EN VIR O NMENTA L
                 NEWS
                 S UMMA R Y         "arch 29, 1974
     Office of Public Affairs     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency      Washington, D.C. 20460
RESERVE MINING ATTEMPTING "BACK DOOR" DEAL WITH TRAIN?
        Ten Michigan congressmen, Sen. Griffin (R-Mich.), fire letter to Train:  "We are
informed that Reserve is attempting to avoid the ruling by Judge...Lord  [see 2/13/74
News Summary]...by negotiating a compromise with the Environmental Protection Agency,
We find this totally unacceptable...We believe that if Reserve does not put forward an
environmentally feasible...plan...immediately, nothing short of quick and decisive
action to...end...the dumping should be taken."  Griffin letter to Justice's Saxbe says
Reserve, plus parent corporations (Armco, Republic Steel), "have launched a lobbying
operation with the Justice Department and EPA seeking a favorable out-of-court settle-
ment."  Griffin hopes "the case would not now be given away."  (Detroit News, 3/14/74)
	 "RESERVE IS GOING AROUND TO THE BACK DOOR  trying to make a deal with the EPA,"
says Detroit Free Press (3/8/74), adding, "If the EPA goes for that, its director,
Russell Train, would involve himself in an unconscionable breach of public trust.  He
would do well to keep out of it and let Lord do the necessary.  And that would be to
order Reserve to shut down if it fails to come up with a suitable method of disposing of
...67,000 tons of taconite leavings and thousands of gallons of liquid containing a long
list of dangerous and noxious substances."  Free Press adds that EPA's General Counsel,
Alan Kirk, "is close to impropriety" in stating that Armco has approached him and that
"there are a lot of conversations that are better held...outside the glare of publicity."
        IN RELATED DEVELOPMENTS.  Judge Lord has "indicated that he believes" Reserve
Mining has "deliberately been concealing vital information...and repeatedly misleading
him with erroneous evidence" (Milwaukee Journal, 3/5/74).  Lord also indicates belief
that Reserve prolongs trial to get enough time for state, federal aid commitments to new
taconite processing facilities in northwestern Minnesota	 Minneapolis Tribune
(3/17/74) says central issue in Reserve trial is no longer intangible asbestos-type
fiber, but "hard, cold cash—something anyone can see and everyone can understand.  Tied
to that cash--millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars--is the future of thou-
sands of Reserve employees and their families, who may have to move their homes or lose
their jobs."


FED COURT BLOCKS EPA COYOTE POISONING PROGRAM
        Experimental EPA-authorized coyote poisoning program in 44 Texas counties halted
by U.S. District Court--Judge Thomas Flannery says EPA acts "in excess of their statu-
tory authority," and that program amounts to "the illegally authorized killing of wild-
life and deployment of highly toxic poisons into the environment" (Wash. Star, 3/5/74).
Similar story in Houston Post (3/5/74)	 TEXAS GOV. DOLPH BRISCOE asks state Attn.
General to intervene in support of EPA (Dallas Times Herald. 3/6/74)	 TEXAS
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES SPOKESMAN says experimental program has "no real pro-
visions for monitoring and appears to be simply an operational program dressed up as an
experiment" (Houston Post, 3/4/74).
        IN RELATED DEVELOPMENTS.   Western sheep, lamb ranchers, claiming alarmingly
increasing losses, press Congressional Reps for "more effective" federal predator control

-------
                                                      ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS SUMMARY
program, including at least a partial return to poisons, which were banned by '72 execu-
 :ive order, subsequent EPA action (Oregonian, 3/10/74) (N.Y. Times. 3/10/74)	
SEN  HANSEN (R-WYO.) CHARGES EPA with ignoring predator control "emergency" in West
(Casper, Wyo. Star-Tribune, 3/5/74)	  WHY MUST AN EXPERIMENT cover most of the
sheep grazing land in Texas to begin with?" asks Newsday (3/10/74).  "In fact, why
permit poisons on the range at all?  In Kansas pesticides have been banned for years;
 :he predatory coyote problem is solved with traps.  What's really significant in all
this is the suspicion that special interests have seized on America's necessary accomm-
odation to the energy shortage as a signal to attack all the environmental gains of the
1960's."


BEWARE OF GREEKS BEARING OIL REFINERIES!
        Durham, N.H. voters reject  (1,254-144) Aristotle Onassis1 proposal to build $600
million oil refinery there  (Wash. Post, 3/8/74)  (Providence Journal, R.I., 3/7/74), and
N.H. House of Representatives  later votes 233-109 to defeat amendment forcing Durham to
accept it  (Wash. Post, 3/9/74)  (Press Herald, Portland, Me., 3/8/74) (Boston Herald
American, 3/8/74)	  BEFORE DURHAM VOTE, Boston Globe poll showed that state-wide,
N.H. voters "overwhelmingly" favored oil refinery construction there (Press Herald.
3/1/74)	THREE N.Y. TIMES' REACTIONS  (3/11, 17,  18):  Onassis effort "defeated
around kitchen tables...a classic confrontation  between hastily organized citizen's
groups and sharply contrasting powerful political and  financial forces."  Plan had
strong backing of N.H. Gov. Meldrim Thompson and "powerful" Manchester Union-Leader.
plus "considerable" p.r. financial backing by Onassis, but "foundered on ordinary
citizens who organized to protect their way of life and...New Hampshire's long tradition
of home rule for each town...The proposal clearly deserved the rebuff it received...
However, this...does not deliver New England from a deepening energy dilemma...there is
not one oil refinery in any of the New England states  ...[and] it is reasonable to
expect that some of them should be built.. .Unless New  Englanders face up to their oil
dilemma together, they may  soon find themselves  succumbing piecemeal to the growing
pressure of heavily financed refinery promoters.  The  Battle of Durham won't be the
last "
        IN RELATED DEVELOPMENTS.  Onassis will abandon efforts to build N.H. refinery
unless people want one  (N.Y.  Times,  3/16/74), but he is now considering alternate New
England sites.  Concerning  possible Onassis refinery siting at Newport, R.I. Naval Base,
Providence Evening Bulletin (3/6/74) says  it highlights conflict between state's "undeni-
able need" for  economic growth and  desire to  protect environment: "How the...proposal  is
handled on all  sides could  set the  pattern  for a cooperative approach to  land-use and
development  decisions  that  will be  repeated many times over as new  proposals come up.
Or  it  can  set  the  stage  for a  series of  conflicts  that will result  in economic stagna-
tion or environmental  destruction or, more  likely,  both."  	 Business Week  (3/9/74)
says oilmen  watching Onassis  campaign closely to determine whether  his hard-sell tactics
help or hurt refinery  cause.


NIXON  SAID TO  REJECT CROSS-FLA. CANAL APPEAL
         "The clouds of Watergate" reportedly lead Nixon to reject appeal o*.  fed.  court
 ruling that he had no authority to halt construction of environmentalist-opposed  cross-
 Fla. barge canal in '71 (see 2/13/74 News Summary).  "Washington source" says  Adminis-
 tration doesn't want to get involved in impoundment case since so many similar cases
 lost;  also, issue of executive right to halt authorized project "smacks too much of
 Watergate mentality." (St. Petersburg Times. 3/7/74).  Similar story in Fla. Times-Union
 (3/7/74).

-------
   ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS SUMMARY
        IN RELATED DEVELOPMENTS.  Canal Authority of Fla. officials confident that
environmental impact statement being prepared by Army Corps of Engineers will get Barge
Canal project under way again (Fla. Times-Union. 3/13/74).  Similar story in N.Y. Times_
(3/11/.74J	IN ANTI-CANAL EDITORIAL, Orlando Sentinel-Star (3/10/74) hopes Congress
will vote out a bill "to end this barge canal boondoggle once and for all."	N.Y.
Times (3/17/74) says court decision must be accepted, "but it does not follow that  the
rivlr and its environs must necessarily suffer the deadly consequences of a project that
can mean only devastation to the extraordinarily rich natural life of the river
[Oklawaha] and its banks."  Times says Nixon can designate Oklawaha a wild and scenic
river;  Fla. Gov. Askew, who opposed canal in past, could take lead in state action to
kill it;  Congress could act independently of Nixon to save river.


MEDIA REACTION TO LAND USE KNIFING. CONTINUED
        More response  to  "indefinite  postponement" of land use bill by House Rules
Committee  (see 3/1/74  News  Summary).   Syndicated columnists Jeff Stansbury, Edward
Flattau in Cleveland Plain  Dealer  (3/12/74):   "Nixon seems to be guided in environmental
policymaking more by the  desire  for personal  political survival than by the obligation
to  serve the public interest.  This preoccupation...has also prevented...Nixon from
widening his perception of  a  subject  in which he has never been particularly interested
or  knowledgeable...The consensus of many House Republicans is that the President backed
off the...bill because of the opposition of a small group of conservative GOP congress-
men.   It is believed that the White House  is  so worried about the forthcoming impeach-
ment vote  that it is desperate to  retain the  backing of conservative lawmakers who
comprise Mr. Nixon's hard-core support...The  President's political decisions on environ-
mental matters have left  many of his  advisers out on a limb.  In EPA...part of the job
is  to  deal with  the political realities, but  compromise and sellout can be very far
apart... The President has  asked them to walk the plank of credibility.  So far, most of
them have balked.  The result has  been confusion, dissension and low morale in the
bureaucratic ranks, and a leaderless  helm  as  we face the most encompassing issue of our
time." 	 Louisville Courier  Journal (3/7/74):   "Development of land-use plans by the
states...very well could  result  in new controls which would discourage construction in
some areas.  Yet it is depressingly clear  that laissez-faire real estate development and
industrial activity are wreaking environmental havoc and overloading essential services
in  too many communities across the country...If the President's rhetorical commitment to
sensible land use planning  and environmental  protection is to have any credibility at
all, he  should urge  that  the  House Rules Committee  at  least bring  [the land use bill]
onto the floor." 	 Newsday  (3/11/74):   "The Rules  Committee action was arrant and
high-handed...a  bill of this  type  must become law sooner or later..."  	Boston Globe
 (3/14/74)  says Quarles' despondency over land use killing shared by environmentalists
 across the nation:  "All this legislation would do is perhaps  save the  country  from
 burying itself in its own stupidity; prevent a great land from being destroyed  by greed
 and unplanned growth and halt the sacrilegious despoliation of nature which is  too often
 man's wont."	Milwaukee Journal (3/15/74): "Many of the environmental, health and
 social problems that plague us today stem from foolish past decisions on land use.  The
 grim outlook appears to be for more foolishness.  Unless the importance of land use
 regulation can be explained to the public more persuasively, it is hard to see  how this
 important need can overcome the one-two punch of short term economic greed and  philo-
 sophical nonsense." 	 Honolulu Star-Bulletin (3/6/74):  "Each year  that controls ar
 delayed means greater destruction to the environment and a harder job of repairing
 mistakes."
         IN RELATED DEVELOPMENTS.  Sen. Jackson  (D-Wash.) calls on Nixon for "clear and
 unequivocal statement" of his position on land-use legislation (Baltimore Sun,  3/13/74)

-------
                                                      ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS SUMMARY
ENVIRONMENT NO CAUSE FOR TAXPAYER GRIPE
        Several years research at Argonne National Laboratory show threat from carbon
monoxide exaggerated—most CO naturally produced and naturally dissipated—but carbon
dioxide problem greater than previously thought.  More C02 being produced than plant life
can absorb, and urban sprawl reducing plant life—therefore, C02 increasing at 2% a year,
thickening air blanket hugging earth.  Could lead to hotter climate, worldwide drought
(Chicago Tribune. 2/26/74).
MUST ENVIRONMENTALISTS COMPROMISE ON GROWTH?
        According to economist-columnist Sylvia Porter, less than one-half of one per-
cent of a citizen's federal tax burden goes toward environment and natural resources
expenditures--the smallest share of his taxes (Audubon, 3/74).
CO? DANGER UNDERREALIZED
        "Political fate of environmentalists may depend on their ability to make peace
with a huge wave of suburban househunters as much as on their battle record with indus-
trial polluters" (Denver Post, 3/3/74).  "Suburbanites have gotten...message that rapid,
uncontrolled growth will wreck the quality of their lives...[but] a massive demand for
new homes [14.4 million net increase during '70's<] and more public services is being
created by the post-WW II "baby boom" generation and by workers and urban poor who still
aspire to a home in a quiet, "unpolluted" suburban neighborhood...the United States must
continue to make room for tremendous new growth, despite changing public attitudes, a
consumption-curbing energy crisis, and the current low birth rate."
            fitt-Vdi
            A3N10V NOU3110IM IVlinilNOMIAIIl
            DIM HU QNV IBVISIM
                                                                     09*02 'O'Q 'N013NIHSVM

-------