|
The Cuyahoga River, meandering through Cleveland, Ohio has caught fire three times this century. In both 1936 and 1952, the river burned, but caused little or no fuss. Not so in the turbulent year of 1969. On June 22, a section of the river covered in oil and debris was ignited by an unknown source. Although the blaze did not last long, only about twenty minutes, the ramifications have continued to this day. The fire, subsequent publicity and jokes still rankle Cleveland residents. They wish people would forget the entire incident.
Ironically, for the country as a whole, the river fire proved to be a positive thing. It captured public attention in a big way and led to the passage of major environmental legislation of the early 1970's. The incident in the Cuyahoga River became a rallying point for those fighting to keep our waterways clean.
The American Heritage Rivers Initiative is one of the most recent efforts to help our rivers. The Initiative started in 1997, when President Clinton first announced it in his State of the Union address. The intent was to encourage communities to come together around their rivers and develop strategies to preserve them for future generations. Knowing he would face opposition, Clinton said no new federal funding would be allocated, only monies already set aside for this purpose. The call was put out for nominations. Any river community working to improve or protect a river was eligible to nominate a river or segment of a river.
In all, 126 applications came in from 46 states and the District of Columbia. Each included a detailed action-plan
describing goals for protecting natural resources, promoting economic revitalization and preserving cultural heritage of the rivers.
An advisory committee, made up of non-federal experts in economic development, environmental restoration and
historic and cultural preservation, recommended 10 rivers for inclusion. President Clinton chose to designate a total of 14 rivers and did so in a formal celebration on July 30, 1998. Considered a "locally-driven" program, the administration said the community knew best what they needed and it was the federal governments role to support those efforts. Participation was entirely voluntary and could be terminated at any time.
For each river designated, a federal employee was named as "river navigator" to assist in carrying out the plans. The navigator's role was to help maneuver through the bureaucracy to tap funds from existing programs. Selected in consultation with the local officials, the river navigator would serve for up to five years.
However, the rivers initiative did not sail along on smooth waters: anything but. The objections were as diverse as the rivers themselves. One view held by several members of Congress and property rights advocates said the program was a "thinly veiled attempt by the federal government to usurp local control over land use." They also called it a direct attack on local control and a serious threat to state sovereignty. Others from this camp went so far as to label it the "American Heritage Rivers Land Grab."
Others opposed to the program were disturbed that President Clinton launched the initiative by executive order, rather than submit it to Congress as legislation. They felt he had over-stepped his authority and the entire initiative was unconstitutional.
Offering more food for thought, another critic questioned why we should add another layer of bureaucracy if the resources are already authorized and available? Why not simply list the various resources, with a contact name and let the communities handle it all?
In the end, twenty-six of the nominated rivers were removed from consideration during the review process, due to congressional vetoes.
On the other hand, 200 members of congress supported the program, as did the U.S. Conference of Mayors, who
passed a support resolution in mid-1997. Twenty-one governors also came out in support of the initiative. A joint statement released by 15 congressmen/women said, "Since this (American Heritage Rivers) program was first announced, we have been hearing from constituents who are very excited about the program and what it will mean for their communities."
Sponsors and supporters of the rivers initiative were surprised at the harsh opposition. In contrast to other
environmental endeavors that were widely acknowledged as controversial, the initiative created no new programs, imposed no new federal mandates and did not diminish local control. In a congressional hearing, the chairwoman of the Council on Environmental Quality, Kathleen McGinty said explicitly, "The American Heritage Rivers Initiative will not conflict with matters of state and local government jurisdiction, such as water rights, land use rights, land use planning and water quality standards."
Coming full circle, Ohio's Cuyahoga River is one of the designated rivers. Although still far from perfect, the Cuyahoga has vastly improved since reaching that low point in 1969. Today, the banks of the river run through a festive area of restaurants and shops, an example of urban renewal that experts say is a direct result of improved water quality.
Clevelanders can now be proud of their river.
What is there to learn from the American Heritage Rivers Initiative? Sometimes you have to fight a battle within a battle, because unfortunately, the distrust of our federal government runs deep. What was intended to help and promote our waterways looked to some like a devious government conspiracy. Is it all a plot to take away land rights from private citizens? Did our President overstep his bounds? I honestly don't know. In the end, each of us must decide for themselves.
The contention does underscore the treacherous and murky politics that accompany even projects which appear to be in everyone's best interests. Clean, healthy rivers should be a goal we all share, but obviously opinions differ on how we can accomplish that objective.
The initiative survived the stormy seas and is currently in progress. For more details, go to the EPA web site and search for it.
| 
