EN VIR ON ME NT A L
NEWS
S UMMA R Y August 2, 1974
Office of Public Affairs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. 20460
STRIP MINING
House Interior Committee strip mine bill, called by Rep. Udall(D-Ariz.) a "good,
tough...control bill," passes House 291-81 (Wash. Post, 7/26/74),(N.Y. Times, 7/26, 28/
74).(Wall St. Journal, 7/26/74). "But," says Post, "final House product pleased neither
the environmentalists who wanted to end strip mining nor the energy interests who wanted
much weaker provisions, if any." Bill now to conference with "tougher" Senate bill that
includes stripping ban where feds own mineral but not surface rights—if this provision
survives, Rep. Steiger(R-Ariz.) predicts veto BEFORE FINAL VOTE, coverage in N.Y.
Times(7/24/74), Wash. Post(7/24/74), Philadelphia Inquirer(7/22/74). Baltimore Sun(7/19/
74), Miami Herald(7/16/74). Louisville Courier-Journal(7/18/74), Arizona Republic(7/12/
74); and editorial reaction: (1) Syndicated columnist Ernest B. Furgurson(Minneapolis
Tribune, 7/17/74): "The rank-and-file citizens against stripping...in case after case...
relate how their hillside farms, their homes, their very lives are snuffed out by callous
stripping. Those talking about the wonders of 'reclamation1 of stripped land should call
Thelma Cornett [jof Linefork, Ky/j as a witness. 'We have proof for anyone to see that
the land in these mountains, when they have once been augered and stripped, can never be
reclaimed, and it also ruins what level land and garden spots we have at the foot of
these mountains.1"; (2) Indianapolis Star(7/15/74): "We think land ravishment by strip
mining is a local issue. What to do about it should be decided by the people directly
affected. Conditions affecting the toleration of strip mining vary widely from one lo-
cality to another, and Federal regulation on a set of rigid national standards is not
appropriate. Some states already have begun to make progress toward protecting the land
without putting strip miners out of business. That is the goal to be sought, and states
should be left to pursue it."; (3) Providence Journal(7/18/74); "The national interest
demands that Congress enact controls without another year's delay...The coal interests
may exploit fears of an energy shortage but even if the worst should happen, emergency
measures are available to prevent lasting consequences. The same cannot be argued if
surface miners are permitted to proceed with impunity to create damage to millions of
acres of open land that promises to be irreversible." TRAIN'S TRIP THROUGH WESTERN
STRIP MINING AREAS draws coverage from Spokane Spokesman-Review(7/14/74). and Houston
Post'(7/14/74) which says Nixon "facing a mild revolt" within EPA, as result of Train,
Quarles support of Interior Committee bill (see 7/19/74 News Summary) Wash. Post
(7/14/74) focuses on N.D. Gov. Arthur Link(D) as a "politician in anguish," along with
other Midwestern, Western governors, as he contemplates prospect of strip mining in his
state. Link stresses point "more important than all the others": "People representing
the cities have as great a stake in restoration of this land as the people of North Da-
kota. From these lands come the food and fiber their constituents will need long after
the coal is removed."
•
MASS TRANSIT
House votes 221-181 to return to House-Senate conference a bill providing $800
million in operating subsidies for big-city mass transit systems (Wall St. Journal. 7/3V
74),(N.Y. Times, 7/31/74).(Wash. Post. 7/31/74). Rep. Minish(D-N.J.), bill's main spon-
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS SUMMARY
sor, says it will probably stay there until he sees what happens to Administration-
backed Public Works Committee bill providing $20 million over next six years for operat-
ing subsidies, capital investment in buses, other equipment. Minish's bill "faced an
almost certain" Nixon veto due to fear of inflationary bulge in fed budget and feeling
that NYC gets too much at expense of other cities BEFORE VOTE, coverage in
N Y. Times(7/26/74), Wall St. Journal(7/29/74), Wash. Post(7/27/74), and editorial re-
action to"progress of bill: (1) N.Y. Times(7/27/74); "Members of Congress from many
parts of the country, from rural areas as well as from urban centers...have begun to
recognize the importance of mass transportation in meeting national concerns about the
environment and conserving energy. The chances of holding down transit fares here and
elsewhere will remain slim, however, unless the Nixon Administration experiences a simi-
lar awakening."; (2) Wash. Star-News(7/22/74): "For all its limited scope, the stop-gap
[Minish] bill would help countless urban areas combat the mounting operating deficits
that are threatening their transit-fare structures with imminent collapse."
IN RELATED DEVELOPMENTS. "The signs are growing," says Oregonian(7/15/74),
"that the federal government and the Congress are bobbing and weaving when faced with
requests from the cities that adequate funds be provided to see through to completion
their rail mass transit programs...Frank E. Herringer, chief of the federal Urban Mass
Transportation Administration, made it perfectly clear in an interview in Railway Age
that the Nixon administration is no longer committed to a rapid-rail solution to urban
transportation problems... In Congress, efforts to produce long-range transit legisla-
tion are bogged down, if not derailed, by disagreements between members of the House
Public Works Committee and the Department of Transportation...In order to cover the
tracks while the arguments continue, DOT has been suggesting to cities that they trans-
fer aid from unbuilt freeways to mass transit...But when these and other federal funds
are used up, the area will be left high and dry with only its own meager resources to
fall back on. It still will not have adequate bus lanes. It is obviously more sensible
to get on with the development of bus-expressways over freeway routes than to wait for
years for large rail-transit sums that may never come. There is little evidence that a
new administration will be any more enthusiastic about street railways than is the pre-
sent one. The ease with which the climate can shift in Washington should be a warning
, to the Portland area against getting itself committed to a transit system where the dol-
! lars for its construction are not guaranteed. This is the bare minimum and beyond this
point is the question of operating costs. Ultimately the community and the local tax-
| payers will have to pick up these sums if the federal government ducks out."
: IN OTHER MASS TRANSIT DEVELOPMENTS. L.A. Times (7/16/74) says prospects for L.A.
mass transit system "looking brighter" since Southern California Assn. of Governments'
exec, committee approves tentative master plans for L.A., Orange counties—an endorse-
ment without which fed funding would be impossible Wash. Star-News(7/12/74) re-
ports that, whereas in 1945 bus, trolley and subway systems returned 11 cents profit for
every fare dollar, today mass transit loses 23 cents for every dollar collected.
LAND USE
Train says EPA will establish new land use division to coordinate work among
several agency branches and with other fed agencies(N.Y. Times, 7/9/74). (Milwaukee Jour-
i nal, 7/10/74). "It will be a modest undertaking," says Train, "with only three to five
I professional specialists to start, but we hope to bring some new dimensions to our hand-
ling of what is about the most basic element of the environment. It could be a real fo-
cal point to develop much closer liaison with state and local government." EDITORIAL
REACTION: "Besides providing internal coordination," says N.Y. Times(7/12/74), "the
proposed land use unit could informally help state and local governments, which are from
time to time confused by the conflicting decisions of different EPA branches as well as
by conflicts of their own. Valuable as this unit should prove, it can in no way lessen
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS SUMMARY
the need for the kind of land-use legislation that the House.. .rejected." N.Y. Daily
News (7/15/74) says land use unit is "the wrong way to solve ecology problems.. .Train
makes no bones about hopes that it will grow like Topsy into at least a sub-empire of
rule-making minions. We need none of that nonsense." Minneapolis Tribune(7/13/74) says,
"Pressure from the White House to thwart the work of Train's new division could render
it useless. In the absence of a sound national land-use law, we hope the White House
gives Train a chance."
IN OTHER IAND USE DEVELOPMENTS. Rep. Casey(D-Texas) introduces legislation pro-
hibiting EPA from considering indirect emission sources in granting construction permits,
saying agency is attempting to impose on nation same sort of land use regs already re-
jected by Congress (Houston Post. 7/12/74). If EPA can tell business where to locate,
claims Casey, the next step might "logically" be to "tell private citizens where they
can build their homes," thus making Train a "land use czar" and "the most powerful man
in America. All of us want clean air and the EPA has a most important role in achieving
that goal. But reason must prevail. We must not allow the EPA or any other federal
agency to circumvent congressional intent by bureaucratic lawmaking." Bergen Coun-
ty Record(7/11/74) runs feature on EPA 10-year air pollution control strategy—publica-
tion scheduled 8/16/74 in Federal Register--wherein 180 regions must provide plans en-
suring growth will not degenerate their air quality below fed standards in decade after
'75. Record says new rules will "revolutionize land-use planning in America...EPA offi-
cials readily concede that the agency is trying to prod state and local governments into
adopting land-use policies that better protect the environment." 48 STATES have
begun land use policy studies or have instituted land use controls to cope with specific
problems (Land Use Planning Reports. 7/8/74) "WHEN THE HOUSE.. .KILLED THE FEDERAL
LAND USE BILL," says syndicated columnist John Chamberlain(Chicago Tribune, 7/8/74),
"the liberals attributed it to a conspiracy of 'reactionaries'...But the turth of the
matter is that little people in the rural states provided most of the steam...The stir-
ring at the grass roots against the idea that Papa in Washington knows best about every-
thing, including land use planning, is becoming a bipartisan thing." Chamberlain quotes
Geoffrey Faux, former head of the economic development branch, Office of Economic Oppor-
tunity, who feels fed land planning has a bias toward "Socialism for the rich," and, if
implemented, "realtors and developers would soon be in politics right up to their ears
to get their friends into key spots inside whatever bureaucracy was running the show."
UNLEADED GAS
Syndicated columnist Ralph Nader(Wash. Star-News, 7/21/74)(Newsday. 7/17/74),
criticizes FEA for attempt at permanent premium pricing policy for leadfree gas. Nader's
Public Interest Research Group and Consumers Union submitted letter to Sawhill citing
three studies showing no justification for leadfree to be priced above regular gas—then
FEA backed down. But Nader warns that FEA "is merely in a tactical retreat to give the
oil industry an opportunity to regroup for a second try" at premium pricing for unleaded.
NATIONAL PETROLEUM REFINERS ASSOC. joins American Petroleum Institute in attacking
Arthur D. Little, Inc. study showing unleaded no more expensive to produce than conven-
tional fuels (see 7/19/74 News Summary). NPRA Tech. Dir. Herb Bruck says Little study
"trying to represent the total U.S. refinery situation by this theoretical 100,000 b/d
refinery with all the latest technological units and devices, and it just doesn't relate
to the real world." Furthermore, Bruck charges Little technicians did not "calibrate
and validate their model" to result in valid, predictable data for all refineries(Oil
Daily. 7/19/74) PUERTO RICO ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD petitions to modify EPA un-
leaded gas ruling, because Esso unleaded costs more than leaded and EQB officials feel
motorists will buy cheaper leaded gas and "probably actually increase the levels of lead
in the atmosphere." They also think switchover will cost motorists "$12 million."(San
Juan Star. 7/8/74) MANY HIGH VOLUME FILLING STATIONS don't start selling unleaded
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS SUMMARY
by 7/1 deadline (AP in Minneapolis Tribune. 7/8/74) Newsweek(7/29/74) says that
after 10,000 miles driving with unleaded, drivers will need higher-octane fuel to pre-
vent engine knock. The higher grades, however, will no longer be available, which means
engine timing will have to be retarded to stop knock--thereby raising fuel consumption.
ADDITIONAL UNLEADED GAS ARTICLES in Pittsburgh Press(7/14/74). Dallas Morning News
(7/14/74).
IN OTHER AUTO POLLUTION DEVELOPMENTS. Senate Appropriations Committee adds $10
million to $7 million voted by House for EPA research into development of more efficient,
cleaner auto engines(Wash. Star-News, 7/14/74) TRAIN ASKS CONGRESS to extend auto
emission deadlines for communities where gas rationing proposed, provided the community
implements all available measures(Air/Water Pollution Report, 7/8/74) CALIF. COM-
MISSION ON STATE GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND ECONOMY charges that Calif. Air Resources
Board not enforcing state emission control standards for new cars. Random check of four
dealerships showed 60-94% of cars failed standards(L.A. Times. 7/11/74).
RESERVE MINING
U.S. District Judge Miles Lord says he receives "feedback" that Reserve Case
can't be settled until after 11/5/74 state elections, when state officials will be able
to make "accomocations" with Reserve (Wash. Star-News, 7/24/74) SEN HART(D-MICH.)
ATTEMPTS AMENDMENT to resource conservation and energy recovery bill stating that party
suing polluter need not necessarily "prove that a demonstrable health hazard exists" but
that court in absence of such hard proof "shall consider the likelihood and magnitude of
risk of harm..." Proposal prompted by Eighth Circuit Court's reversal of Reserve Mining
shutdown order on grounds that health risk not "proved." (Wash. Post. 7/17/74).(Philadel-
phia Inquirer. 7/17/74). Thinking along similar lines, Dayton Journal Herald(7/8/74)
feels that "as a general principle...the obligation should be on the company (TteserveJ
to prove that a hazard does not exist, not on the public to prove that one does exist."
ccc-vda
A3N39V NOUOaiOHd 1V1N3WNOHIAN3
QlVd S33i ONV 39VlSOd
09*02 'O'd 'N013NIHSVAA
AON3SV NOIJ.33J.OUd 1V1N3WNOHIAN3 'S'fl
LOI -v saivjdv onend jo
------- |