2
Regional Water Resources: Physiographical, Historical, and Social Dimensions

As background to understanding the complex water quality problems of southwestern Pennsylvania, this chapter summarizes the region’s physical geography; its economic, demographic, and land use trends; and the history of its water supply and wastewater treatment practices. Since the 1970s, the Pittsburgh region has evolved from reliance on heavy industry to an economy based largely on technology, medical research, and higher education. This evolution has been accompanied by the decline of older industrial cities and towns and the spread of low-density development into outlying rural areas. As the region’s water quality problems are better understood (see Chapter 3), the need to update the management of the region’s surface and groundwater resources commensurately with its new economy and aspirations becomes manifest.

PHYSICAL SETTING

Pittsburgh and southwestern Pennsylvania are intrinsically identified with the “Three Rivers” that drain the region: the Allegheny, the Monongahela, and below their confluence at Pittsburgh, the Ohio River. The Allegheny and Monongahela basins drain more than 19,100 square miles in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, New York, and Maryland (altogether comprising 14 percent of the Ohio River Basin; see Figure 2-1). Historically, these three rivers served as major transportation arteries linking Appalachia with the Midwest. Based on 2001 data from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pittsburgh is the second busiest inland port in the nation and twelfth busiest U.S. port of any kind. Associated with the three rivers and their tributaries are many sites of historical, ecological, and recreational importance to the region and even the nation.

From its origin in Potter County, Pennsylvania, to its confluence with the Monongahela River in Pittsburgh, the Allegheny River drains 11,805 square miles and flows for 325 miles through 24 counties in Pennsylvania and New York (see Figure 2-2). Its major tributaries include some of the most biologically diverse, scenic, and historic streams in the country. Ecologically, the upper Allegheny River is particularly diverse, providing some of the best habitat for fish and freshwater mussels in northeastern United States. Indeed, about 85 miles of the main stem south of the Allegheny National Forest are part of the National Wild and Scenic



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 20
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania 2 Regional Water Resources: Physiographical, Historical, and Social Dimensions As background to understanding the complex water quality problems of southwestern Pennsylvania, this chapter summarizes the region’s physical geography; its economic, demographic, and land use trends; and the history of its water supply and wastewater treatment practices. Since the 1970s, the Pittsburgh region has evolved from reliance on heavy industry to an economy based largely on technology, medical research, and higher education. This evolution has been accompanied by the decline of older industrial cities and towns and the spread of low-density development into outlying rural areas. As the region’s water quality problems are better understood (see Chapter 3), the need to update the management of the region’s surface and groundwater resources commensurately with its new economy and aspirations becomes manifest. PHYSICAL SETTING Pittsburgh and southwestern Pennsylvania are intrinsically identified with the “Three Rivers” that drain the region: the Allegheny, the Monongahela, and below their confluence at Pittsburgh, the Ohio River. The Allegheny and Monongahela basins drain more than 19,100 square miles in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, New York, and Maryland (altogether comprising 14 percent of the Ohio River Basin; see Figure 2-1). Historically, these three rivers served as major transportation arteries linking Appalachia with the Midwest. Based on 2001 data from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pittsburgh is the second busiest inland port in the nation and twelfth busiest U.S. port of any kind. Associated with the three rivers and their tributaries are many sites of historical, ecological, and recreational importance to the region and even the nation. From its origin in Potter County, Pennsylvania, to its confluence with the Monongahela River in Pittsburgh, the Allegheny River drains 11,805 square miles and flows for 325 miles through 24 counties in Pennsylvania and New York (see Figure 2-2). Its major tributaries include some of the most biologically diverse, scenic, and historic streams in the country. Ecologically, the upper Allegheny River is particularly diverse, providing some of the best habitat for fish and freshwater mussels in northeastern United States. Indeed, about 85 miles of the main stem south of the Allegheny National Forest are part of the National Wild and Scenic

OCR for page 20
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania FIGURE 2-1 Ohio River basin showing locks and dams along the Ohio River; boxed area includes the Allegheny and Monongahela River basins and the headwaters of the Ohio River in Pennsylvania. SOURCE: Adapted from ORSANCO; available on-line at http://www.orsanco.org/rivinfo/basin/basin.htm. Rivers System of the United States National Park Service.1 One of its tributaries, French Creek, is widely known for its diverse natural history, including aquatic species found in this region when European settlement arrived in the mid-eighteenth century. The Monongahela River drains 7,340 square miles of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia (see Figure 2-2). The river rises in the Allegheny Mountains and flows generally northward from Fairmont, West Virginia, through mountainous terrain, farming communities, urban and industrial areas, and coal fields to its confluence with the Allegheny River in Pittsburgh. Over its length of approximately 130 miles, the river is spanned by several locks and dams to facilitate barge traffic. Upstream, a network of dams constructed and operated by the Corps of Engineers since the late 1930s help enhance low flows. 1   See http://www.nps.gov/rivers/ and http://www.nps.gov/rivers/wsr-allegheny.html for further information about the program and the Allegheny River’s designation, respectively.

OCR for page 20
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania FIGURE 2-2 The Allegheny and Monongahela watershed. SOURCE: USGS, 1995. Regional Geology, Soils, and Climate The Pittsburgh region lies primarily in the Appalachian Plateau, which extends southward from New York to Alabama (see Figure 2-3) and is shaped by a geologic history that reflects the bituminous coal fields that have served as an important economic driver for the region for more than a century. However, historical and ongoing extraction of fossil fuels has left the region with a legacy of coal refuse piles, stripped landscapes, and acid mine drainage. The physical landscape of the region was shaped in part by glaciation. As glaciers moved south during a series of ice ages, they reversed the course of the ancient Monongahela and Allegheny Rivers, which at one time flowed northward into the ancestral Lake Erie basin. As noted by John Harper (1997) of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey:

OCR for page 20
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania FIGURE 2-3 Topography of the Pittsburgh region. SOURCE: Anderson et al., 2000.

OCR for page 20
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania As the earliest glacier moved into northwestern Pennsylvania about 770,000 years ago, the south-flowing ice blocked the northwest-flowing streams and caused lakes to form along the leading edge of the glacier. Eventually, the lakes became so deep that the water flowed over the divides (hilltops and ridges separating streams), reversing the ancient drainage of the Monongahela, Middle Allegheny, and the Upper Allegheny Rivers … The water had to go somewhere. Since it could not flow northward through the ice, it took a southerly course in all of these rivers, carving new water gaps through ridges, and taking over channels from established streams—Nature’s version of eminent domain. The bedrock of the region consists predominantly of Pennsylvanian Age (290-330 million years ago; MYA) cyclic sequences of sandstone, red and grey shale, conglomerate, clay, coal, and limestone and of Permian Age (250-290 MYA) cyclic sequences of shale, sandstone, limestone, and coal. The bedrock is extensively fractured, providing potential avenues for contaminants to enter groundwater. With thin soil cover in many areas and low-permeability, clay-rich soils in some areas, throughout the region it is difficult to locate sites suitable for wastewater treatment and disposal by conventional septic systems. The climate of the region is generally humid with temperatures that range widely throughout the year. In January, the mean minimum temperature ranges from approximately 12°F at the source of the Allegheny River in Potter County to 20°F near Pittsburgh, while July maximum mean temperatures range from 86°F just south of Pittsburgh to the mid-70s in Potter County. The mean annual precipitation for the region approximates 40 inches and is distributed rather uniformly throughout the year.2 Annual snowfall totals also average approximately 40 inches. Flooding has occurred as a result of intense precipitation in the region’s steep valleys, sometimes exacerbated by ice jams or inadequate urban drainage. Indeed, periodic floods plagued Pittsburgh for much of the twentieth century. The flood of record occurred on March 18, 1936—an historic event throughout the eastern United States—when the Ohio River crested at more than 25 feet above flood stage. In the past 50 years, owing to the presence of several upstream flood control dams constructed by the Corps of Engineers after the 1936 flood, streets in the downtown Pittsburgh business district have been flooded only a few times. The most recent flood in Pittsburgh occurred in January 1996 when the Point State Park and parking lots of the (now demolished and removed) Three Rivers Stadium were inundated.3 Southwestern Pennsylvania has a long history of flash floods that ravage farm communities and old industrial towns situated in narrow valleys along local streams and rivers. The infamous Johnstown Flood of 1888, about 100 miles east of Pittsburgh, resulted from collapse of a recreational dam during a heavy rainstorm, killing thousands in the industrial communities downstream.4 2   See http://www.erh.noaa.gov/er/pit/climate.htm#NORMALSN for further information. 3   Prior to completion of this report, on September 17-18, 2004, heavy rains associated with the remnants of Hurricane Ivan caused widespread flooding throughout southwestern Pennsylvania. Whereas flooding on the Three Rivers at their confluence (i.e., Point State Park or the “Point”) may not have been as great as in 1996, the recent flooding and resultant damages on streams throughout the region were extensive. Thousands of buildings were damaged. Water supply systems were potentially vulnerable to sewer overflows into source waters, but they handled the flood threat well, with no microbial contamination having been detected in drinking water (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_255848.html). 4   Historical (1889) account of the Johnstown flood is available on-line at http://prr.railfan.net/documents/JohnstownFlood/.

OCR for page 20
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Biodiversity The headwaters of the Ohio River in Pennsylvania are home to approximately 300 species of birds, 55 species of mammals, 35 species of reptiles, and 35 species of amphibians (WPC, 2004). Similarly, the diversity of aquatic organisms is exceptional, with 130 native species of fish and about 52 species of freshwater mussels (PABS, 1998). However, a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) report on water quality in the Allegheny and Monongahela River basins (Anderson et al., 2000; see Chapter 3 and Appendix B) found that the water quality and aquatic life of much of the region had been affected significantly by land development and coal mining activities. That report further states that industrial activity in both large and small towns in the region has resulted in contaminated streambed sediments and contaminated fish tissue. The USGS report also highlights water quality successes, such as the treatment of drainage from active and abandoned mines that has generally resulted in improved water quality. “The general improvement in water quality … in sections of the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers has been accompanied by an increase in the number and species diversity of fish … the recovery of rare species is a further indication of the degree of improvement” (Anderson et al., 2000). Of 52 fish species found in the Ohio River in 1818, only one today is no longer found in the river (Pearson and Pearson, 1989). In June 2004, Pittsburgh was chosen to host the 2005 Bassmaster Classic, a contest billed as the world championship of bass fishing (Belko, 2004). Improvements can be attributed to federal and state programs to improve water quality and the efforts of a growing number of grassroot and community watershed organizations. JOBS, PEOPLE, LAND USE, AND GOVERNANCE The Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio River system has been central to the development, history, and identity of southwestern Pennsylvania. The Three Rivers, as deepened for commercial navigation by locks and dams, connected Pittsburgh with the Ohio-Mississippi Valley waterway system, and the interior hinterlands of western Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and southwestern New York State (see Figures 2-1 and 2-2). Abundant coal and other natural resources, and the availability of convenient water and rail access within and beyond the immediate region, facilitated economic growth in Pittsburgh and surrounding communities from the mid-nineteenth century until the 1950s. The collapse of the steel industry around 1980 dealt the region a serious economic blow. Since the 1970s, the region’s economic base has shifted to other sectors, including technology, medical research, higher education, finance, tourism, and other services. However, southwestern Pennsylvania has continued to experience economic weakness, as reflected in population decline, unemployment rates, and other indicators such as poverty level and income. Indicators of Change Demographic Trends The Pittsburgh region has seen population declines in both the central city and the surrounding metropolitan area. Between 1970 and 2000, the population of the City of Pittsburgh

OCR for page 20
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania fell by 35.7 percent from about 520,000 to about 335,000 (see Table 2-1). Meanwhile, its metropolitan statistical area (MSA; see Box 1-2) population, which stood at 2.5 million in 1970, declined to 2.3 million by 2000, a loss of 7.7 percent (see Table 2-2). During the 1990s, the City of Pittsburgh lost 35,000 residents—a decline of 9.5 percent. By comparison, other northeastern central cities of more than 100,000 in 1990 lost an average of just 1 percent over the 1990s.5 Furthermore, the Pittsburgh MSA was one of only a handful of metropolitan areas nationally to experience a net population decline in the 1990s (amounting to a loss of 36,000 inhabitants, or 1.5 percent; see Table 2-2). Pittsburgh is not alone in losing population from its central city and inner suburbs. Most older industrial (“rustbelt”) cities in the Northeast have experienced loss of population although, unlike Pittsburgh, suburban population growth has generally exceeded inner city losses. This process is commonly referred to as the “hollowing out” of the older urban core, with a “spreading out” or “sprawl” at the metropolitan fringe. According to Sustainable Pittsburgh (2003; see also Appendix B), “seventy percent of [the Pittsburgh Region’s] municipalities have fewer residents today than they did 60 years ago.” Meanwhile, the Pittsburgh MSA reflected a statewide trend of urbanizing nearly 4 acres for every new resident between 1982 and 1997 (Brookings Institution, 2003). Today, Pittsburgh’s residents are, so to speak, a smaller “family” inhabiting an aging but still elegant “mansion” constructed for a larger household in more prosperous times. The city retains the infrastructure and amenities built for a city of nearly twice its present population, including parks, schools, universities, health care, museums, theaters, water and sewer systems, and (of recent vintage) a light rail public transit system. It also retains a strikingly urbane downtown, excellent civic and commercial architecture, three major professional sports teams(two with relatively new sports stadiums), and a recently completed “green” convention center that is gaining national and international attention. TABLE 2-1 City of Pittsburgh Population Change: 1970-2000 Year Pop. (000s) Decadal Change % Overall Change % 1970 520 — — 1980 424 −18.4 — 1990 370 −12.7 — 2000 334 −9.5 1970-2000: −35.7   SOURCE: Adapted from U.S. Census of Population, various tables. TABLE 2-2 Pittsburgh MSA Population Change: 1970-2000 Year Pop. (000s) Decadal Change % Overall Change % 1970 2,556 — — 1980 2,571 +0.5 — 1990 2,395 −6.8 — 2000 2,359 −1.5 1970-2000: −7.7   SOURCE: Adapted from U.S. Census of Population, various tables. 5   For further information see the 2000 Census of Population, available on-line at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html.

OCR for page 20
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania Despite its metropolitan population decline, the Pittsburgh MSA has been sprawling further onto rural land. According to a Brookings Institution study of urban sprawl from 1982 to 1997, the Pittsburgh MSA lost 8 percent in population but grew by 42.6 percent in urbanized area during that time (Fulton et al., 2001). This resulted in a loss of average density of 35.5 percent, the fourth greatest decline in density among northeastern MSAs during the study period (those exceeding Pittsburgh were Johnstown, Pennsylvania; Portland, Maine; and Utica, New York). Another recent study placed Pittsburgh among the top 20 “land consuming” metropolitan areas nationally, based on its estimated growth in developed land area of 201,000 acres, or 43 percent, between 1982 and 1997 (American Rivers-NRDC-Smart Growth America, 2002). The Pittsburgh MSA was the only metropolitan area of the top 20 to have lost population over the study period. At the county scale, a picture of wide contrasts in population change and economic activity is presented, with some counties growing, some remaining relatively stable, and some declining (see Table 2-3). Of the total MSA population loss of 36,000 during the 1990s, 35,000 were lost to the City of Pittsburgh; the rest of the MSA outside Pittsburgh thus experienced only a net loss of 1,000 residents. Allegheny and Beaver Counties lost population (−4.1 percent and −2.6 percent, respectively). Butler and Fayette Counties gained population (+14 percent and +2.3 percent, respectively), and Westmoreland and Washington Counties were relatively stable. The five nonmetropolitan (non-MSA; see Box 1-2) counties in the study region were also divided between population losers (Lawrence −1.7 percent; Armstrong −1.5 percent); gainers (Greene +2.8 percent; Somerset +2.3 percent); and Indiana County, which, was stable. In the 11-county region, Allegheny County and 5 out of 6 counties adjoining it either lost population or were stable. Gainers in the region included most notably Butler County directly north of Allegheny (within commuting distance to Pittsburgh) and three rural counties south of Allegheny County, two of which (Greene and Fayette Counties) are within commuting distance of Morgantown, West Virginia. Economic Trends In addition to demographics, another important economic indicator is job growth. With the exception of a mild recession in 1990-1991, the last decade of the twentieth century was a period of exceptional job growth in the United States. Total employment in the United States increased by 20.6 percent from June 1990 to 2001 (Fuller et al., 2002). Employment growth in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in comparison, lagged the nation with an overall growth rate of 10.3 percent. Notable exceptions to this trend in the Pittsburgh region were Butler County with employment growth of 32.5 percent and Fayette County with employment growth of 20.2 percent. Employment growth rates in Beaver, Greene, Fayette, Washington, and Westmoreland Counties lagged the nation but exceeded that of the state; employment growth in Allegheny, Armstrong, and Lawrence Counties lagged the state. Unemployment rates for the region, state, and the United States are summarized in Table 2-4 for June 1990 and June 2001. With the exception of Allegheny County, southwestern Pennsylvania counties had higher unemployment rates than the state and nation in both periods. Particularly noteworthy are the very high unemployment rates in Armstrong, Fayette, Greene, and Indiana Counties. The high unemployment rates in these counties reflect a general tendency

OCR for page 20
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania TABLE 2-3 2000 Population Change in the Pittsburgh Region, By County County 2000 Population Change from 1990 % Allegheny 1,281,666 −4.1 Armstrong 72,392 −1.5 Beaver 181,412 −2.5 Butler 174,083 14.5 Fayette 148,644 2.3 Greene 40,672 2.8 Indiana 89,605 −0.4 Lawrence 94,643 −1.6 Somerset 80,023 2.3 Washington 202,897 −0.8 Westmoreland 369,993 −0.1 Pennsylvania 12,281,054 3.4 United States 281,241,906 13.2   SOURCE: Adapted from U.S. Census Bureau and Pennsylvania State University’s Cooperative Extension as cited in Pennsylvania State University’s Center for Economic and Community Development Pennsylvania Census 2000, available on-line at http://cecd.aers.psu.edu/census2000/PAcountypop.PDF. TABLE 2-4 Unemployment Rates in the Pittsburgh Region (percent) County June 1990 June 2001 Allegheny 4.3 3.9 Armstrong 7.1 8.0 Beaver 5.9 5.0 Butler 5.6 4.9 Fayette 8.1 7.1 Greene 9.3 6.8 Indiana 7.6 6.4 Lawrence 6.2 5.8 Somerset 6.7 5.7 Washington 5.6 4.9 Westmoreland 5.7 5.4 Pennsylvania 5.0 4.8 United States 5.3 4.7   SOURCE: Fuller, et al., 2003. for rural Pennsylvania counties to have greater unemployment than metropolitan counties (Shields, 2002). Three additional economic indicators are presented in Table 2-5: (1) median income; (2) median value of owner-occupied housing; and (3) poverty rate (i.e., percentage of households with incomes at or below the poverty level). With the exception of Butler County, median incomes in Pittsburgh region counties are below the Pennsylvania state average. Similarly, the median value of owner-occupied homes is below the state average in all counties except Butler. Seven of the eleven counties in the study region have poverty rates in excess of the state rate of 11 percent, and three exceed the U.S. rate of 12.4 percent.

OCR for page 20
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania TABLE 2-5 Median Income, Median Value of Owner-Occupied Housing, and Poverty Rate for the Pittsburgh Region County Median Household Income (2000) Median Value of Owner Occupied Housing (2000) Poverty Rate (1999, %) Allegheny $38,329 $83,500 11.2 Armstrong $31,557 $63,800 11.7 Beaver $36,995 $83,200 9.4 Butler $42,308 $105,300 9.1 Fayette $27,451 $60,600 18.0 Greene $30,352 $55,800 15.9 Indiana $30,233 $68,300 17.3 Lawrence $33,152 $71,100 12.1 Somerset $30,911 $66,900 11.8 Washington $37,607 $85,400 9.8 Westmoreland $37,106 $87,600 8.6 Pennsylvania $40,106 $94,800 11.0 United States $41,994 $111,800 12.4   SOURCE: Adapted from U.S. Census Bureau Census 2000 Demographic Profile Highlights, available on-line at http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en. Land Use Change and Water Quality Development and demographic changes in the Pittsburgh region are fraught with significance for water and sewer investment decisions and water quality. There is a substantial literature demonstrating that water quality is impacted by land cover (e.g., Allan et al., 1997; Herlihy et al., 1998; Jones et al., 2001; Roth et al., 1996). In urbanizing watersheds, such as those in the Pittsburgh region, the impact of increasing impervious surface areas is becoming of increasing concern. Indeed, impervious surface is emerging as an important indicator of effects on water quality and biotic quality in streams. Numerous studies have attempted to identify thresholds in the relationship between impervious cover and various types of environmental impacts. A variety of studies indicate that 10 percent impervious cover represents an important threshold for many environmental impacts (e.g., CWP, 2003; Scheuler, 1994). Impervious surfaces include roads, roofs, parking lots, sidewalks, and other constructed surfaces that are impenetrable to water. Increasing the amount of impervious surface within a watershed affects the hydrologic regime by altering the volume, pattern, and timing of hydrologic flows (CWP, 2003). With an increase in impervious surface area, less precipitation infiltrates the soil and more runs off directly into surface waters. Changes in water flows can lead to physical changes as increased stormwater runoff results in higher periodic stream flow, stream channel enlargement and incision, greater stream bank erosion, and increased sedimentation in the stream channel (CWP, 2003; EPA, 2001; Scheuler, 1994). The water quality impacts of increased stormwater runoff can also be significant. Reduced infiltration means that urban contaminants are carried more directly into surface waterbodies (EPA, 2001). Stream temperatures can be affected by the imperviousness of the watershed (Galli, 1990; Scheuler, 1994). These and other water quality impacts and their implications for humans and aquatic ecosystems are discussed in Chapters 3 and 4. Apart from the physical impacts of development on water quality through the effects of increased impervious areas, development patterns and population shifts also affect the utilization of existing sewer and water infrastructure and the location of investment in new infrastructure.

OCR for page 20
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania As population declines in the central city and inner MSA counties, there is likely to be surplus water and sewer capacity in many of those communities, along with roads, schools, parks, and other infrastructure in place. Much of this infrastructure is old and in need of maintenance and upgrading which has led to sewer “tap-in” restrictions in a number of communities in the Pittsburgh region communities (described later). Meanwhile, new water and sewer infrastructure is under construction or under consideration to serve rapidly growing areas in the outer fringe counties and to remedy existing deficiencies in on-site water and septic facilities. A balance is needed between the updating and maintenance of water and sewer services already in place versus recreating such capacity to serve outlying development at considerably lower density and therefore higher cost per household. According to a report by the Environmental Law Institute (ELI, 1999; see also Appendix B): In the counties surrounding Allegheny, the perceived environmental problem is still the release and potential release of untreated or inadequately treated sanitary sewage—rather than the patterns of development which are producing these problems. Solutions are, in turn, driven by current financing realities and institutional preferences for new construction. These factors promote the extension of existing sewer collection systems to a larger ratebase by sewering larger areas of the region, and encourage the replacement of on-lot systems with sewers and wastewater treatment. While this promotes near term environmental improvement, the effect on development and future growth is significant … Common interests of the counties include the need to revitalize the older urban centers and not simply attract greenfields development at the margins of the respective counties. Similarly, the 2003 report by Sustainable Pittsburgh, Inc.,6 states, “Fiscal expediency alone rationalizes steering development first to existing communities to simultaneously fix, upgrade, and use in-place surplus capacity as opposed to building new elsewhere.” In that report, Carnegie Mellon University President Jared Cohon maintains that, “Southwestern Pennsylvania’s waters are a priceless asset for residents, recreation, industry, and agriculture. To adequately protect that resource, we must make greater investments in infrastructure, and spend that money wisely.” In a June 9, 2002, speech to a Pittsburgh Smart Growth Conference, Brookings Institution demographer Bruce Katz warned that Pittsburgh’s combination of declining population accompanied by increasing sprawl puts it and similar older industrial cities of the Northeast and Midwest at a competitive disadvantage in comparison with Sunbelt urban areas of the West and South: I think from a fiscal perspective, from a social perspective, from an environmental perspective… from the perspective of how you compete over time, for new economy firms, for knowledge-based firms, that are seeking quality of life, seeking affordable housing, seeking the natural environment that has been preserved. You are undermining perhaps your competitiveness over time as a region. 6   See Appendix B for a summary of that report, available on-line at http://www.sustainablepittsburgh.org/citizensvision/CitizensVision.pdf.

OCR for page 20
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal Practices in Rural Southwestern Pennsylvania Sanitary conditions in rural southwestern Pennsylvania and rural areas throughout the nation were generally considered primitive before the post-World War II period. As late as 1943, a text Municipal and Rural Sanitation noted that “At the present time, and in all probability for many years to come, excreta will be disposed of without water carriage at the vast majority of farmhouses, at residences in the smaller towns and villages …” (Ehlers and Steel, 1943). Studies by PADOH confirmed that rural farm areas and small towns often were poorly served by sanitary facilities and often relied on wells for drinking water located close to privies (PADOH, 1915). The most common means for disposal of human waste was the privy vault. Privies differed by type, including surface privies where excreta accumulated on top of the ground and liquids were allowed to leach away; pit privies in which excreta fell into a pit in the ground; and drop privies that overhung brooks or rivers where the excreta dropped into the water to be carried away by the stream (Rosenau, 1927). Pit privies were considered threats to neighboring wells, while drop privies threatened downstream water supplies. Cesspools, usually of the percolating type, were also frequently used. In the smaller towns, some public sewers existed, although private sewers (straight pipes) from water closets or privies frequently drained into neighboring waterbodies. All of these types of privies and conditions existed in southwestern Pennsylvania during the early decades of the twentieth century (PADOH, 1915). Some small towns had especially bad conditions. A 1915 survey by PADOH of the Allegheny River basin, for instance, noted that in the small town of Derry in Westmoreland County (about 2,000 population), about 200 small private sewers discharged into tributaries of the Allegheny River. In addition, many Derry residents used privies “of a shallow type, almost universally overflowing.” According to that report, all of the streams in the community were “badly polluted” (PADOH, 1915).14 An unusual feature of southwestern Pennsylvania was the number of small towns or “patch towns” established by coal mining companies. Coal companies constructed these towns in order to provide housing for miners near the mines. Homes in these patch towns were built according to a rather common model, with four “holer” privy vaults located in the back. Water was often provided through a spigot on the side of the house or, in more primitive communities, by wells. Many of these patch communities still exist today, and the company housing has long since been sold to private individuals. Although a substantial number of these homes have been modernized in recent years, many did not receive modern indoor plumbing until after the 1950s and some still rely on “straight pipes” to dispose of their untreated sewage into neighboring streams.15 In the 11-county Pittsburgh region today (see Box 1-2), Allegheny County is the only county with a health department. Throughout most of the twentieth century, PADOH had responsibility for all public health activities outside of incorporated municipalities and provided health services for the rural areas of the state. The state appointed and paid for a part time 14   In response to an order of the PADOH, Derry constructed a system of sanitary sewers and sedimentation tanks circa 1915. 15   See the Virtual Museum of Coal Mining in Western Pennsylvania at http://patheoldminer.rootsweb.com/ for further information.

OCR for page 20
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania medical director for each county, providing public health nurses, school medical inspectors, and sanitary inspectors (Smillie, 1939). With regard to water supply and sewerage, the state conducted sanitary surveys of various rivers basins, while after 1923 the Sanitary Water Board had the authority to grant permits for sewage treatment and construction of new sewers. New residential development in rural areas increasingly distant from Pittsburgh, as well as older rural housing (both individual and community) and older coal mining patch towns, often did not have practical access to large municipal central sewerage systems. Thus, these communities and developments relied on a literal patchwork of community and on-lot sewage disposal methods. The lack of coordination, standardization, and oversight of system siting, design, construction, and maintenance resulted in inadequate and malfunctioning sewer systems in these areas. Substandard wastewater systems include straight piping of sewage from homes to streams or ditches, septic tanks discharging directly into streams or ditches, drywells and cesspits, homes connected to neighborhood or community straight pipes (“wildcat sewers”), sewage discharges into abandoned underground coal mines, and failed or malfunctioning community “package plant” treatment systems. In addition, because many of these substandard systems predate modern sewage regulations and ordinances, no records exist for a majority of them. According to the Pennsylvania Association of Township Supervisors, the post-World War II housing boom in Pennsylvania resulted in an overloading of urban area central treatment systems, a proliferation of poorly operated small treatment systems, and between 500,000 and 1,000,000 malfunctioning on-lot systems throughout the Commonwealth. Concerns about surface water and groundwater deterioration, and the accompanying public health risks, led to the passage in 1966 of Act 537, the Pennsylvania Sewage Facilities Act.16 This act was subsequently amended to expand options for local-level cooperation and enforcement and to expand on-site wastewater treatment options (ELI, 1999). Although Act 537 has addressed many sewage problems, southwestern Pennsylvania’s rural areas still face significant sewage disposal challenges. Many sewage problems accompany substandard, deteriorating housing where residents rely on fixed retirement income, low income jobs, or unemployment compensation. Local tax bases are often inadequate to support the required staffing and resources for data collection to adequately define local problems, to devise the sometimes unconventional solutions needed to address the problems, and to provide necessary management and record keeping. In some of these areas there may be added pressures from adjacent new home development or from economically struggling neighboring farms likely to be sold for new or second-home development. In 1997, PADEP issued a guidance report Policy Establishing New Program Direction Policy for Act 537 Comprehensive Planning recognizing the special needs of rural municipalities (e.g., low development density, lack of available funding) and describing the department’s role in assisting these municipalities in finding both technical and financial solutions to sewage 16   Act 537 requires each Pennsylvania municipality to prepare and periodically update an official sewage facilities plan that is intended to provide a level of scrutiny to infrastructure decisions that might not otherwise take place if the only review were that provided under local zoning and site plan approval requirements (ELI, 1999). Such plans are intended to identify how sewage will be handled and properly disposed of in each municipality; they also lay out how the necessary sewer conveyance and treatment facilities will be located, constructed, and maintained. When a new development requires the extension of sewer lines or the construction of additional capacity for wastewater treatment, the municipality is required to prepare and approve a plan revision, which is then submitted to PADEP.

OCR for page 20
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania problems. That report states that some low-income rural areas may require up to 90 percent grants to afford sewerage projects using conventional methods. It acknowledges that phased implementation and long-term goal setting may be needed to address rural sewage treatment issues, and it encourages the development of local management programs and decentralized (“noncentralized”) sewage treatment alternatives (PADEP, 1997a). Also in 1997, PADEP issued the policies and procedures document Impact of Use of Subsurface Disposal Systems on Groundwater Nitrate Nitrogen Levels (PADEP, 1997b). That document details the requirements for technical studies, siting, and system design and technologies to avoid nitrate contamination of groundwater in vulnerable areas. Acid Mine Drainage The sulfuric acid discharge from coal mines has been the most pervasive and widespread water pollution problem in southwestern Pennsylvania’s industrial history (see also Chapters 3 and 4). The region’s bituminous coal has a high sulfur content and produces enormous acid loads. Drainage from extensive networks of abandoned underground mines; thousands of small, abandoned “country bank” mines (used for local domestic purposes); and large numbers of active commercial mining operations contributes to stream degradation throughout the region. Historically, acid mine drainage (AMD) destroyed fish communities and altered the flora along both small streams and major rivers, caused millions of dollars of damages to domestic and industrial water users, and increased the costs of water and sewage treatment (Casner, 1994). Acid mine drainage also affects human quality of life and public health. AMD diminishes the quality of drinking water sources and impairs water delivery. Its corrosive action has destroyed pipes and pumps, forcing water authorities to build neutralizing plants as a component of their overall water treatment systems. The coal industry also has incurred damages from AMD. The most immediate problems occurred at the mines themselves, where the corrosive action of the acidic water damaged and destroyed the pipes and pumps installed to remove water. Damaged machinery increased expenses and also hindered timely coal extraction, while leaks caused by corrosion increased the cost of energy production and damaged equipment. In highly acidic environments, bronze, lead, and wooden linings and covers were used to protect mining equipment (Casner, 1994). As acid mine discharges moved into neighboring streams and rivers, other industries encountered degraded water, making treatment a necessity. The effect on the steel industry was severe, requiring all mills to have water treatment facilities. Railroads, which until the 1950s largely used coal-burning locomotives that depended on frequent water stops, were affected adversely as well. Their costs included larger coal bills, boiler repairs, and cleaning (Bardwell, 1953). American railroads were forced to build water treatment plants in an effort to avoid or reduce such costs. By 1934, rail lines had built 1,200 water treatment plants and were treating 90 billion gallons per year. Regional railroads developed water supply systems by building reservoirs above mining districts and running pipelines along rail networks (Crichton, 1927). By the 1920s, municipalities, recreational users of the rivers, and industry in southwestern Pennsylvania had begun pushing government for solutions to counter the growing burden of AMD. For government policy makers, acidic water offered a significant engineering and policy dilemma because it hindered effective water treatment and presented an indirect public health threat. However, the economic importance of coal production in southwestern

OCR for page 20
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania Pennsylvania inhibited coercive action. Indeed, the coal industry argued emphatically that no “suitable” method existed for the treatment of acid mine water. Even if authorities contemplated action, the industry had achieved legal protection in a precedent set by the seminal 1886 case of Pennsylvania Coal Company v. Sanderson and Wife, which concerned destruction of the water supplies for a family farm near Scranton, Pennsylvania. In this case the Pennsylvania Supreme Court maintained that “the right to mine coal is not a nuisance in itself” and that the acidic substances entered the stream via natural forces that were beyond company control. The justices also considered the economic importance of the coal industry and its provision of jobs, arguing that “the trifling inconvenience to particular persons must sometimes give way to the necessities of a great community” (Casner, 2004). In 1905, when the Pennsylvania legislature passed the Purity of Waters Act, it specifically exempted “waters pumped or flowing from coal mines.” In 1923, at then Governor Gifford Pinchot’s initiative, and as noted previously, the Pennsylvania legislature created the Sanitary Water Board with investigatory and advisory powers. Again, however, state legislators specifically exempted AMD from possible proposed restrictions, upholding its protection under state law (Broughton et al., 1973; Wolman, 1947). The first significant challenge to the protected status of coal mining came in 1923, in the case of the Pennsylvania Railroad v. Sagamore Coal, et al. when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rendered a decision that undermined the 1886 Sanderson doctrine. In this case, the Pennsylvania Railroad successfully sued several coal mining companies for polluting its reservoir in the Indian Creek watershed (located 65 miles southeast of Pittsburgh) on the grounds that the acid pollution created a public health nuisance since it polluted the water supplied to several regional water companies. The court ruled that coal companies possessed “no right of any kind” to discharge acidic water into streams when the public made use of the water (Casner, 2004). In the 1920s, pressures to resolve problems resulting from AMD emerged from different stakeholders including domestic and individual water users, industrial users, and sportsmen’s groups. Various strategies were suggested, but the one that gained the most favor involved sealing abandoned coal mines. Sealing of mines causes flooding of the mine voids, which substantially reduces the amount of oxygen, and thus acid production, in those voids. In 1924, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ordered the mines above Indian Creek sealed in order to prevent further contamination of the Pennsylvania Railroad’s reservoir. In the 1920s, the U.S. Bureau of Mines studied mine sealing as a pollution abatement method. The technique initially seemed an inexpensive and simple remedy to an expensive and complex problem, but it failed to take into account the number and size of abandoned mines, natural geologic factors, and industry’s strong preference for the government to pay for sealing (Casner, 2004). In the 1930s, mine sealing projects were undertaken under the auspices of the federal Civil Works Administration and the Work Projects Administration (WPA). In the first two years of the WPA program (1935-1937), sealing crews covered more than 47,000 openings at 1,527 sites in four states including Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, and Kentucky. Pennsylvania secured the most openings, with a reported 30,000 at 317 mines in 22 counties. The sealing temporarily produced the desired effect, and in 1940 the U.S. Public Health Service estimated that the average residual load of acid on the main Ohio River measured 48 percent of what it was prior to the sealing project (USPHS, 1944). On the Monongahela River, sealing reduced acid loads by 51 percent. On the Kiskiminetas River, a tributary of the Allegheny River and at that time the primary source of acidic water affecting the Pittsburgh water supply, reduction efficiency at abandoned mines achieved one of the highest levels with a decline of 78 percent

OCR for page 20
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania (Casner, 2004). Most public authorities through the 1950s considered the project an unqualified success. The program had reduced acid concentrations in the waters of the Ohio River basin and served as an excellent example of the benefits of federal cooperation with state efforts in water pollution control. Mine sealing, however, produced only temporary relief from acid mine drainage because seals frequently broke down and allowed air and water to enter or water to escape the mines. By the 1960s, it was clear that AMD pollution of Pennsylvania streams remained a major state environmental problem. Beginning in the late 1960s, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and the federal government enacted legislation requiring active mining operations to treat polluted water prior to discharge. The Clean Water Act instituted the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which required all “point sources” of pollution to apply for an NPDES permit and meet discharge water quality standards. Both Pennsylvania and West Virginia were granted primacy such that their respective agencies received authority under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 to issue and enforce NPDES permits. Permitted discharge limits for mining operations are typically governed by “technology-based limits.” The act (which in 1977 became known as the Clean Water Act; see also Box 1-1) was amended by Congress in 1987 to establish the Section 319 Nonpoint Source Management Program, recognizing that regulated point sources in many regions of the country, accounted for only a minor share of the pollutant loadings. While the CWA initiated federal oversight of pollution, creation of the federal Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) and its Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) of 1977 brought federal oversight to the permitting of new coal mines. Title IV of SMCRA identified abandoned mine lands (AMLs) as mines that were abandoned or left in an inadequate state of reclamation prior to August 3, 1977. Title IV also created the Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Fund supported by a tax on coal production. A portion of these funds has been distributed to eligible states and used to reclaim abandoned mines, reduce hazards, and make water quality improvements. As of 2003, the Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Fund had a balance of about $1.5 billion (OSM, 2003; see Chapter 4 for further information). Section 403 of SMCRA assigns the following priorities to the expenditure of AML funds: protection of public health, safety, general welfare, and property from extreme danger of adverse effects of coal mining practices; protection of public health, safety, and general welfare from adverse effects of coal mining practices; restoration of land and water resources and the environment previously degraded by adverse effects of coal mining practices, including measures for the conservation and development of soil, water (excluding channelization), woodland, fish and wildlife, recreation resources, and agricultural productivity; protection, repair, replacement, construction, or enhancement of pubic facilities such as utilities, roads, recreation, and conservation facilities adversely affected by coal mining practices; and development of publicly owned land adversely affected by coal mining practices including land acquired as provided in this title for recreation and historic purposes, conservation and reclamation purposes, and open space benefits.

OCR for page 20
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania The magnitude of the abandoned mine land problem dictated that much of the historic funding was devoted to priorities 1 and 2, while significant efforts to use the fund to remediate water (AMD) issues only began around 1995. Significant programs for AMD cleanup have been developed and are administered by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, EPA, OSM, and various watershed organizations. SMCRA requires that any new mining permit be accompanied by a bond to cover the cost of reclamation in the event that the permittee is financially unable to do so. These bonds have not been assessed in amounts adequate to treat AMD and are based on surface disturbance. Typically, bond rates are less than $5,000 per acre. Bond forfeiture results from a finding by the state regulatory agency that the company is unable to fulfill its environmental requirements under its mining permit. The state then uses the bond amount to reclaim the surface disturbances. Prior to enactment of the SMCRA, Pennsylvania established Operation Scarlift in the late 1950s specifically to deal with abandoned mines. Operation Scarlift constructed a series of lime neutralization treatment stations to neutralize some AMD discharges in severely affected watersheds. However, it was funded by a revenue bond, which when exhausted caused the program to become inactive in the 1970s. In recent years, Pennsylvania has instituted statewide programs to deal specifically with AMD discharges from bond forfeiture sites. As noted previously, mine drainage is classified as a point source if it originates from an active, post-August 1977 mine. Discharges from these mines are governed by their respective NPDES permits. Discharges from mines that were abandoned prior to August 3, 1977, are considered nonpoint sources. They are unregulated and in most coal field watersheds are responsible for the overwhelming majority of metal ion and acidity loadings to surface waters. Policies regarding the states’ responsibilities in maintaining NPDES permit conditions on bond-forfeited AMD sites are an emerging issue in both Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Recently, in Pennsylvania, the liquidation of LTV Corporation’s coal assets placed five large underground coal mines along the Monongahela River under state responsibility. As a result, PADEP is evaluating ways to either operate LTV’s AMD treatment plants or find more efficient methods for treating AMD (Hopey, 2003). Current and Anticipated AMD Loadings in the Pittsburgh Basin Coal mines in the Pittsburgh basin,17 which generate about 5,500 tons of dissolved iron annually, also contribute to an acid loading of about 16,000 tons contained in 19 billion gallons of water (see Chapter 4 for a detailed discussion of the characteristics and effects of AMD in southwestern Pennsylvania). About one-third of the basin’s discharge from mines is treated by the mining industry. Abandoned mines generate the remainder and currently pollute many of the 17   The term “Pittsburgh basin” refers to the commonly accepted geological definition of the regional synclinal structure containing the Pittsburgh Coal Seam. It is the primary coal seam influencing the water quality of the Monongahela River and the most heavily mined coal seam in southwestern Pennsylvania. Thus, the data included in this section reflects only AMD discharges from the Pittsburgh Coal Seam. Deeper coal seams, such as the Freeport and Kittanning Seams, only outcrop around the northern and eastern margins of the same synclinal structure (i.e., areas north of Allegheny County and east of Fayette and Westmoreland Counties).

OCR for page 20
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania major tributaries to the Monongahela and Ohio Rivers. If all of this mine water were untreated however, it would be sufficient to add substantial metal loadings and acidity to already impaired tributaries with possible localized, severe effects on the Monongahela River. The Monongahela River’s alkalinity at the West Virginia-Pennsylvania state line is about 36 mg/L and its low flow is about 6,000 cubic feet per second. This rate of mine drainage would supply about 200,000 tons of alkalinity per year. The majority of flooded mines are currently discharging net alkaline water, with soluble Fe 2+ concentrations in the range of 25 to 100 mg/L. Given the high volumes of these mine discharges, iron staining and oxygen depletion in the Monongahela River are more likely to be problematic than acidity. Thus, under all but low-flow periods (late summer, early fall); dilution will likely ensure that effects of additional mine pool discharges would be localized, with affected plumes extending along the banks of the river for miles. During low-flow periods, water movement between navigation pools is extremely slow and oxygen deficits in the rivers would be exacerbated by mine drainage. Probably the worst-case scenario would entail a neutral, net alkaline Monongahela River at the Pittsburgh Point (confluence of Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers) with enough suspended ferric hydroxide to color the river orange. Oxidation of ferrous to ferric ion would contribute to the river’s oxygen deficit, but a discussion of the effect on fish populations is beyond the scope of this report. SUMMARY The Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio River system has been central to the development, history, and identity of southwestern Pennsylvania. Abundant coal and other natural resources and the availability of convenient water and rail access within and beyond the immediate region facilitated economic growth and, at the same time, extensive air and water pollution in the City of Pittsburgh and surrounding communities from the mid-nineteenth century through the 1950s. With the decline of the steel industry in the late twentieth century, the region’s economic base shifted to other sectors, including medical research, technology, and higher education. While there has been a remarkable transformation and recovery of the region’s economy in the last two decades, many communities in southwestern Pennsylvania continue to experience significant economic problems resulting from the decades-long decline in mining and traditional manufacturing sectors. As a result, the population of the City of Pittsburgh declined steadily from about 520,000 in the 1970s to its present level of about 335,000. Despite this net loss of population, the Pittsburgh metropolitan area has been sprawling further onto rural land at rates that exceed other cities in the northeastern United States. Although the environmental quality of the 11 counties of southwestern Pennsylvania and the City of Pittsburgh has improved dramatically in recent decades, pervasive water quality problems remain a legacy that transcends municipal, county, and even state lines. In this regard, acid mine drainage, effluent from on-lot septic systems, and raw sewage continue to enter local streams, the region’s three major rivers, and underlying groundwater in both urban and rural areas. These problems threaten the region’s public health, environment, economy, and image. Many of the region’s current urban water quality problems can be traced to historical water supply and wastewater infrastructure decisions. The City of Pittsburgh, ALCOSAN, and its 83 serviced communities are facing extensive and costly regulatory action under the federal Clean Water Act for both combined and sanitary sewer overflows. Furthermore, some sewage-related water quality problems persist even in dry weather because the presence of aging and

OCR for page 20
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania deteriorating septic systems and sewer pipes that are a major source of sewage contamination to groundwater supplies. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that southwestern Pennsylvania is dominated by poor shallow soils, a high water table, and sloped terrain, making the region one of the most challenging in the country for use of on-site sewage treatment and disposal systems such as septic tanks and leach fields. REFERENCES ALCOSAN (Allegheny County Sanitation Authority). 1948. Report on the Proposed Collection and Treatment of Municipal Sewage and Industrial Wastes by the Allegheny County Sanitary Authority. Pittsburgh, PA. Allan, J., D. Erickson, and J. Fay. 1997. The influence of catchment land use on stream integrity across multiple spatial scales. Freshwater Biology 37:149-161. American Rivers, NRDC (National Resources Defense Council), Smart Growth America. 2002. Paving Our Way to Water Shortages: How Sprawl Aggravates the Effects of Drought. Washington, DC. Anderson, R., K. Beer, T. Buckwalter, M. Clark, S. McAuley, J. Sams, and D. Williams. 2000. Water Quality in the Allegheny and Monongahela River Basins: Pennsylvania, West Virginia, New York, and Maryland (1996-98). Denver, CO: U.S. Geological Survey. Bardwell, R. 1953. Water treatment for railway systems. Water Works and Sewage 80:9. Belko, M. 2004. Pittsburgh lands Bassmaster Classic for 2005. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, June 16. Available on-line at http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04168/332700.stm. Accessed June 16, 2004. Brookings Institution. 2003. Back to Prosperity: A Competitive Agenda for Renewing Pennsylvania. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Broughton, R., T. Koza, and F. Selway. 1973. Acid mine drainage and the Pennsylvania courts. Duquesne Law Review 11:499-555. Byington, M. 1910. A Homestead Court in Homestead: The Households of a Mill Town, 1907-1908. New York: Charities Publishing Committee. Casner, N. 1994. Acid water: A history of coal mine pollution in western Pennsylvania, 1880-1950. Ph.D. dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University. Casner, N. 1999. Polluter versus polluter: The Pennsylvania railroad and the manufacturing of pollution policies in the 1920s. Journal of Policy History 11:179-200. Casner, N. 2004. Acid mine drainage and Pittsburgh’s water supply. In Devastation and Renewal: An Environmental History of Pittsburgh and Its Region, J. Tarr (ed.). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Center for Watershed Protection (CWP). 2003. Impacts of impervious cover on aquatic systems. Watershed Protection Research Monograph No. 1. Ellicott City, MD: CWP. Collins, T., E. Muller, and J. Tarr. 2003. Pittsburgh rivers: From urban industrial infrastructure to environmental infrastructure. Paper delivered at Conference on Rivers in History: Designing and Conceiving Waterways in Europe and North America. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University. Crichton, A. 1927. Disposal of drainage from coal mines. Proceedings of American Society of Civil Engineers 53:1656-1666. Ehlers, V., and W. Steele. 1943. Municipal and Rural Sanitation, 3rd Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

OCR for page 20
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania ELI (Environmental Law Institute). 1999. Plumbing the Future: Sewerage and Sustainability in Western Pennsylvania. Washington, DC: ELI. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. U.S. and Pennsylvania settle clean water lawsuit against Penn Hills. EPA Environmental News. EPA. 2001. Our Built and Natural Environments: A Technical Review of the Interactions Between Land Use, Transportation, and Environmental Quality. EPA 231-R-01-002. Washington, DC: EPA. Fitzpatrick, D. 2002. Pipe dreams: Lack of sewer, water hookups may keep region out of running for projects. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Available on-line at http://www.post-gazette.com/businessnews/20020721sewer0721p3.asp. Accessed June 18, 2004. Fuller, T., M. Shields, and S. Smith. 2002. Road to 2003: Update on Pennsylvania: The Economy, Jobs, Forecasts and Telecommunications. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Center for Economic and Community Development. Fuller, T., M. Shields, and S. Smith. 2003. Road to 2004: Update on Pennsylvania: The Economy, Jobs, Forecasts and Telecommunications. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Center for Economic and Community Development. Fulton, W., R. Pendall, M. Nguyen, ad A. Harrison. 2001. Who Sprawls Most? How Growth Patterns Differ Across the U.S. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Galli, J. 1990. Thermal impacts associated with urbanization and stormwater management best management practices. Washington, DC: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Maryland Department of the Environment. Gregory, G. 1974. A study in local decision making: Pittsburgh and sewage treatment. Western Pennsylvania Historical Magazine 57:25-42. Harper, J. 1997. The formation of Pittsburgh’s Three Rivers. Pennsylvania Geology 28(3/4):4. Herlihy, A., J. Stoddard, and C. Johnson. 1998. The relationship between stream chemistry and watershed land cover in the mid-Atlantic region of the U.S. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 105:377-386. Hopey, D. 2003. LTV OKs plan to treat mine drainage: Trust fund set up to pay for cleanup, reclamation. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Available on-line at http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03247/217887.stm. Accessed April 19, 2004. Jones, K., A. Neale, M. Nash, R. van Remortal, J. Wickham, K. Riitters, and R. O'Neill. 2001. Predicting nutrient and sediment loading to streams from landscape metrics: A multiple watershed study from the United States mid-Atlantic Region. Landscape Ecology 16:301-312. Katz, B. 2002. The new metropolitan agenda: Speech to Southwestern Pennsylvania Smart Growth Conference, June 9. Katz, B. 2004. Pittsburgh: The road to reform. Op-ed column. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, January 18. Available on-line at www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/katz/2004118. Koppes, C., and W. Norris. 1985. Ethnicity, class, and mortality in the industrial city. Journal of Urban History 11:259-279. Laboon, J. 1973. Chronological highlights of the history of the Allegheny County Sanitary Authority. Manuscript: 1-2. Pittsburgh, PA. Lanpher, E., and C. Drake. 1930. City of Pittsburgh: Its Water Works and Typhoid Fever Statistics. Pittsburgh, PA: City of Pittsburgh. McElfish, J., Jr., and S. Casey-Lefkowitz. 2001. Smart Growth and the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: Northeast-Midwest Institute.

OCR for page 20
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania McElwaine, A. 2003. Slag in the park. In Devastation and Renewal: An Environmental History of Pittsburgh and Its Region, J. Tarr (ed.). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. McKay, G. 2002. Homes in Summerset at Frick Park blend old-time style, new urban amenities. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, February 16. Melosi, M. 2000. The Sanitary City: Urban Infrastructure in America from Colonial Times to the Present. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Ogle, M. 1996. All the Necessary Conveniences: American Household Plumbing, 1840-1890. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. OSM (Office of Surface Mining). 2003. Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation: Reclamation of Abandoned Mine Land That Took Place Before the Surface Mining Law Was Passed n 1977. Available on-line at http://www.osmre.gov/annualreports/03aml.pdf. PABS (Pennsylvania Biological Survey). 1998. Inventory and Monitoring of Biotic Resources in Pennsylvania: Current Ecological and Landscape Topics, Volume 1. Harrisburg, PA: Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. PADEP (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection). 1997a. Policy Establishing New Program Direction Policy for Act 537 Comprehensive Planning. 362-2206-007. Harrisburg, PA: Bureau of Water Quality Protection. PADEP. 1997b. Impact of Use of Subsurface Disposal Systems on Groundwater Nitrate Nitrogen Levels. 362-2207-004. Harrisburg, PA: Bureau of Water Supply and Wastewater Management. PADOH (Pennsylvania Department of Health). 1911. Fourth Annual Report of the State Department of Health. Harrisburg, PA: PADOH. PADOH. 1915. Report on the Sanitary Survey of the Allegheny River Basin. Harrisburg, PA: PADOH. Pearson, W., and B. Pearson. 1989. Fishes of the Ohio River. Ohio Journal of Science 89(5):181-187. PEC (Pennsylvania Environmental Council). 2003. Three Rivers Conservation Plan: Draft. Pittsburgh, PA: PEC. Peterson, J. 1979. The impact of sanitary reform upon American urban planning. Journal of Social History 13:84-89. Reader, F. 1954. Financing municipal sewage treatment facilities in Pennsylvania by use of municipal authorities. Dickinson Law Review 58:335-336. Rosenau, M. 1927. Preventive Medicine and Hygiene, 5th Ed. New York: D. Appleton and Co. Roth, N., J. Allan, and D. Erickson. 1996. Landscape influences on stream biotic integrity assessed at multiple scales. Landscape Ecology. 11:141-156. Saville, T. 1931. Administrative control of water pollution. Transactions, American Institute of Chemical Engineers 27:74-77. Scheuler, T. 1994. The importance of imperviousness. Watershed Protection Techniques 1:100-111. Shields, M. 2002. Pennsylvania’s Rural Economy: An Analysis of Recent Trends. Pennsylvania State University’s College of Agricultural Sciences Agricultural Research and Cooperattive Extension. Available on-line at http://cecd.aers.psu.edu/pubs/PA_rural_economy_trends.pdf. Smillie, W. 1939. Public Health Law, 2nd. Ed. New York: The Commonwealth Fund. Snow, F. 1907. Administration of Pennsylvania laws respecting stream pollution. Proceedings of the Engineers’ Society of Western Pennsylvania 23:266-283. Stevenson, W. 1923. Pennsylvania sanitary water board. Engineering News Record 91:684-85. Sustainable Pittsburgh. 2003. Southwestern Pennsylvania Citizens’ Vision for Smart Growth: Strengthening Communities and Regional Economy. Pittsburgh, PA: Sustainable Pittsburgh.

OCR for page 20
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania Tarr, J. 1989. Infrastructure and city-building in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In City at the Point: Essays on the Social History of Pittsburgh, S. Hays (ed.). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Tarr, J. 1996a. Disputes over water-quality policy: Professional cultures in conflict, 1900-1917. In The Search for the Ultimate Sink: Urban Pollution in Historical Perspective, J. Tarr (ed.). Akron, OH: University of Akron Press. Tarr, J. 1996b. The separate vs. combined sewer problem: A case study in urban technology design choice. In The Search for the Ultimate Sink: Urban Pollution in Historical Perspective, J. Tarr (ed.). Akron, OH: University of Akron Press. Tarr, J., and T. Yosie. 2004. Critical decisions in Pittsburgh water and wastewater treatment. In Devastation and Renewal: An Environmental History of Pittsburgh and Its Region, J. Tarr (ed.). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Tarr, J., S. Mershon, et al. 2002. Sewerage problems in Penn Hills, PA, 1930-1997, unpublished. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University. Thompson, J. 1948. A financial history of the City of Pittsburgh, 1816-1910. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pittsburgh. Tierno, M. 1977. The search for pure water in Pittsburgh: The urban response to water pollution, 1893-1914. Western Pennsylvania Historical Magazine 60:23-36. Trout, H., S. Pfaff, and J. Matviya. 2001. An Overview of the Summerset at Frick Park Project. In proceedings Brownfields 2001, Chicago. USGS (United States Geological Survey). 1995. National Water Quality Assessment Program- The Allegheny-Monongahela River Basin. Available on-line at http://pa.water.usgs.govreports/fs_137-95/report.html. Accessed April 4, 2004. USPHS (United States Public Health Service). 1944. Ohio River Pollution Control: Report of the Ohio River Committee. 78th Cong., 1st sess. H. Doc. 266. Watershed Management Institute. 1997. Institutional Aspects of Runoff Management: A Guide for Program Development and Implementation. Crawfordville, FL: Watershed Management Institute. Wolman, A. 1947. State responsibility in stream pollution abatement. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 39:561-565. WPC (Western Pennsylvania Conservancy). 2004. Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program for Ohio River Basin in Western Pennsylvania. Pittsburgh, PA: WPC. Yosie, T. 1981. Retrospective analysis of water supply and wastewater policies in Pittsburgh, 1800-1959. Doctor of Arts dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University.