The Political Air: Birmingham and the Struggle for Statewide Air Quality Legislation, 1967-1971

Abstract

The Political Air:Birmingham and the Struggle for Statewide Air Quality Legislation, 1967-1971 Jonathan Foster (bio) By the late 1960s, Birmingham's historical reputation as an industrial center was perhaps overshadowed only by its more recent and heavily publicized role as a center of protest and violence during the civil rights demonstrations of 1963. Although the "Magic City" had given way to the "Tragic City" in many circles, the public identification of the city as a center of steel and iron production remained strong. Alongside this industrial identity, Birmingham had also built a reputation for poor air quality. A 1968 letter from Oregon teen Don George to city air pollution control engineer Charles B. Robinson is evidence of how this perception extended well beyond the state's borders. Having recently developed an interest in air quality and environmental activism, George revealed his anxiety over local air quality control and felt certain that the city continued to suffer from "a bad air pollution problem."1 While the young environmentalist's assumption was correct, he was likely unaware of his letter's timely arrival. As George put pen to paper, local environmental activists, who included members of the city's public health and medical community, were locked in a heated conflict with industrialists and an industry-friendly state government over the issue of air quality regulation. Embedded within this political battle over clean air and the state's environmental quality of life was the influence of Alabama's historical deep-rooted resistance to federal intervention. [End Page 40] The battle for air quality legislation that young George's letter had become part of was not the first time Birmingham reformers had sought to limit local airborne pollutants. A similar struggle had occurred in the city some fifty-four years earlier. Then, as in 1967, proponents of clean air ran up against backers of the local industrial economy. During this early episode the outcome was never in doubt. In 1913, booming industrial Birmingham briefly emerged as a state leader in air pollution regulation thanks to the efforts of a few progressive-minded local officials. That year city commissioner James Weatherly introduced an ordinance aimed at abating high levels of coal smoke. At that time the city often suffered under a choking blanket of emissions from the centrally located Sloss-Sheffield plant's blast furnaces. While many locals often associated smoke with progress and industrial growth, atmospheric pollution could also be economically damaging. One 1907 estimate listed smoke as being responsible for $3 million in annual damages to local merchants' inventory. With this in mind, during routine deliberations the three-member Birmingham Board of Commissioners adopted Weatherly's ordinance without regard to the reaction of local industry. They soon realized this was a major oversight, as the ordinance inflamed local industrialists. At issue was the ordinance's restriction on the firing of iron and steel furnaces to only three minutes per hour within the city limits. Industrialists also resisted the ordinance's creation of a smoke inspection agency ordained with the power to arrest violators.2 Industrialists' fears proved warranted as the pollution inspectors quickly exercised their authority. Mere days after the ordinance's passage the inspectors arrested the vice-president of Sloss-Sheffield Furnaces after his company blatantly ignored the smoke ordinance. Industrial reaction proved swift and overwhelming. With the support of local newspapers, city industrialists embarked on a press campaign aimed at repealing the law. Birmingham residents found themselves constantly bombarded with a stream of newspaper headlines equating [End Page 41] smoke with progress and payrolls. Articles abounded detailing the plans of local industry to flee the city in light of oppressive air regulation. Newspapers made it evident that when they left the companies would take jobs and the future growth of the city with them. Additional articles quoted various "experts" on the impracticality of outlawing smoke and promoted the idea that local dust, not coal smoke, represented the truly damaging pollutant.3 Faced with this onslaught and public outcry, the commission quickly amended the smoke abatement ordinance. Weatherly conceded that this initial attempt had been too strict and introduced an amendment that increased the hourly time limit on coal burning...