The State of Freshwater in Maine 2004

Allison M. Stewart

 

Freshwater:  The Issue in Context

Introduction

            Without water, there can be no life. Freshwater availability is so essential that we judge the ability of other planets to sustain life by their availability of water1. Sixty-five percent of the human body is composed of waterWorthington-Roberts2, and we depend upon freshwater for our survival, livelihoods, and recreation. Water has influenced settlement patterns, made travel and navigation possible, and determines regional economic activities.

            Only twenty-five percent of the world’s population has access to safe drinking water and many people risk death when consuming water. In developing countries, direct or indirect discharge of sewage, gasoline, oil, antifreeze, soaps, and paints make water unsafe for people and wildlife3. Human health is endangered by water-vectored diseases such as yellow-fever and malaria.  Organic matter from sewage depletes oxygen in lower water layers, making the water uninhabitable to many species4. Furthermore, associated bacteria can cause diarrhea in babies, which is a leading cause of death worldwide5. 

            In the United States, safe and clean water contributes to our economy, health, and well-being. We utilize freshwater for transportation, drinking, agriculture, industrial processes, household activities, recreation, and aesthetic beauty. Since water treatment and filtration was established early5, we enjoy a much safer water supply than those in developing nations. Nonetheless, poor water quality in parts of the United States has hurt the fishing industry, increased the cost of drinking water, lowered recreational opportunities, artificially decreased the supply of water, endangered human health, and killed wildlife6.

Historical Context

Early in U.S. history, water was viewed as a convenient and steady source of power for the textile industry. In 1790, the first textile mill was built on the Blackstone River in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. The physical limits of water power were not responsible for declining use of water for industrial power, but rather businessmen found it burdensome to limit factory locations to riparian areas. Steam power could be located in cities where other production inputs were much cheaper, so water power was eventually phased out7.       

            Until the later half of the nineteenth century, a cesspool-privy system was used to manage refuse. It was believed that sewage dumping posed no threat because running water was self-purifying. Urban areas depended on local ponds, streams, rainwater, and wells for their water supply8. As urban areas became more heavily populated, demand for drinking water rose and sanitary hazards posed by sewage increased. During the 1800s, approximately half of all deaths were linked to water, air, or food vectored disease9.         

            In 1802, the first waterworks was established in Philadelphia. As cities adopted public water supply systems, most cities neglected to simultaneously create sewage systems due to large investment involved. The first sewage systems in the US were modeled after English systems and were made of clay pipe and brick. By the late nineteenth century, local regulations and health boards were being promoted. Regional sewage cooperation began as early as the 1870sTarr8.

            During the Progressive Movement, the public began pushing for increased public regulation of water supplies. By the early 1900s, some US cities had begun to use slow sand filtration as a safeguard against typhoid, dysentery, and cholera. Chlorine was first used as a primary disinfectant in 1908 in Jersey City, New Jersey10. By World War I, engineers had widely adopted the belief that filtration and chlorination could protect the public8. 

The first federal legislation addressing water quality was the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. This law outlawed the dumping of solid waste into navigable waterways, but it was not enforced11. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 established the basic legal authority for federal regulation of water quality. Its 1956 amendments strengthened enforcement by providing for abatement lawsuits and declaring that the Federal government did not need the consent of all the states to regulate water quality12.

            Throughout the 1960s, growing evidence indicated that water quality required major attention. Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring was published, raw sewage was released into the San Francisco Bay13, Lake Erie was declared “dead”, and the Cuyahoga River in Ohio caught on fire14. Federal legislation also continued in the form of the Water Quality Act of 1965, which became the foundation for interstate water quality standards by providing for standards that are both state and federally enforceable. In 1966, the Clean Water Restoration Act was created, which imposed a 100 dollar daily fine for polluters who did not properly report their emissions12.

            In 1972, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act was amended in response to the visible water quality problems of the 1960s. Amended again in 1977, this act became known as the Clean Water Act. The basic structure regulating pollution discharge into US waters was established, and discharge of contaminants by large point sources into navigable surface waters became illegal unless a permit was acquired. Federal funding for sewage treatment plant construction was established, and the need for nonpoint source pollution regulation was recognized. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was given authority to implement pollution control programs and set water quality standards for all contaminants. The Clean Water Act was later revised in 1981 to improve water treatment plants, and in 1987 to build EPA-State partnerships through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund15.  Secondary treatment of waste water was required by 1977, and best available technology for pollution control was required by 198316.  

            The Clean Water Act has led to vast improvements in national water quality. From 1976 to 1986, cadmium, arsenic, and lead aquatic concentrations decreased between 50 and 63 percent. The required monitoring reports issued by EPA have helped to close the information gap and inform national and state decision making. Sewage treatment grants have resulted in a national trend of increased dissolved oxygen content in freshwater13. 

The major deficiency of the Clean Water Act is its lack of control of non-point source pollution. Major difficulties in identifying, regulating, and monitoring nonpoint pollution sources such as farms, feed lots, sub developments, urban areas, and silviculture have halted progress. Although Clean Water Act Amendments establish federal assistance for state control of non-point sources and encourages voluntary control, these measures have had little real impact13.

The Safe Drinking Water Act, established in 1974, aimed to protect human health by regulating public water supplies. EPA was given authority to set national standards to protect against natural and anthropogenic contaminants based on human-health. The regulations apply to every public water system in the nation, and EPA, states, and suppliers share responsibility in meeting the requirements. Source water protection, treatment, maintenance of the distribution systems, and providing information are methods that the Safe Drinking Water Act uses, and the act is legally enforceable. The act was amended in 1986 and 1996. The 1996 amendments require cost-benefit analysis for new regulations, consumer confidence reports, operator certification, and source water assessment17.

Recent Issues

Recently, water quality issues have received increased international attention. In 1999, the United Nations (UN) and Economic Commission for Europe’s Protocol on Water and Health was established in accordance with the 1992 convention. Its objective “is to promote at all appropriate levels, nationally as well as in transboundary and international contexts, the protection of human health and well-being, both individual and collective, within a framework of sustainable development, through improving water management, including the protection of water ecosystems, and through preventing, controlling and reducing water-related disease”18. Parties were committed to supply uncontaminated public water, create adequate sanitation systems, safeguard human health, promote research, and establish monitoring procedures. Each party was required to set national and local goals to meet international standards of performance for protecting against water-related diseases18. Another international measure, the 1997 UN Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses, stipulates that no nation should take an action that causes water quality degradation in another nation. If harm does occur, it should be mitigated or the conflict can be resolved in an international forum19.

In the United States, national water quality has improved tremendously. Beyond the national trends, however, there are serious local and regional problems. Increasing reliance on groundwater as a supply of freshwater is of great concern in the Western United States. The US Geological Survey (USGS) reported that the percentage of total water used for irrigation from groundwater withdrawal had risen from twenty-three percent in 1950 to forty-two percent in 2000. From 1995 to 2000, groundwater withdrawals for irrigation rose sixteen percent. Settlement in arid western areas where there is little surface water is also contributing to greater pressure on groundwater supplies and may result in future shortages and conflicts over water rights20.   

New debate has emerged about whether water services would be best managed through the public or private sector. Utility cost structures vary depending upon the percentage of water metered, customer density, the amount of water purchased, and the average size of each metered account. It remains unclear whether utility cost structures vary depending on public or private management21.

Nonpoint source pollution continues to be a major problem for water quality in the United States. EPA reported in its 2000 National Water Quality Inventory that agricultural nonpoint source pollution is the leading source of water quality pollution in rivers and lakes and also contributes to ground water contamination and wetland impairment. Agriculture results in pesticide use, irrigation, production of animal effluent, and erosion, all of which lead to surface water degradation22.  

Also, concern has arisen regarding some of the Bush administration’s recent actions towards freshwater. Some environmentalists claim that “Quick-fill” permits for wetland construction are allowing development to take place without stringent environmental considerations. The Bush administration in 2002 mandated that the Army Corps of Engineers can issue permits for the dumping of mine waste, which may undermine the Clean Water Act. EPA recommended that national storm water standards address the major problem of urban storm water runoff, but the administration announced in 2002 that it would kill the proposed technology-based regulations23.

Freshwater:  The Issue in Maine

Introduction

Water is essential to life in Maine. We use surface water for drinking, various household uses, recreation, electricity, and farming. Settlement patterns have been largely determined by the availability of surface water for transportation. Throughout our history, rivers and lakes have been used to fuel our economy and create opportunities for businesses. Figure 1 shows the amount of water used per capita in each county in 2000. The yellow counties consume little water per capita while the blue counties use relatively large amounts of water per capita.  Figure 2 illustrates the importance of water to public consumption, irrigation, hydroelectricity, and industrial use.  

  

 


Historical Context

            Water has always been extremely important to the Maine way of life. Native tribes and settlers lived along rivers and streams and used waterways for transportation and fishing. Until the advent of the railroad, rivers were the only significant method of transportation25.

            Bangor held the title of “Lumber Capital of the World” beginning in 1772 until the late 1800s. Logs from the woods of northern Maine were harvested and sent down the Penobscot River until they reached Bangor. The city then processed the lumber and sent it farther down the Penobscot until it reached Winterport and Belfast. It was this aquatic transportation network that made Bangor so prosperous and also has influenced the settlement patterns that are still evident today26.

            Upon gaining statehood in 1820, Maine’s population grew and the economy boomed.  Fishing, ship-building, forestry, and manufacturing fueled the economy. Rapidly-flowing rivers provided the fuel for water-powered leather, textile, and paper factories in the 1800s. Fishing was made possible due to the many bodies of freshwater available in the state. Ice for refrigeration was cut from Maine’s rivers and shipped south using rivers27.


            During the industrial revolution, Maine again used its ample water supplies to fuel economic growth. Utilizing river resources, hydroelectric plants were developed on the Androscoggin, Kennebec, Penobscot, and Saco rivers in the early 1900s28. As a result of the many uses of water, much of Maine’s surface water faced serious problems until the 1970s. Municipalities and mills emitted untreated wastes, tanneries and processing plants contaminated the water, and many lakes suffered from eutrophication29.

            Since the 1970s, Maine’s water quality has improved dramatically. The Clean Water Act of 1972 certainly helped improve surface water integrity. Additionally, many of Maine’s most environmentally harmful industries have gone out of business. The decline of the poultry industry, tanneries, pulp industry, and textile industry have made further progress in water quality less costly to the state economy29.

            Economic decline in certain sectors contributed to improving Maine’s water quality and recent improvements in Maine’s water quality have contributed to economic growth. Demand for lake-front homes and cottages is high and fishing fuels the tourism industry. Both the high quantity and quality of Maine’s lakes make them very important resources for the state30.

Recent Issues

            The state legislature has also played an important role in protecting the integrity of state waters. Today we see the fruits of our labors in the high quality of Maine’s surface water. An early action taken by the state legislature to protect Maine’s waters was the creation of the Sanitary Water Board in 1941. The Board’s purpose was to “study, investigate, and recommend means of eliminating and preventing pollution in waters used for recreational purposes.” This board evolved into the Water Improvement Commission and later the Environmental Improvement Commission. Finally the Environmental Improvement Commission was re-designated as the Board of Environmental Protection and the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) stemmed from it in 1972. DEP consists of the Board of Environmental Protection, the Commissioner’s Office and three bureaus which include Land and Water Quality31.   

            The Maine Legislature has written and passed many important Laws to protect surface and ground water. Over sixty percent of the households in Maine rely on groundwater to fulfill their drinking water requirements32. In 1985, the Maine Legislature required DEP to enact the Sand and Salt Pile Program. This legislation instructed DEP to prioritize sand and salt piles according to their impact on groundwater. Those piles that seriously threatened groundwater were required to be covered to prevent chloride contamination33. 

            To address the problem of non-point source pollution of groundwater, the Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Statute of 1991 was established. This act aims to implement best management practices to combat nonpoint source pollution34. Its methods include establishing liability for petroleum contamination of groundwater; enacting educational initiatives to make people aware of the dangers of their actions35, providing regulatory oversight, aiming to implement best management practices to combat non-point source pollution, providing regulatory oversight, and funding projects to reduce dangerous contamination34.

            Another important state regulation is the Site Location of Development Law that was established in 1991 but later amended. Under this regulation, large or environmentally threatening developments require a permit from the Department of Environmental Protection and standards protecting the environment must be met36. The Storm Water Management Statute of 1995 required DEP to adopt rules regulating storm water in areas at risk due to new development. The 2001 Storm Water Statute that followed required large development projects to obtain a permit from DEP before construction is allowed. The restrictions also only apply to areas within a close proximity of areas at risk of eutrophication or other risks resulting from development37.

            The most widespread issue affecting Maine’s surface water is mercury deposition. The Department of Human Service’s Bureau of Health issued the first mercury advisory in 1994, which was further refined in 1997 and 2000. Currently, women of child-bearing age and young children are warned against eating freshwater fish from Maine’s inland waters38. Many state regulations have been established, but our geographic location and vulnerability have caused the problem to persist despite our efforts. 

Another serious issue to Maine water is natural contamination of groundwater. Arsenic and radon, which occur naturally from erosion and radioactive decay, can cause serious health problems. Statewide dependence on groundwater and threats of cancer and other diseases make this problem especially severe5,32. Fortunately, the state legislature is quite proactive and confronts water quality threats aggressively and thoroughly.

Indicators, Policy, and Analysis

Introduction

Maine’s freshwater resources face unique problems.  Because of our geographic location, we are victims to pollution that occurs both inside and outside of our borders.  Additionally, we are geologically and ecologically vulnerable to certain types of pollution. I have selected indicators in hopes of providing a broad assessment of water quality within the state while focusing on the drivers that most directly influence water quality. I will discuss the progress that has been made in preserving freshwater quality while suggesting further action to continue the positive trends.  The three areas that I have chosen to assess include eutrophication, mercury contamination, and compliance with federal standards.   

Indicator 1:  Support of Beneficial Uses

One of the ways EPA assesses water quality is by evaluating its support for designated beneficial uses such as drinking, swimming, fish consumption, and aquatic life. Freshwater is designated as fully supporting, supporting but threatened, partially supporting, or not supporting each activity. Ideally, all of Maine’s lakes, ponds, reservoirs, streams, and rivers would fully support all activities. In 2000, 76.8% of all lake, pond, and reservoir acreage and 97.7% of all stream and river miles fully supported all the uses designated by EPA while all of Maine’s lakes fully support drinking water use39. As illustrated in Figure 3, Maine’s lakes have recently shown much improvement in supporting aquatic life. Also, Maine surpasses the national average of lakes that fully support aquatic life. This indicator shows that the vast majority of Maine’s waters can support a diverse community of aquatic life, and our lake habitat is continuing to improve.       

 


Figure 4 displays the percentage of Maine’s rivers and streams that fully support swimming activities. Figure 4 shows that Maine’s rivers and streams fully meet EPA guidelines for swimming use at a much higher rate than the national average. In 2000, 99.4 percent of Maine’s rivers fully supported swimming activities although the national average was merely 67.8 percent39. Since so much of our water meets federal guidelines, little significant improvement has been made in recent years to further meet criteria for swimming use in rivers and streams.

Although overall freshwater quality is quite good compared to national averages, many of Maine’s lakes and rivers face degradation due to human activities. Agriculture and associated pesticide and nutrient runoff, municipal point source pollution, urban and sewage system runoff, hydromodification, land disposal, and habitat modification are some of the major factors that cause impairment in Maine’s lakes and rivers39.

Figure 5 illustrates the trend in impairment of rivers and streams caused by the two of the most powerful drivers:  agriculture and urban and sewage system runoff. The risk posed to our rivers and streams from agricultural sources is increasing. This seems counterintuitive when we consider that the amount of land in Maine devoted to farming was reduced over 31 percent between 1969 and 1997. The number of medium and large farms decreased or stayed the same during the same time period, but the number of small farms has increased tremendously. During the same time period, the number of farms containing 1-9 acres grew approximately 31 percent. The other threat to water posed by farming is the increased use of agricultural chemicals. From 1987 to 1997, the share of total farming expenses that is used to purchase agricultural chemicals rose from 3.7 percent to over 5 percent42. Maine’s population has also become increasingly urban. Figure 6 illustrates that the non-metropolitan population has been nearly stagnant, whereas the metropolitan population has been increasing rapidly. This has important implications for nutrient loading and oxygen depletion since the USGS cites urbanization as the major factor contributing to increases in these drivers43.



Indicator 2:  Mercury

By far, the most widespread problem in Maine’s surface water is mercury contamination and its affect on the food chain. Organic mercury, or methylmercury, is the most toxic form and is passed through the food chain, accumulating in species that are high on the food chain45. Methylmercury targets the central nervous system and can cause mental problems, motor problems, and even death5. Additionally, recreational anglers are less likely to visit sites where they know fish are contaminated, which may harm local economies46.


Ambient mercury originates from mineral deposits, coal burning, waste incineration, landfills, mining activities, paint manufacturing, fluorescent lights, and thermometers. Unfortunately, Maine is downwind from many major sources of ambient mercury. Additionally, there are many wetlands and forests in Maine, which result in high organic carbon levels in surface water. Even though there may not be much mercury in the sediments, organic carbon converts elemental mercury to the organic form which elevates the risk to fish and their predators. The combination of external sources of mercury and our ecosystems’ ability to make this pollution more hazardous make Maine especially vulnerable43.

Recently, Maine’s mercury emissions have decreased dramatically due to new regulations on municipal waste incinerators, elimination of medical waste incineration, removal of mercury from the waste-stream, and the closure of a mercury production facility. Further improvements were achieved through a 1999 statute on mercury-added products and services that requires labeling of some mercury-containing products, forbids disposal of mercury, restricts the sale of mercury thermometers and switches, and requires the establishment of an education program47. In response to the statute, DEP set up interim rules that required the labeling of products containing mercury48. Figure 7 shows that Maine’s mercury emissions dropped nearly ninety-nine percent from 1997 to 200249, which can be credited the previously mentioned statute to cut mercury emissions.

 Despite these efforts, fish from every body of water in Maine pose health hazards to those who consume them, proving state efforts insufficient. The Department of Human Service’s Bureau of Health issued the first mercury advisory in 1994, which was further refined in 1997 and 2000. The current warning states that:  “Pregnant and nursing women, women who may get pregnant and children under age 8 should not eat any freshwater fish from Maine’s inland waters”38. Figure 8 shows that the amount of mercury that enters Maine’s freshwater decreased dramatically due to state legislation but has increased over the past two years at two measuring locations in Maine.

DEP authored the Mercury in Maine Report in 1997. Among the actions the report proposed was reducing the amount of mercury emitted by industrial sources. Although federal regulations were expected in the near future, DEP submitted a bill in 1998 to allow all sources to emit no more than 100 pounds of mercury each year annually beginning in 2000, and no more than 50 pounds annually beginning in 2004. The bill was signed in April, 1998 and affected three major sources:  HoltraChem, Regional Waste Systems of Portland, and Mid-Maine Waste Action Corporation of Auburn. Federal legislation for mercury control in large municipal waste combustion facilities was also established in 1998, but the state statute is stricter and includes more sources than the federal law50. These regulations have greatly influenced Maine’s internal mercury emissions. 


Mercury deposition has remained high despite successful state efforts to address Maine emissions. One possibility is that the Clear Skies Initiative, passed by President Bush in 2002, which claims to reduce mercury emissions51, has failed to appropriately address mercury contamination. Poor federal enforcement of mercury regulations is another possible reason for the increase in mercury deposition in Maine in 2002 and 2003. Statewide efforts have been quite successful in reducing mercury emissions, yet Figures 7 and 8 illustrate the need for regional or national efforts to reduce mercury deposition in Maine.  As you can see, the low mercury deposition in 2001 correlates with the decline in Maine’s mercury releases.  This suggests that Maine efforts have been quite effective in reducing statewide mercury deposition.

 


Indicator 3:  Eutrophication

Another serious threat to Maine’s lakes is cultural eutrophication, caused by human activity that accelerates nutrient and sediment accumulation. Algae blooms may be supported in eutrophied lakes, which increase the cost of water purification for drinking. When algae die, they decompose and consume oxygen in the process. Oxygen is depleted for other species in the lake, additional phosphorous is released to further nourish the algae bloom, and the water becomes ugly and undesirable for recreational purposes53.  

In Maine, eutrophication is primarily caused by land use changes and development. The most serious threat to our lakes is phosphorous pollution that results when forested land becomes houses, lawns, or parking lots. Phosphorous from fertilizers, detergents, manure, and sewage is carried by storm water into nearby lakes53. In 2004, 16.3 percent of Maine lake area was classified as eutrophic38.

Figure 9 shows that the area of Maine lakes, ponds, and reservoirs suffering from impairment due to nutrients or oxygen depletion, the type of impairment characteristic of eutrophic lakes, is decreasing. One probable reason for the vast improvement in nutrient impairment from 1996 to 1998 is the previously mentioned Storm Water Management Law that went into affect on December 6, 1997. This law required DEP to adopt storm water quality and quantity standards for projects that require permits under the Site Location of Development Law with the objective of protecting lakes that are vulnerable to threats posed by storm water54.

Interestingly, fewer acres of lakes are being impaired by nutrients and oxygen enrichment while Figure 5 showed that impairment of rivers due to the drivers of eutrophication is increasing. This indicator suggests that more attention may be paid to addressing problems in lakes, ponds, and reservoirs than in rivers. One explanation of this trend may be the Storm Water Management Statute. This statute establishes strict standards for building impervious areas near bodies at water at risk from new development, especially those waters sensitive to eutrophication54. Since rivers are not threatened by eutrophication, they may not fully benefit from legislation to protect against the threat of urban runoff.

 


Conclusion

            Excluding the problem of mercury deposition, the state of Maine’s freshwater is good.   Nearly all of our lakes fully support swimming activities, all of our lakes fully support drinking water, and we have surpassed the national average with supporting aquatic life. Although there is room for improvement in supporting aquatic life, all of our lakes in 2000 at least partially supported aquatic life39.

            The problem of cultural eutrophication continues to threaten many bodies of water. The number of small farms and urbanization are potential drivers of cultural eutrophication. The Storm water Management Law can be credited for the progress in protecting vulnerable lakes from the threats of nutrient loading and oxygen depletion as shown in Figure 9. Interestingly, fewer acres of lakes are being impaired by nutrients and oxygen enrichment while impairment of rivers due to the drivers of agriculture and urban and sewage runoff is increasing. The Storm Water Management Statute addresses the major driver of eutrophication:  development near threatened areas. The legislation has been quite effective:  lakes have benefited from strict environmental standards and problems related to nutrient and dissolved oxygen impairment are decreasing. I would recommend that riparian construction be subject to standards similar to those that protect lakes in order to protect Maine’s rivers and streams from pollution. 

            Mercury contamination continues to plague our freshwater, fish, and human health. The state of Maine has taken drastic measures by regulating waste disposal, medical products, point sources, dental fillings, and automotive switches that contain mercury48.  As shown in Figure 4, statewide mercury emissions have been virtually eliminated, yet Figure 5 shows that deposition of mercury remains an ongoing problem. The state laws and statutes regulating mercury have been quite effective in reducing internal emissions, but it appears that we cannot further improve mercury contamination through self-regulation. 

            Earlier this year, the Natural Resources Council of Maine (NRCM) joined with two national groups to file suit in U.S. District Court, contending that an EPA proposal to clean up mercury pollution and delay the use of best available technology for mercury control until 2007 violates the Clean Air Act. The plaintiffs seek an injunction requiring the EPA to make a rule requiring best available pollution control technology as soon as possible55. NRCM has also begun a door-to-door campaign intended to educate the public about the risks of mercury pollution in Maine56.  These efforts are incredibly important, as we must look beyond our borders to improve mercury pollution.

 

  

Literature Cited

1.         National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Mars, Water, and Life. 2004 (1998). <http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msp98/why.html>

2.         Worthington-Roberts, B. in Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia (Microsoft Corporation, 2004). <http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761556865/Human_Nutrition.html>

3.         Vigil, K. Clean Water:  An Introduction to Water Quality and Water Pollution Control (Oregon State University, Carvallis, 2003).

4.         Harper, D. Eutrophication of Freshwaters:  Principles, Problems, and Restoration (Chapman & Hall, London, 1992).

5.         Pontius, F. W. in Water Quality and Treatment:  A Handbook of Community Water Supplies 63-156 (McGraw-Hill, 1990).

6.         National Academy of Sciences. Freshwater Ecosystems:  Revitalizing Educational Programs in Limnology (National Academy Press, Washington D.C., 1996).

7.         Gordon, R. Cost and Use of Water Power during Industrialization in New England and Great Britain:  A Geological Interpretation. The Economic History Review 36, 240-259 (1983).

8.         Tarr, J. M. I., Francis McMichael, Terry Yosie. Water and Wastes:  A Retrospective Assessment of Wastewater Technology in the United States, 1800-1932. Technology and Culture 25, 226-263 (1984).

9.         Gaspari, A. G. W. Income, Public Works, and Mortality in Early Twentieth-Century American Cities. The Journal of Economic History 45, 355-361 (1985).

10.        Office of Water. The History of Drinking Water Treatment. (U.S. EPA, Washington D.C., 2000).

11.        Schoenherr, S. (University of San Diego, San Diego, 2003). Preservation 1860-1900.

12.        Environmental Protection Agency. The Challenge of the Environment:  A Primer on EPA's Statutory Authority. 2004 (1972).

13.        Smith, D. S. K. a. R. A. 20 Years of the Clean Water Act. Environment 35, 16-41 (1993).

14.        Environmental Protection Agency. Chapter 4:  Case Study Assessments of Water. Quality. (2000). <http://www.epa.gov/ow-owm.html/wqualiry/chap04.pdf>

15.        Environmental Protection Agency. Clean Water Act History. Clean Water Act 2004 (2003). <http://www.epa.gov/region05/water/cwa.htm>

16.        Gianessi, H. P. The Distribution of the Costs of Federal Water Pollution Control Policy. Land Economics 56, 85-102 (1980).

17.        Environmental Protection Agency. Understanding the Safe Drinking Water Act, 1-3 (1999). <http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwa/pdfs/25ann/fs_sdwa_understand_25.pdf>

18.        United Nations and Economic Commission for Europe. (1999).  UNECE Protocol on Water and Health to the 1992 Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes. (Third Minesterial Conference on Environment and Health, 1999). <http://www.internationalwaterlaw.org/RegionalDocs/UN_ECE_protocol.htm>

19.        UN General Assembly. Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses. (May 1997). <http://www.thewaterpage.com/UN_Convention_97.html>

20.        Susan Hutson, Nancy Barber, Joan Kenny, Kristin Linsey, Deborah Lumia, and Molly Maupin. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000. (The U.S. Geological Survey, 2004).

21.        Feigenbaum, Susan and Ronald Teeples. Public Versus Private Water Delivery:  A Hedonic Cost Approach. The Review of Economics and Statistics 65, 672-678 (1983).

22.        Environmental Protection Agency. Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution from Agriculture. Nonpoint Pointers Series 2004 (2004). <http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/facts/point6.htm>

23.        Stoner, N. (Natural Resources Defense Council, New York, 2002).

24.        US Geological Survey. Estimated Use of Water in the United States:  County-Level Data for 2000. (2004).

25.        Gulf of Maine Aquarium. Maine's Water Roots. (1998). <http://www.gma.org/streams/roots.html>

26.        Robbins, R. Bangor History. (Bangor, 2004). <http://www.bangorinfo.com/history.html>

27.        SHG Resources. General History of the State in Maine State History (2003). <http://www.shgresources.com/me/history>

28.        Brunelle, J. Maine Firsts Throughout History in Maine Almanac (1980). <http://www.state.me.us/legis/general/history/hist2.htm>

29.        Bureau of Land and Water Quality. Kennebec River in Biomonitoring Retrospective (Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Augusta, 1999).

30.        Senator George J. Mitchell Center for Environmental and Watershed Research. (Orono, ME, 2004). <http://pearl.spatial.maine.edu/introduction.htm>

31.        Maine Department of Environmental Protection. Overview of Maine Department of Environmental Protection. (Augusta, 2004). <http://www.maine.gov/dep/overview.htm>

32.        Bureau of Land and Water Quality. Groundwater Assessment. (Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Augusta, 2002). <http://www.maine.gov/dep/blwq/gw.htm>

33.        Maine Department of Environmental Protection. History of Sand and Salt Pile Program.  (Augusta, 2004). <http://www.maine.gov/dep/blwq/docstand/sandsalt/history.htm>

34.        Maine Rivers. Legislation. (Augusta, 2003). <http://www.mainerivers.org/legislation.htm>

35.        Nonpoint Source Pollution program in Title 38 Chapter 3 Article 1F Chapter 345 (1991).

36.        Maine Department of Environmental Protection. Site Location of Development. (Augusta, 2004). <http://www.maine.gov/dep/blwq/docstand/sitelawpage.htm>

37.        Storm Water Management in Title 38 Chapter 420 Article D (2001).

38.        Maine Department of Environmental Protection. Draft 2004 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report:  305(b) Report and 303(d) List. (DEP, Augusta, 2004).

39.        Environmental Protection Agency. 2000 National Water Quality Inventory:  Appendix A and B. (2000).

40.        Environmental Protection Agency. National Water Quality Inventory:  1996 Report to Congress., Appendix A and B. (1996).

41.        Environmental Protection Agency. National Water Quality Inventory:  1998 Report to Congress (305(b) Report). Appendix A and B (1998).

42.        US Department of Agriculture. in 1997 Census of Agriculture Volume 1:  Part 19, Chapter 1 (Washington D.C., 1997). <http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/volume1/me_19.loc97.htm>

43.        Robinson, et. al. Water Quality in the New England Coastal Basins:  Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, 1999-2001. (U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, 2004).

44.        Stoops, Nicole and Frank Hobbs. Demographic Trends in the 20th Century in Census 2000 Special Reports 158-159 (US Census Bureau, 2002).

45.        Natural Resources Council of Maine. Mainers Mobilize to Stop Mercury from Power Plants in Maine Environment 1-2 (Augusta, 2004).

46.        Montgomery, Mark and Michael Needelman. The Welfare Effects of Toxic Contamination in Freshwater Fish. Land Economics 73, 211-223 (1997).

47.        Mercury-Added Products and Services in Title 38 Chapter 16-B (1999).

48.        Maine Department of Environmental Protection. Mercury Legislation and Rules. (Augusta, 2004). <http://www.maine.gov/dep/mercury/legreg.htm>

49.        Environmental Protection Agency. Toxic Release Inventory Program,. 2004 (2004).

50.        Maine Department of Environmental Protection. Mercury in Maine:  A Status Report 1-67 (Augusta, 2002).

51.        The White House. Executive Summary:  The Clear Skies Initiative. (Washington D.C., 2002). <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/clearskies.html>

52.        National Atmospheric Deposition Program. (Illinois State Water Survey, Champaign, 2004). <http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/nadpdata/mdnsites.asp>

53.        Maine Department of Environmental Protection. Lakes Assessment 13-18 (Augusta, 1996).

54.        Storm Water Management in Title 38, 420-D 1-4 (1997).

55.        Edgecomb, M. Groups file Suit over Mercury Law; Resources Council Criticizes EPA in Bangor Daily News (Bangor, 2004).

56.        Mercury Alert goes Door to Door in Maine in Bangor Daily News C5 (Bangor, 2004).

 

 

Colby College  |  Colby Search  |  Colby Directory
Students of Environmental Studies 493
Environmental Studies Program,  Colby College
4848 Mayflower Hill, Waterville, Maine 04901 USA
T: 207-859-4848   F: 207-872-3731   contact

Last Modified: 12/14/04 4:08:19 PM