Nanneman 1

Emily Nanneman
Prof. Mundo
PSCI 320
5 May 2016
Integrated Water Resource Management on the Delaware River
Fresh water is arguably the most important resource required to sustain life on Earth, yet,
it is quickly disappearing. There are a variety of factors that contribute to the loss of water,
including rapid population growth, increased industrialization, overexploitation of land and
water, and large scale agriculture (Integrated 9). These issues often combine and overlap, and
are all exacerbated by poor water resource management. A great number of bodies of water cross
multiple political lines or serve as the boundaries between two governments, meaning that much
of the management of waterways is controlled by many different administrations. The main
problem with this way of organization is that political boundaries do not stop water from
flowing. The way the water is used in one portion of a watershed can have a dramatic effect on
the quality and availability of it in another area, and this splintered and uncoordinated approach
to water management will not be sustainable in the future. International organizations that deal
with the development of water management systems recognized the limitations of current
systems regarding the regulation and protection of freshwater systems, and as a result have
created Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) as a method to manage sustainability.
The most widely accepted definition of IWRM was created by the Global Water
Partnership and is as follows: a process which promotes the coordinated development and
management of water, land and related resources, in order to maximize the resultant economic
and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital
ecosystems, (Integrated 22). While the concept of IWRM has been adopted as the primary
process for future water management by the United Nations and specific countries, the Global
Water Partnership acknowledges that one of the main challenges of IWRM is how it will actually
be implemented (6). There is no universal blueprint for IWRM that can applied to every single
case; the varying types of bodies of water, political systems, natural conditions, strength of
public and private institutions, etc. around the world prevent this from happening. But, that does
not mean that there cannot be some type of guide for implementing IWRM in specific types of
bodies of water. The methods of IWRM have already proven to be successful in specific cases,
such as that of the Delaware River. The cleanup of the Delaware River is regarded as one the
greatest pollution success stories worldwide, in large part because of the management of the
Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) and its implementation of IWRM principles. By
understanding the various factors that contributed to Delaware Rivers pollution and subsequent
cleanup, examples of poor water management and an outline for how water management should
be managed via IWRM can be created for multi-state river basins facing similar threats.
Understanding IWRM
The concept of IWRM has been around for centuries, but it was not until the United
Nations Conference on Water in Mar del Plata in 1977 that the first coordinated, international
 Nanneman 2

approach to IWRM occurred (Rahaman 16). While this acknowledgement is significant in its
own right, the conference did little more than create a space where IWRM could be discussed
seriously (16). It was not until the 1992 International Conference on Water and Environment in
Dublin that IWRM was reinstated at the forefront of international discourses on sustainability
(16). At the conference the Dublin Principles were created, which became the guiding principles
of IWRM internationally (16). The four tenets state that:
1. Fresh water is a finite and vulnerable resource, essential to sustain life, development and the
environment.
2.Water development and management should be based on a participatory approach, involving
users, planners and policymakers at all levels.
3. Women play a central part in the provision, management and safeguarding of water
4.Water has an economic value in all its competing uses and should be recognized as an economic
good, (Integrated 13, 14)
These principles have since been expanded upon, but still serve as the backbone of IWRM. The
2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg and the 2003 Third World
Water Forum in Kyoto established IWRM as the internationally accepted system to manage
water sustainably. They also set up targets to develop and implement IWRM systems worldwide,
including commitments to meet the specified goals by over one hundred countries (Rhaman 18).
At the international level the United Nations is responsible for promoting and funding
IWRM, but once the concept has been adopted by a country, responsibility for enforcing the
system falls on that countrys government (Integrated 13). In the United States the responsible
agency for implementing IWRM is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Along with promoting
the four Dublin Principles, the Army Corps has expanded upon them and the definition IWRM to
form eight more specific concepts that they believe best solidify the foundation for IWRM in the
United States: (1) sustainability, (2) integration, (3) collaboration, (4) participative decision
making and collaborative modeling, (5) sound science and innovation, (6) adaptive
management, and (7) holism (Responding 8). Sustainability forms the basis for the rest of the
principles and focuses on balancing economic, social, and environmental outcomes to water
basin development (Responding 8). This means that one interest will never dominantly benefit
from any specific policy decision regarding the body of water being managed. Rather, each
group will have equitable benefits and disadvantages, ensuring the sustainability of each sector.
Integration centers on combining water resource planning with other resources such as financial
or human, to ensure that policies meet the needs of the parties invested in water regulation (8).
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers notes that there is no such thing as an isolated water
resource; all resources are parts of larger systems, (7). That is to say, water resource
management must include comprehensive planning that takes into account the water and the land
resources that surround it (8). Collaboration and participative decision making are related in that
the former encourages working with all stakeholders in the affected area and the latter means
working with stakeholders throughout the entire decision making process (8). Sound science and
innovation simply means using the most recent and best possible scientific information when
building policies about the watershed and sharing information across various managements (8).
Adaptive management requires that the water basin management team recognizes that
 Nanneman 3

circumstances are constantly changing and that policies should be dynamic enough to account
for these changes, whatever they may be (8). Finally, Holism implies that the management of
water should be at a water basin level rather than defined by whatever political boundaries cut
through the watershed (8). Only then will the water be able to be governed in a way that reflects
all the other principles discussed.
The U.S. Army Corps of engineers also specifies the three elements a river basin
organization should have to successfully embody the ideas of IWRM: A conscience, or general
consensus about the ideals being embodied by the organization permeates the information
collection, negotiation among various groups, and policy creation and implementation; a forum
where all stakeholders can discuss policies and the potential effects they can have on businesses,
homeowners, other organizations, and all levels of government; and a budget large enough that
the water management organization may complete their objectives (Responding 48).
By analyzing the history of the Delaware River basin and the various organizations
responsible for managing it, one will be able to see the problems and solutions of trying to
implement IWRM on a transboundary river basin. Because there is such a wide array of threats
to water, the scope of this paper will focus specifically on the issue of pollution to understand
how IWRM was implemented, and the success of pollution clean-up will be measured by
population of the shad fish, whose history is tightly interwoven with human politics and
pollution on the Delaware River.
Understanding the Importance of the Delaware River and Shad
The Delaware River is an immensely important river both in terms of its history and the
sheer amount of people and ecosystems that rely upon it today. The river runs through four states
in total; beginning in New York the river flows downward, serving as the border between New
Jersey and Pennsylvania until it finally widens into a bay as it reaches Delaware. The river has
been a source of food and water first for the Lenni Lenape tribe and then the colonists who began
to seriously settle beginning in the mid 1600s. Currently, 5%, or 15 million people are
dependent on the Delaware for drinking water (State 3). This not only includes those who
reside along the river but about 50% of New York city residents (3). The Delaware is both an
important source of drinking water and a key component of all four states economies. The
Delaware River is the largest fresh water port in the world (3). Each year, the port creates $19
billion dollars a year in economic activity and imports the most steel, paper, and meats, in North
America (3). In a study done by the University of Delaware in 2011, the estimated economic
activity of Delaware River Basin from recreation, fish and wildlife, public parks, water quality,
navigation/ports, [...], agriculture, water supply, and forest activities is worth 22 billion dollars
(Koffman 26).
Shad fish are anadromous fish (meaning the migrate from the sea up rivers to in order to
spawn) and are the largest fish in the herring family (State 164). While shads habitat ranges
from Florida to the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, they are most commonly found in the Delmarva area
(the Delaware River and the surrounding Atlantic Ocean) (164). They are referred to as
Americas founding fish by author John McPhee because it is reported that an early return of
 Nanneman 4

the shad to the Delaware and its tributaries in the spring of 1778 kept Washingtons Army from
starving at Valley Forge (164). Many farmers who settled along the Delaware river in the 1600s,
1700s, and early 1800s, also relied on the shad to keep the fed through the long winters months
(Hardy 508). The shad fishery along the Delaware was once the largest fishery along the Atlantic
Coast, in 1896 it is reported that over 10 million dollars (in 2006 dollars) was caught (165). Even
though commercial shad fisheries have all but disappeared recreational shad currently brings in
about 6 million dollars year.
Threats to the Delaware River and Shad Fish
Discovery and European Settlement of the Delaware
In order for the cleanup of the Delaware River to be used as outline for implementation of
IWRM, an overview of pollution, the stakeholders, threats, and the history shad fish must first be
understood. Henry Hudson was the first European to discover the Delaware River system, which
he did in 1609 (State 100). Hudson was amazed by its pristine nature and the wide array of life
he found within the river (Albert 100). According to historian Charles Hardy III, settlers wrote
of aloes so plentiful that a single dip of the net could pull in 600 [fish] (Hardy 509). The first
colonists who settled along the river were similarly impressed, but quickly found out that in
winter, many of the edible life forms in the river seemingly disappeared (509). Like the Lenape
had done before them, the settlers began to fish for shad and smoke and salt them for the long
winter months (508). Shad fish quickly became one of the most traded commodities along the
Delaware River and its tributaries (509). Fishing rights for shad soon became extremely
competitive, and tension grew between downstream fishermen who used efficient yet excessively
wasteful nets that prevented the shad from swimming upstream to fisherman and farmers who
also relied up on the shad for survival (510). In what became known as the Long Ford Fishing
War of 1738, the fight over fishing rights turned violent when upstream fisherman sailed
downstream to break the traps and nets there (109). The war emphasized the need for
management of fishing rights all along the river (109). While pollution became the biggest threat
to Delaware by the 20th century, at the beginning of the 18th century it was already becoming an
identifiable problem (Albert 100).
Development of the Delaware
The Delaware River was not merely used as resource for food; it also provided the
primary form of navigation and trade for industries in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware
(Hardy 514). Those who used the river for transportation proposed and executed plans to make
transportation more efficient by digging canals, clearing channels through the river, and building
dams (512). While this made it easier for barges carrying goods, it prevented many shad from
getting to their traditional breeding grounds and drastically reduced the number being caught by
fisherman (509, 512). This era, from about 1820 to 1860, reveals exactly what happens if there
are no controls put into place to regulate the exploitation of a resource, particularly if the
resource plays a vital role in the survival of an area's inhabitants. While the river was being
dramatically altered for transportation, irresponsible fishing contributed to the decline of the shad
(514). Hardy notes that internal improvements, fish traps, and the utilization of more efficient
 Nanneman 5

nets wielded by the growing numbers of fishermen claiming the rights of free access to a public
resource significantly reduced the number and size of the shad in the Delaware (514).
During this time, shad were also becoming culturally significant; to many, they
represented the return of spring and reminded colonists of their simple farming roots (Hardy
511). Painters and writers alike romanticized shad fishing through their work, and experiments
cooking shad turned the fish into both a staple and a popular fine dining dish (511).
The combination of development in and along the Delaware, improved fishing
techniques, and population growth and increasing popularity of shad as food meant that by 1860
the shad had all but disappeared from the Delaware.
The Industrial Era
The rapid decline of the shad fish in the Delaware occurred at the same times fisheries
nationwide were being wiped out by overfishing (Hardy 514). Hardy notes that America's
commercial fisheries followed the Invisible Hand of the Market place and left trails of
devastation in their wake (514). There were incentives to overfish and no market mechanisms to
promote restraint, leading to the first crash of the shad population. The fall of such an integral
industry nationwide led the government to intervene in an attempt to revive it and the jobs and
profits it produced (515). Congress created the United States Fish Commission to study and
suggest remedies for the decline in coastal fisheries (515). Because shad were easily bred,
federal hatcheries programs committed most of their funding to the artificial propagation of the
American shad, (515). Spurred by the growing population of shad, Pennsylvania hired game
wardens to stop illegal fishing and removed dams from the upper river (517). They also passed
legislation that outlawed the use of nets on the Delaware except for the catching of shad and
made it illegal to fish on Sundays (517). Together, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware
formed a series of laws to regulate the entire river (517).
It is not entirely clear whether the new laws regulating fishing or technological
advancements produced by industrialization such as more efficient ways to harvest fish led to the
record high number of shad fish being harvested; however, regardless, shad harvests increased
steadily for twenty years, rising from a million pounds in 1880 to more than nine million in
1887, to record harvests at the turn of the twentieth century when more than sixteen million
pounds of fish were caught (Hardy 517, 518)
The governments attempt to revive the ailing shad industry through technological
advancement (respawning program) without addressing the underlying problems causing the
decline in the shad population (overfishing and threats to their habitat) reveals the necessity of
addressing environmental issues on a holistic level rather than looking at only one facet of the
problem. River basins are a complex ecosystem that require balance, simply trying to
compensate for decline in shad will not bring back their population to naturally sustainable
levels; as seen in the next section, it merely provides a temporary crutch.
Rapid Decline of Shad Fish Part II
The industrialization of the late 1800s led to an explosion in population and the growth
of industries to meet its demand, both of which contributed to the extreme pollution of the
 Nanneman 6

Delaware River. Pollution has been an issue on the Delaware since it settlement, but it was not
until the beginning of 1900s that the extreme degradation of water quality occurred (Albert
100). The population of shad fish in the Delaware river went from being one of the largest on the
Atlantic coast to having virtually disappeared within two decades (100). Other factors such as
overfishing and loss of habitat undeniably contributed to the drop in population, but pollution
was one of the greatest factors (100).
Heavy industries involving the manufacturing of chemicals, papers, and metals, that grew
swiftly in the beginning of the 20th century dumped their pollutants directly into the Delaware
River (Albert 101). The worst of the pollution in the Delaware occurred in Philadelphia, where
the river was treated as an aqueous garbage can (Hardy 524). There are stories of sailors
jumping ship so they did not have to spend the night smelling the reek of the river, complaints
about the stench from pilots flying above the river, and one notable account where a freshly
painted Red Cross ship became so unidentifiable after traveling through the river that it required
repainting (Albert 102). The port of Philadelphia was claimed to be the foulest freshwater port
in the world (Hardy 525). Toxins in the river created areas where oxygen levels were so low
that almost nothing could live in the water (Albert 102). At its worst, there was a twenty-mile
stretch of anoxia running shore to shore (102). Additionally, the anoxic conditions of the river
prevented shad from migrating either up or down stream, and because shad could no longer
travel to or from their traditional breeding grounds, their numbers fell sharply, to the point where
the shad had almost disappeared from the river completely (Hardy 525). As the second decline of
the shad fish shows, restocking the fish and removing dams upriver only created a temporary
rebound of the shad population. Pollution problems down river inhibited the shad from ever
making it upriver to spawn. To maintain a steady and healthy shad population, upriver and
downriver threats to the shad needed to be addressed comprehensively, something that would not
happen until the 1960s.
Addressing the Pollution
There were two main stages of solving the pollution problem to the Delaware, which can
be categorized by the two most prominent commissions put into place to address the problem.
The first commission established to manage the rapid decline of the shad population and the
severe pollution of the Delaware River was the Interstate Commission on the Delaware River
(INCODEL), which was created by representatives from New Jersey, New York, and
Pennsylvania in 1939 (Hardy 542). The second, founded by all four states bordering the
Delaware River and the federal government was the Delaware River Basin Commission
(DRBC), created in 1960 (Delaware).
INCODEL
The top goal of INCODEL was to clean up the pollution of the Delaware, which they
tried to do through scientific studies, lawsuits and political pressure (Hardy 524). Two problems
prevented INCODEL from making much progress in restoring the rivers ecological health.
Firstly, INCODEL was merely an advisory board with no force of law, and because it could only
recommend various policy actions and not enforce them, it lacked the power to act decisively on
 Nanneman 7

any issue. Second, World War II put a stop to any actions seen as hindering war endeavors,
including pollution control, negating all of INCODEls efforts (Albert 102). During this time,
waste from the factories along the Delaware also dramatically increased as the nation scrambled
to meet the material demands of the war, further polluting the river (102).
Delaware River Basin Commission
It was not until the 1960s that pollution in the Delaware was finally addressed as the
serious issue that it had been since the start of the 20th century (State 9). In 1961, congress and
President Kennedy approved and enacted the Delaware River Basin Compact (9). The Delaware
River Basin Compact created the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC), the first multi-
state organization with a force of law that manages an entire body of water without regard to
political boundaries in the entire country (Rupert 3). There are five main members of the DRBC:
the governors of each of the states (Delaware, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania) and the
commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, who represents the federal government (3).
Each member has an equal vote on all matters and it takes a majority for the vote to pass
legislation (4).
When the DRBC was signed into law it replaced 43 state agencies, 14 interstate
agencies, and 19 federal agencies, who had some authority to manage the river with a
comprehensive and holistic program (Rupert 3). The DRBCs tasks include: water quality
protection, water supply allocation, regulatory review (permitting), water conservation
initiatives, watershed planning, drought management, flood loss reduction, and recreation. (3).
In order to address the issue of pollution, the DRBC created water quality standards in 1967, and
one year later designed regulations to enforce the standards (Water). The passage of the Clean
Water Act (CWA) in 1973 strengthened the DRBCs authority, tightened water pollution
standards, and increased the DRBCs funding through research grants (Water; Delaware).
The CWA also established a list of toxic pollutants to be regulated, such as copper, mercury, and
lead, which the DRBC then adopted as part of their criteria for clean water (Delaware). The
CWA created a waste load allocation which set a limit on the maximum number of toxins that
both citizens and industries can discharge into a specific water way (Delaware). The DRBC
measures the health of the water through the total amount of dissolved oxygen, phosphorous,
nitrates, and suspended sediments in the water (State 70). Since the 1970s the level of each of
these indicators has improved to the point that they either meet or exceed levels considered
acceptable by the DRBC (70).
As the DRBC began to clean up pollution, the shad gradually returned to their old
breeding grounds (State 178). The shads virtual disappearance in the beginning of the 1900s
contributed to the closure of many of the fisheries along the river and reduced demand to eat
shad. Upon the fishs return, people no longer found shad fish very palatable because of its
excessive oiliness and boniness (Hardy 526). However, recreational anglers began to take an
interest in shad because of the fight they put up when caught, which somewhat revived the
economy around shad (526).
What Makes the Delaware River Case a Successful example of IWRM
 Nanneman 8

There are several factors that make the DRBC a prime example for IWRM
implementation, the primary reason being the way the DRBC is organized. The DRBC abides by
four tenets that guide the way they manage the river:
First, water does not respect political boundaries and should be managed on a holistic,
watershed basis that takes into account surface water and groundwater and also storm water and
wastewater; Second, what happens on the land affects the water and what happens upstream
affects downstream users; Third, water management is collaborative [... ; Fourth,] water
management must be adaptive to changing conditions, new science and technology, and the
changing of regional priorities. (Delaware)
These principles are essentially what the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers divides into seven ideas:
(1) sustainability, (2) integration, (3) collaboration, (4) participative decision making and
collaborative modeling, (5) sound science and innovation, (6) adaptive management, and (7)
holism (8).
The DRBC accomplishes sustainability through integration, collaboration, and
participative decision making. The Commission has several advisory committees that provide a
forum for the exchange of information and viewpoints on a variety of issues, (Delaware).
The committees engage representatives from state/federal government agencies, industry,
municipalities, academia, public health, and environmental/watershed organizations to inform
their policy decisions, and ensure that all parties are being represented equally and fairly
(Delaware). Meetings to discuss policy matters under review by the committees are open to
any members of the public who wish to attend and summaries are posted online for those are not
able to (Delaware). The DRBC has a motto, You cant manage what you dont measure
(Water). Since its creation, the DRBC has been conducting studies to understand the best
possible ways to regulate pollution and monitor water quality and fish and plant populations in
order to track and evaluate new threats to the Delaware River (Delaware).
The DRBC has proved itself adept at adjusting to changing conditions around the
Delaware River. One example of this flexibility is the Special Protection Waters (SPW)
Program, which was passed in 1992 and is designed to prevent degradation in streams and
rivers where existing water quality is better than the established water quality standards
(Water). SPW was expanded in 1994 and 1998 to include wider stretches of the Delaware
River, showing that the DRBC can adjust to variant or new conditions in an effort to restore the
Delaware River to natural standards. Finally, and perhaps most obviously, the DRBC embodies
holism because it manages the entire Delaware River Water Basin without regard to political
boundaries.
There are several key outcomes that other transboundary river basins can take away from
the implementation of IWRM in the Delaware River Basin, the most important being the
establishment of multi-state organizations to manage the entire river basin with the force of law.
The DRBC was able clean up the Delaware River when no individual state could because it was
more capable of regulating all sources of pollution. The actions of institutions upstream could
not nullify accomplishments downstream and vice versa because the river was managed in its
totality. By opening the policy planning process to all stakeholders, there was a balance of
 Nanneman 9

advantages and disadvantages for each group, which ensured support and smooth
implementation for many of the policies proposed by the DRBC. Also, by ensuring that all units
of government are involved in the planning process, there is a more comprehensive
understanding of needs that have to be addressed and how that is possible. The DRBC states in
order to avoid unnecessary duplication and achieve maximum efficiency, signatory agencies to
the Delaware River Basin Compact concerned with pollution control will be utilized to the
maximum practical extent in enforcing [regulations] (Administrative 3) Because the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers is both in charge of implementing IWRM in the United States and is
one of the five members of the DRBC, they are better able to communicate what the concept of
IWRM is while leaving the states sharing the water basin autonomous enough to act in a way
that best meets the rivers and communitys needs.
Conclusion.
The DRBC boasts that the cleanup of the Delaware is hailed as one of the world's top
water quality success stories (Delaware). Shad fish, whose numbers were once in the tens of
millions until a crash in the 1900s, are now making a resurgence. While the number of shad are
well below their historical numbers (there were an estimated 200,000 in the Delaware River
counted in 2005) this is a huge jump from the roughly 10,000 the population had fallen to and
plateaued at from 1950 - 1980 (Albert 166). The history of the shad reveals what happens when
there is no comprehensive management of a river basin: human conflicts, the exploitation of
resources, and extreme water degradation. Conversely, the Delaware River Basin Commission
exhibits that inclusive management is required to achieve in order to successfully address threats
to a multi-state river basin. For other river basins to successfully adopt IWRM and ensure a
clean, safe source of water for future generations, there will need to be agreement between all
governments involved, as well as the inclusion of all stakeholders in the area in policy making
decisions. The Delaware River case study reveals that the power of law is necessary to provide
comprehensive and effective management of the basin and ensure a usable source of freshwater
for future generations so long as the organization that practices sound science and takes
environmental, social, and financial factors into account.
 Nanneman 10

Works Cited
Administrative Manual, Part III: Water Quality Regulations. West Trenton, NJ: Delaware River
Basin Commission, 1996. Delaware River Basin Commission. Web.
<http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/library/documents/WQregs.pdf>.
Albert, Richard C. The Historical Context of Water Quality Management for the Delaware
Estuary. Estuaries, vol. 11, no. 2, 1988, pp. 99107., www.jstor.org/stable/1351997.

Delaware River Basin Commission. Delaware River Basin Commission, n.d. Web. 05 May 2017.
<http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/>.
Hardy, Charles. Fish Or Foul: A History of the Delaware River Basin Through the Perspective
of the American Shad, 1682 to the Present. Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-
Atlantic Studies, vol. 66, no. 4, 1999, pp. 506534., www.jstor.org/stable/27774214.

"Integrated Water Resources Management." Tac Background Papers 4 (2014): 1-66. Global
Water Partnership. Web.
Koffman, Gerald J. "Socioeconomic Value of the Delaware River Basin in Delaware, New
Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania." (2011): 26+. Delaware River Basin Commission.
Web. <http://nj.gov/drbc/library/documents/SocioeconomicValueDRB-UDEL-
FinalRpt.pdf>.
Rahaman, Muhammad Mizanur, and Olli Varis. "Integrated Water Resources Management:
Evolution, Prospects and Future Challenges." Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy
1.1 (2005): n. pag. Web. <http://d20nn6mxpbiih2.cloudfront.net/sspp-journal/SSPP-
v1.1.rahaman.pdf>.
Responding to National Water Resources Challenges: Building Strong Collaborative
Relationships for a Sustainable Water Resources Future. Washington, DC: U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Civil Works Directorate, 2010. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Civil
Works Directorate. Web.
Rupert, Clarke D. "The Delaware River Basin Commission: A Unique Partnership." Water
Resource Impact 16.5 (2014): 3-5. Delaware River Basin Commission. Web.
<http://nj.gov/drbc/library/documents/IMPACT-DRBC-Sept2014.pdf>.
"State of the Delaware Basin Report." (2008): 1-187. Web.
<https://nj.usgs.gov/programs/natmonitornet/pdfs/StateoftheDelRiverBasin08.pdf>.
"Water Quality Programs of the Delaware River Basin Commission." (n.d.): n. pag. Delaware
River Basin Commission, 2012. Web.
<http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/library/documents/WQBooklet_final_print.pdf>.
Nanneman 11