Tuesday, May 26, 2015

Cities Cleaned Up Rivers before EPA


The fable of the burning river, 45 years later, Posted on May 25, 2015 Written by washingtonpost.com
Print Friendly
On the morn­ing of June 22, 1969, oil and debris that had col­lected on the sur­face of the Cuya­hoga River as wound its way through Cleve­land caught fire. The story attracted national atten­tion, and was fea­tured in a report on the nation’s envi­ron­men­tal prob­lems in the August 1 Time mag­a­zine. The fire illus­trated just how bad the nation’s envi­ron­men­tal prob­lems had become by 1969. As then-Environmental Pro­tec­tion Agency Admin­is­tra­tor Lisa Jack­son com­mented in 2011, the fire was evi­dence of “the almost unimag­in­able health and envi­ron­men­tal threats” from water pol­lu­tion of the time. After all, as one envi­ron­men­tal activist put it, “when rivers are on fire, you know things are bad.”
The image of a river on fire, pub­lished by Time, was seared into the nation’s emerg­ing envi­ron­men­tal con­scious­ness and fueled the grow­ing demand for greater envi­ron­men­tal reg­u­la­tion. The nation cel­e­brated the first Earth Day in 1970 and in 1972 Con­gress passed the fed­eral Clean Water Act. Today the nation’s waters are much cleaner, even if some prob­lems remain, and many credit the CWA with elim­i­nat­ing the fire threat on the Cuya­hoga and pre­vent­ing other rivers from befalling a sim­i­lar fate. (If only China had sim­i­lar pro­tec­tions.) One recent com­men­tary on the 40th anniver­sary of the Clean Water Act was titled “Why Rivers no Longer Burn.”
The prob­lem with the story of the 1969 Cuya­hoga River fire is that so much of what we think we know about this story just is not so. Start with the famous image pub­lished by Time mag­a­zine ref­er­enced above. It is a pic­ture of a fire on the Cuya­hoga, but its not a pic­ture of the fable 1969 fire. Rather, it’s from a fire 17 years ear­lier, in 1952. Time didn’t run a pic­ture of the 1969 fire because there weren’t any.
The real­ity is that the 1969 Cuya­hoga fire was not a sym­bol of how bad con­di­tions on the nation’s rivers could become, but how bad they had once been. The 1969 fire was not the first time an indus­trial river in the United States had caught on fire, but the last. Through­out the late 19th and early 20th cen­tury, river fires were com­mon. There were at least 13 on the Cuya­hoga alone, but rivers in Bal­ti­more, Detroit, Buf­falo, Philadel­phia, and else­where had fires as well.
Fires were costly and dan­ger­ous, so action was taken long before the fed­eral gov­ern­ment got involved. In Cleve­land, efforts had been made to reduce the fire threat on and off in the first part of the 20th cen­tury, but by the time of the 1952 fire — a major con­fla­gra­tion — local civic and busi­ness lead­ers had had enough, and they stepped up their efforts. This not only reduced the fire threat, but also sparked other efforts to improve the river’s health in the 1960s. In 1968, Cleve­land vot­ers approved a $100 mil­lion bond issue to finance river cleanup efforts, includ­ing sewer sys­tem improve­ments, debris removal, and stormwa­ter over­flow con­trols. By com­par­i­son, in 1968 the fed­eral gov­ern­ment only spent $180 mil­lion nation­wide on water qual­ity and pol­lu­tion con­trol efforts and was still mostly con­cerned with ensur­ing nav­i­ga­bil­ity of water­ways, even at the expense of main­tain­ing water qual­ity. Against the back­drop of slow but delib­er­ate local action, the 1969 fire was a reminder of how things had been, and rein­forced the need for con­tin­ued progress.
By the time Con­gress got around to pass­ing the CWA in 1972, river fires were no longer a threat. What­ever else the CWA did — and it cer­tainly helped improve many of the nation’s waters — it did lit­tle if any­thing to pre­vent rivers from catch­ing flame. It’s also not clear how much the CWA accel­er­ated improve­ments in water qual­ity that were already under­way at the time. While most states largely ignored water qual­ity con­cerns in the first half of the twen­ti­eth cen­tury, state gov­ern­ments became far more active through­out the 1960s, such that by 1966 every state had enacted water pol­lu­tion con­trol leg­is­la­tion of its own. Progress was slow, but for those pol­lu­tants of great­est con­cern at the time, progress was being made well before the 1972 CWA was enacted, let alone before it was imple­mented and enforced.
On the 45th anniver­sary of the fabled Cuya­hoga River fire, it’s appro­pri­ate to cel­e­brate the sub­stan­tial envi­ron­men­tal progress of the past sev­eral decades, while rec­og­niz­ing that many envi­ron­men­tal prob­lems remain. Yet we should not be too quick to embrace a sim­pli­fied nar­ra­tive that cred­its the fed­eral gov­ern­ment with over­com­ing state and local neglect of envi­ron­men­tal con­cerns. As the story the Cuya­hoga River illus­trates, the actual his­tory is far more com­pli­cated, and the lessons to be drawn are not so simple.
For more on the Cuya­hoga River fires and their role in the nation’s envi­ron­men­tal his­tory (per­haps far more than you’d really like to know), here’s a link to my 50+ page arti­cle “Fables of the Cuya­hoga: Recon­struct­ing a His­tory of Envi­ron­men­tal Pro­tec­tion,” from the Ford­ham Envi­ron­men­tal Law Jour­nal. See also the links in this blog post from 2009. I also rec­om­mend David & Richard Stradlng’s “Per­cep­tions of the Burn­ing River: Dein­dus­tri­al­iza­tion and Cleveland’s Cuya­hoga River“ from the July 2008 issue of Envi­ron­men­tal His­tory.
Related Posts

No comments: