After decades of significant progress towards cleaning the Charles River, a recent proposal from the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) has sparked considerable concern among environmental advocates.
The MWRA has suggested abandoning long-term goals aimed at eliminating sewage outfalls. This decision comes on the heels of alarming spikes in E. coli bacteria levels, particularly after heavy rains, which overwhelm outdated sewer systems in Boston and Cambridge.
The transformative journey of the Charles River—once a source of embarrassment, now a vibrant location for recreational activities—hangs in the balance. Environmental monitoring over the past 17 years has demonstrated that heavy rainfall can increase bacteria counts in the river by more than 100 times, raising significant public health concerns.
Despite these warnings, the MWRA’s recent proposal seeks to downgrade the Charles River to a classification that would allow for combined sewer overflows (CSOs). This change would effectively formalize practices that are currently deemed illegal by the Clean Water Act, as it entails discharging minimally treated sewage into what is classified as a “Class B” river.
Since 1998, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has granted variances to allow such discharges, but these were initially intended to be temporary measures while solutions were sought. The MWRA’s current recommendation to reclassify the river as “Class B (CSO)” raises questions about environmental accountability and the future of the river’s health.
In 2024 alone, 48 million gallons of untreated sewage mixed with stormwater were released into the Charles. With the reclassification, this accepted form of pollution could become a long-term reality. The authority’s latest assessment suggests that the average volume of sewage overflow during typical years could reach around 38.4 million gallons by 2050—almost three times higher than previous projections.
The MWRA’s rationale for this regression cites the prohibitive costs associated with preventing CSOs, stating that achieving near-zero CSOs would require funds that could reach into the billions. This analysis opens a fraught conversation about the allocation of resources, particularly for communities with fewer financial means.
While it’s essential to evaluate the fiscal implications of environmental projects, the question arises: At what point do costs outweigh the necessity for a clean and healthy river? Both the Charles River Watershed Association and the Mystic River Watershed Association stand united in advocating for the highest level of control over pollution.
Many community members and advocates express frustration with the MWRA’s proposed standards, feeling that it represents a surrender to pollution rather than a commitment to public health and environmental sustainability. Concern is compounded by the impending impacts of climate change, which is expected to escalate the frequency and severity of storms, exacerbating the CSO issues.
Historical context highlights that similar pessimism from the 1980s—when experts deemed the Charles unsalvageable—did not dictate the river’s trajectory. If those attitudes had prevailed, Boston today would be a markedly different city, devoid of the clean recreational spaces that many residents cherish.
The MWRA’s acknowledgment of increased rainfall probabilities for the future does not inspire confidence in its decision-making. Instead of establishing more ambitious goals aligned with environmental resilience in a changing climate, the MWRA’s proposal reflects a trend of lowering standards to meet fiscal constraints.
Far from being merely a policy change, the choice to allow for millions of gallons of human waste to enter the river calls into question the integrity of local efforts aimed at preserving water quality. Advocacy groups are mobilizing to challenge this proposal and garner public support for maintaining stringent water quality standards.
As a volunteer water quality monitor, I, too, share the conviction that data collection should inform proactive measures to safeguard the river.
The MWRA’s current proposal appears to epitomize complacency, characterized by an acceptance of pollution that contradicts years of hard-won progress. The lingering odors from CSOs serve as a reminder of the potential consequences of this shift in philosophy—a surrender that could jeopardize the health of both the river and the communities it serves.
image source from：wbur
