If Sen. Ed Muskie were alive, he’d be proud – but unsatisfied – with progress toward improving water quality in the Androscoggin River. The yardstick of his perception would be long, from the river’s worst days to today, perhaps its best in memory.

Muskie’s grandchildren, though, likely wouldn’t share his view. No matter how often Grandpa Ed spun stories about the Androscoggin’s recovery from putrefaction, they would view the river as foul, especially when compared to its cousins, the Kennebec and Penobscot.

There’s a generation gap in how the Androscoggin River is perceived. That’s the conclusion of a new study from Bowdoin College and the Androscoggin River Alliance, which gauged impressions from 960 students and parents who live in the towns and cities along it.

It is a logical finding. Older generations recall the Androscoggin as the-river-that-you-shall-not-swim-in. Today, the river is making a comeback in their minds, because of the efforts of advocates like Muskie.

But as much as the Androscoggin has improved, it cannot escape its past. The river, for the younger generation, still doesn’t meet minimum Clean Water Act standards, still has mills accused of plumes and pollution, and suffers against the environmental progress of other Maine rivers.

The Androscoggin hasn’t had a watershed event, like the Kennebec did with the breaching of Edwards Dam, or the coalescing of a powerful advocacy group, like the Penobscot has with the Penobscot River Restoration Trust.

Potential for both exists. A proposed state park in Turner, on thousands of Androscoggin Land Trust acres, just could be the river’s catalyzing moment. It’s success would also solidify the influence of its advocates.

The Androscoggin, after all, cannot seize its potential if pessimistic perceptions of it remain. The Bowdoin College/ARA survey is not good news – it shows improvement to the Androscoggin’s reputation might be fleeting.

A whole generation of riverside residents knows how far this river has come. Yet the next is not cognizant of the progress, and considers the river’s health as either fair or poor. This perception gap must be bridged.

Those who know the river’s story must pass it along to the next generation, so they can become standard-bearers for moving the Androscoggin towards its destiny: as the renewed centerpiece for the communities along its banks.

This will take the combined efforts of environmental advocates, the land trust, citizen landowners and industry. It means more hearings on river health, more evaluations of point and nonpoint pollution sources, and more complicated talk about oxygen bubblers, BOD, TSS and TMDLs.

Most of all, though, it means an end to looking at the Androscoggin as a river in distress, and instead as a river in recovery. One generation is already doing this.

They must tell the next all about it.