enter this more abstract world with you, it is necessary to start using some technical language. A few terms have been selected for definition, in the belief that for your future understanding of problems in the area of your investigation you will find them absolutely necessary.

1. Ecology. By simple definition, ecology is the science of relationships. The ecologist seeks to describe qualitatively or quantitatively the flow and accumu lation of materials and energy in natural systems. The systems may be within a cell or the entire universe, but the systems (or ecosystems) which concern us are of such size that they involve communities of different organisms within more-or-less definable geographic limits. With this definition, let us return to concrete matters, and will ask you to go behind the appearance of cladophora, which will disappear and be forgotten before winter, and allow your imagination to stretch into a consideration of an ecosystem, Lake Ontario. You have hitherto seen only one link in a complex network, one cog in a complicated machine, one bill of payment in a vastly involved economic structure.

Because our time is quite limited, I shall offer you two graphic ecological models:

ECCSYSTEM

A simple model of the flow of energy and of many kinds of materials.
The many alternate pathways are not indicated.

THE PYRAMID OF MATERIAL AND ENERGY (FOOD AND FUEL) The proportion of loss at each level is greater than shown.

No. 1 represents a simple sum total of natural flows of materials and energy. The basic form of the model is a circle. Please notice, however, that materials can move around the circle indefinitely, or be caught or accumulated for a time in different pools or structures. In an absolutely closed system material neither enters nor leaves. The earth is a closed system, but many smaller parts of it can also be considered closed, for practical purposes. In contrast there is inflow and outflow in an open system, but there may also be a dynamic balance between inflow and outflow. Our own body is one such system, and Lake Ontario is another.

No. 2 is the same situation, but the form is that of a pyramid, to emphasize two points: (1) Green plants are the sole food source, and major fuel source, for all other organisms. In respect to Lake Ontario, the green plants are mostly algae. (2) The loss of materials and energy at each level is enormous, and there is little salvage of materials at the intermediate levels, and no source of energy except at the lowest level, green plants. To sustain 100 pounds of man the ecosystem must produce (roughly) 10 times that much fish, a hundred times that much insects, and a thousand times that much algae.

A second example is closer to our interests here: If the pool of minerals is increased, the growth of cladophora will increase. Cladophora is support for many organisms. Among them are diatoms. (I wish to introduce photomicrographs of cladophora, and of diatoms.) Diatoms are extremely different kinds of algae which accumulate food in form of oils. The production of each cell seems insignificant, but I would remind you that a good part of our petroleum may be derived from fossil diatom oil. Oil can be acted upon by bacteria, can decompose, can smell, can be poisonous.

Nor is this all. An increased quantity of cladophora, the green plant, furnishes increased food for bacteria which multiply enormously. More bacteria may mean more production of poisons, may mean more diseases of all organisms, may mean genetically new disease-producing types of bacteria, may mean vastly increased populations of viruses.

This explanation becomes complicated, I realize, but only by attempting it can I hope to tell you of why my fright at Webster Beach continues all year long.

Let me return to model No. 1. You recall that each unit in the cycle processes an enormous amout of material. It also concentrates or accumulates some of it. Herein lies perils which will be overlooked by the analytical chemist and the biologist who does not have the ecological perspective. Fortunately, a beautiful example has recently occurred. Fishing became bad in a New York lake. Investigation revealed this fantastic chain. The number of cottagers around the lake has vastly increased in the last generation (this is the local scene of the world's population explosion); insecticides were sold them by a profit-oriented industry and they sprayed for comfort. The small scattered bits of chemicals were absorbed by plants, and the chemicals subsequently were concentrated in young fish, which failed to grow. To me the most factastic part of the report is that the people at the lake stopped spraying. If they allowed themselves to learn a lesson of ecology, I may be permitted to hope that the rest of the country will do as well. Before leaving the subject of ecology, I have a confession to make to you. Ecology is a subversive subject. Dr. Paul Sears, one of the greatest ecologists of the generation just past, pointed out its subversive nature in no uncertain terms. He said, and I will second him, that the values of ecology may be counter to the accepted values of farmers (bigger crops), business (profit on investment), government (keeping beaches open and the public cool) and—with my tongue slightly in cheek-the struggle against communism (dollars for defense, need for manpower, increase in production of minerals at lowest cost, simplest disposal of atomic wastes). The only defense of the ecologist is the same as many other subversives: The long-range good of a larger ecosystem.

There are four other terms which I should like to define for you, briefly, because you are likely to encounter them should you continue your investigation: 2. Pollution. Although the word is in very common use, it is almost impossible to define. The most general definition of pollution is any substance which man has added to an ecosystem. Trying to be more definite leads to contradictions. Are pollutants all poisons? If so, we pollute water with chlorine to kill bacteria. Are good mineral nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, pollutants? Yes, if they ultimately result in the fish being killed as a result of luxuriant plant growth. From the viewpoint of ecology, a more subtle, but more significant, definition might be derived. A pollutant is a disturber of the biological system, and bad pollution means disturbance beyond the capacity of the system to restore its level of flows and pools.

3. Eutrophication.-Means the attainment of a fertile or productive condition. In oversimplified terms, a lake with a granite bottom, steep sides, cold water, and low mineral content will contain a small amount of plant materials. A lake which is in limestone country, shallow-sided, warmer, and with a higher mineral content will contain a much greater bulk of plants, and, consequently, animals, and probably bacteria.

It has become a cliche in the last 10 years to speak of the problem of our inland lakes as one of eutrophication. It is as though the overall effect of pollution were to increase the productivity of the lakes. The spectacular production of cladophora is that of a well-fertilized crop. Two studies have attributed increased growth of the alga to nitrogen in one and phosphorus in the other; both are probably correct in the simple sense, but recall that a whole complex chain is involved, not a simple cause-effect relationship.

With some hesitation, because you may consider it a silly academic quibble, let me say that I feel that eutrophication is an unnecessary term; just say that the amount of certain organisms has increased. Further, I feel that it is false to conceive of the problem as the acceleration of natural processes. A naturally productive lake is generally not undesirable from man's viewpoints; the lakes which we are producing are undesirable.

4. Succession.-Lakes are temporary features of the landscape. Sooner or later the combination of plant growth and erosion of shore fill them. The change from one type of biological community to another, which takes place during the filling, is called succession. Because these changes are long range, most laymen are unaware of them, and natural changes are seen as unnatural, even insidious. I have included the term both to emphasize that people are going to have to learn to live with succession, and secondly to point out that once profound changes have taken place, they cannot be reversed short of catastrophic acts.

5. Taxonomy. If we are to receive and transmit information intelligently, we need a precise classification, simply to be sure that we are talking about the same thing. Taxonomy is the science of classification, and I would charge the committee to become aware of it and to respect it. Cladophora glomerata (L.) Kuetz. is the technical name of the organism from Webster Beach. The name

consists of genus, species, and author. Botanists in Europe and Asia know what is meant by the name. Yet, my duty as a taxonomist does not end there. I will preserve specimens of the alga for permanent record and, incidentally, for the pleasure of future generations to correct me. If this sounds quite dull to you, you reflect an almost unanimous opinion among scientists engaged in water resources work as well as in broader groups of humans. Thus, I suggest that much of the careful analytical work is of limited value, because there is no accurate knowledge of the identity of the organisms involved, let alone the complex relationships among them. I doubt that there can be any crash program to train taxonomists, but, meanwhile, I do wish that the inexpert, be they public health officials or research workers, would be more honest about their ignorances, as I hope to be about mine. I hope that you will use the specialists who are available to you, to obtain the information which they can give.

B. Conclusions.

I have used the major portion of my presentation in defining terms rather than attempting to follow a detailed series of logical steps to the conclusions which I now state. I have done so in the hopes that you will be adapted to judge generally my conclusions and those to be offered you in the future. My conclusions are professional inferences, based not only on a knowledge of facts but on a model or framework of ideas of the role of algae in their ecosystem.

1. The amount of growth of cladophora indicates a highly fertile condition. 2. This fertile condition has been increased by waste products, not only sewage but other materials, such as detergents. The biodegradable detergents are much better sources of phosphorus, for example, than the nondegradable types. 3. The enormous increase in the production of algae may be setting in motion profound changes of unpredictable consequence to the ecosystem of the lake and to the humans who use it.

4. The indications are quite clear that the limits of the lake to absorb the disturbances thrust upon it may be much nearer than generally believed.

5. I conclude that there is a tragic lack of comprehension of the problems of Lake Ontario or the frankness to talk about them or both. If drastic, unpredictable changes in the lake are to be avoided, we must simply cease dumping the wastes of our bodies and industries into it; I will single out three types:

(1) Killers, which eradicate organisms in the complex and neatly buffered natural system, reducing its capacity to recover from disturbances.

(2) Nutrients or fertilizers which aid plant growth. Treated sewage as well as untreated is full of nutrients.

(3) Synthetic chemicals which cannot be decomposed by common bacteria. I am well aware of the probable cost. The figure which I have heard for a national program would be about 5 percent of the country's income. In more concrete terms, this means lower profits, slower technological development in some areas, and higher taxes. If we are not willing to pay the price, then let us at least cease the pious talk of clean waters and the self-deception about what past or planned improvements in disposal systems can accomplish. I do not believe that there will be a miracle cure nor a compromise solution. If our values demand the sacrifice of Lake Ontario, then so be it, honestly, with our eyes open.

EXHIBIT B

The following statement is made by Wilfred J. Lindner, 109 Edgeland Street, Rochester, N.Y. 14609.

I am a retired New York State assistant regional conservation officer and at the present time I am a New York State special game protector.

I have been employed by the New York State Conservation Department for the past 32 years and have worked on numerous cases of pollution throughout this region. In some cases, we have had offenders correct the situation and in other cases we have had no cooperation.

I have had many reports and complaints over the years against the city of Rochester Disposal Plant near Durand-Eastman Park, the old Tryon Park Plant, now discontinued, the Irondequoit Disposal Plant and other nearby disposal plants. The complaints were that raw sewage was passed directly to the receiving body of water.

It is my observation that all fishing in Lake Ontario has been on the downgrade especially so during the past 10 years and I feel most of this is due to pollution, excessive use of detergents, and the large discharge of raw sewage which have

increased the growth of algae in a very large degree, and this is detrimental to good habitat for game fish.

I have based my knowledge of fishing and the further portions of this statement on my 32 years with the conservation department and upon the fact that in my capacity as a game protector, I have frequently been along the entire south shore of Lake Ontario. I am also an ardent fisherman and in my official capacity and from a recreational standpoint I have carefully examined all the waters I have fished. When I first noted a substantial reduction in fishing 10 years ago, I started to make a point of closely observing all Lake Ontario waters I visited. To mention a few recent specific occasions, I cite the following: On April 19, 1964, I observed the polluted condition of Sunshine Pond near the city of Rochester disposal plant and I phoned Mr. C. Springert, superintendent of the plant, and I told him what I had observed and he stated to me that a contract had been let to a private contractor to clean the Imhof tanks at the plant by removing the accumulation of sludge in the tanks and that they had been given permission by the Monroe County Health Department to dump this sludge in a ravine that drains into Sunshine Pond and an earthen dam was put across the ravine and this dam broke and the sludge went into the pond and thereby all fish life was destroyed.

On April 20, 1964, I met Commissioner Packard, Mr. Springert and another Public Works employee; the polluted area was shown to them and the Commissioner said they would try to clean up the area. They did apply lime, tried to break it by a hose line; and this did no good. They then tried to pump the water and sludge into a tank truck and put it through the sewage plant and this was not successful. They then tried to clam the sludge out of the pond and spread it on hard land nearby and this was not successful. The pond is still in a very bad polluted condition and if we have a heavy rain and the pond overflows, it would go into Lake Ontario and along the beach at Durand Park. No further efforts to clean up this serious matter have apparently been undertaken.

On another occasion, August 8, 1965, I was patrolling along Lakeshore Boulevard when I heard what I thought was a shot on the beach and on checking I found a teenager using firecrackers and upon walking along the beach I noticed a sewage odor and found sewage bubbling up through the sand and going down the lakeshore. I immediately notified one of the sewage plant operators as to what I found and he looked over the situation and remarked that there was a break in the line going into the Lake. This was repaired after some days. I was informed by another person that this situation was going on for about 3 weeks and it is my opinion that this pipe should be inspected regularly.

On July 13, 1966, in conjunction with Mr. Wayne Harris, who was in a plane, Mrs. Harris and three other interested persons and myself went out on Lake Ontario in a cruiser and we went to the outfall of the city of Rochester sewage plant and took samples of the effluent and put dye in the water to show the flow of sewage toward the beach.

On July 16, 1966, in company with Mr. John Marshall we went to Sunshine Pond and took a sample near the shore and then went to the city swamp where a tile that comes from Sunshine Pond empties into the city swamp and another sample was taken from the tile.

Over the past 10 years, I have noticed a large amount of human sewage and sewage objects in the lake waters which I believe comes principally from the city of Rochester and town of Irondequoit sewer outfalls.

EXHIBIT C

This statement is my personal opinion, of the conditions of Lake Ontario, based on my observations over a period of years.

Living in Irondequoit and frequenting the area many times during grammar school, I have noticed several changes in this area since those days. Many years ago we swam in the area of beach directly across from the Rotary Sunshine camp. We found the water clear, the bottom sandy with occasional areas of weeds and fresh water clams.

Over the years the weeds seemed to disappear, and we stopped swimming and fishing in this area.

In 1965 I was asked to check on the condition of the sewer outfall pipe, after a break was found on the beach. I was unable to find the pipe, but I did notice that water conditions had changed drastically since my boyhood days. The water was no longer clear, but was murky and dirty.