ENVIRONMENTAL
NEWS
SUMMA R Y *"»*.
Office of Public Affairs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. 20460
STRIP MINING
House rejects attempts to "substantially change" Interior Committee's proposed
strip mine bill by defeating: (1) Weaker substitute offered by Hosmer(R-Calif.), (2)
Stronger Hechler(D-W.Va.) substitute, (3) Young(D-Ga.) amendment banning stripping on
mountain slopes greater than 20 degrees six months after bill enactment, (4) Hechler a-
mendment to have permanent standards take effect 125 days after enactment (Comm. bill
allows three years), (5) Nearly a dozen other weakening amendments proposed by Hosroer
(Wash. Post. 7/19,23/74).(N.Y. Times. 7/23.19/74).(Wash. Star-News. 7/19/74). ADDITIONAI
COVERAGE of bill's progress in N.Y. Times(7/21.18/74). Wash. Post(7/22.18/74). Louisville
Courier-Journal (7/14.9/74). Oil Daily(7/16/74) . Tennessean(.1111/74) , Arizona Republic(7/
11/74) TRAIN'S SUPPORT OF HOUSE INTERIOR COMMITTEE BILL gets AP coverage in Den-
ver Post(7/ll.10/74). Albany Democrat-Herald(7/10/74). Arizona Republic(7/9/74). Also
Louisville Courier-Journal(7/9/74). L.A. Times(7/9/74), Las Vegas Review-Journal(7/10/74)
IN EDITORIAL SUPPORTING INTERIOR COMMITTEE BILL, N.Y. Times(7/18/74) says, "No more
than 10 percent of this country's recoverable coal reserves can be reached by surface
mining. That should be a salient consideration in the debate...now before the House...
There is neither sense nor sincerity in making the energy shortage a pretext for reject-
ing environmental curbs on surface mining when all the strippable coal in the country
would in any case be exhausted in a few years of unrestricted operations. Such a course
would leave great areas of the West in dismal ruins and the energy need as great as ever1.1
"THE CRUCIAL QUESTION BEFORE CONGRESS," says Wash. Post(7/17/74). "is whether or
not strip mining will be allowed to shift from the Eastern coalfields to the Western
ones. In this context, the issue, as...Train...said on his recent visit to scenes of
strip mine devastation in the West, "isn't just a confrontation between two special in-
terests, the energy industry and the environmentalists. It is a problem that involves
the whole fabric of our society.' ...The task before the House is to adopt decisive mea-
sures against the East-West shift...It is unfortunate that...[interior Secretary] Morton
is offering no leadership on this issue, but instead fell into line with the strip min-
ers in attacking the mild House bill.... Train, however, offsets the timidity of Mr.
Morton" "THIS BILL SEEMS TO STRIKE THE BEST POSSIBLE BALANCE between environmental
concerns and the obvious need for more fuel," says Wash. Star-News(7/21/74)... "A recent,
courageous endorsement of the legislation by...Train...has done much to offset mining-
industry favoritism evident in the White House. This next week can bring a great victory
for conservation if the House will hold fast." "IT WAS EXTRAORDINARY AND REFRESH-
ING," says New Republie(7/20/74). "to watch...Train...split so sharply...from the admini-
stration's position on strip-mining...Interior Department sources preferred not to inter-
pret Train's statement as a reflection of post-Watergate anarchy and insisted that his
opinion on strip-mining be viewed as a result of his 'maturity and expertise on the is-
sue. ' What this meant became clearer...when Sawhill sharply revised his estimate of the
coal production loss that might result from federal strip-mining controls. Although he
maintained his opposition to the Udall-MinkQlnterior Committee] bill, Sawhill reduced the
range of possible coal loss from as high as 187 million tons down to 20 million to 60
million tons. Train seems to have had the right figures all along, and Sawhill didn't.
Sawhill's last-minute recalculation didn't help the forces opposing the committee bill..1.
IN OTHER STRIP MINE DEVELOPMENTS. Louisville Courier-Journal(7/7/74) reports
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS SUMMARY
that wheat-growing and grazing pasturage projects in Western Kentucky by Peabody Coal
and Badgett Coal, respectively, indicate that stripped land can be restored and even pay
its own way N.Y. Times(7/3/74) feature on "crucial debate" over whether Western
coal lands can be reclaimed after being strip-mined--with the "key element" in the con-
troversy being water.
OCEANS
Brooklyn College marine scientist,Dr. William Harris, says sewage sludge has
oozed to within quarter-mile of Atlantic Beach, Long Island. Harris predicts that by
summer of '76 beaches will be unusable, and by summer of '77 sludge will reach shore.
(N.Y. Times. 7/14.10/74).(Newsday. 7/10/74),(Bergen County Record. 7/10/74). Disputing
Harris, EPA's Deputy Region I head, Eric Cutwater, tells Long Island congressional meet-
ing that there is no immediate danger—says that while sludge "pockets" can be found off
L.I. beaches, they aren't harmful and do not indicate general landward movement (Long
Island Press. 7/11/74). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) positive^
ly identifies, for first time, the presence of sewage sludge one half-mile from Long
Beach, L.I. in strip parallelling shore for nearly three miles. "May pose a health haz-
ard to swimmers," says NOAA scientist. Findings "conflicted with [EPA] assurances...
that its testing program—far less elaborate—had revealed no large sludge patches close
to the shoreline. "(Newsday. 7/11/74). EPA, NOAA say L.I. sludge "no threat" to swimmers
and might even be of natural origins; but NOAA Assoc. Admin. David Wallace concedes that
within two years it will be necessary to find new disposal areas because of increasing
dumping volume.
IN OTHER OCEAN DEVELOPMENTS. Fla. Pollution Control Dept. specialist Gordon
Cherr says chemical wastes that DuPont Co. wants to dump in the Gulf of Mexico (see 7/12
/74 News Summary) will kill marine organisms(AP in Atlanta Constitution. 7/14/74, Fla.
Times-Union. 7/13/74). Jackson, Miss. Clarion Ledger(7/12/74) reprints editorial from
Daily Herald. Biloxi, Miss., calling for end to DuPont dumping since the Gulf "has pro-
vided at least 25 percent of the United States' total commercial fishery harvest...sup-
ports a marine sport fishery whose catch annually is estimated at over 300 million
pounds...contains, or sustains, about 400 species of birds, wintering grounds for more
than six million migratory waterfowl and ranges for numerous species considered rare or
endangered." AT U.N.-SPONSORED LAW OF THE SEAS CONFERENCE in Caracas (see 7/12/74
News Summary) U.S. and Russia agree to recognize rights of coastal nations to control
fishing, undersea oil drilling and other economic exploitation for 200 miles off their
coasts and to extend territorial waters, where navigation controlled to 12 miles.(AP,
Wash. Star-News, 7/12/74),(UPI, Chicago Tribune. 7/12/74). Syndicated columnist Victor
Zorza says above-mentioned agreement leads some developing nations to accuse two "super-
powers" of "ganging up on the rest of the world." According to Zorza, Panama TV commen-
tator catches "mood of many of the developing nations" when he says Caracas conference
shows "how the interests of the rich industrialized nations converge when it comes to
keeping their hands free to exploit the world's resources without concern for the inter-
ests of the developing nations." Wash. Star-News(7/18/74) reports that sea conference
officials hint another session needed in Vienna next year to polish final treaty text.
N.Y. Times (7/21/74) says U.S. has accepted the inevitable in proposing new 12-mile ter-
ritorial sea and 200-mile economic zone, but in doing so, has "properly insisted that
the rights to extended jurisdiction at sea already claimed by many states must be accom-
panied by clearly recognized obligations to the international community...As the confer-
ence now enters the difficult negotiating state, it is essential that all parties app-
roach the issues with maximum flexibility...The American negotiating position...repre-
sents a generally constructive step toward that goal." "EVIDENCE EMERGED" at 26th
annual meeting of International Whaling Commission ("accused of being a rubber stamp for
the world's whaling industry") "that the 15 member nations, succumbing to world opinion,
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS SUMMARY
were giving priority to the survival of the whale over the interests of the whaling in-
dustry...For the first time[with "selective moratoriums"] the commission has the power.,
to impose a moratorium of indefinite duration on species before their numbers fall so low
that it is no longer feasible to hunt them."(N.Y. Times. 7/1/74). Same paper(7/15/74)
feels that despite Japanese-Russian vote against selective moratoriums, "The Russians
were otherwise cooperative enough to encourage the hope that their country would this
time abide by the vote of the majority. If that proves to be the case, Japan...may fol-
low suit... No nation has the right to obliterate an animal species—least of all an an-
imal as magnificent as the whale." "JAPANESE WHALERS ARGUE that the killed crea-
tures provide necessary protein for the Japanese diet. Conservationists point out that
Japan not only exports large amounts of protein to other countries in the form of such
fish as tuna, but that only a tiny portion of Japan's protein comes from whales. But
these arguments aside, if whales are as crucial to the Japanese public as the industry
says, would it not make more sense to cease killing whales for 10 years and give the
stocks a chance to replenish themselves? If whale meat is so vital, why is Japan intent
on ravaging the source?"(Wash. Post. 7/20/74) THE BOYCOTT EFFORT by 17 American .
conservation groups [against Japanese goods]," says Wash. Star-News(7/9/74), "is an un-
warranted extreme. Most species of whales are not being 'killed to extinction,' though
more protection of a few depleted varieties certainly is needed. But, with international
controls beginning to work, Americans should rely on their government to apply pressures
for conformity with the new whaling bans and conservation quotas. Private groups can
appeal strongly, of course, with persuasive arguments. But if they seriously attempt to
damage the economy of Japan, the anger generated over there could very well make the ploy
counterproductive. The whales might suffer even more, along with Japanese-American re-
lations."
OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING
Fed. Judge William Hodges dismisses suit by Sierra Club, other environmental
groups to halt offshore drilling in eastern Gulf of Mexico. Sierra spokesman says no
decision yet on whether to appeal (Wall St. Journal, 7/17/74) "IN NEW ATTEMPT TO
BAN OR AT LEAST CONTROL offshore oil drilling in the Atlantic, Long Island officials
have decided to ask the federal government to declare the waters within a radius of 80 to
90 miles a marine sanctuary"(Newsday. 7/7/74). ADMINISTRATION EXPECTED TO ANNOUNCE
specific new tracts for offshore drilling along Southern Calif, coast, but seven coastal
cities "are preparing to resist what is seen as a unilateral decision in Washington."
Six cities have asked Government delay until impact statement completed in fall; L.A.,
State Attorney General's Office, hint they may explore legal resistance (N.Y. Times, 7/
14/74). Dep. Interior Undersecretary Jared Carter says future of Southern Cal. offshore
drilling "depends largely upon the reaction of the people"; "If the 10 million people of
Southern California say 'no1 then it ain't gonna happen"(L.A. Times. 7/13/74) L.A.
Times(7/9/74) points out that, besides the oil spill danger, "more serious misgivings
concern whether or not an increase in offshore oil production is really in man's best
interest. Is this not...an example of progress and poverty? If we think of real pover-
ty in terms of quality of life, that point becomes clearer...Sure the oil from off our
shores will help support our marvelous transportation network, but what is it worth if
we have fewer places worth visiting? Who wants to spend a weekend in an oil town on the
coast? Who wants to look out on an ocean dotted with oil rigs? Who would live in a horn
with a picture window looking out on this kind of sleazy view?... True progress should no
erode, but enhance, the q- lity of our lives." "OIL INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES are
constantly assuring the Pu lie," says Newsday(7/6/74), "that oil spills are few and far
between, easily contained and seldom harmful to the environment. In a new study, [Oil.
Spills and the Marine Environment 1. the Ford Foundation wonders how the oil industry
could have reached these conclusions. There is 'considerable ignorance' of the true
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS SUMMARY
impact of oil spills, says the study, because the industry has spent very little time or
money on research into their causes and effects...One way to develop better data would
be for the oil industry to divert some of the funds it now spends on advertisements and
press releases designed to play down the very real risks of offshore drilling."
THE FORD FOUNDATION STUDY and other recent reports and studies have warned that federal
policies of full speed ahead on oil drilling...may have very serious long-term damaging
effects on the world's ability to sustain life and health. Now is the time to go slow,
at least until more of the facts are in...the present policy of increasing production
may prove to be disastrous."
BOTTLE BILLS
EPA Region I head John McGlennon calls for national mandatory beverage container
deposit laws to reduce roadside litter(AP in Boston Globe. 7/7/74, Portland Press Herald
7/8/74) SOURCE "CLOSE" to N.Y. City Council says proposed bottle bill for that
city, despite "enthusiastic backing" by majority of councilmen, is "going no place" be-
cause "it's politically dangerous." Similar bills introduced across the country are
dying because steel, aluminum industry and can, bottle makers are instigating "one of
the most intensive lobbying campaigns in recent history." However, Vermont's bottle bil
survives its first year—despite attempted judicial, legislative sabotage—with "little
public complaint" and "sharply reduced" litter (N.Y. Times News Service in Louisville
Courier Journal, 7/14/74, Corvallis, Ore. Gazette-Times, 7/8/74) SENATE PANEL ON
NATIONAL SOLID WASTE PROBLEMS considers bill introduced by Sen Randolph(D-W.Va.) contain
ing provision that would deny fed planning funds to any state, region with a litter-
control law such as Oregon's bottle bill(Oregon Statesman. 7/6/74).
ADN39V NOUOaiOHd 1V1N3NNOHIAN3
OlVd S33J ONV 39V1S04
09WZ "O'a 'N013NIHSWA
AON39V NOIl0310Hd 1ViN3WNOaiAN3
LOI -v Sdivjjv onand jo
------- |