fron Russell E. Train, Administrator

                        December 31, 1974

     This year-end report provides me with a welcome opportunity as

Administrator to communicate directly with each member of EPA.  One

of the most unfortunate aspects of my job is the fact that I have so

little chance to meet and talk personally with the people who make

this Agency work.  I find this particularly frustrating because I

know what extraordinary talent, creativity and commitment we pos-

sess at all levels of our Agency.  It is the job each of you does

personally that makes all the difference in the success of the Agency.

I am grateful to each of you.  High performance throughout the Agency

reflects the recognition at all levels of the vital nature of EPA's


     Another frustration  pervasive, I suspect, in top management

jobs both in and out of government  is the increasing difficulty

of finding time for looking ahead, for identifying the broader

social and economic implications of programs, for developing value

systems which alone can make actions or analysis truly purposeful,

or most simply just finding time for thinking.  The issues and

problems demanding decision press upon you at a faster and faster

rate.  The flood of paper consumes your evenings and weekends.  The

days are filled with meetings  meetings with your own key staff,

Congressional hearings, interagency meetings on energy or other

pressing problems, meetings with various public interest groups,

meetings with industrial, agricultural and labor groups, meetings

with the press, even meetings to brief you on the next meeting.


In between, you travel, to meet and speak with groups in every corner

of the country and occasionally abroad.  (I often think that we must

increasingly substitute communication by satellite and computer for the

endless conferences that afflict us.  Perhaps growing energy constraints

will help promote this development.)  Of course, one must not discount

the fact that travel time is about the only time you can really read,

even read books.

     The point of this recitation is not to elicit sympathy, because all

of you are beset to some degree by this deeply troubling frustration of

our time, a condition which is clearly getting worse rather than better.

Management and administration is rapidly becoming a matter of "keeping

things moving," and "getting the job done."  A position such as mine

is sometimes described in the press as a "top policy job."  I guess what

I am trying to say is that there is damn little time to come to grips

with policy in the broadest sense of the term.

     This particular frustration is another reason why I welcome the

opportunity afforded by this year-end report to step back from the

job a bit, to take stock and to look ahead  even if in fairly brief

and imperfect a fashion.  (Characteristically, I guess, I am writing

these opening paragraphs over the Atlantic, heading for Moscow and

a four-day meeting of the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Joint Committee on Environmental


     You might think from what I have said so far that I am dissatisfied

with my job.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  I have loved


every minute of the fifteen or more months since I came to EPA.

They have been exciting months, months in which our environmental

programs have been maturing at the same time as we have been confront-

ed by the energy crisis and deepening economic problems.  It has been

a time full of controversy, to be sure, but it has not been petty

controversy.  The issues have been and continue to be very real and

basic to our society and its future well-being.  That is why EPA is

such a challenging place to be.  We are at the center of the currents

of change that we all sense to be moving deeply and forcefully through-

out the world.

     Let me say, first, that we have been making positive progress

in reversing past trends of environmental deterioration.  I say

this in full recognition of the fact that we have hardly more

than begun the task.  New problems confront us almost faster than

we can solve the old ones.  The longer range world problems of

population growth, food, economic development, and resource

allocation, among others, seem intractable.  Yet, without in any way

underestimating the difficulties ahead, I think it is important to

recognize the progress we have made.

     Over a very short period of time  short in relation to the

historic periods in which our environmental problems have been

generated  we have made excellent progress in developing a strong

institutional base for effective environmental management.  Since 1968,


at the Federal level, we have created the Environmental Protection Agency;

we have brought into being a Council on Environmental Quality; we have

created the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; we have seen

the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act and the institutional-

ization of environmental impact analysis throughout the planning and

decision-making process of government; we have seen passage of such

important legislation as the Clean Air Amendments of 1970, the Resource

Recovery Act of 1970, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments

of 1972, the Noise Control Act of 1972, the Marine Protection, Research

and Sanctuary Act. of 1972, the new pesticides regulatory authority

embodied in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act

of 1972, the Endangered Species Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act

of 1972, the Port and Waterways Safety Act of 1972, the Endangered

Species Act of 1969 and its 1972 amendments, the Marine Mammal Protection

Act of 1972, and just recently the Safe Drinking Water Act.  Never

before in history has a society moved so rapidly and so comprehensively

to come to grips with such a complex set of problems.

     At the State and local level across the nation, similar develop-

ments have been taking place in legislation, ordinances, and governmental

organization.  Indeed, as you know, we have been looking to State and

local governments to share more and more in the responsibility of

implementing and enforcing our various environmental programs.  I

consider this active intergovernmental partnership a key to the future

success of our environmental efforts.


     Around the globe, country after country has established new

governmental mechanisms for more effective environmental management.

Departments and ministries of environment are now comrnonplace.  These

have been important not only in terms of furthering internal environ-

mental improvement in the particular countries but in providing focal

points for more effective environmental cooperation internationally.

     Over the past three years, we have seen the conclusion and continuing

implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement with Canada

(1972), the U.N. Conference on the Human Environment at Stockholm  (1972),

the agreement at Moscow on a U.S.-U.S.S.R. comprehensive joint program

of environmental cooperation (1972), the agreement at London on an ocean

dumping convention (1972), the agreement at Paris on the World Heritage

Trust convention (1972), the agreement at Washington to limit and control

trade in endangered species (1973), the agreement at London on the Convention

to Prevent Pollution of the Seas by Vessels (1973), and the bilateral agree-

ments for environmental cooperation with the Federal Republic of Germany

and with Poland (1974) .

     The U.N. Environmental Program has been established at Nairobi.  In

addition, there is continuing activity within the environment committee

of The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development  (OECD) at

Paris, the Committee on the Challenges of a Modern Society  (CCMS) of

NATO, the Law of the Sea meetings, other international organizations

such as WHO, WMO, FAO, and UNESCO, as well as bilateral cooperation

with Japan, Mexico and other nations, in addition to those already



     EPA has actively supported all of these efforts to strengthen

international environmental cooperation.  Whether at Washington head-

quarters, our regional offices, or our labs, many of you have been

making major contributions to the success of this effort.  I

know this has often meant extra effort above and beyond your normal

job.  I commend you for your willingness to make that extra contribution.

Our resources for international work are limited, and we must neces-

sarily give first priority to our domestic responsibilities.  Yet

the problems of the environment are global.  There is no way that

any of us can "go it alone" environmentally.  We are all part of a

world natural system  the biosphere  and the continued healthy

functioning of that system is the fundamental prerequisite for all

human activity and, indeed, our ultimate survival.  I firmly believe

that the United .States should give strong and positive leadership

in international environmental matters  not to tell others what

to do but to share our knowledge and to help strengthen international

environmental cooperation.  Within that context and consistent with

statutory and budgetary requirements, I expect and want EPA to continue

its active and effective participation in the international environ-

mental area.

     I have been speaking thus far of institutional changes at the

governmental level.  Certainly of equal and very likely of greater

importance have been the changes in the private sector.  Industry

is making very substantial investments in pollution abatement  on

the order of $6.5 billion in 1974  investments which have generally


not been voluntary, but made in response to regulatory requirements,

actual or anticipated.  At the same time, environmental considerations

are more and more becoming a regular part of business planning and

decision making.  And more and more businesses are finding profit making

opportunities in pollution abatement.

     Our legal institutions  thanks in large part to the creative

work of the public interest law firms  have pioneered new approaches

to the solution of environmental problems.  Indeed, the courts have

often been out front of other government institutions in this regard.

Court orders have helped overcome bureaucratic inertia and resistance.

And, of course, EPA itself has not been immune from such court orders.

At times, we have been required by such orders to move at an administrative

pace which may have outstripped our ability to do as carefully considered

and well-managed a job as we would like.  On balance, however, the

influence of the courts has been very positive.  Responsible citizen

action through the judicial process is an effective and often needed

tool for holding bureaucratic feet to the fire.

     Citizen action through a wide variety of private environmental

organizations, whether national, regional, or local in nature, has

been the moving force in bringing about environmental reform.  It is

essential that the vitality of this effort be maintained and strengthened.

At this time of economic stringency, it is a matter of great concern

to me that financial support of private environmental organizations be

sustained.  I strongly hope that private foundations will not reduce their

support in this vital area.


     In a very real sense, the environmental movement in this country

can be said to have come of age over the past year.  Despite the fact

that we have been sorely beset with energy and economic difficulties

at precisely the time when the financial and other impacts of our

environmental programs were beginning to be felt, the commitment

of the American people to environmental progress remained firm.  Our

strong environmental laws  in particular, the Clean Air Act  have

withstood strenuous and sustained efforts to weaken them.  And if

anybody had any doubts about how high the environment ranks among

the concerns of the American people, the recent elections should

dispel them.  Wherever the environment was a prominent or pivotal

issue, the electorate came down rather emphatically on the side

of environmental protection, irrespective of party.

     Even without the external pressures imposed upon us by our

energy and economic problems, the short deadlines and the sheer

weight and complexity of our workload would have made the past year

a difficult one.  This is obvious, for example, in our air programs.

The Transportation Control Plans, the Indirect Sources and Significant

Deterioration Regulations, the New Source Performance Standards, the

Regulations for Light-Duty Diesel Trucks and for Motorcycles, the

Motor Vehicle Gas Mileage Labeling Program, the Regulations on Low-Lead

Gasoline, the Air Quality Maintenance Plans, the Assessment of National

Air Quality Trends, the Regulations on the Registration of Fuels, the

Hearings and other efforts concerning stack gas scrubbers for controlling


sulfur oxide emissions from power plants  even this incomplete

list of actions during the past year under our air program suggests

the magnitude of the effect we were required to undertake.

     We have also made major strides in water, pesticides and solid

waste.  In water, we went a long way toward breaking the log-jam

in the construction grants program  awarding almost $3 billion

in grants and reimbursements to cities and towns between September

1973 and August 1974.  As of the end of the year, substantially all

major dischargers were on a clean-up schedule under the National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination Program  (NPDES), and State assumption

of responsibility for this program had reached 40 percent.  We made

substantial progress toward eliminating ocean disposal of those wastes

that threaten the marine environment.  Over forty dischargers were

eliminated, and an additional twenty are scheduled for elmination

by 1977.  The number of ocean disposal sites in active use have been

reduced from 100 to 11.  We have now issued effluent guidelines for

30 major industrial categories, and we are well on the way to meet-

ing the 1977 and 1983 industrial discharge goals.  Of particular

significance were:  (1) the increasing role of the states both in

the inception and in the implementation of our water programs and

plans  a role whose increase we must and will continue to encourage

in every way we can, and (2) the move to assess the overall environ-

mental, social and economic impact of waste water treatment con-

struction as well as to integrate the planning, siting and timing

of such construction  including interceptors  with state and

local land use planning.


     In pesticides  also in the first full year of funding 

we constructed much of the basic framework of regulations and guide-

lines governing the regulation of pesticides after 1976.  We proposed

regulations for the re-registration of some 33,000 pesticide products

sold in interstate commerce, for registration for the first time of

the estimated 14,000 pesticides marketed in intrastate commerce, and

for the classification of all pesticides into either "general" or "re-

stricted" use categories.  These regulations were developed during the

course, and as a result, of extensive interchange with environmental

groups, pesticide users and manufacturers, and the scientific community.

The final regulations should be issued early in 1975, with Registration

Guidelines which spell out registration criteria following shortly there-

after.  In October 1976, pesticides classified as restricted may be used

only by certified pesticide applicators.  We have promulgated minimum

standards for certification and are now giving substantial technical

assistance to the states to help in training and certifying an estimated

2.75 million farmers and 110,000 cormiercial applicators.  The establish-

ment of a corps of certified applicators will permit the continued

availability of valuable pesticides to those who are fully qualified

to use them without endangering the nation's public or environmental


     After formal hearings that began on August 1973, and a careful

weighing of the evidence, I suspended in October 1974 all future

manufacture of the pesticides Aldrin and Dieldrin on the grounds that


the evidence of their potential to cause cancer in man was too strong

to permit their continued use.  In November, 1974, I issued a formal

Notice of Intent to Cancel for two other major pesticides  Heptachlor

and Chlordane.

     The energy crisis, together with our economic difficulties,

underscored and enhanced the importance of an all-out effort to expand

and improve our ability to recover energy from solid waste.  EPA has

identified 50 major metropolitan areas where materials and energy

recovery is feasible.  These areas account for about 66 million annual

tons of waste, or more than half of the municipal waste stream.  We

will continue to try to help these areas make the most of their waste

recovery potential.  Scheduled for completion and evaluation next

year are two major resource recovery demonstration projects  one

using shredded waste as a coal substitute in a St. Louis utility

boiler and the other converting solid waste to generate steam for

use by a utility in Baltimore.  A San Diego demonstration project

producing a fuel oil from solid waste will be underway next year.

Through these and every other means available to us, we will continue

to encourage the reduction and recovery of wastes.

     In my confirmation hearings before the Senate, I emphasized

my conviction that the Agency's standards and regulations can

only be as sound or as strong as the scientific foundation which

supports them.  The continued strengthening of our research and


development effort, particularly in the area of health effects, remains,

in my judgment, a matter of the highest priority.  We undertook,

over the past year, an intensive review of the management procedures

in our Office of Research and Development, which included, at my request,

an independent assessment of those procedures by a cottnittee of the

National Academy of Sciences.  As a result of this review, we are

presently at work trying to simplify and streamline R&D management

procedures in ways that will enable the Agency to take far more

effective advantage of its able and dedicated scientists.

     With the basic regulatory machinery increasingly in place, the

work of the enforcement division continues to grow in size and

significance.  During the past year, for example, the suits filed

against EPA, and EPA's own enforcement actions in water, were fifteen

times the number of the preceding year.  The next year and succeeding

years will see not only substantial increases in legal and adminis-

trative enforcement activity, but an accelerated and more and more

sophisticated monitoring and surveillance effort.

     These diverse program activities and achievements only suggest the

scope and sweep of important work    being carried out within the Environ-

mental Protection Agency.  I have not, for example, described the critical

assignments and very real progress the Agency has made in addressing prob-

lems of noise, radiation, ocean dumping, evaluating environmental impact

statements, or enforcing equal opportunity requirements.  The point I


wish to make is that the work of EPA includes all these elements and

many more, and we are moving ahead as a total Agency because of the

talent and constant effort of people who work in every one of these

program areas.

     In sum, we have made good progress in administering an extra-

ordinarily complex set of statutes and regulations which will have

far-reaching impacts upon the entire fabric of our society.  And

we are already starting to see some results.

     Recent reports show, for example, that the air in the Philadelphia

area has become substantially cleaner in the last few years.  In

Chicago, sulfur oxides have been reduced by 70 percent over the past

six years, and levels are now below the 1975 Federal ambient standard.

And concentrations of BOD (biochemical oxygen demand), COD  (chemical

oxygen demand), bacteria and suspended solids have greatly diminished

in 22 major water bodies which drain about 70 percent of our nation's


     The importance, even urgency, of continuing this progress is

underscored by the increasing evidence of the hazards to human health

caused by pollution.  Scientists, for example, have recently uncovered

disturbing evidence that children  whom we had believed unaffected

in any lasting way  can contract chronic and acute disabilities

as a result of air pollution.  As many as 20 percent of children

in a city such as New York,  one study showed, can develop severe

and chronic respiratory diseases.  Another study in a southern city

with relatively heavy air pollution had similar results. Recent


evidence of potential hazards in our drinking water is another case

in point.

     The more sophisticated and sensitive our monitoring devices

become, the more data we accumulate on the health effects of pollutants,

the worse things look.  Every year we introduce into the commercial

market hundreds of new chemical compounds often without any real idea,

any serious advance assessment, of their impact on public health.  Yet,

as we learned through our experience with vinyl chloride, we may not

discover how harmful a compound might be until years after it has

become a rather commonplace item in our every day life, even a signifi-

cant factor in our economy.  Until we set up a system of advance assess-

ment of these compounds  as would be established under the Toxic

Substances Control Act legislation which the Congress has failed to

pass       we will, in effect, be permitting the people of this

country to serve as guinea pigs in a mindless experiment with

potentially tragic results for many.  I am hopeful that Congress

will give high priority to this overdue legislation in the next


     The profound question that lies at the heart of this issue 

the question, really, that underlies such diverse actions as the

decision to deny a permit to E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. to

dispose of certain chemical wastes in the Gulf of Mexico, the decision

to suspend the manufacture of Aldrin and Dieldrin, and the unresolved

court case against Reserve Mining in Minnesota  is whether the full


presumption of innocence must be extended to these products and

compounds unless it can be decisively demonstrated that they are not

harmful to humans, or whether we should from now on insist that the

presence or introduction of these products and compounds into the

human environment must depend upon a determination that they do

not constitute unwarranted hazards to human health and life.

Our answer to this question will serve as a most accurate measure

of our camdtment to a safe and sound environment.

     We are, as an Agency, far better equipped to meet the challenges

before us than we were a year ago.  We have, for one thing, learned

some rather valuable lessons.  Our experience with the transportation

control plans and similar measures has, I think, made us all acutely

aware of how vital it is  no matter how short our deadlines  to

get the people affected by our regulations and standards involved at

the very start of the process of putting these regulations and

standards together.  Many of our actions have a very real, sometimes

even wrenching, impact upon our society.  When EPA proposes trans-

portation control plans for our cities, or rules designed to prevent

any significant deterioration of air quality in the nation, it is

dealing with very basic economic, social and institutional

factors that affect all aspects of our society.  Such proposals have

important implications for the way of life and the patterns of

behavior of individuals, families and communities across the

country.  It is essential that, in the creation as in the carrying out of

such proposals, we involve the public to the greatest extent possible.


This was the path we followed in putting together the court-ordered

regulations on significant deterioration regulations, and we must

continue to follow it.

     The task of establishing and maintaining effective communications

with those outside of EPA is one we irust all work at constantly.  Ob-

viously, there are occasions  for example, in the enforcement area 

where an "arm's length" posture must be maintained.  In the normal

case, however, there should be open and effective communication well

in advance of proposed actions with those who will be most directly

affected.  It has been my observation that the failure to do this

conscientiously usually leads to misunderstandings that would have

been avoided, unnecessary opposition, and overall delay.  In addition

to communication with regard to specific actions, it is important

to maintain regular contact as a matter of course with Federal

agency counterparts, State and local governments, as well as with

business, agriculture, labor and public interest groups.  Likewise,

in the research area, it is vital that we be open to and actively seek

a free flow of information and ideas from other researchers in both

the public and private sectors.  Beyond all this, every single

employee of the Agency can and should at all times maintain a

spirit of responsiveness and helpfulness in all contacts with others.

Let none of us forget that we are at all times the servants of the



     At one point in "Plain Speaking," his oral biography of Harry

Truman, Merle Miller asks:  "Mr. President, it's been said that

the Presidency is the most powerful office in the world.  Do you

think that's true?"

     Mr. Truman responds:

          Oh, no.  Oh, my, no.  About the biggest power the
     President has, and I've said this before, is the power to
     persuade people to do what they ought to without having
     to be persuaded.  There are a lot of other powers written
     in the Constitution and given to the President, but its
     that power to persuade people to do what they ought to do
     anyway that's the biggest.  And if the man who is President
     doesn't understand that, if he thinks he's too big to do the
     necessary persuading, then he's in for big trouble, and so
     is the country.

     EPA has been granted rather extensive authorities as a result of

Congressional and court decisions.  I hope that, as a result of our

experience over the past year, we have learned well the lesson that

all the statutory and court-ordered authority in the world is worth

nothing if, by the means and manner in which we carry them out, we do

not continue to demonstrate to the people of this country that we deserve

their support  to demonstrate that we are not, in fact, simply another

example of the arrogant and arbitrary exercise of bureaucratic power,

but rather that we are their own responsive and responsible instrument

for achieving a whole and a healthy environment.

     It became increasingly clear, over the past year, that EPA's

array of programs  especially in air, water and solid waste  would


necessarily have a significant impact upon land use patterns in this

country.  I believe very deeply that, because land use decisions are

so critical in determining the quality and character of their lives,

the citizens of a given area or region, and their elected officials,

must have the strongest possible voice in those decisions.  I also

believe that those decisions cannot be based upon a single concern

or criterion  whether it be air quality, or housing, or economic

development.  They must, instead, embrace the broad social, economic

and ecological concerns and needs within an area or region.  It was

largely for these reasons that EPA  in the significant deterioration

regulations it recently issued  refused to impose, by federal fiat

and according to the single criterion of air quality, what would

amount to an almost absolute prohibition against growth over vast

regions of the nation.

     It is also largely for these reasons that I have established, in the

Office of the Administrator, two new offices:  a small land use coordina-

tion office and an office of intergovernmental and regional affairs.

Through these offices, and through our regional offices, we should be

able to do an increasingly better job of integrating our decisions into

the decision-making processes at the state, local and regional levels.

We are the most decentralized agency in the Federal government.  And

that, in my judgment, is one of our greatest sources of strength, for

it enables us, in carrying out our responsibilities, to fashion our


regulations, standards and programs from the ground up, rather than

from the top down.

     We have gone a long way toward opening up our Agency and involv-

ing the public as well as officials at other levels of government in

our efforts.  We have also, in my judgment, demonstrated our willing-

ness to do whatever we reasonably and responsibly can to minimize the

adverse impacts of our regulations  on particular industries

as on particular cities, on the nation's economy as on the nation's

energy or food supply.

     There is every evidence that the public strongly supports our

environmental programs and will not be deceived into believing that

they are somehow responsible for any significant share of our energy

and economic difficulties.  Indeed, I think that as a result of our

experience over the past year or so the public has increasingly begun

to understand that our "environmental" and "pollution" problems are

not simply a separate and self-contained category to be dealt with

alongside and apart from other separate and self-contained categories of

problems such as energy, inflation, food supply and the like.  They have

begun to understand that our environmental concerns, in a very real

sense, underly and encompass a wide range of concerns such as energy,

inflation, resources, land use, population, food supply.  In great

degree, our problems in these areas are simply instances of the

classic environmental strains-that occur when an organism exceeds


the carrying-capacity of its habitat.  They are symptoms of the

fact that, in one way or another, we are living beyond our means.

     We must, in my view, understand that if we consume our resources

at runaway rates, and in wasteful ways, then no matter how fast we

run, we must inevitably lose ground in our efforts to keep supply in

step with demand.  It makes little sense to throw the throttle

wide open in the development of our energy and other resources

when we waste so much of these resources.  In the unrestrained

development of these resources, haste really does make waste.

     We must build energy conservation measures and habits

into our economic system, and into our patterns of physical develop-

ment 'and growth.  We must also move to increase our supply of energy

 in particular, our supply of clean and renewable sources of energy.

At the same time, we must do all we can to put every possible ounce of

that energy to productive use and cut down and cut out the unnecessary

and inflationary waste within our system and society.

     For the foreseeable future, we are going to have to rely

mainly upon our supply of fossil fuels  coal, natural gas and oil.

In particular, we are going to have to mine and burn more coal.  The

more we do so, the more imperative it becomes that we not only refuse

to relax public health standards and environmental safeguards, but

insist even more strongly upon rigorous standards and safeguards

throughout the energy production and consumption cycle.


     At the beginning of last year, I expressed my view that the

nation had better start facing up to the almost ove:rwhelming reality

of the long-range problems of energy, of food and resource supply,

of human numbers and of uncontrolled growth.  To begin to deal with

these problems  indeed, even to begin to ask the right questions 

we must develop effective institutions within the Federal government

for long-range analysis.  We were, I pointed out, almost totally

lacking in such a capability  an appalling lack in a nation with

as big a stake in the future as the United States.

     The really critical issues before this country are not the im-

mediate and isolated ones, but the interrelated and long-range ones 

indeed, the day-to-day "crises" that seem to capture all our attention

and consume all our energies are, for the most part, simply mani-

festations of far deeper problems that we never seem to get around

to acknowledging, must less addressing.  The old cliches that every-

thing relates to everything else and that we live in an interdependent

world have become the fundamental fact of our economic, social and

political life.  Our economic health and growth, our patterns of

settlement and physical development, our social stability and

strength  these both determine and depend upon a vast and intricate

system of material (including food), energy and environmental resources.

Under these conditions, we cannot hope to come to grips with the

issues before us unless we strengthen our ability to assess problems


    programs, not simply in isolation, but in relation to each other;

not simply over the short term, but over the longer span of 10, 20 or

30 years.

     Without this capacity at the national level, we will never be

able to work the kinds of accommodations between demands for and

supplies of resources that will enable us to achieve stable and

sustainable levels and kinds of growth.  We often forget that time

itself has become one of our most critical resources.  It is not so

much coal, or oil, or natural gas that we must worry about running out of.

It is time  time to accomplish the necessary adjustments in our way of

life that will allow us to make the most of these resources as well as

the necessary investments in the cleaner sources of energy that will

enable us to live a decent life without denying it to those who follow


     We live in a time when, in the fine phrase of Leonard Silk, the

long run has become the short run.  And we cannot forever get away

with acting on the basis of ignorance and expediency.  The day-to-day

crisis decisions that we make more and more limit our options for the

future; yet we make them with almost no understanding of how they

impact upon each other, much less of what their implications are over

the long-term.

     I do not believe the end of the world is at hand, but I do know

that the year 2000 is just around the corner.  If we expect to solve


the problems of the 1980s and 1990s, we need to start now  as we

should have started some years ago to foresee and forestall the present

energy crisis.  To the degree that we fail to do so, we foreclose

the options open to us.

     In an age of resource scarcities and physical constraints,

we are going to have to be a lot more choosy than we have been in

the past.  We no longer have as much room for maneuver and margin for

error as we once did.  We are, in short, going to have to engage in

some serious long-range planning.

     With its new budget committees and the Office of Technology

Assessment, the Congress has at least the rudiments of the kind

of longer-range analytical capability I am thinking of.  But nowhere

in the Executive Branch is there any real capability for conducting

the kind of continuing and comprehensive census of the future that

we must have if we are to ensure that the day-to-day decisions we

make are, indeed, taking us in the directions we want to go.  It is,

in my view, a matter of the utmost importance that we create such a

capability within the national government.  Indeed, as our experience

over the past year has amply demonstrated, the development of such a

capability at EPA is a matter that must demand our best efforts over

the next year.

     I do not, as I suggested at the beginning, have much time

for leisurely reflection these days.  In those moments that do


occur, I find myself more and more thinking of the early Greek

philosophers who believed that earth, air, water and fire were the

fundamental elements of matter, and of the myth of Prometheus who

stole fire from heaven and suffered such endless agony for his

pains.  I find myself thinking how ironic it would be if the primeval

Promethean sin should turn out to be, not man's theft of fire from

heaven, but his theft of fire from earth  his profligate use and

abuse of the earth's energy and other resources without regard for

the needs of future generations and without respect for the laws

and limits of the natural world.

     And I remember the passage I once ran across in the diary of the

fine Italian writer of more recent times, Cesare Pavese:

     Today, you saw that great hill with its hollows, its
     clump of trees, the brown, the blue, the houses, and
     you said:  'It is as it should be.'  That is enough
     for you.  It is a place that never changes.  Why
     look for any other?  Dwell among these things, let
     them enfold you, live on them, like air, like a
     trail of clouds.  No one knows that everything is

     We are learning that everything is here, on this earth; that on this

side of life at least, this earth is all we have; and that it will continue

to be enough for us only as long as we care enough for it to make it


     Perhaps the greatest challenge we face, not just in this country

but globally, is the need to find new ways  to fashion, indeed, nothing

less than a whole new ethic  for taking into full account the long-

term costs of actions that bring short-term benefits.  To put it


another way, we need to learn how to balance our own wants against

the needs of future generations.

     This challenge expresses, in large measure, what the environ-

mental movement  and our job  is all about.  I deeply admire and

appreciate all you have done to help meet this challenge and to get

its message across.  I look forward to working with you in the year