ENVIRONMENTAL
NEWS
SUMMA R Y AP-" ».
Office of Public Affairs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. 20460
NEW ENGLAND OIL RIGS IN '75?
In Boston Globe(4/2/74) article on CEQ offshore oil report (see 4/12/74 News
Summary), Dr. Stephen Gage, council's senior staff member, says oil drilling rigs will
probably be appearing off New England in next few years—some could be in place next
year. But, says Gage, "there is a very little probability" of oil spills fouling Cape
Cod, elsewhere in New England CEQ REPORT gets continued coverage in Philadelphia
Inquirer(4/2/74), San Juan Star(4/2/74), New Brunswick, N.J. Home News(4/5/74).
IN RELATED DEVELOPMENTS. Sen. Pastore(D-R.L) says he favors offshore drilling
provided adequate environmental safeguards maintained(Providence Journal-Bulletin, 4/3/
74) UNIV. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE STUDY commissioned by Gov. Meldrim Thomson says if
major refinery built in N.H. coastal region, with off-shore unloading facilities, oil
spills inevitable, with major pollution expected from southern Maine to Cape Cod (Port-
land, Me., Press Herald. 4/6/74). Adds that N.H.' not ready for refinery—major industry
would take advantage of system where state citizens rule themselves largely on local
level, there is no statewide land use plan, and state regulatory agencies severely under-
staffed. Similar story in Boston Globe(4/6/74) OIL COMPANIES PUTTING TOGETHER A
TIMETABLE for going out and getting oil off mid-Atlantic, New England states(S.F. Chron-
icle, 4/6/74). Also, MIT study says environmental effects of oil spill probably slight,
due~to strong westerly component of winds on North Atlantic coast; but CEQ says Alaskan
experience shows fisherman's per capita income may decrease due to water pollution and
mechanical interference, and "recreational industries could be hurt, especially where
the character of communities is one of isolation, historic preservation or natural
beauty." Drilling critics say coastal states suffer all the risks but get little bene-
fit. Mass, state Sen. William Bulger: "We have absolutely no gain from this that we can
see, but we have a lot at stake. The tourist industry is one of the biggest in Massa-
chusetts, and we can't take any kind of chance. If Cape Cod was to suffer any kind of
oil disaster, the reputation of the place would be hurt for years. It's irrational to
ask us to stand the risk so that someone can drive an excessive horsepower automobile in
Ohio." INTERIOR'S MORTON TELLS National Petroleum Refiners Association that local
community reluctance to accept oil refinery construction is "understandable--but out-
dated." Says "ignorance" of many persons about "cleanliness" of newest refineries needs
to be dispelled. Saying he would be happy to serve as "character witness" for refiner-
ies, Morton adds that local opposition rather than federal policy is chief obstacle to
construction.
BUSINESS HEADS WANT OVERHAUL OF U.S. POLLUTION PROGRAM
After three years research, Committee for Economic Development (business leader-
academic partnership) says overreliance on regulation is underlying defect of many en-
vironmental programs, urges shift from unwieldy fed regs to economic incentives based on
"polluter pays" principle(Chicago Daily News, 4/5/74). Another major thrust of report
calls for creation of regional, local, agencies tailoring programs to geographic needs.
Other key recommendations; (1) Careful studies of whether certain air standards produce
benefits justifying cost; (2) Stepped-up state efforts in solid waste collection, dis-
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS SUMMARY
posal, including cessation of open dumping. Report also contends that (1) continued
economic growth necessary to combat pollution, (2) water pollution control benefits
"have not been commensurate with the cost or effort," and (3) air pollution program a
"qualified" success, but some large-scale plans of action, such as auto emission con-
trols, "cannot be justified." Report also gets coverage in Philadelphia Inquirer(4/57
74), Detroit News, Denver Post(4/7/74), Oregon Journal(4/5/74) Chicago Tribune
(4/14/74) notes that above-mentioned study contains dissenting footnotes, including one
by Audubon Society Pres. Elvis Stahr which cites cost of not cleaning up air as $16 bil-
lion yearly. He also questions judgment that existing emission standards too stringent,
contending that primary purpose of standards "to protect public health and welfare," not
to satisfy business interests with history of profitable pollution. Tribune echoes
Stahr's sentiments.
PRO AND CON ON FED LAND USE
Christian Science Monitor News Service story(Denver Post, 4/5/74), urging House
Rules Committee to report land use bill, says "strong public skepticism about the tradi-
tional laissez-faire approach to the land is a major new political force that cannot be
ducked." Adds that bill would encourage stronger state role, but would not pre-empt
traditional land-use authorities, as some opponents charge. "It is time Congress and
state legislatures faced the fact that U.S. land-use patterns are determined less and
less by small owners exercising their property rights. The face of the land is increas-
ingly being shaped by large corporations with gigantic projects in housing, energy pro-
duction, and scenic development. These projects need to be properly regulated."
Casper Star-Tribune(4/4/74). expresses feeling that deadlocked land use plan is "hasty"
legislation which would wrongly place feds in business of regulating, controlling land
within states. Says states, localities should retain their traditional zoning, land use
control, but approves idea of fed incentive grants to states to develop own plans.
IN OTHER LAND USE DEVELOPMENTS. Pueblo, Colo. Star-Journal(4/3/74) says addi-
tional state land use legislation deferred too long: "Legislators should heed the call
of Gov. Vanderhoof and thousands of other Coloradoans, and pass a new and stronger land
use bill before they adjourn this session." EXHORTING UTAH TO AVOID MISTAKES of
California and Colorado, and pointing out that 28 of 29 Utah counties and virtually all
state community and civic groups have backed it, Deseret News (4/2/74) urges passage of
state land use bill.
AGAINST REPEALING DELAWARE COASTAL ZONE ACT
Attacking bill repealing Delaware's Coastal Zone Act (barring certain heavy in-
dustries from two-mile-deep strip of 115-mile coastline), now in state senate committee,
N.Y. Times(4/6/74) points out that (1) state only one-twentieth of U.S. area—and strip
involves only tiny fragment of state, and (2) small, non-polluting enterprises are wel-
comed—tourism is profitable, and probable that by 1980 area will become outdoor center,
thereby reducing unemployment. "The Delaware Legislature can change this fair prospect,
opening the coast to the kind of massive pollution that oppresses the .Delaware River a
little to the north, between Wilmington and Philadelphia. It is hard to believe that
the state will choose to return to an indiscriminate industrial growth that promises at
best a dollar prosperity for some, in an intolerable environment for all." OBSER-
VING DELAWARE REPEAL BILL, syndicated columnist Ernest B. Furgurson(Detroit News. 4/4/
74) says: "Those fighting to protect the land in 49 other states must take warning from
[Delaware] that although they may win key battle after battle, the war is never won."
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS SUMMARY
MONTANA TELLS MORTON; HANDS OFF POWER PLANTS
Following "fears voiced by state officials that the federal government will try
to exploit Western coal to the fullest, without regard for the consequences," Montana
Gov. Thomas Judge tells. Interior's Morton to stop interfering with state decisions on
construction of coal-fired electricity-generating plants(Denver Post, 4/7/74), (Great
Falls Tribune, 4/2/74). Immediate point of contention; Morton ordered impact statement
preparation on proposed plant in southeastern Mont., after state Bureau of Land Manage-
ment had already been assigned it. Judge fears fed legislation overriding states on
construction: "They want the coal and they want it at all costs. They aren't very much
concerned about the quality of life or the environment in these Western states...State's
rights aren't going to mean a lot. We are going to be up against a terrific battle."
IN RELATED DEVELOPMENTS. Billings Gazette(4/9/74) goes along with Gov. Judge's
insistence that coal mined in Montana be burned out-of-state unless there exists in-state
need: "The governor is saying that if far-away places want to gobble Montana coal for
their electric energy then let them also put up with the pollution accompanying it...We
have no objection to Montana helping share the effort of providing energy wanted else-
where. We do not think it should be done at the expense of our environment."
REJECT STRIP MINING IN NATIONAL FORESTS
House Interior Committee rejects proposal (18-18) permitting strip mining for
coal in national forests(N.Y. Times, 4/4/74).
IN OTHER STRIP MINE DEVELOPMENTS. "The concept of selective denial Cfeds can
determine which land can't be strip mined], ...must be upheld if there is to be any
meaningful planning in the development of federal coal lands in Eastern Montana," says
Billings Gazette(4/3/74). "The concept...will undoubtedly be under fire from the energy
companies... [who] would prefer the old system under which they tell the federal agencies
what acres they want to mine—looking to their own economic welfare. The concept...
allows the governmental agency to take another, more intensive look at the area involved
to see what damage would result from the strip mining and to determine if certain areas
would be better left untouched."
LANDMARK DECISION UPHOLDS STATE AGENCY RIGHT TO FINE POLLUTERS
Illinois Supreme Court upholds right of 111. Pollution Control Board to impose
discretionary penalties, as a court does(Chicago Tribune, 4/7/74). Ruling's impact will
be vast, says 111. asst. Atty. Gen. Richard Cosby: "It is the first time a court has up-
held the power of a state administrative agency to impose discretionary fines. This
allows the administrative agency to tailor the penalty to the situation."
IN OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAW DEVELOPMENTS. "The prospect of a sharp decline in the
number of environmental lawsuits looms" as result of Ford Foundation decision to cut fi-
nancial support of public interest law firms after their present funding expires--in
most cases '76. (Newhouse News Service in Fargo Forum, 4/4/74). Ford spokesman says
Foundation will focus more on research; adds that field of environmental law changing
rather fundamentally: Whereas principal legal battles were formerly fought over getting
fed agencies to submit impact statements, today emphasis shifting to adequacy of state-
ments and their ultimate impact on protecting resources.
BOTTLE BILL A BLESSING. STUDY SHOWS
Newsweek(4/15/74) airs study by two Oregon State professors showing that since
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS SUMMARY
state's controversial bottle bill passed, (1) '73 bottle, beverage industry income from
operations increased $4 million, (2) 365 new jobs created, (3) 88 percent reduction in
bottles ending up as solid waste, litter, Newsweek says report certain to figure promi-
nently in Senate's late-April hearings on extending bottle bill nation-wide. Adminis-
tration opposes—says most bottles returnable in Oregon before law passed, so ban would
be "dangerously disruptive" in other states. Similar story in Eugene, Ore. Register-
Guard (4/2/74) Corvallis, Ore. Gazette-Times(4/8/74) supports national bottle bill
"Senators Hatfield and Fackwood have a battle on their hands to get an Oregon Bottle Bill
type law through Congress, but the nation will be the better off if they can pull it
off."
ARE ECOLOGISTS ANTI-HUMAN?
"IN SUMMING UP HIS ARGUMENTS for the Alaska Pipeline...almost three years ago,
John Havelock, Alaska attorney general, observed, 'There is an antihuman streak in some
conservationists' philosophy which bears watching.1 And indeed," says syndicated colum-
nist John Lofton in Kansas City Star (4/3/74). "there is. The problem with Brower, his
Friends of the Earth, and the people like them is that they are more concerned about the
earth and the animals on it than they are about you and me."
POISON ON THE RANGE
"Returning to the practice of spreading poisoned bait on sheep ranges to kill
coyotes is regrettable," says Houston Post(4/5/74). "Poisoning was not banned to pro-
tect the coyotes. Poison is an indiscriminate killer which was taking its toll of a
wide range of wildlife including the bald eagle, which is nearing extinction partly from
eating coyote bait...There is little evidence...that scattering poison bait around will
solve the problem...Statistics gathered in Montana prompted Dr. Lee M. Talbot of [CEQ]
to tell a Senate subcommittee that the use of poisons against predators 'has not proven
effective in providing protection for these livestock producers.1"
A3N99V NOU331CHM 1V1N3WNOHIAN1
OlVd 8H4 ONV 33ViSOd
z 01 - v saivjjv Dnsnd jo aoijjo
------- |