Featured Advertisers
Sat, Nov. 21  -   -  Mobile  -  RSS
  

Make a post about this story on FredTalk. Get a printer-friendly version of this page. E-mail this story to a friend.

-

Visit the Photo Place

View the King George County community page

Miles of dirty water up nearly 30 percent

Thousands of miles of area streams and rivers are impaired by pollution, according to new state 'dirty waters' report.

Date published: 7/12/2006

By RUSTY DENNEN

Water flowing down the Rappahannock and Potomac rivers often looks pristine and clear.

But appearances can be deceiving, according to a new state "dirty waters" report that found hundreds of miles of area streams and rivers impaired by pollution.

The draft report, released yesterday by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, found that 8,984 miles of rivers and streams in Virginia are unable to support any or all of six categories of use--aquatic life, fishing, shell fishing, swimming, public-water supplies and wildlife. That's up 29.6 percent from 6,931 miles in 2004.

In addition, about 109,200 acres of lakes and reservoirs, and 170 square miles of estuaries are impaired. The report, updated every other year, covers nearly 90 percent of state waters.

"We are developing a very clear picture of the type and location of our water-quality problems," DEQ Director David K. Paylor said yesterday.

Paylor said more impaired areas are listed this year because new waters are being added and some water-quality standards have been tightened.

DEQ officials also stressed yesterday at a news conference that there are no imminent threats to human health and that recreation in impaired waters generally is not harmful as long as people are aware of fish-consumption advisories and are careful about swallowing water.

There are 50,357 miles of rivers and streams, 116,058 acres of lakes and 2,248 square miles of estuaries in Virginia.

When waters are found to be impaired, the federal Clean Water Act requires the state to study the waterway, find the source of the pollution and draw up a plan to clean it up. Many area waterways are in the study phase, part of a state and federal effort to significantly reduce pollution flowing into the Chesapeake Bay .

"The take-home message for us is that the numbers don't lie," said Ann Jennings, Virginia executive director of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. "This document provides proof of the sad reality that Virginia is facing a water-pollution crisis."

Mike Gerel, the foundation's Virginia staff scientist, said the report confirmed that low dissolved oxygen was significant for the lower York and James rivers. That has contributed to vast "dead zones" in the bay where marine life cannot survive.

He said the pollution problems go far upstream.


1  2  Next Page  


Follow us on
twitter
fredericksburg.com Facebook page


Date published: 7/12/2006


Most recent reader comments:

1 comment has been posted. (Sorted in reverse order, with most recent post at the top.)

Display comments on this page. | Sort:

PLEASE READ: These reader comments are not moderated. Each user is solely responsible for any message (s)he posts here. The Free Lance-Star does not endorse the views expressed within these comments. All users who post to this Web site must agree to the terms of the FredTalk User Agreement. We rely on our readers to police themselves, and report any content that violates our User Agreement. In accordance with our User Agreement, we reserve the right to remove any post at any time for any reason, and will restrict access of registered users who repeatedly violate our terms. Any reader can report inappropriate content by clicking the "Report this post to admins" link at the bottom of each comment. You need not be registered to report a post.

WMC river pollution (posted by mrbutch , Sep. 25, 2007 2:41 pm)   
Having identified septic system malfunction as a primary source of WMC pollution, is it not incumbent on the county to eliminate that source as soon as possible? Having reserved the necessary sewer capacity from C B, should WMC not move with haste to use it for the designated areas polluting the Potomac rather than allocate the capacity to NEW construction, thereby pushing solving of the problem further out into the future?

What do you think?
Enter your FredTalk username and password to post a comment on this story. If you are registered on FredTalk or another part of this site, use that login here. Otherwise, you can just REGISTER here... .

Username: Password:

Post title:


Please keep it brief: (512-character limit)
Please make sure CAPS LOCK is off. Posts in ALL CAPS will be deleted.)


By checking this box, you agree to the terms of the FredTalk User agreement.