Cleaning up US waterways: 5 success stories

More than 40 years after passage of the Clean Water Act, US waterways still face significant challenges. However, several cleanup success stories offer hope that remediation is possible.  

Ann Hermes/Staff/File
A person prays at sunset along the Charles River in Cambridge, Mass., on Oct. 7, 2010.

The Environmental Protection Agency rates more than half of US waterways as being in poor condition. But in recent decades, some lakes and rivers have undergone dramatic recoveries, thanks to local, state, and federal restoration efforts. Here are a few examples culled from EPA data.

At one time, heavy rains washed as much as 1.7 billion gallons of sewage and storm water a year into Massachusetts' Charles River. EPA-enforced renovations of Boston's sewer and storm-water systems nearly eliminated that pollution. In 2013, the river was deemed swimmable for the first time since the 1950s.

The bottom of Ohio's Ashtabula River once harbored 25,000 pounds of polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, and other toxic compounds following decades of unmonitored dumping of hazardous waste. Dredging efforts completed in 2008 successfully removed more than 630,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment. The Ashtabula is now considered fishable.

Virginia's James River once ran thick with algae, sewage, and agricultural chemicals. Thanks to waste-water treatment upgrades and pollution controls, smallmouth bass fisheries have recovered, and bald eagles, ospreys, and blue herons have returned to the area.

In the 1990s, the waters of California's San Diego Creek contained high levels of pesticides, the result of residential and agricultural runoff. Education campaigns designed to teach homeowners and nursery managers alternative pest-control and runoff-prevention techniques led to a dramatic turnaround.

Winter fish kills and summer algae blooms were once annual occurrences in Wisconsin's Bass Lake because of runoff from livestock operations and other agricultural activities. The implementation of barnyard-control practices and the addition of sediment-control basins and leachate-collection systems have revitalized fish populations and eliminated the occurrence of algae blooms.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.