But for the most part, the swimming outside of Boston Harbor extends, by 
some definitions, from Winthrop through ten major towns, and small cities such as 
Chelsea, Revere, Quincy, and along the Massachusetts coastline. In addition to the city, 
at least eight, and perhaps ten, towns have frontage oft the larger Boston Harbor and 
Massachusetts 3ay. But for the most part, the pollution, problems with swimming beaches 
are really just in the immediate areas close to the CSOs. 
Question: I have a couple of questions. From a national perspective and in 
order to be able to set priorities, there's only so much money in the kitty, so how would 
you compare Boston Harbor to other estuaries along the east coast or the northeast coast? 
I won't say nationally, but how does Boston Harbor compare? If you don't know the answer 
to that question, what criteria must we use to be able to prioritize where the money has 
to go so we can correct or mitigate, in one way or another, what is happening in some of 
these estuaries? Is Boston Harbor worse off, for example, than Raritan Bay? Is Boston 
Harbor worse off than Searsport, Maine, or the Gulf of Maine, or Chesapeake Bay? Maybe 
it's not a fair question to ask. 
G. Wallace: Well, one of the things we have to consider is probably the largest 
single discharge of sewage occurs within the estuary itself, which is generally not the case 
in any other estuaries along the east coast or at least in terms of the volume of water 
being impacted. Another criteria I'd use is the economic value. Are the fisheries 
resources lost and are the recreational and aesthetic values affecting real estate values? 
How do we put a number on that? 
Question: Well, I guess what I'm asking is the same question that was asked at 
first. What criteria and data gaps do we have, in a sense? But I've heard today, for 
example, we use Capitella, we use chemical contaminant loads, we use neoplasias, we use 
disease symptoms or even disease effects, perhaps even parasitic loads. This is an expert 
panel whose charge, I would assume, is to try to address questions like this not necessarily 
just for Boston Harbor, but thinking in a holistic way, just where are we supposed to be 
going if indeed pollution is affecting our health or resources. 
L. Bridges: I don't know if I can answer your question, but in Massachusetts 
when the original Federal Water Pollution Control Act was passed, a great deal of 
emphasis was on building sewage treatment plants throughout the state. The principal 
activity centered on freshwater streams, lakes, and ponds. Basically, I think the ponds 
and streams in Massachusetts have been fairly well cleaned up, and the condition is 
certainly much improved over what it was in the early 1960s. But in the coastal areas of 
the large industrial cities like Boston, Salem, South Essex, and the New Bedford area, this 
jsn't the case. As far as I'm concerned, decision-makers put their heads in the sand 
because they figured, well, all we have to do is dump sewage out in the ocean, and the 
ocean will assimilate this waste. 
The technology that's been applied inland to clean up the inland waters really 
has not resulted in any improvement along the coast. Moreover, what we've experienced 
108 
