I think part of the problem is that the producing industry feels that every time 
a contamination problem comes to the forefront~in the 1970s, it was mercury—the 
fishing industry is the one that suffers. There is no remedy to the situation of polluters 
who are causing the problem. I think the fishing industry in New Bedford took the two 
polluters in New Bedford to court and lost. They sued them for damages on the potential 
harvest that was lost, and they lost. They had no recourse, no remedy from the court. 
M. Barber: Was that a state court? 
L. Bridges: That was a Federal district court. 
B. Brown: Paul Boehm, is there anything you'd like to discuss or Gordon 
Wallace, either one, on potential data gaps that you can identify? 
P. Boehm: I think Gene hit on some of the major data gaps as far as 
circulation and fluxes from the Harbor to Massachusetts Bay. The whole issue of 
pollutant mass loadings is important. The contributions of the sewage effluents and the 
sludge effluents versus the combined sewage overflows, river discharges, and 
concentrations of toxic organic compounds in the Charles River is substantial. And 
Gordon showed some overall flow calculations, about 35 percent of the water flow from 
rivers. If the trapping efficiency of Boston Harbor is 3 percent for the sewage, then 
something doesn't add up. There's a lot going on that's causing both the higher levels and 
the whole range of problems we're seeing here other than just the sewage situation. 
In terms of management decisions, there's a major effort focused on the MDC. 
Maybe that's the story; that's what the public believes. Maybe that's the right answer 
right now. But I really don't think it's the whole story. In terms of one of the biggest data 
gaps, it's just the contributions from all the sources and what else needs controlling. 
J. Thomas: I'd like to add something concerning that. With regard to the 
Charles River, there's a lock at the base of the Charles River. It's usually assumed that 
most of the contaminant material goes with the particulate phase. I would assume that 
the locks should cause some sedimentation of the particulates in the Charles River above 
the locks. Perhaps if we want to protect the Harbor, we can certainly make the Charles 
worse. Do you have any comments on that one way or the other? 
P. Boehm: It gets really down to the Charles permanently so that nothing gets 
out. I really don't have any comments on it—maybe Gordon knows something more about 
the flux from the Charles. 
G. Wallace: I've only taken one sample behind the dam of the Charles River. 
This was a monograph we were working on. The metal levels there indicated that the 
Charles was not a significant source, at least for metals, going into the Harbor. I think 
you're absolutely right. There is a high suspended load and much material is effectively 
trapped behind the dam and, therefore, is not getting into the Harbor. But, what I've said 
105 
