by on 
The Beatles’ single, “Get Back”, was at the top of Billboard Hot 100, the New York Jets were enjoying the off-season following their Super Bowl III win earlier in the year, and the United States was less than one month away from putting a man on the moon. Sunday, June 22, 1969, the second day of a summer that would become iconic in American history, would soon be known for a consequential event of its own.
Late that morning, as a train traveled across a bridge spanning the Cuyahoga River, sparks fell from the tracks and ignited polluted waters below. Though damage from the roughly half-hour fire was notable, it was neither the only nor most destructive of the Cuyahoga River fires to affect the Cleveland, Ohio area throughout the pre- ceding decades. In fact, over 10 river fires on the Cuyahoga had occurred. Moreover, other river fires in industrial cities of the U.S. had also taken place. Nonetheless, the story of this fire would reach the greater populace of the nation a month and a half later on August 1, 1969.
The degraded quality of the nation’s air and water was becoming ever-present on the minds of Americans during this time of the late 1960s. The release of literature such as Silent Spring, advances in scientific under- stating of natural resource processes, and the presence of visibly discernable impacts to air and water quality all added to emphasize the topic. Therefore, when the August 1, 1969 issue of Time Magazine included an article discussing the June 22 Cuyahoga River fire, the story and associated photograph quickly became a leading example of the need to address water quality.
Over the next three years, the photograph of the Cuyahoga River fire, which was actually a photograph of the 1952 fire, was joined with reports from entities such as the Department of Health, Education and Welfare; and U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries—a predecessor component of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Their findings detailed the perilous status of many U.S. waters. As a call to answer that status, Congress began efforts to revise the nation’s water quality regulations by first analyzing previous regulations, or the lack thereof.
Up to 1969, two key pieces of surface water regulation were in effect: the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948. The River and Harbors Act essentially made it illegal to discharge refuse into navigable waters and their tributaries in the U.S. without a permit. Likewise, damming, dredging, filling, or other alteration to the shape or course of a navigable river were also regulated activities under this act. Though environmental in nature, the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act chiefly served to ensure navigable waters of the United States would remain just that— navigable—with minimal or otherwise worthwhile interruption for the good of in- interstate commerce. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948, on the other hand, was not only environmental in nature, but also chiefly water quality legislation. However, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 had limited means of regulatory applicability and enforcement, as evidenced by the Cuyahoga River.
To address the limited means of water quality regulation, former Congressman John
Blatnik of Minnesota, along with his ad- ministrative staff member and congressional successor, Jim Oberstar, worked with other members of Congress to revise the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948. The resultant legislation outlined water quality standards, administrative processes, and expectations for the quality of regulated surface waters in the United States. This was accomplished by combining key components of both the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 while rewriting and redefining much of how water quality management activities are to be regulated and measured. These sub- substantial revisions resulted in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. But these characteristics of the act alone are only a portion of the story of its creation.
Equally as important, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, better known as the Clean Water Act, had the overwhelming support of both aisles of Congress. In fact, when President Nixon vetoed the Clean Water Act for reasons associated with its stated price tag at a time when the Vietnam War was in full swing, Congress overrode the veto swiftly and by an overwhelming margin. That is not to say the president was at odds with Congress on the legislation as a whole. Rather, Nixon, president at a time of the first Earth Day and the one to sign the Environmental Protection Agency into existence by Executive Order, only objected to fiscal cost under circumstances of the time. In the end, visual events, such as the Cuyahoga River fire of 1969, in conjunction with scientific findings, led to unified efforts in support of water quality regulation.
Recently, some of the CWA regulations placing limits on pollutant chemicals allowed near streams and wetlands have been repealed. As old administrations pass to new administrations, we will undoubtedly see these kinds of changes occur. However, the CWA appears to remain an important tool in the protection of our nation’s water resources.
While this is merely one of the many stories leading to the creation of the Clean Water Act more than 45 years ago, the story of June 22, 1969, on the Cuyahoga River served as what is considered by some historians as the most poignant example for water quality regulation change. Since its promulgation, the Clean Water Act has led to countless other stories, including revisions, challenges, and judicial interpretations. These events, along with the goals of the Clean Water Act and how it works, are stories for yet another time.
