home


 * Engage56**

I feel we need to test chemicals in The Rouge River.

=Decision day is coming for dams on the Huron= Alan Warren, The Ann Arbor News A rower makes use of the pond above Argo Dam on the Huron River in the city of Ann Arbor during a workout last month. City officials are considering removing the dam. It's been almost 50 years since the Argo Dam has served its original purpose of providing hydro power. Now, many environmentalists find it an obstacle to improving the Huron River, an obsolete structure built to serve grist and flour mills that have long since disappeared. There are 98 dams on the 136-mile trek of the Huron River from Oakland County to Lake Erie, four of which are owned by the city of Ann Arbor. The Barton and Superior dams are hydroelectric dams that, combined, produce enough electricity to power 840 homes for a year. The Argo and Geddes dams no longer are used for energy production and are considered recreational dams because they create ponds that are popular for rowing and fishing. Jim Jagdfeld, Special to The News Volunteers filled these boats junk pulled from the Huron River during the annual river cleanup day this spring in Livingston County's Hamburg Township.  But the Argo dam is in need of an estimated $500,000 in repairs, causing the city of Ann Arbor to consider if it's worth repairing. That decision will affect how the Huron River is used for years to come. Mayor John Hieftje said the decision could be made within a year. He said the city is awaiting final results from a study to see if it is worth turning Argo dam back into a power-generating dam. State and city officials say the trend is to remove dams. Since 2000, there have been 17 dams removed in the state of Michigan, according to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. The Dexter dam in Mill Creek in Washtenaw County is being removed this summer. In 2006, the Dimondale dam in the Grand River in Eaton County was removed at a cost of $500,000. Dimondale Village Manager Denise Parisian said since the dam was removed, there is more canoeing and kayaking, there is more use of the parks near the river, which she said were the only green space in the township. "There is much more appreciation of the river," she said. Matt Naud, the city of Ann Arbor's environmental coordinator, said there would be many benefits to removing the Argo dam. It could open the river to trout fishing. Now, the water is too warm for trout to survive, Naud said. That's because the dam allows the water to settle, where it heats up. A free-flowing river would drop the temperature, possibly allowing trout to flourish. There would be a more natural movement of aquatic species. "Dams are choke points in a river system," said Elizabeth Riggs, a watershed planner for the Huron Valley Watershed Council. "Fish can't move." There would be fewer problems with weeds, a problem for canoeists. Weeds grow in warmer temperatures. There's a possibility white water rapids could be created as an added recreation attraction. Naud said the steepest drop in the entire Huron River is from the Barton dam to Gallup Park. Once the dam is removed, sediment will no longer build in the bottom of the river, where it has settled for years behind the dam. Once the dam is removed, the water level will drop. That will give the city an estimated 25 acres of parkland that is now under water. But there are tradeoffs. The city would have to consider spending as much as $1 million to develop that new parkland. Also, there could be an added $500,000 expense of building a pedestrian bridge to replace the dam. There would be less fishing and rowers would need to find another place other than Barton Pond. There are an estimated 600 rowers that use the river in Ann Arbor. The decision to remove the dams should have been made years ago, according to one environmentalist. "The city owns the dams," said Doug Cowherd, chairman of the Sierra Club-Huron Valley Group. "They are not going to take it seriously until money forces them to. Removing dams in general creates free-flowing rivers that are far more healthy for fish and other species." Riggs said the fate of most dams comes down to dollars and cents. "Across the country, typically the turning point in deciding whether or not to remove a dam rests on those issues of safety or finance," Riggs said. "That's usually what moves these things."
 * By TOM GANTERT**

Christina's Rouge River Assignment:

Main 1-2 Rouge River 4-1 Subwatershed Management Plan I:\PROJECTS\Rouge-SubH2O\Main1-2\ManagementPlan\SWMP final-m12.doc11/7/01 Chapter 4 Goals 4.1 MAIN 1-2 DESIGNATED USES The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA), an agreement between the United States and Canada, laid out a format for the development of remedial action plans (RAPs) for specified waterways within the Great Lakes Watershed. In order for the Rouge River RAP to comply with this format, the document is required to define the environmental problems that affect the health of the river and its uses. The GLWQA defines 14 “use impairments,” which are changes in chemical, physical, or biological integrity of the Great Lakes System. These use impairments have become the template for determining the extent to which the river is degraded and for measuring progress toward its ultimate cleanup. The MDEQ has determined that ten uses are impaired throughout most of the Rouge River watershed and four uses require additional study in the Main 1-2. The use impairments are presented in Table 4-1 in rank order of importance to restoring the river, as determined by the MDEQ and RRAC. Table 4-1: Summary of Impaired Uses, Main 1-2 Subwatershed RANK ORDER IMPAIRMENT DEGREE AND EXTENT IN MAIN 1-2 1 Restrictions on swimming and other water-related activities Severely impaired 2 Loss of fish and wildlife habitat Excellent habitat in headwaters area, moderately to severely impaired downstream 3 Degradation of fish populations Impaired (according to Table 2-4) 3 Degradation of benthos Impaired – fair to poor rating (GLEAS 51) in all branches and tributaries studied 3 Degradation of wildlife populations Impairment unknown – additional studies necessary 4 Eutrophication or growth of undesirable algae Severely impaired – except most headwaters areas 4 Degradation of aesthetics Moderately to severely impaired – except most headwaters areas 5 Restrictions on fish consumption Impaired due to mercury (Table 2-5) 6 Bird or animal deformities or reproductive problems Impairment unknown – further study needed to determine the degree and extent 7 Restrictions on dredging activities Not impaired, since sediments in subwatershed have not been shown to be contaminated to the extent that it would interfere with dredge spoil disposal (Section 2.5.2) 8 Fish tumors or other deformities Status mostly unknown – very limited data does not indicate a problem (1995 MDNR survey) Main 1-2 Rouge River 4-2 Subwatershed Management Plan I:\PROJECTS\Rouge-SubH2O\Main1-2\ManagementPlan\SWMP final-m12.doc11/7/01 RANK ORDER IMPAIRMENT DEGREE AND EXTENT IN MAIN 1-2 9 Tainting of fish and wildlife flavor Impairment unknown – additional studies are needed to determine the degree and extent of impairment 10 Restrictions to navigation Not impaired, since Main 1-2 is well upstream of the dredged navigation channel 4.2 PRIORITIZE POLLUTANTS In order to reach goals on a subwatershed basis, it is important to identify the pollutants or threats that are detrimental to designated and desired uses. To restore the subwatershed, we also need a good understanding of the sources and causes of the pollutants or threats. Table 4-2 shows the prioritized pollutants, or threats to river quality, in the Main 1-2 Subwatershed, relates the pollutants or threats to the affected designated or desired uses, and lists their prioritized sources and causes. This prioritization is based on various factors such as the SWAG prioritization, a consideration of the magnitude of the source in the subwatershed, as well as review of past studies that indicate which source may be contributing the most problems in the subwatershed. This prioritization has assisted the SWAG in identifying and prioritizing which pollutant should be addressed first and with which best management practices. Table 4-2: Prioritized Pollutants or Threats to River Quality in the Main 1-2 Subwatershed PRIORITIZED POLLUTANTS OR THREATS TO RIVER QUALITY DESIGNATED (OR DESIRED USES) AFFECTED SOURCES (K=KNOWN, S=SUSPECTED) CAUSES (K=KNOWN, S=SUSPECTED) 1. E. coli bacteria 1. Partial body contact recreation 2. Total body contact recreation 1. Human waste from failing septic systems (k) 2. Illicit connection to the storm sewer (k) 3. Sanitary Sewer overflows (k) 1. Need for septic system maintenance education, inspection, correction (k) 2. Need for illicit connection investigation, correction (k) 3. Need for education about disposing of pet waste (s) 4. Need for education about controlling waterfowl waste (s) 5. Complete SSO control program 2. Total suspended solids (sediment) 1. Warmwater fishery 2. Indigenous aquatic life and wildlife 3. (Developing and enhancing recreational uses in and along the river system; enhancing aesthetics) 1. Construction sites (k) 2. Roads/streets/highways (k) 3. Eroding stream banks (s) 4. Agricultural land (s) 5. Livestock in streams (s) 1. Need for aggressive soil erosion and sedimentation controls or enforcement (k) 2. Need for enhanced street sweeping/cleaning program (s) 3. Need for riparian vegetation (k) 4. High wet weather flows (k) 5. Need for agricultural best management practices to reduce soil erosion (s) 6. Livestock access to streams (s) 3. Nutrients 1. Warmwater fishery 2. Indigenous aquatic life and wildlife 3. Partial body contact recreation 4. Total body contact recreation 5. (Developing and enhancing recreational uses in and along the river system; enhancing aesthetics) 1. Residential lawns (k) 2. Failing septic systems (s) 3. Illegal connection to the storm sewer (s) 4. Golf courses (k) 5. Streets (k) 6. Agricultural fertilizers and livestock waste (s) 7. Waterfowl and pet waste (s) 1. Need for education about proper fertilization and soil testing practices for residents, golf courses, agricultural landowners (k) 2. Need for improved street sweeping (s) 3. Need for septic system maintenance education, inspection, correction (s) 4. Need for illicit connection inspection, correction (s) 5. Need for proper manure management of livestock (s) Need for education about waterfowl and pet waste (s) Main 1-2 Rouge River 4-3 Subwatershed Management Plan I:\PROJECTS\Rouge-SubH2O\Main1-2\ManagementPlan\SWMP final-m12.doc11/7/01 PRIORITIZED POLLUTANTS OR THREATS TO RIVER QUALITY DESIGNATED (OR DESIRED USES) AFFECTED SOURCES (K=KNOWN, S=SUSPECTED) CAUSES (K=KNOWN, S=SUSPECTED) 4. Land Use Change/Loss of natural features (especially the riparian corridor) 1. Warmwater fishery 2. Indigenous aquatic life and wildlife 3. (Developing and enhancing recreational uses in and along the river system; enhancing aesthetics) 1. New development (k) 2. Older, urban development/redevelopment (k) 1. High development pressures (k) 2. Need for master plans and zoning ordinances that reflect conservation planning (k) 3. Need for protective ordinances/enforcement (k) 4. Need for education about innovative options for developers, local officials, judges (k) 5. Lack of public awareness (s) 6. Need for recreation planning (s) 7. Need for restoration in older, urban areas (k) 5. Flow variability 1. Warmwater fishery 2. Indigenous aquatic life and wildlife 3. (Developing and enhancing recreational uses in and along the river system; enhancing aesthetics) 1. Urban storm water (k) 1. Loss of wetlands and other natural features (k) 2. Urban areas with no on-site detention (k) 2. Directly connected impervious surfaces (k) 3. Detention ponds not functioning to highest standard (s) 6. Temperature increase (decreasing dissolved oxygen, decreasing habitat for fish and insects) 1. Warmwater fishery 2. Indigenous aquatic life and wildlife 3. (Developing and enhancing recreational uses in and along the river system; enhancing aesthetics) 1. Impervious surfaces (s) 2. Lack of riparian vegetation (k) 1. Need for incentives and regulations to decrease impacts of impervious surfaces in new developments (k) 2. Need for education and support for disconnecting impervious surfaces in urban areas (k) 3. Need for regulations, incentives, education, and support for preserving or restoring riparian vegetative cover (trees, overhanging vegetation for shade) (k) 7. Toxics/Heavy metals 1. Warmwater fishery 2. Indigenous aquatic life and wildlife 3. (Developing and enhancing recreational uses in and along the river system; enhancing aesthetics) 1. Atmospheric deposition (s) 2. Construction materials (s) 3. Automobile break linings and tires (k) 4. Household Hazardous Waste (s) 1. Need for air quality control (k) 2. Need for education regarding best construction practices (s) 3. Need for “ultra urban” underground storm water treatment devices (s) 4. Need for education and support for business and household hazardous waste disposal (s) 4.3 PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY RESULTS 4.3.1 Rouge Program Office The RPO conducted a survey of residents of the Rouge River watershed in September of 1999. Four hundred watershed residents were interviewed, 100 in each of the four geographic regions of the watershed. Region 1 (central southern Oakland County) corresponds closely to the Main 1-2 Subwatershed. The intent of the survey was to 1) ascertain residents’ current attitudes and knowledge about the Rouge River and its watershed 2) evaluate changes in attitudes and knowledge (since the 1993 survey) and 3) help determine public priorities for future restoration efforts. The results are discussed in the following paragraphs. The full 1999 public involvement survey is included in Appendix D. In Region 1, the quality of the environment is cited most often as the issue of primary concern. The majority of respondents in all four areas of the watershed believe Firefighter’s Park in Troy Main 1-2 Rouge River 4-4 Subwatershed Management Plan I:\PROJECTS\Rouge-SubH2O\Main1-2\ManagementPlan\SWMP final-m12.doc11/7/01 that government action is somewhat to very important in (1) improving the quality of area rivers and lakes, (2) increasing wetland protection, (3) preserving fish and wildlife habitat, (4) reducing flooding and erosion, and (5) cleaning up toxic waste sites. A very high number of interviewees (80 percent) believe their government action is very important in controlling air pollution. In Region 1 an equal number of respondents believe the Rouge River has stayed the same or improved over the past 5 years as do the respondents who believe the quality of the river today is fair or poor. Other findings for Region 1 are: • A large majority of respondents feel somewhat or very familiar with the Rouge River and its tributaries. • Approximately two-thirds of respondents indicate that in the last two years, they have visited a nearby park that has a river or stream running through it. Walking and picnicking are the number one and two uses, respectively, for river parks. When asked about the ideal uses of the Rouge River, its tributaries, and the land among them, many individuals suggest that cleaning it up, maintaining it, reducing pollution and increasing recreational opportunities should be high priorities. • Most respondents felt pollution to the river came from “ chemicals, oils, fertilizers, and other polluting materials that are found on the surface of parking lots, streets, farms, and lawns and washed into the river by rain” (36%) or CSOs (27.6%). • In response to a question specifically about storm water pollution, most respondents (75 percent) deem it a very significant or a somewhat significant problem affecting the river. • Nearly half (48%) of all respondents felt “somewhat optimistic” that the water quality and flooding problems of the Rouge can be improved. Another 31% were very optimistic. • 34% of respondents felt that public monies dedicated to improving quality or managing flow of area rivers and streams should stay the same or increase. 27.6 % thought much more should be spent; 21% thought a little more should be spent. 4.3.2 University of Michigan/Southeastern Oakland County Water Authority Survey In November, 1999, a public opinion survey was commissioned by the Southeastern Oakland County Water Authority(SOCWA) and performed by the University of Michigan (U-M). The survey was mailed to a total of 2,000 residents in Troy, Birmingham, Beverly Hills, Lathrup Village and Southfield. The purpose of the survey was to determine respondents’ knowledge of the Rouge River watershed and healthy lawn and garden principles. Relevant findings were: Environmental Familiarity • 62% of respondents were at least slightly familiar with the Rouge River watershed and its network of rivers and streams. • An even number of respondents (nearly 50%) were familiar with local watershed cleanup activities as those who were not. • Nearly 59% of respondents were at least slightly familiar with access points to rivers, streams, or lakes in their communities. • Nearly 79% of respondents were at least slightly familiar with local household hazardous waste collection programs. HHW Day in Bloomfield Township Main 1-2 Rouge River 4-5 Subwatershed Management Plan I:\PROJECTS\Rouge-SubH2O\Main1-2\ManagementPlan\SWMP final-m12.doc11/7/01 • 54% of all respondents were at least slightly familiar with local healthy lawn and garden programs. Importance Of Water Quality and Natural Areas • Nearly 90% of respondents felt that water quality of local rivers, streams and lakes in the community was important or extremely important. • Natural areas and natural landscapes in the community were important or extremely important to 90% of the respondents. • 50% agreed or strongly agreed that their community should be doing more about water quality. Willingness To Try Beneficial Practices • 67% are likely to or will definitely try to stop feeding ducks/geese in public parks. • 37% are likely to or will definitely try to minimize fertilizer and/or pesticide use. • 63% are likely to or will definitely try to select native trees, shrubs, flowers and grasses. However, according to survey results, many respondents already engaged in such beneficial behaviors as picking up pet waste from the sidewalk and yard, not feeding ducks or geese in public parks, recycling used motor oil and using a household hazardous waste drop-off program. 4.4 GOALS OF THE MAIN 1-2 SUBWATERSHED ADVISORY GROUP The Main 1-2 Subwatershed Advisory Group established long term goals for its watershed management plan. After public input, priorities were established for the selected goals. Once priorities were agreed upon, specific short-term objectives were developed. The long-term goals are listed below in bold, while the several shortterm objectives are listed under each long-term goal. Long-term goals are defined as goals that are to be met in a time period greater than five years. A decision was made to replace short-term goals with the term shortterm objectives in the WMP following meeting sand discussions with MDEQ. 4.4.1 Remove Sources of Pollution that Threaten Public Health • Identify all stream segments that currently exceed water quality bacteria standards for total body contact during dry weather conditions. • Conduct investigations to determine location of significant sources of untreated human waste entering river. • Identify remedial measures to correct illicit connections or address illegal discharges. • Evaluate treated CSO and develop plan to address shortcomings. • Develop approaches to address known SSOs 4.4.2 Restore /Maintain Aesthetically Appealing Conditions • Continue participation in annual Rouge Rescue/River Day • Conduct public education programs • Publicize correct disposal practices for household waste • Encourage better understanding of connection to the river and the need for river stewardship Quarton Lake in Birmingham Main 1-2 Rouge River 4-6 Subwatershed Management Plan I:\PROJECTS\Rouge-SubH2O\Main1-2\ManagementPlan\SWMP final-m12.doc11/7/01 • Provide “hotline” to report illegal dumping or disposal practices • Provide direct information to businesses on how to prevent waste materials from reaching the river • Educate riparian landowners about their responsibilities • Evaluate existing programs and propose any needed changes to ordinances and regulations, for controlling illegal waste disposal into the river or storm drains. • Investigate cost effective methods for the maintenance of storm sewer catch basins and other related infrastructure. 4.4.3 Improve and Maintain River Ecosystem for Fish and Wildlife • Identify functioning wetlands and other important fisheries and wildlife habitat within or adjacent to the river and its tributaries. • Encourage protection of existing high value wildlife habitat area found on private land. • Identify opportunities that will preserve headwater areas, high value fisheries, and wildlife habitat areas found within the river or on publicly owned land. • Improve or create fisheries and wildlife habitat. • Identify opportunities to create habitat in conjunction with other public or private water management projects. • Determine the feasibility and cost of restoring habitat critical to the survival of important species. • Evaluate the potential for improving stream temperatures and related water quality parameters through stream side vegetation enhancements or other actions to benefit populations of preferred wildlife/fisheries species. • Identify areas where dissolved oxygen, or the quantity of pollutants do not meet state water quality standards intended to protect fish and aquatic organisms • Determine what actions, in addition to those already identified, need to be initiated to meet water quality standards. • Develop and encourage the implementation of best management practices for parklands, golf courses, and other publicly owned lands adjacent to the river to assure that maintenance practices adequately protect water quality. 4.4.4 Minimize the Amount of Soil Erosion and Sedimentation • Provide training of local soil erosion control administrators in best construction practices and erosion prevention techniques. • Encourage training and participation by stakeholders, homeowners and developers in best construction practices and erosion prevention techniques • Where feasible, incorporate best management practice design features, like grassy swales, into road construction or reconstruction designs to reduce sediment reaching river. • Produce and distribute information and guidance to developers and public agencies on proper methods to reduce soil erosion during construction. • Evaluate existing standards for flood management and storm water detention facilities watershedwide. Streambank erosion in Southfield Main 1-2 Rouge River 4-7 Subwatershed Management Plan I:\PROJECTS\Rouge-SubH2O\Main1-2\ManagementPlan\SWMP final-m12.doc11/7/01 • Review current practices for removal and disposal of accumulated debris and sediments, streams, and in publicly owned or controlled storm water control facilities, including detention and retention basins, and propose changes, if appropriate. • Continue and improve on effective maintenance of publicly owned or controlled storm water catch basins, detention basins and related infrastructure to remove and appropriately dispose of accumulated debris and sediments. • Identify areas along the river with highly eroding banks and evaluate alternatives to address public and private sites contributing significant sediment to the river. 4.4.5 Minimize Flow Variability and Associated Negative Impacts • Continue to require on-site detention of storm water and snow melt for new developments. • Encourage innovative site design for new developments to reduce impermeable surfaces and encourage infiltration of storm water and snow melt. • Maximize the opportunity for reduced storm water runoff at older commercial and industrial sites undergoing substantial modifications. • Encourage development of new or enhance existing off-channel regional storm water detention facilities or wetlands that serve already developed areas. • Protect wetlands and other natural features that serve to store water during storm events. • Encourage on-site detention of storm water residential homes. 4.4.6 Maximize Community Assets Related to the River • Provide information on access to public riverfront lands and available uses. • Invest in improvements in publicly owned lands, parks and greenways adjacent to the river to encourage picnicking, walking and jogging, wildlife viewing, and other recreational uses • Encourage private riparian landowners to manage their waterfront as an asset to enhance property values. • Identify areas where public acquisition of lands or the use of conservation easements will benefit either public use of the waterfront and/or enhance fish and wildlife values associated with the river corridor. • Identify areas where improvements in water quality allow for enhanced management of fish and wildlife communities and recreational values. Northfield Hills common area along Main Branch Main 1-2 Rouge River 4-8 Subwatershed Management Plan I:\PROJECTS\Rouge-SubH2O\Main1-2\ManagementPlan\SWMP final-m12.doc11/7/01 4.4.7 Preserve and Enhance the Quality of the Great Lakes • Produce and distribute education and information materials for homeowners on proper disposal of hazardous waste, minimization of lawn and garden chemical use, and problems associated with residential car washings. • Support the Rouge Education Project conducted by Friends of the Rouge in local schools. • Produce and distribute education and information materials on pollution prevention activities for businesses that will reduce the risk of accidental discharge of chemicals to the river. • Address discharges from CSOs and SSOs. • Advertise “hot line” for reporting discharges of toxic pollutants. • Enhance soil erosion and sediment control programs. Minimize the amount of pollutants that enter into streams Recreation along Lower Long Lake People are polluting in the river to much Ancient civilizations established themselves around water sources. While the importance of ample water // quantity // for drinking and other purposes was apparent to our ancestors, an understanding of drinking water // quality // was not well known or documented. Although historical records have long mentioned aesthetic problems (an unpleasant appearance, taste or smell) with regard to drinking water, it took thousands of years for people to recognize that their senses alone were not accurate judges of water quality. Water treatment originally focused on improving the aesthetic qualities of drinking water. Methods to improve the taste and odor of drinking water were recorded as early as 4000 B.C. Ancient Sanskrit and Greek writings recommended water treatment methods such as filtering through charcoal, exposing to sunlight, boiling, and straining. Visible cloudiness (later termed turbidity) was the driving force behind the earliest water treatments, as many source waters contained particles that had an objectionable taste and appearance. To clarify water, the Egyptians reportedly used the chemical alum as early as 1500 B.C. to cause suspended particles to settle out of water. During the 1700s, filtration was established as an effective means of removing particles from water, although the degree of clarity achieved was not measurable at that time. By the early 1800s, slow sand filtration was beginning to be used regularly in Europe. During the mid to late 1800s, scientists gained a greater understanding of the sources and effects of drinking water contaminants, especially those that were not visible to the naked eye. In 1855, epidemiologist Dr. John Snow proved that cholera was a waterborne disease by linking an outbreak of illness in London to a public well that was contaminated by sewage. In the late 1880s, Louis Pasteur demonstrated the “germ theory” of disease, which explained how microscopic organisms (microbes) could transmit disease through media like water. United States Office of Water EPA-816-F-00-006 Environmental Protection (4606) February 2000 Agency The History of Drinking Water Treatment This fact sheet is based on information from the EPA report “25 Years of the Safe Drinking Water Act: History and Trends.” Please refer to the full report for details and references. You may order a copy of the report, as well as many other EPA drinking water documents, by calling the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at (800) 426-4791, or you may review the report online at http:// www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwa25/sdwa.html Civilizations have always formed around water supplies. During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, concerns regarding drinking water quality continued to focus mostly on disease-causing microbes (pathogens) in public water supplies. Scientists discovered that turbidity was not only an aesthetic problem; particles in source water, such as fecal matter, could harbor pathogens. As a result, the design of most drinking water treatment systems built in the U.S. during the early 1900s was driven by the need to reduce turbidity, thereby removing microbial contaminants that were causing typhoid, dysentery, and cholera epidemics. To reduce turbidity, some water systems in U.S. cities (such as Philadelphia) began to use slow sand filtration. While filtration was a fairly effective treatment method for reducing turbidity, it was disinfectants like chlorine that played the largest role in reducing the number of waterborne disease outbreaks in the early 1900s. In 1908, chlorine was used for the first time as a primary disinfectant of drinking water in Jersey City, New Jersey. The use of other disinfectants such as ozone also began in Europe around this time, but were not employed in the U.S. until several decades later. Federal regulation of drinking water quality began in 1914, when the U.S. Public Health Service set standards for the bacteriological quality of drinking water. The standards applied only to water systems which provided drinking water to interstate carriers like ships and trains, and only applied to contaminants capable of causing contagious disease. The Public Health Service revised and expanded these standards in 1925, 1946, and 1962. The 1962 standards, regulating 28 substances, were the most comprehensive federal drinking water standards in existence before the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974. With minor modifications, all 50 states adopted the Public Health Service standards either as regulations or as guidelines for all of the public water systems in their jurisdiction. By the late 1960s it became apparent that the aesthetic problems, pathogens, and chemicals identified by the Public Health Service were not the only drinking water quality concerns. Industrial and agricultural advances and the creation of new man-made chemicals also had negative impacts on the environment and public health. Many of these new chemicals were finding their way into water supplies through factory discharges, street and farm field runoff, and leaking underground storage and disposal tanks. Although treatment techniques such as aeration, flocculation, and granular activated carbon adsorption (for removal of organic contaminants) existed at the time, they were either underutilized by water systems or ineffective at removing some new contaminants. Health concerns spurred the federal government to conduct several studies on the nation’s drinking water supply. One of the most telling was a water system survey conducted by the Public Health Service in 1969 which showed that only 60 percent of the systems surveyed delivered water that met all the Public Health Service standards. Over half of the treatment facilities surveyed had major deficiencies involving disinfection, clarification, or pressure in the distribution system (the pipes that carry Many water treatment plants filter their water.  water from the treatment plant to buildings), or combinations of these deficiencies. Small systems, especially those with fewer than 500 customers, had the most deficiencies. A study in 1972 found 36 chemicals in treated water taken from treatment plants that drew water from the Mississippi River in Louisiana. As a result of these and other studies, new legislative proposals for a federal safe drinking water law were introduced and debated in Congress in 1973. Chemical contamination of water supplies was only one of many environmental and health issues that gained the attention of Congress and the public in the early 1970s. This increased awareness eventually led to the passage of several federal environmental and health laws, one of which was the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974. That law, with significant amendments in 1986 and 1996, is administered today by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (EPA) and its partners. Since the passage of the original Safe Drinking Water Act, the number of water systems applying some type of treatment to their water has increased. According to several EPA surveys, from 1976 to 1995, the percentage of small and medium community water systems (systems serving people year-round) that treat their water has steadily increased. For example, in 1976 only 33 percent of systems serving fewer than 100 people provided treatment. By 1995, that number had risen to 69 percent. Since their establishment in the early 1900s, most large urban systems have always provided some treatment, as they draw their water from surface sources (rivers, lakes, and reservoirs) which are more susceptible to pollution. Larger systems also have the customer base to provide the funds needed to install and improve treatment equipment. Because distribution systems have extended to serve a growing population (as people have moved from concentrated urban areas to more suburban areas), additional disinfection has been required to keep water safe until it is delivered to all customers. Today, filtration and chlorination remain effective treatment techniques for protecting U.S. water supplies from harmful microbes, although additional advances in disinfection have been made over the years. I   n the 1970s and 1980s, improvements were made in membrane development for reverse osmosis filtration and other treatment techniques such as ozonation. Some treatment advancements have been driven by the discovery of chlorine-resistant pathogens in drinking water that can cause illnesses like hepatitis, gastroenteritis, Legionnaire’s Disease, and cryptosporidiosis. Other advancements resulted from the need to remove more and more chemicals found in sources of drinking water. According to a 1995 EPA survey, approximately 64 percent of community ground water and surface water systems disinfect their water with chlorine. Almost all of the remaining surface water systems, and some of the remaining ground water systems, use another type of disinfectant, such as ozone or chloramine. Percentage of Community Water Systems Providing Treatment, by Population Served 0% 10%  20%  30%  40%  50%  60%  70%  80%  90%  100%  1976 1982 1986 1995  0-100 served 101-500 served 501-1000 served 1001-1000 served 3301-10000 served A Typical Water Treatment Plant Many of the treatment techniques used today by drinking water plants include methods that have been used for hundreds and even thousands of years (see the diagram below). However, newer treatment techniques (e.g., reverse osmosis and granular activated carbon) are also being employed by some modern drinking water plants. Recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Academy of Engineering named water treatment as one of the most significant public health advancements of the 20th Century. Moreover, the number of treatment techniques, and combinations of techniques, developed is expected to increase with time as more complex contaminants are discovered and regulated. It is also expected that the number of systems employing these techniques will increase due to the recent creation of a multi-billion dollar state revolving loan fund that will help water systems, especially those serving small and disadvantaged communities, upgrade or install new treatment facilities. One environmental website is Michigan.gov.

One environmental website is Michigan.gov. http://www.sierraclub.org/community/oakland/ http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,1607,7-151-9620_11057-119829--,00.html http://www.esri.com/news/arcnews/summer03articles/oakland-county.html http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20081029/FREE/810290297/1069/-/-/oakland-county-to-begin-building-green-airport-terminal http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/roads/environment.htm

the link: http://www.rougeriver.com/pdfs/stormwater/TR30/chapter4.pdf This article is about all the pollutants to be aware of.

Sydney's link to Rouge River article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Rouge_(Michigan) This article tells you different thing about the Rouge River like how polluted it is, the different branches and many more things.

Joeys link on a Environmental website. Link: http://www.mlive.com/environment/ This artical tells you about issues that michagan has to change and it shows how much we are puluting and pictures of it.