Moodule 1.2- A turning point event for environmental science: Celebrating the comeback of the burning river, 1969-2019

                                       (www.pophistorydig.com/topics/cuyahoga-river-fires/.)

1. Point of view-

The point of view for this video comes from that of individuals who were actively present in the clean up process, as well as from individuals who are experts of their fields. 

• Captain Wayne Bratton was a gentleman who first hand saw and lived through the effects being caused by river pollution. He remembers a time when the sights and horrid smells were seen as signs of job prosperity, and they were thought to just be a normal part of the day, but now knows that things are different in the way people view pollution (Andrew J Tobias).
• Bob Wysenski is a current member of the Ohio EPA and was a part of the initial clean up crew for the river who too part in Remedial Action plan meetings with the International Joint Commission  
• Jenn Greiser who is the senior natural resource manager in Cleveland metro, with special focus to river as the area of concern
• Frank Greenland is the director of watershed programs in Northeast Ohio regional sewer district
• Elaine Marsh who works for summit metroparks 
• Klye Dreyfuss-wells is the CEO of the Northeast Ohio regional sewer district
• Jane Goodman who is the executive director of the Cuyahoga river restoration project 
• Bill Zawiski is a Ohio EPA water quality supervisor, an d
• don Walters who is the mayor of Cuyahoga Falls  

2. Purpose-

    The goal for the creation of this video was to be informative, but mostly persuasive. As is mentioned in the video sometimes in the environmental community people get bummed out because they see mistakes going on , or they talk about climate change issues and it makes those people feel like there is a lack of progress going on. This can be troubling and discouraging, which ultimately could make people stop participating in efforts that were originally put in place to help better the environment. We as listeners are given information about the chaos that was created in the river, and how at times it seemed like a hopeless effort to try and clean. The mindset of hopelessness is easy to fall into when situations seem overwhelming, and when it seems like what you're doing isn't even making a difference. If it is somewhat easy for educated members of the environmental community to get discouraged by what seems like a lack of progress, then imagine how easy it is for the regular average joe to become discouraged from doing their part. The speakers on this document recognize this, and utilize a persuasion tactic known as reframing to try to change the way people view their contributions (Frame of reference for reading and writing). When the fire on the river initially happened basically everyone in the community came together and became good citizens and did their part in researching and exacting action to start cleaning up the river. In just 50 years alone a seemingly helpless and extremely polluted river was able to make a complete change and become an opportunity for economic growth and tourism. By reminding people about the small and big efforts that were made by the community to successfully make that change it can help to open the mind of everyday people to the possibility that yes, even small little changes and contributions can drastically effect the outcome of an environmental situation, and maintaining those changes means sustainability of healthy environments. 

3. Questions at issue- 

    The questions at issue here are 

                           1) How do we get people to actively be involved in environmental preservation issues? 

                           2) How do we encourage people to maintain the good efforts that they are making towards preserving or helping better the environment, especially when they start to feel discouraged by what is perceived as a lack of progress? And

                           3) How can we improve the water quality of the area of the river that isn't meeting EPA standards?

4. Information-

    The environmental world was pretty different before the burning of the Cuyahoga river happened. Before that, corporate companies residing on the river or on streams that fed into the river had the right to dump waste like oil and liquor into the water because there were no water protection laws that existed like the water pollution control act of 1970, and 1972. On August 1, 1969 TIME magazine captured an image of the fire raging in the water and it raised such a high amount of awareness and political involvement that it finally made people realize it was time to do something. A group was put together called "The oil study group" and it was made up of all of the people who handled oil on the river. They all became better citizens and did their parts in research to figure out how to solve their mess. This lead to the creation of Remedial Action Plan meetings by the International Joint Commission which is quite interesting because initially this committee had been created to handle border disputes,  but water quality became such a pressing issue in the 60's and 70's that they shifted their focus to that. The burning of the river sparked the creation of the first version of the Clean Water Act, brought about the creation of state and federal level EPA commissions, the Northeast regional sewer district, and the Cleveland regional sewer district to tackle broad issues.  

    When people of the community were trying to figure out how to handle cleaning up the river they didn't have the technological advancements or knowledge that we do now in order to be able to help them. They had to put in countless hours of research on simple subjects just to start to understand how to go about solving their problem. They literally had to form a whole new education system to properly execute clean up, and over time their processes got better and better so eventually they had to create completely new infrastructure in order to clean up the river. 

    Improvement to the situation was majorly contributed to sustained investment over time and all of the active involvement that came from the communities surrounding the river like Akron and Cleveland. For example the Northeast Ohio regional sewage district acts like the EPA in the sense that they make companies clean up their waste stream before allowing discharge to be moved to the river. The way that the community handled and solved this problem became a model for environmental protection. People from all around the world visit the Ohio environmental protection agency to hear about the last burning of the river and the creation of the U.S. environmental protection agency.

    Now that the water is clean there are evident qualities of life enhancements, like there are fish in the river again, and people are using it for recreation and sports activities like fishing and rowing. Currently the only major water quality problem that stands in the way for the Cuyahoga river is the obstruction of flow and life being caused by the Edison dam at the old hydroelectric plant half way up the river. In order for the dam to be removed partnerships above just the EPA are required in order to receive permission. On top of this, members of the community must agree with the removal of the dam. Removal of two dams along the Cuyahoga in previous years proved to be beneficial to the community. Fish populations increased, and it opened up about a half a mile of challenging white water rapids. If Edison dam were to be removed it would open that space up to about two and a half miles of challenging white water rapids, which is something that can't be found east of the Mississippi river. This will stimulate major economic opportunities like jobs and tourism, which is why businesses like hotels and restaurants have already been seizing the opportunity of river front property. 

 

5. Interpretation and Inference-

    The solutions that the citizens of Ohio came up with to clean up their river included:

• bring the corporation's responsible together to implore their resources in helping clean up the river 
• Put immediate and intense focus on water quality and infrastructure to improve that 
• Creating the first version of the Clean Water Act
• Form the EPA at both state and federal level, as well as regional sewage districts 
•  Create an education system in order to understand how to best solve the problem at hand
• putting continuous investment into the river's clean up over 50 years 

    The solutions they came up with to solving the remaining water quality issues in the Cuyahoga include:

• raising awareness in the community about the damaging affects that a useless dam has on the ecosystem, specifically the river.
•  Inform people about the positive affects that were created by removing two dams on the river in the past 
• incentivizing people with the prospects of new opportunities for fun, tourism, and jobs  

6. Concepts-

    Some concepts that I was unfamiliar with were:

• The Federal Water Pollution act of 1970 and 1972: The original act was passed in 1948 to establish water quality and pollution control. The 1970 version's amendments expanded the federal governments powers and from there they established a state certification procedure to prevent water quality from dropping below standards. The 1972 version's amendments restructured the authority for water pollution in order to make sure laws were able to be affectively implemented and enforced (EPA History). 
• Remedial Action Plan (RAP): "A Remedial Action Plan (RAP) is a detailed summary of the environmental issues found on a property during a site characterization and outlines a plan of action that illustrates which remedies will be used to achieve cleanup goals. Also included is the plan of implementation and how its effectiveness will be measured" (Ryan, Shawn).

7. Assumptions-

    One major assumption I noticed through the course of the video was that things are really bad when rivers are burning. I understand how it can be seen as a bad thing, and in a way it was because the quality of the water was so horrible and and the event was so catastrophic. Realistically though it was actually a good thing that we as a global society had this experience. 

8. Consequences-

Before the burning of the Cuyahoga river there were barely any laws in place to protect water quality or to keep people from dumping waste into it. The burning of the river brought about an entirely new education system, infrastructure system, environmental protection policies, and job opportunities for the who world. Ohio is looked to as a model to lead by example of how to handle environmental situations.

Sources:

Andrew J. Tobias, cleveland.com. “Longtime Cleveland Boat Captain Worries Elimination of Great Lakes Cleanup Program Would Turn the Clock Back on Pollution: Ohio Matters.” Cleveland, 19 Apr. 2017, www.cleveland.com/open/2017/04/longtime_cleveland_boat_captai.html.

“EPA History: Water - The Challenge of the Environment: A Primer on EPA's Statutory Authority.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, 4 Oct. 2016, archive.epa.gov/epa/aboutepa/epa-history-water-challenge-environment-primer-epas-statutory-authority.html.

“Frame of Reference for Reading and Writing.” Ideas for Educators, www.ideasforeducators.com/idea-blog/frame-of-reference-for-reading-and-writing. 

J.d. The Pop History Dig, 12 May 2014, www.pophistorydig.com/topics/cuyahoga-river-fires/.

Ryan, Shawn. “How Much Does a Remedial Action Plan Cost?” EMS Environmental, Inc., 25 Oct. 2018, emsenv.com/2016/04/28/remedial-action-plan-cost/.