 |
NEWS SEARCH | |
.gif){kind=spacer} |
||
|
||
|
|
||
|
Top Stories | |
|
||
|
||
|
|
||
| History
of the waterway |
||||||||
|
| Part
one in a three-part series The journey from the beautiful, hidden Schuylkill River, home of 2,000 Lenni Lenape Indians, to booming industrial towns holds the answer to the river's near demise and neglect. |
| The
changes along this natural resource have been immense during
the past 300 years. The Schuylkill Watershed Conservation Plan, which is a partnership to develop a conservation plan for the entire watershed, sites that prior to colonial settlement, Pennsylvania was 97 to 98 percent forested land, compared to stark statistics of approximately 30 percent in 1990 for Montgomery County. Early settlers relied on agriculture, and used the Schuylkill River network to transport crops to larger markets downstream. The river remained docile for many years. However, the vast natural resources in the watershed, including iron ore, hardwood and river power soon lead to its growth. With the discovery of coal sources in the northern headwaters, the Schuylkill River became a primary mode of transportation with the completion of the Schuylkill Navigation System, a system of interconnecting locks and dams completed in 1824. The coal industry that built up the Schuylkill River canal system was the same industry that destroyed the water quality, according to the Schuylkill River Desilting Project final report. For many years, anthracite coal was cleaned by a process that resulted in the production of thousands of tons of very fine sized coal particles called culm. Culm, which was considered a waste byproduct, was disposed of by water carrying it to the nearest tributary and ultimately to the main stem of the Schuylkill River. The culm gradually moved downstream choking the Schuylkill's main channel, building up behind dams and filling the canals, according to the engineers of the Schuylkill River Desilting Project study from 1951. The problem of maintaining sufficient water for navigation became costly due to the deposits. Meanwhile, the contribution of mining wastes continued at an increasing rate until more than 3 million tons per year were being dumped into the river. In 1927, the Army Corps of Engineers estimated that the accumulation of culm deposits in the river from its headwaters near Tamaqua to Fairmount Dam totaled 38-million tons. Furthermore, it has even been reported that culm was found in the Delaware River 31 miles downstream and 10 miles upstream from the mouth of the Schuylkill verifying the power of the river to carry waste into other watersheds. These deposits raised the bed of the river, and subsequently, the flood plains. Yet traffic increased year by year, until the advent of the railroads, which offered a less expensive, more timely shipping method. By the 1940's, steps toward river renewal were in full swing. Legislation was passed to reduce pollution into the river and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers commenced a study finding it necessary to dredge the river. The Schuylkill River Desilting Project was instituted in 1945 to correct conditions, which had gradually become intolerable over the years. Completed in 1954, the desilting project incorporated dredging of the clogged river with the planning and construction of de-silting basins to abate the impacts of coal mining upstream from Fairmount Dam in Philadelphia to Norristown. The project was to remove and dispose of the silt deposits, which accumulated in the channel and on the banks of the river from its headwaters to the Norristown Dam. The project, which consisted of the construction of three desilting basins, seven dams and 26 impounding basins for disposal of dredged materials, cost approximately $25 million, almost twice the anticipated cost. And according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, if similar construction techniques were employed today, the project would come close to $475 million. The Schuylkill Watershed Conservation Plan states that the outcome of these efforts, along with the river's natural abilities to cleanse itself over time, is a river network on the rebound. And time would be able to heal, if there were not more variables impacting the water quality. Contributing to water pollution Coal silt was not the only pollutant that added to the negative connotation commonly associated with the river. In the past, many of the county's 16 municipalities that juxtapose the river drained sewage and waste into the river on a daily basis. The borough of Norristown had a population of 14,500 in 1884 and drained foul water from an oil factory, oil refineries, slaughterhouses, woolen mills, iron factories and breweries. A survey taken that same year called the Stony Creek the most grossly polluted tributary of the entire river, receiving hospital drainage and other material. To this day, the Philadelphia Water Department names the Stony Creek as one of its ten priority streams in the county to monitor. As population grew, wooded areas were stripped and converted into agricultural land and urban areas. Urban development has reduced the percentage of permeable surface resulting in increased storm-water runoff, stream flows and velocities. Agricultural storm-water runoff included sediment and high concentrations of nutrients as well as herbicides and pesticides. Powerful storm-water flows erode stream banks, cause sediment transfer that disrupt aquatic habitats and result in silt build-ups behind dams. Tomorrow: The perception of the Schuylkill River Michelle Mowad can be reached at mmowad@timesherlad.com or 610-272-2501, ext. 205. |
| ©The Times Herald 2002 |
|
|||||
| Reader Opinions | |||||
|
|||||
| Be the first person to voice your opinion on this story! | |||||
|
|||||
| Back to top | |||||
|
|||||
Copyright © 1995 - 2002