Originally Posted by CaptainBW
Interesting stuff Gord.
It really hits you in the face when you see it displayed in the multiple maps.
The map is academic. It tells you where to go to pick out the big pieces. Its a given that 99% of the pollutants come from the rivers. I remember as a kid in Michigan when research
types & some private vigalantes, started at stream mouths and worked upstream, identifying and sometimes prosecuting offenders as they went. Multiple offenders drain pipes were often concreted in. It was vicious for a while. We now catch trout and salmon in our streams here and the water
in most of the watershed north of M20 is quite clear to crystal clear where it enters the lakes. I fished the Chippawa as a boy and only hoped for carp. It was heavily polluted with run-off from two sugar beet processors along with sewage outfall. The last time I was by, the water
was clear with flowing weeds. I watched two boys fishing
much as I had only they were catching pike and bass. That is why we were so shocked at Green Bay. I assumed the other Great Lakes
states had done the same. Even the Cuyahoga is vastly improved and you can see the bottom between Akron and Cleveland. The last 20 miles or so travels through national park (no farms). The old canal tow path is now a park and I counted 7 bever dams on one bike ride through the Cuyahoga valley. I would swim it anywhere.
BTW, Chicago is pretty clear right to the beach since they flush downstream through the ship canal. The towns around do and do not depending on location. My suggestion for the ship canal is a dry marine
railway. Boats float in, drop onto a flat-car; gates open and the vessel travels dry to the Illinois River. This would sever the connection and aford the opportunity to clean the bilges of all transiting boats. Chicago would have to actually build sewage treatment. If I whiz off the side of my boat its a 5000 dollar fine but millions of Chicagoians can flush their %^&*$ to the Gulf. Keep your teeth together downstream. I have been told that the biggest single
power user in the area is the electric
barriers, close to 1/2 the total regional power consumption
(so I have been told). This project
could be sold on carbon reduction alone but the environmentsl impact would be huge. One local complaint to canal closure is the 300 or so jobs lost
. This is BS too. A dry connection would require just as many people to operate or more.