NBSIR 73-218

NEPA and the Environmental Movement:

A Brief History

Lynn G. Llewellyn and Clare Peiser

Technical Analysis Division

Institute for Applied Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

July 1973

Final Report

Prepared for Environmental Studies Division

Office of Research and Monitoring

Enviro mental Protection Agency

Washington, D. C, 20460

NBSIR 73-218

NEPA AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT:

A BRIEF HISTORY

Lynn G. Llewellyn and Clare Peiser

Technical Analysis Division

Institute for Applied Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

July 1973

Final Report

Prepared for Environmental Studies Division

Office of Research and Monitoring

Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, D. C. 20460

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Frederick B. Dent. Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS. Richard W. Roberts, Director

PREFACE

In June 19 72 the Technical Analysis Division of the

National Bureau of Standards was asked to take part in a

Summer Fellows Program sponsored by the Environmental

Protection Agency. TAD was assigned the role of monitoring

the research activities of the twenty- five outstanding college

students who were investigating the impact of the environment

on society. At the request of EPA, TAD also undertook the

separate task of preparing a history of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) , which was signed into law

in January 19 70. While performing the background research

for this study (along the guidelines suggested by the

Environmental Studies Division of EPA) it quickly became

clear that the issues involved were quite complex. In order

to set NEPA in the proper context it was useful to describe

(1) the rapid growth of an environmental ethic in this country

(2) the impact of some highly visible ecological disasters

which captured national attention, and (3) the traditional

maneuvering and in-fighting so characteristic of the American

political system. It should be noted that there was

absolutely no intention to take sides on the issues or to

portray any of the adversaries unfavorably. Rather, an

attempt was made to underscore the fact that there were

honest differences of opinion among key decision-makers

concerning the proper direction of environmental programs

and policies. NEPA remains a controversial Act, particularly

its requirement for environmental impact statements. The

chronology of events and subsequent effects constitute the

central focus of our research.

The authors would like to take this opportunity to

thank Mr. Walter Leight, Dr. Richard Mach, Dr. Ralph Swisher,

and Ms. Marilyn Westfall for reviewing the manuscript. Their

many helpful comments are deeply appreciated. We are also

indebted to Ms. Marilyn Taylor and Mrs. Mary Abbott for their

excellent secretarial assistance in the preparation of the

manuscript.

Lynn G. Llewellyn

P. Clare Reiser

June, 19 73

i
CONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION ....... , 1

- 2.0 THE WELLSPRINGS OF ENVIRONMENTALISM 2

2.1 Some Critical Incidents 2

2.2 Changes in Public Opinion (1960-1970) .... 4

2.3 Opinion Leaders and the Mass Media 5

3.0 THE GOVERNMENT RESPONDS s A TWO-YEAR CHRONOLOGY . . 8

3.1 The Quest for Environmental Supremacy .... 8

3.2 Fall 1968 . . . „ 9

3.3 Winter 1969 . o ....... o » 11

3.4 Spring 1969 . . . . . o 12

3.5 Summer 1969

. 13

3.6 Fall 1969 14

3.7 Winter 19 70 .... 14

3.8 Spring 1970 17

3.9 Summer 19 70 19

4.0 EPILOGUE .

' . . \ 23

4.1 The Struggle Continues 23

4.2 NEPA: Pro and Con . , 24

4.3 Whither the Environmental Cause 27

I

ii
1.0 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this paper is threefold: (i) to trace

a few of the critical events which led up to the environmental

crusade of the past few years; (2) to review the Federal

Government's response to public pressure on behalf of the

environment/ particularly from mid-1968 to mid-1970; and (3)

to examine the environmental movement today — what the critics

think of it and some of the obstacles it must overcome.

The opening section is an attempt to identify some of the

forces at work during the 60 's which helped to mold the

environmental policies of the current decade. Clearly, this

is not a simple task. The environmental movement evolved from

a complex interplay of decision makers, institutions, critical

events, mass media coverage and heightened public awareness of

ecological problems. A definitive discussion of these factors

is far beyond the scope of the opening section; it does, however,

touch upon three key elements in the equation: some highly

visible environmental mishaps, changing priorities as reflected

in public opinion polls on environmental issues, and the

influence exerted by prominent conservationists and the mass

media

.

In many ways the second section is a continuation of the

opening theme. It charts the activities of Congress and the

Administration from the 1968 Presidential election until the

1970 Congressional elections, a critical period in the development of environmental policy. As this section suggests, many

of the laws now on the books are as much the result of political

image-building and jurisdictional disputes as they are of more

altruistic motives. The primary focus of attention — here,

and in the final section -- is the National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) , surely one of the most controversial pieces of

legislation passed in recent years.

Tl'he paper concludes with a critique of NEPA's first one

thousand days. In particular it examines the requirement for

environmental impact statements which has created a furor in

the courts, and some of the challenges facing the

environmental movement today.

1
2.0 THE WELLSPRINGS OF ENVIRONMENTALISM

2 . 1 Some Critical Incidents

Generally speaking, a political issue becomes salient if

(a) it is highly visible ^ (b) the general public is aware of

the problem, and (c) the issue arouses emotion among an

influential segment of the populace (e.g., the mass media,

opinion leaders, pressure groups, the political elite, etc.).

Thus, with the exception of localized concern about smog, and

the activities of conservation groups, the environment was not

a major focus of attention until the last decade. During the

early and mid-60 's Americans were primarily concerned about the

threat of nuclear war with the Soviet Union (viz. , the Cuban

missile crisis) , the Indo-China war, communism, inflation and

unemployment, racial tensions and crime-in- the-streets

.

Exactly what happened to change the public's sense of

national priorities is not entirely clear, but two events —

the Torrey Canyon episode and the Santa Barbara oil spill —

were probably instrumental in drawing attention to the

fragile nature of our environment.

In March, 195 7, the tanker Torrey Canyon , carrying 119,000

tons of crude oil, broke apart in rough seas off Land's End,

England. Frantic efforts to prevent the spill from doing

extensive damage only underscored the relatively unsophisticated

techniques available to cope with oil pollution of this

magnitude. Television audiences throughout the United States

witnessed the use of everything from detergents to napalm, all

of which proved unsuccessful. Ultimately, great quantities

of oil enveloped wide expanses of English beaches, killing

countless shore birds and crippling the coastal tourist

trade . 2 The testimony of British investigators was

illustrative of the worldwide concern about the high probability

of future disasters:

The risk of accident is a very real one. In the

three years preceding the wreck of the Torrey

Canyon , 91 tankers were stranded in various parts

of the world, while 238 were involved in collisions

either with tankers or other vessels. Over the

world at large, tankers thus have been involved

in potentially serious accidents on an average of

about twice a week for the past three years (prior

to 19 6 7) . Sixteen of the 329 ships which were

concerned became total losses? in nine of the

collisions fires broke out in one or both ships

j

and in 39 cases cargo spillage or leakage occurred.

2
Another type of oil spill probably did more to shake the

American public out of its complacency than any other event

in recent history. In January, 1969, an off-shore drilling

rig in the Santa Barbara Channel struck a large oil deposit

but, in so doing, set off a catastrophic chain of events.

The resultant blow-out cracked the ocean floor, allowing

several million gallons of oil to escape. Santa Barbara,

an erstwhile garden spot, became, at least temporarily, a

massive ecological problem area. Despite round-the-clock

efforts to contain the slick, miles of coastal waterways and

beaches bacame coated with crude oil. Untold numbers of

waterfowl and other aquatic life were killed."^

Intensive coverage by the mass media attracted widespread attention to the plight of Santa Barbara. Television,

in particular, was responsible for arousing public

indignation over the incident as it depicted the sight of

youthful volunteers trying valiantly to remove oil from

dying shore birds.

Also contributing to the high level of public interest

in the Santa Barbara incident was the fact that the Secretary

of the Interior, Walter Hickel, had only recently been the

object of a bitter controversy over his confirmation. Faced

with some difficult choices. Secretary Hickel ordered the

drilling shut down. In his words "the behind-the-scenes

battle . . . became a turning point in the relationship between

government and industry".^ Hickel also makes the interesting

observation that the authority to call a halt to off-shore

drilling in the Santa Barbara Channel was not derived from

any statute governing pollution damage; rather, it was

because valuable oil was being wasted. Clearly, the

Department of the Interior needed a better mechanism for

responding quickly to oil spills.

Cleaning up a spill cannot wait for a court judge

to decide who is liable. It has to be done before

the pollution kills the wildlife and ruins the

beaches. For this reason I demanded that all

companies who hold drilling leases on the outer

Continental Shelf accept liability for cleanup

even before the cause of a spill is determined.

This became known in short as "absolute liability

without cause" . It also became one of the most

controversial topics in both the executive and

legislative branches of the federal government.'^

There were other occasions on which Mr. Hickel crossed

swords with the oil industry during his tenure as Secretary

of the Interior, including a landmark court battle with the

3
Chevron Oil Company, In February, 1970, oil spilled into the

Gulf of Mexico when a Chevron drilling rig caught fire. A

subsequent investigation revealed that a storm choke had not

been installed, a serious violation of safety regulations.

After closing down the oil field, safety inspectors found

similar violations in a significant proportion of the Chevron

rigs. The court fined the company one million dollars but,

more important (according to Mr, Hickel) was the amount of

publicity the case received from the newspapers.

Although the discussion of critical incidents has been

confined to oil spills it should not be construed that oil

poses a greater threat to the environment than other forms

of pollutions from the standpoint of the effect on human

populations, toxic substances such as lead and mercury may

constitute a greater hazards However^ oil slicks generally

are more easily perceived than is the presence of toxic

substances and visibility precipitates and intensifies

public indignation. In the final analysis^ the loss of the

Torrey Canyon , the Santa Barbara spill, and other subsequent

incidents appeared to have considerable impact on public

opinion. Data reflecting public awareness are reported in

the next section.

2.2 Changes in Public Opinion (1960-1970)

There was little public commitment on a national scale

to ecological problera solving during the early stages of the

last decade. Despite the activities of various conservation

groups (e.g., the Izaa'^: Walton League sponsored a "Clean Air

Week" in 19 60) few Americans recognized the magnitude of

environmental degradation, ^ As late as the Fall of 1964, a

list of "concerns" of the American public compiled by the

Gallup organization (from open-ended questions) contained no

reference to the environment , ^ Within less than a year,

however, this picture began to change.

Political influence is a two-way street: public

opinion has an effect on the decisions made by government

officials, and the reverse is also true. Each stimulates

the other. As an example (although a cause-effect

relationship cannot be established) g President Johnson

spoke about the importance of beautifying America in 19 65^

and marked changes in public attitude subsequently occurred.

Late that year 4 3 percent of a Harris poll sample expressed

concern about the pollution of rivers and streams „ 10

Another index of increasing public interest v/as the

publication of 350 articles on pollution by the New York

Times , more than twice the nuimber published in 196 4, It is

not surprising that four important pieces of environmental

legislation — the Water Quality Act, the Water Resources

Act, the Rural Water Sewage Act^p and the Highway Beautification

Act — were also passed' in 1965^

4
From 19 65 through 196 8, polls conducted by the Opinion

Research Corporation continued to reflect increasing awareness

of pollution. For example, the percentage of individuals who

thought that water pollution was a "serious" problem increased

from 35 to 58 in approximately three years. Similarly, concern

over air pollution climbed from 28 percent to 55 percent

.

Comparable data were not available after 19 6 8; however, a 19 69

poll conducted on behalf of the National Wildlife Federation

showed that more than eight out of every ten individuals

surveyed were at least "somewhat concerned" about environmental

deterioration. Another poll conducted in 19 70 indicated that

90 percent of those sampled were concerned about water

pollution.

While it is dangerous to generalize from several different

polls which varied in terms of sample size and question content,

at least one conclusion appears justified. The general public

was becoming increasingly adamant in its demand for more

positive action in the fight against pollution.

Another measure of public interest in the environment

was the accelerated growth of conservation and related

pressure groups during the last decade. The size of the Sierra

Club increased from 15,000 to more than 85,000; more

dramatically, its Eastern membership went from 750 to 19,000

according to Trop and Roos.l3 The collective political "clout"

of other similar organizations (such as Friends of the Earth,

the Conservation Foundation, the National Wildlife Federation,

the Nature Conservancy, and the National Audubon Society) can

be directly attributed to more members, larger financial

contributions and a receptive public.

2 . 3 Opinion Leaders and the Mass Media

In its own way, Rachel Carson's Silent Spring was as

critical a contributor to the growth of an environmental

ethic as the Santa Barbara incident. Frank Egler, a noted

plant ecologist went so far as to say that

The years 1962 and 196 3 are so completely dominated

by one person and one book that historians of the

future may well Jpffer to this period as the

Carsonian Era...-'-^.

A best seller for many months. Silent Spring succeeded in

acquainting the public with the dangers of pesticides

something that a number of concerned scientists had been

unable to do. As Egler states, there was increasing

apprehension

5
...as to the side effects, the indirect effects,

and the long term effects of .pesticides , not

only on the target organisms themselves , but on

other organisms, as the pesticides moved through

the environment interacting among themselves,

following food chains as predator ate predator,

and acting upon man himself, as in cancer-producing

substances, in ways most difficult to document in

a factual manner. 15

Government policies governing the use of pesticides did not

change significantly for almost another decade i however, the

fact that change occurred at all is due at least in part

to Silent Spring . The popular appeal of Silent Spring marked the beginning

of an informal alliance between leading conservationists and

the mass media. From 19 65 to 19 70 the reading public was

bombarded with environmental literature ^ whose basic theme was

a dying plant. Commoner Science and Survival , Ehrlich's

Population Bomb , Ewald's Environment for Man , and the Rienows

Moment in the Sun were among the most influential books of

that period.

As time passed, there were predictable reactions to the

constant litany of "doomsday" predictions. For some individuals,

fears of a nuclear Armageddcn were replaced by anxiety about

"killer smogs" (T. So Sliot°s version of a world ending "not

with a bang, but a whimper"" seemed suddenly prophetic) . Others

became confused by both the quantity and the ambiguity of

available information (e.gc^ the debate over phosphate

detergents) which, in turn, resulted in loss of interest,

apathy, disbelief, and occasionally, denunciation of environmental spokesmen.

Unfortunately, the proportion of the general public for

or against sweeping changes in environmental policies could

not be ascertained. In the absence of rigorous in-depth

national attitude surveys the size of these groups their

composition, and intensity of feeling (or degree of commitment)

was subject to misinterpretation » As noted in the previous

section, the polls reflected growing concern over pollution,

but not how much people were willing to sacrifice (i.e.,

increased taxes, rising costs associated with anti-pollution

devices, etc.) for clean air and water o Other indices were

equally unreliable. For examples, letters to newspapers and

to politicians are often written by a disproportionately

small segment of the ideological spectrum. In particular,

published letters have already been screened, hence ^ a

frequency count of such letters might well reflect the

philosophy of the newspaper more than public sentiment.

6
The last point relates to another potentially dangerous

measure of attitudinal climate-that of media coverage. At

the close of the last decade most television and newspaper

accounts of environmental controversies appeared to support

conservationists . 17 Both media devoted extensive coverage

to local confrontations between ecologists and developers,

citizen groups and highway officials^ wilderness advocates

and mining interests, and so on. The coverage problem was

mentioned in a recent interview with an official of the

American Petroleum Institute.

"It sometimes seems that I see David Brower

(president of ... Friends of the Earth) every

other time I turn on my TV set", she says. (The

personable and articulate Brower has, in fact,

appeared frequently in such forums as The Dick

Cavett Show and in news broadcasts) . "But it's

very seldom that I see an oil company or electric

utility executive."!^

At the same time it may be noted that large sums are

spent on institutional advertising for the purpose of image

building with respect to environmental affairs.

Some obse.rvations may be made without taking sides in

the dispute over media coverage. As Joseph Klapper, Director

of Social Research for the Columbia Broadcasting System has

pointed out, although most research indicates that the mass

media are not very effective at changing existing attitudes,

they can stimulate the formation of new attitudes by conveying

information to an uncommitted or dissatisfied audience — one

"predisposed" to change. 19 clearly, an audience receptive to

ecological appeals coalesced during the period under discussion

although we don't know its size. Indeed, if media coverage was

as biased as environmental critics contend, then the

environmental movement might have appeared more pervasive than

it was. This point will be addressed in a later section.

In summary, the environmental Zeitgeist of the late 1960 's

was not the result of any single factor; rather it was the

interaction of multiple factors. Time magazine, for example

suggested that the environment represented a new challenge,

a problem which American skills and "know-how" might be

capable of solving. By the same token, however, the

environmental movement" . . . represented a creeping

disillusionment with technology, an attempt by individuals

to reassert control over machine civilization ." ^0 Thus far,

the present discussion has touched briefly on the impact of

certain critical events and the influence exerted by

conservationists, public opinion, and the mass media. In the

next sections, attention is focused on the role played by the

Federal Government — specifically, two years of environmental

legislation and what influenced it.

7
3.0 THE GOVERNMENT RESPONDS: A TWO-YEAR CHRONOLOGY

3 . 1 The Quest for Environmental Supremacy

As public pressure on behalf of the environment continued

to mount during the late 60 's, a number of Senators and

Congressmen contended for leadership of the environmental

crusade. The competition became even more keen in the wake

of the 1968 elections when the White House entered this

arena. None the lessj, neither party's 1968 platform had

devoted much space to ecological problems. The Democrats

outlined the need for clean air^ clean water, and improved

methods of waste disposal in a brief section which also

contained references to agriculture and recreation; the

Republicans covered pollution in one sentence,

Given the increasing public concern it is somewhat

surprising that neither party's platform paid much attention

to the environment. Clearly, greater importance was attached

to other issues such as "law and order" and Vietnam. Another

factor is mentioned in Scammon and Wattenberg's analysis of

the 1968 elections: in terms of national politics, ecology

is akin to "motherhood" , and nobody is going to campaign

against it. 22

If Scammon and Wattenberg are correct, then the competition

for political dominance in environmental affairs might have

been motivated somewhat by the desire to be perceived as the

champion of "motherhood." Thus ^ Republicans and Democrats

alike were casting about for issues which might be important

not only in the 19 70 Congressional elections, but in 1972

as well, and environmental quality appeared to be a

relatively "safe", yet attractive issue. This factor,

together with traditional rivalries between Congressional

Committees and between high ranking Administration

officials, furnishes the background for much of the

environmental legislation of the last few years. As political

scientist J. Clarence Davies has noted:

One can search the Congressional Record in vain for

a defense of foul air or dirty water. One can

similarly search in vain for a metropolitan area

which does not suffer from the fumes of automobiles,

from belching smokestacks, or from untreated sewage

flowing into its lakes and streams. The explanation

for the gap between intention and reality lies to

a great extent in the realm of politics."

8
In the remainder of this section an attempt will be made

to review the anti-pollution measures initiated by members of

the 91st Congress and the Nixon Administration. This

discussion is essentially limited to the period separating

the 1968 and 1970 elections, primarily to highlight proximate

events leading to the National Environmental Policy Act. The

sequence of events can also be followed in Figure 1 which

provides a month-by-month picture of environmental initiatives

taken by Federal policy makers.

3.2 Fall 1968

3.2.1 Introduction . John Steinhart, the Associate

Director of the Marine Studies Center at the University of

Wisconsin, has emphasized that jurisdiction over environmental

legislation is somewhat confused in the House of

Representatives . 2^ Part of this problem is definitional in

nature: "environment" is a catch-all concept with ill-defined

boundaries. Responsibility for environmental quality could

equally well be placed in any one of several standing

committees (e.g.. Agriculture, Commerce, Interior and

Insular Affairs, Merchant Marine and Fisheries, and possibly

others) depending on what facet of the environment was under

consideration. The guidelines governing committee

jurisdiction are sometimes fuzzy, and overlapping

responsibilities frequently result. The situation is also

affected by the activities of powerful pressure groups, and

the need to insure that constituents are not adversely affected.

The important role played by committees was stressed in the

recently published Almanac of American Politics ; Lawyers and pollsters know that the power to shape

the question is, by and large, the power to determine

the answer. Congressional committees, by hammering

out the legislation which the Congress at large

passes or rejects, do just that ... Committee

chambers . . . are literally the back rooms where the

decisions of Congress are shaped.

3.2.2 Reuss investigations. In September 1968, Congressman Henry Reuss, from Wisconsin's fifth district, conducted a hearing on research findings related to sulfur oxide

pollution. Reuss, like many others, was disenchanted with

jurisdictional squabbles, duplication of effort, and lack of

coordination within the Federal bureaucracy . Later, as

Chairman of the Government Operations' Subcommittee on

Conservation and Natural Resources, he bacame known as a staunch ally of conservationists . 2/ Furthermore, the Subcommittee's unique "watchdog" status allowed Reuss to challenge

other Congressmen (such as Wayne Aspinall, Chairman of the

powerful Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs) for preeminence in environmental matters.

9
10
3.2.3 White Paper on the Environment. Another important

figure in the House of Representatives was Congressman Emilio

Daddario. During the mid-60 's, his Subcommittee on Science,

Research, and Development focused attention on the problem

of enviornmental quality. Of particular interest is the

Subcommittee's 19 6 8 report which called for a systems

approach to pollution problems . Daddario wanted the Department

of Interior to assume responsibility for the coordination of

Federal environmental programs. He also emphasized the need

for an "Environmental Cabinet" chaired by the Secretary of

the Interior and comprised of designated officials from other

Federal agencies. For the first time a key phrase — "national

policy for the environment" — appeared, one with far reaching

implications for the nation's future.

In October 19 68, Congressman Daddario joined forces with

Senator Henry Jackson to develop the "Congressional V\Jhite

Paper on a National Policy for the Environment." Davies

suggests that, by calling for the establishment of a joint

Congressional committee on environmental management, Jackson

was trying to preempt Senator Edmund Muskie who had for some

time been seeking the creation of a S^^ect Senate Committee on

Technology and the Human Environment.

3.3 Winter 1969

3.3.1 Introduction . As previously indicated, the Santa

Barbara oil spill of January 1969 aroused considerable ire

within the body politic. Pressure from the general public

and the mass media became more intense for strong Congressional

action. The Nixon Administration in general, and Secretary

Hickel in particular, were quickly introduced to environmental

realities at the national level.

3.3.2 Jackson Bill. In many respects, the Santa Barbara

oil spill served as a catalytic agent in the competition for

leadership in environmental matters. In February, Senator

Jackson, Chairman of the Interior and Insular Affairs

Committee, introduced a bill which eventually was to become

the National Environmental Policy Act. Jackson's bill called

for (a) the Department of the Interior to spearhead the conduct

of environmental research and (b) the establishment of a three-man Council on Environmental Quality reporting directly

to the President. 30 a modified version of the bill eventually

cleared the Senate in July of 1969.

Considerable credit should go to Michigan Congressman

John Dingell for passage of the House version of Jackson's

bill. According to John Steinhart, Dingell — Chairman of

the House Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation —

introduced the bill "as an amendment to the 19 4 6 Fish and

Wildlife Act. "31 Steinhart viewed this as a ploy to get the

11
bill assigned to Dingell's subcommittee for hearings over

the opposition of Representative Wayne Aspinall. In the

House version of the bill, the proposed Council on

Environmental Quality would have consisted of five m.embers

in contrast to the three recommended in Jackson's Senate

version. When this landmark piece of environmental

legislation cleared the House of Representatives in

September 1969, the number of proposed Council members

again stood at three.

3.4 Spring 1969

3.4.1 Introduction . In the Spring of 1969, President

Nixon brought the weight of the Executive Branch to bear on

environmental affairs. While Jackson's bill was languishing

in the Senate, Mr. Nixon issued Executive Order 114 72 in May

establishing an Environmental Quality Council (which should

not be confused with the Council on Environmental Quality

recommended in the Jackson bill) . A month earlier The

President's Advisory Council on Executive Organization had , been appointed under the leadership of Roy L. Ash, then

President of Litton Industries, Inc. The Council's proposal

to establish a Department of Natural Resources is of prime

interest, but a full discussion of its implications will be

reserved for a later section since the Council's findings

were not presented to the President until May 1970.

3.4.2 Executive Order 11472 . With this action President

Nixon launched an Environmental Quality Council and the Citizen's

Advisory Committee on Environmental Quality, the former

including the President as Chairman and the President's Science

Adviser as the Executive Secretary. The Council was designed

to advise and assist the Chief Executive on matters related

to environmental quality. Specifically, it was to (a) review

Federal plans and programs and recommend Fieasures to insure

that environmental ef'fects were properly treated (b) conduct

studies and advise the President on policy matters related to

recreation and beauti f ication outdoors; (c) encourage mutual

cooperation among Federal, State, and local organizations

and strengthen public and private participation in environmental

programs. The fifteen-member Citizen's Advisory Committee

shared many of the same duties, including offering assistance

and evaluating the extent to which progress^was being made

in the achievement of the Council's goals. The Environmental

Quality Council met for the first time in June 19 69, with top

priority assigned to such problems as air pollution, solid

waste disposal methods, and the long range effects of DDT.

Steinhart has argued that the Environmental Quality

Council was Mr. Nixon's initial attempt to establish

"primacy" in the field of environmental affairs. -3 in

Steinhart 's opinion, however, the Council could never be an . 12
effective coordinating group because of its special relationship to the President and his belief that the Chief Executive

should take action to solve problems, not merely "comment"

on them.

3.4.3 Muskie Bill . As chairman, of the Public Works

Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, Senator Muskie is

regarded by many as the leading environmental crusader in

Congress. During the 60 's he was responsible for some of the

m.ost important pollution control legislation of that era —

notably, the Water Quality Act of 1965, the 196 6 Clean VJater

Restoration Act, and the Air Quality Act of 1967. Muskie

introduced the Environmental Quality Improvement Act in June

of 1969 which called for:

e The development of criteria and standards to assure

the protection and enhancement of environmental

quality in all Federal and federally assisted public

works projects and programs;

• the coordination of all Federal research programs to

increase knowledge of the interrelationship between

man and his environment;

• the creation of an Office of Environmental Quality

and appropriate staff in the Executive Office of

the President.

The Senate v^as novr confronted with competing bills

(Jackson's and Muskie *s) and the prospect of a protracted

floor fight. Muskie, it seemed, was very concerned about the

effect of NEPA on existing environmental programs. Fortunately,

negotiations betv/een Muskie and Jackson led to a compromise

provisions for the Council on Environmental Quality and the

Office of Environmental Quality both survived, and a lengthy

struggle over committee jurisdiction was avoided. Ultimately,

Jackson's bill got through first, and Muskie 's propos^^ was

incorporated in proposed water pollution legislation.

3.5 Summer 19 69

3.5.1 Introduction . During the summer of 1969, Senator

Jackson's bill passed both houses of Congress and V7as sent to

the President for signature. Also of significance to ecologyminded Congressmen was the creation of the Environmental

Policy Division in the Congressional Research Service.

3.5.2 Environmental Policy Division . "Congressional

concern for the quality and productivity of the physical

environment" was the driving force behind the establishment

of the Environmental Policy Division in September 1969.

Comprised of experts from the Natural Resources Division and

13
other sections of the Legislative Reference Service, the

Division was responsible for providing non-partisan

information/ advice, and assistance on legislative proposals.

By creating the Environmental Policy Division ^ Congress could

obtain "authoritative and objective policy analysis" in

specific areas such as beautification , land use planning,

natural resource management, air and water pollution, and

protection of shorelines and estuaries.

3.6 Fall 1969

3.6.1 Introduction. Secretary of the Interior Hickel

had captured some of the headlines in late August by coming

out with tough off-shore drilling regulations opposed by the

oil industry. By fall, the public's attitude toward Hickel

began to change, and, before long, he developed into a folk

hero to many conservationists.

3.6.2 SCOPE

.

In December, Secretary Hickel and his

assistants came up with a new concept known as SCOPE (Student

Council on Pollution and the Environment) . SCOPE was envisaged

as a means of involving students in the fight against pollution;

however, given the mood on many campuses^ it was not an easy

product to sell. Initially hostile and apprehensive about

being "used" by the Government, many student leaders gradually

became intrigued by the concept of an early warning system

for pollution problems. Hickel told visting students that

"SCOPE will be a vehicle to open up a channel from the youth

who care about the environment to those agencies in government

who can do something about it on a national scale. "-^^

3.7 Winter 1970

3.7.1 Introduction . In many ways 19 70 might be

regarded as the year when government action on behalf of the

environment finally began to overtake public demand to do

something meaningful. The Jackson bill, better known as the

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, was signed into

law as PL 91-190 on January 1st. President Nixon issued

Executive Order 11507, which dealt with pollution caused by

Federal facilities; it was formally announced on the 4th of

February and six days later was followed by Mr. Nixon's

m.essage on the environment. In the latter, the President

outlined a comprehensive 37-point program on environmental

quality, including 2 3 major legislative proposals and an

additional 14 measures for Executive action. (February was

also noteworthy for the Chevron oil spill mentioned earlier.)

President Nixon continued to press for environmental

reform with two important actions in March; Executive

Order 11514, on the protection and enhancement of environmental

quality, and Reorganization Plan No. 2, which established the

Office of Management and Budget and a White House Dom.estic

Council. 39

14
3.7.2 The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) . On

signing the National Environmental Policy Act into law.

President Nixon stated that "the 1970 's absolutely must be

the years when America pays its debt to the past by reclaiming

the purity of its air, its waters and our living environment.

It is literally now or never. "40

By definition, NEPA is a declaration of national policy

to foster productive and enjoyable harmony between man and the

environment. Title I of the Act instructs all agencies of

the Federal Government to;

• employ an interdisciplinary approach in planning

and decision making related to the environment;

e identify and develop methods for ir.suring the

inclusion of environmental values in the decision

making process ; • include in all reports and recommendations which

might "significantly affect" environmental quality

a "detailed statement" on

environmental impact of the proposed action

unavoidable adverse environmental effects

alternatives to the proposed action

the relationship between local short-term

use of the environment and the maintenance

of long-term productivity

irreversible commitment of resources if

the project were to be implemented;

• study, develop, and describe action alternatives;

• recognize the international and long-range implications of environmental problems;

• disseminate information which would be useful in

maintaining and improving environmental quality;

9 develop and use ecological infomnation in planning

and development of resource-oriented projects;

« provide assistance to the Council on Environmental

Quality . '^1

15
Title II of NEPA established the Council on Environmental

Quality (CEQ) . Composed of three members appointed by the

President (with the advice and consent of the Senate) , CEQ

formulates and recommends national environmental policies

and promotes the overall improvement of environmental quality.

Specifically, the Council is to

• assist and advise the President in the preparation

of an annual Environmental Quality Report?

• gather information on environmental quality and

determine if conditions coincide with NEPA policy;

• review federal programs and activities;

• develop policy recommendations;

• conduct investigations related to environmental

quality;

• document and define changes in the natural

environment;

• report to the President on the state of the environment;

• comply with Presidential requests for policy studies

and recommendations » '^2 President Nixon selected Russell Train ^ then Undersecretary

of the Interior as Chairman of CEQ. Gordon J. F. MacDonald

and Robert Cahn initially were appointed to serve as the other

members of the Council. Since its inception, CEQ has been the

subject of controversy — indeed^, as has the National

Environmental Policy Act. Some of the criticism leveled

against NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality will

be discussed in a later section.

3.7.3 Executive Order 11507 . Shortly after NEPA became

law, EO 11507 was issued, calling for a three-year program

demonstrating Federal leadership in a nation-wide effort to

combat pollution. To accomplish this goal ^ Federal agencies

were specifically charged with the responsibility for insuring

that government facilities could meet air and water quality

standards. In a message to Congress, Mr. Nixon stated that

For years, many Federal facilities have themselves

been among the worst polluters. The Executive

Order . . . not only accepts responsibility for

putting a swift end to Federal pollution^ but

puts teeth into the coriimitment „ . .

3

16
3.7.4 Executive Order 11514. Early in March President

Nixon issued EO 11514 which continued the theme of Federal

leadership on matters related to environmental quality. From

the standpoint of environmental policy, the executive order

did not appear to differ substantively from NEPA except for

broadening the directions given to most Federal agencies.

Its primary function seemed to be one of clarifying the role

of the newly created Council of Environmental Quality. CEQ

"was provided a mandate for reform in the environmental

decisions of Federal agencies — from the start of planning

to the initiation of ... projects and programs ." Specifically,

the Council was given authority to:

• recomiTiend priorities for environmental programs;

® determine the need for new policies;

• conduct public hearings;

• promote the use of monitoring systems;

• assist in the achievement of international cooperation;

• issue guidelines and instructions to Federal

agencies;

• initiate investigations relating to environmental

quality.

It should be noted that EO 11514 also changed the name of

the Environmental Quality Council (which had been created by

the President in May 196 9) to the Cabinet Committee on the

Environment, presumably to avoid any confusion with CEQ. The

Cabinet Committee was quickly absorbed into the newly

established Domestic Council, a White House coordinating

group created along v/ith the Office of Management and Budget

as part of Reorganization Plan Number 2. Of additional interest

here is the fact that the House Committee on Government

Operations initially rejected the President's Plan; however,

a vote of the full House defeated a resolution to veto the

plan and it became effective on July 1^ 1970.

3.8 Spring 1970

3.8.1 iT-troduction . Spring, appropriately enough, was

an active period in the quest for environmental improvement

both within Govarninent and among the public at large. Senator

Muskie's Environmental Quality Improvement Act was finally

signed into law as Title II of the Water Quality Improvement

Act of 19 70. "Earth Day" was observed on April 22nd, and

much of its success can be attributed to the efforts of

Senator Gay lord Nelson. Science called the environmental

17
teach-in on Earth Day "a fresh way of perceiving the

environment" but questioned how long the enthusiasm would

last. '^5 Former Secretary of the Interior Hickel recounts a

strong difference of opinion within the Administration over

participation in Earth Day, Secretaries Hickel and Volpe,

both active in SCOPE, were the main proponents, whereas

others had expressed misgivings about "anyone getting

involved. "^^

President Nixon's next action in the environmental field

was EO 11523, which established the National Industrial

Pollution Control Council. The Ash Committee also submitted

its recommendation for the creation of a Department of

Natural Resources.

3.8.2 The Environmental Quality Improvement Act . Public

Law 91-224 was the product of a compromise worked out by the

Muskie and Jackson staffs. The Act does two things: (1) it

requires Federal agencies "conducting or supporting public

works activities which affect the environment" to implement

policies created under current laws; and (2) authorizes an

Office of Environ^^^ntal Quality to be established in the

Executive Office. The Office of Environmental Quality was

supposed to provide the administrative and professional

staff for the Council on Environmental Quality (the Chairman

of CEQ was also designated as Director of the Office) . In

reality, however, the Office of Environmental Quality" ... has never been formally established as an organizational

entity" .48

Earlier, when NEPA and the Environmental Quality

Improvement Act were still in the conceptual stage, the

stance taken by Senator Jackspn and Congressman Daddario was

described as "in part, a power play directed against HEW

and Muskie in favor of the Interior Department and a new alignment of congressional committee j urisdictions . " ^9

In Steinhart's opinion, the requirement in P.L. 91-224 that

annual Environmental Quality Reports "be transmitted to

each standing committee of the Congress having jurisdiction

over any part of the subject matter , . o" was Iluskie's way

of maintaining his jurisdictional prerogatives.^'*^

3.8.3 Ash Council Report o On the 12th of May, the

President's Advisory Council on Executive Organization submitted

a formal memorandum calling for a consolidated Department of

Natural Resources (DNR) . In so doing the Council cited the

need for a coordinated natural resource policy which ^ theretofore, had been "virtually impossible to achieve. "51

The memorandum went on to say that^ by creating a clearly

defined center of responsibility, the Federal Government's

relationships with state and local government and private - industry would be simplified considerably. In essence, the

18
proposed Department of Natural Resources was to have

consisted of the following areas; land and recreation,

water resources, energy and mineral resources, marine

resources and technology, and geophysical science services.

The Ash Council recommendations concerning a DNR have

not been implemented for a variety of reasons, including

lack of Congressional action on reorganization. (It should

be noted, however, that the DNR proposal was reintroduced

by the White House in June 19 73) . Perhaps of greater significance to the present discussion is the position taken by the

Council with respect to key elements of the President's

Reorganization Plans 3 and 4 which quickly followed.

3 . 9 Summer 19 70

3.9.1 Introduction . In July 1970 President Nixon

announced Reorganization Plans No. 3 and 4. The former

established the Environmental Protection Agency; the latter

created the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Although both Plans were eventually approved by Congress,

each was opposed by a coalition of concerned lawmakers.

Administration officials, and conservation groups — but for

altogether different reasons.

3.9.2 Reorganization Plan Number 3. With the backing

of the Ash Council , President Nixon submitted a plan to

Congress creating an independent Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) . The Chief Executive indicated that the Federal

Government must regard the environment "as a single, interrelated system" and, consistent with that perception, there

is a need to reorganize pollution control programs under one

umbrella. 52 Mr. Nixon cited previous failures to coordinate

agency efforts, partly because the traditional way of viewing

pollution had been "along media lines" (e.g., water, air,

etc.) rather than acknowledging that pollution frequently

cuts across all media. EPA's method of attacking pollution

problems would involve:

• identifying pollutants;

• tracing their path through the environmental chain

while observing and recording any changes in form;

o assessing the effects on human health and welfare

of exposure to pollutants;

« keeping a v/atchful eye tor synergistic effects

among pollutants;

e locating an optimum point in the ecological chain

for "interdiction. " 5-5

19
The programs transferred from other agencies to form EPA

were the Federal Water Quality Administration, the National

Air Pollution Control Administration, the Bureau of Water

Hygiene, the Bureau of Solid Waste Management, the Bureau of

Radiological Health, Pesticides Standards and Research,

Pesticides Registration, Federal Radiation Council, and

Studies of Ecological Systems. With respect to the roles

of the Council on Environmental Quality and the Environmental

Protection Agency, Mr. Nixon stated that

...the Council focuses on what our broad policies

in the environmental field should be; the EPA

would focus on setting and enforcing pollution

control standards. The two are not competing,

but complementary , ...» 54

In November, William Ruckelshaus was appointed Administrator

of EPA which became operational the following month.

In the opening remarks to this subsection it was noted

that Roy Ash was a staunch advocate of an Environmental

Protection Agency. The President's Advisory Council on

Executive Organization went on record in memoranda dated

April 29 and May 12 supporting the idea "that key antipollution programs be merged in a new and independent

Environmental Protection Administration to give priority to

the task of cleaning up our environment ." 55 Senator Muskie

also seemed committed at least in principle — to an "EPA"

concept. In the Introduction to Davies' book, Senator

Muskie argued that:

One of our most urgent needs is the creation of

an independent watchdog agency;, uninvolved with

the operating programs of the government and

dedicated solely to the protection and enhancement

of environmental quality » We cannot afford to

vest the duty to enforce environmental standards

in the very agencies involved in the development

of those resources for public use. 56

Within the Nixon Administration one of the most vocal

opponents of EPA was Secretary Hickel:

....I strongly urged and repeatedly fought for

the transforming of Interior into a Department

of Natural Resources and the Environment « I

reasoned that it was self-defeating to separate

resource development from environmental protection. .

.

20
The President chose another course . . . This

decision . » . (to create EPA) removed from the

Interior the Federal Water Quality Administration

as well as several other offices dealing with

pollution control, I still believe that the

environment suffers when the policing function

is isolated, ...^^

Congressional opposition to EPA, while generally muted, was

based on two points: (1) appropriate Congressional committees

had not been consulted about the contents of Reorganization

Plan 3, and (2) a small, but critical group of environmental

programs (eog., HUD's water and sewer grant program., DOT ' s noise pollution program, etc.) were omitted. Despite the

criticism the Plan became effective in October. 58

3.9.3 Reorganization Plan No, 4. The plan to create a

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) can

be traced directly to the Commission on Marine Science,

Engineering and Resources sometimes referred to as the

Stratton Commission — although its roots go back much

farther than that. Edward Wenk provides a fascinating

account of early interest in a "superagency" for the marine

sciences in his Politics of the Ocean . 5" It is apparent from

Wenk's book that there were strong odds against such an

agency being established, particularly given a downward

spiral of interest coupled with powerful opposition at the

highest levels of government.

In a prepared statement accompanying Reorganization

Plan 4, Mr. Nixon said that, by bringing together a select

group of departments then scattered throughout the Federal

Government, a unified, coordinated program could be

initiated which would effectively cope with "the compelling

need for protection from natural hazards and the need to

develop marine resources . "^^ As spelled out in the Plan,

NOAA would consist of the following programs:

9 Environmental Science Services Administration;

• selected activities of the Bureau of Commercial

Fisheries

• marine sport fish program of the Bureau of Sport

Fisheries and Wildlife;

• Office of the Sea Grant Programs;

o elements of the United States Lake Survey;

9 National Oceanographic Data Center;

21
• National Oceanographic Instrumentation Center;

• National Data Buoy project.

As Science points out, other than Edward Wenk (who,

in 1970, was the executive director of a White House advisory

council on marine affairs) , one of the few influential

proponents of NOAA was then Attorney General John Mitchell.

^

Wenk credits Mitchell with overcoming considerable opposition

from key Presidential advisors, among them Roy Ash. The

President's Advisory Council on Executive Reorganization had

strongly recommended against NOAA as early as January. In the

Council's May memorandum, Ash stated that:

We wish to reaffirm our recommendation that an

independent NOAA should not be established. To

create such a separate agency would be inconsistent

with the basic objective or our proposal for a new

Department of Natural Resources. It would separate

closely related natural resource functions at the

very time when it is urgent to bring them together...

Ash had suggested an alternative plan^ supported by Secretary

Hickel, which would have involved consolidating a number of

marine-related programs under the aegis of the Interior

Department . ^3 Eventually, NOAA was established within the

Department of Commerce despite opposition from many

conservation groups. Their argument was "that traditionally

the Department of Commerce had represented the industrial and

economic viewpoint, rather than the public use and enjoyment

of a natural resource. "64 Congress nevertheless approved

the plan, and NOAA became a reality with Dr. Robert White

at the helm.

22
4.0 EPILOGUE

4 . 1 The Struggle Continues

The decision to restrict this discussion of environmental

policy-making to a two-year period was, of course, arbitrary.

Obviously, the struggle for leadership in environmental affairs

continued. For example, one of the last and most important

products of the 91st Congress was the Clean Air Amendments of

19 70, which strengthened controls over automobile emissions

and hazardous substances emitted from new and existing sources.

These Amendments embody Congressional recommendations as well

as those contained in the President's 1970 Message on the

Environment. According to the National Journal , "... it

appeared that the President had effectively challenged

Muskie's pre-eminence in environmental matters, ...""^

Two years later, as the present paper is being written,

little has changed. The 92nd Congress overrode the

President's veto on the Federal Water Pollution Control

Amendments — the most expensive environmental bill in

history. The bill's price tag is $24.7 billion, to be spent

over a three-year period at a time when inflation and deficit

spending are key political issues. Dedicated environmentalists

were not alarmed by the cost, but were concerned that "the

measure is an authorization, not an appropriations bill,

and there is a feeling that considerably less money will

actually be expended than is called for in the legislation."^^

In late November 19 72 President Nixon impounded more than

half the funds which Congress had set aside for new water

treatment plants , although this action has been submitted

for judicial review.

Three significant features of the Water Pollution Control

Act especially deserve attention: (1) effluent limitations,

not water quality standards, are now the enforcement

mechanism of the water pollution control program; (2) private

citizens have the right to go to court on environmental issues,

even to sue violators of the new law — however, plaintiffs

must demonstrate that the violation has adversely affected

their interests; and (3) the water discharge permit program

has been tightened, giving EPA regulatory powers over

pollutant discharge into coastal and inland waters.

Just before adjournment the 92nd Congress enacted some

additional measures worth noting. ^"^ Foremost among these is

the Environmental Pesticide Control Act, which makes EPA the

chief regulatory agency in the pesticide field and also

simplifies the procedure for removing dangerous products from

the market. Federal authority had previously been based on

the Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1947

which contained little, if any, regulatory power. The 9 2nd

23
Congress was also responsible for such important environmental

measures as the coastal zone management bill, a law to

control dumping in oceans and coastal waters , and a noise

control act.

4 . 2 NEPA: Pro and Con

At this point it seems appropriate to take a closer look

at the National Environmental Policy Act, this time from the

vantage point of recent history. Three years have elapsed

now since NEPA was signed into law, a sufficient period to

evaluate its accomplishments and failures.

In a recent presentation before the Interprofessional

Council on Environmental Design, Fred Anderson, Executive

Director of the Environmental Law Institute, suggested five

areas where NEPA has been successful:

© The National Environmental Policy Act has induced

the Federal Government to give greater attention

to public concern about "quality of life;"

© the NEPA requirement of environmental impact

statements ("102 process") has provided a systematic

way of cutting across Government lines, necessitating

the creation of intergovernmental coordinating groups

and task forces;

" e the 102 process has engendered active public

participation in policy making and, in general,

has increased the level of public awareness with

respect to government programs which might affect

the environment;

& Federal agencies have had to supplement their

staffs with better in-house talent — interdisciplinarians with a fresh point of view;

« the language of NEPA has been vigorously enforced

by the courts (NEPA is no "paper tiger" ).^^

Ironically, Section 102(2) (C) , which spells out the

requirement for environmental impact statements, has

probably evoked more controversy than any other aspect of

NEPA, yet it appears to have been an afterthought. The

legislators who drafted NEPA contemplated two-or three-page

impact statements, not verbose documents, but the latter have

frequently been produced. Professor Harold P. Green,

Director of George Washington University's Law, Science and

Technology Program, told members of the American Association

for the Advancement of Science that "It is difficult to

believe NEPA isn't going to get its teeth pulled." He

24
went on to say that if the legal implications of the Act

had been anticipated, it never would have been enacted.

Even NEPA's chief advocate in the House of Representatives,

Congressman Dingell, recently remarked: "I have some

doubts that NEPA would pass in its present form today. I

very much doubt if the Section 102 provision ... would be

in ..."^1 The pessimism of both men stems from the fact

that successive court rulings have greatly expanded the

concept of "environmental consequences:" almost any

federal government activity might conceivably require

impact statements. As Green points out, agencies have been

inundated with "immense amounts of paperwork ." "^^

NEPA has been attacked both for "not doing enough" and

for "going too far." The position of those in the first

camp has been stated as follows:

. . . While federal courts have ruled in almost

200 cases that the government has failed to

comply. with NEPA or other environmental

protection laws, the courts have not stopped

a single project on substantive grounds. The

merit or lack of merit of a project has not

been the basis of any environmental court

decision. Some environmental lawyers believe

a court may one day rule on the substance of

a proposed project, that a court may find, for

instance, that a project is too environmentally

destructive or is not the best alternative.

So far, however, the courts have avoided the

substance of these conflicts. 73

In essence, the courts have focused on procedural

requirements, leaving open the possibility of having a beautifully written set of impact statements for a pointless

or potentially destructive project. Some additional problems

include (1) the fact that environmentalists have no recourse

except going to court, (2) the absence of any requirement

for comments on final impact statements — only on draft

statements, (3) the absence of any mechanism for assessing

the validity of impact statements (i.e., to determine how

the information was obtained) , and (4) the exclusion of the

private sector from the impact statement process.

Similar comments were attributed to two departing

presidential advisors, Robert Cahn and Gordon MacDonald who,

with Russell Train, comprised the original Council on

Environmental Quality. Cahn thought that the courts had

done an excellent job of "getting environmental concerns

built into decision making;" however, he felt there was still

considerable room for improvement on the part of some

federal agencies:

25
We're getting much better compliance with the

letter of the lav/ but I'm not satisfied with

compliance with the spirit of the law.

That is, I'm not satisfied that the agencies

in all cases have really considered the environmental

impact, instead of making their decision first and

then writing an environmental impact statement to

justify it. This is still done too much. "74

MacDonald stated that one of CEQ ' s shortcomings might

have been the inability to devote sufficient staff time for

thorough review of environmental impact statements. Nevertheless, he and Cahn both thought that the Council had

accomplished a great deal in the review process and had

developed important roles in the drafting of legislation,

providing advice to the President, and coordinating the

activities of other Federal agencies.

It is probably correct to say that there are just as

many critics who would like to see NEPA rescinded (or, at the

very least, weakened) as there are individuals advocating

tougher environmental measures. Marvin Zeldin, a frequent

contributor to Audubon , is particularly apprehensive about

future legislation designed to bypass NEPA or to abolish

citizen lawsuits. According to Zeldin, the National

Environmental Policy Act has been referred to as a "trumpet

call to retreat into the past," and its adherents have been

accused of "blocking progress" and "promoting mischief ." "^^ Even many moderates, who quickly agree that NEPA has had a

positive effect on the nation's ability to maintain and improve

the environment, argue that some change in NEPA is inevitable.

In their opinion, continued costly delays and the denial of

services to people may well swing the pendulum away from

environmental concerns.

A recent EPA publication provides several examples of

projects which were modified or canceled as a direct result

of NEPA.

• In March, 19 72, the Arm.y Corps of Engineers

prepared draft impact statements covering proposed

construction of a 1760-foot pier extending from

Assateague Island into the Atlantic. The project

was terminated when negative comments underscored

the likelihood that natural barriers along the

eastern coastline would be harmed.

© A dredging operation designed to "improve safety

for barge crossings" in Florida's Gulf Intracoastal

V7aterway was halted because of harm to the "natural

habitat" of aquatic life in the area.
o In a landmark decision (Calvert Cliffs Coordinating

CoiTonittee v. AEC) , the Court instructed the Atomic

Energy Commission to (a) devote greater attention

to the environment in its internal review process,

(b) consider halting nuclear generating plant

construction until environmental factors are carefully weighed, and (c) make its own assessment of

water quality rather than rely on Federal or State

certification

.

4 . 3 Whither the Environmental Cause ?

But what of the environmental movement itself? Is it

likely to continue and, if it does, what direction will it

take? At the close of 1972, environmentalism seemed to be

making progress on some fronts while losing ground on others.

On the plus side one can cite the following:

1. Court victories resulting from citizen lawsuits

continue to be a source of optimism. In addition to those

cases previously described, environmentalists have achieved

court victories prim.arily because judges were willing to set

bonds at reasonable levels; otherwise, the expense would have

precluded groups such as the Sierra Club and Friends of the

Earth from obtaining judicial review. Indications are that

future court decisions may be based on factors previously

ignored in NEPA, for example, clear evidence that

alternatives to the proposed action and social impact have

been considered.

2. There are signs that the environment is becoming a political issue at the grass-roots level. Scammon and

Wattenberg predicted in April 1971 that ecology would be

important in local elections; the 19 72 elections appear to

support their forecasts . "^^ For example, the League of

Conservation Voters was heavily involved in a number of

congressional and gubernational races, backing candidates with

contributions as well as endorsements. Spokesmen for the

League attributed the primary defeat of Representative

Aspinall, and the unseating of Senator Gordon Allott to Colorado

environmentalists . 70 Colorado voters also vetoed Denver as a

site for the 1976 Winter Olympics, partly due to the threat

of environmental degradation. However, perhaps the biggest

victory was scored in California, where, in the face of

bitter opposition from petroleum and other industrial

interests, voters approved a proposition calling for strict

coastal zoning and careful regulation of future coastal

development

.

27

^
3. Despite enormous difficulties, the 19 72 United

Nations Conference on the Human Environment appeared to open

the door to international cooperation on environmental problems.

Agreement was reached on 109 separate recommendations

incorporated in a declaration on the environment, a global

action plan, and the machinery to carry it out. 79

On the debit side of the ledger, the staggering cost of

cleaning up the environment will undoubtedly become a highly

polarized issue. The Council on Environmental Quality

estimates that approximately $287 billion will have to be

spent during the current decade in order to do the job

properly. Thus far, solid data are lacking on public

willingness to underwrite environmental programs. Presumably,

many people overlook the fact that someone has to pay for a

cleaner environment —namely the taxpayer.

Another area of concern to environmentalists is the

energy crisis. Whether or not a "crisis" exists, and who

should be held responsible, remains the subject of heated

debate. Part of the problem rests with the move to low sulfur

coal and oil which has taken a substantial fraction of fossil

fuel out of the pool. Furthermore, it has been suggested

that the environmental movement is to blame for delaying

nuclear power plants and for "hindering the construction of

new petroleum refineries ." 81 During the first few weeks of

19 73, when schools and businesses were forced to shut down

because of fuel shortages, the petroleum industry launched

a vigorous advertising campaign calling for increased

incentives • for oil exploration, fewer restrictions on offshore

drilling, and postponement of deadlines for achieving air and

water quality standards. Secretary of Agriculture Butz, upon

assuming his new role as the President's natural resource

counselor, said that:

We should have been thinking about the energy

shortage when construction of the Alaskan

pipeline was blocked 5 years ago . . . When we

run short of power, the first people to have

their power shut off should be those who blocked

the Alaskan pipeline. ^2

At the same time, the oil industry has received

criticism from CEQ Chairman Russell Train who points out

that the recent "spate of advertising" blaming environmentalists for gasoline shortages neglects to mention the

extent to which oil companies miscalculated fuel oil and

gasoline needs. The Federal Government has also been

criticized for not lifting quotas on foreign oil imports

and for failing to develop "a coordinated, coherent national

energy policy geared to the public interest."^ Secretary of

Commerce Peterson, commenting on the energy-ecology debate.

28
has argued that both sides are going to have to accept

trade-offs

If we can forge a national commitment and if,

on that foundation, we can construct national

environmental policies, national energy policies,

and national economic growth policies that are

coherent and reconciled, one with the other, we

may well be able to solve our energy problem.

With such a commitment, we may well be able to

clean up our environment without slowing economic

growth. o

5

Is environmentalism an "elitist fad" as some critics

have charged? Has the American public's concern about

environmental quality diminished, or was it, in fact,

exaggerated from the beginning? The answer in both cases

is a qualified "No" , based on the results of recent

attitude and opinion surveys:

1. Cantril and Roll found that, in contrast to the

results of previous national surveys conducted in 19 59 and

1964, pollution "emerged distinctly" as a new national

concern in 1971.°" Nevertheless, fear about pollution still

ranked well below apprehension about war, national disunity,

economic instability, communism, and lack of law and order.

2. Watts and Free updated the Cantril and Roll study

in 1972 with a national probability sample of 1806

respondents . ^"7 Their findings indicated that the environment

was unquestionably a major concern of the American public;

however, they also found evidence that a vigorous environm.ental

"backlash" had developed within government, industry, and

the scientific community. Support for environmental reform

appeared uniform across all population strata, with greatest

concern expressed by the young, the well-educated,

suburbanites, professional and business groups. Westerners,

Catholics, political independents, and liberals; less concern

was noted among those with little education, little income,

and those who reside in rural areas:

Looking ... at the entire range of environmental

issues, it would appear that the public ... would

not only condone, but indeed welcome, a considerable

new investment in solving the problems of air and

water pollution and solid waste disposal. The

people remain leery, however, about more sweeping

and revolutionary attacks on environmental problems

,

if these approaches assume overtones of governmental

control through such devices as officially

limiting economic or technical growth or inhibiting

an increase in population.

29
3. Tognacci and his associates interviewed 141

randomly selected subjects in Boulder, Colorado to find

out if environmental concern is consistent across major

population subgroups. I-^ile their results were

similar to those reported by Watts and Free (persons

expressing the most concern about environmental quality

were generally younger, better educated, more liberal,

and higher in socioeconomic status) , they arrived at a

considerably more pessimistic conclusion:

Taken together, our findings suggest that the

ability of the ecology movement for unifying

a diverse constituency has perhaps been overrated.

At least at this point in time, those persons

most concerned about environmental issues appear

to reflect the same configuration of social and

psychological attributes which have traditionally

characterized individuals active in civic, service,

and political organizations . . . Recent increments

in public concern about ecology may merely reflect

a more intense commitment by this relatively select

group of people rather than broad increases in

sensitivity to environm^ental problems arrong the

general citizenry.^'-'

Tognacci 's findings underscore one additional problem

which is both national and international in character: the

age-old battle between "haves" and "have nots . " The U. N.

Conference on the Human Environment indicated all too clearly

that the developing nations perceive environmental concern

as the "rich man's dilemma." Worse, some countries consider

it an " imperialist p lot" to prevent poorer countries from

reaching full potential. In sum, unless environmental issues

can be shown to apply to a broad spectrum of the American

public, and to transcend national boundaries, the future of

environmentalism may be in jeopardy.

30
REFERENCES

1. Lloyd Free and Hadley Cantril, The Political Beliefs

of Americans (New York: Simon and Schuster, 196 8)

,

pp. 94-112.

2. James Ridgeway, The Politics of Ecology (New York:

E. P. Button & Co., Inc., 1971) pp. 118-119.

3. The Committee of Scientists, "The Torrey Canyon-Report

of the Committee of Scientists on the Scientific and

Technological Aspects of the Torrey Canyon Disaster,"

available from Her Majesty's Stationery Office, (1967),

48 pp.

4. Julian McCaull, "The Black Tide," Our World in Peril : An Environmental Review . Sheldon Novick and Dorothy

Cottrell , eds . (Greenwich , Conn.: Fawcett Publications,

Inc. , 1971) , pp. 51-71.

5. Walter J. Hickel, Who Owns America? (New York: Prentice

Hall, Inc. , 1971) , p. 87

.

6. Ibid , p. 91.

7. Ibid, p. 105

8. Cecile Trop and Leslie Roos , "Public Opinion and the

Environment," The Politics of Ecosuicide . Leslie Roos,

ed. (New York: Holt, Rinehart , & Winston, Inc., 1971),

p. 54.

9. Free and Cantril, The Political Beliefs of Americans , p. 105.

10. Trop and Roos, "Public Opinion and the Environment,"

pp. 55-56.

11. J. Clarence Davies, The Politics of Pollution (New York:

Pegasus, 1970), pp. 78-82.

12. Trop and Roos, "Public Opinion and the Environment,"

p. 60 .

13 . Ibid, p . 62

.

14. Frank Egler, "Pesticides-in Our Ecosystem," The

Subversive Science. Paul Shepard and Daniel McKinley,

eds. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1969), p. 251.

15. Ibid, pp. 250-251.

31
16. Philip Converse, Aage Clausen, and Warren Miller,

"Electoral Myth and Reality: the 1964 Election,"

American Political Science Review , 49, (1965), pp.

321-336.

17. John Maloney and Lynn Slovonsky, "The Pollution Issue:

A Survey of Editorial Judgments," The Politics of

Ecosuicide

.

Leslie Roos, ed. (New York: Holt, Rinehart,

& Winston, Inc. , 1971), pp. 64-78.

18. Max Gunther, "Where Does Television Stand on Ecology,"

TV Guide , August 4, 1972, p. 7.

19. Joseph Klapper, "The Social Effects of Mass

Communication," The Science of Human Communication . Wilbur Schramm, ed. (New York: Basic Books, Inc.,

1963) pp. 65-76.

20. "Issue of the Year: The Environment," Time

,

January

4, 1971.

21. Trop and Roos, "Public Opinion and the Environment,"

p . 57

.

22. Richard Scammon and Ben Wattenberg, The Real Majority

(New York: Berkeley Publishing Corporation, 1970),

, p. 299.

23. Davies, The Politics of Pollution , p. 17.

24. John Steinhart, "The Making of Environmental Policy:

The First Two Years," Environmental Impact Analysis : Philosophy and Methods . Robert Ditton and Thomas

Goodale , eds . (Madison , Wisconsin: University of

Wisconsin Sea Grant Program, 1972) , pp. 5-21.

25. Michael Barone, Grant Ujifusa, and Douglas Matthews,

The Almanac of American Politics (Boston: Gambit, Inc.

,

1972) , pT viii

.

26. Davies, The Politics of Pollution , p. 70.

27. Earone, Ujifusa, and Matthews, The Almanac of American

Politics , p. 895.

28. Davies, The Politics of Pollution, pp. 70-71.

29. Ibid, p. 71

30. Ibid, p. 71.

32
31. Steinhart, "The Making of Environmental Policy: The

First Two Years," p. 7.

32. Elizabeth Boswell, Federal Programs Related to Environment , (Washington, D. C. : Library of Congress, 1970), p. 7-8.

33. Steinhart, "The Making of Environmental Policy: The

First Two Years," p. 13.

34. Davies , The Politics of Pollution, pp. 71-72.

35. Ibid , p. 72.

36. Boswell, Federal Programs Related to Environment, p. 1.

37. Ibid , pp. 1-2.

38. Hickel, Who Owns America? , p. 213.

39. Susan Abbasi, Federal Environmental Activities , (Washington,

D. C: Library of Congress, 1972), p. 5.

40. Carolyn Harris, In Productive Harmony (Washington, D. C:

Environmental Protection Agency, 1972), p.l.

41. Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Quality ; The First Annual Report of the Council on Environmental

Quality , (Washington, D. C: U. S. Government Printing

Office, 1970), pp. 243-246.

42. Ibid, pp. 243-249.

43. Elizabeth Boswell, Executive Reorganization for Environ- mental Affairs (Washington, D. C: Library of Congress,

1971, p. 5.

44. Ibid, p. 7.

45. Science , May 1, 1970, p. 558.

46. Hickel, Who Owns America? , p. 220.

47. Boswell, Executive Reorganization for Environmental

Affairs

,

p. 8

.

48. Abbasi, Federal Environmental Activities , p. 2.

49. Davies, The Politics of Pollution , p. 72.

50. Steinhart, "The Making of Environmental Policy: The

First Two Years," pp. 16-17.

33
51. The President's Advisory Council on Executive

Organization, Memorandum for the President: The

Establishment of a Department of Natural Resources

(Washington, D. C . : Executive Office of the President

,

May 12 , 19 70) , p. 5 .

52. Boswell, Executive Reorganization for Environmental

Affairs , p. ,13.

53. Ibid.

54. Ibid , p. 15.

55. The President's Advisory Council on Executive

Organization, Memorandum for the President: The

Establishment of a Department of Natural Resources , p. 3.

56. Edmund S. Muskie, "Introduction" to J. Clarence Davies,

The Politics of Pollution , p. x.

57. Hickel, Who Owns America?, p. 243.

58. Boswell, Executive Reorganization for Environmental

Affairs , p. 16.

59. Edward Wenk, The Politics of the Ocean , (Seattle:

University of Washington Press, 1972).

60. Boswell, Executive Reorganization for Environm.ental

Affairs , pp. 16-17.

61. Robert Gillette, "Politics of the Ocean: View from

the Inside," Science , November 17, 1972, pp. 729-730.

62. The President's Advisory Council on Executive

Organization, Memorandum for the President : The

Establishment of a Department of Natural Resources , p.

12.

63. Steinhart, "The Making of Environmental Policy: The

First Two Years," p. 16.

64. Boswell, Executive Reorganization for Environmental

Affairs, pp. 20-21.

65. James Rahtlesberger , Nixon and the Environment (New York:

Taurus Communications, Inc., 1972), p. 11.

66. John Walsh, "Environmental Legislation: Last Word

From Congress," Science , November 10, 1972, pp. 593-594.

34
67. Ibid , p. 594.

68. Fred Anderson, Address to the Interprofessional Council

on Environmental Design, Airlie, Va. , November 28, 1972.

69. Lester Edelman, Panel Discussion presented to the

Interprofessional Council on Environmental Design,

Airlie, Va. November 28, 19 72.

70. Harold Green, Panel discussion presented at the American

Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington,

D. C, December, 1972.

71. Marvin Zeldin, "Will Success Spoil NEPA?", Audubon

,

July 1972, p. 108.

72. Green, op cit.

73. Zeldin, "Will Success Spoil NEPAl>", p. 107.

74. "Environmental Law Ignored, Departing Nixon Aides Say,"

Washington Star , September 17, 1972.

75. Zeldin, "Will Success Spoil NEPA?", p. 106-107.

76. Harris, In Production Harmony , pp. 10-12.

77. Scammon and Wattenberg, The Real Majority , pp. 333-334.

78. League of Conservation Voters, Election Report,

(Washington, D. C, 1972), pp. 1-16.

79. Marvin Zeldin, "The World Sets Out to Rescue Its Earth,"

Audubon, September 1972, pp. 116-122.

80. Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental

Quality ; The Third Annual Report of the Council on

Environmental Quality , (Washington , D^ C . : ul S~. Government Printing Office, 1972), p. 278.

81. Russell E. Train, Speech presented to the Washington

Rotary Club, June 13, 1973.

82. Luther Carter, "Earl L. Butz, Counselor for Natural

Resources: President's Choice a Surprise for

Environmentalists," Science , January 26, 19 73, p. 359.

83. Russell E. Train, Op Cit .

84. The Conservation Foundation, "Wanted: A Coordinated,

Coherent National Energy Policy Geared to the Public

Interest," CF Letter , June 1972, pp. 1-12.

35
85. Peter G. Peterson, "The Environment and the Economy:

Joint Progress or Parochial Negativism/' Address

presented at the National Environmental Information

Symposium of the Environmental Protection Agency,

Cincinnati, Ohio, September, 1972.

86. Albert Cantril and Charles Roll, Hopes and Fears of

The American People (New York: Universe Books 1971)

87. William Watts and Lloyd Free, State of the Nation

(New York: Universe Books, 1973).

88. Ibid, p. 154.

89. Louis Tognacci, Russell Weigel, Marvin Wideen, and

David Vernon, "Environmental Quality: How Universal

is Public Concern?", Environment and Behavior , 4, 1,

(March 1972) , pp. 73-86.

90. Ibid, p. 85.

36
FOf.V KPS-I l^A M-7t)

U.S. c- r. Of- comm.

BiDLIC r.RAPHIC DATA

1. inJLil.iCATlON Ok Ki'.i^ORT NO. 2. C ;v c -vc^fssiou |

•': ;lec;picnc'5 Ac'.es:;inr No.

N'o.

NEPA and the Environiacatal Mrjvenent: A Brief

History

5 Publication Date j

V » i e f 1 otii. • 11 v./* o

ii*^.*^***** - ^

AUTHOr.,S)

Lynn 3. Llev;ellyn and Clare Ptiiser

8. Pcrfc-.ning Or^anizancn

NBSIR 73-218

9. PERFOF>;iNG ORGA.NIZATION .XA.MK AND ADDRESS

-NATIONAL BUREAU OF ST.\NDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF C0MM!:RCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

10 Project/ 1 ask, V-. ork L'nic No. 4314463

IK Contract/Grant .\"o. EPA-IAG-0 206 D

12. .Sponsorirj; Organ isarion Name and Address

Environmental Studies Division

Office of Research and Monitcr:.ng

Environmental Protection Agency

13. Type of Report Si Period

Covered

Final

14. Spoiisoring Agency Code

15. SUPPLhN'.ENTARY NOTES

16, ABSTR.ACT (-A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.) This paper traces some of the critical events leading up to the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. The opening section sporlight:

the rapid grov;th of an environn^ental ethic in this country, the im.pact

of som.e highly visible ecological disasters, and the subsequent pressure

for environm.ental reform exerted by opinion leaders and the mass media.

The Federal Governm.ent ' s response to perceived changes in public

priorities is the focal point of the second section. The activities

of Congress and the Nixon Adm.inistration are charted in a two-year

chronology spanning the 1968 and the 1970 elections, a key period

in the development of environm.ental policy. The final section provides

a critique of NEPA with special attention devoted to the controversial

requiremient for environm;ental impact statem.ents. The paper concludes

with a brief discussion of some of the challenges facing the

environmental movement today.

'7. KEY TCRDS (Alphabetical order, separated by semicolons)

Environm.ent ; environm.ental impac-z statem^ent; environm.ental movemient;

National Environmental Policy Ac-- (NEPA) ; politics and the environmient

.

18. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

21. NO. OF P.AGES

[x] UNLIMITED.

UNCL ASSIFIED

OFOR OFFICIAL riSTRIDUTION. DO NOT RELEASE

TO NT IS.

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

22. Price

USCOMM-DC


II