Firefighters battle a fire on Ohio's Cuyahoga River in 1952. The 1969 blaze, one of nine on the river since 1868, came at a time of increasing environmental awareness and symbolized years of environmental neglect. This, in turn, helped spur grassroots activism that resulted in a wave of federal legislation devoted to clean air, clean water, and natural resource protection.
-----------
Environmentalists observing 2009 as "The Year of the River" are celebrating the remarkable return to health of the Cuyahoga River over the last four decades. But before there was a Cuyahoga comeback, the Cuyahoga was a catalyst.
When the oily, murky and sluggish waterway caught fire in June 1969, it not only caught the attention of a previously indifferent industrial nation -- it also ignited an already smoldering ecological movement. That movement toward environmental responsibility included the first Earth Day and passage of the federal Clean Water Act of 1972, still the most influential water improvement measure on the books.
"The fire did contribute a huge amount to the new environmental movement and it put the issue in front of everyone else, too," said Jonathan Adler, environmental historian and law professor at Case Western Reserve University. "Water pollution became a tangible, vivid thing -- like it had never been on a national level.
"There was a sense of crisis at that point. It was: Oh, my God -- rivers are catching on fire.' "
Of course, raging rivers of fire weren't unheard of in Cleveland. In fact, the Cuyahoga had burned at least nine times since the late 1860s. The river was increasingly filled with flammable liquids as it drained Cleveland industrial byproducts into an equally polluted Lake Erie. Oil slicks on the river surface burned much worse in the past. Among them: A 1912 fire had killed five dock workers when the blaze spread to the shipyards and a 1952 fire caused an estimated $1.5 million in damage.
But while some of those earlier disasters had commanded banner headlines in The Plain Dealer and the now-defunct Cleveland Press, they didn't appear to dent the broader consciousness of an American public focused on economic progress. "In both Cleveland papers, the news was the damaged trestles, not the burning river," write history professor David Stradling of the University of Cincinnati and brother-journalist Richard Stradling. The duo's paper, "Perceptions of a Burning River," was published in the July 2008 Environmental History magazine.
"Remember, a lot of people saw a filthy river as a sign of progress, not a problem at all," Adler said.
More:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/04/12