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
------- |