Charles River:
History & Issues Plaguing Its Water Quality
by Dave Brown, August 22, 2005
Introduction
Located in eastern
Massachusetts, the
Charles River is a small American waterway compared to rivers like the
Mississippi and Hudson. However, when considering its role in
allowing for urbanization to define the greater
Boston area and inviting concentrated human impact to fiddle
with the environmental stability of the
Charles River area,
this river is just as significant as the major rivers that have come
to shape America’s history. Max Hall, a journalist who won multiple
awards for his 1984 article “The People’s River” featured in
Harvard Magazine, expresses relevant reasoning as to why the
Charles stands out among all rivers in the world. “It may be the best
example anywhere of an urban river that has been radically reshaped
and controlled in the service of the public [1].” In the following
overview of the Charles River, you will better understand the publicly
generated sources and effects of the water quality issues that have
plagued the river, and the reasons for recent and ongoing research to
improve the water quality.
A
Profile of the Charles: Physical Characteristics
The
Charles River, although relatively small, is the longest river
entirely within
Massachusetts.
According to agencies associated with the Charles River such as the
Charles River Watershed Association (CRWA) and Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the river weaves along an eighty mile winding
path and a 350-foot drop in elevation from Echo Lake in Hopkinton to
Boston, and is the heart of the surrounding 308-square-mile watershed
(the area that drains water runoff into a specific river or other body
of water). It is fed by approximately eighty brooks and streams and
passes through fifty-eight cities and towns before emptying into
Boston Harbor.

Figure 1
- Map of
Charles River
[2]
The Charles River crawls at an average of about 368-cubic-feet per
second, a very slow rate compared to the
Connecticut River,
boasting a flow of about 16,180-cubic-feet per second [1]. The
Charles River Watershed Association observes that due to its sluggish
flow, the river water is brownish green in color because it “literally
steeps like tea through the abundant wetlands along its path [3].”
Striped bass are just one amongst the twenty species of fish
that can be found traversing the waters of the
Charles River.
Herrings are another member of the river’s population and being that
they are a migratory species, they require fish ladders installed
along dams in order to swim upriver to lay their eggs [4]. Many public
recreational activities occur along and within the Charles. Although
urban bustle affects the swimmability of the Charles around Boston,
people can bathe in areas upstream from Watertown throughout much of
the year. Kayaks, motor boats, and yachts can be seen dotting the
river along with a scattering of recreational parks. The “Head of the
Charles Regatta” is a very prestigious event bringing crew teams from
all parts of the country to compete in a three-mile course that ends a
half mile above the Eliot Bridge. With such high utilization of the
Charles River, it is important to develop and maintain a healthy
environment for humans and
water life alike. We can look at the development of the Charles
throughout its known history to understand where the issue of its poor
water quality is rooted.
A Brief History
of the Charles
Let’s go back 11,000 years when
glacial activity initially carved the shape of the Charles.
Its erratic bed was caused by glacial debris, the shape
of the bedrock it cut through, and the remaining bergs of ice it had
to navigate around. Sea level at that time was seventy feet lower
until it stabilized at its current location about 3,000 years ago.
Archeological evidence shows proof of human existence in the eastern
Massachusetts
area shortly after glacial retreat. The region’s early beings
utilized the river for transportation and fishing. Fishing techniques
like fish weirs (barriers of stakes, stones and clay) were built in
the Charles, causing fish to collect in certain areas thereby making
them easier to catch. Other than using the waterway for fishing and
transportation, these early
individuals didn’t alter the Charles in any significant way. The
Viking explorer Leif Ericson might have passed along the coast around
1,000 AD, but to date, there is no evidence of Vikings settling in or
near the area at that time [1].
Upon European exploration in the early 16th century
and settlement of the area in the early 17th century,
Native American life and its impact on the
Charles River
continued in this way. The Algonquin speaking natives inhabited the
area at that time, perhaps calling the river Quinobequin (meandering)
or Shawmut, meaning “where there is a big river.” When the English
began to settle in what was then the Boston/Cambridge area, the river
was named after Prince Charles who soon became King Charles I [1].

Figure
2:
The geography of the mouth of the Charles and the surrounding area
from the 17th century [1]
During the 1600s and 1700s, transportation across the river
via ferries and then bridges made settling along this area very easy.
In 1786, the famous
Charles River Bridge
was built following the ferry route that started in 1631, connecting
Boston and Charlestown. Known as the greatest American bridge at that
time, this initial engineering of the 1503-foot Charles River Bridge
sparked the construction of several other bridges that could now span
such a broad width and benefit from financial success of bringing
products and people to and from the Boston markets [1]. Throughout
the 19th century, the city was expanded by filling in areas
of water around the Back Bay and Charles River mouth. Fill was taken
from the three hills that made up Boston (Fort Hill, Copps Hill, and
Trimont), and piled in the surrounding water [5]. This changed the
shape of Boston’s and Cambridge’s lands and further affected the flow
of the river, lending to its ability to clean itself.
The most influential
activity in altering the water quality of the Charles during the 19th
century came as a result of industrialization and construction of
dozens of mills along the river. Because dams provided a major power
source for the mills, many of these manmade barriers were constructed
along the Charles, backing up the flow and sometimes causing flooding
of pastureland and hay cutting areas as well as cutting off access by
migratory fish to their spawning grounds upstream [3]. In 1820, a
mill dam was laid across
Back Bay and by 1880,
the Back Bay was filled. The addition of this dam and others along
the river coupled with the shrinking of the Charles at its mouth
slowed the rivers pace, causing a drastic change of tide. The smell
during low tide was repugnant, and became even worse due to pollution
from industry and a boom in population around the area [1].
The pollution came as a result of various forms of dumping in
the River from both industrial and residential development. These
included byproducts from the mills as well as road run-off and
residential waste. Such contamination affected the surrounding
wildlife, especially the fish populations which virtually vanished
[3]. According to a CRWA document, “In 1875 a government report
listed 43 mills along the 9.5-mile tidal estuary from Watertown Dam to
Boston
Harbor.
The Charles River was so polluted from industrial and domestic wastes
including the raw sewage from almost all of Cambridge, that the
report recommended abandoning cleanup efforts on the river from south
Natick (its midpoint) to the ocean, and focusing instead on the upper
half, the Boston area [3].”
First Steps in Restoring the Health of the Charles
During the 1700s
and 1800s, the legal concept of property ownership in America changed
from private undisturbed ownership to productive use, economic
development, and the needs of the community. In the early 1900s,
there was a public and political crusade for the Charles River to be
exploited in order to contribute to Boston’s health, recreation and
economic appeal. Several men are attributed with their contributions
to this effort including Charles Eliot, James Jackson Storrow,
and John Ripley Freeman [1].
Charles Eliot,
the son of Harvard’s President Charles William Eliot, was one of the
pioneers in this endeavor. He had joined the prestigious Olmsted
landscape architecture firm that was responsible for the development
and construction of New York City’s Central Park. Eliot and others
helped Massachusetts create the Metropolitan Park Commission in 1892.
They united with the Metropolitan Sewage Commission and the
Metropolitan Water Commission in 1919 to form the Metropolitan
District Commission with jurisdiction over the lower half of the
Charles River, to serve the areas parks, water and sewage [1].
The Commission
convinced political leaders to move the industrial area away from the
base of the Charles River and to build a dam at the mouth of the River
to keep out tides. Additionally, they requested that the odoriferous
estuary be turned into a man-made basin. The product of their orders
became known as the Charles River Basin and is similar to Norumbega
Park, another man-made basin along the Charles River serving as a
recreational center and created by mill dams in the late 1800s.
James J. Storrow
was highly influential in persuading the Massachusetts legislature to
investigate the need for a dam. John R. Freeman was appointed the
chief engineer. Freeman was an MIT graduate who conducted the
research and his thorough report in 1903 led the way for the
construction of the dam [1].
These significant improvements to the basin and its management
in the early part of the 20th century set a solid foundation for urban
development. At the turn of the century, metropolitan trunk sewers
were built that intercepted aforementioned sewage before it became
runoff into the Charles [1]. In the 1930s the Quabbin-to-Boston water
supply system was built, fostering increased growth in
Boston that would not
have been possible with the previous local water supply system [3].
Although industrial pollution began to subside as a result of changed
industry around the Charles, the metropolitan and municipal
sewage
systems’ inability to handle
the cities population growth took over as the main proponent of
pollution to the Charles [1].
Combined Sewage Overflow (CSO)
facilities and piping systems were built to act as an overflow
storage/minor treatment facility for excess storm water and sewer
flow. During dry conditions, sewage water can easily flow to a
treatment plant, but during rain storms, the
capacity of the pipes can not handle the excess storm water
flow, so overflow facilities accommodate this surplus of water.
Without CSO’s, this mix would back up into homes, businesses,
and public streets. Instead, these combined systems can store some of
the mix and discharge the rest into rivers, lakes or coastal areas,
subjecting them to higher pollutant loads [6].
Eventually this new system could not handle the wastes
generated by the surge in population. The
Charles River then
felt the impact of domestic, municipal and industrial wastes. This
pollution and the slowing of the river flow
further
prevented the Charles from being able to cleanse itself. By
the mid 1960s, the River was so polluted resulting in fish kills,
trash, and almost unusable recreation areas due to the health risks
and unpleasant smell [3].
Since that time, several steps have been taken in reducing the
amount of pollutants that discharge into the River and
Boston Harbor,
including primary and secondary treatment plants, and outfall tunnel
that discharges sewage into the deep waters of the harbor making it
easier for the sewage to be diluted and swept away by the current. In
order to improve the water quality by treating waste water and
reducing pollutants in such an aforementioned manner, it is important
to discuss the major contaminants within the Charles and how they
affect the water quality of the river.
Pollutants and Water Quality of the
Charles River: Then and Now
There is not too much
recorded data representing the water quality along the Charles River
previous to the latter half of the 20th century, but the
effects from the industrial era on the water from the Charles was a
result of byproducts from the
mills built along the rivers for logging, the forging of iron, and
processing wool [7].
Since then the sources of pollution
have changed from industrial wastes, to contaminants from surface
runoff from the combined sewage overflow system. In addition to the
human waste and other proponents of sewage being released into the
Charles, Kathy Baskin, project manager for the CRWA explains that,
“careless dumping of used oil, antifreeze, lawn mower gasoline and
household or garden chemicals is a real threat to the health of the
Charles River [8]." Wherever these chemicals are not disposed of
properly in the Charles River Watershed, they are washed into the
waste water piping system, and will eventually be discharged into the
River.
The
major parameters currently affecting the Charles’s health include
bacteria, chlorophyll a, phosphorous, and nitrogen compounds
[9]. The presence and concentration of these elements are tested
frequently at many sites along the Charles River and its tributaries
to monitor the River’s water quality.
The presence of bacteria is the most
critical evaluation of water quality in the Charles. High levels of
bacteria, namely E. coli, are found in the waste water from combined
sewage overflows that discharge into the Charles River. The National
Center for Infectious Diseases lists E. coli as a recreational water illness (RWI),
which is an illness spread by “swallowing, breathing, or having
contact with contaminated water [10].” E. coli is a compilation of
hundreds of strands of bacteria found in the digestive tracts of
healthy humans and animals, and some strands can be very toxic to
human, wildlife, and aquatic health when coming in contact with
contaminated water. Bacteria laced water in the Charles can result in
bloody diarrhea
and occasional severe blood problems
and kidney failure [11]. Although E.
coli may not be a direct threat to human health, it shows the presence
of sewage, which most likely contains a variety of other harmful
bacteria and viruses [12].
The EPA has developed state standards
for minimum concentrations of each health risk parameter that water
bodies in Massachusetts must meet in order to have safe swimming or
boating conditions. In the latest CRWA water quality report, it is
noted that the state standard for swimmable water is 126 colonies per
100 milliliters of water, and the boating standard is 630 colonies per
100 milliliters of water [9]. In this report, the CRWA notes that in
2004, “66% of 218 total E. coli samples fell below the state swimming
standard, and 99% fell below the boating standard [9].” In dry
weather, with no CSO discharge into the river, the safe standards were
met more frequently, while during storms, E. coli presence was much
higher. Over the past 10 years however, results have shown that the
bacteria concentration has generally decreased even though it is still
of major concern [13].
Chlorophyll a,
phosphorous, and nitrogen all affect the water quality in a similar
way. Phosphorous comes from lawn fertilizers and “detergent rich
wastewaters”, and nitrogen in the form of ammonia is found in
untreated sewage [9]. In the appropriate chemical form, these
nutrients are used by aquatic plants, promoting rapid algal growth.
The presence of chlorophyll a in the water indicates high
concentrations of algae. The plethora of plant life in the Charles
River seems like it would be beneficial to the environment and water
quality; however, the higher concentration of algae uses up a lot of
dissolved oxygen found in the river bottom compromising survival of
other aquatic species. A
Kentucky-based website on water quality explains the following about
dissolved oxygen:
“Total dissolved gas concentrations in
water should not exceed 110 percent. Concentrations above this level
can be harmful to aquatic life. Fish in waters containing excessive
dissolved gases may suffer from "gas bubble disease"; however, this is
a very rare occurrence. The bubbles block the flow of blood through
blood vessels causing death. External bubbles (emphysema) can also
occur and be seen on fins, on skin and on other tissue. Aquatic
invertebrates are also affected by gas bubble disease but at levels
higher than those lethal to fish. Adequate dissolved oxygen is
necessary for good water quality. Oxygen is a necessary element to all
forms of life. Natural stream purification processes require adequate
oxygen levels in order to provide for aerobic life forms. As dissolved
oxygen levels in water drop below 5.0 mg/l, aquatic life is put under
stress. The lower the concentration, the greater the stress. Oxygen
levels that remain below 1-2 mg/l for a few hours can result in large
fish kills [11].”
In the 2004 Monthly Monitoring Report
prepared by the CRWA, 88% of 33 total phosphorous samples exceeded EPA
limits of 0.024 mg/L and 50% of 30 orthophosphate met the same
standards. Out of 29 samples of nitrogen based ammonia, only 1 sample
exceeded the EPA limits of 0.3 mg/L. Furthermore, 78% of 28 samples
of nitrate-nitrite exceeded safe levels of 0.57 mg/L, and 90% of 30
nitrogen samples exceeded the same EPA standards. In regards to
chlorophyll a, 64% of 31 samples failed to meet EPA limits of
0.00375 mg/L [9].
Besides these major components
contributing to the water quality of the Charles, other physical and
chemical conditions are measured. According
to the 2005 EPA Water Quality Report, the “Core Monitoring” program
measures the following factors in addition to the bacteria and
nutrients listed above: temperature, pH, specific conductance,
turbidity, clarity, transmissivity, total organic carbon, total
suspended solids, apparent and true color, and dissolved metals
[13].
Temperature changes and the change of
pH of the water due to rain and runoff from urban activity affect the
survival of aquatic ecosystems. High temperatures decrease the amount
of available oxygen in the water, and pH levels outside a particular
range prohibit aquatic survival and can cause injury to human skin
[11]. Specific conductance measures how well water can conduct
an electrical current, which indirectly measures presence of elements
that affect the electrical current. Presence of these elements alters
the conductance, and indicates a trace of contaminants from various
sources of runoff, affecting the quality of the water [14]. Turbitity,
clarity, transmissivity, apparent, and true color are more or less
irrelevant measures of the water clarity, but can indicate changes in
the make-up of the water.
Government and Private Initiatives to Clean up the
Charles
As you may already be aware, many organizations have taken
responsibility in tackling the water quality situation of the
Charles River. The
historical effects on the Charles, along with the continuing
urbanization of this area, was instrumental in getting Federal, State,
local and private agencies to step in and develop collective plans to
remediate the water quality of the
Charles River.
The Charles River Watershed Association (CRWA) was formed in
1965 in response to increasing public concern about the environment
and the declining condition of the
Charles River. Since its earliest days of advocacy, CRWA has figured
prominently in major cleanup and watershed protection efforts, working
with other citizen groups as well as local, state, and federal
officials. This association’s current work ranges from addressing
faulty government water regulations to water quality monitoring of
some thirty-seven sites along the eighty mile stretch of the Charles.
The Charles River Flagging Program displays the suitability of boating
along the Charles. Among other practices, the CRWA also employs a
Total Maximum Daily Load project to quantify the pollutant loads
impacting the
Upper Charles River. The CRWA works collectively with organizations
like the Environmental Protection Agency and Massachusetts Department
of Environmental Protection [15].
The EPA was established in 1970 to set
federal to local standards to protect human health and the environment
in the U.S. In 1995, the EPA established the Clean Charles 2005
Initiative, creating a taskforce and numerous subcommittees to restore
the Charles River to a swimmable,
boater-friendly, and fishable condition by Earth Day in the year 2005.
The Initiative’s strategy was developed to provide a comprehensive
approach for improving water quality through CSO controls, removal of
illicit sanitary connections, storm water management planning and
implementation, public outreach, education, monitoring, enforcement,
technical assistance, and scientific studies. The EPA reports
significant and
demonstrable progress
in the improvement of the
Charles River’s
overall health and water quality since the birth of the Initiative.
For example, based on data collected by the Charles River Watershed
Association, the number of days when water quality is meeting state
bacterial standards has
increased from
nineteen percent for swimming and thirty-nine percent for boating a
decade ago, to fifty-four percent and ninety-six percent respectively, today. EPA data indicates that the swimming standard in the most
heavily used part of the river, i.e. in the basin between the
Massachusetts Avenue Bridge and the Longfellow Bridge, was met
consistently during summer sampling events in 2004 [16].
Other organizations contributing to
the clean-up of the Charles include the Army Corp of Engineers which
conducts studies and implements programs benefiting the Charles River
area, the United States Geological Survey which conducts various
studies on the Charles River Basin, the Massachusetts Water Resources
Authority (MWRA), the Charles River Conservancy, the Clean Charles
Coalition, and many other organizations, towns, and local colleges.
Following the Path to the Clean
Charles River
As you can see, water quality remediation has been a priority
pertaining to the
Charles River for
almost a century and the efforts are still strong and widespread,
giving optimism to those aware of the struggle to clean this river.
You too can become involved in the efforts through OUR Charles. For
more information about OUR Charles and information related to the
Charles River and Water Quality, navigate around this website
and check out the links page as well as the references below.
References
[1] Max Hall,
The Charles: The People’s River. (Boston: David R. Godine Inc.,
1986).
[2] Charles River Watershed Association (CRWA), “Watershed Map and
Towns,”
http://www.crwa.org/index.html?wavestop.html&0 (August 2005).
[3] CRWA, “History of the
Charles River,”
http://www.crwa.org/index.html?wavestop.html&0 (August 2005).
[4] CRWA, “Charles
River Watershed Facts,”
http://www.crwa.org/index.html?wavestop.html&0 (August 2005).
[5] “The History of Landfill in
Boston,”
http://www.iboston.org/rg/backbayImap.htm (August 2005).
[6] Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection, “The History of Landfill in
Boston,”
http://www.mass.gov/dep/brp/csos/csofaqs.htm
(August 2005).
[7] Search Boston,
“Boston History: The History of Boston, Massachusetts,”
http://www.searchboston.com/history.html (August 2005).
[8] CRWA,
“Stenciling Project Warns Against Dumping in Storm Drains,”
http://www.crwa.org/index.html?wavestop.html&0 (August 2005).
[9] “CRWA Monthly
Monitoring Program: Final Report,” (May 2005).
[10] National Center
for Infectious Diseases, “When You Swim, Swim Healthy!,”
http://www.cdc.gov/healthyswimming/ (August 2005).
[11] “Important Water Quality Measurements,”
http://www.state.ky.us/nrepc/water/wcparint.htm
(August 2005).
[12] EPA, “Warning Issues on Bacteria Levels in
Charles River in
Milford, MA,”
http://www.epa.gov/region01/pr/1996/pr0912a.html (August 2005).
[13] EPA, “Clean
Charles 2005 Water Quality Report,”
http://www.epa.gov/region01/lab/reportsdocuments/charles/report2003.pdf
(August 2005).
[14] “General Information on Specific Conductance,"
http://bcn.boulder.co.us/basin/data/COBWQ/info/SC.html
(August
2005).
[15] CRWA, “CRWA’s
Mission,”
http://www.crwa.org/index.html?wavestop.html&0
(August 2005).
[16] EPA,
“Charles River,”
http://www.epa.gov/region01/charles/index.html
(August 2005). |