Environmental Education (USEE)., December 2005. Read More