The volume of new legislation and other federal and state actions taken in 1972 make it clearer than ever that environmental quality, a minority concern less than a decade ago, has been accepted by most Americans as a major national goal. But some of the difficulties of realizing this aspiration also became more apparent during the year: conflicts with other goals such as economic growth, national security, or budget balancing; and practical problems of designing public programs that don't attempt too much or too little, and of administering and enforcing them.
Two of the most important developments—sweeping revision of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and efforts toward setting up new programs for air quality—are discussed in separate articles below. But other significant 1972 legislation at the federal level has not stood still.
The Noise Control Act characterizes noise as a serious polluter of the environment and for the first time recognizes a direct federal responsibility for doing something about it. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is directed to take the lead in establishing emission standards, with the notable exceptions that primary responsibility for aircraft standards is given to the Federal Aviation Administration and for railroads and motor carriers to the Department of Transportation.
The Environmental Pesticide Control Act gives the federal government much broader authority than it has had under the Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1947. While that act required registration and correct labeling of pesticides, the procedures for banning dangerous products were cumbersome and there were no penalties for misuse of pesticides once they had been properly labeled. The new law provides penalties for misuse for different categories of application and for a permit system that will differentiate between general and restricted use. It also tightens and simplifies enforcement procedures. EPA will be the responsible agency; some measure of state participation is provided for, although few of the details are spelled out. One section of the new act provides for indemnities to cover losses sustained by persons holding supplies of a pesticide whose registration has been suspended "to prevent an imminent hazard." This provision has been severely criticized by many environmentalists. They feel that it runs counter to a recent trend in the courts toward shifting the burden of proof to polluters and, from this point of view, could be a dangerous precedent. Moreover, prospects of high indemnity cost might make regulators hesitate to exercise their authority. On the other hand, no indemnities are due a claimant who continues to produce a pesticide after having knowledge that the product does not meet the requirements.
An act to regulate dumping of wastes in ocean and coastal waters prohibits discharge of high-level radioactive wastes and certain products related to chemical and biological warfare, and makes disposal of other materials subject to permit from EPA.
A coastal zone management act provides federal funds to help coastal states develop land use plans that will balance needs for preservation against needs for industrial sites, power plants, port facilities, and recreation. In effect, this measure to protect ocean shorelines, estuaries, and wetlands is a segment of the broader national land use policy effort that failed of Congressional approval during the year.
In addition to cooperation called for in federally initiated programs, state activities reached a new high level in 1972. A New York Times survey last November reported that more than half of the 50 states had acted positively on a variety of environmental measures ranging from pollution control to limitation of population. In New York State, for example, voters approved a $1.15 billion bond issue for improving the environment. Florida adopted a constitutional amendment to permit buying more land for recreation, and voters there also approved a proposal to borrow $240 million to purchase land to be held against indiscriminate development. California voters approved creation of a public commission to control coastline development. In Colorado, voters turned down a proposal that the state spend $5 million to help prepare for the 1976 Winter Olympics—as an indication that they did not consider the expected economic benefits equal to the probable environmental damage. And several states established departments, commissions, or councils to deal with environmental problems.
Meanwhile there were difficulties and delays in administering the environmental programs. Some resulted from the large burden of fact-finding for the determinations that EPA must make in establishing standards for air and water quality and for emissions of pollutants and in reviewing permits for waste discharges into streams. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) also carried a heavy load in reviewing the impact statements prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)—statements required in connection with "major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment."
Under NEPA, citizens may bring suit if they believe the act's purpose of preventing unnecessary environmental damage is not being carried out. Nearly 200 such suits were entered during the year, bringing to around 350 the total since the act went into effect at the start of 1970. Many of these cases, along with suits brought by or against EPA, have resulted in appeals to higher federal courts, so that a number of proposed government projects and EPA regulatory actions have been held up. It had been hoped that NEPA would be of assistance to the courts by providing guidelines in some complex and specialized areas. Thus far, CEQ and the Office of Management and Budget have done less than had been hoped toward policing administrative actions.
Some of the causes of delay may be reduced in the future as a larger body of judicial interpretations and precedents is established and all parties become more familiar with the comparatively new set of programs and procedures. The EPA workload, however, can be expected to increase, especially under the greatly expanded use of permits provided for in the new water quality act and the need for establishing an entirely new set of standards for noise.
A version of this article appeared in print in the January 1973 issue of Resources magazine.
