• Hudson River Greenway Act

at enhancing commerce, such as by ensuring that the waterways were passable and navigable.

The visionary inventor-entrepreneur Robert Fulton recognized that steam could be harnessed to propel commercial traffic in reliable, scheduled service, and his steamer, the North River, later called the Clermont, took its maiden voyage from New York City to Albany in 1807. The importance of Fulton's steam-powered service cannot be underestimated: not only did it accelerate trade and commerce, but it also created a new demand for fuel to power steam engines, which proliferated rapidly throughout the ensuing Industrial Revolution. In the early days, the source of fuel was invariably wood, and the need for wood fuel along with a demand for tannins obtained from hemlock trees led, in turn, to increasedlogging pressures throughout the Hudson's watershed (McMartin, 1992). This demand continued to intensify with the development of the railroad, and by the 1860s, the combination of logging for fuel and construction had taken a noticeable toll on the forest resources of the Adirondack and Catskill mountains (Terrie, 1994).

Deforestationin the late nineteenth century continued until a public outcry from a variety of strange bedfellows led to one of the first major environmental protections in the United States. In Terrie's (1994, p. 83) words, "The key authors of the Adirondack conservation story were journalists, wealthy businessmen, cut-and-runloggers, governmentof-ficials, aristocratic hunters and anglers trying to protect their sport, and transportation interests worried about water levels in the Hudson River." The culminating event was the adoption of state constitutional protection of the Adirondack Park in 1894 as "forever wild," which has made it nearly invulnerable to the whimsy of a governor and legislature.

While science was not the determining factor in the development of environmental legislation to protect the Hudson River watershed, scientific information and advice played an essential role in framing the issues and raising awareness of them. George Perkins Marsh's historic book, Man and Nature; or, Physical Geography as Modified by Human Action (1864), led to a more widespread understanding that mountain forests control runoff, erosion, sediment input and regional microclimate. Verplanck Colvin, who for three decades surveyed the length and breadth of the Adirondacks, reported back trenchantly to the legislature about the steady demise of forested areas. His persistence raised awareness of the immensity of the problem in the halls of power in Albany. Great men of learning of the time, Harvard Professor C.S. Sargent and Dr. F. B. Hough, through their testimony and own publications, gave further credence to the concerns raised by Marsh, Colvin, and others.

Irrespective of the voices calling for environmental protectionperse, naturalresource management efforts during this period were dominated by economic interests (Johnson, 2000), and the Hudson River and watershed continued to experience significant change as a result of economic development and population growth. Public works projects (for example, navigation channels, hydroelectric power plants, flood control projects, etc.) were designed and constructed to meet economic needs, with little or no consideration of the impacts of these activities on river resources, other than navigation. At the turn of the century, the principal objectives for government regulations associated with the lower Hudson River and New York Harbor included: the prevention of the dumping of solid materials into navigation channels by the federal government; the management of a quarantine by NewYork State to limit the spread of infectious diseases from vessel passengers; and New York City's prevention of "local nuisances along the shore." (Metropolitan Sewerage Commission, 1910)

By the turn of the nineteenth century, the Port of NewYorkwasthebusiestandmostimportantinthe country (Klawonn, 1977). A vast network of navigation channels and berthing facilities was created in the lower Hudson River and NewYork Harbor. Disposal of sediments dredged from the construction and maintenance of these channels was problematic. Much of the dredged material was dumped in sites in the entrance channels to the harbor, creating new navigation hazards. In addition, the lower river and harbor were convenient dumping grounds for street sweepings and construction debris. Because these practices were seriously affecting navigation by clogging shipping channels, the Federal 1888 Supervisor of the Harbor Act was enacted to prevent the discharge of solid materials into the harbor and its tributaries. The Act established dumping grounds for dredged material and other materials in areas offshore of the entrance to the estuary. To further prevent hazards, Section 13 (the Refuse Act) of the River and Harbor Act of 1899 was enacted by the U.S. Congress to prevent the discharge of any refuse matter that might impede or obstruct navigation.

By the 1870s, landfilling along the banks of the lower Hudson River was a widespread concern. As the Manhattan and New Jersey shorelines grew closer together, changes in sediment deposition patterns followed. While natural depositional patterns caused sediments to accumulate on the New Jersey side of the river, it was believed by some that shoaling had increased by the "artificial" scour produced by the narrowing of the river (Klawonn, 1977). The first Federal water legislation was enacted by Congress in 1886 as the River and Harbor Act. Eventually harbor lines were established to guide the placement of bulkheads and piers, and a permit program was established under the amended River and Harbor Act of 1899 to review the placement of materials into navigable waterways which extended beyond the harbor lines, with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as the responsible Federal agency. These new authorities brought a halt to significant incursions of new land into the lower Hudson River; however, they had little effect on the massive filling of wetlands and mudflats in other areas of the lower estuary (Squires, 1992).

While Federal government interest was primarily vested in protecting navigation with good reason, the states and New York City focused attention on public health issues affecting the harbor. The New York Times (1890) called the New York City's sewerage system an "abomination" and warned that deposits of sewage sludge accumulating in New York Harbor are "far from being innocuous to the health of the people." The early pollution of the harbor is graphically summarized by Waldman (1999), who terms it "ecological strangulation." In 1903, the NewYork Bay Commission, created by a special act of the New York State Legislature, found the harbor to be seriously polluted and recommended that a metropolitan sewerage district be established to deal with the sewage problem. Following up on the BayPollutionCommission's recommendations, the NewYork State Legislature passed the NewYork Bay Pollution Act of 1906, directing the City of New York to create the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission to devise ways of correcting the sewage problem.

The Commission did a remarkable and comprehensive job of investigating conditions in New York Harbor, which they found to be "more polluted than public health and welfare should allow" (Metropolitan Sewerage Commission, 1910). The results of the Commission's work are contained in several large volumes, published between 1906 and 1914, and include: detailed scientific and engineering investigations, including data from an extensive monitoring program started in 1909 and continuing today as the New York Harbor Survey; opinions of prominent scientists, engineers, and public health officials; and a plan for a new sewerage system for New York City. The technical information was unambiguous about the need for improvements to the sewerage system, and the Commission's findings paved the way for vast improvements to the water quality of the lower Hudson River.

When a problem transcends state boundaries, it falls under Federal jurisdiction. However, if there are no Federal programs designed to address the issue, states form alliances or compacts with one another to seek solutions. Because interstate alliances and compactscould unduly encroach upon Federal authority and violate Federal laws, the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3) requires that states gain Congressional approval before entering into such agreements. Of the thirty-six interstate compacts authorized by Congress prior to 1921, virtually all were established to resolve rudimentary issues, such as the settlement of boundary disputes (Mountjoy, 2003).

Compacts can, however, provide states the freedom to find creative solutions to complex problems of mutual concern, and put the development of those solutions in the hands of the people who are most familiar with the issues (Sundeen and Runyon, 1998). In fact, important and powerful interstate agencies have been created through compacts. The first, and probably the most famous, is the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which was established in 1921 to improve port management in the country's largest port. The shoreline and bottom of New York Harbor have been reshaped by port interests, much of which by the Port Authority, as the need for deeper channels and greater wharf space grew throughout the twentieth century. After the Port Authority was established, more than 150 other compacts were formed throughout the country over the next seventy-five years. Their purposes ranged from conservation and resource management to civil defense (Mountjoy, 2003).

In the 1930s, the New York metropolitan region had moved ahead with plans for the abatement of sewage-related problems, with partnerships forming not only between the states of New York and New Jersey, but with the state of Connecticut as well. Because the Federal government had little to offer, and because the expertise and funding for developing engineering solutions were at the regional level, a Tri-State Compact was formed. In 1936, the Interstate Sanitation Commission, authorized by the compact, held its first meeting (Interstate Sanitation Commission, 1937). It was given many responsibilities, including developing water quality classifications for the Sanitation District (which generally includes the lower Hudson River, New York Harbor and Long Island Sound), inspection of sewage treatment facilities, enforcement of non-compliance with the compact, and technical planning and monitoring. The Commission's work over the years focused attention on the problems created by inadequate sewage disposal systems on NewYork Harbor and is given large credit for keeping capital improvement projects on track.

From the 1930s through 1968, modest changes were made to the overall management structure affecting the Hudson River Estuary to include the consideration of factors other than public health and navigation. The Federal government was gradually assuming more responsibilities in environmental management through new legislation and regulation revision. The Anadromous Fish Conservation Act (PL 89-304) was enacted in 1965 (Limburg et al., Chapter 14, this volume), the Corps of Engineers' regulatory program was revised to include a "public interest review" of proposed actions instead of just a review of the project's effects on navigation, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and Amendments (1948,1956,1965) were enacted, which stressed the need for water quality standards and sewage treatment upgrades, and the Pure Waters Program was established in NewYork State (Chapter 23, this volume). During this period the

Federal role in water pollution control was purely advisory, and administered through the Public Health Service (O'Connor, 1990).

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment