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 ------- |