wgmiller
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 2,853
As you know, it's a lot of fun to explore. Even if you're not catching big fish, it's still fun to see what's "out there"!
larkmark
Member
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2019
- Messages
- 876
A few years ago I stood on the ramp at Wrightsville and talked with an older guy about the river. He was telling me how he had finally retired and was looking forward to spending more time fishing. It happened to be an evening when White Flies were on the water and we both noted that no fish were seen surfacing for the bugs. He told me that he had been there on successive evenings and seen nothing. He also said it broke his heart to see the Smallmouth fishery ruined. We now know that it is a combination of things that wrecked it and that they were man made. The alert was sounded years ago as one specie after another disappeared. Bob Clouser stood up at a meeting and asked the PAFBC just exactly what did their slogan "Resource First" mean. He spoke eloquently about what he had observed. Many who were not scientists but were lifelong fishermen saw what was happening and why. Pollution from agriculture and wastewater was accumulating. The PAFBC was in denial about this fact for years and continually said "more study was needed". In the end their priorities were more aligned with the rest of the polluters living up and down our rivers and streams. Nothing was done and nothing is being done. Conservation groups tell us we should make some rain barrels and that will help. Yeah right. The lower river is now just a backdrop for river towns and rail trails. if the water sparkles and looks good it is good enough for them and their Chamber of Commerce mentality.
M
Mike
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2006
- Messages
- 5,439
Larkmark,
Please support your statement, referring to the PFBC, that “ In the end their priorities were more aligned with the rest of the polluters living up and down our rivers and streams.” How so?
Please support your statement, referring to the PFBC, that “ In the end their priorities were more aligned with the rest of the polluters living up and down our rivers and streams.” How so?
salvelinusfontinalis
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 7,284
The PFBC, for a long time, tried to get the river declared impaired.
H
Hilltop
New member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 27
Yeah, agree with Mike. I don't see how the PFBC priorities are more inline with polluters. They perform survey's, communicate results and make recommendations, and then it's up to the people and politicians to act.
It's a myopic view that society cares anything about fisheries. On this board, yes of course, we all care but to extrapolate that to think that society in general cares is a mistake.
I think most people in the PFBC truly do care and don't just do it for a paycheck, or they wouldn't have got into the field in the first place (most not all).
It's a myopic view that society cares anything about fisheries. On this board, yes of course, we all care but to extrapolate that to think that society in general cares is a mistake.
I think most people in the PFBC truly do care and don't just do it for a paycheck, or they wouldn't have got into the field in the first place (most not all).
barrybarry
Active member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2009
- Messages
- 386
This year has been slightly better for me than last year. That may be because I'm fishing more while working from home. There are bass here and there. One stretch that's been particularly bad for me is Marrietta. North of the Railroad bridge it gets better but below there it's bad. Plenty of cats though.
There's been some really nice hatches over the last few weeks. This photo was taken Tuesday (after the storm blew through) in the Wrightsville area. I call them Brown Drakes but I have no idea what they really are. About 2 inches long without the tail.
There's been some really nice hatches over the last few weeks. This photo was taken Tuesday (after the storm blew through) in the Wrightsville area. I call them Brown Drakes but I have no idea what they really are. About 2 inches long without the tail.
Attachments
GeneBeam
Active member
The PFBC doesn't need to declare the river impaired.
From the www.pennlive.com dated Sept 5, 2019
Plan to reduce raw sewage in Susquehanna River not good enough: Harrisburg mayor
It states
”Even if Capital Region Water’s $315 million plan — called City Beautiful H20 — is fully implemented, raw sewage overflows will be reduced by only about 60 percent, officials have confirmed.
That’s not good enough, Papenfuse said, citing environmental regulators at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, who are pushing for a much larger decrease.
Much of Harrisburg’s sewer system is combined, meaning both sanitary sewage — the stuff that’s flushed down toilets and washed down sinks and bathtubs — and stormwater pass through the same pipes and treatment facility.”
It also states
“Nearly 60 outfalls exist along Capital Region Water’s system, and last year, there was a total of 150 days with at least one combined sewer overflow. A total of 1.4 billion gallons of untreated sewage and storm water was released from the system into local waterways during that timeframe.”
This is one of the main reasons that the lower Susquehanna River is a cesspool, but then again it is not the only reason. I found 121 combined sewer\stormwater outlets, this number includes Harrisburg’s 59, between Wilkes-Barre and Steelton.
The river is not impaired it is Harrisburg’s cesspool, we all should be very proud of our state capital.
larkmark
Member
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2019
- Messages
- 876
The fish commission dragged their feet for years on this. Read any article where fish commission make statements about the river and bass. You will not find statements condemning those cities pouring raw sewage into river or the agricultural people. They are a political organization in lock step with the interests of business and government. To this day they try to put a positive spin on everything related to the environment. Google Smallmouth Bass Susquehanna and read the articles. In some you may find some truth buried deep in the article about water pollution but in general the headlines are glowing and support a false idea that the bass have recovered and the "mystery has been solved". Speaking at meetings and with the waterway patrolmen you always get the strange feeling they are trying to gloss over the reality And here is the thing---So even if we can agree that the ag runoff and wastewater dumoing is the problem.
What exactly has been done about it?
Yelling at newspaper memes really don't bother me. Go stick your head in the sand buddy. Mock me and laugh all you want.
I have gone to meetings as recently as a month ago with a conservation group. The topic of what is really happening to a local river was once again avoided (especially by the fish comm. speaker) while rain barrels and picking up trash were emphasized as things we can do. Gov't and powers that be do not want to be held accountable. I figure that this forum might be as good a place as any to waste my time.
What exactly has been done about it?
Yelling at newspaper memes really don't bother me. Go stick your head in the sand buddy. Mock me and laugh all you want.
I have gone to meetings as recently as a month ago with a conservation group. The topic of what is really happening to a local river was once again avoided (especially by the fish comm. speaker) while rain barrels and picking up trash were emphasized as things we can do. Gov't and powers that be do not want to be held accountable. I figure that this forum might be as good a place as any to waste my time.
T
troutbert
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2006
- Messages
- 10,665
Does anyone think the sewage problem has gotten worse over the years?
I think the sewage treatment has gotten much better.
afishinado
Moderator
Staff member
I don't blame the PFBC ffor lack of action on the sewage and ag problems on the River, especially when John Arway was ED. He was fired in large part because he stood up against the politicians.
Here is a 2016 article about the very issue we are discussing >
State DEP declares portion of Susquehanna River 'impaired'
The state Department of Environmental Protection has declared a portion of the Susquehanna River to be “impaired,” the first-ever designation of that kind for a major Pennsylvania waterway.
The finding is based on a multi-agency report on a long-term fish sickness and pollutants emptied into Chesapeake Bay. The controversial designation releases undetermined state and federal funding and actions. But representatives of stakeholder groups that participated in the report suggest the narrow ruling covering just 4 miles of water is itself controversial.
“Despite how long this has been going on, all the research that’s been done, this doesn’t address the issue,” said John Arway, executive director of the state Fish and Boat Commission, who for years has been lobbying for Susquehanna River remediation.
The joint study released this year by the DEP, the state Fish and Boat Commission and a half-dozen partner agencies showed a connection between a widespread smallmouth bass disease and agricultural runoff and municipal sewage discharge, with parasite infestation a secondary complication. Mr. Arway said the long-awaited DEP action addresses only a local problem involving catfish contamination by PCB chemicals.
“The local issue that the DEP deals with here has nothing to do with the health of the bass and the larger problems that we researched,” he said. “The primary decision about whether to list [as impaired] or not was because of the health of the bass. They deferred their decision on the bass until 2018.”
The DEP extended an existing fish consumption advisory to additional parts of the river, but Harry Campbell, executive director of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said the impairment decision does not address bay pollution.
“Considering the plight of the smallmouth bass, not declaring the lower Susquehanna to be impaired is another example of Pennsylvania’s continued lack of leadership, dedication and investment when it comes to following through with its … commitment that dates back to 2010,” he said in a statement. “Pennsylvania is not serving the needs of its citizens or the animals that rely on clean water for their very lives.”
The 27,500-square-mile Susquehanna River watershed bisects Pennsylvania, draining as far west as Indiana County and north of the Finger Lakes in central New York. The river crosses a few miles of Maryland before reaching Chesapeake Bay.
In 2003, researchers found the river delivered 44 percent of the nitrogen, 21 percent of the phosphorus and 21 percent of the sediment pouring into the bay at a rate of 18 million gallons per minute. In 2005, the same year the environmental group American Rivers dubbed the Susquehanna “America’s Most Endangered River,” unexplained lesions, sores and deformities were found on tens of thousands of the river’s smallmouth bass.
Five years later, Pennsylvania committed to a timetable, the Clean Water Blueprint, which requires the state to have 60 percent of necessary water pollution-reduction practices in place by 2017. Failure to meet timetable deadlines could result in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s withholding of millions of dollars in federal infrastructure funding. EPA could require Pennsylvania municipalities to make costly sewage upgrades and Washington could pressure the state to enforce existing regulations on agricultural discharge
EPA officials had no comment Monday on DEP’s declaration of 4 miles of impairment.
In a statement, Patrick McDonnell, DEP acting secretary, said research would continue. River monitoring has increased and new analytic protocols are being designed that he said would “set the bar for scientific study of large river systems.”
The deteriorating health of the Susquehanna River has exposed rifts separating the goals of state agencies. Pennsylvania and the DEP in particular repeatedly missed deadlines to declare impairment and have not taken additional actions. The Fish and Boat Commission has lobbied extensively for action on the Susquehanna River. Mr. Arway has publicly challenged the delays and asked the federal government to force the DEP off the fence.
“What standard of proof does [DEP] want to make up their minds about the smallmouth disease?” he said. “What information do they require? We’ll help to research it. They won’t tell us.”
John Hayes: 412-263-1991, jhayes@post-gazette.com.
First Published August 2, 2016, 12:00am
Link to source: https://www.post-gazette.com/news/environment/2016/08/02/State-DEP-declares-portion-of-Susquehanna-River-impaired/stories/201608020088
Here is a 2016 article about the very issue we are discussing >
State DEP declares portion of Susquehanna River 'impaired'
The state Department of Environmental Protection has declared a portion of the Susquehanna River to be “impaired,” the first-ever designation of that kind for a major Pennsylvania waterway.
The finding is based on a multi-agency report on a long-term fish sickness and pollutants emptied into Chesapeake Bay. The controversial designation releases undetermined state and federal funding and actions. But representatives of stakeholder groups that participated in the report suggest the narrow ruling covering just 4 miles of water is itself controversial.
“Despite how long this has been going on, all the research that’s been done, this doesn’t address the issue,” said John Arway, executive director of the state Fish and Boat Commission, who for years has been lobbying for Susquehanna River remediation.
The joint study released this year by the DEP, the state Fish and Boat Commission and a half-dozen partner agencies showed a connection between a widespread smallmouth bass disease and agricultural runoff and municipal sewage discharge, with parasite infestation a secondary complication. Mr. Arway said the long-awaited DEP action addresses only a local problem involving catfish contamination by PCB chemicals.
“The local issue that the DEP deals with here has nothing to do with the health of the bass and the larger problems that we researched,” he said. “The primary decision about whether to list [as impaired] or not was because of the health of the bass. They deferred their decision on the bass until 2018.”
The DEP extended an existing fish consumption advisory to additional parts of the river, but Harry Campbell, executive director of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said the impairment decision does not address bay pollution.
“Considering the plight of the smallmouth bass, not declaring the lower Susquehanna to be impaired is another example of Pennsylvania’s continued lack of leadership, dedication and investment when it comes to following through with its … commitment that dates back to 2010,” he said in a statement. “Pennsylvania is not serving the needs of its citizens or the animals that rely on clean water for their very lives.”
The 27,500-square-mile Susquehanna River watershed bisects Pennsylvania, draining as far west as Indiana County and north of the Finger Lakes in central New York. The river crosses a few miles of Maryland before reaching Chesapeake Bay.
In 2003, researchers found the river delivered 44 percent of the nitrogen, 21 percent of the phosphorus and 21 percent of the sediment pouring into the bay at a rate of 18 million gallons per minute. In 2005, the same year the environmental group American Rivers dubbed the Susquehanna “America’s Most Endangered River,” unexplained lesions, sores and deformities were found on tens of thousands of the river’s smallmouth bass.
Five years later, Pennsylvania committed to a timetable, the Clean Water Blueprint, which requires the state to have 60 percent of necessary water pollution-reduction practices in place by 2017. Failure to meet timetable deadlines could result in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s withholding of millions of dollars in federal infrastructure funding. EPA could require Pennsylvania municipalities to make costly sewage upgrades and Washington could pressure the state to enforce existing regulations on agricultural discharge
EPA officials had no comment Monday on DEP’s declaration of 4 miles of impairment.
In a statement, Patrick McDonnell, DEP acting secretary, said research would continue. River monitoring has increased and new analytic protocols are being designed that he said would “set the bar for scientific study of large river systems.”
The deteriorating health of the Susquehanna River has exposed rifts separating the goals of state agencies. Pennsylvania and the DEP in particular repeatedly missed deadlines to declare impairment and have not taken additional actions. The Fish and Boat Commission has lobbied extensively for action on the Susquehanna River. Mr. Arway has publicly challenged the delays and asked the federal government to force the DEP off the fence.
“What standard of proof does [DEP] want to make up their minds about the smallmouth disease?” he said. “What information do they require? We’ll help to research it. They won’t tell us.”
John Hayes: 412-263-1991, jhayes@post-gazette.com.
First Published August 2, 2016, 12:00am
Link to source: https://www.post-gazette.com/news/environment/2016/08/02/State-DEP-declares-portion-of-Susquehanna-River-impaired/stories/201608020088
Fly-Swatter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,234
And, there you have it, folks. Politics and greed "Trump" concerns for the environment, the future, and the general welfare.
"When will we learn
It's our future that we burn?
When will we see
There's only one land for you and me?"
"When will we learn
It's our future that we burn?
When will we see
There's only one land for you and me?"
Dave_W
Moderator
Staff member
Harrisburg's sewer problems are well known and greatly worsened in years like 2018 with excessive precipitation...
It's important to remember, however, that the bass crash extended well above Harrisburg with Dauphin/Clemson Isl. revealing some of the worst SMB data bar graphs during the the height of the crash from 2005-2012.
Also important to remember that downriver of Hburg the river still holds large numbers of pollution intolerant macros which would not typically be present in a "polluted" river. This section holds a strong population of a variety of fishes: some are down to be sure (such as rock bass and sunnies), and others are thriving, such as catties and muskies. Others seem to have good years and bad, like walleyes and smallies.
Fish populations in the section above Hburg up to Sunbury reveal similar patterns.
While the situation with the city's sewer system is deplorable and improvements are welcome, the complexity of the river's fisheries and its problems should not be laid entirely at the feet of the capital (or farmers in Lancaster) as as these problems exist upriver as well.
It's important to remember, however, that the bass crash extended well above Harrisburg with Dauphin/Clemson Isl. revealing some of the worst SMB data bar graphs during the the height of the crash from 2005-2012.
Also important to remember that downriver of Hburg the river still holds large numbers of pollution intolerant macros which would not typically be present in a "polluted" river. This section holds a strong population of a variety of fishes: some are down to be sure (such as rock bass and sunnies), and others are thriving, such as catties and muskies. Others seem to have good years and bad, like walleyes and smallies.
Fish populations in the section above Hburg up to Sunbury reveal similar patterns.
While the situation with the city's sewer system is deplorable and improvements are welcome, the complexity of the river's fisheries and its problems should not be laid entirely at the feet of the capital (or farmers in Lancaster) as as these problems exist upriver as well.
salvelinusfontinalis
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 7,284
GeneBeam,
Agreed.
I just dont see where any of that is the PFBC's fault. Harrisburg's treatment of the river is criminal. So is the old forge bore hole and the Conestoga River.
All that pollution is not the fault of the PFBC but rather different entities(private and public). That is beyond sticking your head in the sand and is in the realm of conspiracy theorist rhetoric that does nothing but divide us rather than actively looking for solutions.
Its old.
Agreed.
I just dont see where any of that is the PFBC's fault. Harrisburg's treatment of the river is criminal. So is the old forge bore hole and the Conestoga River.
All that pollution is not the fault of the PFBC but rather different entities(private and public). That is beyond sticking your head in the sand and is in the realm of conspiracy theorist rhetoric that does nothing but divide us rather than actively looking for solutions.
Its old.
Dave_W
Moderator
Staff member
I agree.^
I think that, broadly speaking, sewage treatment has indeed improved greatly across PA. Some streams in the Susky watershed, like lower Letort, owe their excellent fish populations almost entirely to treatment upgrades.
If one takes the longer view, say a generation, traditional pollutants in the Susky and its watershed have improved. Similar results can be seen in other large watersheds. I'm guessing that sewage treatment has improved at a better rate than agro run-off(?)
Obviously there are exceptions, such as the pipe break in Reading in the Skuke watershed (any updates on this BTW? - probably should start a different thread in Conservation), but these are acute and not indicative of the overall trend of the last 25+ years.
afishinado
Moderator
Staff member
As far as excessive nitrogen polluting the Susky from sewage and ag one must factor in the population growth in the watershed and how antiquated the sewage treatment plants are since they were designed to handle only a fraction of the volume put upon them today.
While nitrogen isn't the only problem it's a major problem for the River.
Here is an excerpt directly from the EPA about how the nitrogen load has increased flowing into the Chesapeake Bay where the Susquehanna is the the main source of water.
Nitrogen and phosphorus have always been a part of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem, but have increased to excessive levels over the last few decades. Prior to substantial human activity in the region, most nitrogen and phosphorus was absorbed or retained by natural forest and wetland vegetation. However, the activities of over 13.6 million people in the watershed have overwhelmed the Chesapeake Bay with excess amounts of nutrients. Nitrogen and phosphorus come from a wide range of point and nonpoint sources, including sewage treatment plants, industrial facilities, agricultural fields, lawns, and the atmosphere. As forests and wetlands have been replaced by farms, cities, and suburbs to accommodate a growing population, nitrogen and phosphorus pollution to the Chesapeake Bay has greatly increased.
I would like to see data from anyone stating nitrogen levels in the Susquehanna are better than in the past. Not according to the EPA.
Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/nutrient-policy-data/addressing-nutrient-pollution-chesapeake-bay
While nitrogen isn't the only problem it's a major problem for the River.
Here is an excerpt directly from the EPA about how the nitrogen load has increased flowing into the Chesapeake Bay where the Susquehanna is the the main source of water.
Nitrogen and phosphorus have always been a part of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem, but have increased to excessive levels over the last few decades. Prior to substantial human activity in the region, most nitrogen and phosphorus was absorbed or retained by natural forest and wetland vegetation. However, the activities of over 13.6 million people in the watershed have overwhelmed the Chesapeake Bay with excess amounts of nutrients. Nitrogen and phosphorus come from a wide range of point and nonpoint sources, including sewage treatment plants, industrial facilities, agricultural fields, lawns, and the atmosphere. As forests and wetlands have been replaced by farms, cities, and suburbs to accommodate a growing population, nitrogen and phosphorus pollution to the Chesapeake Bay has greatly increased.
I would like to see data from anyone stating nitrogen levels in the Susquehanna are better than in the past. Not according to the EPA.
Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/nutrient-policy-data/addressing-nutrient-pollution-chesapeake-bay
afishinado
Moderator
Staff member
Another article about nitrogen pollution in the Susky >
The Susquehanna and the streams that feed it deliver 50 percent of the freshwater – on average
25 billion gallons of water each day – and half of the pollution to the Chesapeake Bay. As a
result, the Susquehanna’s health directly affects the health and productivity of the Chesapeake
Bay.
Today, the Susquehanna is severely degraded by nitrogen and phosphorus pollution and other
contaminants. Excess animal manure, agricultural runoff, improperly treated sewage discharges,
and urban and suburban stormwater create local water quality problems and pollute the Bay.
Additionally, abandoned mine drainage, failing septic systems, vehicle exhaust, and coal fired
power plant emissions, and, in some parts of the River, toxins like PCBs and mercury have
severely contaminated the River’s once pristine waters. Throughout the Commonwealth, over
12,000 miles of streams and rivers, including much of the Susquehanna and its streams, are on
the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) notorious “dirty waters list.”
The most significant pollutants degrading water quality in the Chesapeake Bay are nitrogen,
phosphorus, and sediment pollution. In 2003, 44 percent of the total nitrogen pollution in the Bay
came from the Susquehanna River (EPA, Chesapeake Bay Program 2003). Additionally, the
River contributed 21 percent each of the Bay’s phosphorus and sediment loadings. These
proportions are typical each year.
Overall Pollution Contribution of the Susquehanna River to the
The majority – over 60 percent – of the Susquehanna River’s pollution is attributable to excess
manure, agricultural runoff, and urban and suburban stormwater. Additionally, inadequately
treated human sewage is a source of pollution. These principal sources of pollution in the
Susquehanna River also present the most immediate and affordable opportunities for
environmental restoration that will benefit local streams in the Commonwealth.
Link to source: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0730/ML073050115.pdf
The old saying heard over and over again that "the River is cleaner now than it was in the old days" is false. Maybe some streams or rivers, but certainly not Susky. I wish everyone would check out the data and rethink their idea about the pollution of the largest river in PA.
The Susquehanna and the streams that feed it deliver 50 percent of the freshwater – on average
25 billion gallons of water each day – and half of the pollution to the Chesapeake Bay. As a
result, the Susquehanna’s health directly affects the health and productivity of the Chesapeake
Bay.
Today, the Susquehanna is severely degraded by nitrogen and phosphorus pollution and other
contaminants. Excess animal manure, agricultural runoff, improperly treated sewage discharges,
and urban and suburban stormwater create local water quality problems and pollute the Bay.
Additionally, abandoned mine drainage, failing septic systems, vehicle exhaust, and coal fired
power plant emissions, and, in some parts of the River, toxins like PCBs and mercury have
severely contaminated the River’s once pristine waters. Throughout the Commonwealth, over
12,000 miles of streams and rivers, including much of the Susquehanna and its streams, are on
the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) notorious “dirty waters list.”
The most significant pollutants degrading water quality in the Chesapeake Bay are nitrogen,
phosphorus, and sediment pollution. In 2003, 44 percent of the total nitrogen pollution in the Bay
came from the Susquehanna River (EPA, Chesapeake Bay Program 2003). Additionally, the
River contributed 21 percent each of the Bay’s phosphorus and sediment loadings. These
proportions are typical each year.
Overall Pollution Contribution of the Susquehanna River to the
The majority – over 60 percent – of the Susquehanna River’s pollution is attributable to excess
manure, agricultural runoff, and urban and suburban stormwater. Additionally, inadequately
treated human sewage is a source of pollution. These principal sources of pollution in the
Susquehanna River also present the most immediate and affordable opportunities for
environmental restoration that will benefit local streams in the Commonwealth.
Link to source: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0730/ML073050115.pdf
The old saying heard over and over again that "the River is cleaner now than it was in the old days" is false. Maybe some streams or rivers, but certainly not Susky. I wish everyone would check out the data and rethink their idea about the pollution of the largest river in PA.
coyoterahn
Active member
Excellent point Afish, good info. Bottom line..... The river is IMPAIRED!
Our leaders need to step up to the plate and take action.
Our leaders need to step up to the plate and take action.
larkmark
Member
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2019
- Messages
- 876
I think it's worthwhile revisiting the topic of the condition of the river from time to time. If anyone thinks it is getting better then I guess there must me another reason why the bass are crashing again? If PAFBC along with other state agencies are not responsible for monitoring our waterways and then honestly accessing and notifying polluters and following up then who exactly is going to do that work?
GeneBeam
Active member
I’m not saying it is the PFBC's fault or responsibility and yes some sewer authorities\companies have upgraded and\or separated their storm & sanitary sewer facilities, but the list I found shows about 125 combined sewer\storm water systems\authorities with over 1,500 outfalls that still exists today in Pennsylvania. Not every outfall pours untreated sewer water into a stream or river every day, but sometime during the year, I’m almost sure, that some untreated sewer water enters a stream or river, in the state of Pennsylvania, from one of the 1,500 outfalls on the list that I found.
And for the following statement
I seem to remember that Harrisburg and many other small cities in Pennsylvania were dumps long before Trump showed up or even before Mayor For Life Reed. This problem belongs to each and every PA local, county and state’s worthless politician and to us for electing them, that just keep kicking the can down the road.
Dave_W
Moderator
Staff member
I'd emphasize that - in my statement above - I'm referring to a longer view of the watershed.
-Yes, the river is polluted (as are all large river watersheds across PA). I've never said the river isn't polluted... but have sought instead to point out the complexity of the matter, such as the presence of pollution intolerant macros below Hburg, and the fact that the bass crash occurred upriver of Hburg as well as below.
-And it's worth pointing out that phosphorus going into the Bay has indeed increased a bit in recent years... as I've pointed out in recent years. Years with high run-off and flooding are particularly bad for phosphorus, as is common knowledge
The Susquehanna River Basin Commission has tracked pollutants across the watershed for decades. I'd suggest one take some time to review the long term issue of pollution in the watershed here:
SRBC Reports
Scroll down to page 3 where it says:
Long-term trend analyses indicate
nutrient and sediment loadings from
the Susquehanna Basin have either
leveled out or continue to decrease.
Since the 1970s the watershed (emphasis on watershed, referred to as "basin") has shown generally stable or improving data on traditional pollutants like phosphorous and nitrogen over the years, as of 2017. Again, I wish to point out that these are very broad generalizations and broad data. The river and its watershed are complex and yes... suffering from pollution. It's just not dramatically worse than previous decades.
For a good snapshot of the period in the 1980s through late 1990s hit this report and scroll down to page 11 for nitrogen and phosphorus in the lower river. This also reveals the generally stable or improving numbers and specifically mentions improvements in sewage treatment.
Pollution in the lower susky
This report, incidentally, has some excellent information on other problems such as pesticides in ground water and contaminants in fish tissue - well worth a read.
For a good look at nitrogen, phosphorus and suspended sediments in the lower Susky over the last thirty years, hit this study:
Lower Susky Data
Short version:
Here we present a comprehensive evaluation of nutrient and sediment loads over the last three decades at multiple locations in the Susquehanna River basin (SRB), Chesapeake's largest tributary watershed. Sediment and nutrient riverine loadings, including both dissolved and particulate fractions, have generally declined at all sites upstream of Conowingo Dam.
Incidentally, this study supports Afish's point in a post above about the significance of population vs forested land area. While it's true that population has increased around Hburg, the Susky watershed has also seen increased forestation in recent decades, reflecting statewide trends. This report also looks at the problem of legacy sediment in the Conowingo pool - also well worth a read.
