The Charles River is an iconic New England landmark known for its popularity among boaters, rowers and other outdoor enthusiasts. But over decades of use, the river suffered from pollution and exploitation — until clean-up and revitalization efforts started in the 1960s, according to the U.S. Department of the Interior.
In the precolonial period, the river was widely known as the Quinobequin by the Indigenous Massachusett people, who utilized it for its rich soil, fish and game. From 1616 to 1618, colonial trade boats from Europe introduced a series of devastating plagues that wiped out coastal indigenous groups, allowing the settlers to then lay claim to the river.
The earliest English settlers of the river were Samuel D. Champlain and Captain John Smith, the latter of whom renamed the river to “The Massachusetts” before King Charles I decided he should name the river after himself, the “River Charles,” according to the 1998 book The Charles A River Transformed.
The newly-dubbed “River Charles” attracted many of the earliest European settlers, including many Puritan religious refugees, as part of “The Great Puritan Migration.” These Puritans quickly established the Massachusetts Bay Colony and founded three communities: Watertown, Boston, and Cambridge.
By the turn of the 19th century, the River Charles became one of America’s most industrialized areas. European settlers populated the banks of the river with factories and commercial businesses, which dumped toxic chemicals, waste and even untreated sewage into the river.
The industrialists filled and dammed the river to make space for buildings and factories, destroying the salt marshes that had previously protected it. It wasn’t until various environmental justice movements and widespread public awareness of climate change in the 1960s that the river’s health began to be addressed.
One of the most important pieces of legislation in protecting the Charles is the Clean Water Act of 1972. This federal law regulates the dumping of pollutants and waste into bodies of water in the United States. It also made it illegal to release pollutants from discrete sources, like pipes or man-made ditches, without a permit into navigable waters — waters that can be traveled on by boats and other watercraft. While the act was a landmark shift toward preventing further pollution in America’s waterways, the Charles remained deeply contaminated for decades.
The river didn’t become safe for the public to swim in until 2013, according to Bloomberg. Even then, the Charles River Watershed Association declared the river only swimmable when it adheres to the water quality requirements, which are tested periodically during boating season.
Today, there are various non-governmental organizations, volunteer groups and non-profit organizations working to protect the Charles and limit bacteria, algae and city runoff in the river, hoping to make it safe and swimmable on a larger scale.
The Charles River Conservancy, or CRC, and the Clean Charles River Initiative have been some of the most active organizations advocating for improvement in the river’s water quality.
Established in 2000, the CRC is a nonprofit that encourages community members to engage with the river and fosters public support for environmental initiatives such as the Floating Wetlands Project. The project entails installing a 700 square-foot wetland with thousands of native species downriver of the Longfellow Bridge. The wetlands’ purpose is to prevent harmful algae blooms in the river by absorbing nutrients in the water and supporting biodiversity in the river.
“We have an artificial island on the river that measured the benefits of this technology, and found that it was a worthwhile one to continue pursuing,” said CRC Director Laura Jasinski. “We … are looking to both advance policy and a project to expand it.”
The Clean Charles River Initiative has been another key movement working toward the river’s cleanliness. Introduced by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1995, the initiative aims to make the Charles more swimmable by reducing sewage pipe overflows that feed into it.
The work of these environmental groups has proven successful, according to a grading system established by the EPA. Since 2019, the EPA has been conducting an “assessment of local water quality conditions” in the Charles, and its findings have shown stable growth in river water quality in most of the 80 miles of the mainstream river.
“It’s become cleaner, especially in the spring,” said Northeastern sailing coach Jonathan Farrar, who has been coaching on the river for over a decade. The team practices three times a week on the Charles, and Farrar said he has noticed improvements in water quality and an increase in wildlife in recent years. Nevertheless, he expressed concern over various health risks posed by the river, specifically during algae blooms.
“Oftentimes, when people wipe out, I have to tell them to sail in and shower off,” Farrar said.
Despite the success of these initiatives, the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, or MWRA, recently proposed a draft plan, the Updated Long Term Control Plan, that would change the rivers’ EPA rating to be so that combined sewer overflows would be allowed indefinitely in the river, a detriment for river health. The plan also aims to reduce CSO overflows by more than 50% by 2050 while still allowing sewage overflows to occur in the river.
The MWRA was initially set to vote on the legislation on Nov. 19, but has postponed the voting date indefinitely “in order to address questions and comments that have been received from MWRA Board Members and the public.” Organizations like the Charles River Watershed Association, or CRWA, are urging citizens to continue to push back on this proposed legislation, as it would be a major setback to the progress made over the past decades.
Public perception of the river and its cleanliness has also changed over time, particularly due to these organizations and initiatives that have garnered public support through their work.
“It’s definitely dirty,” said Abby Thornhill, a biotech firm research technician working at Thermo Fisher Scientific, who has lived in the area for five years. Thornhill said she didn’t hold any preconceived notions about pollution in the Charles when she first moved to Boston, as she often saw sailors and rowers practicing on the river. She “learned about how dirty it was in a microbiology class [at Suffolk University],” she said.
“Along the shore, the sediment has really bad bacteria that can cause diseases, so if you’re going to go in the Charles, you’re supposed to jump off a boat, and not walk into it,” Thornhill said.
While acknowledging the sanitation issues on the Charles, she also expressed hope for the river’s future, stating that “I think the city has done well in taking care of it.” Thornhill added that she had heard of cleanup projects and trash pickups.
Whether it be through water sports, boat tours or runs along the water, the Charles provides a hub for community and is a major staple of Boston’s culture. Because of the many ways the river is used and valued, more and more people are advocating for its cleanup and protection.
Public involvement in cleanup efforts is crucial in advancing environmental awareness for the Charles, advocates said. Jasinski emphasized community support, urging the public to get involved through organizations and clean water initiatives.
“There is a lot more that can be done by people feeling like they can do something,” she said.
