|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I removed the physics topic tag on the talk page because it does not help at all to consider surface runoff within physics. Surface runoff best comes under hydrology which is a composite science. Daniel Collins 05:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Conditions under which surface flow takes place
Wouldn't it be a good idea to explain the conditions under which surface flow might take place? 20:22, 21 March 2007 (GMT +1) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
References to NEPA - Delete?
In the Mitigation and Treatment section, there are two mentions of NEPA:
- ...After passage of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the United States, much more effort was focused upon mitigation of construction runoff by such tactics as...
- ...Chemical use and handling has become a focal point mainly since passage of NEPA...
NEPA requires the preparation and consideration of environmental impact statements (EIS) for "Federal actions." It does not contain any policy statements or requirements regarding erosion control, construction site runoff, nor chemical use and handling. Congress enacted several other laws in the 1970's which partially addressed these problems, including the Clean Water Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and Toxic Substances Control Act. (It should be noted that the 1972 CWA did not include the stormwater program requirements; they were added in the 1987 amendments.)
It does not seem accurate to state or imply that NEPA was associated with improvements in erosion control and chemical use & handling. I suggest those references be deleted or replaced with the laws more directly on point, i.e. CWA, RCRA, TSCA, etc. Moreau1 01:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- I deleted the text about NEPA connection with erosion & sediment control programs, due to lack of references. I added text & reference for early ESC programs in Maryland in 1960's & 70's. These programs were associated with growing concern over pollution in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Moreau1 (talk) 06:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The link provided for flood control programs is a link relating to the flood control term in communications. Somebody should fix that (I would, but I really don't know how...) Loveguga (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Ward and Robinson (1990) define surface runoff as "That part of total runoff that reaches the catchment outlet via overland and channel flow". What is described here is their definition of overland flow: "Water that, failing to infiltrate the surface, travels over the ground surface towards a stream channel either as quasi-laminar flow or, more usually, as flow anastomosing in small trickles and minor rivulets".
I suspect this is more than a minor flaw. Admittedly, I am still gathering facts and could be off base. From what I have found so far, the problems commonly associated with the term "surface runoff" involve not just visible flows, but also rapid flows beneath the surface. The important dividing line is between water that rapidly reaches streams following rainfall, and water that is retained and released over long periods of time. For example, a surface layer of sandy soil, or any soil with poor water retaining capacity, will pass water quickly but not visibly. The visible surface flows such as shown by the photo at the top of the page are probably only a fraction of the problem flows. This is an important distinction for anyone interested in whether the latest mutli-billion dollar stormwater management plan actually makes sense. ~Paul V. Keller 17:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The introductory paragraph may concentrate too heavily on the terms "nonpoint source" and "nonpoint source pollution", which are byproducts and side notes of surface runoff, not underlying or inherent factors. --Mike Talbot (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Hot topic: Combustion of toxic e-waste in developing countries
This might also be a very current topic related to runoff, yet ignored by the foreign authorities in China, Ghana, India, or Pakistan. Poor inhabitants dismantle the electronic waste dumped there by foreign countries (also the U.S. and UK being amongst them), and use coal fire (!!) to expose valuable metals found in there (e. g. copper). The highly-toxic ashes (toxic due to dioxins which are produced by combustion of computer cases and PVC material in general) will remain on the soil; and eventually, the rain will cause everything including the heavy metals etc. to flow into the nearby sea (e. g. the Agbogbloshie site in Ghana is directly at the sea) This could make another pivotal example for environmental consequences of surface runoff. -andy 18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ward, R.C. and Robinson, M., 1990. Principles of Hydrology. Third Edition: McGraw Hill, Maidenhead, U.K., 365 p.
I found some vandals making the surface water definition as "gay" and such...but since i'm new the deleting was sort of...weird as you can see in the history. Howver, the new edition no longer has the "gaY" definition, but rather the OLD one Clonecommander (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Urban surface water runoff
The image corresponding to the caption "Urban surface water runoff" may be "photo-shopped".
Saturation excess overland flow
In university we call saturation excess overland flow Dunne overland flow or Dunnian overland flow. Maybe that can be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BDW BDW (talk • contribs) 22:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)