Mud is pollution

[Glorybigs]

Mud is not Pollution unless man is God.

Definition of POLLUTION
1: the action of polluting especially by environmental contamination with man-made waste; also : the condition of being polluted.

Mud is not man-made, mud is not waste, it exists naturally. Saying man makes mud is like saying our alveoli makes CO2.

With that said, man does cause conditions that lead to surface water run off with velocities high enough to carry silt along and deposit elsewhere, it is a "condition" that also naturally occurs in the environment. That is not the same thing as pollution.

A standard Geotechnical/Geologic Report and SWPPP that is adhered to would resolve these issues. I fail to see the problem besides no adults in the room to discuss common sense solutions.

 

[MoGas]

I <3 trucks.

Trucks <3 mud.

Mud is good.

 

[Storz]

Actually the real culprit is degradation of the riparian area which has been heavily damaged due poor logging, farming, and ranching practices. In the natural state during muddy runoff much of the sediment is trapped within riparian vegetation but in the US much of this important veg has been wiped out. Furthermore, due to over use of water the natural flushing cycle that would normally clear out impacted sediment has been greatly reduced. Coupled with reduced snowpack, over fishing, dams, and eutrophication due to fertilizer/waste runoff you get the a situation in which the environment is severely degraded along with salmon populations.

Thank you.

Modern humans exist outside the natural balance of the Earth, literally everything we do is bad the for the environment, our only chances are minimizing the effects we have.

 

[H2O_Doc]

Mud is not Pollution unless man is God.

With that said, man does cause conditions that lead to surface water run off with velocities high enough to carry silt along and deposit elsewhere, it is a "condition" that also naturally occurs in the environment. That is not the same thing as pollution.

I'm not sure if you mean pollution in a putative sense or a legal one, but what has been discussed in this thread could easily fit the definition of non point source pollution. Yes mud and silt existed before the dawn of man. Yes, it enters waterways without our help. When silt enters waterways in amounts that diminish environmental quality beyond some standard we have set, and does so because of something we have done, then it might be reasonable to call it pollution.

Lots of stuff that exists naturally, but who's concentrations are elevated by our actions meet legal or putative definitions of pollutants.

 

[H2O_Doc]

Thank you.

Modern humans exist outside the natural balance of the Earth, literally everything we do is bad the for the environment, our only chances are minimizing the effects we have.

While I can appreciate your concern for the environment, I'm not sure these kinds of statements help. Surely not EVERYTHING we do is bad for the environment, is it? I think we run the risk of alienating folks that are concerned about the environment, but are maybe tired of hyperbole. It's a long road to truly minimizing our effects on the landscape. I'd be happy enough if we could just meet the standards that we have in place.

 

[Mike S]

My brother has been in the forest products industry for 40 years. He agrees that, without regulation, the industry would cut every tree they could and would no bother to employ any measures to protect the environment. So regulation of logging is needed - on both public and private lands.

Salmon and steelhead require a few things to continue:

- Ability to get from the sea to their spawning area

- Spawning gravel and water (clean and of the correct temperature)

- Ability for the fry/smolts to survive in the stream

- Ability for the smolts to get safely downstream to the sea

- Food and survival in the sea until maturity

Silt loads do occur naturally, but in a normal situation, they are flushed out at high water and leave clean gravel in spawning areas. Excessive silt loads and/or low water levels during runoff results in spawning gravel that becomes compacted by silt and cannot support reproduction. The silt load resulting from logging activity is one of the prime causes of salmon decline in almost all salmon streams in the continental US. Dams are another cause - limiting access and controlling flows that would normally cleanse silt from spawning gravel.

In a healthy system I doubt that fishing would be a prime cause of decline, but when salmon runs are already stressed, it does contribute to the problem.

 

[F5driver]

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/6420ap_or_logging_roads_pollution.html

In a case filed against Oregon Dept of Forestry, the
9th Court ruled that mud from logging roads is pollution, and ordered the EPA to write regulations reducing sediment reaching salmon streams.

The 9th court is pure liberal wackiness run amok. Perhaps the Supreme Court will strike this down as it has the last 5 cases it reviewed from the 9th.

 

[craig333]

My brother has been in the forest products industry for 40 years. He agrees that, without regulation, the industry would cut every tree they could and would no bother to employ any measures to protect the environment. So regulation of logging is needed - on both public and private lands.


Some would, some wouldn't. http://www.collinsco.com/certified-forests/

 

[H2O_Doc]

The 9th court is pure liberal wackiness run amok. Perhaps the Supreme Court will strike this down as it has the last 5 cases it reviewed from the 9th.

If memory serves, the rulling says that because the roads in question that were used in logging were a source of silt, which affected salmon, that the logging company needed an NPDES permit. It doesn't stop logging. Someone correct me if I am wrong. Anyway, it doesn't sound like wackiness to me, which is not at all to say you can't reasonably disagree with the ruling.

As for your comment about the 9th being struck down; it is true that they often have a higher overall number of rulings overturned when compared to other circuit courts, but taken as a ratio of total rulings-they're not so bad. Of course, it varies from year to year. One might expect that the court with the most decisions would have the most rulings overturned and the most rulings upheld on appeal, if you go just by raw numbers.

 

[109 Pretender]

Obviously, this topic has 'spawned' a lot of emotions - both sides with valid points. However, it 'seems' most respondants agree that there is potential imbalance in how this will be implemented, paid for, end effects, etc. Perhaps that's the core problem - imbalance.

Western trout/salmon spawns have been drastically reduced in recent years with no REAL complete explanation as to why. This is a partial response to that situation - it may help the fish situation or not at all - don't know until it's tried, analyzed for effect, or until new data suggests otherwise. It is important to prevent species from being depleted which could affect future fish generations for all of us.

Yep! It's gonna cost us - tell me what doesn't? The REAL problem with rising costs worldwide isn't incidential stuff like this - it's the fact that mankind will hit 7 billion this year! Emerging countries are building out just like we did 100+ years ago. Unless we have a world war soon - we'll probably top out around 8-9 billion over the next 30 years. Although there is evidence that zero or negative population growth will win out eventually.

I just hope those people in the future will have a natural world to visit and occassionally be able to wet a line and catch a fish...

 

[constructeur]

Western trout/salmon spawns have been drastically reduced in recent years with no REAL complete explanation as to why.

You seem pretty dialed in but I'll still add why this statement in incorrect. In no order of importance:

1. Generations of yore disrespected the natural resources.

2. Poor ocean survivability rates. (no ones fault)

3. Over harvest by commercial interests.

4. Habitat destruction (Logging and development/over development too close to the river)

5. FN overharvest due to the Boldt decision.


I've yet to see anyone 'on the other side' produce any scientific data supportin their "this is hippy B.S." premise. The bottom line is that the days of cutting trees, building houses and road 30' from the river, and netting fish like there was no tomorrow are over. It's tomorrow right now.

 

[PirateMcGee]

You seem pretty dialed in but I'll still add why this statement in incorrect. In no order of importance:

1. Generations of yore disrespected the natural resources.

2. Poor ocean survivability rates. (no ones fault)

3. Over harvest by commercial interests.

4. Habitat destruction (Logging and development/over development too close to the river)

5. FN overharvest due to the Boldt decision.


I've yet to see anyone 'on the other side' produce any scientific data supportin their "this is hippy B.S." premise. The bottom line is that the days of cutting trees, building houses and road 30' from the river, and netting fish like there was no tomorrow are over. It's tomorrow right now.

x2

 

[109 Pretender]

I agree in principle with all 5 'reasons' you suggest.
Item #1 goes w/o saying and is somewhat moot because it was before our time - however, I think we all agree mankind should do better now. Mankind is learning from previous mistakes of earlier generations - although not consistently.

Items 2-5 really speak to the fundamental problem. Govmt. regs vs special interest monies paid to legislators so bills can be written that provide special exclusions for those special interests.

Then we get the knee jerk reactions of same legislators whenever they percieve that public opinion has changed or larger mouthed special interest groups protest sufficiently to force a change. Sometimes (like perhaps this example), the 'changes' aren't particuliarly well thought out - or at least that is the perception of some parties.

It's always a battle to find a suitable balance between man's needs/wants and what is sustainable for the greater environment as a whole. That ideal has been tremendously complicated in recent decades because science has become very polarized because I truly believe science today is mainly a business enterprise - each party postulating 'their take on it' and competing for grant monies. That's why I said REAL evidence. There is a boatload of evidences coming from many angles - it's just that everyone can't agree which is the best direction to take.

Western culture has for centuries pronounced that GOD placed the earth here for mankind to exploit. Eastern cultures and the American Indian cultures have always practiced man existing in concert with nature. They also seem to be more respectful in utilizing resources.

Obviously, we can't keep raping the planet - yet we need to accomodate mankind's needs in a sustainable way. So I'd say while we aren't at the point of gross imbalance like we were in the old days when we never even thought about these topics - we still have a long way to get to where we need to be so future generations will have available their needed resources.

Perhaps science needs to be taken out of the business catagory and put back into some mechanism whereby scienctists could concentrate on their work - instead of where the next grant money is coming from because they have mortages to pay... Maybe then the 'science' would become more pure and the legislative powers would have better/correct information with which to make rules of law.

 

[paulj]

....
Perhaps science needs to be taken out of the business catagory and put back into some mechanism whereby scienctists could concentrate on their work - instead of where the next grant money is coming from because they have mortages to pay... Maybe then the 'science' would become more pure and the legislative powers would have better/correct information with which to make rules of law.

While there are research faculty that depend entirely on grants for their salary, teaching faculty get most of their pay for their teaching activity. Grants pay the stipends for grad students, post docs, travel, and equipment.

Yes, seeking grants does take time, but I doubt if it reduces the 'purity' of the research. As for legislatures not having access to good scientific information, I think that is more the fault of politicians who would rather listen to lobbyists and big money than scientists.

 

[Streakerfreak]

As for legislatures not having access to good scientific information, I think that is more the fault of politicians who would rather listen to lobbyists and big money than scientists.

Very true. One of my old professors, Jim Carlton, is one of the leaders in Marine Invasive species reasearch and has been on numerous boards presenting reasearch to Congress. His frustration with them can easily be heard when he talks about it. What matters to the politicians are votes in the next election year (no surprise there) and not the bigger picture of what the implications of not doing anything will have in the future. I remember him basically saying that even if a scientist could prove 100% that the world was going to end in four years, but it could be saved with drastic unpopular methods, politicians would still not listen as it would happen after the next re-election.