Encyclopedia of the U.S. Government and the Environment 2 volumes : History, Policy, and Politics

Encyclopedia of the U.S. Government and the Environment

Encyclopedia of the U.S. Government and the Environment HISTORY, POLICY, AND POLITICS

Volume One: Essays and Entries A–I

Matthew Lindstrom, Editor

Copyright 2011 by ABC-CLIO, LLC All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review, without prior permission in writing from the publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Lindstrom, Matthew J., 1969– Encyclopedia of the U.S. government and the environment : history, policy, and politics / Matthew Lindstrom. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-59884-237-1 (hard copy : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-1-59884-238-8 (ebook) 1. Environmental policy—United States—Encyclopedias. 2. Environmental policy—United States—History—Encyclopedias. I. Title. GE180.L54 2011 363.7’05610973—dc22 2010035447 ISBN: 978-1-59884-237-1 EISBN: 978-1-59884-238-8 15

14

13 12

11

1

2

3 4

5

This book is also available on the World Wide Web as an eBook. Visit www.abc-clio.com for details. ABC-CLIO, LLC 130 Cremona Drive, P.O. Box 1911 Santa Barbara, California 93116-1911 This book is printed on acid-free paper Manufactured in the United States of America

Contents

VOLUME ONE

A-Z List of Entries

vii

Acknowledgments

xv

Introduction: Environmental Politics and Policy in the United States The U.S. Government and the Environment before 1960

xvii 1

The U.S. Government and the Environment: Contemporary Issues

21

The U.S. Government and the Global Future

41

Entries A-I

57

Index

I-1

VOLUME TWO

A-Z List of Entries

vii

Entries J-Y

431

Chronology

835

Contributor List

871

Index

I-1

About the Editor

v

A-Z List of Entries

Essay: The U.S. Goverment and the Environment before 1960 Essay: The U.S. Government and the Environment: Contemporary Issues Essay: The U.S. Government and the Global Future A A Sand County Almanac

American Chemical Society

Abbey, Edward

American Fisheries Society

Acid Rain

American Lung Association

Agent Orange

American Mining Congress

Air Pollution Control Act of 1955

American Nuclear Society

Air Quality Act of 1967

American Petroleum Institute

Alar

An Inconvenient Truth

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. (2004)

Anderson v. Evans (2004)

American Farmland Trust

Antarctic Treaty (1959) Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act

Arnold, Ronald

Alaska Oil Pipeline (1973)

Audubon, John James

Alternative Energy

Automobile Emissions

Alternative Farming Systems Information Center, USDA

B Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon (1995)

American Antiquities Act of 1906
Primary Document: Antiquities Act

vii

viii | A-Z List of Entries


Primary Document: Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon (1995) Bald Eagle Bald Eagle Protection Act Bates, et al. v. Dow AgroSciences LLC Berman v. Parker (1954)

Carey Act of 1894 Carson, Rachel Cato Institute Center for Biological Diversity Central Valley Water Project Channel Islands National Park


Primary Document: Berman v. Parker (1954)

Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act, United States (1999)

Berry, Wendell

Cheney, Dick

Biden, Joseph R. Jr. (1942–)

Citizens Clearinghouse

Biodiversity Blue Ribbon Coalition

Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe (1971)

Boulder Canyon Project (Hoover Dam)

Civilian Conservation Corps

Brower, David

Clean Air Act of 1970

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Clean Water Act of 1972

Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Reclamation


Primary Document: Clean Water Act (1972) with Amendments (1977)

Burford (Gorsuch), Anne

Climate Change

Burton, Phillip

Clinton, William Jefferson

Bush, George H. W.

Coal Mining

Bush, George W.

Coastal Barrier Resources Act Coastal Zone Management Act

C Caldwell, Lynton California Quincy Library Group California v. General Motors Corp. (2006) Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Committee v. Atomic Energy Commission (1971) Carbon Footprint


Primary Document: Coastal Zone Management Act (1972) Colorado River Commerce Clause Commercial Fishing Commoner, Barry Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

A-Z List of Entries | ix

Connecticut v. American Electric Power Company

Energy Tax Act of 1978

Conservation

Environmental Cap and Trade

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species

Environmental Compliance Program

Environment Reporting

Environmental Council of the States

Council on Environmental Quality

Environmental Decade

Cuyahoga River Fires

Environmental Defense Fund Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corporation (2007)

D Darling, Jay Norwood ‘‘Ding’’ DDT

Environmental Education Act of 1970

Defenders of Property Rights

Environmental Impact Statements

Desert Land Act of 1877

Environmental Justice

Dingell, John D. Jr.

Environmental Protection Information Center

Douglas, William O.

Environmental Sustainability Exclusive Economic Zone

E Earth Day Earthjustice

Exxon Shipping Company v. Baker (2008)

Earthwatch Institute

Exxon Valdez Spill

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986

F Farmers’ Markets


Primary Document: Emergency Planning and Community Right-toKnow Act of 1986

Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937

Endangered Species Act of 1973
Primary Document: Endangered Species Act (1973)

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Energy-Efficient Labeling

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Energy Policy Act of 1992 Energy Policy Act of 2005

Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972

ENERGY STAR Program

ix

x | A-Z List of Entries

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1947

Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1975

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003


Primary Document: Federal Land Policy and Management Act (1976) Federal Water Pollution Control Law of 1948

Heritage Foundation, The Homestead Act of 1862
Primary Document: Homestead Act (1862)

Food and Agriculture Organization Food Security Act of 1985

I Inhofe, James

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team

Inland Waterways Commission

Free Market Environmental Policy

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Friends of the Earth International

International Whaling Commission

Friends of the Earth v. Mosbacher (2005)

Interstate Highways

G General Mining Act of 1872

J Johnson, Claudia Alta

Gibbs, Lois

Johnson, Lyndon

Glen Canyon Dam Gore, Albert Arnold Jr. Grand Canyon

K Kelo v. City of New London (2005)

Grand Coulee Dam

Kennedy, Robert Jr.

Green Cities

Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp. (2008)

Greenpeace

Kyoto Protocol

H Habitat Conservation Plan Hanford Nuclear Waste Site Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984) Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984

L Lacey Act Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 League of Conservation Voters Leopold, Aldo

A-Z List of Entries | xi

Love Canal Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1985 Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Primary Document: National Environmental Policy Act (1969) National Estuary Program


Primary Document: Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)

National Forest Management Act of 1976

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992)

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

M Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972

National Marine Fisheries Service


Primary Document: Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972

National Oceanic and Atmosopheric Administration

Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972

National Mining Association

National Park Service National Research Council

Massachusetts v. EPA (2007)

National Trails System Act


Primary Document: Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) Syllabus

National Wilderness Preservation System

Metropolitan Edison Co. v. PANE

National Wildlife Federation

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918

Natural Resources Defense Council

Mineral Leasing Act

Nelson, Gaylord Anton

Montreal Protocol

New Urbanism

Mountain States Legal Fund

Nixon, Richard

Muir, John

North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1989

Muskie, Edmund

Northern Spotted Owl N Nader, Ralph National Ambient Air Quality Standards National Association of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife National Audubon Society

Northwest Forest Management Plan Nuclear Energy Institute Nuclear Energy Policy Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982

xii | A-Z List of Entries

O Obama, Barack Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 Office of Drinking Water Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Office of the Federal Environmental Executive Office of Management and Budget Office of Toxic Substances

Powell, John Wesley Presidential Task Force on Regulatory Relief

R Radioactive Waste Reagan, Ronald Wilson Reclamation Act of 1902 Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 Refuse Act of 1899 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

Oil Pollution Act of 1990


Primary Document: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (1976)

Old-Growth Forests

Right-to-Know Legislation

Olmsted, Frederick Law

Roadless Area Conservation Policy

Organic Food and Farming

Rockwell International Corp. v. U.S.

Overfishing

Roosevelt, Theodore

Ozone Layer Depletion

Ruckelshaus, William

P Pacific Northwest Rain Forests

S Safe Drinking Water Act

Paint, Leaded

Sagebrush Rebellion

Particulates

Santa Barbara Oil Spill, 1969

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon (1922) Pesticides

Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission (1972)

Pinchot, Gifford

Science Advisory Board

Polluter Pays Principle

Sequoia National Park

Pollution Prevention Act of 1990

Sierra Club v. Morton (1972)

Polychlorinated Biphenyls

Silent Spring

Population Control

Smart Growth

A-Z List of Entries | xiii

Soil Conservation Service

United States v. Navajo Nation (2003)

Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. (2001)

Urban Planning


Primary Document: Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook Cty v. Army Corps of Engineers (99-1178) 531 U.S. 159 (2001)

Urban Renewal U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Stream Corridor Restoration Program

U.S. Department of the Interior

Suburban Sprawl

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Sustainable Agriculture

U.S. Forest Service

Sustainable Development

U.S. Geological Survey

Sustainable Forestry

U.S. National Wildlife Refuge System

T Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2002) Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill Thoreau, Henry David Three Mile Island Tongass National Forest Toxic Substances Control Act Toxics Release Inventory Trust for Public Land U Union Carbide Company United Mine Workers of America United States v. Atlantic Research Corp. (2007) United States v. Greenpeace (2004)

U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration U.S. Public Health Service

V Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer
Primary Document: Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer (1985) Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926)
Primary Document: Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty (1926)

W Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 Water Quality Act of 1987 Water Resources Development Act of 2007

xiv | A-Z List of Entries

Waterton-Glacier Peace Park

Wilderness Society

Watt, James G.

Wind Energy

Wetlands Whaling

Winters v. United States (1908)

Whitman, Christie

Wise-Use Movement

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992 Wilderness Act of 1964

Y Yosemite National Park

Acknowledgments

This encyclopedia would not have been possible without the help of many people. I am profoundly grateful for the love and encouragement I receive from my wife Amy and children Anna and Isaac. I don’t know how many times I heard my kids say, ‘‘When are you going to be done with that thing?’’ as I spent many evenings and weekends sorting through the pieces to this encyclopedia project. Without the assistance of Suzanne Reinert, political science office coordinator at the College of Saint Benedict and Saint John’s University, I would still be telling my kids I don’t know when I’ll ever finish this massive homework assignment. Suzanne’s diligent and timely work provided a backbone to finishing the project. My student workers Valentin Sierra, Alex Ricci, and Joe Kane contributed fantastic research and writing assistance. Stacy Penk, coordinator of the McCarthy Center at the College of Saint Benedict and Saint John’s University, also did an excellent job in helping to prepare the text. My editors at ABC-CLIO, especially Kim Kennedy White, provided constant encouragement and valuable assistance. I greatly appreciate all the help I received and hope this encyclopedia provides a useful tool for students and researchers.

xv

Introduction: Environmental Politics and Policy in the United States

The relationship between governments and the natural environment is one that dates back to the origins of democracy itself. While climate change, endangered species, and organic food were not common parlance in ancient Athens, other environmental questions remained. For example, energy sources, land use conflict, food production, and water acquisition all required some degree of collective decision-making, thus constituting the early beginnings of what today can be understood as environmental policy. The history of environmental policy in the United States warrants special attention. The characterization of the interaction between environmental interest groups, government institutions, industry and business interests, and the scientific community at all levels of governmental authority is one of fluidity. This introductory essay explores the evolution of environmental issues and political reactions coupled with increased scientific knowledge, technological innovations, and changes in political and cultural values throughout U.S. history. This encyclopedia addresses the breadth and depth of environmental politics and policy with emphasis on the role played by the U.S. government. This collection includes essays, single topic entries, and a historical time line of U.S. environmental politics and policy. This encyclopedia examines the periods of significant public policy shifts as well as the periods of stability and continuity that are characterized by incremental policymaking and marginal changes in rules, budgets, and stakeholders associated with environmental policy. This introduction provides an overview of the relationship between the U.S. government and environmental policy, including some historical highlights and brief analysis of the players, events, and issues. The other encyclopedia essays and individual entries provide greater detail of the historical time periods.

xvii

xviii | Introduction: Environmental Politics and Policy in the United States

While this encyclopedia’s scope is intentionally broad, the primary focus is on the national government in the United States and the actors, issues, and public policies associated with environmental politics and policy. This includes examining issues surrounding the natural environment, such as water, forests, air pollution, wilderness, and raw minerals. In addition, this encyclopedia includes entries related to environmental issues, such as suburban sprawl, urban renewal, sanitation, and transportation policies. While in no way is this encyclopedia an exhaustive effort at analyzing and describing the importance of every single aspect of U.S. environmental policy past and present, this volume does provide a comprehensive overview of the major environmental laws and actors in and out of the U.S. government. What we know today as environmental policy is a collection of decisions made at all levels of government—municipal, regional, state, tribal, national, and international. The governmental decisions involve cooperation and conflict between governmental levels and within government. Separate and apart from the political engagement that occurs between organized interests, voters, and businesses, environmental policy in the United States is a puzzle with shifting borders. National environmental policy is shaped by ever-changing dynamics related to federalism (power distribution between national and state governments) and international political and economic contexts. Historically, environmental policy at the national level has evolved along with the powers of the national government in its relationship with the states and other local governments. For example, in the twentieth century, as the federal government became more involved and powerful in economic and social issues, a concomitant increase occurred in development of national environmental policy. The administrative/executive, legislative, and judicial decision-making all contribute to what can be understood as environmental policy. From courtrooms to congressional committees and administrative professionals in the forests, U.S. environmental policy is created, debated, and implemented across all areas of the national government. Due to the constitutionally created checks-and-balances system, one branch of government often influences the actions of another. Legislative decisions can be caused by judicial and executive decisions and vice versa. Especially throughout the twentieth century, the federal courts have played a crucial role in sorting out what powers Congress has over environmental questions as well as ruling on the extent of powers and discretion within federal agencies and presidential administrations. The courts help enforce and interpret the impact and effect of legislative and executive branch decisions in environmental policy. The court system is asked by environmental law firms to force federal agencies to more strictly implement environmental law, and other, more conservative litigants want the courts to loosen federal regulatory environmental standards. The courts have several areas of focus: the commerce clause of Article I in the

Introduction: Environmental Politics and Policy in the United States | xix

Constitution, management of federal property and resources, the takings clause and eminent domain, treaty powers, and taxing powers (Scheffer, 1991, 133–134). Many of the most important court cases shaping the process and substance of environmental policy are included in this encyclopedia. The courts and Congress entrust the federal bureaucracy with enormous discretion in deciding the details of environmental policy decisions. For example, how many billion board feet of timber cut in a national forest endangers the water quality or habitat in such a way that may violate a related statute? How many parts per million of a regulated pollutant is considered ‘‘safe’’ to emit into the air or leave in the soil? Often, these details are decided by career civil servants with greater training and scientific expertise than legislators or judges. This is not implying, however, that the federal environmental bureaucracy is not without its own checks on power. Congress can influence administration agendas in multiple ways, including through their ability to set executive agency budgets, confirm presidential appointments (Senate), and investigate administrative actions through congressional hearings. The executive branch is entrusted by the U.S. Constitution to implement congressional laws. Federal agencies shape environmental policy through administrative rule-making wherein regulations and guidelines determine the contours of environmental public policies and the state of natural resources. While executive agencies, bureaus, offices, and departments have distinct powers within environmental policy, there is also jurisdictional overlap. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service scientists and managers responsible for endangered species must work with U.S. Forest Service employees with mandates to manage for multiple uses, including timber production. The patchwork of environmental policy involves so many different issues at multiple levels and is matched by the multitude of government and nongovernmental actors. Within the U.S. House and Senate, over half of the permanent committees share some jurisdiction over environmental policy. Each committee has separate subcommittees dealing with more specific issues directly or indirectly connecting to environmental policy. As a result, internal congressional politics over committee jurisdiction not only slows the pace of decision-making, it also forces legislative compromises in order to get the necessary votes to pass legislation. While Congress is important as a law-making institution, it also checks executive power through its budgetary power and oversight powers. Because Congress decides the level and direction of federal spending, it can steer federal agencies to do or not do certain things in environmental policy. More or less money in one area can impact the extent to which that activity or goal is implemented and successfully achieved. Congressional oversight power gives committees the ability to hold hearings and ask executive and private sector individuals to testify under oath. This serves as an investigatory power and is used to change, enforce, and otherwise influence the implementation of environmental policies.

xx | Introduction: Environmental Politics and Policy in the United States

Early environmental issues in the United States involved common problems related to the scarcity of resources as well as the disposal of waste. Colonists in America worked primarily at a local level of government to figure out how to deal with industrial and consumer waste. They debated and fought about the control and ownership of rivers, oceans, forests, and prairies. Colonial views toward the natural environment were grounded in both fear and opportunity. Surrounded by vast landscapes of wild lands or wilderness, colonists sought to ‘‘tame’’ the lands and rivers and put them into economic production. The conquest of nature, leading to a rapid increase in land use and population growth throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, created a reactionary trend in government policy: hunting seasons put in place after game shortages in the colonies in 1639, regulation of the harvesting of timber on public lands in Massachusetts after shortages began to develop in 1637, the city of Boston forbidding pollution of Boston Harbor in 1647, and the call by Peter Kalm in 1751 that the use of natural resources by the colonists was blinded by short-term use and was hurting the environment for future use (Cylke, 1993, 18–19). The publication of Adam Smith’s Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations in 1776 only further cemented the increase of economic activity and the principles of capitalism and private property in the colonies. Smith’s influence on the founders of the country helped institute governing structures that created private property laws and promoted economic exchange and free markets as generators of wealth and the good life. The extent to which public policies can limit private property use is an environmental policy issue that continues today, particularly concerning the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Throughout U.S. history, policymakers and courts have debated the meaning of governmental taking of property, especially when statutory or regulatory decisions appear to decrease individual property rights. Due to increases in new technologies such as the steam engine, the conversion of coke to coal, and iron manufacturing, the industrial boom in the United States lifted the well-being of many Americans but also created new environmental problems, such as water contamination and air pollution. While there were voices of concern coming from people like Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, and the artist George Catlin, most Americans viewed the vast landscape of forests, minerals, and animals as abundant and limitless. Environmental historian Roderick Nash describes the ethos of Euro-Americans as: A massive assault . . . directed at the New World environment in the name of civilization and Christianity. Progress became synonymous with exploitation. Men slashed the earth in pursuit of raw materials. The strength of individualism and competitiveness in the American value system supported the pioneer’s (and his descendant, the entrepreneur’s) insistence

Introduction: Environmental Politics and Policy in the United States | xxi

that the land he owned could be used as he willed. The long-term interest of society made little difference. Consideration of immediate profit dictated the relationship with the land (Kline, 2000, 17). Technological advances and capital investments in transportation shaped settlement and industrial output, intensifying the transformation of the natural environment. The completion of the Erie Canal in 1819 set in motion numerous investments in different modes of transportation to increase interstate commerce and settlement to more and more distant lands across the Appalachians. The Supreme Court dealt head-on with this issue of increased interstate commerce in the case of Gibbons v. Ogden in 1824. The case asserted the right of Congress in regulating interstate commerce through the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. The importance of this decision was applied beyond the transportation of goods in that as the nation expanded interstate commercial activity; this led to a larger federal regulatory role in all economic areas (Andrews 1999, 414). The commerce clause in Article I of the Constitution granting Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce was used by twentieth-century courts to justify federal intervention to mitigate environmental problems that cross state borders. The early history of the U.S. federal government in relation to environmental understanding and regulation was personified by the views of Thomas Jefferson. His role in expanding the physical environment of the United States was through the implementation of the Cadastral Survey utilized in the Land Ordinance of 1785, the Louisiana Purchase, and the commission of Lewis and Clark to explore the new territory. The importance of the ethos of discovery and renewal to the American psyche in the years following the American Revolution had a profound impact on later actions of the government in providing for its citizens. Jefferson’s firm belief in states’ rights and an agrarian society created a situation where there was deference to states in dealing with early environmental policy questions (Peterson, 1975). The importance of state-centered decision-making is at the core of federalism—the dynamic sharing of powers between the national government and the states. For nearly the first 200 years of the United States’ existence, the federal government had relatively little to do with environmental policy. Instead, decisions about sources for natural resources and sinks for environmental waste were the domain of local and state governments. As will be discussed later, this changed significantly in President Franklin Roosevelt’s administration, again in the 1960s, and especially in the 1970s—dubbed the ‘‘Environmental Decade’’ by President Richard Nixon, a supporter, albeit often reluctant, of several major environmental laws and the creator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Historically, environmental regulation was grounded in the ideals of conservation of growth; therefore, responses by government were to areas of ‘‘game

xxii | Introduction: Environmental Politics and Policy in the United States

and woodlands conservation and wildlife restoration’’ (Harmond and Curran, 2005, 11). The influential New York State Game Protection Agency, founded in 1848 by Henry William Herber, was the most successful private agency in the era to lobby state and local governments for beginning to call for the preservation of game birds within established public lands for citizens (Cylke, 1993, 20). Harmond and Curran (2005) go even further to say that before the Civil War, ‘‘there was nothing one could describe as a national conservation movement.’’ Despite the lack of a citizen-led national conservation movement before the Civil War, the Department of the Interior was created in 1849. Indeed, other preantebellum acts by the U.S. government on environmental issues included other historical events outlined by such as the Charles River Bridge decision, affirming the idea that public interest is a justification of regulation of private property. The U.S. government also fundamentally influenced numerous territory acquisitions under the national slogan of ‘‘manifest destiny.’’ The land grants given to railroad companies greatly increased the depletion of natural resources across the country (Andrews, 1999). The concept of manifest destiny came to embody the thinking of Americans in this period and beyond for its role in the belief of the perpetual subjugation of the land and the ability to realize the ‘‘American dream’’ through environmental conquest, material acquisition, and economic growth. Starting with the Land Ordinance of 1785, an atmosphere was created that encouraged expansion over the Appalachian Mountains by the creation of new states in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. The Homestead Act of 1862 provided 160 acres for settlers for virtually nothing, cementing the drive of settlers west from the East Coast and creating cities such as Chicago and St. Louis virtually overnight. The integration of government policies and subsidized technologies in the railroad and forestry industries supported this ingrained mantra of expansion outlined later by Frederick Jackson Turner in his seminal thesis The Frontier in American History. The belief that the American people (especially the politically privileged) were destined to own and prosper from boundless virgin land and natural resources stemmed from the nature and belief of the Puritans in controlling the land and making it subservient to the people. As the verses of the book of Genesis proclaimed: V 26. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. V 27. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Introduction: Environmental Politics and Policy in the United States | xxiii

V 28. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth (Genesis 1:26-28, King James Version). As industrialization began to replace the agrarian societal way of life, the population of the United States rose from 5.3 million in 1800 to 31 million in 1860 with a growing impact on natural resources. According to Guillaume Vandenbroucke of the University of Southern California, ‘‘In 1860, 66 percent of the acres cleared were initially under forest cover and 34 percent were under grass cover. These numbers evolved as more western territories got settled. In 1900, just 36 percent of the land cleared was initially under forest cover, the rest was grassland’’ (Vandenbroucke, 2006). Continued territorial growth through the Treaty of Guadalupe in 1848 with the addition of California and New Mexico led to increases in immigration westward. As more settlers moved west, the demise of the North American bison became an example of a great environmental tragedy. While Native American hunting methods were also at times unsustainable, the Euro-American methods of hunting nearly killed off all bison. Without any regulation or rules governing how, when, or where bison could be killed, bison nearly became extinct. The role of different artists such as those within the Hudson River School helped to romanticize a rural aesthetic in a natural American environment, an American landscape waiting to be settled (Howat, 2000). Thomas Cole, considered the founder of the Hudson River School movement, was noted to have said, ‘‘To walk with nature as a poet is the necessary condition of a perfect artist’’ (Howat, 1972). This growing appreciation of the natural environment for aesthetic and philosophical reasons helped create an atmosphere wherein land and other environmental amenities could be viewed as beneficial beyond their anthropocentric utility for economic growth. This sowed the seeds of an early conservation ethic that later influenced the creation of national parks, wilderness areas, and other conservation measures. In response to the destruction related to the Civil War and the enactment of the 1862 Homestead Act, other artists and intellectuals continued to call for the protection of a preservation ethic and created the sense of an environmental consciousness toward conservation and sustainability. The paintings of George Catlin helped a nation to understand what he termed ‘‘the vanishing race’’ by traveling throughout North America describing and painting the various Native American tribes he encountered. Catlin also developed the first ideas of a national park when in 1833 he described how the U.S. government should protect large land areas in their ‘‘pristine beauty and wildness . . . where the world could see for ages to come, the native Indian in his classic attire, galloping his horse . . . amid the fleeting herds of

xxiv | Introduction: Environmental Politics and Policy in the United States

elks and buffaloes’’ and where parks would contain ‘‘man and beast, in all the wild and freshness of their nature’s beauty’’ (Martinez, 2003). The writings of George Perkins Marsh, especially his seminal work Man and Nature; or Physical Geography as Modified by Human Action, published in 1864, helped develop an emerging ethic of conservation into political and economic philosophy and public policy. Through scientific soil studies, Marsh demonstrated an increasing deterioration of the earth as a result of human overuse. He argued that unless humans changed their damaging ecological actions, indigenous flora and fauna were at risk of extinction, an accurate foreboding for bison, passenger pigeons, whales, and many lesser-known species. Marsh warned policymakers at all levels of government that ‘‘another era of equal human crime and human improvidence . . . would reduce [the earth] to such a condition of impoverished productiveness, of shattered surface, of climatic excess, as to threaten the depravation, barbarism, and perhaps even extinction of the species’’ (Cylke, 1993, 20). The works of Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau, influenced by Native American holistic philosophies about the environment, crafted a romantic image of nature that was spiritually grounded. They argued that the earth is an asset to be treasured and that human interactions ought to be cautious and recognize the interconnections between all elements of ecological systems. The writings of Emerson and Thoreau helped establish transcendentalism, one of the first true American ideological schools of thought to create a sense of collectivism within the American people. Thoreau and Emerson represented a distinct minority view during this time of industrial growth and growing economic prosperity predicated upon individual success and competition. Their two significant works, Nature by Emerson and Walden by Thoreau, continue to have long-lasting impacts on citizens and policymakers today. As Benjamin Kline states, ‘‘Thoreau died in 1862 at the age of 45, unaware that his message would one day make him a founder of the environmental movement. In obscurity he had laid the foundations for environmental ethics as well as for an individualism that opposed the conformity of the industrial age of the late nineteenth century’’ (Kline, 1997). After the conclusion of the Civil War, a shift in powers from state and local governments to the federal government increased national involvement in a variety of areas affecting environmental issues across the United States. Perhaps in response to the destruction caused by the Civil War, the late 1860s and 1870s were a watershed moment for public and government involvement in environmental affairs. The Timber Culture Act of 1873, the Desert Land Act of 1877, and the Timber and Stone Act gave or sold land at reduced prices to encourage western expansion and conquest of American Indian tribes. The passage of the Mining Act in 1866 opened access to exploratory and occupational actions by citizens in publicly held lands. The 1871 establishment of the

Introduction: Environmental Politics and Policy in the United States | xxv

United States Commission of Fish and Fisheries (now the National Marine Fisheries Service) set a significant precedent for the federal government taking responsibility for wildlife (Harmond, 2005, 12). Commission head Spencer Fullerton Baird directed the commission to tackle restoration efforts by creating fish hatcheries across the United States and doing research on various species, tracking their populations and harvest numbers. At the same time, industry grew across the United States as did major metropolitan areas in all corners of the country. Mechanization and assembly line production systems sped up production rates in agriculture, mining, logging, and fishing, as well as most extractive industries. Coal consumption and the use of oil rose dramatically during the second half of the nineteenth century, thus creating the beginnings of human dependency on fossil fuels. Exploration of the Rocky Mountains continued to create a burgeoning environmental consciousness across the United States as settlers began to infill the lands bypassed in the historic Oregon Trail migration. The work of explorer and writer John Wesley Powell, echoing the calls of George Perkins Marsh, described the beauty of the Colorado River and the surrounding area in his 1875 book The Exploration of the Colorado River and in his Report on the Lands of the Arid Regions of the United States, while landscape artists like Albert Bierstadt celebrated the beauty of these lands as the cathedrals of natural America. Eighteen seventy-two was an important year in the relationship of the U.S. government to the natural environment. Described later, it was the year the world’s first national park was established. It was also marked by the passing of the Mining Act of 1872. This law reasserted the rights of the private individual to free and open access to mining exploration on public lands, stating ‘‘The mineral lands of the public domain, both surveyed and unsurveyed, are hereby declared to be free and open to exploration and occupation by all citizens of the United States, and those who have declared their intentions to become citizens . . .’’ (Klyza, 1996, 35). According to the analysis of Christopher Klyza, the 1872 Mining Act institutionalized the policy of free-market, laissez-faire economic liberalism in hardrock mining policy instead of bureaucratic regulation or preservation through public policies, as the latter two policy approaches had not yet been developed (Klyza, 1996, 29–37). It would take more than 90 years for a new policy to develop with regards to management of hard-rock deposit mining with the passage of the 1964 Wilderness Act (Klyza, 1996, 37–47). Another monumental environmental action in 1872 was the establishment of Yellowstone Valley as the nation’s first national park. This designation ushered in a significant new era of public land protection by the federal government. The language of the Yellowstone Act provided the U.S. government, specifically the Secretary of the Interior, invaluable tools for continued federal expansion of federal lands. In Section 2 of the Yellowstone Act, the statute declares the essential

xxvi | Introduction: Environmental Politics and Policy in the United States

preservationist purpose of national parks: ‘‘The Secretary of the Interior . . . shall provide for the preservation, from injury or spoliation, of all timber, mineral deposits, natural curiosities, or wonders within said park, and their retention in their natural condition’’ (Dilsaver, 1994). While the enabling statute expressly indicates the goal of natural preservation, the National Park Service also operates the parks for recreational purposes that sometimes conflict with the preservation goals of the parks. A current example of this tension in Yellowstone involves the use of snowmobiles in the park. Some environmental groups assert that the noise and pollution from snowmobiles damages the air quality and animal habitat, while snowmobile advocates claim they have a right to use the park on snowmobiles and that any deleterious environmental effects are minimal. More on this and other conflicts of interest are discussed in the encyclopedia’s entries on Yellowstone as well as in the National Park Service entry. The creation of the 1872 Mining Act and Yellowstone National Park created bookends of two seemingly opposite environmental actions and thus displayed the sense of the nation coming to grips with its national identity. While economic expansion and industrial growth topped the nation’s policy goals, the vast natural landscapes were also viewed as unique treasures worthy of protection and celebration. In the shadow of its European ancestors, the United States did not possess the historic grand palaces and cathedrals like Europe. However, with the creation of national parks and wilderness areas, the U.S. government created natural palaces and cathedrals that set an example for the rest of the world to follow. Perhaps the most important implication of the establishment of Yellowstone National Park and especially the creation of Yosemite National Park in 1890 was the introduction of naturalist and conservationist John Muir to the burgeoning national environmental policy scene. A passionate preservationist, he founded the Sierra Club in 1892 primarily as a hiking and recreation club for people in northern California. The Sierra Club’s continuing influence as a constituency group for elected and administrative officials is a testament to Muir’s belief that the federal government should play a large role in the protection of public lands in their natural state (Harmond and Curran, 2005, 23–24). Serving as Sierra Club president until his death in 1914, Muir’s work in articulating an affinity for nature in the legacy of Emerson and Thoreau helped to create a movement of committed believers who were drawn to land preservation in the United States. The political efficacy of the Sierra Club and the legacy of John Muir was not so much indebted to his love of politics, however, as he rationalized the importance of joining the power of government regulation and oversight to the goal of the preservation of various natural sites. As Muir describes: Laws won’t do much good unless they’re backed up by public opinion, and to rouse that you’ve got to organize your sympathizers into a public

Introduction: Environmental Politics and Policy in the United States | xxvii

body . . . I found that out in the matter of protecting trees in Yosemite. Here I was crying in the wilderness for twenty years, and not the faintest impression could I make. The papers printed my articles, and people said, ‘‘Oh, yes, John Muir—he’s romantic!’’ or ‘‘Very pretty ideas, but he doesn’t understand sheep-raising.’’ Finally several of us joined together and formed the Sierra Club, and we found that that could do what none of us could accomplish alone. Impress people with your importance as a body, and they’ll listen to you.’’ Muir’s emphasis upon the role of reformist civic associations such as the Sierra Club, in conjunction with his focus upon the particular value of certain aesthetically unique and inspirational areas of wilderness, provides the basis for a more coherent reconstruction of his political thought (Meyer, 1997, 279–280). It is the contrasting beliefs of John Muir that would come to contrast citizen involvement in environmental preservation and conservation efforts: saving the natural state holding so much transcendent and aesthetic value from human interference required working with humans to secure that independence for natural areas. Equally important in the responses of the federal government to environmental protection was the establishment of the Forest Reserve in the 1891 General Revision Act. Building upon earlier work of Secretary of the Interior Carl Schurz, Presidents Harrison and Cleveland added more than 38 million acres to be set aside as part of a nationwide forest reserve (Klyza, 1996, 69). President McKinley added the Forest Management Act as a provision to provide stable management of these reserves (Andrews, 1999, 416). In total, this response to years of land giveaways to private companies and citizens reversed trends of environmental degradation found in the rush to move west. Making his intentions known in his first address to Congress, President Theodore Roosevelt set forth and completed his mission of expanding the role of the federal government in environmental affairs. The changes in environmental policy occurred in legislative achievements such as the National Monuments Act of 1906, which he vigorously pursued to expand the lands of national ecological treasures as well as the land surrounding national parks (Harmond and Curran, 2005, 24). Theodore Roosevelt became the first president to call a White House Conference on Resource Management in 1908 that was emulated by future presidents to usher in the environmental eras of the 1960s and 1970s (Andrews, 1999, 419). Changes occurred administratively with the appointment of Gifford Pinchot as chief of the Division of Forestry (now known as the U.S. Forest Service). Pinchot’s appointment marked a shift in government interaction with environmental protection and conservation. Defined by Progressive-Era beliefs in utilitarianism, Pinchot, a Yale graduate also educated at the French Forest School, helped to lead the shift to the ideal of using new scientific forestry techniques to

xxviii | Introduction: Environmental Politics and Policy in the United States

manage the national forests in the utilitarian premise of the ‘‘greatest good for the greatest number.’’ Rather than leave control of federal lands to the private sector and industrialists, Pinchot advocated they be managed by experts trained in forestry science in order to provide the proper oversight, supervision, and order to the growth of the forest reserves, which President Roosevelt had increased by 148 million acres by the end of his term in office (Klyza, 1996, 71). The ethic of technocratic utilitarianism advanced by Pinchot stressed government intervention and management of publicly owned natural resources. As Klyza (1996) puts it, ‘‘Expert, not democratic, control was the aim of the technocrats.’’ It is also important to note the transfer of the Division of Forestry from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Agriculture as a crucial struggle for technocrats in securing expert control of forest management. The U.S. Forest Service remains in the Department of Agriculture and thus signifies Pinchot’s legacy and imprint on the idea that the forests are first a commodity to be managed for long-term growth and use. The tension between human industrial use of natural resources and more passive uses, such as hiking and other forms of recreation, came to the forefront as a primary debate between Pinchot and John Muir. Within this intricacy of public debate and growing support of an environmental ethic was the infamous Hetch Hetchy Valley Dam project, initiated in 1908 and completed in 1913. Backed by Pinchot as a utilitarian decision to create a water reservoir for the residents of San Francisco, the location of the dam within Yosemite became a battle between Pinchot and Muir among others. The ultimate battle for Hetch Hetchy Valley was decided in Congress; with heavy lobbying from both sides, it ultimately prevailed and was signed into law by President Wilson in 1913. This marked the end of an era in environmental engagement as John Muir died soon thereafter. The presidencies of Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and Woodrow Wilson all enhanced the role of the federal government in establishing national parks and historic sites, and in 1916, Wilson signed an act creating the National Park Service to govern and manage the 35 parks and monuments established at the time. The early part of the twentieth century also marked the origination of several prominent environmental groups: the National Audubon Society started in 1905, National Parks Association in 1919, and in 1922 the Izaak Walton League was formed. These organizations emphasized the efficient use of natural resources with an emphasis on conservation and scientific management. These organizations attracted prominent political elites and were not especially radical in their political tactics or goals. They elevated environmental concerns to the public and political agendas in a way that could balance unfettered economic use of natural resources. During the Progressive Era, now known as the environmental movement, interest groups, activists, and political leaders split into two distinct elements, the

Introduction: Environmental Politics and Policy in the United States | xxix

preservationists and the conservationists. Led by Muir’s notion of a wilderness free of human infrastructure and development, preservationists were inspired by the sanctity and serenity of open space, majestic landscapes, and all the flora and fauna that inhabited the forests and mountains. Another leading preservationist at the time was Aldo Leopold, an avid outdoorsman, Forest Service employee, and professor of game management in the Agricultural Economics Department at the University of Wisconsin. Leopold championed the idea of ecosystems and ecology as an interconnected holistic science of the relationships between humans and the natural environment. Through his founding of the Wilderness Society and the National Wildlife Federation, Leopold supported the creation of federally protected wilderness areas across the United States as unique spaces necessary as buffers from industrial and population growth. Conservationists like Pinchot supported multiple uses of public lands and believed that through science and expert management the resources could be sustained for generations with efficient use of the land. Unlike more conservative, anti-government approaches, conservationists supported the idea of publicly owned and managed land, but also supported using public land for a variety of economic activities, including mining, ranching, logging, and hydroelectric dams. Untouched in this introduction thus far is the role of urban blight in the relationship between economic development and an increasing role of government in urban environmental policy in the early 1900s. While not traditionally understood as environmental policy, the urbanization of America with influxes of immigrants and migration to dense urban areas raised a whole host of issues, including sanitary and waste concerns, planning debates surrounding housing and transportation, and food-processing regulations. With a national population rising from 76 million in 1900 to 105 million in 1920, the air and water quality of cities began to deteriorate. Muckraking journalism into the food industries, epitomized by Upton Sinclair’s book The Jungle, led Congress and President Theodore Roosevelt to pass the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act, leading to safer food processing and food products through greater congressional and administrative oversight. Another element of urban environmental policy is the role of public parks for recreation, land preservation, and aesthetic benefits. Frederick Law Olmsted was a pioneer in the creation and protection of open space and parks within cities to serve as a buffer to the grind of city living. His role as superintendent of New York City’s Central Park had a profound impact on the development of growing metropolitan areas. His interest in what he called emerald cities, cities created in pockets surrounded by green space in a shape similar to an emerald necklace, was a new development in urban architecture and planning. His belief in creating

xxx | Introduction: Environmental Politics and Policy in the United States

public areas for respite from urban densities through landscape architecture left an indelible mark on the American consciousness and would have long-lasting consequences. Olmsted not only designed the most famous urban park in the United States—Central Park—but also designed and inspired hundreds of other urban public parks across the nation. While the administration of President Herbert Hoover is usually understood as one that took a laissez-faire approach to environmental regulation, Hoover did exhibit support for some conservationist measures by creating protected national fisheries and limited water pollution. However, to the chagrin of preservationists, he also supported the expansion of the Bureau of Reclamation, established in 1902, and authorized the Boulder Canyon dam project, now called the Hoover Dam. In 1933, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal programs set forth an escalation of President Herbert Hoover’s belief in active governmental management and use of natural resources. Like his cousin Theodore Roosevelt, President Franklin Roosevelt was a nature enthusiast and used the resources of the federal government to create jobs in response to the record unemployment rates of the Great Depression. Many jobs created through the Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps were geared toward state and national parks; thousands of newly hired workers built shelters, trails, and roads while also planting trees and creating other recreation areas, such as beaches and campgrounds. Along with Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes, FDR expanded the number of national parks and created Washington’s Olympic National Park, Virginia’s Shenandoah National Park, and a national monument area where Grand Teton National Park exists today. In 1939, FDR established the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to manage game and other species in response to growing concerns over depletion rates (Kline, 1997, 69). While FDR’s administration pleased the early environmental community to some extent, pressures to promote economic growth trumped other concerns such as air and water pollution, increased use of agricultural chemicals, and the beginning of a transportation conversion to automobiles. During the first and second world wars, a great deal of public money was used for scientific research and development. In the World War II era especially, a burst of scientific and technological innovation spurred a plethora of new chemical products and catapulted the paradigm of scientific rationalism as a supreme mindset for public policy decisions. This created a paradoxical situation for environmental public policy. For example, plastic-based products or polycarbonates including nylon, polyester, polyvinyl chloride, and synthetic rubber are lighter than traditional building materials such as wood and steel. As a result of their weight, plastic manufacturing and building materials can improve energy efficiency in

Introduction: Environmental Politics and Policy in the United States | xxxi

manufacturing processes and transportation systems. However, there are also serious concerns about the toxicity of these chemical products in the manufacturing and disposal processes. If leached into food or released into the air or groundwater, plastic additives are known to cause cancer and other negative health effects. In addition, the use and durability of plastic reduces the demand for mineral mining because it offers a cheaper and longer-lasting substitute. On the other hand, disposal of plastic products is adding pressure to landfills and waste incinerators due to the release of noxious chemicals. Perhaps the most well known of the post-World War II chemicals is dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, or DDT, a popular pesticide used in agriculture to kill mosquitoes that spread malaria throughout the 1940s and 1950s. While DDT was believed to be an effective tool in fighting malaria and controlling agricultural pests, the scientific community also discovered that widespread DDT use was causing cancers in humans and killing songbirds, bald eagles, and other species. One of the most important environmental policy books of the twentieth century, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, published in 1962, spurred the Kennedy administration to study the ill effects of DDT, and the Environmental Protection Agency banned most uses of DDT in the early 1970s. The 1950s and especially the 1960s were a time of emerging public and political concern over the balancing of industrial growth and environmental preservation and conservation. Two highway-building acts of Congress in the 1950s had tremendous impact on a variety of environmental policy issues. Pushed by the business committee and nearly all politicians, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1952 authorized $25 million for a system of highways crossing the country, with 50 percent of the funding coming from the federal government and 50 percent coming from the states. The stakes were raised by the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956—also known as the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act— which provided 90 percent of the highway funding and created a federal gas tax system to partially pay for more than 46,500 miles of uniform multi-lane highways. The economic and environmental consequences of this law cannot be understated. Highway-building projects opened up rural areas to population and economic growth, and thousands of town and city neighborhoods went to rubble under the bulldozer and wrecking ball to make way for automobiles and trucks. Due to increased vehicular traffic, metropolitan air pollution became a public health hazard. Highways limited pedestrian access to urban waterways, and wetlands were drained for pavement as highways were carved through forests, prairies, and mountains. Local governments couldn’t resist the federal funding and the pursuit of growth was supported by virtually all business, labor, and political elites. With more highways and an automobile focus, there was a transformation in local public transportation from electric streetcars to buses and a general divesture of public funds from public transportation.

xxxii | Introduction: Environmental Politics and Policy in the United States

Prior to the 1960s, the bulk of environmental policymaking occurred within state and local governments. However, a series of well-publicized environmental disasters helped push environmental concerns to the national policy forefront in the late 1960s. In 1969, two major oil spills occurred off the coast of Santa Barbara, California, and the Cuyahoga River outside of Cleveland, Ohio, caught fire due to oil and other pollutants in the water. New environmental organizations were created in the 1960s, including the World Wildlife Fund and the Environmental Defense Fund. Activists like Ralph Nader, legislative leaders such as Washington Senator Henry Jackson, Idaho Senator Frank Church, and Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson, and academics like Indiana University political scientist Lynton Caldwell also helped raise public and political awareness of ecological issues and policy solutions. The original Clean Air Act was passed in 1963 and the Water Quality Act was passed in 1965. In addition, President Lyndon Johnson signed a variety of environmental laws, including the National Wilderness Act in 1964 and the Wild and Scenic Rivers and National Trails acts in 1968. The mid- to late 1960s marked the emergence of federal environmental policy that set up a groundswell of public and political support for an onslaught of federal actions in the 1970s. President Richard Nixon’s first official act on January 1, 1970, was to sign the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); he stated that the 1970s would be the ‘‘Environmental Decade.’’ NEPA significantly altered the federal actions concerning the environment because now all major federal actions that significantly affected the environment required an environmental impact statement evaluating the myriad of deleterious ecological impacts. While the Supreme Court eventually limited NEPA’s impact by saying that the act was essentially procedural and did not impose environmental mandates, NEPA does force all federal agencies and federal subcontractors to study and consider the environmental impacts of their actions (Lindstrom and Smith, 2002). The creation of the Environmental Protection Agency in December of 1970 consolidated federal research and the creation and enforcement of national standards. This significantly elevated federal administrative powers for environmental rule-making and regulatory oversight of industry and commerce in the United States. During this time, Congress continued an aggressive stance on environmental policy and passed numerous policies throughout the early 1970s, such as the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, the Federal Environmental Pesticides Control Act of 1972, the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, the Forest Land Policy Management Act of 1976, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, and the National Forest Management Act of 1976. The 1973 Arab oil embargo created scarcity in the international oil markets and led to steep spikes in fuel and energy costs across the United States. With

Introduction: Environmental Politics and Policy in the United States | xxxiii

U.S. oil production peaking around 1970 and rising concerns about energy sustainability, energy conservation emerged as a new issue for national policy. Oil prices declined again for several years and then sharply shot up again in 1979 following the turmoil of the Iranian Revolution. Due to increased production around the world and decreased international demand, oil prices fell throughout the first part of the 1980s. This lowered national attention to energy conservation, and Ronald Reagan’s presidency marked a pronounced shift in federal environmental policy. President Reagan’s election was a landslide with his opponent, Walter Mondale, winning only the electoral college votes in Minnesota and Washington, D.C. As a result, Reagan claimed an electoral mandate to reduce the size and powers of the federal government, especially with regard to regulating economic and environmental areas. Reagan, a movie actor and governor of California, was ideologically connected with western property rights advocacy groups representing timber, mining, and ranching companies. At their request, Reagan’s administration served to weaken federal environmental policy and turn over more decisions regarding the use of federal property to state governments. Reagan had several important impacts on environmental policy: his appointments of James Watt as Secretary of the Interior and Anne Burford as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, his administration’s decisions to reduce funding for environmental initiatives and offices, and his Executive Order 12291 in February 1981 directing all federal agencies to conduct a ‘‘regulatory impact analysis’’ for large-scale regulatory decisions thereby imposing a ‘‘costbenefit analysis’’ on the proposed regulations or changes in regulations. Because earlier environmental policies were viewed as too costly for the Reagan administration, Reagan’s Office of Management and Budget was empowered to gut the enforcement and creation of environmental policies. James Watt, previously a lawyer who fought many environmental laws, directed the Department of the Interior to allow more oil and mineral drilling, increase timber production, and reduce just about all conservation measures throughout his department. Similar to Watt, Burford was a corporate attorney, and as EPA administrator directed the EPA away from its enforcement and environmental advocacy role. She withheld funds from preservation and toxic waste clean-up efforts and allowed Reagan’s Office of Management and Budget to argue that economic costs could trump environmental policymaking. Both Watt and Burford were forced to resign after a couple of short but influential years in office. As a result of Reagan’s perceived ‘‘anti-environmental’’ attitudes and actions, environmental groups had a powerful enemy in government and used this to greatly expand their memberships and budgets. Groups like the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Greenpeace all became household names and powerful organizations inside Washington, D.C. With growing membership

xxxiv | Introduction: Environmental Politics and Policy in the United States

and budgets, they hired more lawyers, lobbyists, and staff throughout Reagan’s term only to see their numbers fall off with the election of Bill Clinton and Al Gore in 1992. After eight years with President Reagan, his vice president George H. W. Bush was elected in 1988 claiming that he would be ‘‘an environmental president.’’ While his administration was generally more supportive of environmental policy than Reagan, his appointments for cabinet secretaries and the actions of his vice president Dan Quayle left environmentalists disappointed. One environmental highlight was President Bush’s decision to sign the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act, which, among other things, created a cap-and-trade system for sulfur dioxide, a contributor to acid rain that was adversely affecting lakes, forests, and soil quality, particularly in New York and New England. By most accounts, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 are considered the greatest factor in the significant reduction of sulfur dioxide emissions in the United States. The election of President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore in 1991 marked a distinct shift back to a conservation focus within environmental policy. While much of the previous 12 years of environmental decision-making was an attempt to reduce federal oversight and power within environmental policy, President Clinton’s regulatory cost-benefit executive order meant that environmental and public health decisions were a larger part of the calculus. Clinton’s political appointees, Carol Browner, Administrator of the EPA, and Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior, attempted to strengthen federal environmental policymaking across multiple sectors, including public lands, toxic waste cleanup, and wilderness protection. In 2001, President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney ascended to power. More like Reagan than his father, Bush’s administration turned over more powers to states in managing public lands and expedited mining and oil drilling permits on public lands and generally favored industry and business goals over conservation and preservation. The appointment of Gale Norton, an attorney for industry groups, to head the Department of the Interior raised immediate flags for the environmental movement. Like Reagan’s Secretary of the Interior James Watt, Interior Secretary Norton favored more natural resource extraction in federal lands and weaker environmental standards for endangered species and industrial emissions. More oil production was a central goal of the Bush-Cheney energy plan and created enormous debate, especially over their proposal to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. His appointment of Christine Todd Whitman as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency was a bit of a political balancing act as she countered other administration officials who were more adverse to rigorous environmental policy. After eight years, the exit of Bush and Cheney from public office created an opening in the White House.

Introduction: Environmental Politics and Policy in the United States | xxxv

As a community organizer and state senator in the mid- to late 1990s, Barack Obama fought against environmental health hazards such as asbestos and lead poisoning, especially in the Chicago metropolitan area. After delivering a captivating address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention as an Illinois state senator and candidate for U.S. Senate, Obama gained national prominence and was overwhelmingly elected to the U.S. Senate in November 2004. In the Senate, Barack Obama introduced the Lead-Free Toys Act (2005) and Lead Poisoning Reduction Act (2006). As a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in the 109th Congress, Obama cosponsored legislation addressing climate change, environmental health, Great Lakes restoration, and mercury poisoning (Organizing for America, 2008 ‘‘Promoting a Healthy Environment’’). During his 2008 presidential campaign, Senator Obama tried to address both economic and environmental goals in a mutually beneficial framework combining job creation and conservation. Senator and presidential candidate Obama promoted the creation of jobs through expenditures and tax incentives for business development in the alternative energy sector, the weatherization of buildings, and other energy efficiency initiatives. After the election of Obama and Vice President Joe Biden in November 2008, the Obama administration set the country on a distinct course of action compared to the previous eight years under President George W. Bush. Barack Obama’s nominations to cabinet-level leadership were all confirmed and reflected diverse ages and races as well as including Republicans, such as former Congressman Ray LaHood as Secretary of Transportation. President Obama created a new White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy and named Clinton administration veteran Carol Browner as director. Browner is an outspoken proponent of climate change action and was previous administrator of the EPA under Clinton. Lisa Jackson was confirmed by the U.S. Senate as administrator of the EPA and became the first African American to head this agency. In the summer of 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 with little Republican support. The bill sets standards for the United States to cut carbon emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and by over 80 percent by 2050 (Thomas.loc.gov). The bill also establishes a cap-and-trade system on carbon emissions in which tradable permits to emit carbon dioxide would be distributed, auctioned, and traded in a regulated marketplace and for the first time in history create a price for carbon emissions. While President Obama is supportive of a cap-and-trade regulatory system for carbon, the legislative prospects depend on passage in the U.S. Senate. In response to a widespread economic recession, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which allocates $50 billion

xxxvi | Introduction: Environmental Politics and Policy in the United States

for cleaner U.S. energy, greater energy efficiency, and domestic sources of renewable energy. The spending includes $5 billion for the Weatherization Assistance Program, $3.2 billion for Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants, $300 million for the Energy Efficient Appliance Rebate program and the Energy Star Program, and energy tax credits for homeowners incorporating alternative energy systems (Recovery.gov). In the face of a collapsing economy and U.S. automobile industry, the Obama administration spent billions of dollars to shore up U.S. automobile manufacturers. In exchange, Obama negotiated higher fuel efficiency concessions from the industry by raising standards to an industry average of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016. The agreement is the most substantial federal government action to address automobile fuel efficiency since 1975, when President Ford and Congress established the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards after the 1973 OPEC oil embargo. What were considered as solely environmental issues in the second half of the twentieth century are now largely understood by national policymakers as interrelated with other public policies. For example, water contamination and water scarcity are directly linked to international security issues, as is the oil economy and energy independence. Transportation and economic development are both interdependent with land-use planning, air quality, solid-waste management, and access to natural resources. As Thomas Friedman (2008) argues, the global economy is shrinking the virtual size of the globe and creating greater connectivity across diverse global communities. As global wealth increases, so does global consumption of natural resources and the concomitant increase in emissions such as greenhouse gases and toxic chemicals. While it is also expected that technological advances will improve energy efficiency and pollution controls, the U.S. government, like all local and national governments, will continue to have to balance economic growth and development with other public policy goals, such as air and water quality, open space, and recreation, along with protected unique, historic, or ecologically fragile natural areas. While there will continue to be partisan differences as to the role of government and environmental policy, it was clear throughout the twentieth century that a growing number of Americans and policymakers sought to address environmental challenges through public policy initiatives. As the twenty-first century unfolds, the debate will be centered on the level of environmental risk communities, states, and the nation will want to tolerate, as well as the associated costs, both real and opportunity costs, the nation is willing to pay for and accept. Initial pollution reductions are fairly easy to achieve but further reductions in emissions and natural resource extraction will involve greater economic and social tradeoffs. Matthew Lindstrom and Joe Kane

Introduction: Environmental Politics and Policy in the United States | xxxvii

References Andrews, Richard N. L. Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves: A History of American Environmental Policy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999. Caldwell, Lynton K. The National Environmental Policy Act: An Agenda for the Future. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998. Cylke, F. Curt. The Environment. New York: HarperCollins College Publisher, 1993. Dilsaver, Lary. 1994. America’s National Park System: The Critical Documents. http:// www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/anps/anps_1c.htm (accessed December 20, 2009). Friedman, Thomas. Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution— and How It Can Renew America. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2008. Harmond, Richard, and Thomas Curran. Environmentalism and the Government. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company, 1994. Howat, John K. ‘‘Founding friends of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York.’’ Magazine Antiques (January 2000), FindArticles.com (accessed January 20, 2009). Howat, John K. The Hudson River School. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1972. H.R.2454, American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. http://www.govtrack.us/ congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2454 (accessed February 20, 2010). H.R. 1, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. http://frwebgate.access .gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1enr.pdf and http://www .rules.house.gov/111/LegText/111_hr1_text.pdf (accessed March 25, 2010). Kline, Benjamin. First Along the River: A Brief History of the U.S. Environmental Movement. San Francisco: Acada Books, 1997. Klyza, Christopher McGory. Who Controls Public Lands? Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996. Lindstrom, Matthew J., and Zachary A. Smith. The National Environmental Policy Act: Judicial Misconstruction, Legislative Indifference, and Executive Neglect. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2002. Martinez, Dennis. ‘‘Protected Areas, Indigenous Peoples, and the Western Idea of Nature.’’ Ecological Restoration 21 (4) (2003). Meyer, John M. ‘‘Gifford Pinchot, John Muir, and the Boundaries of Politics in American Thought.’’ Polity 30 (2) (1997): 279–280. Organizing for America. 2008. ‘‘Barack Obama and Joe Biden: New Energy for America.’’ Available online at http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_ speech_080308.pdf (accessed March 28, 2010). Peterson, Merrill D. Thomas Jefferson and the New Nation: A Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975. Scheffer, Victor B. The Shaping of Environmentalism in America. Seattle: University of Washington Press. 1991. The Holy Bible, King James Version. Available online at: http://www.kingjames bibleonline.org/ (accessed October 29, 2009). Vandenbroucke, Guillaume. ‘‘The U.S. Westward Expansion,’’ International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 49 (1) (2008): 81–110.

The U.S. Government and the Environment before 1960

Attitudes are born in history. The environmental history developed in the United States before 1960 reveals hundreds of years of laws and policy decisions created for economic prosperity and that discounted the value of wilderness. Instead, economic return was the central factor in all decisions. From the colonists’ first landing in the country, the goal was natural resource exploitation. As the country developed, attitudes and values toward a broader understanding of the environment evolved. As the country’s basic material needs were addressed, broader spiritual, recreational, and ecological values were slowly adopted within society and by the U.S, federal government as well as state and local governments. Eventually the consequences of pollution and resource scarcity as well as growing scientific knowledge led public officials to address urban water systems, create national forests and parks, restrict industrial pollution, and regulate hunting and fishing, to name just a few policy areas. Typically, changes prior to 1960 limited industrial contamination of natural resources instead of preventing or removing toxic pollution. This essay addresses the philosophical, economic, and political underpinnings of the evolving relationship between the U.S. government and the environment up to the mid-twentieth century. As is discussed in this essay, the Romantic movement (1820–1900) and the American Transcendental movement (1836–1850) through the Progressive Era (1880–1920) brought a philosophical context to a new understanding of the natural environment. In the 1950s and 1960s, a new way of thinking about the economy, society, culture, and philosophy in the United States acted on words of caution delivered hundreds of years earlier by Native Americans. A table of inherent differences between technological peoples and native peoples in Jerry Mander’s In the Absence of the Sacred: The Failure of Technology and the Survival of the Indian Nations (Mander, 1992, 214–221) offers some insight into this shift in environmental policy. Mander writes that natives see ‘‘the American

1

2 | The U.S. Government and the Environment before 1960

way’’ as striving for death. Contemporary resistance to the direction in which technology took the nation produced the ecology movement in the 1960s. That movement began to draw a line against the country’s entire mode of economic organization and the system of logic and set of assumptions that led to the problems of dams, pesticides, nukes, and population growth, for example, associated with environmental degradation. New laws including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Wilderness Act resulted. The economic model of the sixteenth through eighteenth centuries is mercantilism. Motivated and directed by the English Crown and Parliament, colonists in the New World were encouraged to export raw materials to England, preferably gold, silver, tobacco, rice, indigo, and timber (Petulla, 1977). They turned the largest profit for the homeland. Wealth for all who provided them was assured. Conquest of native land and culture was the way of the colonists, a way differing at the root from historic Native American cultural values. The native way frames the earth as family members: father Sky, mother Earth, grandfather Moon, brother River, the Four Winds are uncles, the Stars are cousins, and so forth. Chief Seattle, who led the Suquamish tribe of the Puget Sound area, described native spirituality to government officials in 1854 this way: ‘‘Whatever befalls the Earth befalls the sons and daughters of the Earth. We did not weave the web of life; we are merely a strand in it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves’’ (Suquamish Tribe, 2010). In this respect, he foreshadowed health concerns resulting from the industrial waste contamination that was to come. The settlers’ way disconnected humans from all other life largely based on Genesis 1:28 of the Old Testament, which provides, ‘‘Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over . . . every living thing that creepeth upon the earth.’’ With a moral imperative and need for economic growth, colonials consequently sought to clear forests, mine mountains, and plant indigofera, a member of the pea family valued for the deep blue dye that could be extracted from the vegetation. Since the color drawn out is not soluble in water, one technique for breaking down the resistance required soaking the extraction in urine. Offensive in nature, a harsh chemical treatment for turning it into dye provided an alternative. It led to health problems at textile manufacturing facilities and occasionally attracted attention from government policymakers. The waste chemicals landed in streams and soil and were allowed to evaporate into the air because the science of dilution suggested doing so would render them harmless. The first zoning policies in the United States can be traced to these concerns for public health. Sanitation and pure drinking water were its cornerstones. In 1739, Benjamin Franklin laid the groundwork for land use law when he and some of his neighbors petitioned the Pennsylvania assembly to stop chemical

The U.S. Government and the Environment before 1960 | 3

waste dumping and remove tanneries from Philadelphia’s commercial district because of their foul smell, disease-promoting qualities, and interferences with firefighting, all of which lowered property values. Industry complained to the assembly that any restriction would violate their rights. Franklin argued for ‘‘public rights’’ (Kovarik, 2010) The issue of public versus private rights has been a continuing thread through environmental policy in the United States ever since. Franklin and his pack won a symbolic victory that created awareness. However, assorted industries, including the weapons, steel, and chemical industries, continued dumping with minimal restriction for almost 200 more years. Throughout the prairie and the Rust Belt, rivers and streams ran red from cadmium and chromium. Franklin’s dedication to his beloved Philadelphia and confidence that the New World promised many great contributions to the world led him to include a 1789 codicil in his will. In in, he left money earmarked to build a freshwater pipeline to the city to stave off yellow fever and other epidemics linked to water quality (Kovarik 2010). Extraction of natural resources remained a God-given sanction in the 1800s as logging, mining, and farming flourished. Like the early settlers, citizens of the new United States of America hungered for the land, viewing forest wilderness as the most formidable barrier standing between them and their financial success from farming. The only good tree was a dead one in a fence, cabin wall, or fireplace (Nash, 1963, 2). This utilitarian-based economic system of conquest over wilderness gave meaning and purpose to the pioneer existence. The pioneers and Native Americans differed not only in spiritual beliefs, but also in their ideas about community and society. Early settlers brought from Europe an economic system based on individual rather than collective property ownership, opposite to native practices. To the native nations, it was not possible to own something belonging to the Great Spirit. When U.S. President Zachary Taylor offered to buy the Suquamish’s land, Chief Seattle likened the settlers to parasites in his 1854 reply that today is regarded by some as the most beautiful and profound statement on environmental policy ever made. Explaining his position, Chief Seattle said: How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land? This idea is strange to us. If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can you buy them? . . . We know that the white man does not understand our ways. One portion of land is the same to him as the next, for he is a stranger who comes in the night and takes from the land whatever he needs. The Earth is not his brother, but his enemy, and when he has conquered it, he moves on. He leaves his father’s graves behind, and he does not care. He kidnaps the Earth from his children, . . . And he does not care. . . . He treats . . . the Earth . . . as [something] to be bought, plundered, sold like sheep or bright beads. His appetite will devour the Earth and leave behind only a desert. . . .

4 | The U.S. Government and the Environment before 1960

Our ways are different from your ways. The sight of your cities pains the eyes for the red man. But perhaps it is because the red man is a savage and does not understand. There is no quiet place in the white man’s cities. No place to hear the unfurling of leaves of spring, or the rustle of an insect’s wings. But perhaps it is because I am a savage and do not understand. The clatter only seems to insult my ears . . . (Suquamish Tribe, 2010). It would be many years before Central Park in New York City was created to provide a quiet place in that roaring metropolis. Considering Chief Seattle’s statement, it can be said that the Romantics, Transcendentalists, and naturalists who advocated for wilderness protection as early as 1773 walked in the footsteps of the native nations and, having done so, sought to reconcile mercantilist ways with the way of beauty. Among them was a New England clergyman who in 1803 crossed the Allegheny Mountains, floated down the Ohio River, and then reported that while the farming scenes he saw were nice, the uncultivated wilderness made him feel closer to god (Nash, 1963, 4). But the Industrial Revolution and mercantilism overshadowed that consciousness. Pollution intensified. Poet, philosopher, and essayist Ralph Waldo Emerson and Chief Seattle spoke about the same things. The conservation stories shaping environmental policy during this time inspired admiration. Environmental policy in the United States after independence began to include a moral imperative along with its commodity-driven capitalist economic system. An increasingly better-educated public had placed new emphasis on the quality of life. The country’s leaders and citizens wanted to break with old ways instituted by the Crown and make a place for the country among great nations. An awareness that the American wilderness was an attraction not only for those searching for a better life, but also for tourists, became an economic concern when public leaders noticed the woods were disappearing into ‘‘progress.’’ The rough country that had been a source of national pride and identity had stood in stark contrast to the Old World’s cramped and artificial conditions. During the Romantic movement, the country’s attitude shifted to include aesthetic value. The United States was outgrowing the idea that wild, natural mountains and forests were horrible and something to be conquered and tamed. The change brought with it an enthusiasm for the primitive. Early sociologist and political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville returned from a trip through the Michigan wilderness in 1831 declaring the journey left him with a vague distaste for civilized life, that the backwoods stimulated a sort of primitive instinct in him that ‘‘makes one think with sadness that soon this delightful solitude will have changed its looks’’ (Nash, 1963, 6). His words epitomize the Romantic attitude. Sadly, de Tocqueville’s observation was a premonition of things to come.

The U.S. Government and the Environment before 1960 | 5

Like the Romantics, for the Transcendentalists nature was the symbol of the spiritual world. It contained the moral truths permeating the universe, they contended. ‘‘In the woods we return to reason and faith,’’ Emerson wrote, epitomizing the movement’s non-utilitarian attitude toward wilderness (Nash, 1963, 4). His statement seems to suggest when morality began injecting itself into U.S. environmental policy. Hatian-born French-American ornithologist John James Audubon was among the scientists who in the early 1800s along with Nuttall regarded the wilderness as a discovery zone (Nash, 1963, 4). Perhaps inspired by a young Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia written in 1785, which defended the New World’s animals and plants against European superstition labeling them as degenerate, Audubon published Birds of America in 1826. That ongoing collection of color engravings that depicted, cataloged, and described the birds. It also influenced environmental law and policy in a new ethical direction. When journalist George Bird Grinnell in 1886 wrote an article in Forest and Stream magazine encouraging readers to help him create ‘‘The Audubon Society,’’ it was with the goal of protecting birds against the demands of fashion (Serrin and Serrin, 2002, 227–229). Enormous numbers of birds were captured for their plumes in the late 1800s. Appealing to industrial as well as less technologically invested special interests, Grinnell explained how the slaughter of birds injured farmers, who needed them to eat the insects and rodents that destroyed crops. He encouraged American women to follow the lead of their counterparts in England, who created widespread interest in protecting birds. In the three months following Grinnell’s publication, more than 38,000 people, including many notables, wrote to him in support of his suggestion. Overwhelmed, he abandoned the group in 1898. Within 10 years, women in Massachusetts formed a state Audubon Society, and in 1905, a national organization was established. The society’s first accomplishment was to pass a plumage law in New York State in 1910 that banned the sale of all plumes of birds native to the state. Its next achievement was a successful lobbying effort for what became the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. The law made it illegal to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, or sell migrating birds, whether dead or alive, including any part of the bird. Grinnell diligently continued his work favoring wilderness and wildlife preservation. In 1910, it led to legislation forming Glacier National Park. Meanwhile, George Catlin in 1832 made the first known plea for forest and wilderness preservation (Nash, 1963, 7). His firsthand observations from living with and documenting Native American life in art and words illustrated the extermination of the native nations and the buffalo. This was a great loss of heritage, he argued, and proposed the government preserve millions of acres of land ‘‘in their pristine beauty and wildness’’ that the world could see for ages to come. His plea signified a new relationship developing between the populace,

6 | The U.S. Government and the Environment before 1960

lawmakers, and environmental policy in the United States that served as the root of the national park idea. George Perkins Marsh, a member of the Whig Party, was among the first in Congress to address environmental problems resulting from human interaction with the natural environment. Industrial progress had disrupted the harmony between humans and their environment, he believed, and he argued that clearing woods indiscriminately was a prelude to floods, soil erosion, and ultimately the collapse of civilization. The Roman Empire was a prime example, and he wanted to spare the United States from a similar fate of denuding the forests and leaving the land barren (Nash, 1963, 7). Over time, studies have linked the rise and fall of civilizations to their environmental health. Rome had overtaxed its natural resources and thus its strength, Marsh contended. Exploiting nature turns an economic asset into an economic liability, he said. Today’s pollution and its cleanup price tag supports Marsh’s thinking. Historically, exploiting the environment by drilling, mining, logging, and polluting forced economic and political systems to change. With that awareness, Marsh inserted wilderness preservation into the congressional economic arguments of 1847 (Nash, 1963). Two years later, the New York Tribune took up the torch to preserve the verdant Adirondack region of the Appalachian Mountains in New York State. Distinguished by deep, lush, dark green forests under purple sunrises streaking amber, the region was largely untouched. Long-time Tribune reporter Joel T. Headly wrote The Adirondack: or Life in the Woods that year, providing that anyone spending time there would come back ‘‘to civilized life’’ a better person (Serrin and Serrin, 2002, 225–227). A major impetus for preserving the region was the deforestation that had already occurred. The stripping of trees became so bad that it was a major contributor to flooding, as well as drought, along the Hudson River and the Erie Canal. New Yorkers vocal about protecting the region wanted to make sure water supplies were not damaged even further. The Adirondacks were a major force in Teddy Roosevelt’s environmental ethic. He spent much time there, and was actually climbing the region’s highest peak (Mount Marcy) when he received news that McKinley had been shot. Lawmakers resisted responding to the public outcry for 40 years, even though Marsh helped carry the Adirondack’s torch in Congress. A breach in the disagreements came in 1873 when the sportsman’s magazine Forest and Stream said preserving the Adirondacks would protect the state watersheds that rose there. This argument won over some of the opposition. The New York State Chamber of Commerce and other powerful interests joined the preservation chorus, claiming that not preserving the Adirondacks would undermine internal commerce in the state. On May 15, 1885, New York Governor David B. Hill made 715,000 acres in the Adirondacks forever wild. It is an early example of a

The U.S. Government and the Environment before 1960 | 7

state leading federal environmental policy. In 1892, the state legislature added another three million acres in the area and designated it Adirondack State Park. In 1894, as the Audubon Society was laying roots, New York State voters gave permanent protection to the park and said it must stay forever wild (Serrin and Serrin, 2002, 226–227). At the same time, John Muir arrived in California at the age of 30 in 1868, where he began describing wilderness and expounding on its values. A part-time logger, he became a leading force shaping American thought on the subject of wilderness. He defended it as a source of religion, recreation, and beauty, and pleaded with the American people to turn to the wild places in their country for rejuvenation and solace. Muir wrote, ‘‘Thousands of tired, nerve-shaken, overcivilized people are beginning to find out that going to the mountains is going home; that wilderness is a necessity; and that mountain parks and reservations are useful not only as fountains of timber and irrigating rivers, but as fountains of life’’ (Nash, 1963, 8). Muir fell out of public life in the 1880s after marrying and devoting his attention to his wife’s family ranch. When Robert Underwood Johnson of Century magazine came to California scouting new talent, he sought out Muir. Together they went on a pack trip to Yosemite, where Muir spoke with sadness about the grazing, lumbering, farms, and factories defaming the valley. Johnson said, write for me, and we’ll make this a national park (Serrin and Serrin, 2002, 229). Muir did, and the rest is history. The story of Yosemite National Park is a study in clout, politics, and greasing the wheels of Congress. While Muir wrote, Johnson, a master lobbyist, created a park coalition that appealed to the logic of the Southern Pacific Railroad and the potent Hearst family (Serrin and Serrin 2002, 232). Century carried Muir’s articles in August and September of 1890. A bill establishing Yosemite National Park, following boundaries Muir suggested in Century, passed in September 1890 shortly after the second article and was signed by President Benjamin Harrison the next day. Muir was surprised by how his arguments won favor. Encouraged by his wife to continue writing about parks and wildlife, in an 1897 article in Atlantic he urged federal protection of the forests. Only Uncle Sam, Muir wrote, can save the trees from fools (Serrin and Serrin 2002, 232). Though Yosemite had been declared protected wilderness, pressure continued to use part of the park for industry. Alert to the undercurrent, Muir, Johnson, and a San Francisco-based lawyer, Warren Olney, formed a sort of ‘‘Yosemite defense league.’’ That group became the Sierra Club. Preserving wilderness for its own sake and using it exclusively for recreation and educational purposes was Muir’s stance in all cases. However, a countervailing conservationist philosophy sunk roots deep into the economic considerations

8 | The U.S. Government and the Environment before 1960

of the day when in 1898, Gifford Pinchot, a Yale University graduate trained in forestry in France, became the country’s first professional forester. Pinchot, who could be considered the father of the wise-use movement that began in the late 1980s, believed forests could be managed sustainably for economic development purposes. His approach became the dominant force in natural resource policy throughout the 1900s in part due to his close association with the nation’s twenty-sixth president, Theodore Roosevelt. In 1892, Pinchot was managing the Biltmore Estate in North Carolina. When William Seward Webb visited and observed some of Pinchot’s ideas there, he invited him to try some of his forest-management methods at Nehasane Park, Webb’s Adirondack estate. Pinchot tried a light, selective cut there with attention to the recreational purposes behind the estate’s creation. Webb liked the result, and other large landowners in the area began to hire Pinchot to manage their wilderness. In this way, the rationale for professional forestry of the day—that manipulated land was superior to nature’s random processes and thus more valuable—was adopted on some private lands within the Adirondack region (Thompson, 1963, 17). The seeds of the New York State laws that kept the Adirondacks forever wild were in fundamental opposition to the professional premise of forestry: that there was value in unmanipulated nature, a value transcending any that might be produced by human intervention (Thompson, 1963, 18). Most notable of Pinchot’s heritage is the controversy over Hetch Hetchy Valley, located in Yosemite National Park. This event is regarded as a sort of Alamo by wilderness lovers. In contrast, the laws creating Adirondack State Park and later Catskill Forest Preserves in New York State are shining examples of what preservationists consider enlightened environmental policy. The story is long, heartbreaking, and complex, and destroyed a friendship based on admiration. It epitomizes the bandwidth of environmental policy in the early 1900s. Briefly, in 1871, William Kent, a Chicagoan of independent wealth, fled to California after the Great Chicago Fire with no plans except to travel. Instead, he ended up with a political career centered on conservation. In 1903, against his wife’s protest, Kent spent $45,000 to buy almost 300 acres in Redwood Canyon when he learned it was for sale. One of the last unlogged canyons north of the Golden Gate in Marin County, Kent’s plan was simple: leave it alone. Let it be a wilderness park for San Francisco and the Bay cities. His reason: crowded cities produced physical, moral, and civic degradation. People needed a place to resonate with their wildness, he contended. Centuries of primitive existence had implanted in human nature a yearning for adventure, freedom, and contact with nature, he believed. City life could not supply that and as a consequence fostered tension and despair. If people periodically indulged themselves in wilderness, it would restore their mental and physical balance and therefore dispel illness from

The U.S. Government and the Environment before 1960 | 9

all directions. Nature was a ‘‘window opening to heaven,’’ Kent said (Nash, 1967, 424–425). It mirrored the Creator rather than the city’s artificial constructs. In a telling result of the ignorance that followed, today author Richard Louv refreshes Kent’s wisdom in his book, Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder. Describing how depravation from nature has changed children’s thinking about what is fun, Louv asked a fourth-grader about the best place to play. The child said, ‘‘I like to play indoors better ’cause that’s where all the electrical outlets are’’ (Louv, 2008, frontispiece). In 1907, Kent returned from a Hawaiian vacation to discover that the North Coast Water Company had begun condemnation proceedings to gain control of his land in Redwood Canyon. The company claimed it was for the public good to create a reservoir there that would provide pure drinking water for San Francisco. Kent searched for a way to keep his land wild. A friend brought the Antiquities Act of 1906 to his attention. The act allowed the president to issue executive orders designating tracts of land in the public domain as national monuments if it was deemed that it had exceptional historical or natural interest. Kent hoped the federal government would accept a gift of private land for this purpose. Kent contacted Pinchot, who by then was the country’s first chief forester of the U.S. Forest Service, created in 1905, and then-Secretary of the Interior, James R. Garfield, and offered his land. A year later, on January 9, 1908, Roosevelt proclaimed the donation a national monument (Nash, 1967, 425–426). Kent named it Muir Woods in honor of the man he admired but had never met. Deeply touched by the gift as well as the personal tribute, Muir wrote to Roosevelt on the day of the designation, commending him for standing up to the ‘‘multitude of dull money hunters’’ usually associated with undeveloped land. It was ‘‘refreshing,’’ he wrote, to find someone like Kent (Nash, 1967, 426). Five days later, he wrote to Kent, and in a series of correspondences that followed, Muir said it was astonishing ‘‘so fine a thing should have come out of money-mad Chicago’’ (Nash, 1967, 427). Kent received wide publicity for his philanthropy. However, it did not stop the condemnation proceedings. The combination fueled Kent’s political ambitions. Running as a Progressive Republican, he was elected to Congress in 1911, a position he held through 1917. But before, he’d find himself a pivotal figure in the era’s most controversial environmental issue, a five-year struggle between the city of San Francisco, Pinchot, and Muir and his factions. At the time, Pinchot was the most noted conservationist of his generation, with Muir perhaps the most noted preservationist. Among other things, this story describes what turned Kent into a ‘‘conservationist’’ from a noted preservationist. By 1908, Pinchot was firmly ensconced in government. As chairman of the May 1908 White House Conference on Resource Management, he established his ‘‘brand’’ for U.S. environmental policy, one that held for the next 60 years. It

10 | The U.S. Government and the Environment before 1960

advocated ‘‘multiple use’’ and ‘‘sustainable yield’’ exploitation for national parks, forests, monuments, and so forth, claiming the practice would create economic prosperity while protecting them aesthetically. To Muir and Kent, it was political mumbo-jumbo. Despite the heightening of awareness and preservationist gains of the Romantic and Transcendental periods, Pinchot’s view had wilderness again standing in the way of financial success. His willingness to destroy natural areas for human benefit brought to the twentieth century values set forth by the pioneers and the Crown during the Age of Enlightenment. It resulted in public policy ignoring historical warnings from Marsh, Chief Seattle, and others about the connection between environmental health, human health, and civilization. As such, Pinchot’s decisions distinguish U.S. environmental policy at the turn of the twentieth century as the time when the Progressive Era reverted to forward-thinking of the 1600s and 1700s. Simply, his policies put utilitarian needs above aesthetic and moral advantages associated with leaving wilderness pristine. This friction in the conservation movement in the early 1900s resulted in a revolt. While Muir and his supporters poured all of their energies into the national park movement, Garfield, Pinchot, and their followers directed federal resource policy toward economic utility and even succeeded in appropriating the term ‘‘conservation’’ for their purposes (Nash, 1967, 427). Consequently, Muir’s group became known as ‘‘preservationists.’’ The 1908 White House conference revealed the depth of the division. Anyone in Muir’s camp was not invited. No one advocating for the protection and preservation of nature appeared on the guest list. Invitations only went to men leaning toward the idea that ‘‘conservation’’ meant maintaining an abundance of raw materials in the marketplace. For this action, Muir and his faction labeled Pinchot and his gang ‘‘deconservationists’’ (Nash, 1967, 428). Kent’s politics came down the middle. His primary concern was the future of republicanism. It seemed to him if private interests took precedence over the people’s voice about natural resources, democracy was endangered as well as the land. In 1909, he vigorously campaigned against the Truckee River Power Company’s bid to obtain rights to Lake Tahoe, a magnificently high-contrast area with deep blue mountain lakes, rivers, and streams. The following year, private interests seeking to acquire coal lands in Alaska drew Kent to Pinchot’s side against then-Secretary of the Interior Richard A. Ballinger, who supported what Kent described as ‘‘predatory interests [standing against] the birthright of Americans’’ (Nash, 1967, 428). He viewed the fight to protect wilderness from industrial exploitation as a ‘‘crisis in the history of the country, which, if settled one way, will lead to progress along democratic lines, and if settled the other way, will be a harbinger of revolution’’ (Nash, 1967, 428). Consequently, he talked of public control of natural resources as the solution and advocated land-

The U.S. Government and the Environment before 1960 | 11

use policy for the American government. This position did not fare well for his relationship with Muir. It accorded greater value to democratic development of natural resources than to wilderness preservation. The Hetch Hetchy controversy deepened the dispute. Built on a dry, sandy peninsula, the city of San Francisco muddled through a chronic water shortage since its inception. A distant 150 miles away, glacial and river erosion had created a spectacular high-walled area known as the Hetch Hetchy Valley. Engineers salivated over it as a potential reservoir and source of hydroelectric power for the city. But it was part of Yosemite National Park. Undaunted, city officials applied for a government permit to flood the valley. They obtained it, appealing to public sympathy left by the devastating and nowlegendary 1906 earthquake. Muir considered the permit a needless sacrifice of wilderness values and a betrayal of the whole idea of national parks. While the Hetch Hetchy question was before Congress, Kent was elected. Muir wrote to the now well-known preservationist a few weeks after his term began and encouraged his friend to watch developments concerning Hetch Hetchy and ‘‘do lots of good work’’ (Nash, 1967, 430). In the end, Muir and Kent had different ideas about what constituted ‘‘good work.’’ Kent saw granting the valley to San Francisco as a significant victory for his ideal of public ownership of natural resources (Nash 1967, 430). Allowing the flooding to create the reservoir would block the powerful Pacific Gas and Electric Company from tightening its hold on California’s hydroelectric resources. The company wanted Hetch Hetchy with all its might. Kent wrote to his friend that the sacrifice was regrettable but necessary for the greater good. During his second term, Kent, now a key member of the House Committee on Public Lands, helped draft the bill that won congressional approval for the Hetch Hetchy Dam in 1913. He defended the move to preservationists as ‘‘the highest and best type of conservation’’ (Nash, 1967, 430). Placing the emphasis on the benefits of public ownership, he told the U.S. House of Representatives that non-use of natural resources was a waste. Kent went so far as to say that if Niagra Falls could be totally used up in providing for humanity’s need for water, he would be ‘‘glad to sacrifice that scenic wonder’’ (Nash, 1967, 431). Only a few years before, in 1905, Einstein had published his new idea that everything is relative. It is significant to note because in many respects, Einstein’s theory is merely a scientific way of restating Chief Seattle’s teaching: all life is connected. Despite his younger bent to keep wilderness pristine, Kent’s ignorance that natural resources have a life and death cycle and ail just like other life forms shows how politics created a disregard for both the science of the day and the philosophy of the native nations. As a politician, Kent saw the need to compromise some wilderness in order to prevent elite interests from controlling natural resources. This, Kent decided, was the good fight. It would lead to preserving more acres of pristine wilderness, a trade-off he was willing to make.

12 | The U.S. Government and the Environment before 1960

During the struggle, Kent asked Pinchot to support a state park on Mount Tamalpais, the site of Muir Woods. The benefits of having a wild Hetch Hetchy fell short in contrast to the benefits of preventing private profit from a national treasure, he decided. Observing how private power interests maneuvered and oiled their way through Congress, Kent felt they were using nature lovers as spokesmen for self-serving purposes: namely, private ownership of the destined reservoir. The controversy was Muir’s last activist effort. He died a year later, in 1914, at age 76. Kent went on to author the bill establishing the National Park Service in 1916, participate in the founding of the Save-the-Redwoods league in 1918, and add more land to Muir Woods National Monument in 1920. Eight years, later he died. The legacy of the two men’s friendship and conflicts shaped environmental policy to come. Their relationship epitomizes the notion that environmental policy in the early 1900s was shaped not so much by ‘‘conservationists’’ embattled against greedy, wasteful exploiters, but from the conflict of diverse interpretations of the meaning of conserving natural resources. While Hetch Hetchy was at issue, the Bureau of Reclamation was created in 1902 to oversee water resource management, which opened the gate all the way for the government to build dams. Applying Kent’s logic that not flooding valleys to create freshwater reservoirs, provide hydroelectric power to develop the West, and alleviate flooding and soil erosion wasted an asset, the bureau approved Hoover Dam in Colorado in 1928 (completed in 1936) and the Grand Coulee Dam in Washington State, completed in 1945. In 1905, a young Benton MacKaye graduated from Harvard University with one of its new degrees in forestry. Pinchot hired him to work in Washington, D.C. MacKaye became concerned that people were spending too much time indoors due to the pressure of city living. Land planning, he decided, was the answer. He percolated on possible solutions for a few years. That year, 1905, ecologist and writer Aldo Leopold succeeded in having Congress designate the world’s first extensive protected wilderness area, 558,014 acres in New Mexico, as the Gila National Forest. As he did, the Grand Canyon became a national park in 1908, the same year water treatment plants in the United States were authorized to add chlorine to water supplies because it produced water 10 times more pure than when filtered. During World War I (1914–1918), federal lawmakers created the National Park Service in 1916. Three years later, in 1919, a citizens’ watchdog group, the National Parks Conservation Association, posted its members at its door. It opposed commercializing the parks with jazz concerts and bear shows typical of Yosemite National Park, and efforts to build dams and mine, log, and hunt in the national parks. The ardent Progressive Era closed with the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, which allowed the government to give 10-year leases to companies to

The U.S. Government and the Environment before 1960 | 13

draw federally owned oil and natural gas (petroleum) from public lands and established a system of payment to the government. Although the Progressive Era included backward thinking in some ways, in others it moved environmental policy ahead. The time brought urban services such as wastewater treatment, waste management, provisions of clean water supplies, and broader societal improvement in nutrition, hygiene, and medical services. Viewed as gains, they developed out of late-nineteenth-century excesses foisted upon natural resources by the Industrial Revolution and a system of private property rights that operated completely free of government or community restraint. The era’s new emphasis on urban public health laid the country’s first air pollution statutes. Although Chicago and Cincinnati boasted the first clean air laws in the 1880s, by 1920, approximately 40 cities had air pollution control laws. However, no comprehensive state air pollution policies existed until Oregon’s legislation in 1952. At the end of all that progress, MacKaye settled on a solution that he hoped would draw people into wild lands. Building on an idea that hiking groups had been discussing, in 1921 he described his plan for a ‘‘skyline’’ through the country’s eastern mountains, or an Appalachian Trail. Citizens would build most of it, he proposed (Serrin and Serrin, 2002, 236). Pushing the idea sometimes at his own cost, within two years the first section of the trail was completed through Palisades Interstate Park in New York and New Jersey, places filled with cold mountain streams and thick tree roots making steps up the land and waterfalls. Interest grew, and in 1925, a group met in Washington, D.C., and, formed the Appalachian Trail Conference and set the skyline route. It covered approximately 2,000 miles mostly through wilderness in 14 states beginning at Springer Mountain in northern Georgia, leading through the Smokey Mountains of Tennessee and North Carolina to the Shenandoahs of Virginia, the Adirondacks of New York, and the White Mountains of New Hampshire before ending at Mount Katahdin in northern Maine. The original trail has been moved on occasion to accommodate development pressures. Between the world wars, Henry Ford in 1921 told reporters that the fuel of the future would not be petroleum, but would come from apples, weeds, or sawdust— almost anything—referring to cellulosic biofuels such as ethanol (The Summer Spirit, 2010). His position was unusual: most in the auto, oil, and chemical industries saw leaded gasoline and foreign oil as more promising investments. Despite support from popular science fiction writer Isaac Asimov and Harold Hibbert, founder of the cellulose chemistry division of the American Chemical Society, his optimism fell on deaf ears. In a 1921 journal article, Hibbert predicted that if the country’s leaders did not listen, the nation would find itself paying out vast and crippling sums to obtain crude oil from Mexico, Russia, and the country known then as Persia and today as Iran. He argued that chemists were capable of solving

14 | The U.S. Government and the Environment before 1960

the problem because cellulose could run all sorts of vehicles. Lawmakers, however, saw more limitations than benefits associated with making ethanol from food crops. More grassroots environmental groups emerged that carried on Romantic and Transcendental ideas about wilderness, including the Isaak Walton League in 1922 and the Wilderness Society in 1935, founded by Leopold. With the problem of clean water solved, at least for now, flood control and soil conservation moved into environmental policy with President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s 12-year tenure between 1932 and 1944. During that time, the environmental agenda responded mostly to natural disasters and a need to stimulate economic development to pull the country out of the Depression. In 1930, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were hailed as safe refrigerants because of their non-toxic and noncombustible properties and became widely used. Science at the time could not predict the effect they later would have on Earth’s ozone layer. To respond to a region hardest hit by the Depression, Roosevelt created what is today the country’s largest publicly owned electricity provider: the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). Formed in 1933 by Congress and the president, it is both a power supplier and a regulator. The TVA is mandated to analyze the environmental impact of hydropower projects before developing a plan to harness the Tennessee River for electricity. As a marker of the country’s relationship with the environment at that point, the TVA demonstrated that government land-use planning could benefit a broad public region. Other congressional actions, such as the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) created that year, aimed to repair environmental damage and prevent it from occurring again. Building levees, barriers, and more put food on the table for the nation. The CCC employed more than 2 million people in forestry, flood control, soil erosion, and beautification projects. That year Roosevelt also approved the long-discussed Central Valley Water Project in Northern California, aimed at improving farming in the area. These New Deal environmental policies were complemented by the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, intended to put a stop to land degradation due to overgrazing in the West, which affected watersheds there. The act empowered the government to issue grazing permits as well as to regulate land use. The Dust Bowl that year experienced the most prolonged drought and soil erosion in U.S. history. A year later, Congress created the U.S. Soil Conservation Service in 1935 to provide technical assistance to farmers and other private landowners and managers. The following year, lawmakers approved national flood prevention policy in the Omnibus Flood Control Act of 1936. The following year, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937—also known as the Pittman-Robertson Act—allowed the government to purchase land for wildlife restoration. By taxing firearms and munitions, the government could attend to areas of international importance to migrating birds, for example, such as the Cheyenne Bottoms, 41,000 acres of marsh near Great

The U.S. Government and the Environment before 1960 | 15

Bend, Kansas. The state claims that 45 percent of shorebirds in the United States stop there each year. This includes 320 species of birds and includes whooping cranes and sandhill cranes. The act allows states to receive federal funds for specific wildlife restoration projects or longer-term resource-management plans. In 1938, the National Wildlife Federation was formed and endorsed by the president. Lawmakers created the Bureau of Biological Survey to protect the fisheries and the country’s natural habitats. Environmental policy was not instituted again until a few years after World War II, when Congress authorized the creation of the Bureau of Land Management in 1946 to manage lands best suitable for grazing, mining, and habitat but usually not very forested. In the west in 1946, lumber, mining, railroad, farming, and grazing interests accustomed to using public lands without respect for the few regulations that existed to protect natural resources were moving forward with plans to have a bill introduced in Congress giving states greater control over public lands. Propagating the idea that doing so would help the country house veterans, they preyed on war emotions in hopes of seeing legislation approved that would set a precedent and open national parks to private profit (Serrin and Serrin, 2002, 240). If the law passed, lumber companies could log the parks, cattle and sheep associations could graze them, and mining companies could get their mineral deposits. Power companies could build dams in them. Water companies could use their lakes and rivers. Journalist Bernard DeVoto, who had a monthly column in Harper’s magazine, caught wind of the plan and wrote about it in 1947. Approving the plan would move the national parks into private ownership, liquidate the range and forests, and destroy western watersheds, he argued. Industry’s plans had depended on sneaking through the legislation in a hurry before Congress itself and the public at large could figure out what it was all about. Bills that had been written were put back in the drawer (Serrin and Serrin, 2002, 244). In the opposite corner of the country, reporter Marjory Stoneman Douglas crusaded against draining the Florida Everglades. Her 1947 book The Everglades: River of Grass convinced President Harry S. Truman to set aside the area as the Everglades National Park in 1947 (Serrin and Serrin, 2002, 244–246). In September 1948, Ely, Minnesota, high school teacher Sigurd F. Olson became concerned about an increasingly noisy society. Bigger and louder motors were being manufactured for planes, boats, helicopters, and vehicles. Noise pollution, he feared, could disturb the glories of the Superior Primitive Area. Established by the U.S. Forest Service in 1926, it was later enlarged and designated the Boundary Waters Wilderness Canoe Area, a quiet place to hear a loon’s cry and a moose chew. In 1948, there was talk of constructing a road to every lake in the area. Olson wanted Americans to know about the glittering sunrise in the

16 | The U.S. Government and the Environment before 1960

Quetico-Superior area and the dangers the plan would present to its lakes, streams, and forests. He encouraged journalist Harold H. Martin of the Saturday Evening Post to write about the problem. The article ran in September. In December 1949, Truman issued an executive order barring aircraft from flying over the area at less than 4,000 feet (Serrin and Serrin, 2002, 247–250). About a month after Martin’s article ran, Donora, Pennsylvania, happened. The town was like any other Rust Belt place in 1948: full of smog from industry. Agriculture, coal mining, steel and wire making, and other manufacturing supported the people. It was a boomtown. In 1910, a little more than 8,000 residents called it home. By 1920, the population was more than 14,000. During the 1944– 1945 football season, the Donora High School team went undefeated. Three years later, people were dying in the streets from air pollution. On October 31, industrial waste in the air did not dilute and dissipate as common thinking of the day anticipated. Instead, a deviation from the normal airflows resulted in higher temperatures that prevented smoke from the American Steel and Wire plant and U.S. Steel’s Donora Zinc Works from moving high into the atmosphere. Instead, the inversion trapped particulate matter and acids from the smokestacks close to the ground, acting like a cap. The intensified pollution over the next three days left 20 dead. When the inversion lifted, 50 more died. Damaged lungs and hearts traceable to the infamous Donora Smog of 1948 killed too many to count over the next 40 years. The Donora Smog Museum was created as a memorial to the effects of industrial air pollution. California University of Pennsylvania and the museum are developing a digital collection of primary sources online. The event seemingly initiated the clean air movement in the United States. Seven years after the incident, lawmakers passed the Air Pollution Control Act of 1955, then, in 1956, the Water Pollution Control Act. Bringing wildlife sanctuary to a new level of consciousness, Luna Leopold, Aldo’s son, published his father’s seminal work, A Sand County Almanac, in 1949, a year after his father’s death from a heart attack. In it, the environmentalist urged the country to develop an ecological conscience. He called for a new land ethic, one that considered all life valuable for its own sake. The work stimulated interest in ecology and in doing so influenced environmental policy from that point forward. In its best-known and oft-quoted summation of the land ethic, Leopold wrote, ‘‘A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise,’’ (Leopold, 1995, 147–156). The idea took about 20 years to find its place in public policy. While it sunk in, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation eyed a remote river bottom in Dinosaur National Monument for a reservoir as part of the Colorado River Storage Project. The project’s goal was to solve water shortages, control flooding, and provide hydroelectric power to Arizona, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico,

The U.S. Government and the Environment before 1960 | 17

and Wyoming. Serious consideration for building a dam in the remote river bottom known as Echo Park had begun with the Colorado River Compact in 1922. When in 1913 Teddy Roosevelt approved building the dam on the Tuolomme River to flood the Hetch Hetchy Valley in Yosemite National Park, the Sierra Club declared it would not let it happen to any other nationally preserved land. In 1956, it made good on its promise. Echo Park’s marbleized blue, green, and russet skyscraping canyon walls were spared when Sierra Club director David Brower negotiated a compromise with the government during an aggressive lobbying campaign. Instead of Echo Park, a 710-foot dam would be built in Glen Canyon on the Colorado River. Later, Brower said he regretted the compromise. A former proponent of the dam, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, also said he regretted supporting the project. Today, restoration efforts for the dam face significant opposition, yet no plans exist to close and dismantle operations at Glen Canyon and drain what became known as Powell Lake. The Glen Canyon Dam became a catalyst for the modern environmental movement. Soon after the compromise, proposals to dam the Marble and Grand canyons were brought forth. The Sierra Club doubled its efforts to stop the dams, using extensive media campaigns that helped to change the public perception of environmental groups to major political forces from fringe organizations. Over the next four years, resistance to the government’s concept of natural resource management matured and gained momentum. By the 1950s, the national forests had been abused to the point that they no longer held enough resources to satisfy an increasing population and expanding economy. In response, Congress passed the Multiple Use/Sustained Yield Act of 1960, the first law to require resource managers to weigh as equal five major forest uses: timber, rangeland, water, recreation, and wildlife. The law also required state and local agencies and the federal government to work together to protect the national forests from ‘‘nonrenewable’’ practices. It was another first. The stage was set for a tremendous increase in federal responses to environmental policy in the 1960s and 1970s. As the earlier history illustrates, public policymakers seek to balance the economic interests relating to economic growth and prosperity with issues related to pollution, open space preservation, and human and ecological health. Debra A. Schwartz References Connelly, J., and G. Smith. Politics and the Environment: From Theory to Practice. London: Routledge, 2003. Foster, D. R. ‘‘Land-Use History (1730–1990) and Vegetation Dynamics in Central New England, USA.’’ Journal of Ecology 80 (1992): 753–772.

18 | The U.S. Government and the Environment before 1960 Glen Canyon Institute. ‘‘History of the Environmental Movement.’’ http://www.glencanyon .org/library/movement history.php (accessed January 4, 2010). History Matters. ‘‘Giving a Dam: Congress Debates Hetch Hetchy.’’ http://history matters.gmu.edu/d/5721 (accessed January 4, 2010). Kovarik, W. ‘‘Environmental History Timeline.’’ http://www.runet.edu/~wkovarik/ envhist (accessed January 4, 2010). Kraft, M. E. Environmental Policy and Politics. New York: Pearson Education, 2007. Kuzmiak, D. T. ‘‘The American Environmental Movement.’’ The Geographical Journal 157 (3) (1991): 265–278. Leopold, A. ‘‘The Land Ethic.’’ In Earth Ethics: Environmental Ethics, Animal Rights, and Practical Applications, James P. Sterba, ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1995, 147–156. Louv, R. Last Child in Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books, 2008. Lubchenco, J. ‘‘Entering the Century of the Environment: A New Social Contract for Science.’’ Science 279 (5350) (1998): 491–497. Mander, J. In the Absence of the Sacred: The Failure of Technology & the Survival of the Indian Nations. San Francisco: Sierra Club, 1992. Meloski, M. V. The Sanitary City: Urban Infrastructure in America from Colonial Times to the Present. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000. Merchant, C. ‘‘Shade of Darkness: Race and Environmental History.’’ Environmental History 8 (3) (2003): 380–394. Nash, R. ‘‘The American Cult of the Primitive.’’ American Quarterly 18 (3) (1966): 517–537. Nash, R. ‘‘The American Invention of National Parks.’’ American Quarterly 22 (3) (1970): 726–735. Nash, R. ‘‘The American Wilderness in Historical Perspective.’’ Forest History 6 (4) (1963): 2–13. Nash, R. ‘‘The Future of Wilderness: A Problem Statement.’’ Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 31 (8) (1978): 18–24. Nash, R. ‘‘John Muir, William Kent and the Conservation Schism.’’ The Pacific Historical Review 36 (4) (1967): 423–433. Nash, R. ‘‘Politics in the Wilderness: New York’s Adirondack Forest Preserve.’’ Forest History 6 (4) (1963): 14–23. Nash, R. ‘‘The Sierra Club’s Centennial in Historical Perspective.’’ California History 71 (2) (1992): 154–159. Nash, R. ‘‘The Value of Wilderness.’’ Environmental Review 1 (3) (1976): 12–25. National Council for Science and the Environment. ‘‘Chief Seattle’s Reply.’’ http:// ncseonline.org/nae/docs/chiefrep.html (accessed January 4, 2010). Petulla, J. M. American Environmental History: Exploitation and Conservation of Natural Resources. San Francisco: Boyd & Fraser, 1977.

The U.S. Government and the Environment before 1960 | 19 Rome, A. ‘‘What Really Matters in History? Environmental Perspectives on Modern America.’’ Environmental History 7 (2002): 303–318. Serrin, J., and W. Serrin, eds. Muckraking! The Journalism that Changed America. New York: The New Press, 2002. Smith, Z. The Environmental Policy Paradox. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2004. The Summer Spirit. ‘‘Solar, wind, water, bioenergy.’’ http://www.runet.edu/~wkovarik/ envhist/RenHist/ (accessed January 4, 2010). The Suquamish Tribe. ‘‘Authentic Text of Chief Seattle’s 1854 Oration.’’ http:// www.suquamish.nsn.us/HistoryCulture/Speech/tabid/85/default.aspx (accessed January 4, 2010). United States Bureau of land Management. ‘‘The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976: How the Stage Was Set for BLM’s ‘Organic Act.’’’ http:// www.blm.gov/flpma/organic.htm (accessed December 18, 2009). Waste Online. ‘‘History of Waste and Recycling Information Sheet.’’ http://www.waste online.org.uk/resources/InformationSheets/HistoryofWaste.htm (accessed December 18, 2009).

The U.S. Government and the Environment: Contemporary Issues

During the time period from the 1960s through the beginning of the twenty-first century, the role of the U.S. government on the issue of the environment has been stronger than at any other time in history. Growing awareness and changing values in the 1960s set the stage for the 1970s, which was the pinnacle of environmental policymaking and is often referred to as the ‘‘Environmental Decade.’’ Opposition to environmental regulations and growing concern over the troubled U.S. economy has resulted in an ebb and flow of environmental policies since the 1980s. While concern for the environment has remained high in public opinion polls since then, the growing complexity of the environmental problems faced has made it difficult to legislate solutions. This essay covers the environmental history of policy, politics, science, and culture from 1960 to the current time and the issues and actors that surround them. Michael Kraft (2000) divides this time period into three eras. In the 1960s and 1970s, the U.S. government’s role in environmental policy could be characterized as national regulation. During this time, the federal government passed many national policies to regulate land use and pollution. In the 1980s and into the 1990s, the focus was less on national regulation and more on making national environmental policy efficient. During this time, a new era was forming, as the need for sustainability through sustainable development was recognized by policies across the world. From the 1990s and into the current time period, policies seem to be increasingly aimed at promoting sustainability so that resources are available for future generations. We turn first to the decade of the 1960s where we do indeed see evidence that the U.S. government was becoming focused on national regulation.

21

22 | The U.S. Government and the Environment: Contemporary Issues

1960s While widespread concern for the environment was emerging in the post-World War II period, the U.S. government’s role on environmental issues became much more developed in the 1960s and 1970s. The 1960s marked a major transition in public attitudes toward the environment. The utilitarian-driven view of natural resources that emerged during the Progressive Era sought protection for the sake of having natural resources to use for societal development. In contrast, the 1960s was marked by increasing concern for the preservation of these resources for their intrinsic worth as societal values shifted, becoming more postmaterialist and concerned with the quality of life (Hays, 2000). The recreational use of natural areas helped fulfill this growing intangible demand, and policies to promote land preservation became essential for meeting this goal. Political culture in the 1960s was characterized more generally by the development and adoption of political action strategies garnered from the social movement work of Mahatma Gandhi. Political actions such as protests, sit-ins, and marches by the civil rights movement spilled over into the environmental movement, where they were used to impact environmental policy (Sale, 1993). During this time, private industry was seen as an adversary of the goal of protecting the environment and human health. Activism focused on achieving government enforcement of environmental values through environmental policy. The growth of the environmental movement was evident during this time as the political role of environmental organizations became even more pronounced, with many major players forming during this time. While groups like the Sierra Club and the Nature Conservancy were already well established, new groups were forming that were energized by the protest and activist climate of the decade. These included the World Wildlife Fund, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Friends of the Earth, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. The founding of the Environmental Defense Fund, now just Environmental Defense, is of particular importance as it was one of the first organizations to use lawsuits as a means for political change and helped set many precedents in environmental law. The political power of these groups was apparent when they were able to mobilize the public to help defeat Bureau of Reclamation plans to build two dams on the Colorado River that would result in the flooding of the Grand Canyon. The Sierra Club, under the leadership of David Brower, was particularly successful in conducting a grassroots campaign to promote citizen opposition to the plans. They succeeded in raising public awareness and outcry, leading to a bombardment of letters to the national government resulting in a new era of public rejection of large dams. In response, the government initiated an Internal Revenue Service investigation into the Sierra Club’s eligibility for tax-exempt status. Several events in the 1960s contributed to the growing environmental awareness of the era. U.S. citizens were given their first view of Earth from space

The U.S. Government and the Environment: Contemporary Issues | 23

when the lunar orbiter Apollo 8 sent a photo of the planet back to the ground. Many environmental historians have cited this event as a turning point in the way Americans saw the planet. The fragile ball rotating solitarily in the darkness of space seemed vulnerable and finite instead of a limitless source of resources. And in the late 1960s, that notion of finiteness was further solidified and perpetuated by publications like Paul Erlich’s The Population Bomb (which warned about the impending dangers of overpopulating Earth) and the Club of Rome’s The Limits to Growth (which espoused the impossibility of sustaining the current level of economic growth with finite natural inputs). Simultaneously, Americans were seeing firsthand the rising levels of pollution and its devastating effects on the environment, with events like the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill and the Cuyahoga River’s bursting into flames due to the high levels of toxic and flammable chemicals present in the water. Institutionally, Congress took the helm in the earlier part of the decade, with President John F. Kennedy leaving much on the issue to experts (Long, Cabral, and Brooks, 1999). President Kennedy’s position as a conservationist (more so than a preservationist) was marked by the White House Conservation Conference, held in 1962. He did, however, make good on a campaign promise to address the problem of air pollution and signed the Clean Air Act of 1963. Work in Congress on environmental policy during the 1960s (and 1970s) was more bipartisan than it would be in the later decades of the century. President Lyndon B. Johnson presided over a few important pieces of environmental legislation, including the Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act of 1965, the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, the Water Quality Control Act of 1965, the Clean Waters Restoration Act of 1966, and the Air Quality Act of 1967. Furthermore, First Lady Lady Bird Johnson was a major proponent of a clean environment and the first president’s wife to actively lobby for the passage of legislation. The courts became involved in environmental matters in the 1960s with the monumental Storm King case. This decision granted the Sierra Club standing in a lawsuit that was filed to protect Storm King Mountain in New York from a power project. It was the first time that noneconomic interests were given standing in an environmental court case. The decision set a precedent that opened the door for what would become a predominant strategy of litigation for the environmental movement in the 1970s and beyond. Policy Land preservation was one of two major issues that were addressed by environmental policies in the 1960s. The concern for the protection of public lands from private interests garnered by conservationists throughout the earlier part of the century were even stronger in this decade, resulting in some of the most important land policies ever to be passed (Kraft, 2000). The first policy to reflect this change

24 | The U.S. Government and the Environment: Contemporary Issues

in attitudinal direction was the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960. This act was specifically worded so that various uses of public lands, for instance, timber harvest or recreation, were explicitly given ‘‘equal priority’’ (Hirt, 1994, 182). Furthermore, the act was one of the earliest attempts to incorporate the principles of ecological science into environmental agency decision-making. In this case, the U.S. Forest Service was required to balance the competing needs of industry with those of the citizenry with the use of science to manage U.S. National Forests. Also in response to public concern and value of outdoor recreation, the U.S. government passed the Land and Water Conservation Fund in 1964 that promised to acquire and maintain public lands for ‘‘adequate outdoor recreation resources’’ for current and future generations. The rising value of preservation further reflected in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 and the National Wildlife Refuge System of 1966. A signal of the growing importance of recreation was also evident in the National Trails System Act of 1968. Perhaps the most significant environmental policy of the 1960s is the Wilderness Act of 1964, which required the U.S. government to designate some public lands as wilderness areas. One of the most noteworthy elements of the bill is in Section 2(c), where wilderness is defined as ‘‘where earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.’’ This was a bold statement of the growing belief that nature had its own intrinsic value, a philosophy that Arne Naess would dub ‘‘deep ecology’’ the next decade (Naess, 1973). Although debate over the act began in the 1950s, it did not gain enough congressional support to overcome opposition from private interests until the 1960s. The Congressional Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, a bipartisan commission established by Congress and President Eisenhower in 1958, submitted a report to Congress in 1962 that incorporated the viewpoints of environmentalists like Wallace Stegner. The bill had such widespread public support that by 1962, members of Congress were receiving more mail on this piece of legislation than on any other during this time period (Sale, 1993). It passed in 1964 with ample support from both chambers. Like the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960, it was guided by a growing awareness of ecological science. It is still viewed today as one of the most important pieces of environmental legislation in history. The second major issue of the 1960s stemmed from increasing concern over the impacts of pollution caused by industrial processes and our growing dependence on synthetics and chemicals. State and industry inability to protect human and environmental health from such phenomena prompted early policy responses that provided the basis for future laws and regulations, which were even more stringent. Public demand for federal intervention became more pronounced in the 1960s, a fact that some historians credit to the popularity of Rachel Carson’s 1962 publication of A Silent Spring, a book about her research on the popular pesticide DDT

The U.S. Government and the Environment: Contemporary Issues | 25

(Sale, 1993; Shabecoff, 2000). Carson was a biologist, and her research indicated that the use of DDT was extremely detrimental to bird and human populations. Up until the 1960s, air and water pollution issues were generally treated as localized incidents that warranted only regional responses (Kraft, 2000). For the most part, the federal government left legislation on these issues up to the states. When it did pass legislation, like the Clean Water Act of 1960, it was more concerned with protecting economic interests than the environment (Sale, 1993). However, this approach began to change in the 1960s with the passage of the Clean Air Act of 1963 and the Air Quality Act of 1967. Both pieces of legislation authorized funding for federal government research into air pollution abatement. This created a new role for the federal government where the issue of air pollution was concerned. The shift in the federal government’s role was even more pronounced with the amendments to the Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 (also known as the Clean Water Act and the first major federal law to address water pollution in the United States). In particular, the Water Quality Act of 1965 authorized federal and state governments to set and enforce water quality standards. It also provided the basis for the more stringent 1972 statute, which is discussed below. Other notable policies during this time period include the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of 1963, one of President Kennedy’s most well-known policies to protect the environment (Long, Cabral, and Vandivort, 1999). An early attempt to deal with a growing solid waste disposal problem was encompassed in the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965. The next decade of environmental policy began with the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act in late 1969, which was signed into law by President Richard Nixon on January 1, 1970. 1970s The 1970s was probably the most important decade as far as U.S. environmental policy is concerned, which is why it is often called the ‘‘Environmental Decade.’’ Emerging from the activist culture and rising awareness of the 1960s, major public involvement and pressure on government to address growing environmental concerns was a staple of the 1970s. More prominent environmental laws were passed during this time than any other. This fact gives further support for Kraft’s (2000) argument that the United States was in an era of national regulation as far as environmental policy was concerned. Many monumental events contributed to the success of the environmental agenda. Gaylord Nelson, former senator of Wisconsin, and Denis Hayes, Harvard graduate student, organized the first national Earth Day, held on April 22, 1970, with millions of citizens taking part in cities across the nation. Citizens were given their first view of Earth from space when the Apollo 8 sent back a picture in 1971. The photograph gave us a new and finite perspective of the planet, mobilizing the base of the environmental movement

26 | The U.S. Government and the Environment: Contemporary Issues

even more. The U.S. government reacted to these calls for state protection of the environment with the adoption of critical environmental laws like the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act, to name a few. As such, historians consider this decade one of the most successful for environmental policy (Sale, 1993). During the 1970s, public awareness of environmental issues acquired in the 1960s was developed further by the environmental movement, which was instrumental in the political gains for the issue during this time (Shabecoff, 2000; Hays, 1987). Events like the OPEC oil embargo of 1973 and the near-nuclear meltdown of the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor in 1978 unnerved public confidence in the ability and desire of the private sector to protect human and environmental health, creating demands for government intervention. Books like the Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth (1972) and E. F. Schumacher’s Small Is Beautiful (1973) sparked debates over a concept that would be dubbed ‘‘sustainable development’’ in the 1980s. During this time, the environmental movement shifted from a grassroots-based movement with a strategy of localized and direct action to a more nationally organized political power. This was done through the professionalization of key groups like the Sierra Club and through the founding of major actors like Greenpeace and the Natural Resources Defense Council (Sale, 1993; Bosso, 2005). These groups moved their home bases to Washington, D.C., and brought scientists and lawyers onto their payrolls in order to better compete with wealthy, private industries in the political arena. Well-organized campaigns like 1971’s ‘‘Keep America Beautiful,’’ which reached most households in the U.S., imparted simple values that appealed to a wide array of the citizenry. For the first time in history, the U.S. government participated in many international efforts to protect the environment, signing several important international environmental agreements. Most of the international environmental agreements of the 1970s came out of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in 1972, which took place in Stockholm, Sweden. The conference set an eco-agenda and was the first international recognition of environmental issues. As a result, the United States signed the Oslo Convention on Marine Dumping, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, and the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution. Complimentary laws on ocean dumping and endangered species in the United States were subsequently passed and these agreements served as a model for future international agreements of the 1980s and beyond. All of the international agreements of this time period had the support of an American public that was already demanding sweeping federal action to protect human health and the environment. Those demands did not go unheeded, and political platforms in the 1970s included for the first time environmental concerns, resulting in reelection for the majority parties in 1972. Presidential and congressional action on the

The U.S. Government and the Environment: Contemporary Issues | 27

environment continued to be strong in the early half of the decade due to these campaign promises. President Richard Nixon, who was formally elected in 1968, addressed the prominent issue of environmental health immediately. His very first order of business was to sign the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on January 1, 1970, which authorized the creation of the Council of Environmental Quality and required federal agencies to conduct an environmental impact statement for projects thought to significantly affect the environment. NEPA also created the Council of Environmental Quality in an effort to provide guidance to the president regarding environmental matters and review environmental impact statements, which government agencies were now (and are still) required to submit for projects with potentially major environmental impacts. The EPA, established on December 2, 1970, served to enforce NEPA and other environmental laws, of which there would be many. In the text of the law, inklings of the sustainability paradigm of the latter part of the century were present. It stated: ‘‘that it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government, in cooperation with State and local governments, and other concerned public and private organizations, to use all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans’’ 2/NEPA 101(a), 42 U.S.C. 4331(a). While Nixon signed the monumental bill wholeheartedly, some scholars would argue that his intent was more to gain political support in order to get reelected to a second term than because of some overarching concern for the environment (Flippen, 2000). In any case, important pollution prevention legislation continued to be passed during the first half of the decade with the harmonious bipartisan support that was characteristic of the 1960s.

The Creation of the Environmental Protection Agency On par with NEPA in terms of importance for environmental policy was the passage of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, which has often been called the only environmental law with real power (Sale, 1993). Legislation like the ESA and NEPA created opportunities for the courts to play a more pronounced role in environmental policy. In Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill et al., for example, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Tellico Dam project be halted (despite government investment of more than $80 million into it) in order to

28 | The U.S. Government and the Environment: Contemporary Issues

protect a lesser-known species, the snail darter. This decision unambiguously established the Court’s understanding of the ESA, that any and all species extinctions are bad and should be avoided in order to protect biodiversity, even if the cost is high. The Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council were formed especially to take advantage of this new role for the courts and specialized in environmental litigation, of which NEPA and the ESA have remained a major focus (Wenner, 1982). In addition to NEPA and the ESA, Congress uncharacteristically passed no fewer than 16 broad acts of environmental legislation during the 1970s, the bulk of which were passed in the first half of the decade. In 1970, the Clean Air Act (extension) was signed, strengthening the standards established by the Air Pollution Control Act of 1955 and the first Clean Air Act of 1963. It set national ambient air quality standards, new source performance standards, hazardous air pollutant standards, and auto emissions tailpipe standards, and under it, the EPA required that all gas sold at gas stations contain no lead. Also during 1970, the Water Quality Improvement Act was passed. It required oil companies to clean up oil spills and outlawed the dumping of raw sewage from boats. Using the Clean Water Act from 1960 as a basis, Congress also passed the 1972 Water Pollution Control Act, which, unlike its predecessor, prioritized the protection of water over economic interests. Indeed, historians have given much of the credit for the 1972 act to Congress (Milazzo, 2006). The act was initially vetoed by President Nixon, requiring a supermajority in Congress to overturn the veto and pass the bill, a rare feat in U.S. government. The law is particularly important in that it gives private citizens standing to litigate against government agencies that fail to enforce regulations to protect water (Smith, 2009). Other important water protection laws were passed in 1972 as well, including the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Ocean Dumping Act, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Additional amendments to the Clean Air and Clean Water acts were passed again in 1976. And with concern for effects of pollution on human health at an all-time high, the Safe Drinking Water Act was passed in 1974, setting national standards for maximum levels of toxins in drinking water. The purpose of the act was to prevent chemicals from entering the water supply in the first place, making it one of the first policies of its kind. Water and air quality were not the only environmental issues addressed at this time. A new realization of the potential consequences of chemicals led to the passage of several policies to prevent human exposure. Lead was not only targeted by air policies to prevent the release of the substance from automobile fuel, but its use in paint was also regulated in 1970 by the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act. Concerns over the toxicity of chemicals used in manufacturing resulted in the passage of the 1972 Toxic Substances Control Act, which required that chemicals be tested for their health and environmental effects before being

The U.S. Government and the Environment: Contemporary Issues | 29

manufactured or distributed, and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Both acts ultimately resulted in the banning of the usage of DDT in the United States. In 1974, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act was passed to regulate the use and disposal of hazardous wastes. And in 1976, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act called for the regulation of the transport of toxic waste. Congressional action on environmental policy during this time period was not only prompted by the demands of a vociferous public, but also in response to industries that wanted uniform national standards to simplify the process. For example, some would argue that the federal government introduced national ambient air standards in the 1970s through the Clean Air Act and amendments in response to private industry pressure to have a simpler system of regulations to adhere to rather than the abundant and diverse standards from individual states (Smith, 2009). The second half of the decade signified the beginning of the end of an era. The political climate at the time had darkened and priorities centered on eradicating the government of corruption and righting the harms caused by scandals like Watergate and the controversial war in Vietnam. While Nixon has often been called ‘‘the environmental president,’’ his successor, President Gerald R. Ford, was not a major actor on the issue of the environment. President Ford believed in a free-market, anti-regulatory approach to environmental protection, which was quite antithetical to the recent wave of overarching environmental policies and federal regulations (Soden and Steel, 1999). President Ford vetoed legislation in both 1974 and 1975 to establish regulations for the damage to land caused from coal mining (it was not until President Jimmy Carter was elected that the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 was passed to provide protection to the land from coal mining). Although policies like the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, a law to protect public lands, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 were passed during President Ford’s term, the momentum for these policies stemmed from the years before he took over as president (BLM, 2001; Soden, 1999). Although his predecessor was more supportive of environmental policy, President Jimmy Carter inherited a nation with a deeply troubled economy and distrustful public, not to mention that the opposition to environmentalism was becoming more powerful. President Carter’s initial appointments after his 1976 victory fulfilled his campaign promises to address environmentalism. As a result, many environmental leaders were appointed to prominent positions within the administration. It drew a sharp response from the environmental opposition, and by the second half of his term, the administration’s pursuit of environmental policy had been muted (Hays, 2000). With national attention more focused on what policies could be passed that would address the related economic and energy crises, it still became

30 | The U.S. Government and the Environment: Contemporary Issues

clear that despite the cadre of environmental policies that had passed earlier in the decade, the environmental problems we were causing were far from over. In 1978, residents of the Love Canal neighborhood in Niagara Falls, New York, were informed that their neighborhood had been built on top of an illegal toxic waste dump. It was no surprise to them as Lois Gibbs, a mother in the neighborhood, had already been conducting an informal survey of the suspicious health problems of the residents, particularly the children. The incident would serve as a catalyst for the environmental justice movement, which would take off in the following decade with the help of activists like Lois Gibbs. Concurrently, Linda McKeever Bullard was filing the first civil rights suit to challenge the decision to build a waste facility in a low-income Houston community. Both Gibbs and Bullard’s challenges would be the first of many grassroots efforts to seek to address the disproportional negative environmental conditions of low-income and minority citizens. After the discovery of the environmental conditions in the Love Canal community, President Carter declared an emergency in 1980 and relocated all 700 families, an unprecedented event. The Love Canal episode exposed the long-term consequences of soil and groundwater pollution and ultimately resulted in the passage of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, also known as Superfund (Hays, 1987). The act requires that companies pay to clean up their toxic waste sites. Additionally, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act was passed in 1986, requiring the disclosure of toxic or chemical releases into the environment. The lack of political success on energy policy in the latter half of the 1970s truly signaled the end of the era of national regulation. Gridlock on energy policy was a telling exception to the bipartisanship that had characterized earlier efforts on the environment. The energy crisis caused by the OPEC oil embargo of 1973 warranted strong federal action on the issue, particularly given that the healthy functioning of the economy was dependent on the availability of abundant and cheap energy. Yet policies like the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 did little to move the United States toward energy independence. President Jimmy Carter sought to rectify this and is most remembered for being the first president to attempt to create a comprehensive national energy plan (Melosi, 1980). As the use of oil was becoming fraught with challenges, hope for a solution in nuclear power was dashed by the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor accident of March 1978. The near-nuclear meltdown shook public faith in the technology and froze virtually all nuclear plant development in the United States. Thus, the National Energy Conservation and Policy Act attempted to solve the United State’s energy crisis with less oil and no nuclear power. To do this, it significantly increased renewable energy development by establishing the first electricity feed in law in the world through the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA). Under this act, utility

The U.S. Government and the Environment: Contemporary Issues | 31

companies were required to buy energy produced by cogeneration and renewable resources from nonutility producers. The full effects of the act were never realized, however, as President Carter failed to win reelection over Ronald Reagan. As President Reagan entered office, a new era for environmental policy had begun. 1980s By 1980, the problems facing the United States had grown increasingly complex. The successful passage of environmental legislation did not ensure solutions to the exponential rise of problems the nation was encountering. The decade began with the Global 2000 report, commissioned by the Carter Administration, which used computer modeling to predict the environmental conditions of the next decade. It concluded that: ‘‘If present trends continue, the world in 2000 will be more crowded, and more vulnerable to disruption than the world we live in now. Serious stresses involving population, resources, and environment are clearly visible ahead. Despite greater material output, the world’s people will be poorer in many ways than they are today’’ (Barney, 1981). The report was ignored by the new president, Ronald Reagan. The era of national regulation had ended and under the leadership of President Reagan, the focus shifted to handling environmental problems efficiently, especially in the economic sense (Kraft, 2000). The anti-regulatory, pro-business brownlash of the 1980s meant that the bipartisan support for environmental policies had been replaced by gridlock. Lawmakers attempted to balance the needs of the environment with the needs of the economy, which was still in a recession after the oil shocks of the 1970s. Science had grown more sophisticated, but with world events like the Chernobyl explosion in the Ukraine and the Bhopal disaster in India, involving the deadly release of fertilizer that killed thousands, confidence in technology and chemicals was still shaky. Major scientific discoveries were made that cast a greater shadow over the nation, including the confirmation that a hole was spreading in the ozone layer and that Earth was suffering from the greenhouse effect, likely caused by human emissions of carbon dioxide. Yet, the public fervor of the 1960s and 1970s for environmental protection was waning as the economy struggled and the duty of fighting to protect the environment was left up to the environmental organizations that were now stationed in Washington, D.C. Although the general public attention toward the environment lacked the vigor of the earlier decades, a new grassroots movement was steadily gaining ground. Concerns about the disproportional effects of pollution on poorer populations and minorities were given new credibility with the Love Canal incident

32 | The U.S. Government and the Environment: Contemporary Issues

(discussed above). The work of activists like Lois Gibbs, a housewife in Love Canal and founder of the Citizen’s Clearinghouse for Hazardous Wastes, addressed issues that mainstream environmental groups had overlooked. Concepts like ‘‘environmental racism’’ and ‘‘environmental justice’’ began to enter the public debate, with grassroots protests like the 1982 campaign of Warren County, North Carolina, residents who were primarily African American. Warren County residents were disputing the siting of a polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) landfill, a chemical that has since been linked to cancer. The issue of environmental justice escalated when in 1983 the General Accounting Office (GAO) conducted a study that found that three out of four off-site commercial hazardous waste facilities in one particular EPA region were sited in African American neighborhoods. This was despite the fact that African Americans make up just 20 percent of the region’s population. That same year, the all black residents of the ‘‘unhealthiest town in America,’’ Triana, Alabama, won a $25 million settlement when it was discovered that the EPA, the Department of Justice, the Department of Defense, and the Olin Chemical Company were responsible for contaminating the community with DDT. The growing attention to the issue prompted the United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice to publish the famous Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States report in 1987 (Chavis and Lee, 1987). It was the first national study to correlate waste facility siting and race. The conflict expanded to include Native Americans, and in 1989, indigenous populations began meeting to discuss environmental issues, and in particular, natural resource extraction. This ultimately led to the formation of the Indigenous Environmental Network in the early 1990s to carry out grassroots efforts on the issue. Also during this time, another new contingent of the environmental movement, radical environmentalism, emerged out of the opposition to a perceived cooptation of the national environmental groups that were now organized more and more like the private businesses and government agencies they sought to protect us from. Because of this perception, the radical environmental movement worked to distance itself from the groups in Washington, D.C, a strategy that was somewhat welcomed by more mainstream and moderate groups like the Sierra Club. The movement embraced philosophies of bioregionalism (a belief that boundaries and land management should be dictated by ecology and not politics), deep ecology (a philosophy that recognizes the intrinsic worth of all species and ecosystems, not just humans), ecofeminism (a belief that patriarchy is the root cause of environmental degradation), and the Gaia hypothesis (belief that the Earth acts like a living organism to correct imbalances in its biospheres). Around these beliefs and values, groups like Earth First!, the U.S. Greens, Greenpeace, the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, and the Earth Liberation Front organized. While their direct-action tactics diverged sharply from the traditional

The U.S. Government and the Environment: Contemporary Issues | 33

political activities of the large, national groups, their actions raised issues to the forefront and benefited the mainstream because any press (even bad press) was good press (Rosebraugh, 2004). The role that radical environmental groups played in increasing awareness of environmental issues in part contributed to the significant rise in membership levels of the mainstream environmental groups. An even greater reason for this boost in membership, however, was the reaction to the Reagan backlash (Sale, 1993). We turn first to the small but lingering influence the Carter administration had on environmental policy in 1980. In his last year in office, President Carter managed to oversee the passage of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act to protect animals and the Alaska National Interest Lands Act, which designated more than 100 million acres of protected public lands. Both acts, and the Alaska National Interest Lands Act in particular, had faced years of debate and even filibusters before making it through both houses of Congress (Lowry, 2000). As stated above, the era of harmonious bipartisan support of environmental policies was ending. The Low Level Radioactive Waste Act found its way through Congress and onto the president’s desk at the behest of state gubernatorial and legislative associations, rather than because of an overwhelming agreement between the two national parties (English, 1992). With the transition to the Reagan administration in early 1981, little would be done in the area of environmental policy for several years. Significant acts like the Wilderness Act, NEPA, and the ESA from the two decades before were absent during the Reagan era. Instead, the focus was on making current environmental policies more efficient and business friendly. To accomplish this, Reagan had a three-part strategy in his decisions on political appointments, use of executive power to dismantle environmental protection, and agency budget cuts. Wide and sweeping anti-environmental propaganda was already being funded and disseminated by environmental opposition to sway the public away from its newly founded environmental values (Hays, 2000). President Reagan contributed to this with high-profile political appointments to several industry-friendly and even anti-environmental people to high government posts. Some of the most notable appointments include James Watt as Secretary of the Interior, a man who was well known for his opposition to environmentalism, and Anne Gorsuch Burford as head of the EPA, a lawyer who represented resources-extraction industries that opposed federal environmental regulations. These appointments set the stage for considerable regulatory rollback, aided in no small part by the appointments to subordinate positions of even more people connected to industries that were being regulated (Sale, 1993). The high-profile nature of these positions meant that Watt and Burford were subject to much public scrutiny. Both were forced to resign amid grave scandals, in no small part due to pro-environment funded public ad campaigns against them. According to Kirkpatrick Sale (1993), in a 1983 speech, Watt

34 | The U.S. Government and the Environment: Contemporary Issues

had compared environmentalists (a label now held by most Americans) to Nazis and was soon after viewed as a political liability to the Republican Party. Burford was also forced to resign in 1983 after she was involved in an EPA scandal in which she failed to enforce Superfund cleanups of toxic waste sites and refused to testify to Congress about it. President Reagan, like so many presidents before and after him, used his power to make executive orders to circumvent the Democratic, pro-environmental legislative branch. His main purpose was to cut back government regulations as his anti-regulatory campaign had promised. To do this, he issued Executive Order 12291, which gave the Office of Management and Budget the power to review all new regulatory proposals of government agencies and all existing environmental regulations (Long, Cabral, and Vandivort, 1999). The action essentially halted the enforcement of most environmental regulations from earlier decades. The third major tactic to diminish the gains of the environmentalists was to severely cut the budgets of agencies responsible for enforcing environmental policies. President Reagan used the Office of Management and Budget to rearrange government finances, significantly reducing the portion of the budget dedicated to regulatory functions. As a result, the Council on Environmental Quality lost half of its budget and most of its staff, crippling the organization. The EPA lost 29 percent of its budget and a quarter of its staff by the second year of the Reagan Administration (Sale, 1993). Funding for the energy programs of the Carter administration was cut completely, supposedly justified by the return of lower fuel rates and resulting in even greater American dependence on foreign oil. However, a minor attempt to provide solvency for the energy crisis was made with the Alternative Motor Fuels Act of 1988. Despite the anti-environmental, pro-growth paradigm of the Reagan administration, a few environmental policies were passed during the decade. Congress had initially cooperated with the Reagan administration, particularly on budget cuts, which were viewed as politically desirable given the state of the economy and public dissatisfaction with the government (Kraft, 2000). The Democratically controlled Congress eventually resumed its protection of environmental policies and was instrumental in the criticism that led to the resignations of two of President Reagan’s political appointees, James G. Watt, Secretary of the Interior, and Anne Gorsuch Burford, head of the EPA (discussed above). There were a few notable policy achievements of the legislative branch, though, as stated above, there were far less than in the previous two decades. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, passed in 1976, was strengthened with the 1984 amendments, which enabled the EPA to regulate for contamination from sources previously unaddressed, like underground tanks storing petroleum, and required states to consider recycling as an option for handling solid waste. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (1986)

The U.S. Government and the Environment: Contemporary Issues | 35

strengthened the original 1980 CERCLA (Superfund) legislation and included the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act. The Safe Water Drinking Act (1986) amended and strengthened the original 1974 act, with more stringent standards. The Clean Water Act Amendments (1987) bolstered the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, requiring the EPA to establish a plan for controlling non-point source pollution. A Global Climate Protection Act was passed in 1987 to address the issue of suspected anthropogenic warming of the atmosphere. During this time, Congress failed to overcome the gridlock blocking acid rain legislation and amendments to the Clean Air Act. Despite the unwillingness of President Reagan to sign international environmental agreements, the United States was a signatory on several important agreements during the decade. Both the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources of 1982 and the Convention for the Conservation of Salmon in the North Atlantic Ocean of 1983 were supported by President Reagan. Perhaps the most important international environmental agreement signed was the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Of equal importance, however, was President Reagan’s refusal to address the issue of acid rain, in particular the acid rain caused by U.S. manufacturing in the northeast that was impacting the environment across the border in Canada. The United States also refused to sign the United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Sea, which sought to protect seabeds from deep sea drilling. Furthermore, the United States was the only country that did not sign the UN World Charter for Nature in 1982. Despite the government’s inability to pass environmental policy at the level it was adopted in the 1970s, the issue remained important on the political agenda. In 1988, Time magazine chose Earth as its ‘‘Man of the Year’’ instead of a public figure. The decision was based on the apparent threats of acid rain, droughts, the discovery of global warming, and generally strange and recent weather patterns. The renewed fears of humanity’s impact on the environment were addressed in both domestic and international politics. George H. W. Bush ran successfully for president in 1988 with a campaign promise that he would be an ‘‘environmental president’’ (Sussman and Kelso, 1999). On the international front, the newly formed United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) published the famous report ‘‘Our Common Future’’ based on the findings of the commission headed by former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland. This report is credited for popularizing the concept of sustainable development, and with it began the third era of environmental policymaking (Kraft, 2000). As stated above, scientists confirmed the presence of a hole in the ozone layer in 1985. The discovery resulted in the Montreal Protocol, a worldwide effort to ban ozone-depleting chemicals. Global action on the issue was swift and

36 | The U.S. Government and the Environment: Contemporary Issues

decisive. The ability of the countries of the world to work together to address global environmental problems was again tested with the issue of global warming. To determine a plan of action, the UN commissioned an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The panel’s recommendations were to be presented at the 1992 UN Conference. With concern over the issue beginning to grow, the suspected cause was contributing to even greater environmental problems when on March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez oil tanker ran aground in Prince William Sound, Alaska, spilling 11 million gallons of oil into the fragile coastal ecosystem. And with that tragedy, we entered the last decade of the century with even greater environmental problems than ever before.

1990s The end of the decade coincided with the presidential term of Republican George H. W. Bush, whose campaign rhetoric promised swift and decisive action on the environment. With the growing awareness of global warming and other environmental problems, his platform was successful in winning him the election. As vice president under President Ronald Reagan, however, he headed the Task Force on Regulatory Relief, which was instrumental in relaxing many of the environmental regulations that had been won in the 1970s. He continued this pro-business, anti-regulatory stance with the formation of the Council on Competitiveness, headed by Vice President Dan Quayle. The council combined with some of his more questionable appointments meant that the ‘‘environmental presidency’’ never came to fruition (Sussman and Kelso, 1999). The only major environmental policy to be passed during President Bush’s term was the 1990 reauthorization of and amendments to the Clean Air Act, which were a source of significant contention between the Council on Competiveness and Congress. Ultimately, though, President Bush is credited with getting the legislation past the gridlock that had kept it from being reauthorized throughout the 1980s (Sussman and Kelso, 1999). While President Bush was instrumental in getting the Clean Air Act amendments adopted, he was less interested in bringing the United States on board with the global efforts to halt environmental destruction. His commitment to sign the United States to the United Nation’s Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal boded well for environmentalists during the first half of his term. However, this gain was soon overshadowed by the issue of global warming, which was addressed at the United Nations 1992 Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the Earth Summit, in Rio de Janeiro. The IPCC’s assessment report was the basis for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that was proposed at the Earth Summit. President Bush was

The U.S. Government and the Environment: Contemporary Issues | 37

reluctant to attend the conference and even more reluctant to commit to the environmental treaties signed there, claiming that to do so would harm U.S. economic interests in a speech that has been called ‘‘environmentally pretentious’’(Weizsacker, 1994, 170). He signed the UNFCCC, but only after it was watered down because he refused to commit to the specific targets for greenhouse gas emissions reductions in the original agreement (Carcasson, 2006). He refused to sign the Convention on Biological Diversity to protect animal and plant species. Both acts unleashed criticism of the U.S. government from world leaders as well as international and U.S. media. President Bush subsequently lost his bid for reelection to Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton and Tennessee Senator Al Gore, a well-known environmentalist. Just as the 1980s were dominated by a Republican administration and a Democratic Congress, with the election of President Clinton and Vice President Gore, environmental policy in the 1990s was mostly influenced by a Democratic administration and a Republican Congress. The gridlock worsened and continued and, again, the successful adoption of environmental policies during this decade did not rise to the level reached in the 1970s. Members of the environmental movement had high hopes for real change when Democratic Senator Al Gore, author of Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit (a book about the ecological predicament facing the world), was elected to the office of vice president in 1992 (Kraft and Vig, 2000). Vice President Gore’s push for sustainable development, where environmental and economic interests were fulfilled, pushed us into the third era of environmental policymaking (Kraft, 2000). The delicate act of balancing environmental needs with economic needs was thwarted throughout the Clinton administration’s two terms in power by a Republican-dominated Congress (Kraft, 2000). Although both houses of Congress were controlled by Democrats for the first two years of Clinton’s first term, partisanship was high and Republicans refused to compromise on the much-needed reauthorizations of 1970s environmental policies like the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. President Clinton appeared to be making compromises that were politically safe, but failed to uphold the many campaign promises he made on the environment (Vig, 2000). He did, however, use the administrative powers of the presidency to make appointments, increase budgets, and strengthen environmental regulations where possible. Virtually nothing had been accomplished by the time the 1994 elections gave the Republicans an overwhelming majority in both houses of Congress. With a perceived public mandate, Republican leaders like the Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich set out to revise the environmental legislation of the past three decades. They were met with gridlock and presidential threats to veto unsatisfactory environmental legislation. GOP leaders resorted to hidden tactics to pass the environmental legislation they wanted, including a rider on the budget

38 | The U.S. Government and the Environment: Contemporary Issues

reconciliation bill that would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil drilling (Vig, 2000). The lack of bipartisanship on virtually all legislation debated during this time contributed to the inability of Congress to renew the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, Superfund, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act during the first half of the decade. Despite the lack of success on the aforementioned policies, there were some significant policies passed during the second half of the decade. The Farm Bill was renewed and contained land-conservation specifications. The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 contained the ‘‘Delaney Clause,’’ a prohibition of even minute traces of cancer-causing agents in processed foods. By 1996, public dissatisfaction with partisan politics contributed to Congress successfully passing the reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act (Kraft, 2000). And in 1998, the Transportation Equity Act was passed, authorizing new programs to reduce the impact of transportation on the environment. On the international front, the United States fared only slightly better than it did during the 1980s under Clinton’s presidential leadership. The negotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement was met with protest from environmentalists. While President Clinton signed the biodiversity treaty rejected by President Bush, he failed to send it to the Senate for ratification. The Clinton administration’s action on global warming was met with disappointment from the environmental movement. The climate change action plan, announced by the administration in 1993, set only voluntary limits on carbon dioxide emissions. The subsequent negotiations led by Vice President Al Gore in Kyoto did not result in binding commitments from the United States, and the Kyoto Protocol, though signed by Gore, was never sent to the Senate for ratification. Given the mostly contentious relationship between Congress and the Clinton administration, more ground was gained in the area of environmental policy during the 1990s than the 1980s (Daynes, 1999). President Clinton’s final act on the environment while in office, much to the displeasure of the western rancher constituency, was to use the 1908 Antiquities Act to designate three national monuments covering thousands of acres in the west. The designation ended his term on a positive note where the environment was concerned. Vice President Al Gore, in the hopes of continuing to address the environmental issues that still had yet to be resolved, ran unsuccessfully for president in the 2000 campaign against George W. Bush. With another Republican in the executive office, the United States moved again toward anti-regulatory, pro-business environmental policy. Conclusion: 2000s and Beyond The events of the first decade of the 2000s have continued to highlight the need to address environmental issues while simultaneously distracting us from them.

The U.S. Government and the Environment: Contemporary Issues | 39

Scientific studies continue to indicate that human-caused global warming is getting worse, threatening species and habitats even now. International tensions have run high since the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the subsequent U.S. reaction. Environmental priorities were placed on the back burner, while the U.S. government addressed other threats like terrorism and nuclear buildup in unstable regions and partook in two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. When environmental issues were attended to, the Bush administration relied on a strategy reminiscent of Reagan’s handling of environmental policy. During his two terms in office, little was done compared to the peak of environmental policymaking in the 1970s, and controversy has arisen over the ways in which environmental policy decisions were made by the Bush administration (Vaughn and Cortner, 2005). More details about the specifics of Bush’s environmental policies and the burgeoning work on the environment by President Barack Obama will follow in the essay on contemporary environmental policy. This essay has covered the actions of the U.S. government on environmental policy from the 1960s to the present. It has been shown that while more has been done during this time period to address environmental issues than any other, the level of action ebbed and flowed over the decades. The peak of environmental policymaking was during the 1970s with the passage of such monumental legislation as the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act. Environmental problems often take the backseat during hard economic times and when the United States is engaged in war. Successful enactment of policy is dependent on bipartisanship and strong, well-publicized citizen support. From national regulation to efficiency to a focus on sustainable development, environmental policy has gone through three major transitions, while environmental problems continue to challenge our nation’s problem-solving abilities. Katrina Darleen Taylor

References Barney, Gerald O. The Global 2000 Report to the President-Entering the TwentyFirst Century. Council on Environmental Quality and the Department of State, 1981. Bosso, Christopher. From Grassroots to Beltway, Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2005. Carcasson, Martin. ‘‘Prudence, Procrastination or Politics: George Bush and the Earth Summit of 1992.’’ In The Rhetorical President of George H. W. Bush, Martin J. Medhurst, ed. Houston: Texas A&M Press, 2006. Chavis, Benjamin F. Jr., and Charles Lee. Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States. New York: United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice, 1987. Daynes, Byron. ‘‘Bill Clinton: Environmental President.’’ In The Environmental Presidency, Dennis L. Soden, ed. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999.

40 | The U.S. Government and the Environment: Contemporary Issues English, Mary. Siting Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities. New York: Quorum, 1992. Flippen, J. Brooks. Nixon and the Environment. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2000. Hays, Samuel P. A History of Environmental Policy Since 1945. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2000. Hirt, Paul W. A Conspiracy of Optimism, Omaha: University of Nebraska Press, 1994. Kraft, Michael E. ‘‘U.S. Environmental Policy and Politics: From the 1960s to the 1990s.’’ In Environmental Politics and Policy, 1960s–1990s, Otis L. Graham Jr., ed. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2000. Long, Carolyn, Michael Cabral, and Brooks Vandivort. ‘‘The Chief Environmental Diplomat.’’ In The Environmental Presidency, Dennis L. Soden, ed. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999. Lowry, William R. ‘‘Natural Resource Policies in the Twenty-First Century.’’ In Environmental Policy, 4th ed., Norman J. Vig and Michael E. Kraft, eds. Washington DC: CQ Press, 2000. Melosi, Martin V. Coping With Abundance: Energy and Environment in Industrial America. New York: Knopf, 1985. Milazzo, Paul Charles. Unlikely Environmentalists: Congress and Clean Water, 1945–1972, Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2006. N
ss, Arne. ‘‘The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement.’’ Inquiry 16 (1973): 95–100. Rosebraugh, Craig. Burning Rage of a Dying Planet. New York: Lantern Books, 2004. Sale, Kirkpatrick. The Green Revolution. New York: Hill and Wang, 1993. Shabecoff, Philip. Earth Rising: American Environmentalism in the Twenty-First Century. Washington DC: Island Press, 2000. Smith, Zachary A. The Environmental Policy Paradox, 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2009. Soden, Dennis L., and Brent S. Steel, ‘‘Evaluating the Environmental Presidency.’’ In The Environmental Presidency, Dennis L. Soden, ed. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999. Sussman, Glen, and Mark Andrew Kelso. ‘‘Environmental Priorities and the President as a Legislative Leader.’’ In The Environmental Presidency, Dennis L. Soden, ed. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999. Vaughn, Jacqueline, and Hannah J. Cortner. George W. Bush’s Healthy Forests: Reframing the Environmental Debate. Boulder, CO: University of Boulder Press, 2005. Vig, Norman J. ‘‘Presidential Leadership on the Environment: From Reagan to Clinton,’’ In Environmental Policy, Norman J. Vig and Michael E. Kraft, eds. Washington DC: CQ Press, 2000. Weizsacker, Ernst U. Von. Earth Politics, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994. Wenner, L. The Environmental Decade in Court. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982.

The U.S. Government and the Global Future

International environmental policy sways with the United States and Europe’s special interests. Their status as the world’s superpowers grants them that influence. Other countries with large populations, such as China and India, also shape global environmental policy decisions. Their impact on clean air, water, and land from the pollution they generate and how they dispose of it is felt downstream. The United States has felt this impact within its own boundaries as well as caused it for its neighbors. How the United States answers the question, ‘‘How clean is clean?’’ through public policy and government regulations has set the stage for its role in global environmental policy in the future. For all its flaws, U.S. environmental policy is viewed by some as among the best crafted and enforced in the world. Progressives, for example, mark it as the finest and most ambitious system in the world for protecting public health and the environment. However, others say that since the turn of the twenty-first century, the United States has yet to demonstrate environmental leadership at home or abroad. That position insists progress has been constrained by partisan and domestic organized interests, which have influenced U.S. global environmental policy. Conservatives often contend that financial costs outweigh environmental benefits and that scientific uncertainty remains with respect to climate change and other environmental issues. In any case, environmental policy now appears as increasingly transnational, with domestic policy factors playing an important role in shaping U.S. policy toward global environmental problems. To steady its hand, the U.S. government has directed the Environmental Protection Agency to investigate the cost of degrading the environment against children’s health in particular. The goal has been to determine ways to help the government anticipate health care costs associated with a steadily degrading natural environment, a phenomenon to which the United States has contributed as well as tried to help solve on its own turf. Connecting human health and the

41

42 | The U.S. Government and the Global Future

environment has been the primary motive behind U.S. environmental policy, though achieving courses of action that strongly protect health as well as preserve and/or restore ecological balance to the fullest have given way to economic interests. In the international arena, the United States has set an example for other nations to follow with its Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund. Enacted by Congress on December 11, 1980, the law created a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries and provided broad federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. Over five years, $1.6 billion was collected. The tax went into a trust fund for cleaning up abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The law represented a fundamental change in the way the United States up until then had conceived of environmental protection. CERCLA shifted responsibility to the corporate actors that created the conditions and away from the victims of pollution. Instead of putting the free market first, as had been the case with policies up until then, CERCLA instituted the idea that risks must be prevented or reduced whenever possible by those who cause the harm. The law was not without its flaws, however. Many potentially responsible parties challenged the government to prove its claims in court, which led the government to spend large sums fighting legal battles instead of cleaning up contaminated land and water. Taxes feeding the Superfund trust expired in 1995. The law has not been renewed. The trust fund is an oddity among U.S. environmental laws. General revenues fund enforcement for most edicts, including the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Clean Air Act. In contrast, all but $250 million of the $1.5 billion per year Congress appropriated for Superfund each year came from the trust fund. EPA officials liked the flexibility that came with appropriations from the trust, allowing them to accumulate dollars rather than scrambling to allocate funds within two years, as is required with general revenues. Budget cuts and the demise of Superfund, however, have made the EPA more dependent on potentially responsible parties to clean sites. As a result, fewer cleanups that would take longer were anticipated, along with those responsible for the contamination to resist a little bit more. Enforcement provisions in CERCLA allowed the EPA to collect three times the cost of cleanup when a party deemed responsible for contamination refused to do the work. Without the money for enforcement, the EPA did not get the return on cleanup dollars it garnered when the fund was active. The demise of the Superfund trust ultimately also hindered the EPA from taking actions when hazardous materials, such as oil, were spilled or when it discovered sites posing an imminent threat to public health or the environment (Schwartz, 1999).

The U.S. Government and the Global Future | 43

The European Union benefited from U.S. experience when in 2002 it proposed its Environmental Liability Directive after more than a decade of controversy. The new directive advises that ‘‘qualified entities’’ in member states be allowed to require restoration and cost recovery for certain kinds of environmental damage, just as CERCLA did in the United States. The major new issues for this type of policy, particularly where oil spills and natural resource destruction are concerned, arise over compensation to individuals who do not suffer traditional types of personal injury or harm, but whose livelihood, for example, is affected by environmental resource damage or loss. The EU directive shies away from U.S. experience with non-use valuation techniques. This example is one way that U.S. environmental policy has influenced environmental policy abroad in the past. This kind of policy development has been labeled ‘‘hybridization.’’ If environmental problems are an instance of people hurting others as an inevitable byproduct of socially useful activities, then the shifting debates around whether humans play a role in global climate change, for example, could encourage the United States to take a page from the EU’s environmental policy in the future. The EU’s stance on climate change is based on the precautionary principle. From the EU perspective, that is now part of customary international law. However, U.S. leaders insist it has no legal status, considering it merely an approach applicable in certain narrow cases. U.S. delegates to the 1992 Conference on Environment and Development (aka the Earth Summit) in Rio de Janeiro opposed its inclusion in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. Only reluctantly and with modifications in wording has the United States accepted precautionary language in international treaties. This caution stems from fears that protective international laws might restrict American economic trade and investment opportunities. The world takes note when the United States and the European Union unite in environmental policy and when they take a lead from each other. Together the two offer great potential for resolving global environmental problems because of their wealth, technological expertise, and level of public commitment to environmental protection. The transparency with which they report their experience and the results of that approach is a flag other nations have considered flying. Differences between the EU and the United States over climate change data focus largely on greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). During President George W. Bush’s administration, the United States rejected any agreement involving mandatory reductions in emissions, claiming the scientific evidence of global climate change was too uncertain and that much more research was needed to develop a mitigation strategy. The EU claimed otherwise, proposing specific targets and timetables for stabilization and argued that industrial countries must take the lead since they were the principal sources of the problem. The Framework Convention on Climate Change that emerged from the Rio Summit reflected these disagreements.

44 | The U.S. Government and the Global Future

Claiming that controlling GHGs would prompt higher energy prices and other costs that would cripple the U.S. economy, and maintaining that the U.S. economy would be unfairly burdened unless developing countries also were required to limit their emissions, led the U.S. Senate to pass the Byrd-Hagel Resolution in 1997, which expressed these reservations. President Bush reiterated them as justification for withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol. Both the Clinton and the following Bush administrations argued consistently for ‘‘flexible mechanisms’’ such as emissions trading, joint implementation, and the clean development mechanisms—all of which ultimately were permitted under the Kyoto Protocol. Despite European skepticism of these market-oriented approaches to emissions reductions, the U.S. appears to have appealed to international logic and won that debate for now. Many of the same considerations afflict U.S.-EU negotiations over global trade rules. Although the Uruguay Round of negotiations on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) established the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1994, it did not provide guidelines for reconciling potential conflicts between the rules of trade outlined and environmental protection. Both the United States and the EU have supported efforts to clarify the relationship within the WTO’s Committee on Trade and Environment. They disagree on whether changes to GATT/WTO rules are needed to accommodate multilateral agreements that allow import restrictions and trade sanctions. The United States prefers judgments be made on a case-by-case basis under existing rules. The EU has tried to amend WTO rules to explicitly safeguard the legal status of multilateral environmental agreements because they strongly support that approach to solving environmental programs. One reason is that particular treaties, such as the Biosafety Protocol, allow them to restrict imports or require labeling of certain products that are considered unsafe. However, cross-generational environmental considerations may play a more significant policy role in the United States in the future. Preserving and protecting precious natural resources along with public health have taken root with a new generation of policymakers. Deeply dedicated to this environmental ethic and valuing it over industrial concerns, this new crop values strong support for keeping the U.S. countryside free, clean, and even wild. The ethic has carried the sustainability movements and brought forward values inherent in Native American collective property ownership ideas, which are consistent with morals and principles propounded during the Romantic and Transcendental movements in the United States. The ethic, documented by the Center for Progressive Regulation in 2004, suggests a resurgence of what clean air, clean land, and clean water—as well as wilderness—provides to the soul and also the pocketbook. That ethic may describe a brand of hybridization the United States will contribute to international environmental policy in the future.

The U.S. Government and the Global Future | 45

One significant result of the 1972 Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, Sweden, was the creation of the United Nations Environment Programme. Initially supported by the United States, the country’s symbolic gestures at the time suggested it would play a central role in future environmental activities. The U.S. position 20 years later at the 1992 Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro (also known as the Earth Summit) was much different. In Rio de Janeiro, the United States refused to join other industrial nations in agreeing to timetables and reduction goals for the greenhouse gas emissions that science suggested contributed to global climate warming. That stance represented the viewpoints held by President George H. W. Bush and his Republican administration. Domestic and international pressure resulting from that direction led the Clinton administration to commit to the timetables and emissions targets for greenhouse gas reduction incorporated into the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. George W. Bush’s outspoken opposition to the Kyoto Protocol and Senate disagreement over its details prompted worldwide diplomatic pressure aimed at compelling the United States to remain involved in global climate change treaty negotiations. Sussman (2004, 351) characterized the U.S. approach to global environmental policymaking at the time as ‘‘the intersection of science and politics where . . . science informs us that human society should take action while . . . public officials are influenced by factors including partisanship, electoral considerations and the concerns of domestic organized interests.’’ The context of the U.S. government’s influence in international environmental policy looks, according to Sussman, like this: When the USA assumes a leadership role, it bolsters the international effort to promote global environmental protection. When it fails to provide leadership, it weakens that effort. While some researchers are not optimistic about the leadership role of the USA regarding international environmental policy . . . others remain convinced that the USA must and will play a leadership role. Minister of the Environment of the Czech Republic, Beldrich Moldan, has lamented, ‘‘The United States is watched much more than Americans realize. As a European, you may like the United States or not like it, but you know it’s the future. So when the United States refuses to reform, other countries will refuse as well.’’ By the time of the Kyoto meeting, the United States had momentum in international environmental policy and was in a position to ruffle feathers. It had signed the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, which limited production and consumption of chlorofluorocarbons and related chemicals destroying the stratospheric ozone layer. It had resume financial

46 | The U.S. Government and the Global Future

support for the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, earlier halted by the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations. It had ratified the Biodiversity Treaty and the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention mentioned earlier, again reversing Reagan-Bush presidential policies. When viewed more fully, the U.S. diplomatic course from Stockholm to Kyoto seemed to lead the country steadily toward a broadening and deepening commitment to international environmental governance. Though the field of global climate change becomes central to any conversation about international environmental policy, transboundary concerns such as acid rain carried on the wind and deposited on distant shores and land perhaps are second in line. Both areas have demonstrated the role of science in stimulating public policy today, a shift from past practices. The United States is expected to offer leadership in international efforts to address global environmental policy problems. While other countries look to the United States to take an activist approach to foster international cooperation regarding the global environment, the changing nature of global environmental problems has made the effort increasingly difficult. Scientific uncertainty and lack of scientific consensus remain important elements in political debates about global environmental policymaking. Sussman (2004) writes that the difficulties of integrating science into the environmental policymaking process have been summed up as a lack of scientific understanding by Congress, which has had a tendency to focus on uncertainties rather than certainties. That, he notes, makes policymaking difficult. The result, he explains, is those who wish to take no action at all prevail. This result seems to stem from special interests using the scientists’ view of facts to skew reality. Simply, scientists deal in probability rather than fact. It is their trademark. Politicians are after facts, concrete pieces of information that have been proven. Scientists know new information may invalidate widely accepted ‘‘proven’’ ideas. In so doing, they remind us to keep our minds open. Special interests can and have used the scientific community’s stance on facts to their political advantage in the United States by pointing to it as providing only ambiguous findings. Since the 1990s, three global issues—acid rain, stratospheric ozone depletion, and global climate change—have dominated the nation’s international ecological agenda and increasingly affected its domestic environmental policies. Together as well as separately, they demonstrate the internationalization of national environmental politics. As far back as 1921, the United States played a role in international environmental agreements. However, since the 1960s, the scope and pace of its involvement has increased significantly. Rosenbaum (2008) noted that among the 152 multilateral environmental treaties adopted by the United States as of 1991, 20 were signed between 1921 and 1959, 26 during the 1960s, 49 during the 1970s, and 48 in the 1980s. Before the 1980s, most of the agreements,

The U.S. Government and the Global Future | 47

like the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention signed in 1984, focused on protection and preservation—for example, of marine environments and fisheries. Like agreements relating to Antarctica and outer space, they entailed freedom of access to common global resources. But by the mid-1980s, Rosenbaum notes, ‘‘the cross-national transport of pollutants and its global impact had become a major, distinctive issue.’’ Just about all transboundary problems cause tension in upstream and downstream relations. The conflict is brought about when one nation, or group of nations, unevenly bears the burden that the impact of pollution migration foists upon it, while the polluter generally reaps the benefits without shouldering its share of responsibility for causing the damage. For example, freshwater rivers, such as the dramatic Colorado River, carry radiation from uranium mining to their southern neighbors. That radiation is long-lived. The Colorado River will remain contaminated from twentieth-century industrialization and related mining for more generations than can be counted on two hands. As freshwater for drinking becomes less accessible and free of charge, partly due to rising salt water from melting icebergs and glaciers in tundra regions, the United States may in the near future begin to create policies about water protection that exceed current laws and incorporate considerations felt across seas. The United States claims both an upstream and downstream role in international environmental policy. For example, it is a source of greenhouse gas emissions and also shares the ecological and human health risks transported from other nations. Chemical deposits found in California and the lush northwest forests in the United States have been traced to China’s industrial factories. Typically, environmental issues characterized as transboundary or international are first raised by the downstream recipients of pollutions. As another example, acid rain was first brought to international attention in the 1970s by Scandinavian countries noticing widespread lake and stream damage never before encountered there. Scientists have been aware since the late 1880s that some acid rain occurs naturally. However, the human contribution to that phenomenon is believed to have increased by 30 times the natural amount in many U.S. regions prior to industrialization. Acid rain is a world issue because all the nations with belching industry— whether built up or becoming built up—discharge chemicals, causing its formation. Of course, the more developed a nation, the more significant its contribution to acid rain, which is carried by freshwater in the wind and deposited where precipitation occurs. As described by Rosenbaum (2008), the first warning that acid rain might be an impending global problem came in the early 1970s when scientists discovered that hundreds of Swedish lakes had become too acidic to maintain normal biological processes. He explains: ‘‘[t]he usual plant and animal life was dying. Many lakes were deceptively beautiful. The water was sparkling clear because

48 | The U.S. Government and the Global Future

acid had destroyed everything in it, including the color. It was abnormally peaceful because its natural aquatic life, from fish to crayfish, had ceased.’’ Studies determined the rain causing the destruction had originated in eastern and western Europe, other parts of Scandinavia, Great Britain, and North America. By the late 1980s, high levels of acid rain were discovered for the first time over rain forests in Central Africa. Rosenbaum’s research showed that wherever acid rain was significant, it ‘‘appeared to be damaging forests, forest soils, agricultural lands and their related ecosystems. Large-scale forest dieback can be extremely costly.’’ This observation suggests a potential meeting ground on which the United States as a whole may want to stake a claim between proponents of the wise-use movement and the environmental ethic coming onto the world stage. Nongovernmental organizations involved in international lobbying toward environmental policy, including in the field of mining for coal, in recent years have begun to play a pivotal role in creating stakeholder forums aimed at influencing protocol decisions and stimulating international law that, for example, might ban mountaintop removal mining for coal. Until the turn of this century, NGOs did not have significant influence in the international policy arena. The United States’ deep experience with open government makes it an authority on drawing stakeholders into decision-making processes, a current trend in international environmental policy decision-making. A current trend in policymaking is the development of new transnational networks for stimulating environmental policy. These networks bring new voices into the process of formulating official environmental policy. By engaging in dialogue with each other as well as with governments over future policy decisions, they have caused environmental policy to rise to the top of the EU agenda in the past decade. In the United States, environmental NGOs have continued their traditional activities, which include fundraising, lobbying, protesting, and mobilizing public opinion around particular issues. However, joining together to use their influence in large numbers to shape environmental policy or promote sustainable development has not occurred. This seems to suggest greater openness in the United States to listening and to considering diverse sources of expertise than is typical in the United States, where advisory councils and committees are normally composed of scientific experts in specific fields. ‘‘People-to-people’’ discussions were a large part of the U.S. government-initiated Transatlantic Dialogue as part of the New Transatlantic Agenda launched in December of 1995. These discussions were included in several areas of policy, including labor and consumer and environmental affairs. However, business groups quickly took the initiative in establishing the Transatlantic Business Dialogue.

The U.S. Government and the Global Future | 49

By 1989, more than one-quarter of the 2,700 lakes in New York’s Adirondack Mountains were so acidic that most could not support fish. An additional 20 percent of the lakes were considered endangered because they had become so acidic. Similar figures surfaced in an Environmental Defense Fund report by its scientists, who found that one-quarter of the nitrates entering the Chesapeake Bay came from acid rain, which also was degrading the waters of Long Island Sound, the New York Bight, and North Carolina’s Albemarle-Pamlico Sound. Complaints about U.S. industrial deposition also came from Canada. Sulfuric and nitric acid are the most common elements found in rain or snow in eastern U.S. watersheds. The Reagan Administration in 1988 signed an international protocol committing the United States to limiting its nitrogen oxide emissions in 1994 to 1987 levels. The George H. W. Bush administration followed suit by agreeing to provisions in Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 that committed the United States to reducing sulfur dioxide emissions from electric-generating plants by 10 million tons per year and nitrogen oxides by 2 million tons per year. It also set a cap on the amount of sulfur dioxides emitted by the year 2000. That amounted to a nearly 50 percent reduction of 1990 emission levels. An innovative feature of Title IV was its creation of a market-based system for trading emission allowances among regulated interests to finance cleanup costs. In October 2000, President Clinton tentatively agreed to a bilateral treaty with Canada that would eventually reduce nitrogen oxide emissions from eastern U.S. electric utilities by between 50 percent and 75 percent. Two months later, the EPA announced new automobile pollution rules that eliminated nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide from diesel emissions. These provisions were enacted only after a bitter political struggle with the auto industry domestically and internationally. Despite these moves, a long-term solution to acid rain domestically and internationally is not yet assured, making this a clear agenda item for the United States both now and in the future. Biofuels have taken center stage as controversy between food-versus-fuel debates resurfaced with a vengeance. U.S. arguments favoring alternative energy sources became better supported by science and clarity about the finiteness of global resources. According to the Worldwatch Institute, attention to biofuels was a response to high oil prices beginning to affect economic and social conditions in the United States. Biofuels as a substitute for gasoline appeals as a way to generate income in rural areas, to reduce dependence on foreign oil, and to provide the country with more efficient solutions to problems that arise as a result of energy use and climate change, according to the institute. Studies suggest the current influence of biofuels on U.S. society is connected to environmental costs, including water pollution, wildlife habitat loss, and declining freshwater

50 | The U.S. Government and the Global Future

resources. These ‘‘expected payoffs’’ played a major role in driving an extension and expansion of the national renewable fuels standard in the U.S. Energy Independence and Security Act, which calls for the use of 36 billion gallons of biofuels nationwide within the next 12 years. That said, producing and using biofuels will contribute as much greenhouse gases to the air as fossil fuel consumption, making alternative energy innovation and use another likely item on the U.S. environmental policy agenda for many years to come. Developing sustainability standards upon which government support for fuels would be conditional and creating a holistic energy policy across all transport-related sectors has been suggested by the Worldwatch Institute. For three decades the United States has practiced controlling pollution and preserving natural resources. Some would argue it goes back much further, but the momentum of domestic environmental policies instituted in the twentieth century is undeniable. The country has developed technologies capable of cleaning up past mistakes. Some contend it has prevented new mistakes. Regardless, scientific breakthroughs have improved understanding of how to restore fragile ecosystems, such as the South Florida Everglades Restoration project. To revive and protect this national treasure, Florida is undertaking the largest environmental ecosystem restoration in the world, according to the state of Florida at http:// www.dep.state.fl.us/evergladesforever/about/default.htm. The project itself positions the United States as a leader willing to experiment with technology on a large scale for the purposes of protecting its interest in human health and the environment as well as global ecological balance. This preventative move and its success or failure is expected to influence U.S. foreign policy. Also, by putting its money where its mouth is, the project holds the potential to demonstrate U.S. leadership in environmental regulation and policy. The United States’ promise to make its reports on the project readily available contribute to its value as a case study. That element is anticipated to illustrate the value of transparency in public policy decision-making as well as its flaws. This element is under special observation by other nations interested in how much damage providing that information with such good grace will cause. It will reveal how much damage 100 years of forced controls have inflicted on this sensitive area as important to global ecological balance as the Amazon rain forest. How far the American public will extend itself toward remediation is another factor the world is watching to discover. In recent years, the environmental policy debate in the United States has shifted to a rigid and seemingly misleading trade-off between a clean environment and a healthy economy from the previous stance of ‘‘How can we do more?’’ It can be argued that the same special interests that traditionally opposed government efforts to protect the environment above all else have become more adept at discrediting arguments advocating for tougher protections despite new

The U.S. Government and the Global Future | 51

findings provided by scientists. This climate of policymaking characterizes advocates of strong environmental policies as environmental extremists. When successful, the result is a marginalizing of those arguments. Consequently, even when results from government policy indicate the policy’s failure, the public has great difficulty discerning the root cause. It’s the kind of drama the Florida Everglades Project will display up close and personal on the world stage. Seemingly, a different attitude about collaboration at the local and regional levels as well as among governments is in the cards for the United States. Notions of sustainability have taken root in the new generation of policymakers. The United States and the European Union are sharply divided on the concept. Although adopted as a fundamental objective of the community associated with the Amsterdam Treaty revisions of 1997, the EU has increasingly used the concept to justify and coordinate its environmental policies, both internally and externally. By contrast, sustainable development rhetoric has not resonated within U.S. environmental policy circles, especially at the federal level. In the United States, there is no general policy for sustainable development, although President Clinton appointed a Council on Sustainable Development that met between 1994 and 1999. It was not taken seriously by Congress or other agencies. Consequently, the council focused on local initiatives to make communities more ‘‘livable’’ and ‘‘sustainable.’’ In contrast, the EU launched a series of processes to integrate environmental sustainability into policymaking in other sectors: transport, energy, agriculture, industry, tourism, and fisheries. Policies to promote energy efficiency and develop alternative energy supplies also have been adopted. Yet the basic patterns of consumption, transport, pollution, and so on continue to worsen. Without U.S. and EU collaboration, it is unlikely that much international progress will be made in the international environmental policy arena. Their competing paradigms in the area of sustainability seemingly could be considered complementary pillars. The United States brings to the table research and technological advances. The EU brings concepts of precaution, integration, ecological modernization, and multilateral collaboration. Policies are working in both places. In December 2009, the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, brought about a non-binding agreement that the Bolivian delegation criticized was reached in an anti-democratic, anti-transparent way that offers no relief to the countries most vulnerable to climate change impacts. In response to what is commonly known as the Copenhagen Accord, Bolivian President Evo Morales hosted the weeklong World People’s Conference on Climate Change and Mother Earth in April 2010. Indigenous activists and government representatives from 150 nations attended, according to the Huffington Post. The same week, of April 19, the U.S.-led Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate was held in Washington, D.C. Seventeen countries responsible for the bulk of global greenhouse gas emissions held closed-door talks. Both gatherings

52 | The U.S. Government and the Global Future

aimed to plan strategies to thwart each other at the 2010 United Nations Climate Change Conference set for December 2010 in Cancun, Mexico. The Copenhagen Accord, whose legality is debated, acknowledges that the notion of global warming and cooling is supported by unassailable science. While setting emissions limits was central to the Copenhagen talks, no commitments resulted. China sought to cut carbon dioxide emissions by as much as 45 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. India only wanted them cut by as much as 25 percent, a figure more agreeable to most in attendance. Kazakhstan, Iceland, Japan, Monaco, New Zealand, and Russia sought the strictest reductions, hovering around 25 percent below 1990 levels. The United States argued to reduce emissions to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, 42 percent by 2030, and 83 percent by 2050. In contrast, countries such as Costa Rica and Maldives sought 2021 and 2019, respectively. During the talks and after, China was blamed by developed nations for preventing a better outcome. Others blamed the lack of a binding deal on conservatives in the U.S. Senate and President Barack Obama. India, China, and other emerging nations, according to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, cooperated at Copenhagen to ‘‘thwart attempts at establishing legally binding targets for carbon emissions in order to protect their economic growth.’’ As such, they sought to let the United States carry the blame. A representative from the Maldives delegation accused China of ‘‘sabotaging’’ the talks, saying, ‘‘carbon equity is the logic of mutually assured destruction,’’ referring to the notion of emissions trading credits. China currently depends on coal for its industry and is facing a severe shortage of freshwater as well. Some news analyses of the Copenhagen gathering considered the accord a failure resulting from global recession and conservative domestic pressure in the United States and China. Despite financial woes, the voluntary accord included a pledge by the United States to provide $30 billion to the developing world during 2010–2013, increasing to $100 billion per year by 2020. The international funding is intended to help poorer countries take steps to adapt to climate change. It was central to the forum talks in Washington, D.C. The reality for Fiji, for example, is that glacial melt is shrinking this island nation. Its government is seeking nations willing to accept its people as the land shrinks. Such nations did not get what they wanted in Copenhagen. A parallel can be drawn here to Louisiana’s Cajun culture, which is losing neighborhood land due to rising salt water in freshwater bayous throughout the area. This rise is causing baseball diamonds where children played one year to be underwater the next. Diasporas resulting from rising coastlines and declining water supplies are expected to force a change in global environmental policy practices that worked in the past. Water, however, is perhaps the biggest environmental concern that could guide both U.S. and global environmental policy in the future. The National Research Council on April 22, 2010, released a study noting Earth’s oceans currently absorb more than 1 million tons of carbon dioxide per hour. That’s contributing to an

The U.S. Government and the Global Future | 53

already unprecedented increase in acid levels in the oceans, threatening to change ecosystems supporting all life in salt water, including red snapper, shrimp, sea bass, and everything depending on coral reefs. At the same time, desalinization is taking off around the globe as a means for coping with declining supplies of freshwater. The cost to desalinate has gone down, according to news reports focusing on dollars and cents. The April 2010 issue of National Geographic magazine focused on the Earth’s water, describing water as ‘‘the visible face of climate, and therefore climate change.’’ Evaporation and drought have been amplified on every continent along with rising coastlines and increased flooding from Bangladesh to the U.S. midwest. At the same time, innovative reforestation projects are underway order to restore the earth and prevent further desertification. Peruvian conservationists, for example, have created a partnership with Heifer International, a nongovernmental organization, to that end (Kingslover, 2010, 48). Further suggesting how water might play the most prominent role in global environmental politics in the next 15 years, Ecuador has become the first nation to emphasize the ‘‘rights of nature’’ in its constitution. According to Kingslover (2010, 49), Ecuador has made environmental policy stating that: . . . rivers and forests are not simply property but maintain their own right to flourish. Under these laws a citizen might file suit on behalf of an injured watershed, recognizing its health is crucial to the common good. Other nations may follow Ecuador’s lead. Law schools in the United States are now reforming their curricula with an eye to understanding and acknowledging nature’s rights. Global warming’s glacial melt is allowing two harvests per year in areas of Tibet where only one was possible before. However, behind that prosperity is the well-supported fear that the glacier will disappear along with the water supply. Measurements show the glacier is melting at a faster rate than 100 years ago. Villagers in Nepal also wonder about their water source. The headwaters of many rivers come from the glaciers of Tibet, which have been called the Third Pole. It is attractive to China at least in part for the freshwater Tibet promises. As reported in National Geographic magazine, China has less water than Canada and 40 times more people. China currently aims to build 59 reservoirs north of Tibet to capture glacial melt. In Africa, the issue is a lack of clean water. Medical clinics there report that almost half of the illnesses they treat relate to waterborne diseases. In the United States, residue from industry and agriculture runs down into the nearest creek if it hasn’t been dried up first by damming, diverting, and irrigation practices. However, a suit of new laws in California mandates water conservation and

54 | The U.S. Government and the Global Future

attempts to restore delta ecosystems there. With that in mind, the U.S. role in global environmental policy in the future seems strongest in restoration policy. On April 20, 2010, a British Petroleum deep-water oil drilling station exploded and caused the greatest oil spill in U.S. history. The spill damaged the fishing and tourist industries of the Gulf region. Oil continued to spew from the underwater site for just under two months, until a cap was installed that sealed the damaged well. The damage from this spill will likely continue for generations to come. Environmental impacts are still uncertain but damage to animals and their habitat are widespread. Future environmental policy will depend on cooperation across political borders with leadership coming not only from governmental sources but also the corporate and nonprofit communities. Debra A. Schwartz with Lee Ann Malfar References Clinton, H., and S. Chu. ‘‘Joining Hands for Clean Energy.’’ April 16, 2010, Miami Herald.com, http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/04/16/1582153/joining-hands-for-clean -energy.html. Derwent, R. G., et al. ‘‘The Contribution from Shipping Emissions to Air Quality and Acid Deposition in Europe.’’ Ambio 34 (1) (2005): 54–59. Dolsak, N., and M. Dunn. ‘‘Investments in Global Warming Mitigation: The Case of Activities Implemented Jointly.’’ Policy Sciences 39 (3) (2006): 233–248. Eshelman, R. S. ‘‘World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth Kicks Off in Boliva.’’ Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ 2010/04/21/bolivias-peoples-conferen_n_546310.html (accessed April 19, 2010). Friedman, T. L. Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution—and How It Can Renew America. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2008. Goodman, A. ‘‘Bolivian UN Ambassador Pablo Solon on the World Peoples’ Summit on Climate Change and Rights of Mother Earth.’’ Democracy Now! http://www.democracy now.org/2010/4/19/bolivian_un_ambassador_pablo_solon_on (accessed April 19, 2010). Goodman, A. ‘‘The Cochabamba Water Wars.’’ Democracy Now! http://www.democracy now.org/2010/4/19/the_cochabamba_water_wars_marcella_olivera (accessed April 19, 2010). Harrington, W., R. Morgenstern, T. Sterner, and J. Davies. ‘‘Lessons from the Case Studies.’’ In Choosing Environmental Policy: Comparing Instruments and Outcomes in the United States and Europe, W. Harrington, R. Morgenstern, and T. Sterner eds. Washington DC: Resources for the Future, 2004, 240–268. Kingslover, B. ‘‘Everyday Wonders Reflect the Primacy of Water.’’ National Geographic 217 (4) (2010): 36–49. Lacey, S. ‘‘The Intersection of Climate Science and Politics in the U.S.’’ Renewable Energy World, January 2010, renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/podcast/2010/01/ the-intersection-of-science-and-politics-in-the-u-s- (accessed April 23, 2010). Larmer, B. ‘‘The Big Melt.’’ National Geographic 217 (4) (2010): 60–79.

The U.S. Government and the Global Future | 55 Rosenbaum, Winston A. Environmental Politics and Policy. Washington DC: CQ Press, 2008. Schroeder, C. H., and R. Steinzor. A New Progressive Agenda for Public Health and the Environment: A Project of the Center for Progressive Regulation. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2005. Schwartz, Debra A. ‘‘Washington Ponders Superfund—Minus Taxes.’’ Chemical Week, June 2, 1999. Stewart, R. B., and J. B. Weiner. Reconstructing Climate Policy. Washington DC: AEI Press, 2003. Sussman, Glen. ‘‘The USA and Global Environmental Policy: Domestic Constraints on Effective Leadership.’’ International Political Science Review 25 (4) (2004): 349–369. Vig, N. J., and M. G. Faure. Green Giants? Environmental Policies of the United States and the European Union. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2004. Worldwatch Institute, http://www.worldwatch.org.

A A Sand County Almanac A Sand County Almanac was written by Aldo Leopold and first published shortly after his death in 1949. The title refers to the first of the book’s three parts, which takes place in the Sand County area of central Wisconsin. The book’s themes focus on ecology, human perception of nature, conservation philosophy, and nature writing. In brief, Leopold argues in support of a ‘‘land ethic’’ in which nature is viewed as a complex entity of which humans are a part. The book is a foundation of the conservation movement, as well as a classic source for environmental ethics. Aldo Leopold was a conservationist, writer, and former employee of the U.S. Forest Service. According to one historian, Leopold’s intent in writing A Sand County Almanac was to produce a personal nature book that combined both scientific data and artistic prose. Due to Leopold’s death in 1948 while fighting a wildfire, the final editing and publication of A Sand County Almanac was managed by Leopold’s son, Luna Leopold (Ribbens, 1987). Leopold’s classic work, well-known for its descriptive and metaphorical prose, is comprised of three parts: A Sand County Almanac, Sketches Here and There, and The Upshot. In the first part, Leopold describes, month-by-month, his experiences in living on a run-down piece of farmland in central Wisconsin. Embedded in his writing are his thoughts and comments on conservation, which are more explicitly stated in the third part of the book. In the second part, Leopold describes his wilderness experiences and observations throughout the United States. One of the most famous sections of the book, titled ‘‘Thinking Like a Mountain,’’ occurs in this part, in which Leopold describes the complexities of ecological management. The third part of the book is comprised of several essays on conservation and environmental ethics. It is in this section of the book that Leopold builds upon the previous two sections by making more direct arguments for conservation and ecological perception. Leopold’s famous essay, ‘‘The Land Ethic,’’ occurs in this section, including one of his most famous lines: ‘‘A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise’’ (Leopold, 1949). Leopold’s simple, poetic style of writing, combined with his untimely death, left A Sand County Almanac open to criticism without its author to defend his ideas. However, in 1971 the book was discovered by philosophy professor John Baird Callicott, who has since published several books and essays that 57

58 | Abbey, Edward

academically explore the implications of Leopold’s ideas from a philosophical perspective (Callicott, 1987). The legacy of Aldo Leopold and A Sand County Almanac is carried on by the Aldo Leopold Foundation: http://www.aldoleopold.org. Trevor L. Drake See also Leopold, Aldo; U.S. Forest Service

References The Aldo Leopold Foundation. ‘‘A Sand County Almanac’’ Fact Sheet. The Aldo Leopold Foundation. http://www.aldoleopold.org/about/almanac.shtml (accessed April 12, 2010). Callicott, J. Baird. Companion to A Sand County Almanac: Interpretive and Critical Essays. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1987. Leopold, Aldo. A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There. New York: Oxford University Press, 1949. Ribbens, Dennis. The Making of A Sand County Almanac. In Companion to A Sand County Almanac: Interpretive and Critical Essays, J. Baird Callicott, ed., 94–95. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1987.

Abbey, Edward Edward Abbey’s works and ideas influenced the fledgling environmental movement during the 1960s and continue to remain important in environmental thought today. Abbey was born on January 29, 1927, in Indiana, Pennsylvania, a town in northern Appalachia. In the summer of 1944, 17-year-old Abbey hitchhiked across the country and for the first time encountered the southwest, the region that subsequently became the central focus of his life and career. From 1945 to 1946, Abbey served with the U.S. Army in Alabama, New Jersey, and Italy. On the G.I. Bill, he studied English and philosophy at the University of New Mexico from 1947 to 1951. After receiving the Fulbright Fellowship, Abbey took courses at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, and in 1954 returned to the University of New Mexico to pursue a graduate degree in philosophy. His master’s thesis on anarchism and the morality of violence signaled the interests he would continue to explore in his later work. In the years 1956–1971, Abbey worked as a firefighter and park ranger in what is now Arches National Park, Utah. Later in life, Abbey taught writing at the University of Arizona, Tucson. Abbey died on March 14, 1989. Following his wishes, his body was buried in an undisclosed location in the Cabeza Prieta Desert, Arizona. Although in his work Abbey described the natural beauty of the southwestern landscape and warned of the threats that industrialization and urbanization posed

Acid Rain | 59

to this terrain, he resisted the labels of nature and environmental writer. Desert Solitaire (1968), his musings on the southwestern wilderness he got to know while working as a park ranger, and The Monkey Wrench Gang (1975), a novel about a group of ecoteurs, are Abbey’s best-known works. Abbey’s nonconformist ideas, especially his views on environmentally motivated resistance and sabotage, have influenced the radical environmental movement, most notably the group known as Earth First! Marta Bladek See also Environmental Justice

References Cahalan, James A. Edward Abbey: A Life. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2000. Fenimore, David. ‘‘Edward Abbey, The Monkey Wrench Gang.’’ In Literature and the Environment, George Hart and Scott Slovic, eds. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1975, 95–109. Luke, Timothy W. ‘‘In Defense of the American West: Edward Abbey’s Desert Solitaire: A Season in the Wilderness.’’ Organization & Environment 21.2 (2008): 171–181. Philippon, Daniel J. Conserving Words: How American Nature Writers Shaped the Environmental Movement. Athens and London: The University of Georgia Press, 2004, 219–265.

Acid Rain There are two forms that acids borne of factory-produced air pollution take as they return to Earth: wet and dry. Wet acid deposits come in the more visible forms of rain, sleet, hail, snow, and fog. Dry acid deposits are gases and other acidic particles that are moved into the atmosphere by wind or rainwater runoff. Two common air pollutants, sulfur dioxide (SO2) and the nitrogen oxides (NOX), cause acid rain when they react with water and form sulfuric, nitric, and other acids. When the environment fails to neutralize the levels of these pollutants, damage occurs. Today, acid rain and acid deposition affect plants and animals, as well as buildings and monuments, piping, and automobile exteriors. They can also cause toxic metals to leach into underground drinking water sources. Acid naturally occurs in Earth’s atmosphere. However, unnatural acid levels are on the rise, due largely to the industrial age. One major component of acid rain, sulfur dioxide, is a byproduct of the burning of fossil fuels. Ore smelting plants, coal-fired power generators, and natural gas processing are the main contributors to the excess of sulfur dioxide in the air today. The other major contributor to acid rain, nitrogen oxide, comes mainly from fuels in motor vehicles, residential and commercial furnaces, industrial and electrical-utility boilers, and combustion engines.

60 | Acid Rain

Dead trees, victims of acid rain and/or the wooly aphid, shrouded in fog near Mount LeConte in the Smoky Mountains. (iStockPhoto)

Acid rain has been a fully realized ecological problem for only a few decades. The effects of acid rain have been recorded in the eastern United States, Great Britain, Germany, and elsewhere. More recently, acid rain is becoming a significant problem in China, Japan, and other rapidly industrializing nations like India and Taiwan. Scientists fear the negative effects will continue to worsen unless governments and industries work together. Acid rain can affect bodies of water by increasing the acidity until fish and marine vegetation can no longer survive. As acidity rises, forms of aquatic life struggle to survive. At pH 5.5, bottom-dwelling bacterial decomposers start to disappear, leaving organic debris to collect. In such cases, plankton, the base of the aquatic ecosystem, lacks its food source, negatively affecting all marine life. Further, if the composed leaf litter problem persists, toxic metals such as aluminum and mercury can be released and seep into the groundwater. At pH levels of 4.5 and below, nearly all aquatic life will die. Acid rain also greatly affects forests and soil by washing away vital nutrients and replacing them with harmful toxins. Some of the great forests in Germany and western Europe are believed to be dying from acid deposition, which is a result of a combination of wet and dry acid pollution. Scientists believe essential nutrients for plant life are washed away by acid rain, which can also affect crop yields. During this process, toxic metals are transferred from the atmosphere to forests. These deposits of lead, zinc, copper, chromium, and aluminum, among

Agent Orange | 61

others, retard growth of local plant life, as well as mosses, algae, nitrogen-fixing bacteria, and fungi, all of which contribute to the health of forests. While aquatic and forest life suffer most from acid rain, scientists are noticing many other detrimental effects. Acid deposition on buildings and statues causes costly erosion of limestone and marble into a substance called gypsum. Acid deposition can affect travel as well. Costly damage to bridges, airplanes, and railways has been documented. Acid rain can also damage many fabrics. From the American flag hanging near city hall to the paper in historic books and documents, acid deposition can cause noticeable deterioration. Finally, acid rain affects humans directly. Some of the most serious side effects of acid pollution are respiratory problems such as asthma, dry coughs, headaches, and eye, nose, and throat irritation. Other effects on humans come from fruits and vegetables that have absorbed toxic metals that were dissolved in water. When ingested, toxic metals like mercury can cause nerve disorders, brain damage, and even death. Acid deposition will continue to be a problem, but there is debate as to just how large a problem it will be in the future. On the one hand, scientists are confident that new technology, increased awareness, government involvement, and industry reforms will create responsible energy production. Current initiatives include cap-and-trade policies, subsidized clean coal technologies, use of renewable energy resources, and electronic emissions monitoring systems, along with many others. However, the industrial age continues to progress, and an increasing number of people are relying on manufactured energy. The future of acid rain, like most environmental problems, is an uncertain one. Arthur Holst References Air Pollution & Climate Secretariat. ‘‘Acidification & Eutrophication.’’ http:// www.airclim.org/acidEutrophications/index.php. Environment Canada. ‘‘Acid Rain.’’ http://www.ec.gc.ca/acidrain/. Environmental Literacy Council. ‘‘Acid Precipitation.’’ http://www.enviroliteracy.org/ article.php/2.html. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ‘‘Acid Rain.’’ http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ‘‘Reducing Acid Rain.’’ http://www.epa.gov/ air/peg/acidrain.html. U.S. Geological Survey. ‘‘What is Acid Rain?’’ http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/acidrain/2.html.

Agent Orange Agent Orange is the commonly used name for a chemical compound made of up of 50 percent 2,4-dichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4-D) and 50 percent 2,4,5trichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4,5-T). The designation ‘‘Orange’’ comes from

62 | Agent Orange

Members of the Korean Disabled Veterans Association for Agent Orange continue their week-long silent vigil, Thursday, August 31, 2006, in front of the White House in Washington, D.C. The group called on President Bush to help South Korean veterans who fought alongside U.S. forces in Vietnam with medical problems caused by Agent Orange. (AP/Wide World Photos)

the identifying stripe on the barrels shipped into Vietnam. Beginning in 1965 and continuing into 1971, the United States sprayed Agent Orange in South Vietnam to defoliate jungle areas and destroy crops. The objectives were to deny cover to insurgents and North Vietnamese troops and to deny them local sources of food. The defoliation and herbicide programs, first begun under President John F. Kennedy, sprayed more than 45 million liters of the compound in southern Vietnam (Stellman et al., 2003). The United States developed the chemical components of Agent Orange for use in the Pacific theater in World War II. Although they were not ready in time to be used in the war, manufacturers such as Hercules, Monsanto, and Dow marketed them for civilian use after the war. The chemicals, marketed under brands such as Roundup and Weed B Gon, quickly entered widespread use. By 1960, domestic manufacturers were producing 36 million pounds annually. In 1959, the United States Army used a combination of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T, a precursor to Agent Orange, to defoliate a firing range at Camp Drum, New York. The success of this effort hinted at the potential for expanded military use. The U.S. Air Force (USAF) conducted extensive research on aerial spraying of defoliants and herbicides at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida during the early 1960s.

Agent Orange | 63

By this time, actors outside of the U.S. government had concerns about environmental degradation from defoliants and herbicides. Rachael Carson, in the landmark book Silent Spring (1962), vividly illustrated the destruction of ecosystems in the western United States resulting from the use of chemical herbicides. Insurance companies were also increasingly concerned about the scope of the chemicals’ impact; some insurers refused to underwrite coverage of damage from the use of 2,4-D or 2,4,5-T. The defoliation and crop-destruction programs conducted by the USAF under the name Operation Ranch Hand were at best moderately successful. Interviews with North Vietnamese defectors conducted by the RAND Corporation indicate that the National Liberation Front (NLF) forces were hampered by food shortages but that these shortfalls were made up in other ways. Poor intelligence and a lack of control over where the chemicals landed and in what concentrations they were applied handicapped USAF efforts to hit appropriate targets effectively. A 1967 study conducted by RAND and commissioned by the USAF found that one common side effect of herbicide use was resentment and anger from South Vietnamese who had their crops destroyed. Besides the difficulties with the compound itself, the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam had other problems. The negative publicity surrounding the USAF’s use of Agent Orange and other chemicals in Vietnam was substantial. International public opinion was emphatically against the use of chemicals in war. Within the United States, prominent members of the clergy, scientists, and returning veterans all publicly denounced the use of Agent Orange. Protesters highlighted the possible violation of bans on chemical warfare, the potential health risks to U.S. military exposed to the chemicals, and the enormous environmental impact to Vietnam. The most serious unwanted side effects of herbicide use came not from the chemicals themselves but from 2,3,7,8-tretrachlorodibenzo para-dioxin, more commonly known as TCDD or dioxin. Dioxin, a byproduct of the combination of 2, 4-D and 2,4,5-T, is extremely toxic to humans and very long-lived. Side effects from exposure to dioxin include respiratory cancers, Type II diabetes, and severe birth defects. President Richard Nixon ended the use of Agent Orange on April 15, 1970. This decision resulted from the intervention of a number of governmental and quasi-governmental organizations, including the National Academy of Sciences (NAS); the National Institute of Health; the American Academy for the Advancement of Science; the Departments of the Air Force, State, Defense, Agriculture, and Interior; and the U.S. Congress. At about the same time, civilian use of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T began to come under increasing scrutiny by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In 1974, the NAS, at the request of Congress, conducted an extensive study of Agent Orange and its side effects on both Vietnam and American service personnel. The study found high concentrations of dioxin in fish caught in South Vietnam. In

64 | Agent Orange

addition, the NAS recommended further study to determine the effects of dioxin on humans. By 1977, the Veterans’ Administration (VA) was receiving compensation claims from Vietnam veterans who had been exposed to Agent Orange. The VA’s own research in the late 1970s supported these claims by demonstrating the toxicity of dioxin in animals. The EPA was increasingly concerned about the effects of dioxin; in 1979, the agency issued an emergency suspension of 2,4,5-T use. U.S. veterans exposed to Agent Orange have had mixed results in pursuing claims against the manufacturers. A 1984 class-action lawsuit led to a $180 million settlement for service members who had been exposed to Agent Orange. The chemical companies who established the fund did not admit to any wrongdoing. In 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to overturn the dismissal of a case brought by U.S. veterans and Vietnamese citizens against manufacturers of Agent Orange. The American plaintiffs sought to establish the liability of the manufacturers for damages resulting from Agent Orange. The extent of the damage from Agent Orange in Vietnam is not known. However, a higher-than-expected incidence of severe birth defects in children of those exposed and lingering damage to soil and water imply that the chemicals continue to have a meaningful effect (Hitchens, 2006). The U.S. government has contributed funds for environmental recovery and to support Vietnamese with disabilities attributed to Agent Orange exposure. There remains significant disagreement between the two countries over how damaging Agent Orange was and to what extent it remains a problem in Vietnam (Steinglass, 2007). Evelyn Krache Morris See also Nixon, Richard; Silent Spring

References Hitchens, Christopher. ‘‘The Vietnam Syndrome.’’ Vanity Fair, August 2006. Institute of Medicine. Division of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention. Committee to Review the Health Effects in Vietnam Veterans of Exposure to Herbicides. ‘‘Veterans and Agent Orange: Health Effects of Herbicides used in Vietnam.’’ National Academy of Sciences, 1994. http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=2141&page=R1 (accessed May 2010). Steinglass, Matt. ‘‘VOA News: U.S., Vietnam to Cooperate on Agent Orange Damage.’’ U.S. Federal News Service, including U.S. State News, June 26, 2007. Stellman, Jeanne Mager, et al. ‘‘The Extent and Patterns of Usage of Agent Orange and Other Herbicides in Vietnam.’’ Nature 422 (2003). United States Department of Veteran’s Affairs. ‘‘Agent Orange and Vietnam Veterans.’’ http://www.vba.va.gov/bln/21/benefits/herbicide/. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Service Center for Environmental Publications. ‘‘Dioxins.’’ November 1980. http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey =20007F5B.txt.

Air Pollution Control Act of 1955 | 65

Air Pollution Control Act of 1955 At an historical glance, the passage of federal air pollution legislation and the 1950s—a decade dominated by Detroit and the Interstate Highway Act—seem incongruous. Yet in July 1955, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed into law the Air Pollution Control Act, the first federal air quality law passed in American history. Though Eisenhower’s administration had other priorities in its domestic agenda, the benchmark laws became a template for future pollution regulation. By 1945, the United States was plagued by growing air pollution problems. Two centuries of uncontrolled industrial output had wreaked havoc on the American environment. In addition, this uncontested growth coupled with the rise of the car culture in the twentieth century created a toxic mixture. By the late 1940s, some Americans began to take notice of the air quality in major U.S. cities. By 1948, California officials documented high levels of smog in Los Angeles. People complained of nausea, burning eyes, and respiratory ailments. Though Los Angeles’ environmental woes were the focus, in reality, air pollution was a serious issue for most major American cities. The next year, the first conference on air pollution, the National Air Pollution Symposium, was held in the United States. Despite this national attention, state governments were still responsible for the regulation of air pollution. Problems with air quality continued to register with some Americans in the 1950s. Eventually, Congress acted on this growing problem with two air quality bills. On July 14, 1955, Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Air Pollution Control Act of 1955 (the other bill signed into law the same day was the National Emission Standards Act). The Air Pollution Control Act of 1955 was the first major piece of pollution legislation since 1948. The law called for the funding of research projects and programs monitoring the impact of air pollution on Americans and the level of national air quality. The law charged the federal government with giving states scientific assistance. The new law, however, did not provide for any meaningful regulatory effort to control actual air pollution levels. That legislation—the Clean Air Act of 1963, the Air Quality Act of 1967, and the Clean Air Act of 1970—would come in the next two decades with more environmentally aware Americans and presidential administrations. Erik D. Carlson See also Air Quality Act of 1967; Clean Air Act of 1970

References Dewey, Scott H. Don’t Breathe the Air. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2000. Kline, Benjamin. First Along the River. San Francisco: Acada Books, 1997. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Origins of Modern Air Pollution Regulations. http://www.epa.gov/eogapti1/course422/apc1.html

66 | Air Quality Act of 1967

Air Quality Act of 1967 Under the Air Quality Act of 1967, the federal government began monitoring the environment for air pollution and inspecting discharge sites. The act also authorized testing of improved monitoring and control methods. Responsible for environmental protection until the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970, the secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare established air quality regions with the goal of having 100 in place by 1970. The act also set criteria for pollutants such as particulates and chemicals like sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. The states were to use federal criteria but retained responsibility for establishing and enforcing pollution-control standards. By 1970, there were fewer than three dozen air quality regions in operation. The expectation had been that over 100 would be in place. No state had a full pollution-control program. The regional approach made no provision for pollution that overlapped jurisdictions. Also, there was no widespread perception that there was a need for national pollution control. In 1965, air pollution ranked ninth of ten national problems. By 1970, it was number one. Contributing factors were Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, the Muskie committee hearings on pollution in 1964, the deaths of 80 people in New York smog in 1966, and other ecological disasters. Earth Day in 1970 was the trigger for congressional amending of the 1967 law to set air quality standards and set deadlines for compliance. The 1967 act was a failure but it was the first step in federal air pollution control. John H. Barnhill See also Silent Spring; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

References API Energy. ‘‘Air. The Clean Air Act (CAA).’’ http://www.api.org/ehs/air/. Environmentalcountdown. ‘‘Air Pollution 1971.’’ http://ec.environmentalcountdown.org/ _Air-Pollution-1971/VIDEO/461724/4315.html. Rogers, Paul G. ‘‘The Clean Air Act of 1970.’’ EPA Journal (January/February 1990). http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/caa70/11.htm. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ‘‘History of the Clean Air Act.’’ December 19, 2008. http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/caa_history.html.

Alar A 1989 report by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) declared Alar, a growth regulator used mainly on apples, a cancer-causing agent. Although government and health experts disputed NRDC’s allegations, public uncertainty over

Environmental Conservation v. Environmental Protection | 67

the safety of apples continued for several months, and Alar was subsequently withdrawn from the market voluntarily by its manufacturer. Upon further testing, the EPA concluded several years later that the health risks associated with Alar were greatly exaggerated. Nevertheless, apple sales plummeted $100 million. A series of ‘‘veggie’’ laws—which also apply to livestock—were implemented in at least 16 states as a result of the NRDC Alar affair. These laws empower agriculture to recover damages if disparaging remarks cause losses. However, the first serious legal test of these laws failed when, in 1998, Texas Cattle Feeders lost a lawsuit against Oprah Winfrey based on veggie libel laws. Dana L. Hoag References Negin, Elliott. ‘‘The Alar ‘Scare’ Was for Real; and So Is That ‘Veggie Hate-Crime’ Movement.’’ Columbia Journalism Review (September/October 1996). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ‘‘Daminozide (Alar) Pesticide Canceled for Food Uses.’’ EPA press release, November 7, 1989. http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/ food/02.htm (accessed May 2010).

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. (2004) In Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al., the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly ruled that the EPA could keep the state of Alaska’s Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) from allowing construction of a zinc-mining facility. At issue was whether the EPA had the authority to overrule the state’s issuance of a permit for Teck Cominco Alaska to build a new generator. The 5–4 certiorari ruling, penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, found that it did. The Court found that the DEC hadn’t abided by the Clean Air Act in issuing a permit to the company, and therefore the EPA had the right to intervene. The law requires use of the best emissions-reducing technology available to prevent air pollution, the ruling states, and the DEC had wrongfully decided the company could use a cheaper, inferior technology. The ruling states the DEC itself had determined that certain ‘‘selective catalytic reduction’’ technology was superior, but later shifted its view to favor a cheaper alternative in line with the company’s wishes. The Clean Air Act, the ruling states, specifically instructs the EPA to step in and sideline construction of facilities that would pollute their surroundings. The ruling’s privileging of federal over state government is viewed by some as a harbinger of the liberalization of the Court under then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist (Cole, 2006; Fortney, 2006).

68 | Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act

In a dissent, Justice Anthony Kennedy said that the EPA would exceed its powers by overturning the state’s action. Jessica Chapman See also Clean Air Act of 1970; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

References Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al., 540 U.S. 461 (2004) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl? court=us&vol =000&invol=02-658 (accessed June 28, 2009). Cole, David. ‘‘The Liberal Legacy of Bush v. Gore.’’ Georgetown Law Journal (June 2006). Fortney, Matthew D. ‘‘Devolving Control Over Mildly Contaminated Property: The Local Cleanup Program.’’ Northwestern University Law Review (Summer 2006).

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANICLA) was approved by Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1980. At the time of its passage, it represented the largest expansion of national park and protected areas in a single legislative package. This legislation was introduced in 1977 by Morris Udall (D-AZ), chair of the House Interior Committee. In addition to addressing critical conservation needs, the act was needed to resolve conflicts over federal lands in Alaska. Following statehood, Alaska was allowed to choose 104 million acres of federal land to manage. Conflicts over claims by native groups led to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act in 1971. ANICLA was a large and complicated law that was needed to resolve remaining conflicts over the use of federal land in the state. The act added 43,600,000 acres to the National Park System, 53,720,000 acres to the National Wildlife Refuge system, and 56,400,000 acres to the National Wilderness Preservation System. These additions included ten new national park units, new national monuments, new designations of wild and scenic rivers, and the expansion of areas in both the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (Willis, 1985). The passage of the act was praised by conservationists but opposed by many in Alaska as too restrictive of development. Congress passed several subsequent amendments making technical corrections and boundary adjustments to the act. There have been numerous legal challenges seeking to both expand and limit the use of land protected by the act. Dan Wakelee

Alaska Oil Pipeline (1973) | 69 See also National Park Service; National Wilderness Preservation System; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S. National Wildlife Refuge System

References National Parks and Conservation Association. ‘‘Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.’’ http://www.npca.org/media_center/fact_sheets/anilca.html (accessed January 3, 2009). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. ‘‘Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.’’ http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/ALASKCN.HTML (accessed January 3, 2009). U.S. National Park Service. ‘‘Appendix: ANICLA—Text of Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.’’ http://www.nps.gov/legal/parklaws/1/laws1-volume1-anilca.pdf (accessed January 11, 2009). Willis, Frank G. ‘‘Do Things Right the First Time: Administrative History: The National Park Service and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980.’’ September 1985. http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/williss/ (accessed January 3, 2009).

Alaska Oil Pipeline (1973) Many observers called the Alaska Oil Pipeline the largest construction project in the world. It was also one of the largest controversies in the United States during the 1970s, nicknamed the ‘‘green decade’’ by journalists and scholars because of the many environmental reforms enacted then. Although concern for the environment changed the way in which the pipeline was built, an economic emergency steamrolled any attempts to delay the pipeline or find alternatives to it. Oil companies’ proposal to build an 800-mile pipeline from the frozen waters of Prudhoe Bay to the ice-free Prince William Sound triggered the newly enacted Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), which required an environmental impact study prior to federal approval. While federal scientists reviewed the plans, the Wilderness Society, Friends of the Earth, and several American Indian groups sued the oil companies. The environmentalists won several injunctions that stopped construction from beginning. The pipeline’s very route caused controversy because it ended at the port of Valdez, Alaska, from which tanker ships would transport the crude oil to refineries. Many members of Congress saw this as a way for oil companies to export U.S. oil to foreign refineries, especially in oil-scarce countries such as Japan. They prodded the companies to run the pipeline through Canada and link it to existing pipelines in the midwestern states. Judicial injunctions and congressional opposition evaporated during the OPEC oil embargo that began in October 1973. In November, Congress authorized the initial pipeline plans, with some modifications. Oil companies had to operate the

70 | Alaska Oil Pipeline (1973)

The Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline, as it zigzags across the landscape. Image taken north of the Alaska Range. (iStockPhoto)

pipeline as a common carrier, submit to Federal Trade Commission oversight, and avoid exporting Alaskan oil without presidential approval. The congressionally approved plans also contained several environmental safeguards. To avoid melting the permafrost, some sections of the line could not be buried. Half the length of the pipeline was aboveground. To avoid blocking caribou migration, specially designed piers elevated sections several feet. In exchange for the modifications, Congress lifted all delays—including NEPA’s environmental impact statement—and the construction project began in April 1974, eventually employing 70,000 workers and greatly contributing to the industrialization of Alaska. The pipeline started operating in June 1977 at a cost of $8 billion. It continued to cause controversy. In 1988, the Prudhoe Bay oil field passed its peak production point, causing oil companies to begin seeking permission to drill in a nearby naval oil reserve and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. As of June 2010, Congress had rejected each request. On March 24, 1989, the tanker ship Exxon Valdez, its hold filled with Alaskan crude, ran aground in Prince William Sound, spilling 257,000 barrels of oil in one of the largest spills ever recorded in U.S. waters. Thousands of marine birds, mammals, and fish perished, as did the local salmon-fishing industry. Exxon spent the next two decades in court trying to minimize its punitive-damage payments to various parties. Although the Federal Oil Pollution Control Act of 1990 put strict rules on tanker operations, the pipeline and tanker port at Valdez still operate today. Josh Ashenmiller

Alternative Energy | 71 See also Exxon Shipping Company v. Baker (2008); Exxon Valdez Spill; Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp. (2008); Oil Pollution Act of 1990

References Ashenmiller, Joshua. ‘‘The Alaska Oil Pipeline as an Internal Improvement, 1969– 1973.’’ Pacific Historical Review 75 (2006): 461–489. Coates, Peter A. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline Controversy: Technology, Conservation, and the Frontier. Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh University Press, 1990. Flippen, J. Brooks. Nixon and the Environment. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2000. Lindstrom, Matthew J., and Zachary A. Smith. The National Environmental Policy Act: Judicial Misconstruction, Legislative Indifference, and Executive Neglect. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2001. Milazzo, Paul Charles. Unlikely Environmentalists: Congress and Clean Water, 1945–1972. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2006.

Alternative Energy Although it consists of just 5 percent of the world’s human population, the United States consumes the greatest share, 25 percent, of the world’s energy. More than 80 percent of this is derived from fossil fuel sources such as oil, coal, and natural gas (International Energy Agency, 2008). At the center of energy issues in the United States is the growing realization that in order to sustain this level of energy consumption, a transition away from fossil fuels to more reliable and sustainable sources is needed. Due to a concern about the finite quality of fossil fuels, the negative environmental effects associated with fossil fuel use, and U.S. dependence on foreign oil from regions of great political instability, advocates argue that a transition to alternative energy is the answer. Alternative energy includes renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, hydro, tidal, ocean thermal, and waves. Additionally, it includes nonrenewable energy from nuclear and hydrogen that are considered by some to be more abundant and cleaner than fossil fuels. Alternative energy makes up about 15 percent of the total energy consumed in the United States (International Energy Agency, 2008). With the exception of hydropower and nuclear energy, policies addressing alternative energy sources have been scarce for the first decade of the twenty-first century. The U.S. government has most often chosen to let the private market drive their development. However, when it is addressed, energy policy is often created by the executive branch. The first major policy to divert from this practice of non-intervention was the Federal Water Power Act of 1901, which provided standards for regulating the development of hydropower in the United States. The next year the Bureau of

72 | Alternative Energy

Solar panels and wind farm against a deep blue sky. (iStockPhoto)

Reclamation was created and became responsible for commissioning hundreds of federal dams, the first of which was the Minidoka Dam on the Snake River in Idaho, built in 1909. In 1914, the O’Shaughnessy Dam was built, and Hetch Hetchy Valley, the sister valley to Yosemite, was flooded and used as a reservoir. It was met with protest from John Muir, one of the original founders of the Sierra Club and one of the most well-known environmentalists in U.S. history (Righter, 2005). The Boulder Dam, later renamed the Hoover Dam, was built in 1943 and was met with much less resistance. Large-scale hydropower projects fell into disfavor in the 1950s and 1960s when environmentalists staged large-scale protests against the Echo Park Dam, Glen Canyon Dam, and a proposed dam in the Grand Canyon (Sale, 1993). The U.S. government has subsequently taken a less ambitious approach to building large-scale dams. Nuclear energy policies have been in effect since 1946 after the Manhattan Project successfully created a sustained nuclear reaction. The Atomic Energy Act of 1946 regulated the production of nuclear power for civilian use. The Act created the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to perform this function, which was the agency from which the Department of Energy was later derived. The act was amended in 1956 after the AEC began selling nuclear power commercially in 1955. The AEC was thus given the contradictory duty of both regulating and encouraging growth of the nascent nuclear power industry. It was quickly realized that the costs of building nuclear power plants and insuring them against

Alternative Energy | 73

accidents was prohibitive to private industry. The Price-Anderson Act of 1957 was passed to address this issue and provided the nuclear industry with protection from the excessive costs of insuring against accidents by making the government liable for the major costs of a nuclear accident. By 1974, concern for the conflicting role of the AEC resulted in the passage of the 1974 Energy Reorganization Act under President Richard Nixon. The act split the AEC into two agencies, one responsible for regulation and one responsible for facilitating growth. In 1979, the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor accident severely shook public confidence in nuclear power, resulting in a drastic reduction in nuclear power development. This new sentiment of U.S. citizen rejection toward nuclear power has continued into the twenty-first century (Hays, 1987). Shortly after the AEC was transformed into two agencies, the Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 created the Department of Energy. The act was a response to the repercussions of the Arab oil embargo of 1973 and 1974. This latter issue was also a major part of President Jimmy Carter’s political platform (Soden and Steel, 1999). While in office, he attempted to create the first national comprehensive energy plan with the National Energy Act of 1978. The act was controversial and, though it passed the House and Senate, it was subjected to serious revisions (Melosi, 1985). The National Energy Act (NEA) of 1978 was comprised of a combination of acts that intended to reduce oil dependency by improving energy efficiency, increasing the ratio of coal into the energy mix by two-thirds, and facilitating the development of renewable energy like solar power. The plan included the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA), which was the first piece of significant legislation pertaining to renewables. PURPA, an electricity feed-in law, was the first attempt by the government to intervene in the renewable energy market. It did this by creating a market specifically for nonutility electric power producers by requiring utility companies to buy the power produced by smaller-scale producers at an ‘‘avoided cost rate’’ (Beck and Martinot, 2004). Avoided cost is equal to the amount that electrical utility companies would have paid to get the energy from another source. By requiring utilities to pay higher prices for electricity produced by renewable and alternative energy companies, the government helps to stimulate investment into renewable energy technologies. In addition to PURPA, the government used financial incentives to stimulate individual production and consumption of renewable energy through the Energy Tax Act of 1978. This act included a tax credit for individuals investing in home solar or wind technology. These incentives were not renewed and were left to expire in 1985, though additional incentives were passed during the following decade. Besides those under the NEA, policies up to this point had addressed the regulation of use for renewable energy exploration and development and investment into research and development of nascent technologies like those used to harness

74 | Alternative Energy

wind and ocean energy from waves. The Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 gave the Secretary of the Interior the power to lease public lands for geothermal exploration and development. In 1980, the Crude Oil Windfalls Profits Tax Act included a feature that increased tax credits for businesses using renewable energy to increase the shares of renewable energy on the energy market. President Ronald Reagan repealed the act in 1988. After oil and gas prices began to fall, President Reagan repealed most of President Carter’s renewable energy program, believing instead that energy was best governed by the private market with as little government intervention as possible. Reagan’s plan involved deregulation and the ‘‘removal of unnecessary environmental restrictions upon the production, delivery, and use of energy’’ (Reagan, 1981). Besides the cuts to the Carter renewable energy program, very little was done related to renewable energy during President Reagan’s two terms. Many environmentalists believe that the stagnation of renewable energy development during this time was a direct effect of President Reagan’s policies (‘‘A Look Back,’’ 2004; Shabecoff, 2000). Renewable energy policy throughout most of the 1990s focused mainly on research and tax credits. In 1991, President George H. W. Bush redesignated the U.S. Department of Energy’s Solar Energy Research Institution and it became the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). NREL includes the National Center for Photovoltaics, the National Wind Technology Center, the National Bioenergy Center, and the Hydrogen Technologies and Systems Center. Lessprevalent technologies like ocean energy are being developed in conjunction with the private sector in the technology-transfer office of the NREL. A year later, the 1992 Energy Policy Act was passed. The act reformed PURPA by redefining the different classes of electricity producers and essentially circumventing the requirements under PURPA that new utility producers buy energy produced from renewable sources. The intention of the act was to increase the share of natural gas in the energy market and did little to encourage renewable energy production, with the exception of the production tax credits for wind energy and certain biomass technologies. Beginning in 1997, the federal government under President Bill Clinton’s administration took a more active role in promoting renewable energy, and states began enacting policies that went even further. For example, the Million Solar Roofs Initiative, enacted in 1997, has overseen the outfitting of more than 300,000 homes and buildings with solar power energy systems. The goal of this initiative is to have one million homes and buildings using solar power by 2010. In 1999, the Wind Powering America Initiative was established. Its goal is to meet 5 percent of the nation’s energy needs with wind energy by 2020 and to triple the amount of wind energy generated in states with a high wind capacity, more than 20 megawatts. The main feature of this initiative is the support of public-private

Alternative Energy | 75

partnerships in wind energy development. Also during this time, the federal government extended tax credits again for renewable energy production to encourage development. In conjunction with these new federal programs, many states were deregulating and restructuring their energy markets. Deregulation involves reducing government regulations on electricity production in order to stimulate competition in the private market. It has been argued that true deregulation is impossible because there will always be a need for government intervention, especially where environmental and health issues are concerned. Restructuring of the market is, therefore, a more appropriate term. Although competition and privatization of wholesale and retail electricity markets is encouraged in a restructured market, it is still regulated to a degree. It is a mix of government intervention and increased use of markets to facilitate competition of energy prices. Restructuring has involved the passage of several policies across various states to encourage renewable energy production. The most popular state renewable energy policy is net metering. Net metering requires power companies to buy surplus electricity produced by residential renewable energy systems. Almost all 50 states have passed a type of net metering policy. Also growing in popularity is the renewable portfolio standard, which has been passed in 37 states and requires that renewable energy provide for a certain percentage of the state’s energy mix. The public benefit fund is a less widespread policy and has been passed in only 20 states. Public benefit fund policies place a surcharge on energy to create revenue for renewable energy development. They have been used to pay for subsidies on solar energy development in California, for example. Many state policies to build green energy markets also have been passed. These laws require utilities to offer renewable energy as an option for consumers to buy in to. Additionally, many state and local governments have passed financial incentives in the forms of tax credits, rebates, and low-interest loans (Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency, 2009). The U.S. government has continued the trend of the 1990s of more government involvement in the energy market into the twenty-first century. Under President George W. Bush, the Energy Act of 2005 was the first comprehensive energy act signed since the 1992 Energy Act. It focused on assessing the renewable energy capacity of the United States, extended production tax credits, and set aside funds for research and development of renewable energy technologies. It also resulted in the Renewable Fuel Standard, which requires that biofuels like ethanol and biodiesel offset gasoline by 20 percent by 2017. That standard was modified in 2007 with passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act, making biofuels the cornerstone of the Bush administration’s renewable energy programs (EPA, 2007). President Bush also increased funding by 22 percent for clean energy technology with his 2006 Advanced Energy Initiative. Part of the

76 | Alternative Energy

Advanced Energy Initiative includes the Solar America Initiative to help solar technology become competitive in the energy market. Although the Bush administration did not neglect renewable energy to the extent that past administrations have, the major focus of energy policy during this time was exploration and development of domestic fossil fuel resources like those found offshore and in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). With the election of President Barack Obama, renewable energy is being addressed through economic incentives and changes in administrative interpretation of existing laws. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, a major economic policy, set aside significant funds for capital investment into renewable energy. On April 22, 2009, President Obama announced that he was starting a program, implemented by the Department of the Interior, to lease federal coastal waters for wind and ocean energy development (the White House—Office of the Press Secretary 2009). At the time of this writing, the U.S. Senate was debating legislation to mitigate the risks of climate change by setting a national renewable portfolio standard. Katrina Darleen Taylor References ‘‘A Look Back at Reagan’s Environmental Record.’’ Grist Magazine, 2004. http:// www.grist.org/article/griscom-reagan/ (accessed June 14, 2009). Beck, Fred, and Eric Martinot. ‘‘Renewable Energy Policies and Barriers.’’ In Encyclopedia of Energy, Cutler Cleveland, ed. San Diego: Academic Press/Elsevier Science, 2004. Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE). ‘‘Incentive/Policies for Renewable Energy’’ http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/index.cfm?EE=0&RE =1&SPV=0&ST=0&searchtype=Net&sh=1 (accessed June 2, 2009). Hays, Samuel P. Beauty Health and Permanence: Environmental Politics in the United States, 1955–1985. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. International Energy Agency. World Energy Outlook, Paris: OECD/IEA, 2008. Melosi, Martin V. Coping With Abundance: Energy and Environment in Industrial America. New York: Knopf, 1985. Reagan, Ronald. ‘‘Message to the Congress Transmitting the National Energy Policy Plan.’’ In The American Presidency Project, John T. Woolley and Gerhard Peters, eds. Santa Barbara: University of California (hosted), 1981. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ ws/?pid=44096 (accessed May 29, 2009). Righter, Robert. The Battle Over Hetch Hetchy: America’s Most Controversial Dam and the Birth of Modern Environmentalism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Sale, Kirkpatrick. The Green Revolution: The American Environmental Movement 1962–1992. New York: Hill and Wang, 1993. Shabecoff, Philip. Earth Rising: American Environmentalism in the 21st Century. Washington DC: Island Press, 2000. Soden, Dennis L., and Brent S. Steel. ‘‘Evaluating the Environmental Presidency.’’ In The Environmental Presidency, Dennis L. Soden, ed. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999.

Alternative Farming Systems Information Center, USDA | 77 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ‘‘Bush Administration Establishes Program to Reduce Foreign Oil Dependency, Greenhouse Gases,’’ News release published April 10, 2007. http://yosemite.epa .gov/opa/admpress.nsf/bd4379a92ceceeac8525735900400c27/ 9f276d4de20fe075852572b9005cb19c!OpenDocument (accessed June 30, 2009). The White House—Office of the Press Secretary. ‘‘Remarks by the President on Clean Energy,’’April 22, 2009. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-thePresident-in-Newton-IA/ (accessed June 28, 2009).

Alternative Farming Systems Information Center, USDA The USDA Alternative Farming Systems Information Center (AFSIC) provides resources and information about sustainable food production systems and concepts. It offers support for several sustainable food initiatives, including Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) and ‘‘Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food.’’ AFSIC is part of the USDA’s National Agricultural Library (NAL). AFSIC was founded in 1985 by Jayne Maclean as part of the NAL. Its initial funding came from the USDA’s Low-Input Sustainable Agriculture (LISA) program, which later became the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program. While the center’s primary method of communication has been the Internet, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, it produced the ‘‘AFSIC Oral History Interview Series,’’ which includes 11 videotaped interviews with leaders in sustainable agriculture. Currently, AFSIC is part of three USDA programs that offer services to support sustainable agriculture. The other two are SARE, which offers funding resources for farmers, and the National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service (ATTRA), which answers questions about sustainable agriculture. AFSIC is staffed by librarians under the NAL. The AFSIC Web site lists a large number of publications and resources on sustainable agriculture, broken into the following categories: sustainability in agriculture (in general); alternative crops and plants; education and research; farm energy options; farms and community; grazing systems and alternative livestock breeds; alternative marketing and business practices; organic production; and soil and water management. Trevor L. Drake See also Environmental Sustainability; Organic Food and Farming; Sustainable Agriculture

References Alternative Farming Systems Information Center, USDA National Agricultural Library. ‘‘AFSIC Oral History Interview Series.’’ http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/ oralhist.shtml (accessed April 12, 2010).

78 | American Antiquities Act of 1906 Alternative Farming Systems Information Center, USDA National Agricultural Library. ‘‘About AFSIC.’’ http://afsic.nal.usda.gov/nal_display/index.php?info_center=2&tax_level =2&tax_subject=286&level3_id=0&level4_id=0&level5_id=0&topic_id=1549&&placement _default=0 (accessed April 12, 2010).

American Antiquities Act of 1906 This act (also popularly known as the Lacey Act) was the first piece of federal legislation to set a national public policy for the conservation and protection of historic landmarks, structures, and objects of either historic or scientific interest that are located upon land either owned or controlled by the U.S. government. It allowed the president to do this by bypassing any congressional approval. The movement to create such a policy began in 1879 with, among other events, the founding of the Anthropological Society of Washington (D.C.). From 1889 until 1906, there was an increase in public interest in American antiquities that was spurred by their display at the Colombian Historical Exposition in 1892 in Madrid, Spain; the World’s Colombian Exposition in 1893 in Chicago, Illinois; and the Louisiana Purchase Exposition in 1904 in St. Louis, Missouri. This increased interest also led to increased vandalism of historic sites. Before passage of the Antiquities Act, in order to protect historic sites, Congress had to pass individual laws protecting single areas (McManamon, 1996). In 1904, the General Land Office had Edgar Lee Hewett (1865–1946) review the problems involved in the preservation of antiquities on federally owned land. In 1905, he became secretary of the American Anthropological Association and that same year presented a draft of what later became the Antiquities Act. Representative John Fletcher Lacey (1841–1913) of Iowa’s Sixth District introduced the bill in the House of Representatives on January 9, 1906, and Colorado’s Senator Thomas MacDonald Patterson (1839–1916) introduced it in the Senate on February 26, 1906. It passed, and on June 8, 1906, President Theodore Roosevelt signed it into law (Lee, 2000). The act has four sections. The first section protects the lands encompassed by the act and sets fines or jail terms for those who abuse the lands referred to in the following three sections. Section Two allows the president to declare by public proclamation that specific land upon which are found items of ‘‘historic or scientific interest’’ and all parcels of land required to manage and protect them were national monuments. This section further lets the Secretary of the Interior receive any private lands as a gift under this act. Section Three allows excavations and examinations of these sites but limits these examinations to recognized and reputable scientific or higher education institutions or institutions of higher learning. All objects so gathered must be preserved in public museums. This section also gives the secretaries of the departments of Defense, Agriculture, and the Interior the jurisdiction to issue permits for these excavations. The final section requires

American Antiquities Act of 1906 | 79

Antiquities Act (1906) (16 U.S.C. 431–433) Also known as the Lacey Antiquities Act after its sponsor Representative John Fletcher Lacey, the Antiquities Act extended federal protection to areas that held great archaeological significance. Passed on June 8, 1906, the Antiquities Act has since preserved and protected more than 200 such areas. Section 431. National monuments; reservation of lands; relinquishment of private claims. The President of the United States is authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be national monuments, and may reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected. When such objects are situated upon a tract covered by a bona fide unperfected claim or held in private ownership, the tract, or so much thereof as may be necessary for the proper care and management of the object, may be relinquished to the Government, and the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to accept the relinquishment of such tracts in behalf of the Government of the United States. Section 431a. Limitation on further extension or establishment of national monuments in Wyoming. No further extension or establishment of national monuments in Wyoming may be undertaken except by express authorization of Congress. Section 432. Permits to examine ruins, excavations, and gathering of objects; regulations. Permits for the examination of ruins, the excavation of archaeological sites, and the gathering of objects of antiquity upon the lands under their respective jurisdictions may be granted by the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, and Army to institutions which they may deem properly qualified to conduct such examination, excavation, or gathering, subject to such rules and regulations as they may prescribe: Provided, That the examinations, excavations, and gatherings are undertaken for the benefit of reputable museums, universities, colleges, or other recognized scientific or educational institutions, with a view to increasing the knowledge of such objects, and that the gatherings shall be made for permanent preservation in public museums. The Secretaries of the departments aforesaid shall make and publish from time to time uniform rules and regulations for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this section and sections 431 and 433 of this title. Section 433. American antiquities. Any person who shall appropriate, excavate, injure, or destroy any historic or prehistoric ruin or monument, or any object of antiquity, situated on lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States, without the permission of the Secretary of the Department of the Government having jurisdiction over the lands on which said antiquities are situated, shall, upon conviction, be fined in a sum of not more than $500 or be imprisoned for a period of not more than ninety days, or shall suffer both fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.

80 | American Antiquities Act of 1906 Section 433a. Perry’s Victory and International Peace Memorial; establishment. The President of the United States is authorized to establish by proclamation the following-described Government lands, together with the Perry’s Victory Memorial proper, its approaches, retaining walls, and all buildings, structures, and other property thereon, situated in Put-in-Bay Township, South Bass Island, Ottawa County, Lake Erie, State of Ohio, as the ‘‘Perry’s Victory and International Peace Memorial’’, for the preservation of the historical associations connected therewith, to inculcate the lessons of international peace by arbitration and disarmament, and for the benefit and enjoyment of the people: Commencing at the intersection of the middle line of Delaware Avenue and Chapman Avenue, in the village of Put-in-Bay, and running thence south eighty-eight degrees fifty-nine minutes east in the middle line of said Delaware Avenue, and the same extended four hundred and ninety-five feet to Lake Erie; thence north forty-nine degrees fifty-nine minutes east along said lake shore three hundred and forty-six feet; thence north forty-three degrees fourteen minutes east along said lake shore two hundred and twelve feet; thence north fifty-three degrees thirteen minutes east four hundred feet along said lake shore; thence north forty-six degrees six minutes west about seven hundred and thirty feet to Lake Erie; thence southwesterly and westerly along said lake shore to the middle line, extended, of said Chapman Avenue; thence south one degree thirty minutes west along said middle line, and the same extended, about five hundred and twenty feet to the place of beginning, and containing fourteen and twenty-five one-hundredths acres of land and known as a part of lots numbered 1 and 2, range south of county road, and a part of lot numbered 12, East Point, in South Bass Island, in the township of Put-in-Bay, county of Ottawa, State of Ohio. Section 433b. Administration, protection, and development. The administration, protection and development of the aforesaid peace memorial shall be exercised under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior by the National Park Service, subject to the provisions of sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of this title, as amended. Section 433c. Acceptance of donations of lands and funds; acquisition of land. After the said peace memorial has been established as provided in section 433a of this title the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to accept donations of land, interests in land, buildings, structures, and other property as may be donated for the extension and improvement of the said peace memorial, and donations of funds for the purchase and maintenance thereof, the title and evidence of title to lands acquired to be satisfactory to the Secretary of the Interior: Provided, That he may acquire on behalf of the United States out of any donated funds by purchase when purchasable at prices deemed by him reasonable, otherwise by condemnation under the provisions of sections 257 and 258 of title 40, such tracts of land within the said peace memorial as may be necessary for the completion thereof. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to purchase with appropriated funds not to exceed four acres of land, or interests in land, for addition to the Perry’s Victory and International Peace Memorial. [Sec. 433d. Repealed. Pub. L. 92-568, Sec. 3(2), Oct. 26, 1972, 86 Stat. 1182] [Sec. 433e. Repealed. Pub. L. 98-141, Sec. 7(b), Oct. 31, 1983, 97 Stat. 910] Section 433f. Inconsistent laws repealed. The provisions of the Act of March 3, 1919 (ch. 116, 40 Stat. 1322–1324), and Acts supplemental thereof and amendatory thereto and all other Acts inconsistent with the

American Antiquities Act of 1906 | 81 provisions of section 433a to 433f of this title are repealed to the extent of such inconsistency. Section 433f-1. Change in name of Perry’s Victory and International Peace Memorial National Monument. The Perry’s Victory and International Peace Memorial National Monument, established in accordance with section 433a of this title, is redesignated the Perry’s Victory and International Peace Memorial. Section 433g. Fort Frederica National Monument; establishment. When title to the site of Fort Frederica, on Saint Simon Island, Georgia, and such other related sites located thereon, as may be designated by the Secretary of the Interior, in the exercise of his discretion, as necessary or desirable for national-monument purposes, shall have been vested in the United States, said area not to exceed two hundred and fifty acres shall be, and is, set apart as a national monument for the benefit and inspiration of the people, and shall be called the ‘‘Fort Frederica National Monument.’’ Section 433h. Donation of property; acquisition of lands. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to accept donations of land, interests in land, buildings, structures, and other property within the boundaries of the said national monument as determined and fixed hereunder, and donations of funds for the purchase and maintenance thereof, the title and evidence of title to lands acquired to be satisfactory to the Secretary of the Interior: Provided, That he may acquire on behalf of the United States out of any donated funds, either by purchase at prices deemed by him reasonable, or by condemnation under the provisions of sections 257 and 258 of title 40, such tracts of land within the said national monument as may be necessary for the completion thereof. Section 433h-1. Acquisition of additional lands. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed to acquire by purchase, condemnation, or otherwise, subject to the acreage limitation contained in section 433g of this title, the site known as the Bloody Marsh Battle memorial monument located on Saint Simon Island, Georgia, together with such additional land, including the marshland across the river to the west of Fort Frederica National Monument, or interest in land, as in the judgment of the Secretary of the Interior might be desirable for the protection of such national monument. Such lands or interest in lands acquired by the Secretary pursuant to this section shall be made a part of the Fort Frederica National Monument. Section 433i. Museum; historical markers. (a) Maintenance; donations. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized, in his discretion, to maintain in some suitable structure within the national monument a museum for relics and records pertaining to Fort Frederica, and for other articles of national and patriotic interest, and in his discretion to accept, on behalf of the United States, for installation in such museum, articles which may be offered as additions to the museum. (b) State and local participation. Any State or political subdivision thereof, organization, or individual may, with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, erect monuments or place tablets commemorating historic events or persons connected with the history of the area, within the boundaries of the Fort Frederica National Monument.

82 | American Antiquities Act of 1906 Section 433j. Administration, protection, and development. The administration, protection, and development of the aforesaid national monument shall be exercised under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior by the National Park Service, subject to the provisions of sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of this title, as amended. Section 433k. Whitman Mission National Historic Site; acquisition of land; establishment, supervision and maintenance. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed to acquire, on behalf of the United States, by gift, the site of the Indian mission established in 1836 by Marcus Whitman on the Walla Walla River in what is now Walla Walla County, Washington, together with such additional land, including a right-of-way to the nearest highway, as the Secretary may deem necessary to carry out the purposes of this section. The property acquired under the provisions of the first paragraph of this section shall constitute the Whitman Mission National Historic Site and shall be a public national memorial to Marcus Whitman and his wife, Narcissa Prentiss Whitman, who here established their Indian mission and school, and ministered to the physical and spiritual needs of the Indians until massacred with twelve others persons in 1847. The Director of the National Park Service, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, shall have the supervision, management, and control of such national historic site, and shall maintain and preserve it for the benefit and enjoyment of the people of the United States. Section 433k-1. Acquisition of additional land. For the purpose of including within Whitman Mission National Historic Site, Washington, certain properties that are of historic significance in connection with the site area and which are needed to provide suitable monument facilities, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to procure not to exceed fifty acres of land adjacent to the existing site and a right-of-way thereto from United States Highway 410, using therefore any land acquisition funds available for the purposes of the national park system, such property to be acquired in such manner as the Secretary shall consider to be in the public interest. Following the acquisition by the United States of land for addition to the site pursuant to this section, such addition shall be effective in each instance upon the publication of notice thereof in the Federal Register. Section 433l. Erection of monuments and tablets. Any State, or political subdivision thereof, organization, or individual may, with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, erect monuments or place tablets within the boundaries of the Whitman Mission National Historic Site. Section 433m. Authorization of appropriation. There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of sections 433k and 433l of this title. Section 433n. Change in name of Whitman National Monument. Effective January 1, 1963, the Whitman National Monument, established pursuant to sections 433k, 433l, and 433m of this title, shall be known as the Whitman Mission National Historic Site.

American Chemical Society | 83

the secretaries of these three departments to publish rules for getting and using these permits. These rules were issued on December 28, 1906. The act was enhanced by the National Historic Sites Act of 1935, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (Lee, 2000). By 2006, the act had been used 124 times to preserve 1,555,357,877.08 acres. While Bill Clinton created the largest number of parks, George H. W. Bush preserved the greatest number of acres (Lee, 2000). Scott Sheidlower References Lee, Ronald Freeman. ‘‘The Antiquities Act of 1906 by Ronald Freeman Lee.’’ Journal of the Southwest 42, no. 2 (Summer 2000): 197–269. http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/ hww/ results/getResults.jhtml?_DARGS=/hww/results/results_common.jhtml.20#record_3 (accessed December 15, 2008). McManamon, Francis P. ‘‘The Antiquities Act: Setting Basic Preservation Policies.’’ CRM (1996). http://crm.cr.nps.gov/archive/19-7/19-7-5.pdf (accessed December 15, 2008).

American Chemical Society The American Chemical Society (ACS), founded in 1876 at New York University, is the world’s largest and oldest scientific society. It has more than 150,000 members across the width and breadth of chemistry, biochemistry, and chemical engineering, as well as in other related fields. The ACS is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, which means that it cannot legally engage in political activities such as campaigning for candidates without losing its tax-exempt status. Its funding is principally through sales of its Chemical Abstract Service, over two dozen journals, and Chemical & Engineering News. It also engages in numerous educational activities such as organizing student-affiliated ACS clubs on college campuses. The ACS is a learned nonprofit society but it treats chemical information in a proprietary manner. As the World Wide Web began to emerge in the 1990s, it sued Dialog, a provider of database information to academics and others over the public availability of chemical information. It also opposed the creation of PubChem, a taxpayer-funded, open-access chemical compound database operated by the National Center for Biotechnological Information. The ACS has opposed taxpayer-funded publication information provided by the federal government. It has hired lobbying firms to advocate for its position. Other scientific societies or related organizations have favored open access to information in the tradition of scientific free exchange of information. The ACS’s opposition to open access to chemical information led to its lawsuit against Google Scholar. The suit was settled out of court in 2006. In contrast the

84 | American Farmland Trust

ACS’s Style system is being used to make the transfer of chemical notation and information uniform globally. Andrew J. Waskey See also Science Advisory Board

Reference Drake, Miriam A. ‘‘A Scholarly Society Faces Open Access: The American Chemical Society: Interview with Bob Bovenschulte.’’ Searcher 14 (4) (April 2006): 8–15.

American Farmland Trust The American Farmland Trust (AFT) is a nonprofit organization that works at the local and national level to protect farm and ranch land, support farmers, and promote healthy farming practices. The mission of the AFT is ‘‘to help farmers and ranchers protect their land, produce a healthier environment, and build successful communities’’ (AFT, ‘‘Mission and History’’). The AFT was founded in 1980 by a group of farmers and conservationists as part of the national farmland conservation movement. As residential and commercial development expanded during the 1970s, sprawl posed an increased threat to farm and grazing land. The AFT Web site presents the soil conservation study Where Have the Farm Lands Gone, written and researched by Shirley Foster Fields and published by the National Agricultural Lands Study, as a founding document for the work of the AFT. The organization and the movement have come a long way since 1980. The AFT played a role in the passage of the federal Farmland Protection Policy Act as a part of the 1981 Farm Bill and the implementation of Purchase of Development Rights (PDR)/Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easement (PACE) programs now authorized by 19 states and more than 77 local governments. The AFT has also published a number of reports and guides on the status of farm and ranch land. The AFT held its first national conference in 1991 on farmland protection. In 1992, the AFT partnered with Northern Illinois University to found the Center for Agriculture in the Environment (CAE) to conduct research on land use and environmental issues. In the 2002 Farm Bill, the federal Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program received funds totaling $600 million. The American Farmland Trust continues its work with communities, individuals, and government, including recent involvement in the passage of the 2008 Farm Bill. Anna Schumacher See also Food Security Act of 1985

American Fisheries Society | 85

References American Farmland Trust, Farmland Information Center. ‘‘Fact Sheet: Status of Local PACE Programs.’’ http://www.farmland.org/about/mission/documents/ART_Pace_Local.pdf (accessed March 20, 2010). American Farmland Trust, Farmland Information Center. ‘‘Fact Sheet: Status of State PACE Programs.’’ http://www.farmland.org/about/mission/documents/ART_Pace_Local.pdf (accessed March 20, 2010). American Farmland Trust. ‘‘Mission and History.’’ http://www.farmland.org/about/ mission/default.asp (accessed March 23, 2010). Fields, Shirley Foster. Where Have the Farmlands Gone? National Agricultural Lands Study, 1980.

American Fisheries Society The American Fisheries Society (AFS) headquartered at Bethesda, Maryland, is the oldest organization in the United States and the world dedicated to the conservation of fish and fishing. Its goals include advancing fisheries science, conserving fisheries resources, and strengthening the fisheries profession. It was founded in 1870 as the American Fish Culturists’ Association in response to freshwater fish declines in the northeast caused by dam building, soil erosion, pollution, and spoilage of fish habitats. Its goals today include expanding aquatic resources, promoting the development of fisheries professionals, advancing fisheries and aquatic sciences, and promoting the conservation and sustainable development of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems. In 1999, the AFS joined with the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) in order to focus resources on common goals. AIBS’s journal BioScience is a part of the AFS’ research and education program, which also includes publishing Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. AFS members were instrumental in aiding the U.S. Fish Commission policy formulation during its early years. Today, AFS members monitor federal policies through the AIBS public policy office and through the watchful activities of its members. Its advocacy on policy issues is as varied as the problems that affect fish and fishing. They include legislation on clean water, the Endangered Species Act, activities of the U.S. Forestry Service, fish legislation, ballast water discharge regulations, soil conservation, stream buffer policies, conservation easements, the Fish Habitat Conservation Act, mining policies, climate change, and matters of concern to sports enthusiasts. Its advocacy on issues includes lobbying Congress, state legislatures, relevant federal agencies, and policymakers. Andrew J. Waskey See also Commercial Fishing; Endangered Species Act of 1973; National Marine Fisheries Service; Overfishing; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

86 | American Lung Association

References American Fisheries Association. http://www.fisheries.org/afs/index.html. Berry, Charles R. Jr. ‘‘The American Fisheries Society: An AIBS Member Society Promoting Fisheries Science and Education since 1870.’’ Bioscience 52 (8) (August 2002): 758–760.

American Lung Association The American Lung Association (ALA) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that is dedicated to promoting healthy lungs. Its members help fund research intended to fight pulmonary diseases, advocate for legislation that leads to cleaner air, and work to educate government officials and lay citizens on issues related to lung care. The national organization supports the activities of its more than 120 constituent or affiliated associations. Although the association is not allowed to participate in

Comedians and brothers Dick Smothers, left, and Tom Smothers, right, meet with President Ronald Reagan at the White House on Monday, November 28, 1988 in Washington, D.C., to help kick-off the 1988 Christmas Seal Campaign, sponsored by the American Lung Association. The Christmas Seal Campaign, which raises funds for lung disease research, began in 1907. (AP/Wide World Photos)

American Mining Congress | 87

partisan political activity, it does work to influence public policy at the federal and state levels. The ALA was founded in 1904 as the National Association for the Study and Prevention of Tuberculosis. During its early years, the organization and its educational activities were confined to the northeastern part of the country. In 1907, Emily Bissell launched the first Christmas Seals campaign to raise revenue for the operation of tuberculosis sanatoriums. The annual Christmas Seals campaign has become one of the ALA’s signature events. By the end of its first decade of existence, the organization began making inroads into areas west of the Mississippi River. Renamed the National Tuberculosis Association in 1918, the organization continued its educational endeavors to promote tuberculosis research. By the mid-1950s, the organization was able to claim victory as the disease was basically under control through the use of antibiotics. The ALA subsequently broadened its agenda to include all aspects of lung health. The organization was among the first to allege that smoking was harmful to one’s health. The ALA’s anti-smoking campaigns have been credited with giving the U.S. Food and Drug Administration the authority to regulate tobacco products. The ALA also helped identify industrial pollution in the air as a leading cause of cancer. Its research was subsequently instrumental in the passage of the Clean Air Act. The organization, continues to work on environmental issues that in any way potentially affect the lung health of the populace at large. John R. Burch Jr. See also Clean Air Act of 1970

References American Lung Association. ‘‘American Lung Association: Fighting for Air.’’ http:// www.lungusa.org (accessed April 14, 2010). Engs, Ruth Clifford. The Progressive Era’s Health Reform Movement: A Historical Dictionary. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger, 2003. Available online at: http://ebooks.abc-clio .com/print.aspx?isbn=9780313051852&id=2000B860-230 (accessed April 14, 2010). Teller, Michael E. The Tuberculosis Movement: A Public Health Campaign in the Progressive Era. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1988.

American Mining Congress The Mining Act of 1872 attempted to regulate development of mining activity in the west. Government action led mining interests to form opposition interest groups. Even before the rise of state organizations in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, in 1897 mine owners formed a national anti-regulation lobbying group, the American Mining Congress (AMC).

88 | American Nuclear Society

The AMC opposes environmentalists and environmentalism, even suing the Environmental Protection Agency on occasion to reduce or reverse environmental restrictions on mining activities such as the discharge of toxic metals and other wastes into America’s streams. When environmental concerns became serious in 1970 and the U.S. Forest Service drafted regulations to protect against open-pit mining by Anaconda in Montana, the AMC public lands committee argued in 1971 that the mining states already had environmental laws and potential federal regulations might conflict. AMC proposed state and federal coordination and a single regulation standard. At the same time, the AMC opposed air and water quality and solid waste disposal standards because they came on top of existing federal and state standards; in this case, creating uniform laws might be confusing. Again in 1989, the AMC and other anti-environmental groups contended that environmentalists were attempting to take all lands out of production and make them a big playground (90 million acres were off limits), and the AMC argued that it had robust pollution-control programs and that environmentalists distorted the facts by contending that the industry was indifferent to pollution. The AMC in 1990 opposed a moratorium on patenting of claims, a moratorium that was proposed after blatant abuses, such as patenting lands under the 1872 law and building resorts and the like. The AMC shares positions with the Mountain States Legal Fund as well as state mining lobbies. The AMC also testified in opposition to regulation of levels of lead and increases in royalties. It prefers exploration and exploitation. In 1995, the AMC merged with the National Coal Association to create the National Mining Association, an industry group that includes more than 200 coal and heavy metal mining corporations. John H. Barnhill See also Mountain States Legal Fund; National Mining Association

References Bakken, Gordon Morris. The Mining Law of 1872: Past, Politics, and Prospects. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2008 National Mining Association. http://www.nndb.com/org/599/000128215/. National Mining Association. http://www.nma.org/default.asp (accessed April 2010).

American Nuclear Society The American Nuclear Society (ANS) is a nonprofit, international, scientific, and educational organization. Its core purpose is ‘‘to promote awareness and understanding of the application of nuclear science and technology,’’ with its vision to be ‘‘the recognized credible advocate for advancing and promoting nuclear science and technology.’’

American Petroleum Institute | 89

The ANS was created in the 1950s, when interest in the potential of the emerging field of nuclear science was high. On December 8, 1953, President Eisenhower presented his ‘‘Atoms for Peace’’ speech to the United Nations. In it, he proposed international knowledge sharing for development of civilian nuclear science and technology. While associations already existed for researchers, scientists, and educators involved in nuclear science, there was no single group dedicated to coordinating contact among them. On December 11, 1954, the ANS was created with a mission to unify the professional activities within the diverse fields of nuclear science and technology. The headquarters of the ANS are in LaGrange, Illinois. A staff of about 50 oversees and coordinates operations, including 21 standing committees, 19 professional and technical groups, 54 local groups, 39 student groups, 24 plant branches, and liaison agreements with 30 non-U.S. nuclear societies and organizations. By 2010, the organization had 11,000 members in 46 countries. This includes scientists, administrators, and educators, representing 1,500 corporations, educational institutions, and government agencies. While its nonprofit status prevents the ANS from conducting lobbying, it maintains an office in Washington, D.C., with a public-affairs specialist who monitors issues and developments of interest to the nuclear science and technology community and acts as an industry contact for government and public. In 2009, it joined with the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the North American Young Generation in Nuclear (NA-YGN), and Women in Nuclear (WIN) to create the Nuclear Advocacy Network (NAN). It describes itself as the nuclear industry’s new grassroots advocacy program. Fran Severn See also Nuclear Energy Institute; Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

References American Nuclear Society. http://www.ans.org/about/history/ (accessed April 2, 2010). Atomic Archive.com. ‘‘President Eisenhower’s ‘Atoms for Peace’ Speech.’’ http:// www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/Deterrence/Atomsforpeace.shtml (accessed April 2, 2010). Dan Yurman, comment on aims of the Nuclear Advocacy Network, Idaho Samizdat: Nuke Notes blog, comment posted August 12, 2009. http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2009/ 08/obamas-climate-policy-needs-nuclear.html (accessed April 2, 2010). Nuclear Advocacy Network, http:// www.nuclearadvocacynetwork.org (accessed April 3, 2010).

American Petroleum Institute The American Petroleum Institute (API) is the petroleum industry’s U.S. national trade association, representing some 400 oil and natural gas industries, from the

90 | American Petroleum Institute

largest oil multinational corporations to the smallest independent companies. The API is committed to four main goals: to advocate, through both speaking to the public and the American political system, for its members and to provide the industry with support in legal proceedings, as well as to represent it in negotiations with regulatory agencies and trade unions; to produce statistics, mainly focused on crude oil production and refined oil products trade and consumption; to promote the standardization of oilfield equipment through the production of industrywide standards; and to influence tax policy through an active participation in bargaining taxes on oil assets and trade with federal and state governments. Founded in March 1919, the API was the outgrowth of the National Petroleum War Service Committee, a body appointed by the oil industry to cooperate with the federal government in regulating fuel supplies and keeping oil prices under control during World War I. Since the beginning, the API produced statistical data through weekly estimates on gross crude oil production and oil imports in the United States and monthly reports on kerosene and gasoline consumption and crude oil stocks. Furthermore, since the 1920s through the late 1950s, API provided its members with fundamental research in petroleum engineering, conducted by means of a multidisciplinary investigation on the chemical composition and behavior of hydrocarbon compounds. These research endeavors were consistent with the API’s early involvements in U.S. oil firms’ efforts to more efficiently produce, transport, and refine oil through self-regulation. Over the last three decades, the API has struggled to confront climate change legislation. Recently, it promoted a nationwide campaign to oppose the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill by advocating that a regulation of greenhouse gas emissions would hurt U.S. business and energy security with few environmental gains. Currently, the API is the largest U.S. trade organization, with local branches in some 33 states. Simone Selva See also Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act, United States (1999)

References American Petroleum Institute, ‘‘Letter to Congress,’’ June 23, 2009. Constant, E. W. ‘‘Science in Society: Petroleum Engineers and the Oil Fraternity in Texas, 1925–65.’’ Social Studies of Science 19 (1989): 439–472. Gorman, Hugh S. Redefining Efficiency: Pollution Concerns, Regulatory Mechanisms, and Technological Change in the U.S. Petroleum Industry. Akron, OH: University of Akron Press, 2001. Kaplun, Alex. ‘‘Energy Citizens take Aim at Climate Legislation.’’ New York Times, August 12, 2009. Pogue, J. E. ‘‘The Statistical Work of the American Petroleum Institute.’’ Journal of the American Statistical Association 24 (1929): 118–120.

An Inconvenient Truth | 91

An Inconvenient Truth Premiering in May 2006, An Inconvenient Truth is a documentary film focusing on global climate change. Directed by Davis Guggenheim, the movie follows former U.S. Vice President Albert Gore Jr. as he delivers a series of slideshow presentations designed to increase public understanding about global warming. Weaving together personal narratives from Gore’s life with scientific data, An Inconvenient Truth quickly became an important touchstone for environmental debate as it attempted to balance scientific warnings with concrete actions audiences could take to avoid an impending global crisis. Viewed primarily as a film dedicated to the dissemination of scientific knowledge, the documentary was well received by audiences. Critics and scientists gave the film positive reviews (Minchin, 2006). In addition to receiving critical acclaim, the film was also a commercial success. An Inconvenient Truth eventually went on to win an array of awards, including the 2007 Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature. Al Gore’s 2006 companion book, An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It, met comparable success after reaching the number one spot atop the New York Times’ bestseller list. However, the film did not go without criticism. Shortly following the movie’s release, climate skeptics attacked the film as fervently as those who praised it. Some critics speculated Gore was using the film as an opportunity to generate media attention for a future presidential run after having been defeated by George W. Bush. Gore denied these rumors and did not again run for the presidency. Despite being challenged by climate change deniers, Al Gore’s commitment to educating the public about climate change science, especially through An Inconvenient Truth, contributed to Gore being named a co-recipient, along with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. To this day, An Inconvenient Truth remains an important part of U.S. environmental and documentary history. Richard D. Besel See also Gore, Albert Arnold Jr.

References An Inconvenient Truth, DVD. Directed by Davis Guggenheim, Hollywood, CA: Paramount, 2006. Gore, Albert. An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It. New York: Rodale Books, 2006. Minchin, Liz. ‘‘An Inconvenient Truth or Gore’s Opportunism? You Decide.’’ The Age, September 9, 2006.

92 | Anderson v. Evans (2004)

Anderson v. Evans (2004) In Anderson v. Evans, conservationists and animal rights groups charged that the Makah Indian tribe violated the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) by the restoration of their religious practice of whale hunting. Makah Indians, whose origin myth tells how the Makah were shown how to hunt whale by an eagle-like bird called Thunderbird, argued that, ‘‘the Tribe needs access to the social and spiritual values of Whaling.’’ Reversing the ruling of the district court, the majority opinion of the Ninth Circuit Court acknowledged the ‘‘central place’’ and ‘‘historic importance’’ of the Makah Indian custom but concluded that the MMPA nevertheless applied to the tribe and its preexisting whaling rights and that, despite a new quota of five whales per year, the environmental impact remained ambiguous. Citing Metcalf v. Daley (2000), the court suspended Makah whaling rights and determined that a new environmental impact study should factor in the application of potential precedent to other Pacific Coast tribes and be weighed against the ‘‘aboriginal subsistence need,’’ rather than religious practice, of the Makah.

Two Makah Indian whalers stand in triumphant gesture atop the carcass of a dead gray whale moments after helping tow it close to shore in the harbor at Neah Bay, Washington, on Friday, May 17, 1999. Earlier in the day, Makah Indians hunted and killed the whale in their first successful hunt since voluntarily quitting whaling over 70 years ago, renewing an ancient tradition that defines their culture. (AP/Wide World Photos)

Anderson v. Evans (2004) | 93

The Makah calculated that subsistence on whales had been part of the tribe’s tradition for over 2,000 years, approximating a similar epoch to Christianity. The court opinion acknowledged the legal history of Makah whaling rights in the Treaty of Neah (1855) through which Makah Indians ceded their territory on the Olympic Peninsula to the United States in exchange for a land reservation and the right to continue whaling, among other fishing, along their traditional Pacific Ocean locations. Governor of Washington Territory Isaac Stevens explained to the Makah Indians at the signing of the treaty, ‘‘The Great Father knows what whalers you are.’’ By the 1920s, the Makah Indians halted whaling expeditions, largely due to the scarcity of gray whales caused by mass commercial whaling. The International Whaling Commission formed in 1946, and by 1970, the gray whale landed on the newly compiled endangered species list. After the National Marine Fisheries Service removed the gray whale from the endangered species list in 1994, the Makah resumed whaling in 1999 until the court suspended their right in 2000. They argued that they resumed whaling for both subsistence and ceremonial purposes. They sensed a moral decline in the younger generations and attributed it to the loss of their ceremonial whale hunt. ‘‘We believe,’’ the Makah tribal council wrote in a court-mandated needs statement, ‘‘that the restoration of whaling will help to restore that discipline and pride.’’ In addition to arguments regarding environmental ambiguity and subsistence need, the plaintiffs also challenged the safety risk of Makah Indian accordance with traditional whaling method—which consists of a single harpooner and an eight-man crew in a 36-foot-long canoe carved from a single cedar log. The Makah defended their ceremonial adherence and emphasized their ecological method of using everything from whale blubber to the meat. As they continue their legal battle to restore their religious culture, the Makah described themselves as a people ‘‘which has always had to struggle against the assumption by some non-Indians that their values are superior to ours.’’ Joshua Fleer See also American Fisheries Society; Bureau of Indian Affairs; Endangered Species Act of 1973; Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972; Whaling

References Collins, C. C. ‘‘Subsistence and Survival: The Makah Indian Reservation, 1855– 1933.’’ Pacific Northwest Quarterly 87 (4) (1996): 180–193. Roghair, D. L. ‘‘Anderson v. Evans: Will Makah Whaling under the Treaty of Neah Bay Survive the Ninth Circuit’s Application of the MMPA?’’ Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation 20 (2005): 189–211. Swan, J. G. The Indians of Cape Flattery, at the Entrance to the Strait of Fuca, Washington Territory. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution 1868.

94 | Antarctic Treaty (1959)

Antarctic Treaty (1959) The Antarctic Treaty was signed on December 1, 1959, in Washington, D.C., by 12 nations actively exploring Antarctica (Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, and the United States). The 30-year treaty was entered into force on June 23, 1961, by ‘‘Recognizing that it is in the interest of all mankind that Antarctica shall continue forever to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and shall not become the scene or object of international discord’’ (the Antarctic Treaty). The treaty, containing 14 articles of provisions, applies to the area south of 60 degrees south latitude and in summary states: (a) No military bases, maneuvers, or weapons testing, including nuclear explosions or disposal of radioactive waste, are allowed (Articles I and V); (b) There will be freedom of scientific investigation and cooperation in the exchange of information (Articles II and III); (c) Previous territorial claims in Antarctica are not affected, and no changes will be made or modified (Article IV); (d) Observers to inspect stations, installations, and equipment are to be appointed by each party (Articles VII and VIII); (e) Measures will be taken to conserve and protect Antarctic flora and fauna (Article IX); and (f) Meetings will be held to formulate and recommend measures to further the objectives of the treaty (Article XII). Beginning in 1998, augmentations to the treaty have been based upon recommendations adopted at Antarctic Treaty Consultative meetings (ATCM) and the Committee on Environmental Protection (CEP) held each year (Antarctic Treaty Database). Consultative parties comprise the original 12 signatures of the treaty, with a further 14 countries having acceded to the treaty and demonstrating their interest in Antarctica by carrying out substantial scientific activity on the continent. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) is an observer at ATCMs and provides independent scientific advice as requested in a variety of fields, particularly on environmental and conservation matters. Related to the treaty are conservation activities dealing with seals, marine living resources, and mineral resources (Cohen, 2002). The original treaty is written in English, French, Russian, and Spanish, and deposited in the archives of the United States in Washington, D.C. L. E. Davis See also Conservation

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge | 95

References The Antarctic Treaty, Conference on Antarctica, Washington DC, October 15, 1959. http://sedac.ciesin.org/entri/texts/acrc/at.txt.html (accessed December 29, 2008). Antarctic Treaty Database. http://www.ats.aq/devAS/info_measures_list.aspx?lang=e (accessed December 29, 2008). Cohen, Harlan K., ed, 2002. Handbook of the Antarctic Treaty System (9e). http:// www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/rpts/ant/ (accessed December 29, 2008).

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Congress created the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in 1960 for ‘‘preserving unique wildlife, wilderness and recreational values.’’ The mission was further specified in 1980 to ‘‘conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity including, but not limited to, the porcupine caribou herd, polar bears, grizzly bears, muskox, Dall sheep, wolves, wolverines, snow geese, peregrine falcons and other migratory birds and Arctic char,’’ as well as to protect subsistence uses by residents and protect water quality and supply within the refuge. The habitats include boreal forests, mountains, and glaciers in the Brooks Range and valleys and wetlands to the edge of the Beaufort Sea. Congress expanded the boundary of ANWR in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980 and designated approximately 8 million acres as wilderness off-limits to development. Congress delayed designation of 1.5 million acres in the coastal plain (‘‘1002 area’’), an area rich in potential for oil and natural gas extraction, and required the Interior Department to prepare a study of wildlife, potential drilling impacts, and recommendations for managing this area. Pockets of melted snow and rain form small pools of water in the area of Alaska’s Arctic Congress retained the power to authorNational Wildlife Refuge’s (ANWR) coastal ize exploration and development rather plain. Debates are ongoing about whether than leaving it to administrative rule oil drilling should occur within ANWR. making. The Department of the (AP/Wide World Photos)

96 | Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Interior recommended in 1987 that the area should be immediately opened for leasing due to a high likelihood of recovering significant quantities of oil and gas. These recommendations generated a political controversy that continues today, and the primary institutional battleground is in Congress rather than the executive agencies and courts. Under the Refuge System Administration Act, national wildlife refuges are administered by the Interior Department through its Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The FWS director can approve an activity in a refuge only if it is compatible with the refuge’s major purpose. This does not preclude natural resource development, including oil and gas drilling, but it does limit multiple uses depending on the characteristics of the refuge. The FWS also regulates subsistence taking of fish and wildlife in ANWR by native people. Nearby Prudhoe Bay, in production since the late 1960s, has financially enriched the oil industry and the state of Alaska, which gets the vast majority of its revenues from oil royalties. These interests support ANWR development and assert that the environmental impacts would be minimal due to advanced technical expertise and small footprint drilling operations. Other proponents include Inupiat Eskimos of Kaktovik, in the coastal plain, whose small community has prospered from oil revenues and jobs. The Inupiat formed the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation and won authorization from Congress for 90,000 acres of subsurface mineral interests under the Inupiat land claim if the refuge is opened to development. National proponents, including prominent Republican politicians, argue that drilling will provide jobs, reduce the federal deficit, and enhance energy security by reducing the country’s dependence on foreign oil. Opponents to drilling in ANWR are united by environmental concerns for this remote and wild arctic ecosystem. They object to drilling operations, pipelines, potential spills, and poor waste management that threaten habitat alteration, wildlife displacement, and disruption of calving and migration. Cultural and aesthetic fears also inspire opposition. Porcupine Caribou migration patterns extend across Canada and the United States and inside and outside of ANWR; therefore, the animals’ protection varies greatly. Their calving area lies within ANWR and Canada’s Ivvavik National Park, on the coast of the Beaufort Sea. Native American Gwich’in hunt caribou for sustenance and to preserve Athabascan tribal traditions. The Gwich’in and the government of Canada oppose development of oil fields in ANWR’s coastal plain. Mainstream environmental organizations, including the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Natural Resources Defense Council mobilize their members and lobby to protect ANWR and limit uses within it. In addition to environmental protection arguments, these opponents challenge claims that drilling would enhance national energy security, since the area’s potential supply would meet a very small percentage of daily U.S. oil consumption.

Arnold, Ronald | 97

Episodes of oil supply shortages and sharp price increases inspire renewed calls for increasing domestic oil production by drilling offshore and onshore. ANWR has been on the political agenda for more than two decades. Republican presidents have advocated exploration and drilling in ANWR and Democratic presidents have opposed it; opponents of drilling in Congress continue to defeat proposals. The 2008 presidential election campaign inspired renewed calls to ‘‘Drill, baby, drill,’’ a mantle taken up by one-time vice presidential candidate and former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Democratic victories in congressional elections of 2006 and the presidential contest of 2008 greatly reduce the chances of drilling in ANWR or other sensitive lands. Gina L. Keel References Arctic Power. ‘‘Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.’’ http://www.anwr.org/ (accessed April 3, 2009). Cogwell, Mathew T., ed. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. New York: Nova Scientific Publishers, 2002. Layzer, Judith. ‘‘Oil Versus Wilderness in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.’’ In Environmental Case, 2nd ed. Washington DC: CQ Press, 2006. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. ‘‘Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.’’ http://alaska.fws .gov/nwr/arctic/index.htm (accessed April 3, 2009).

Arnold, Ronald Ronald Arnold is the executive vice president of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise and a critic of environmental groups. Arnold was formerly a member of the Sierra Club and was involved in environmental activism before he decided that the environmental movement was affecting individual liberty and personal property. Arnold expressed his new views by writing a biography on Secretary of the Interior James Watt entitled At the Eye of the Storm: James Watt and the Environmentalists. Arnold is known for supporting the ‘‘wise-use’’ movement. This movement is regarded as anti-environmental by national conservation groups. It is supported largely by mining, farming, and logging industries. In 1994, wiseuse advocates helped defeat nearly all environmental measures in Congress. Ronald (Ron) Henri Arnold was born August 8, 1937, in Houston, Texas, and raised by his grandparents. Arnold started his career working for Boeing. After 10 years, he started his own business, Northwoods Studio, as a consultant. In Marquis Who’s Who in Finance and Industry, Arnold is listed to have authored several books and was the 1981 recipient of the American Business Press Editorial Achievement. Arnold was an advisor for the National Federal Lands Conference for four years.

98 | Audubon, John James

Arnold became involved in animal rights due to his position as executive director for the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, a nonprofit citizen’s organization based in Bellevue, Washington. Arnold has represented members (most of whom are in the natural resource industries) who have complained about protests on animal rights issues that harm their businesses. As executive director, he testified before the House Judiciary Committee Crime Subcommittee in 1998 to address ecoterrorism crimes (crimes committed to save nature) committed against his members. Arnold argues that his members are being terrorized by ecoterrorists and loss of income. His book titled Ecoterror describes tactics that environmentalists use to disrupt production in order to save nature. Arnold’s writings are one of his tools for explaining his views on the abuse made by environmental groups. Another one of Arnold’s strategies is to lobby Congress for more severe penalties for animal enterprise crimes. Cindy Rodriguez See also Environmental Justice; U.S. Department of the Interior

References Barringer, Felicity. ‘‘The Fervor of a Convert.’’ Washington Post, October 14, 1982. House Judiciary Committee Crime Subcommittee. ‘‘Prepared Testimony of Ron Arnold, Executive Vice President of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise.’’ Federal News Service, 1998. Kanamine, Linda. ‘‘Group Challenges Eco-establishment.’’ USA Today, October 19, 1994. Kistler, John M. People Promoting and People Opposing Animal Rights: In Their Own Words. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002. http://tiny.cc/p2x4k (accessed March 26, 2010). ‘‘Ronald Henri Arnold.’’ In Marquis Who’s Who in Finance and Industry. New Providence, NJ: Marquis Who’s Who, 2009. LexisNexis. https://w3.nexis.com/hottopics/lndp /default.asp (accessed March 25, 2010).

Audubon, John James John James Audubon (1785–1851) was a founding naturalist and conservationist. He is also known as the artistic father of American ornithology. Audubon was born the illegitimate son of a naval sea captain in Santo Domingo, now known as Haiti. John’s father returned to France when John was three. Growing up in Nantes, the young man was given an extensive education, including, music, dance, and art. But it was nature that fascinated him the most, especially birds. He made a short trip to Paris sometime before 1802 to study art (About.Com: Art History, 2010). His training lasted barely a year when his father

Audubon, John James | 99

John James Audubon. (Library of Congress)

sent him to America in 1803 at the age of 18 to oversee a family estate in Mill Grove, Pennsylvania. It was more likely an attempt to avoid conscription into Napoleon’s army as Audubon had no desire to join the navy or the military (Audubon, 1869). On the estate, Audubon continued to perfect his art. It was during this time that he conducted the first known bird-banding experiment by tying strings around the legs of Eastern phoebes. These efforts lead to the discovery that the birds will return to the same nest each year (Audubon Society, 2010). Audubon married Lucy Bakewell, with whom he had two sons. Painting for him was still only a hobby as he worked to make a living for his family at various enterprises. He eventually traveled down the Ohio River to western Kentucky working as a frontier merchant. Audubon’s business ventures failed and after being jailed briefly for bankruptcy in 1819, he decided to make his hobby a full-time endeavor and began the ambitious project of documenting America’s avifauna. Audubon floated down the Mississippi River and wandered the wilderness, living off the land while his wife worked as a governess. He was known for carrying around a huge folder holding his paintings as he traveled by boat, horseback, or on foot. He was a skilled woodsman and shot thousands of birds on his expeditions. These he would mount with wire into the positions he wanted to paint (Archer, 1989).

100 | Automobile Emissions

Traveling to England with a portion of these paintings in 1826, he eventually was able to have 170 engraved and hand-colored copies made from the 489 species on 435 pages of ‘‘elephant folio’’ prints that measured roughly 30 by 40 inches (Ehrlich, 1998). Besides being one of the largest books ever printed at that time, The Birds of America (1827–1838) was noted for its vivid colors and the striking poses of its subjects. With Scottish ornithologist William MacGillivray, Audubon next produced a five-volume Ornithological Biography (1831–1838) that contained commentary of Audubon’s experience with each individual species (Archer, 1989). Audubon traveled America widely, always in search of natural subjects to draw. Making a final trip to the American West in 1843, he began the book Viviparous Quadrupeds of North America, which was eventually completed by his sons, with the text written by John Bachman (About.com: Art History, 2010). Audubon died at the age 65 at his home in New York, leaving behind a vision of a young America and its raw wilderness. His paintings are still treasured across the globe today for their unique perspective and beauty. Katherine McLaughlin See also National Audubon Society

References About.Com: Art History. ‘‘Artists in 60 Seconds: John James Audubon.’’ http://arthistory .about.com/cs/namesaa/p/audubon.htm (accessed May 6, 2010). Archer, S. ‘‘John James Audubon.’’ In The Great Scientists, Frank N. Magill, ed. Vol. 1. Danbury, CT: Grolier Educational Corporation, 1989. Audubon Society. ‘‘John James Audubon (1785–1851) The American Woodsman: Our Namesake and Inspiration.’’ http://www.audubon.org/nas/jja.html (accessed May 5, 2010). Audubon, John James, and Lucy Audubon, ed. The Life of John James Audubon, the Naturalist. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1869. http://arthistory.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi =1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=arthistory&cdn=education&tm=24&gps=298_435_1362_532&f=11&su =p897.8.336.ip_&tt=11&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.archive.org/details/ lifejohnjamesaud00auduiala. Ehrlich, Paul R., et al. ‘‘Bird Biologist—John James Audubon’’ in The Birder’s Handbook: A Field Guide to the Natural History of North American Birds. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1988.

Automobile Emissions In a 1994 fact sheet, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) described driving a car as the average person’s ‘‘most polluting daily activity.’’ The reason: automobile emissions.

Automobile Emissions | 101

Rush-hour traffic and smog. (iStockPhoto)

Automobile emissions are produced by combustion (i.e., exhaust fumes) and by the evaporation of fuel. Hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide are all present in a car’s exhaust fumes. This combination of gases can create ground-level ozone smog, which in turn leads to an array of possible health problems, including respiratory disease. They also add to acid rain and the greenhouse effect. Vehicular emissions first came under scrutiny in the 1960s. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act, which led to the creation of the first federal emissions standards. The National Air Pollution Control Administration, a forerunner of the EPA, was created in 1968 to oversee these standards. The EPA was established in 1971, one year after the passing of the Clean Air Act. Although an earlier version of the Clean Air Act had been passed in 1963, it was this 1970 version that became a landmark piece of legislation. Included in its many provisions was a requirement that motor vehicle emissions met certain guidelines. Standards were also imposed on new cars to ensure that emissions caused by evaporation were limited. Later in the decade, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act led to the introduction of catalytic converters and unleaded fuel. More sophisticated catalytic converters became standard on all vehicles during the 1980s. The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program was the first regulation of its kind, requiring automakers to produce vehicles that met certain new fuel economy standards.

102 | Automobile Emissions

It should be noted that, during the 1970s, the focus was on changing vehicle mechanics, rather than finding an alternative to gasoline. Even the oil crisis did little in the long run to encourage the search for new, more environmentally friendly sources of fuel. The legislation enacted during the 1970s did bring about significant decreases in the amounts of pollutants produced by automobiles. By 1990, the average vehicle was emitting 60 to 80 percent fewer pollutants. Nevertheless, urban sprawl meant that the number of vehicles on the roads had doubled since 1970. Cars were responsible for as much as 90 percent of carbon monoxide in urban areas (http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/overview.txt). The Clean Air Act of 1990 introduced tighter regulations in an attempt to lower emissions further. In addition to considering vehicle technology, the 1990 act took the fuel itself into consideration as a source of toxic emissions. Tighter exhaust standards (especially for buses and trucks) were phased in over the next few years, as were stricter carbon monoxide controls. Gasoline was reformulated so that, by 2000, it contained less benzene, thereby producing fewer hydrocarbons. At the same time, many cities started to use ‘‘clean fleets,’’ public transportation and city vehicles that use alternative fuel, for example, ethanol. These ‘‘clean fleets’’ are now common in many cities. The 1990 Act laid out a clear timetable for achieving certain goals. In 1992, a nationwide law went into effect curbing gasoline vapor pressure. The following year, it became illegal to manufacture motor vehicles that required lead fuel, and in 1996, leaded gas was banned. Diesel fuel also faced new limits on its sulfur content. One state that has taken a particularly strong stance on auto emissions is California. Since it was the only state to have a regulatory agency (the California Air Resources Board) in place before the passing of the Clean Air Act, it remains the only state permitted to have such an agency and to set its own regulations (providing they also meet federal guidelines). In 1990, the state passed new emissions guidelines, requiring that at least 2 percent of all cars sold in California by 1998 must produce zero emissions. Thus, the path was opened for hybrid gaselectric, all electric, and fuel-cell vehicles. Incidentally, California is one of the largest car markets in the world, so the state’s strict emissions policies have meant that most auto manufacturers now aim to meet its guidelines, regardless of where in the nation the vehicle will actually be sold. In the late 1990s, EPA head Carol Browner and President Bill Clinton called for new guidelines that would bring emissions requirements for sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and pickup trucks in line with those for cars. Until this point, these vehicles had been exempted from some of the legal restrictions due to a loophole that allowed them to be registered as farm machinery. However, as the domestic market for SUVs and pickup trucks underwent rapid growth, there was

Automobile Emissions | 103

a need to change the way they were categorized. Opponents to the changes claimed that the law would impede competition. They also argued that targeting specific vehicles for emissions would have a minimal impact. Even so, the changes were put into place. The new set of regulations (known as Tier 2) was phased in from 2004 and 2007. Further changes came in 2007 when the Energy Independence and Security Act (originally the CLEAN Energy Act) was passed. Under the provisions of the new bill, CAFE standards increased, with a proposed fuel economy of 35 mpg on all vehicles by 2020. Funds were made available to support biofuel production and new incentives were introduced for the development of plug-in hybrids. At this time, however, despite tax incentives for alternative fuel vehicles, state regulations and a lack of fuelling stations continue to be a disincentive for people to adopt them. California remains the only state offering alternative refilling sites. Only the hybrid electric cars (such as the Toyota Prius) have met widespread success; these still rely on gasoline to run and to recharge their electric batteries. The all-electric Chevrolet Volt is expected to enter the market in 2011. President Obama has called for even more stringent emissions standards to be phased in from 2012 to 2016, and research in the alternative fuel market continues. Fiona Young-Brown See also Acid Rain; American Lung Association; Carbon Footprint; Clean Air Act of 1970; National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Ozone Layer Depletion

References California Air Resources Board. http://www.arb.ca.gov/homepage.htm (accessed April 1, 2010). ‘‘EPA Targets SUV and Truck Emissions.’’ Motor. FindArticles.com. February, 2010. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3828/is_200002/ai_n8894275/. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Mobile Sources. ‘‘Automobile Emissions: An Overview,’’ 1994. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Mobile Sources. ‘‘Motor Vehicles and the Clean Air Act,’’ 1994.

B Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon (1995) In 1992, a coalition calling itself the Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon filed suit in the District Court for the District of Columbia against Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt. Composed of logging companies, small landowners, logging industry organizations, and families whose livelihoods depended on timber cutting, the Sweet Home Chapter complained that the federal government had deprived them of opportunities to make money. The ESA regulation banning harm through environmental degradation, they said, had prevented them from cutting trees in some of Oregon’s old-growth forests. The northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) occurs only in the ancient spruce and fir forests of the American west, where it is completely dependent for food on the small mammals and birds found in this biotic community. Declared a threatened species in 1990, northern spotted owl numbers had been steadily declining for years as more and more of their forest habitat fell to various firms in the timber industry. Once they were classified under the ESA and their critical habitat designated, the bird effectively halted logging activity in these areas. This situation with the owl in the spruce-fir forests of Oregon was very closely analogous to the palila in the mamane-naio forests of Hawaii, and Palila II demonstrated clearly that the federal judiciary was interpreting the harm regulation as prohibiting impacts on an ecosystem detrimental to ESA-protected species. The Sweet Home Chapter wanted the regulatory definition of ‘‘harm,’’ especially the reference to habitat modification, declared invalid. The coalition argued that in writing the ESA, Congress never intended the concept to include the idea of ‘‘environmental degradation’’ that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) foisted upon it. In support of this claim, the plaintiffs pointed out that a Senate draft of an ESA bill defining ‘‘take’’ did contain this idea, but it was deleted in the final version. Moreover, the Senate had added the term ‘‘harm’’ to the definition of ‘‘take’’ without discussion. In any case, the Sweet Home Chapter concluded, Congress really intended that habitat degradation would be prevented by the federal purchase of private land, not by such an expansive regulation. The district court was not convinced. The understanding of the FWS that habitat modification counted as ‘‘harm’’ was a reasonable elaboration of ESA prohibitions, the court ruled. After all, Congress had the opportunity to change the 105

106 | Communities for a Great Oregon (1995)

definition of ‘‘take’’ in the 1982 amendments, following the decision in Palila I, but did not do so. This suggested that lawmakers were untroubled by the judicial interpretation that the Sweet Home Chapter believed to be improper. The lawsuit was dismissed. To the surprise of many, upon appeal the D.C. Circuit Court reversed the lower court ruling. Judge Williams’s majority opinion held that the word ‘‘harm’’ should be read as denoting only ‘‘the perpetrator’s direct application of force against the animal. . . . The forbidden acts fit, in ordinary language, the basic model ‘A hit B.’’’ Environmental degradation does not fit this model, so the regulatory definition is invalid. Williams based this construction on a number of factors. Among them, he agreed with the plaintiffs that the legislative history of the ESA and its provision for land acquisition went against the definition. Williams found compelling the narrow interpretation of the term ‘‘harass’’ recently given by the Ninth Circuit Court in a case examining a Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibition. There, a fisherman had been convicted of harassing porpoises in violation of the MMPA after he fired two shots at the animals to scare them away from his fishing line. The Ninth Circuit overturned the conviction by appeal to a legal principle called noscitur a sociis: literally, ‘‘one is known from one’s associates.’’ Its significance here is that a word takes its meaning from the words around it. The court reasoned that since the other prohibited actions in MMPA—killing, hunting, and capturing—‘‘involve direct and significant intrusions upon normal, life-sustaining activities,’’ illegal harassment must do so as well (United States v. Hayashi). Ironically, the Ninth Circuit had upheld the expansive regulatory definition of ‘‘harm’’ in Palila I and II, a definition in part now nullified by a principle that the same bench had used in another case to narrow a different key prohibition in different federal wildlife law. At any rate, the Ninth and the D.C. Circuit Courts were clearly in conflict over the validity of the regulation, so the Supreme Court stepped in to settle the matter. What Does ‘‘Harm’’ Mean? The high court ruled that the FWS interpretation of the meaning of ‘‘take’’ was reasonable, and causing harm in violation of the ESA does not require the ‘‘direct application of force against the animal.’’ Writing for a six-to-three majority, Justice John Paul Stevens advanced three reasons for the decision to overturn the D.C. Circuit. Start with a simple consultation of a dictionary. Webster’s says that ‘‘harm’’ means ‘‘to cause hurt or damage: to injure.’’ This definition obviously includes habitat modification resulting in actual injury or death, and makes no mention of the ‘‘direct’’ or ‘‘immediate’’ causation favored by the Sweet Home Chapter. A second reason, Stevens continued, is the broad and comprehensive purpose of the ESA to protect endangered and threatened species from activities harmful to them. Prominent among these protections is the conservation of the ecosystems that sustain them.

Communities for a Great Oregon (1995) | 107

Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon (1995) Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapt. Comms. for Ore. (94-859) 515 U.S. 687 (1995). MR. JUSTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 . . . (ESA or Act), contains a variety of protections designed to save from extinction species that the Secretary of the Interior designates as endangered or threatened. Section 9 of the Act makes it unlawful for any person to ‘‘take’’ any endangered or threatened species. The Secretary has promulgated a regulation that defines the statute’s prohibition on takings to include ‘‘significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife.’’ This case presents the question whether the Secretary exceeded his authority under the Act by promulgating that regulation. I. Section 9(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act provides the following protection for endangered species: • Except as provided in sections 1535(g)(2) and 1539 of this title, with respect to any endangered species of fish or wildlife listed pursuant to section 1533 of this title it is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to— . . . (B) take any such species within the United States or the territorial sea of the United States. . . . • Section 3(19) of the Act defines the statutory term ‘‘take’’: • The term ‘‘take’’ means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. . . . •

The Act does not further define the terms it uses to define ‘‘take.’’ The Interior Department regulations that implement the statute, however, define the statutory term ‘‘harm’’: • Harm in the definition of ‘‘take’’ in the Act means an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. . . . • This regulation has been in place since 1975. A limitation on the 9 ‘‘take’’ prohibition appears in 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, which Congress added by amendment in 1982. That section authorizes the Secretary to grant a permit for any taking otherwise prohibited by 9(a)(1)(B) ‘‘if such taking is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity.’’ . . . In addition to the prohibition on takings, the Act provides several other protections for endangered species. Section 4, 16 U.S.C. 1533, commands the Secretary to identify species of fish or wildlife that are in danger of extinction and to publish from time to time lists of all species he determines to be endangered or threatened. Section 5, 16 U.S.C. 1534, authorizes the Secretary, in cooperation with the States, see 16 U.S.C. 1535, to acquire land to aid in preserving such species. Section 7 requires federal agencies to ensure that none of their activities, including the

108 | Communities for a Great Oregon (1995) granting of licenses and permits, will jeopardize the continued existence of endangered species ‘‘or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species which is determined by the Secretary . . . to be critical.’’ . . . Respondents in this action are small landowners, logging companies, and families dependent on the forest products industries in the Pacific Northwest and in the Southeast, and organizations that represent their interests. They brought this declaratory judgment action against petitioners, the Secretary of the Interior and the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to challenge the statutory validity of the Secretary’s regulation defining ‘‘harm,’’ particularly the inclusion of habitat modification and degradation in the definition. Respondents challenged the regulation on its face. Their complaint alleged that application of the ‘‘harm’’ regulation to the red-cockaded woodpecker, an endangered species, and the northern spotted owl, a threatened species, had injured them economically. . . . Respondents advanced three arguments to support their submission that Congress did not intend the word ‘‘take’’ in 9 to include habitat modification, as the Secretary’s ‘‘harm’’ regulation provides. First, they correctly noted that language in the Senate’s original version of the ESA would have defined ‘‘take’’ to include ‘‘destruction, modification, or curtailment of [the] habitat or range’’ of fish or wildlife, but the Senate deleted that language from the bill before enacting it. Second, respondents argued that Congress intended the Act’s express authorization for the Federal Government to buy private land in order to prevent habitat degradation in 5 to be the exclusive check against habitat modification on private property. Third, because the Senate added the term ‘‘harm’’ to the definition of ‘‘take’’ in a floor amendment without debate, respondents argued that the court should not interpret the term so expansively as to include habitat modification. The District Court considered and rejected each of respondents’ arguments, finding ‘‘that Congress intended an expansive interpretation of the word ‘take,’ an interpretation that encompasses habitat modification.’’ . . . The court noted that in 1982, when Congress was aware of a judicial decision that had applied the Secretary’s regulation, see Palila v. Hawaii Dept. of Land and Natural Resources . . . (1981) (Palila I), it amended the Act without using the opportunity to change the definition of ‘‘take.’’ . . . The court stated that, even had it found the ESA ‘‘‘silent or ambiguous’’’ as to the authority for the Secretary’s definition of ‘‘harm,’’ it would nevertheless have upheld the regulation as a reasonable interpretation of the statute. . . . The District Court therefore entered summary judgment for petitioners and dismissed respondents’ complaint. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals initially affirmed the judgment of the District Court. . . . After granting a petition for rehearing, however, the panel reversed. . . . Although acknowledging that ‘‘[t]he potential breadth of the word ‘harm’ is indisputable,’’ . . . the majority concluded that the immediate statutory context in which ‘‘harm’’ appeared counseled against a broad reading; like the other words in the definition of ‘‘take,’’ the word ‘‘harm’’ should be read as applying only to ‘‘the perpetrator’s direct application of force against the animal taken. . . . The forbidden acts fit, in ordinary language, the basic model ‘A hit B.’’’ . . . The majority based its reasoning on a canon of statutory construction called noscitur a sociis, which holds that a word is known by the company it keeps. See Neal v. Clark . . . (1878).

Communities for a Great Oregon (1995) | 109 The majority claimed support for its construction from a decision of the Ninth Circuit that narrowly construed the word ‘‘harass’’ in the Marine Mammal Protection Act . . ., see United States v. Hayashi . . . (1993); from the legislative history of the ESA; from its view that Congress must not have intended the purportedly broad curtailment of private property rights that the Secretary’s interpretation permitted; and from the ESA’s land acquisition provision in 5 and restriction on federal agencies’ activities regarding habitat in 7, both of which the court saw as evidence that Congress had not intended the 9 ‘‘take’’ prohibition to reach habitat modification. Most prominently, the court performed a lengthy analysis of the 1982 amendment to 10 that provided for ‘‘incidental take permits’’ and concluded that the amendment did not change the meaning of the term ‘‘take’’ as defined in the 1973 statute. Chief Judge Mikva, who had announced the panel’s original decision, dissented. . . . In his view, a proper application of Chevron indicated that the Secretary had reasonably defined ‘‘harm,’’ because respondents had failed to show that Congress unambiguously manifested its intent to exclude habitat modification from the ambit of ‘‘take.’’ Chief Judge Mikva found the majority’s reliance on noscitur a sociis inappropriate in light of the statutory language and unnecessary in light of the strong support in the legislative history for the Secretary’s interpretation. He did not find the 1982 ‘‘incidental take permit’’ amendment alone sufficient to vindicate the Secretary’s definition of ‘‘harm,’’ but he believed the amendment provided additional support for that definition because it reflected Congress’ view in 1982 that the definition was reasonable. The Court of Appeals’ decision created a square conflict with a 1988 decision of the Ninth Circuit that had upheld the Secretary’s definition of ‘‘harm.’’ See Palila v. Hawaii Dept. of Land and Natural Resources . . . (1988) (Palila II). The Court of Appeals neither cited nor distinguished Palila II, despite the stark contrast between the Ninth Circuit’s holding and its own. We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict. . . . Our consideration of the text and structure of the Act, its legislative history, and the significance of the 1982 amendment persuades us that the Court of Appeals’ judgment should be reversed. II. Because this case was decided on motions for summary judgment, we may appropriately make certain factual assumptions in order to frame the legal issue. First, we assume respondents have no desire to harm either the red-cockaded woodpecker or the spotted owl; they merely wish to continue logging activities that would be entirely proper if not prohibited by the ESA. On the other hand, we must assume arguendo that those activities will have the effect, even though unintended, of detrimentally changing the natural habitat of both listed species and that, as a consequence, members of those species will be killed or injured. Under respondents’ view of the law, the Secretary’s only means of forestalling that grave result—even when the actor knows it is certain to occur—is to use his 5 authority to purchase the lands on which the survival of the species depends. The Secretary, on the other hand, submits that the 9 prohibition on takings, which Congress defined to include ‘‘harm,’’ places on respondents a duty to avoid harm that habitat alteration will cause the birds unless respondents first obtain a permit pursuant to 10. The text of the Act provides three reasons for concluding that the Secretary’s interpretation is reasonable. First, an ordinary understanding of the word ‘‘harm’’ supports it. The dictionary definition of the verb form of ‘‘harm’’ is ‘‘to cause hurt or damage to: injure.’’ . . . In the context of the ESA, that definition naturally

110 | Communities for a Great Oregon (1995) encompasses habitat modification that results in actual injury or death to members of an endangered or threatened species. Respondents argue that the Secretary should have limited the purview of ‘‘harm’’ to direct applications of force against protected species, but the dictionary definition does not include the word ‘‘directly’’ or suggest in any way that only direct or willful action that leads to injury constitutes ‘‘harm.’’ Moreover, unless the statutory term ‘‘harm’’ encompasses indirect as well as direct injuries, the word has no meaning that does not duplicate the meaning of other words that 3 uses to define ‘‘take.’’ A reluctance to treat statutory terms as surplus supports the reasonableness of the Secretary’s interpretation. See, e.g., Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Service . . . (1988). Second, the broad purpose of the ESA supports the Secretary’s decision to extend protection against activities that cause the precise harms Congress enacted the statute to avoid. In TVA v. Hill . . . (1978), we described the Act as ‘‘the most comprehensive legislation for the preservation of endangered species ever enacted by any nation.’’ . . . Whereas predecessor statutes enacted in 1966 and 1969 had not contained any sweeping prohibition against the taking of endangered species except on federal lands . . . , the 1973 Act applied to all land in the United States and to the Nation’s territorial seas. As stated in 2 of the Act, among its central purposes is ‘‘to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved. . . .’’ In Hill, we construed 7 as precluding the completion of the Tellico Dam because of its predicted impact on the survival of the snail darter. . . . Both our holding and the language in our opinion stressed the importance of the statutory policy. ‘‘The plain intent of Congress in enacting this statute,’’ we recognized, ‘‘was to halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, whatever the cost. This is reflected not only in the stated policies of the Act, but in literally every section of the statute.’’ . . . Although the 9 ‘‘take’’ prohibition was not at issue in Hill, we took note of that prohibition, placing particular emphasis on the Secretary’s inclusion of habitat modification in his definition of ‘‘harm.’’ In light of that provision for habitat protection, we could ‘‘not understand how TVA intends to operate Tellico Dam without ‘harming’ the snail darter.’’ . . . Congress’ intent to provide comprehensive protection for endangered and threatened species supports the permissibility of the Secretary’s ‘‘harm’’ regulation. Respondents advance strong arguments that activities that cause minimal or unforeseeable harm will not violate the Act as construed in the ‘‘harm’’ regulation. Respondents, however, present a facial challenge to the regulation. Compare Anderson v. Edwards . . . (1995) . . . ; INS v. National Center for Immigrants’ Rights, Inc. . . . (1991). Thus, they ask us to invalidate the Secretary’s understanding of ‘‘harm’’ in every circumstance, even when an actor knows that an activity, such as draining a pond, would actually result in the extinction of a listed species by destroying its habitat. Given Congress’ clear expression of the ESA’s broad purpose to protect endangered and threatened wildlife, the Secretary’s definition of ‘‘harm’’ is reasonable. Third, the fact that Congress in 1982 authorized the Secretary to issue permits for takings that 9(a)(1)(B) would otherwise prohibit, ‘‘if such taking is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity,’’ . . . strongly suggests that Congress understood 9(a)(1)(B) to prohibit indirect as well as deliberate takings. Compare NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co. of Textron, Inc. . . . (1974). The permit process

Communities for a Great Oregon (1995) | 111 requires the applicant to prepare a ‘‘conservation plan’’ that specifies how he intends to ‘‘minimize and mitigate’’ the ‘‘impact’’ of his activity on endangered and threatened species . . ., making clear that Congress had in mind foreseeable rather than merely accidental effects on listed species. No one could seriously request an ‘‘incidental’’ take permit to avert 9 liability for direct, deliberate action against a member of an endangered or threatened species, but respondents would read ‘‘harm’’ so narrowly that the permit procedure would have little more than that absurd purpose. ‘‘When Congress acts to amend a statute, we presume it intends its amendment to have real and substantial effect.’’ Stone v. INS . . . (1995). . . . Congress’ addition of the 10 permit provision supports the Secretary’s conclusion that activities not intended to harm an endangered species, such as habitat modification, may constitute unlawful takings under the ESA unless the Secretary permits them. The Court of Appeals made three errors in asserting that ‘‘harm’’ must refer to a direct application of force because the words around it do. First, the court’s premise was flawed. Several of the words that accompany ‘‘harm’’ in the 3 definition of ‘‘take,’’ especially ‘‘harass,’’ ‘‘pursue,’’ ‘‘wound,’’ and ‘‘kill,’’ refer to actions or effects that do not require direct applications of force. Second, to the extent the court read a requirement of intent or purpose into the words used to define ‘‘take,’’ it ignored 9’s express provision that a ‘‘knowing’’ action is enough to violate the Act. Third, the court employed noscitur a sociis to give ‘‘harm’’ essentially the same function as other words in the definition, thereby denying it independent meaning. The canon, to the contrary, counsels that a word ‘‘gathers meaning from the words around it.’’ Jarecki v. G. D. Searle & Co. . . . (1961). The statutory context of ‘‘harm’’ suggests that Congress meant that term to serve a particular function in the ESA, consistent with but distinct from the functions of the other verbs used to define ‘‘take.’’ The Secretary’s interpretation of ‘‘harm’’ to include indirectly injuring endangered animals through habitat modification permissibly interprets ‘‘harm’’ to have ‘‘a character of its own not to be submerged by its association.’’ Russell Motor Car Co. v. United States . . . (1923). Nor does the Act’s inclusion of the 5 land acquisition authority and the 7 directive to federal agencies to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat alter our conclusion. Respondents’ argument that the Government lacks any incentive to purchase land under 5 when it can simply prohibit takings under 9 ignores the practical considerations that attend enforcement of the ESA. Purchasing habitat lands may well cost the Government less in many circumstances than pursuing civil or criminal penalties. In addition, the 5 procedure allows for protection of habitat before the seller’s activity has harmed any endangered animal, whereas the Government cannot enforce the 9 prohibition until an animal has actually been killed or injured. The Secretary may also find the 5 authority useful for preventing modification of land that is not yet but may in the future become habitat for an endangered or threatened species. The 7 directive applies only to the Federal Government, whereas the 9 prohibition applies to ‘‘any person.’’ Section 7 imposes a broad, affirmative duty to avoid adverse habitat modifications that 9 does not replicate, and 7 does not limit its admonition to habitat modification that ‘‘actually kills or injures wildlife.’’ Conversely, 7 contains limitations that 9 does not, applying only to actions ‘‘likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species,’’ . . . and to modifications of habitat that has been designated ‘‘critical’’ pursuant to 4. . . . Any overlap that 5 or 7 may have with 9 in

112 | Communities for a Great Oregon (1995) particular cases is unexceptional, see, e.g., Russello v. United States . . . (1983), and simply reflects the broad purpose of the Act set out in 2 and acknowledged in TVA v. Hill. We need not decide whether the statutory definition of ‘‘take’’ compels the Secretary’s interpretation of ‘‘harm,’’ because our conclusions that Congress did not unambiguously manifest its intent to adopt respondents’ view and that the Secretary’s interpretation is reasonable suffice to decide this case. See generally Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. . . . (1984). The latitude the ESA gives the Secretary in enforcing the statute, together with the degree of regulatory expertise necessary to its enforcement, establishes that we owe some degree of deference to the Secretary’s reasonable interpretation. . . . III. Our conclusion that the Secretary’s definition of ‘‘harm’’ rests on a permissible construction of the ESA gains further support from the legislative history of the statute. The Committee Reports accompanying the bills that became the ESA do not specifically discuss the meaning of ‘‘harm,’’ but they make clear that Congress intended ‘‘take’’ to apply broadly to cover indirect as well as purposeful actions. The Senate Report stressed that ‘‘‘[t]ake’ is defined . . . in the broadest possible manner to include every conceivable way in which a person can ‘take’ or attempt to ‘take’ any fish or wildlife.’’ . . . The House Report stated that ‘‘the broadest possible terms’’ were used to define restrictions on takings. . . . The House Report underscored the breadth of the ‘‘take’’ definition by noting that it included ‘‘harassment, whether intentional or not.’’ . . . The Report explained that the definition ‘‘would allow, for example, the Secretary to regulate or prohibit the activities of birdwatchers where the effect of those activities might disturb the birds and make it difficult for them to hatch or raise their young.’’ . . . These comments, ignored in the dissent’s welcome but selective foray into legislative history . . . , support the Secretary’s interpretation that the term ‘‘take’’ in 9 reached far more than the deliberate actions of hunters and trappers. Two endangered species bills, S. 1592 and S. 1983, were introduced in the Senate and referred to the Commerce Committee. Neither bill included the word ‘‘harm’’ in its definition of ‘‘take,’’ although the definitions otherwise closely resembled the one that appeared in the bill as ultimately enacted. . . . Senator Tunney, the floor manager of the bill in the Senate, subsequently introduced a floor amendment that added ‘‘harm’’ to the definition, noting that this and accompanying amendments would ‘‘help to achieve the purposes of the bill.’’ . . . Respondents argue that the lack of debate about the amendment that added ‘‘harm’’ counsels in favor of a narrow interpretation. We disagree. An obviously broad word that the Senate went out of its way to add to an important statutory definition is precisely the sort of provision that deserves a respectful reading. The definition of ‘‘take’’ that originally appeared in S. 1983 differed from the definition as ultimately enacted in one other significant respect: It included ‘‘the destruction, modification, or curtailment of [the] habitat or range’’ of fish and wildlife. . . . Respondents make much of the fact that the Commerce Committee removed this phrase from the ‘‘take’’ definition before S. 1983 went to the floor. . . . We do not find that fact especially significant. The legislative materials contain no indication why the habitat protection provision was deleted. That provision differed greatly from the regulation at issue today. Most notably, the habitat protection in S. 1983 would have applied far more broadly than the regulation does because it made adverse habitat

Communities for a Great Oregon (1995) | 113 modification a categorical violation of the ‘‘take’’ prohibition, unbounded by the regulation’s limitation to habitat modifications that actually kill or injure wildlife. The S. 1983 language also failed to qualify ‘‘modification’’ with the regulation’s limiting adjective ‘‘significant.’’ We do not believe the Senate’s unelaborated disavowal of the provision in S. 1983 undermines the reasonableness of the more moderate habitat protection in the Secretary’s ‘‘harm’’ regulation. The history of the 1982 amendment that gave the Secretary authority to grant permits for ‘‘incidental’’ takings provides further support for his reading of the Act. The House Report expressly states that ‘‘[b]y use of the word ‘incidental’ the Committee intends to cover situations in which it is known that a taking will occur if the other activity is engaged in but such taking is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the activity.’’ . . . This reference to the foreseeability of incidental takings undermines respondents’ argument that the 1982 amendment covered only accidental killings of endangered and threatened animals that might occur in the course of hunting or trapping other animals. Indeed, Congress had habitat modification directly in mind: both the Senate Report and the House Conference Report identified as the model for the permit process a cooperative state-federal response to a case in California where a development project threatened incidental harm to a species of endangered butterfly by modification of its habitat. . . . Thus, Congress in 1982 focused squarely on the aspect of the ‘‘harm’’ regulation at issue in this litigation. Congress’ implementation of a permit program is consistent with the Secretary’s interpretation of the term ‘‘harm.’’ IV. When it enacted the ESA, Congress delegated broad administrative and interpretive power to the Secretary. . . . The task of defining and listing endangered and threatened species requires an expertise and attention to detail that exceeds the normal province of Congress. Fashioning appropriate standards for issuing permits under 10 for takings that would otherwise violate 9 necessarily requires the exercise of broad discretion. The proper interpretation of a term such as ‘‘harm’’ involves a complex policy choice. When Congress has entrusted the Secretary with broad discretion, we are especially reluctant to substitute our views of wise policy for his. See Chevron. . . . In this case, that reluctance accords with our conclusion, based on the text, structure, and legislative history of the ESA, that the Secretary reasonably construed the intent of Congress when he defined ‘‘harm’’ to include ‘‘significant habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures wildlife.’’ In the elaboration and enforcement of the ESA, the Secretary and all persons who must comply with the law will confront difficult questions of proximity and degree; for, as all recognize, the Act encompasses a vast range of economic and social enterprises and endeavors. These questions must be addressed in the usual course of the law, through case-by-case resolution and adjudication. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. It is so ordered.

Finally, Justice Stevens observed that the 1982 amendments to the ESA authorized the interior secretary to issue permits for taking listed species as long as ‘‘such taking is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of otherwise lawful activity.’’ Incidental taking makes no sense if protected animals

114 | Communities for a Great Oregon (1995)

could only be taken through direct and deliberate action intending to harm them in some way, or to engage in some other prohibited conduct. Thus, the allowance for incidental takes ‘‘strongly suggests that Congress understood [ESA] to prohibit indirect as well as deliberate takings.’’ Stevens scolded the D.C. Circuit for making several errors in their decision in favor of the Sweet Home Chapter. For example, the appeal to the canon of noscitur a sociis was misguided, supposing as it did that the function of ‘‘harm’’ in the regulatory definition was basically the same as that of the other concepts appearing there. But the context in which ‘‘harm’’ is used indicates that, ‘‘Congress meant that term to serve a particular function in ESA, consistent with, but distinct from, the functions of the other verbs used to define ‘take.’’’ Even if the principle was correctly applied, Stevens noted, it provides no support for the Sweet Home Chapter. Several of the other words in the definition refer to types of conduct that do not necessarily involve direct applications of force, such as ‘‘harass,’’ ‘‘wound,’’ and ‘‘pursue.’’ Also, Stevens pointed out that, far from undermining it, the legislative history of the ESA supports the FWS definition of harm. Both the Senate and House reports on bills that would eventually become the ESA noted how ‘‘take’’ was defined ‘‘in the broadest possible terms,’’ so broad, indeed, that unintentional harassment was included. This clearly indicates that Congress was interested in regulating much more than the deliberate actions of hunters and trappers. As for the fact that a phrase about the modification of habitat was deleted from the Senate bill, Stevens did not find this particularly relevant. There was no indication in the legislative history as to why the habitat provision was removed, and in any case it was far more expansive than the regulation the Sweet Home Chapter was currently challenging. The deleted prohibition was against any adverse habitat modification, unqualified by the actual kill or injury standard later inserted. Jordon Curnutt References Animal Welfare Institute. Animals and Their Legal Rights, fourth edition. Washington DC: Animal Welfare Institute, 1990. Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, 515 U.S. 687 (1995). http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-859.ZO.html (accessed May 2010). Bean, Michael J., and Melanie J. Rowland. The Evolution of National Wildlife Law, third edition. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1997. Brooman, Simon, and Debbie Legge. Law Relating to Animals. London: Cavendish, 1997. Musgrave, Ruth, and Mary Anne Stein. State Wildlife Laws Handbook. Rockville, MD: Government Institutes, 1993. United States Senate. ‘‘Endangered Species Act of 1973.’’ http://epw.senate.gov/ esa73.pdf (accessed May 2010). United States v. Hayashi, 22 F.3d 859 (9th Cir. 1993).

Bald Eagle | 115

Bald Eagle The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), also known as the American eagle, is the national bird of the United States. This large bird preys on fish and waterfowl and lives in marine or coastal environments. The distinctive white head and tail of mature birds, coupled with wingspans of up to eight feet, make the bald eagle striking and easily identifiable (Sibley, 2000). It is at the center of the Great Seal of the United States and is also prominent on the country’s currency. Despite its symbolic importance to the United States, the bald eagle was nearly extinct by the 1970s due to hunting, loss of habitat, and the use of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT). The practice of paying bounties on eagles that had been killed was relatively common in Alaska. From 1917 to 1952, the Alaska Territory paid bounties on more than 128,000 eagles (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1993). A more widespread cause of the population decline was degradation of the eagles’ habitat, including increased construction and contamination of water supplies, which reduced the availability of food and nesting areas. Eagles require significant room for nesting; nests can reach nine feet in diameter. The most acute and serious threat to the bald eagle was the widespread use of DDT as an insecticide. Edmund Russell (2001) outlined the development of DDT by the federal government, initially as a means of eradicating mosquitoes in the Pacific theater during World War II. After the war, DDT entered widespread civilian use. Because of its chemical composition, DDT does not decompose but instead accumulates in tissue. As fish eat contaminated insects, and eagles eat the fish, the concentration of DDT in the birds themselves reaches toxic levels. This toxicity manifests itself in damage to the central nervous system and in the formation of shells that are too weak or soft to protect embryonic birds. In 1963, an estimated 417 breeding pairs remained in the continental United States (FWS, 2008). By the early 1970s, the Department of Agriculture had begun restricting the use of DDT. Beans (1996) asserts that the 1972 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ban on domestic use of DDT was more beneficial to the bald eagle than the passage of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The Bald Eagle in flight. (iStockPhoto)

116 | Bald Eagle Protection Act

ban on domestic DDT use did not immediately improve the prospects for the bald eagle; in 1978, the birds remained listed as endangered in 43 of the lower 48 states and were considered threatened in the remaining five. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, however, the eagle population increased substantially. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service introduced a plan to remove the species from both the endangered and threatened lists. As of 2007, with almost 10,000 breeding pairs in the continental United States, the bald eagle is no longer listed as either endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. However, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, a lessstringent set of protections, remains in force. Evelyn Krache Morris See also DDT; Endangered Species Act of 1973

References Beans, Bruce E. Eagle’s Plume: The Struggle to Preserve the Life and Haunts of America’s Bald Eagle. New York: Scribner’s, 1996. Russell, Edmund. War and Nature: Fighting Humans and Insects with Chemicals from World War I to Silent Spring. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Sibley, David Allen. The Sibley Guide to Birds. New York: Knopf, 2000. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. ‘‘Bald Eagle Recovery Questions and Answers’’ http://www.fws.gov/pacific/news/1999/beqanda.pdf (accessed May 2010).

Bald Eagle Protection Act In 1782, the Continental Congress adopted the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) as the national symbol, despite the objections of Benjamin Franklin, whose preference was for the wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo). Bald eagles are so-called not because their heads lack feathers but because colonists from England described them using the Middle English word ‘‘balled,’’ meaning ‘‘shining white.’’ In colonial days, there were perhaps half a million nesting bald eagles spread throughout North America (except in the desert southwest), with 400,000 in Alaska alone. Over the next century and a half, the symbol of America was rampantly shot, trapped, and poisoned across its entire range. Fairly and unfairly blamed for predations on fisheries and young domestic animals, especially sheep, as well as providing a favored target for sport hunters and feather collectors, by the late 1930s, the bald eagle had become exceedingly rare in the lower 48 states.

Bald Eagle Protection Act | 117

Legal Protections for Bald Eagles Recognizing this, and asserting the value of the eagle as a symbol of freedom and strength, in 1940 Congress passed one of the earliest wildlife protection laws, the Bald Eagle Protection Act (BEPA). By enacting this legislation, Congress made it a federal offense for any person to ‘‘take’’ any bald eagle; that is, to pursue, shoot, shoot at, wound, kill, possess, capture, trap, molest, or disturb the bird. Also protected are the eggs and nest, as well as any part of the bird. The Department of the Interior and its secretary have the responsibility for administering and enforcing BEPA, duties that are substantially fulfilled by an agency of the Interior Department, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). In 1940, violation of BEPA was a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum fine of $500 or six months in prison or both. Following an amendment in 1972, criminal penalties were added, raising the maximums to $5,000 or one year in prison, or both, for each violation. Also added in 1972 were the provisions that anyone who supplies information on an infraction that leads to conviction is entitled to collect half of the fine, and an individual found guilty of any violation who holds a livestock grazing agreement with the federal government may have the permit canceled. Congress granted the Secretary of the Interior the authority to make two sorts of exceptions to the prohibition on taking bald eagles. First, the secretary may allow taking ‘‘for scientific or exhibition purposes of public museums, scientific societies, and zoological parks,’’ and, second, ‘‘for the protection of wildlife or of agricultural or other interests in any particular locality.’’ These exceptions are granted and a permit is issued once a lengthy application has been approved by the director of the FWS. Taking applications for science or exhibition purposes must explain why the current number of bald eagles at the institution is insufficient. Applications to take eagles preying on livestock must specify the damage alleged to have been done by the birds. In either case, a permit will be issued only if the available data indicates that the taking will not adversely effect the preservation of the bald eagle. BEPA Amendments For almost 20 years following its enactment, BEPA did not succeed in halting the decline of the bald eagle. After an initial stabilization of eagle populations, the species suddenly confronted a new menace: DDT. This and other organochlorine insecticides were used in prodigious quantities following World War II for mosquito control, soaking coastal areas and wetlands. Bald eagles consumed contaminated fish and small mammals, which caused the shells of the birds’ eggs to grow paper-thin; the eaglets did not survive. By the late 1950s, there were only a few hundred nesting pairs in all the lower 48 states. There were troubles in

118 | Bald Eagle Protection Act

Alaska, too. As originally written, BEPA exempted the state from its provisions, despite the fact that, although it had the largest bald eagle population, Alaska also had the highest incidence of human depredations on the bird. An estimated 100,000 more bald eagles were killed in the Last Frontier before a 1959 amendment included the fiftieth state within its restrictions. An amendment in 1962 extended the act’s protections to cover golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos), not so much because these raptors were in danger of extinction but more to protect immature bald eagles, which closely resemble goldens. Young bald eagles were being killed unwittingly by ranchers, mostly, who thought they were dispatching unprotected golden eagles. Since 1962, BEPA has often been called the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. That year’s amendments also included two new exceptions to the taking prohibition. The first authorized the Secretary of the Interior to allow the taking of golden eagles, upon request by a governor, to safeguard livestock populations in a given state. The second provided that the secretary could permit taking of both eagle species ‘‘for the religious purposes of Indian tribes.’’ This second exception was later the subject of much debate in the courts. In the early 1970s, a number of ranchers in Wyoming declared war on bald and golden eagles. Initially, this was waged furtively, but the media caught wind of the carnage and broadcast the sordid details throughout the country. Dozens of eagles were poisoned by thallium sulfate, which they consumed after the ranchers liberally laced sheep and lamb carcasses with the deadly substance and placed the bait on the open range. Even more brazen, the ranchers employed hunters to shoot from helicopters, and some 800 eagles were blasted from their nests and perches and right out of the sky. Although the helicopter hunting was clearly an unauthorized taking contrary to BEPA, as well as a breach of the then brand-new Airborne Hunting Act, the Interior Department did not pursue the ranchers on the poisoning issue. This was because BEPA, the secretary contended, did not allow prosecution unless it could be shown that the person who placed the poison intended to kill the eagles, and this could not be demonstrated. Congress reacted with a 1972 amendment that substantially lessened the degree of intent necessary to prove a violation; now whoever ‘‘knowingly, or with wanton disregard for the consequences of his act’’ takes any eagle is breaking the law. Moreover, just to be sure, Congress added the word ‘‘poison’’ in the definition of ‘‘take.’’ The amendments of this year also enhanced the penalties for violation, as mentioned above, and allowed golden eagles, who are confirmed livestock predators, to be taken and used for falconry (traditionally employing the gyrfalcon and the peregrine, ‘‘falconry’’ more generically refers to training any bird of prey to hunt). Still another exception to the taking prohibition was added in a 1978 amendment. At a time when America was struggling to meet its growing energy needs,

Bald Eagle Protection Act | 119

and the OPEC oil embargo of just a few years earlier was a fresh and troubling memory, Congress discerned a potential conflict between the provisions of BEPA and the increasing reliance on domestic coal. Accordingly, language was added to the act empowering the secretary to permit the destruction of golden eagle nests (but not those of bald eagles) that would otherwise stand in the way of ‘‘resource development or recovery operations.’’ Critics of this stipulation have seen it as a serious weakening of protection for golden eagles and have often pointed out that the amendment does not define what the phrase ‘‘resource development or recovery operations’’ means. Bald eagle numbers began to rebound significantly in the mid-1970s following the Environmental Protection Agency’s 1972 order banning the use of DDT in the United States. Further revitalization came in 1978 when, acting under authority of the Endangered Species Act, the Secretary of the Interior added the bald eagle to the list of endangered species in 43 states and designated the bird as threatened in Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin (bald eagles have never been imperiled in Alaska and they do not occur in the Hawaiian islands). More diligent enforcement and successful FWS restoration projects in the 1980s helped the species to flourish yet more. In 1995, the bald eagle was downgraded from endangered to threatened in those states where it had previously been so listed. Then the FWS announced in July 1999 that the bald eagle population stood at nearly 6,000 nesting pairs, and proposed that the raptor be removed entirely from the list of threatened and endangered species. At the time of this writing, the lengthy process of delisting the threatened species continues. BEPA and American Indians Various treaties made with the U.S. government during the nineteenth century have, among other things, granted Indians rights to take wildlife on and off reservation lands. These treaty rights have sometimes clashed with both state and federal wildlife laws, raising the basic issue of whether the legislation abrogates or annuls the rights conferred by the treaty. Eventually, indeed inevitably, BEPA was tested on this issue in the courts, with incipient rulings producing contrary results. In 1974, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held in United States v. White that BEPA did not annul treaty rights, but six years later the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals demurred and ruled in United States v. Fryberg that it did. The Supreme Court agreed to settle this matter in 1986. The case began several years earlier when the FWS launched an undercover investigation into illegal trafficking of eagle feathers by Indians in South Dakota. At that time, a single eagle feather might fetch up to $100 on the black market, and a full-length war bonnet as much as $5,000. The FWS discovered that from 1980 to 1983, more than 300 eagles had been killed in and around the Lake Andes Wildlife Refuge in South Dakota, the feathers (and talons) sold to tourists and

120 | Bald Eagle Protection Act

collectors. In 1983, 50 people were charged with various violations of BEPA and the Endangered Species Act. One of the accused, a Yanktonai Dakota (Sioux) named Dwight Dion, admitted that he had shot four bald eagles and one golden eagle. However, he defended his actions by appealing to the 1858 ‘‘Treaty with the Yancton,’’ which created the Indian reservation where the shooting occurred and entitled all Yanktonai to unrestricted hunting there. A federal district court accepted this defense and dismissed the charges. Predictably, given their verdict 10 years earlier in White, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote the opinion for a unanimous court in United States v. Dion, reversing the lower tribunals. He sought first to determine if Congress in writing BEPA intended the law to abrogate conflicting treaty rights. Although there was no explicit statement of such an intention in either the language of the act or in the legislative history, abrogation was ‘‘strongly suggested’’ by the 1962 amendment establishing a permit system allowing Indians to take eagles for religious purposes. After all, Marshall reasoned, why have a permit system if BEPA does not in other instances ban Indians from taking eagles? The conclusion was inescapable that the 1962 amendment expressed an ‘‘explicit legislative policy that Indian hunting of the bald and golden eagle, except pursuant to permit, is inconsistent with the need to preserve those species.’’ Therefore, since Congress has the power to modify or eliminate treaty obligations, whether with foreign nations or Indian nations, the drafters of BEPA intended to do just that when treaties conflict with it. The exemption for ceremonial use by Native Americans has itself generated a fair amount of controversy. Indians have contended that the permit system allowing them to take eagles for religious purposes is an unconstitutional infringement on their right to practice their religion free from government constraints, as guaranteed by the First Amendment: ‘‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’’ They believe the acquisition of feathers for this end should be entirely unregulated by the government. A federal district court agreed with them in 1986, declaring that the application procedure for the permit was ‘‘unnecessarily intrusive and hostile to religious privacy’’ (United States v. Abeyta). However, that year another district court rejected this argument, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling without comment (United States v. Thirty-Eight Golden Eagles). Most recently, in 1997, the Ninth Circuit Court felt compelled to issue an opinion endorsing the conviction of two Crow Indians, brothers named Frank and William Hugs, for violating BEPA (United States v. Hugs). The Hugses admitted trapping, shooting at, shooting, and killing a number of bald and golden eagles on the Crow Reservation in Montana. Nonetheless, they claimed that their right to free exercise of religion is denied both by BEPA’s taking prohibition and by a burdensome permit system in which as much as two years might elapse between the time an application is submitted and its subsequent approval. Although the

Bates, et al. v. Dow AgroSciences LLC | 121

evidence indicated that the Hugses were far more interested in selling eagle parts for profit than using them in religious ceremonies, Judge James Browning accepted their defense appealing to the right to free exercise of religion. To evaluate this appeal, Browning looked to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), designed in 1993 to adjudicate conflicts between government legislation and religious practices. The RFRA forbade laws that substantially burden the free exercise of religion unless imposing the burden advances a ‘‘compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.’’ Browning conceded that BEPA and the permit system presented a substantial impediment on the practice of some Native American religions, but the law did indeed further a very important government concern in the health and flourishing of these raptor species. He went on to list the basic information required on the application—including the nature of the ceremony, the applicant’s authorization to participate in it, and verification of his tribal affiliation—but asserted that this was the least restrictive method of promoting that compelling interest. In any case, since the Hugses did not attempt to secure a permit, they were barred from challenging its constitutionality. At this writing, the Supreme Court has not yet considered BEPA in light of the right to free exercise of religion; the judgment of the Ninth Circuit Court stands as the benchmark on this matter. Jordon Curnutt References Bean, Michael J., and Melanie J. Rowland. The Evolution of National Wildlife Law, third edition. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1997. Musgrave, Ruth, et al. Federal Wildlife Laws Handbook. Rockville, MD: Government Institutes, 1998. Nilsson, Greta. ‘‘Birds.’’ In Animals and Their Legal Rights, fourth edition. Washington DC: Animal Welfare Institute, 1990. United States v. Abeyta, 632 F. Supp. 1301 (D. N.M. 1986). United States v. Hugs, 109 F.3d 1375 (9th Cir. 1997). United States v. Thirty-Eight Golden Eagles, 649 F. Supp. 269 (D. Nev. 1986), affirmed, 829 F.2d 41 (9th Cir. 1987). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bald Eagle. ‘‘Fact Sheet: Natural History, Ecology, and History of Recovery.’’ http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/recovery/biologue.html (accessed May 2010).

Bates, et al. v. Dow AgroSciences LLC In this Supreme Court case, the petitioners claimed that although Dow’s Strongarm insecticide label recommended its use in peanut-growing areas, Dow knew

122 | Bates, et al. v. Dow AgroSciences LLC

or should have known that it would stunt the growth of peanuts in soil with high pH levels. Since the EPA had registered Strongarm under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the question presented to the Court was: Which, if any, state-law crop-damage claims are preempted by FIFRA? Dow sought a judgment in Federal District Court asserting that FIFRA preempted petitioners’ claims. Petitioners sought a counter-judgment, citing state law claims regarding liability, negligence, fraud, and breach of express warranty. The district court held that FIFRA’s preemption provision 7 U.S.C. §136v(b) barred the state law claims, since a judgment against Dow would require it to alter its product label. In Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504, the Court ruled that term ‘‘requirement’’ in the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969 included common-law duties and therefore preempted certain tort claims against cigarette companies. Courts began holding that §136v(b) preempted claims such as petitioners. The Supreme Court ruled that although FIFRA’s preemption provision applies only to state law ‘‘requirements for labeling or packaging,’’ an event, such as a jury verdict, merely motivates an optional decision and is not a ‘‘requirement.’’ The District Court, therefore, was in error in deciding that a jury verdict would force Dow to change its label. Petitioners’ fraud and negligent-failure-to-warn claims, by contrast, are based on common-law rules that qualify as requirements for labeling or packaging, since these rules set a standard for a product’s labeling that Dow is alleged to have violated. While these common-law rules are subject to §136v(b), it does not automatically follow that they are preempted by FIFRA. Unlike the preemption clause in Cipollone, §136v(b) prohibits state law labeling requirements that are inconsistent with federal labeling requirements, but does not prohibit those that are consistent with or parallel to federal requirements. Justice Stevens delivered the opinion; Justices Rehnquist, O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined. Breyer filed a concurring opinion. Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, and Scalia joined. Robert C. Robinson See also Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1947; Metropolitan Edison Co. v. PANE; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

References Bates v. Dow AgroSciences LLC (03-388) 544 U.S. 431 (2005) 332 F.3d 323, vacated and remanded. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-388 .ZS.html (accessed June 30, 2010).

Berman v. Parker (1954) | 123

Berman v. Parker (1954) Berman v. Parker is a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that authorized the taking of private property for public purposes. The unanimous decision, written by Justice William Douglas, interpreted the Fifth Amendment provision permitting taking lands for public ‘‘use’’ to include public ‘‘purpose’’ as well. Specifically, the Court found that taking and redeveloping so-called ‘‘blighted’’ areas via eminent domain served a public purpose and was constitutional. The ruling paved the way for expanded governmental action in the name of the environment (Hall et al., 1992, 68). The case traces its origins to a dispute by the owners of a department store in one such blighted area of Washington, D.C. A city agency had designated the

Berman v. Parker (1954) Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954) In Berman v. Parker, the Supreme Court decided that Congress possessed the right to condemn and acquire private property in order to redevelop it if public safety, morality, or health made such a taking desirable. The decision acknowledged that the District of Columbia’s redevelopment program, which condemned unsightly slums and established the means to confiscate and redevelop the property, did not violate the Fifth Amendment’s provision against taking property. It was the first time the Supreme Court acknowledged that aesthetics could be factored in a zoning decision. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from the judgment of a three-judge District Court which dismissed a complaint seeking to enjoin the condemnation of appellant’s property under the District of Columbia Redevelopment Act of 1945. The challenge was to the constitutionality of the Act, particularly as applied to the taking of appellants’ property. The District Court sustained the constitutionality of the Act. By 2 of the Act, Congress made a ‘‘legislative determination’’ that ‘‘owing to technological and sociological changes, obsolete lay-out, and other factors, conditions existing in the District of Columbia with respect to substandard housing and blighted areas, including the use of buildings in alleys as dwellings for human habitation, are injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and welfare; and it is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States to protect and promote the welfare of the inhabitants of the seat of the Government by eliminating all such injurious conditions by employing all means necessary and appropriate for the purpose.’’ Section 2 goes on to declare that acquisition of property is necessary to eliminate these housing conditions. Congress further finds in 2 that these ends cannot be attained ‘‘by the ordinary operations of private enterprise alone without public participation’’; that ‘‘the sound replanning and redevelopment of an obsolescent or obsolescing portion’’ of the District ‘‘cannot be accomplished unless it be done in the light of comprehensive and coordinated planning of the whole of the territory of the District of Columbia and its environs’’; and that ‘‘the acquisition and the assembly of real property and the leasing or

124 | Berman v. Parker (1954) sale thereof for redevelopment pursuant to a project area redevelopment plan . . . is hereby declared to be a public use.’’ Section 4 creates the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency (hereinafter called the Agency), composed of five members, which is granted power by 5 (a) to acquire and assemble, by eminent domain and otherwise, real property for ‘‘the redevelopment of blighted territory in the District of Columbia and the prevention, reduction, or elimination of blighting factors or causes of blight.’’ Section 6 (a) of the Act directs the National Capital Planning Commission (hereinafter called the Planning Commission) to make and develop ‘‘a comprehensive or general plan’’ of the District, including ‘‘a land-use plan’’ which designates land for use for ‘‘housing, business, industry, recreation, education, public buildings, public reservations, and other general categories of public and private uses of the land.’’ Section 6 (b) authorizes the Planning Commission to adopt redevelopment plans for specific project areas. These plans are subject to the approval of the District Commissioners after a public hearing; and they prescribe the various public and private land uses for the respective areas, the ‘‘standards of population density and building intensity,’’ and ‘‘the amount or character or class of any low-rent housing.’’ Once the Planning Commission adopts a plan and that plan is approved by the Commissioners, the Planning Commission certifies it to the Agency. 6 (d). At that point, the Agency is authorized to acquire and assemble the real property in the area. After the real estate has been assembled, the Agency is authorized to transfer to public agencies the land to be devoted to such public purposes as streets, utilities, recreational facilities, and schools, 7 (a), and to lease or sell the remainder as an entirety or in parts to a redevelopment company, individual, or partnership. 7 (b), (f). The leases or sales must provide that the lessees or purchasers will carry out the redevelopment plan and that ‘‘no use shall be made of any land or real property included in the lease or sale nor any building or structure erected thereon’’ which does not conform to the plan, 7 (d), 11. Preference is to be given to private enterprise over public agencies in executing the redevelopment plan. 7 (g). The first project undertaken under the Act relates to Project Area B in Southwest Washington, D.C. In 1950 the Planning Commission prepared and published a comprehensive plan for the District. Surveys revealed that in Area B, 64.3% of the dwellings were beyond repair, 18.4% needed major repairs, only 17.3% were satisfactory; 57.8% of the dwellings had outside toilets, 60.3% had no baths, 29.3% lacked electricity, 82.2% had no wash basins or laundry tubs, 83.8% lacked central heating. In the judgment of the District’s Director of Health it was necessary to redevelop Area B in the interests of public health. The population of Area B amounted to 5,012 persons, of whom 97.5% were Negroes. The plan for Area B specifies the boundaries and allocates the use of the land for various purposes. It makes detailed provisions for types of dwelling units and provides that at least one-third of them are to be low-rent housing with a maximum rental of $17 per room per month. After a public hearing, the Commissioners approved the plan and the Planning Commission certified it to the Agency for execution. The Agency undertook the preliminary steps for redevelopment of the area when this suit was brought. Appellants own property in Area B at 712 Fourth Street, S. W. It is not used as a dwelling or place of habitation. A department store is located on it. Appellants object to the appropriation of this property for the purposes of the project. They claim that their property may not be taken constitutionally for this project. It is commercial, not

Berman v. Parker (1954) | 125 residential property; it is not slum housing; it will be put into the project under the management of a private, not a public, agency and redeveloped for private, not public, use. That is the argument; and the contention is that appellants’ private property is being taken contrary to two mandates of the Fifth Amendment—(1) ‘‘No person shall . . . be deprived of . . . property, without due process of law’’; (2) ‘‘nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.’’ To take for the purpose of ridding the area of slums is one thing; it is quite another, the argument goes, to take a man’s property merely to develop a better balanced, more attractive community. The District Court, while agreeing in general with that argument, saved the Act by construing it to mean that the Agency could condemn property only for the reasonable necessities of slum clearance and prevention, its concept of ‘‘slum’’ being the existence of conditions ‘‘injurious to the public health, safety, morals and welfare.’’ The power of Congress over the District of Columbia includes all the legislative powers which a state may exercise over its affairs. See District of Columbia v. Thompson Co. We deal, in other words, with what traditionally has been known as the police power. An attempt to define its reach or trace its outer limits is fruitless, for each case must turn on its own facts. The definition is essentially the product of legislative determinations addressed to the purposes of government, purposes neither abstractly nor historically capable of complete definition. Subject to specific constitutional limitations, when the legislature has spoken, the public interest has been declared in terms well-nigh conclusive. In such cases the legislature, not the judiciary, is the main guardian of the public needs to be served by social legislation, whether it be Congress legislating concerning the District of Columbia (see Block v. Hirsh) or the States legislating concerning local affairs. See Olsen v. Nebraska; Lincoln Union v. Northwestern Co.; California State Association v. Maloney. This principle admits of no exception merely because the power of eminent domain is involved. The role of the judiciary in determining whether that power is being exercised for a public purpose is an extremely narrow one. See Old Dominion Co. v. United States; United States ex rel. T. V. A. v. Welch. Public safety, public health, morality, peace and quiet, law and order—these are some of the more conspicuous examples of the traditional application of the police power to municipal affairs. Yet they merely illustrate the scope of the power and do not delimit it. See Noble State Bank v. Haskell. Miserable and disreputable housing conditions may do more than spread disease and crime and immorality. They may also suffocate the spirit by reducing the people who live there to the status of cattle. They may indeed make living an almost insufferable burden. They may also be an ugly sore, a blight on the community which robs it of charm, which makes it a place from which men turn. The misery of housing may despoil a community as an open sewer may ruin a river. We do not sit to determine whether a particular housing project is or is not desirable. The concept of the public welfare is broad and inclusive. See Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. v. Missouri. The values it represents are spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary. It is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, well-balanced as well as carefully patrolled. In the present case, the Congress and its authorized agencies have made determinations that take into account a wide variety of values. It is not for us to reappraise them. If those who govern the District of Columbia decide that the Nation’s Capital should be beautiful as well as sanitary, there is nothing in the Fifth Amendment that stands in the way.

126 | Berman v. Parker (1954) Once the object is within the authority of Congress, the right to realize it through the exercise of eminent domain is clear. For the power of eminent domain is merely the means to the end. See Luxton v. North River Bridge Co.; United States v. Gettysburg Electric R. Co. Once the object is within the authority of Congress, the means by which it will be attained is also for Congress to determine. Here one of the means chosen is the use of private enterprise for redevelopment of the area. Appellants argue that this makes the project a taking from one businessman for the benefit of another businessman. But the means of executing the project are for Congress and Congress alone to determine, once the public purpose has been established. See Luxton v. North River Bridge Co., supra; cf. Highland v. Russell Car Co. The public end may be as well or better served through an agency of private enterprise than through a department of government—or so the Congress might conclude. We cannot say that public ownership is the sole method of promoting the public purposes of community redevelopment projects. What we have said also disposes of any contention concerning the fact that certain property owners in the area may be permitted to repurchase their properties for redevelopment in harmony with the over-all plan. That, too, is a legitimate means which Congress and its agencies may adopt, if they choose. In the present case, Congress and its authorized agencies attack the problem of the blighted parts of the community on an area rather than on a structure-by-structure basis. That, too, is opposed by appellants. They maintain that since their building does not imperil health or safety nor contribute to the making of a slum or a blighted area, it cannot be swept into a redevelopment plan by the mere dictum of the Planning Commission or the Commissioners. The particular uses to be made of the land in the project were determined with regard to the needs of the particular community. The experts concluded that if the community were to be healthy, if it were not to revert again to a blighted or slum area, as though possessed of a congenital disease, the area must be planned as a whole. It was not enough, they believed, to remove existing buildings that were insanitary or unsightly. It was important to redesign the whole area so as to eliminate the conditions that cause slums—the over-crowding of dwellings, the lack of parks, the lack of adequate streets and alleys, the absence of recreational areas, the lack of light and air, the presence of outmoded street patterns. It was believed that the piecemeal approach, the removal of individual structures that were offensive, would be only a palliative. The entire area needed redesigning so that a balanced, integrated plan could be developed for the region, including not only new homes but also schools, churches, parks, streets, and shopping centers. In this way it was hoped that the cycle of decay of the area could be controlled and the birth of future slums prevented. Cf. Gohld Realty Co. v. Hartford; Hunter v. Redevelopment Authority. Such diversification in future use is plainly relevant to the maintenance of the desired housing standards and therefore within congressional power. The District Court below suggested that, if such a broad scope were intended for the statute, the standards contained in the Act would not be sufficiently definite to sustain the delegation of authority. We do not agree. We think the standards prescribed were adequate for executing the plan to eliminate not only slums as narrowly defined by the District Court but also the blighted areas that tend to produce slums. Property may of course be taken for this redevelopment which, standing by itself, is innocuous and unoffending. But we have said enough to indicate that it is the need of the area as a

Berman v. Parker (1954) | 127 whole which Congress and its agencies are evaluating. If owner after owner were permitted to resist these redevelopment programs on the ground that his particular property was not being used against the public interest, integrated plans for redevelopment would suffer greatly. The argument pressed on us is, indeed, a plea to substitute the landowner’s standard of the public need for the standard prescribed by Congress. But as we have already stated, community redevelopment programs need not, by force of the Constitution, be on a piecemeal basis—lot by lot, building by building. It is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area. Once the question of the public purpose has been decided, the amount and character of land to be taken for the project and the need for a particular tract to complete the integrated plan rests in the discretion of the legislative branch. See Shoemaker v. United States; United States ex rel. T. V. A. v. Welch, supra; United States v. Carmack. The District Court indicated grave doubts concerning the Agency’s right to take full title to the land as distinguished from the objectionable buildings located on it. We do not share those doubts. If the Agency considers it necessary in carrying out the redevelopment project to take full title to the real property involved, it may do so. It is not for the courts to determine whether it is necessary for successful consummation of the project that unsafe, unsightly, or insanitary buildings alone be taken or whether title to the land be included, any more than it is the function of the courts to sort and choose among the various parcels selected for condemnation. The rights of these property owners are satisfied when they receive that just compensation which the Fifth Amendment exacts as the price of the taking. The judgment of the District Court, as modified by this opinion, is Affirmed.

land in the area—much of it housing—to be in need of razing and redevelopment due to its general disrepair and lack of amenities. The storeowners argued that, while much of the surrounding area might be in poor shape, their store was not. Therefore, they reasoned, the store should remain. The Court held that the greater good would be served if developers were authorized to take possession of all they deemed necessary, not just on a pieceby-piece basis. The ruling states that redevelopment efforts would be unfairly stifled if private interests were privileged (FindLaw). Subsequent lawsuits have upheld and expanded the definition of what types of land could be taken and for what purpose (Hall et al., 1992). Critics say the ruling paved the way for questionable land grabs (Greenhut, 2008). Jessica Chapman See also Douglas, William O.; Kelo v. City of New London (2005)

References Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954), http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase .pl?court=us&vol=348&invol=26 (accessed January 31, 2009, and June 27, 2009).

128 | Berry, Wendell Greenhut, Steven. Review of Bulldozed: ‘‘Kelo,’’ Eminent Domain, and the American Lust for Land by Carla T. Main. The Freeman, June 2008. Hall, Kermit L., ed. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.

Berry, Wendell Wendell Berry is a writer and a farmer whose home is in Henry County, Kentucky. He is a prolific poet, novelist, and essayist whose subjects touch on virtually every aspect of American life and culture, including relationship to land, home, family, community, economies, nation, self, and God. Other Berry identifiers are expressed in terms that embody relationships expressed in his writing. These include husband, father, educator, citizen, and conservationist. He was born Wendell Erdman Berry, in Henry County, Kentucky, on August 5, 1934. He received an AB degree from the University of Kentucky in 1956 and an MA from the University of Kentucky in 1957, the same year he married his wife Tanya. The groundwork for his writing life continued with a Wallace Stegner Writing Fellowship at Stanford University (1958–1959). In 1960, his first novel, Nathan Coulter, was published. The Berrys’ Lanes Landing Farm is near the town of Port Royal; the fictional town of Port William has been a frequent setting for Berry’s fiction. Berry’s poetry, novels, and essays credit the land and patterns of nature and agrarian life as his most persistent teachers. His faith, he says, is a ‘‘bottom-up faith’’ that comes from the soil. His beliefs are rooted in a Christian theology of creation and love for one another. Berry has been called a prophet (Goodrich, 2001). His philosophy embraces diversity, versatility, reasonableness of scale and boundaries, local adaptation, and personal thought, responsibility, and hope. He speaks out against industrial farming and other practices that reduce human beings to machines and land and animals to commodities. He blames dispassionate, geographically removed corporations for visual and emotional blight in American landscapes. He blames government for favoring ‘‘market forces’’ over human-scale economies. Diversity and versatility have been hallmarks of Berry’s career and have earned him a wide following. He has authored more than 30 books. From 1977 to 1979, Berry was a contributing editor for Rodale Press, publishers of Organic Gardening and Farming and New Farm. In recent years, he has been a frequent contributor to Orion magazine, which in 2003 printed his ‘‘A Citizen’s Response to the National Security Strategy.’’ He has held teaching positions at Georgetown College, New York University, Stanford University, and the University of Kentucky. Berry has been a frequent conference speaker and has long been associated with The Land Institute in Salina, Kansas, founded by Wes Jackson.

Biden, Joseph R. Jr. (1942–) | 129

In 2006, Berry was named Kentuckian of the Year and has received many other awards, including the T. S. Eliot Award, the John Hay Award, the Lyndhurst Prize, and the Aiken-Taylor Award for Poetry from The Sewanee Review. Chavawn Kelley See also Sustainable Agriculture

References Bonzo, J. Matthew, and Michael R. Stevens. Wendell Berry and the Cultivation of Life, a Reader’s Guide. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2008. Goodrich, Janet. The Unforeseen Self in the Works of Wendell Berry. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2001. Grubbs, Morris Allen, ed. Conversations with Wendell Berry. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 2007. Merchant, Paul, ed. Wendell Berry. Lewiston: Confluence Press, Inc., 1991. Peters, Jason, ed. Wendell Berry: Life and Work. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 2007.

Biden, Joseph R. Jr. (1942–) Joseph R. Biden Jr. is a six-term U.S. senator from Delaware and vice president under Barack Obama. Biden was born November 20, 1942, in Scranton, Pennsylvania. When he was 10 years old, he and his family moved to Wilmington, Delaware. There, he attended St. Helena’s School and later Archmere Academy in Claymont, Delaware (Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., Biographical Directory). He graduated from the University of Delaware in Newark in 1965, and received a law degree from Syracuse University College of Law in New York in 1968. In 1969, he was admitted to the Delaware bar. He worked at law firms and was a public defender (Current Biography, 2009). Biden began his career in politics as a member of the New Castle City Council from 1970 to 1972. In 1972, as a young, relative unknown candidate, he launched a campaign for a Delaware U.S. Senate seat against respected Republican incumbent J. Caleb Boggs. He defeated Boggs by just 4,000 votes (Current Biography, 2009). Shortly before taking office, in December 1972, Biden’s wife and daughter were killed in a car accident. His two young sons were seriously injured, but later fully recovered. From the beginning of his Senate career, Biden has championed the environment, especially land preservation in his home state of Delaware. He has increased the size of Cape Henlopen State Park by hundreds of acres. His actions resulted in the designation of White Clay Creek as a wild and scenic preserve. He has secured federal money to correct erosion problems at Fort Delaware and Pea Patch Island (Murray, 2008).

130 | Biden, Joseph R. Jr. (1942–)

President-elect Barack Obama, right, with Vice President-elect Joe Biden, speaks as he announces his team for the energy and environment positions of his cabinet at a news conference in Chicago, Monday, December 15, 2008. (AP/Wide World Photos)

In the Senate, Biden has supported higher fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles. He has called for wider use of renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power. He stood against the creation of new coal plants and rejected higher subsidies for nuclear power companies (Murray, 2008). Biden voted to reduce oil usage by 40 percent by 2025, and has opposed domestic oil drilling offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (League of Conservation Voters, 2008). In 1986, Biden introduced the first bill in the Senate that would slow global warming pollution. As the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he presided over hearings about the potential problems U.S. national security faced due to global warming issues. Biden and Republican Senator Dick Lugar passed a resolution calling for President George W. Bush to bring the United States back to international talks on climate change (League of Conservation Voters, 2008). Biden backed and sponsored legislation that would restore the polluter tax that funded the federal Superfund program, in which toxic waste sites are cleaned. The tax ended in the 1990s, putting the burden on taxpayers to supply money for the Superfund program. Regarding greenhouse gases, such as mercury, Biden has supported and co-sponsored legislation that would reduce harmful emissions

Biden, Joseph R. Jr. (1942–) | 131

(Murray, 2008). In an April 4, 2004, letter to Environmental Protection Agency head Mike Leavitt, Biden, along with 44 other senators, urged the EPA to do a better job with mercury cleanup from power plants throughout the nation. Biden has earned a lifetime 83 percent approval rating from the League of Conservation Voters for his record of support for environmental issues in the Senate (League of Conservation Voters, 2008). Biden launched attempts for the Democratic nomination for U.S. president twice, in 1988 and 2008. Both times he withdrew from the race before the nominating conventions. But on August 23, 2008, Democratic candidate Barack Obama picked Biden as his vice-presidential running mate, citing primarily his strength in foreign relations as a major boost to the ticket. But Biden’s environmental record also appealed to Obama, who himself has a strong record of environmental support both in the Illinois state legislature and in the U.S. Senate. During the campaign, Biden’s stance on energy issues included a call for a five-year project for energy and climate change that would spend $50 billion on research into investigating alternative energy sources and developing new technologies (‘‘Running Mates on the Issues,’’ 2008). Obama and Biden form a strong team when it comes to environmental issues. Together, they stand for creating five million new ‘‘green collar’’ jobs and promoting energy efficiency. Obama and Biden plan to put one million plug-in hybrid cars on the road by 2015. They want to see 10 percent of U.S. electricity come from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025. Their cap-andtrade plan would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2025 (‘‘New Energy for America, 2008’’). Ultimately, Biden is part of an administration that vows to make the U.S. a leader when it comes to combating climate change. Rachael Hanel See also Alternative Energy; League of Conservation Voters; Obama, Barack

References ‘‘Biden, Joseph Robinette, Jr.’’ Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, 2009. http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=B000444. ‘‘Biden, Joseph R.’’ Current Biography. New York: The H.W. Wilson Company, 2009. League of Conservation Voters. ‘‘LCV Hails Choice of Senator Joe Biden for Vice Presidential Nomination.’’ August 23, 2008. http://www.lcv.org/newsroom/press-releases/ lcv-hails-choice-of-senator-joe-biden-for-vice-presidential-nomination.html. Murray, Molly. ‘‘Biden on the Environment.’’ The News Journal (Wilmington, Delaware). August 26, 2008. ‘‘New Energy for America.’’ Organizing for America. http://my.barackobama.com/ page/content/newenergy. ‘‘Running Mates on the Issues.’’ New York Times. http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/ president/issues/vice-presidents/index.html.

132 | Biodiversity

Biodiversity Most broadly, biodiversity encompasses the diversity of life on the planet. Biodiversity includes genetic diversity, the diversity of information encoded in genes within a species; species diversity, the diversity and relative abundance of species; and community/ecosystem diversity, the diversity of natural communities (Environmental Defense Fund, 2010). ‘‘Biodiversity’’ is a combination of the terms ‘‘biological’’ and ‘‘diversity,’’ both commonly used to describe the variation of species in a given area. As given by the definition above, however, biodiversity is more than variation within the species level. Biodiversity also encompasses the most specific level of diversity (genetic diversity) and the most encompassing level (community/ecosystem diversity). Some scientists even include the evolutionary and ecological processes that perpetuate and sustain biodiversity as a part of its definition. When most people refer to biodiversity, they are typically referring to biodiversity on the species level. Species- and community-level biodiversity are easier for humans to observe and track than genetic diversity; however, a decline in genetic-level diversity will eventually result in a decline of species, community, and ecosystem biodiversity (Duffy, 2010) The term biodiversity wasn’t coined until 1985 and its popularity as an issue in the scientific community has steadily grown as the global threat to biodiversity continues to become more apparent. In fact, biodiversity loss is now of critical concern within the scientific community due to the implications of continued biodiversity loss and the consequences this will have on the human species. A healthy ecosystem (which implies a healthy level of biodiversity) provides many of the ecosystem services humans necessarily depend on, such as water purification, pollution absorption, maintaining a stable climate, soil formation, and nutrient cycling, among other important processes (Global Issues, ‘‘Why Is Biodiversity Important? Who Cares?’’, 2010). Life would not be possible without these ecosystem services, and even a small decrease in these processes equates to billions of dollars of economic loss and the inability for humans to compensate for the losses of these processes at the level our population demands. Ecosystem dynamics and adaptation are extremely complicated systems and processes that humans still have yet to fully understand. Interfering with levels of biodiversity certainly results in negative consequences, such as extinctions, loss of wildlife habitat, and loss of ecosystem services, but also could result in consequences we have yet to comprehend. Simply put, the more biodiversity in a given system, the more stable it is, and less vulnerable it is to disturbances. For example, in terms of agriculture, monocultures are much more prone to disease or other disturbances than polycultures. The

Biodiversity | 133

variation within a polyculture may result in one or two crops having a low-yield season, but it will only be those few crops, not the entirety of the crops planted. Biodiversity loss is also of critical concern to humans and the global economy because of the many biological resources—such as food, medicine, and construction materials, among many others—that humans necessarily depend on for survival. We also depend on these resources for economic growth and the improvement of living standards. Biodiversity loss results in fewer of these resources available and eliminates the opportunity to use these resources in the future for consumption and research practices (Global Issues, ‘‘Why Is Biodiversity Important? Who Cares?’’, 2010). Many types of human activities have resulted in biodiversity loss, generally the exploitation of a resource used for economic gains such as overfishing, overlogging, overpopulation, and most other practices that humans engage in without the consideration of the sustainability of that system. Climate change has also become a driver of biodiversity loss because as weather patterns change, and average temperatures rise, many organisms are not able to adapt to their new environment fast enough, or are unable to quickly move to an environment that is similar to the one they are currently adapted to. This is happening especially in lower latitudes where organisms have evolved to live in a very low range of temperatures, and therefore have lower tolerances to environmental change than those living at higher latitudes. Biodiversity loss is occurring faster than ever before in recorded human history. A report released in 2005 by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment found that a substantial and largely irreversible loss in the diversity of life on Earth, with some 10 to 30 percent of the mammal, bird, and amphibian species currently threatened with extinction, all due to human actions (Global Issues, ‘‘Loss of Biodiversity and Extinctions’’, 2010). One-third of vertebrate populations were lost between 1970 and 2003 (Global Issues, ‘‘Loss of Biodiversity and Extinctions’’, 2010). Another report released in 1999 found that ‘‘the current extinction rate is now approaching 1,000 times the background rate and may climb to 10,000 times the background rate during the next century, if present trends continue. At this rate, one-third to two-thirds of all species of plants, animals, and other organisms would be lost during the second half of the next century, a loss that would easily equal those of past extinctions’’ (Environment News Service, 1999). Because of these relatively high rates of biodiversity loss and the implications of this trend continuing without any type of intervention, addressing biodiversity loss has become an issue on the forefront of many environmental conservation/preservation efforts. Biodiversity loss also often relates to social and human rights issues. For example, part of the reason that U.S. and global coastlines have become more vulnerable to tropical storms than they have been historically is because of the loss of mangrove swamps and other vegetation that acts as a natural barrier to

134 | Blue Ribbon Coalition

severe weather. Many of these areas that were once high in biodiversity have been transformed into fisheries or have been removed for easier coastal access. On a much larger scale, ‘‘at least 40 percent of the world’s economy and 80 percent of the needs of the poor are derived from biological resources’’ (Global Issues, ‘‘Why is Biodiversity Important? Who Cares?’’, 2010). In this sense, biodiversity loss is a threat to the lifestyles and survival of the entire global population. Shannon Conk See also Center for Biological Diversity; Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species; Endangered Species Act of 1973; Overfishing

References Duffy, Emmet. The Encyclopedia of the Earth. ‘‘Biodiversity’’ http://www.eoearth .org/article/Biodiversity (accessed April 11, 2010). Environmental Defense Fund. ‘‘Glossary of Key Terms and Abbreviations, A–L.’’ http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagid=24924 (accessed April 11, 2010). Environment News Service. ‘‘Human Impact Triggers Massive Extinctions.’’ http:// www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug1999/1999-08-02-06.asp (accessed April 12, 2010). Global Issues. ‘‘Loss of Biodiversity and Extinctions.’’ http://www.globalissues.org/ article/171/loss-of-biodiversity-and-extinctions (accessed April 11, 2010). Global Issues. ‘‘Why is Biodiversity Important? Who Cares?’’ http://www.globalissues .org/article/170/why-is-biodiversity-important-who-cares#WhyisBiodiversityImportant (accessed April 11, 2010).

Blue Ribbon Coalition Environmental activism can take many forms. The Blue Ribbon Coalition’s (BRC) name tells little about its mission, but its motto, ‘‘Preserving Our Natural Resources FOR the Public Instead of FROM the Public,’’ explains a different perspective on mainstream environmental groups’ activities. Its values are, it believes, the same as those of other environmental organizations, including tolerance, land stewardship, equity and fairness, and education. The membership of the BRC truly represents a diverse constituency. One element is made up of statewide off-highway vehicle users, such as the Alaska State Snowmobile Association, the Arizona Association of 4-WD Clubs, and the Georgia Recreational Trail Riders Association. Many of the groups in the coalition represent local recreation interests, such as the Cadillac Winter Warriors of Michigan, the McCall Area Snowmobilers in Idaho, and the Acadiana Dirt Bike Riders of Louisiana. Small businesses catering to outdoor recreationists have joined (such as D and H Cycle of Cullman, Alabama, and Bohannon Auto Service

Blue Ribbon Coalition | 135

of Bentonville, Arkansas), as have companies that appear to have no direct interest, such as Big K Concrete Cutting in Sunland, California; Arizona Interior Textures in Phoenix; and Advanced Stair and Rail in Orlando, Florida. Individuals can also join; among those who have are a chiropractor, a dentist, and attorneys. Some BRC interests sound as if they are more traditional environmental organizations, although their interests seldom converge. The Mineral King Preservation Society, the Save Orrick Committee, and the Shawnee Trail Conservancy sound more as if they would restrict access to public lands rather than being part of a national organization devoted to increasing recreational access. But the most controversial membership element is represented by larger corporate interests, who some argue are the real power behind the BRC. They represent the major names in recreational vehicles (American Suzuki Motor Corporation and Kawasaki Motor Corporation), resource-extraction companies with an interest in opening up wilderness areas (Sierra Forest Products, Associated Logging Contractors, and Boise Cascade Corporation), and grazing interests (J. R. Simplot and Joyce Livestock Company). The United States Public Interest Research Group accuses the companies funding the BRC of intensive lobbying efforts, including more than $46 million (1997–1999), with an average of 146 lobbyists working on their issues at any time during the period (U.S. Public Interest Research Group 2001). They also make major contributions to political candidates, primarily to current members of Congress. Like other interests, the BRC has a presence in Washington, D.C., that focuses on the legislative and judicial systems. It takes credit for the passage of the Symms National Recreational Trails Act that sets aside a portion of federal gas tax revenues for multiple-use trails and facilities throughout the United States. The BRC’s Legal Action Fund supports dozens of litigants seeking to open up public lands for additional use, and its magazine reaches a wide audience with updates on legislation, court cases, and public hearings. In some ways, the group’s goals are not unlike those of other organizations that deal with wilderness issues and ethical concerns. The BRC condemns the illegal use of alcohol and drugs while driving—an objective it shares with Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). The BRC supports safety education programs for youth and adults, which is common to most hunting organizations. Somewhat ironically, it agrees with many environmental organizations that have opposed fees for access to public land. Those same groups often engage in one of the BRC’s major family activities: trail reconstruction and cleanup. One of the primary areas where the Blue Ribbon Coalition’s members are at odds with other groups is over the designation of national monuments that its leaders believe are ‘‘land lock-up schemes’’ (‘‘Environmental Groups Fight’’ 2001). During the late 1990s, President Bill Clinton used his powers under the 1906 Antiquities Act to create national monuments, primarily in the west. The

136 | Boulder Canyon Project (Hoover Dam)

BRC filed suit in an attempt to invalidate the president’s proclamations of several of the most controversial designations, including the Canyon of the Ancients in Colorado and the Ironwood Forest in Arizona. Several environmental organizations, including Earthjustice, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Wilderness Society, and the National Wildlife Fund, filed requests with the District Court of Washington, D.C., to intervene. A similar suit against the designation of the Giant Sequoia National Monument was dismissed by the court in 2001, holding that there was no evidence the president had violated the law when the 327,000-acre monument was established. The BRC is well funded and well organized and is one of the most visible of the groups at the conservative front of environmental activism. Through its ability to quickly mobilize its coalition members, it represents an unusually powerful voice in the legislative and judicial arenas. Jacqueline Vaughn Switzer References Deal, Carl. The Greenpeace Guide to Anti-Environmental Organizations. Berkeley, CA: Odonian Press, 1993. ‘‘Environmental Groups Fight to Prevent Attack by the Blue Ribbon Coalition on the Antiquities Act.’’ http://www.ecoworld.com. (accessed October 5, 2001). Helvarg, David. The War against the Greens: The ‘‘Wise Use’’ Movement, the New Right, and Anti-Environmental Violence. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1994. Share Trails. http://www.sharetrails.org. U.S. Public Interest Research Group. ‘‘Blue Ribbon Coalition.’’ http://www.pirg.org/ reports/enviro (accessed October 5, 2001).

Boulder Canyon Project (Hoover Dam) The Boulder Canyon Project was approved for construction in 1928 with the passage of the Swing-Johnson Act. In addition to the excavation of the All-American Canal, the project called for the construction of a large dam by the United States Reclamation Service on the lower Colorado River. It would be used for hydroelectric power, flood control, water storage, and to supply water to farmers and municipalities in a number of different states. Although initial plans called for dam construction in Boulder Canyon, the site was moved to Black Canyon. The new site was eight miles downstream of the original site and was located approximately 30 miles from Las Vegas, Nevada. Deemed geologically inferior to the original site, Black Canyon was selected because it was cheaper to construct the dam there because of its proximity to transportation hubs and the reservoir behind it promised to hold a greater water capacity. Despite the change in location, the project retained the Boulder Canyon designation. The dam was constructed

Boulder Canyon Project (Hoover Dam) | 137

The first bucket of concrete was poured at the construction site of the Hoover Dam on June 6, 1933. The concrete was poured in five-foot sections and cooled with river water via pipes placed within the concrete. (Library of Congress)

between 1930 and 1936 and was at the time of completion the highest concrete arch dam in the country. The dam was named in honor of Herbert Hoover, who was serving as president of the United States at the time that dam construction commenced. The idea of constructing the Boulder Canyon dam arose in the Imperial Valley of California during the early 1900s. Developers envisioned that water from the Colorado River could be used to irrigate the valley, thereby converting an arid region to land suitable for agricultural endeavors. Other western states were opposed to allowing California to construct a dam because they believed that California’s true aim was to control all of the Colorado River. It was not until the states of California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming agreed to the Colorado River Compact in 1922 that plans for the Boulder Dam Project could move forward. Arizona was not a signatory to the compact due to its continued mistrust of California. When it became apparent that the federal government was going to construct the Boulder Canyon Dam, Arizona tried to stop through the legal system what it viewed as a project beneficial solely to California. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Arizona in 1931.

138 | Brower, David

The U.S. Reclamation Service hired Six Companies, Inc., to construct the dam. The corporation was made up of six of the leading construction companies in the United States. The dam they constructed was 726 feet high and 1,244 feet wide. One of the many engineering feats accomplished during construction was the hardening of the concrete. The amount of concrete used in the dam would have taken up to one century to harden naturally, during which time the dam would have failed due to fractures and fissures. Engineers embedded approximately 592 miles of cooling pipes into the dam structure, through which they passed refrigerated water at a rate of approximately three gallons a minute, in order to harden the concrete quickly (Billington and Jackson, 2006). Once the dam was completed, its reservoir was allowed to fill. The reservoir was named Lake Mead after Elwood Mead, who served as the commissioner of the United States Bureau of Reclamation from 1924 to 1936. Encompassing nearly 250 square miles, the lake is the largest human-made reservoir in the United States. John R. Burch Jr. See also Bureau of Reclamation

References Billington, David P., and Donald C. Jackson. Big Dams of the New Deal Era: A Confluence of Engineering and Politics. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2006. Boyer, Diane E., and Robert H. Webb. Damming Grand Canyon: The 1923 USGS Colorado River Expedition. Logan: Utah State University Press, 2007. Dunar, Andrew J., and Dennis McBride. Building Hoover Dam: An Oral History of the Great Depression. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1993. Fradkin, Philip L. A River No More: The Colorado River and the West, 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996. Kluger, James R. Turning on Water with a Shovel: The Career of Elwood Mead. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1992. Pisani, Donald J. Water and American Government: The Reclamation Bureau, National Water Policy, and the West, 1902–1935. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002. Reisner, Marc. Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water. New York: Viking, 1986.

Brower, David David Brower’s biographer, John McPhee, called Brower the archdruid in the 1971 book, Encounters with the Archdruid, an affectionate title that would accompany Brower throughout his life. When Brower died at age 88, he left behind a legacy of environmental activism unmatched in the twentieth century.

Brower, David | 139

David Brower is shown in his office in San Francisco on August 28, 1979. Brower, who was the Sierra Club’s first executive director, died at age 88 on November 5, 2000. (AP/Wide World Photos)

As a conservationist, leader, defender of wildlife, Nobel Peace Prize nominee, and tireless advocate for the environment, he became an icon and role model in the environmental movement. Born in Berkeley, California, Brower was introduced by his family to hiking and nature as a child. He began his college studies at the University of California, Berkeley, in 1929, but dropped out without finishing his degree. His antipathy toward academia was lifelong, and he frequently railed against scholars who spent too much time in their offices instead of in the field. Brower was first known as a mountaineer who developed routes across many of the nation’s prime climbing areas in the 1930s. His interest in mountaineering drew him to the Sierra Club, which at the time was primarily a hiking club without a political agenda. He wrote articles for the group’s newsletter, campaigned for the inclusion of Kings Canyon as a national park, and in 1943, married his wife, Anne, who worked with the University of California Press. During World War II, Brower’s service commitment was to teach U.S. troops his mountaineering skills. When he returned to the United States after the war, he was named the executive director of the Sierra Club in 1952. He had earned the job by advocating additional protection of Kings Canyon by limiting road building, an issue that

140 | Brower, David

had split the organization. At the time, the organization was primarily based in California, with an older and more conservative board of directors. Brower rapidly crafted a new agenda, and the Sierra Club found itself at the forefront of desert protection and an opponent of dam building. One of his first major victories was a fight to block the building of a proposed dam in Dinosaur National Monument. He has said that his life’s major disappointment was a compromise agreement he made with the government to allow a dam to be built in Glen Canyon in exchange for the demise of the dam proposal in Dinosaur National Monument. Just as the environmental movement was gaining momentum in the 1960s, Brower and the Sierra Club popularized the protection of wild places through a 19-volume series of coffee-table books featuring the work of the nation’s top photographers. Millions of Americans became familiar with environmental issues by seeing the work of Ansel Adams, Eliot Porter, and others who brought the images of Yosemite, the Sierra Nevadas, and the Southwest deserts into the homes of previously uninterested middle- and upper-class families. A tireless crusader, Brower’s advocacy agenda moved quickly from organizing hiking trips to using the tools of public relations and lobbying. Working in conjunction with the Wilderness Society, the Sierra Club successfully sought passage of the Wilderness Act of 1964, legislation that would pave the way for the designation of millions of acres of land as permanent wilderness. The speed at which he sought change proved to be too rapid for many of the members of the Sierra Club board of directors. The final straw in destroying his career as president came after Brower single-handedly made the decision to place highly politicized fullpage newspaper ads he had conceived with an advertising agency, causing the Sierra Club to lose its coveted nonprofit status. He was fired in 1969 as a result of his actions. Undaunted, he founded a new group, Friends of the Earth, in 1969, expanding the environmental agenda even more by including international issues. Friends of the Earth led to Brower’s involvement with the League of Conservation Voters, another vehicle for publicizing environmental issues and the voting records of members of Congress. Once again, his vision was not shared by the group’s leadership, and he was fired. Moving on, he served as chair of the board of directors of a new group he founded, Earth Island Institute, where he worked until his death in his hometown of Berkeley. In the last 10 years of his life, Brower hit the road as a highly sought-after speaker, traveling from small Oregon colleges to international conferences. His major theme was the need for what he called environmental CPR: conservation, preservation, and restoration. He was especially interested in speaking to college audiences, which he believed would lead the next generation of environmental advocates. Jacqueline Vaughn Switzer

Bureau of Indian Affairs | 141

References Brower, David. For Earth’s Sake: The Life and Times of David Brower. Salt Lake City, UT: Peregrine Smith Books, 1990. Cohen, Michael P. The History of the Sierra Club, 1892–1970. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1988. Fox, Stephen. John Muir and His Legacy: The American Conservation Movement. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985. McKibben, Bill. ‘‘Remembering the Twentieth Century’s Greatest Environmentalist.’’ Rolling Stone 28 (December 2000): 33, 36. Tuner, Tom. Friends of the Earth: The First Sixteen Years. San Francisco: Earth Island Institute, 1986.

Bureau of Indian Affairs Before the American Revolution, Native Americans enjoyed some protection from treaties made with the English; however, with war looming, the first Continental Congress created the Department of Indian Affairs. The function of this organization was to obtain treaties and ensure tribal neutrality during the upcoming war. Created in 1775, the department was divided into northern, central, and southern divisions. After the war, the U.S. War Department was officially formed, and one of its responsibilities was Indian relations. The view of most politicians in the late 1700s and early 1800s was that the Indian and American cultures were incompatible; however, they believed that natives had the basic skills required to evolve culturally. To this end, Congress passed four Trade and Intercourse Acts, which dealt exclusively with Indian affairs. These acts established a factory system in which trade goods were provided at a fair price so that Indians would remain close to trading posts and maintain trade relations. President Thomas Jefferson (1801–1809), along with those in Indian affairs, believed that the factory system was not a permanent solution, because the Indians would continue to be a hunter-gatherer state and thus would never be truly civilized. In 1822, the factory system was terminated. Two years later, Secretary of War John C. Calhoun established the Bureau of Indian Affairs. As a result, the War Department was relieved of all responsibility concerning Indian affairs, yet it retained its authority in them. Calhoun appointed Thomas McKenney, a former superintendent of Indian affairs, as the head of this new office. McKenney and two assistants inherited the job of approving vouchers for expenditures, allocating funds for civilizing Indians, settling disagreements between natives and white settlers over land, and handling all correspondence concerning Indian affairs that was normally directed to the War Department. McKenney quickly realized that, in order to carry out his new responsibilities, he must have the authority to enforce the actions of the department. On March

142 | Bureau of Indian Affairs

31, 1826, he presented to Congress a bill that would establish an office of Indian affairs independent of the Secretary of War (the names Bureau of Indian Affairs and Office of Indian Affairs were interchangeable). Because Calhoun had established this division of the War Department without congressional authorization, he retained all authority. This bill would make the Office of Indian Affairs an official body, which, although still serving under the Secretary of War, would have the authority to act and to enforce the actions. Congress failed to approve the bill twice, and it was not until 1931 that the Bureau of Indian Affairs was officially recognized and formed. The formation of an official Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), it was hoped, would bring to a close an era of confusion in the handling of Indian policy. The opinion that Indians could be assimilated into white culture was abandoned, and the new consensus was to force the tribes off land desired by the U.S. government. This removal policy was formally adopted in 1825 and, in the hands of the BIA, was fully implemented by the 1830s. With a concerted effort on the part of the BIA and the U.S. government, huge numbers of Indians were forced off their lands and pushed west. The results were particularly devastating in the southeast, where the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole were moved hundreds of miles to their new homes. The most infamous incident involving these removals involved the Cherokee. Traditionally located in present-day Virginia, western Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, western North Carolina, South Carolina, northern Georgia, and northeastern Alabama, the Cherokee were a large tribe thriving in a hunter-gatherer state. The Cherokee had by any standards assimilated into white civilization. They had developed a written language, had their own newspapers, had adopted the Christian religion, and even had their own constitution. In an attempt to solve their dilemma legally, the Cherokee brought their case to the Supreme Court, where they unexpectedly won a decision favoring their ownership of their ancestral land. The decision reached by Chief Justice John Marshall said, ‘‘The Cherokee nation, . . . is a distinct community, occupying its own territory, . . . in which the laws of Georgia can have no force . . .’’ (Worcester v. Georgia, 1832). Unfortunately, the rest of the United States did not share the sentiments held by the Supreme Court. President Andrew Jackson, not an Indian sympathizer, refused to enforce the rulings. The Cherokee were forced to move, many times at gunpoint, and thousands died. The harsh conditions and cruel treatment by the BIA and the U.S. government during the removal caused 8,000 Indian deaths. This 1,000-mile march west became known as the Trail of Tears because the Indian way of life was all but erased. In 1849, Congress moved the Bureau of Indian Affairs to the Department of the Interior, which by 1867 had allowed the BIA to become more involved with the affairs of the Indians. By this time, the BIA had in effect become the governmental body presiding over the Indian territories, and it took full liberty in brutalizing

Bureau of Indian Affairs | 143

their way of life. The agency forbade any language but English to be spoken, outlawed all Indian religious ceremonies, and forbade Indians any form of traditional government. The biggest injustices presided over by the BIA were felt by Indian children. Put into boarding schools to ‘‘civilize’’ them, they were abused physically, emotionally, and spiritually in an attempt to make them ashamed of who they were. The treatment of Indians and the shaming they endured caused suicide, alcoholism, and depression to become normal characteristics of Indian societies. For its entire duration as a government institution, the BIA invoked the will of the people in destroying the Native Americans’ lifeways. It was not until the early twentieth century, when federal policy began to stop trying to destroy Indian culture and instead began to protect it, that the BIA developed into an institution dedicated to helping the Indian cause. In 1928, the Meriam Report was published, which detailed the shortcomings of the services provided for the reservations. This report sparked an era in which the BIA and the government worked hard to improve Indian life socially, economically, and psychologically. By 1960, the BIA’s services were expanded to include forestry, agricultural extension services, range management, and land acquisition in an effort to improve the Indians’ plight. This was the peak of the BIA’s range of responsibilities; shortly thereafter, the government allocated the education of Indian children to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. In the 1970s, Congress passed a series of laws that helped better the situation of Native Americans. Some of these include the American Indian Self-Determination and Education Act of 1975, the Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 1976, and the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. The BIA of today is attempting to change its position from one of management of tribes to one of assistance. One of the most important aspects of the modern BIA is that, of its more than 10,000 employees, 95 percent are Native American. Although Indians’ position toward the BIA is tentative, both sides hope that the BIA can truly move to a position of assistance instead of a dictator of policies. In September 2003, when the head of the BIA publicly apologized for the agency’s ‘‘legacy of racism and inhumanity,’’ it was seen by all as admission of past misdeeds and a commitment to a better future. The closing words of this apology express the desires and hopes of the BIA and Native Americans in years to come: ‘‘The Bureau of Indian Affairs was born in 1824 in a time of war on Indian people. May it live in the year 2000 and beyond as an instrument of their prosperity.’’ Arthur Holst References Kvasnicka, Robert M., and Herman J. Viola, eds. The Commissioners of Indian Affairs, 1824–1977. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1979. Prucha, Francis Paul. American Indian Treaties: The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994.

144 | Bureau of Land Management Prucha, Francis Paul. The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indian. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 1984. Worcester v. Georgia, 1832. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1832/1832_2.

Bureau of Land Management The U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is the nation’s largest land manager, with direct oversight of about 264 million acres located primarily in the west. Once considered wasteland, fit for little more than ranching and mining, these public lands of the BLM are in fact some of the most spectacular, productive, and ecologically diverse places in the United States. Today, the BLM struggles on a relatively small per-acre budget to meet its stated mission: ‘‘to sustain the health, productivity, and diversity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.’’ The BLM’s creation in 1946 followed a long history of land ownership and disposal in the United States. The U.S. government originally acquired the public domain piecemeal from western territories ceded by the original 13 colonies, including land taken from Native American tribes by treaty or force and holdings purchased or won from foreign powers. Congress designated that this land would be disposed of to private and state interests. The Land Ordinance of 1785 developed a uniform survey of lands into a grid system known as townships that could then be parceled and sold. Although rectangular surveys worked relatively well in the low-lying, wooded east, they were ill suited to the terrain of the western states, and federal land policies of disposal often neglected the physical realities of the region. For example, the Homestead Act of 1862 offered 160 acres of ‘‘free’’ land to settlers willing to try their hand at farming, but the acreage was often hardly enough to sustain an individual or a family in the west because of the region’s aridity. Since the nation’s founding, the government has transferred more than one billion acres of public lands to private interests in the United States. Even still, millions of acres have remained in public ownership—either because white settlers found them undesirable or because they were set aside for protection. While the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service managed the nation’s valuable timberlands and the Interior’s National Park Service oversaw creation of scenic and historic treasures, the General Land Office (GLO) retained ownership of everything else. Even as the nation increased its permanent land holdings, the GLO continued in earnest to divest ownership of the public domain to private interests who would accept them. In 1934, the U.S. Grazing Service was formed to provide oversight of ranching on the public range. The Bureau of Land Management, a misfit creation when Congress merged the GLO and the Grazing Service,

Bureau of Land Management | 145

retained the older tradition of disposal and attained the more recent development of management. In its first years, the BLM was left adrift, with no new management or directives aside from the duties and responsibilities of its two predecessor organizations. Under the early leadership of Marion Clawson and Edward Woozley, the agency was committed to the principle of multiple use and to the classification of lands for their best and highest use, which tended to be either ranching or mining. The BLM was a decentralized agency and local public land users exerted a lot of say in how the lands were to be managed, although this varied by administration. In 1964, the Classification and Multiple Use Act called for the classification of federal lands for retention or disposal, the multiple-use management of lands retained, and public involvement in the decision-making process. Well into the 1970s, the BLM continued to cater to traditional extractive industries. However, like its sister land agencies, it had begun to bring recreational interests into its fold. The traditional focus on extractive use led some within the environmental community, like writer Edward Abbey, to refer derisively to the BLM as the Bureau of Livestock and Mining. In fact, it was just in the last quarter of the twentieth century that the agency has gradually incorporated environmental resources into its management practices. Like other federal land agencies, the BLM adhered to new environmental legislation like the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Protection Act. In 1976, Congress finally gave the BLM its Organic Act in response to the Public Land Law Review Commission’s report outlining the future of the public domain. The Federal Land Management and Policy Act of 1976 provided that the public lands would be held in public ownership in perpetuity, broadened the reach of the Wilderness Act of 1964 by initiating a wilderness review process on BLM lands that has yet to be resolved, and generally gave the agency a new management direction and widened the definition of sustained and multiple uses to include environmental and preservationist-leaning management agendas. These legislative and institutional innovations begun in the 1970s angered traditional public land interests—the Sagebrush Rebellion, the Wise-Use Movement, and county R.S. 2477 right-ofway road claims all reflect the discontent over federal ownership and management of the public domain. Like other land-management agencies, the BLM struggles to balance skyrocketing demands for recreation and energy development on public lands with stewardship to care for and protect the nation’s natural and cultural resources. Emphasis on either side of the scale has swung from administration to administration. During the Clinton administration, the Department of the Interior under Bruce Babbitt gained 4.8 million acres of national monuments, 13.7 million acres of national conservation areas, 6 million acres of wilderness areas, 5,000 miles of national historic trails, and 2,000 miles of wild and scenic river ways. By contrast,

146 | Bureau of Reclamation

the Bush administration rewrote BLM Resource Management Plans to make energy development (oil and gas leasing) less restrictive to private companies. Regardless of who holds the reins, BLM managers acknowledge that current funding, resources, and policies are inadequate to meet the large and looming challenges that confront public lands management in the twenty-first century. Jedediah S. Rogers See also Environmental Defense Fund; National Wilderness Preservation System; Trust for Public Land; U.S. Department of the Interior; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

References Cawley, R. McGreggor. Federal Land, Western Anger: The Sagebrush Rebellion and Environmental Politics. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1993. Clawson, Marion. The Bureau of Land Management. New York: Praeger Publishing, 1971. Foss, Philip O. Politics and Grass: The Administration of Grazing on the Public Domain. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1960. Muhn, James, and Hanson R. Stuart. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Opportunity and Challenge: The Story of BLM, second edition. September 1988. http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/blm/history/index.htm National Trust for Historic Preservation. Cultural Resources on the Bureau of Land Management Public Lands: An Assessment and Needs Analysis. Prepared by T. Destry Jarvis of Outdoor Recreation & Park Services, LLC., 2006..

Bureau of Reclamation The Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) is a unit of the Department of the Interior (DOI). The DOI is the primary conservation agency in the United States. The BOR, like most of the other bureaus and services that compose the DOI, is essentially a conservation agency. Its creation was, in part, an achievement of conservationism allied with the Progressive movement. The mission of the BOR is to develop, manage and protect water resources of the arid western United States. Insofar as managing water resources affects other resources such as stream banks or the natural beauty of the land, these also come under its purview. In the exercise of its mission, the BOR seeks to engage in building and managing its responsibilities in an economically and environmentally sound manner. The primary environmental problem faced by humans in the great western expansion is the aridity of the region west of the 100th meridian. In general, west of a north-south line from the Canadian border to the Mexican border drawn through Dallas, Texas, and Fort Kearney, Nebraska, the western region ranges from arid to desert, except in some of the high mountains. This is roughly the

Bureau of Reclamation | 147

modern route of Interstate Highway 35 from Laredo, Texas, through Dallas and into central Kansas. The aridity of the west had challenged the Native Americans long before the arrival of either Hispanic or Anglo-Americans. The Anasazi peoples (culture), probably the ancestors of the Pueblo Indians, built a variety of structures to deal with the limited rainfall of the Four Corners region of Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and Colorado. They eventually declined, probably due to the 300-year Great Drought that forced their survivors to relocate. In the west, drought is normal and has been for centuries. The arrival of Spaniards and Mexicans brought people into the region familiar with settlements in semi-arid areas. The California missions founded by Father Junipero Serra used irrigation. Accustomed to water management, their practices were fruitful anticipations of the BOR. The Annexation of Texas and the Mexican-American War along with acquisition of the Pacific Northwest Oregon Territory pushed the westward expansion of the United States to its current continental boundaries. The arrival of Americans from the east along with northern European immigrants brought people into the arid west from rainy and well-watered regions. Their arrival in an arid environment challenged them in terms of law, culture, and water management practice. In the experience of American pioneers east of the Mississippi River, water was just something almost always available. To enter into a land where it was scarce and where control of water was vital was a new experience. Explorers such as Major John Wesley Powell, who rafted the Grand Canyon in 1869, were soon advocating the conservation of water in the west for irrigation as the key to western development. In the decades leading up to the adoption of the organizing act of the BOR, the Reclamation Act of 1902, there were water experiments. The Mormons in the Great Salt Lake Valley used irrigation for potatoes. Some of the miners in California first used water resources for placer mining of gold then for irrigation water for fields of the Central Valley. In Wyoming and elsewhere in the west, irrigation was used to supply immigrants moving to California or the Oregon Territory. One difficulty faced by western pioneers was the limitation of 160 acres for a homestead set by the Homestead Act of 1862. While appropriate for the east or the Great Plains, it was often an uneconomical size for homebuilding western settlements. Nevertheless, numerous potential supporters of a federal reclamation program were opposed to creating water projects that would benefit large landowners or other corporate interests. So the 160-acre limit became central to federal policy. The size eventually reached 320 acres for a husband and his wife. Prior to 1902, the Carey Act of 1894 sought to provide for western irrigation. The law provided western states with free federal land if the state governments would provide irrigation, but the Carey Act produced little success. Politically,

148 | Bureau of Reclamation

the creation of a federal reclamation service was opposed by the Army Corps of Engineers. The two agencies have battled over ‘‘turf’’ more than once since 1902. Central to a reclamation act was the philosophical belief that users of water provided by public resources from the federal treasury should pay for the water. From these experiences, traditions, and values a variety of trial-and-error reclamation projects were started. These were to shape the policy that eventually emerged as the successful programs that came from the Reclamation Act of 1902. Among the forces promoting water reclamation for irrigation was the National Irrigation Congress. It was led by G. H. Maxwell of Phoenix, Arizona Territory. He was supported in his lobbying by Nevada congressman Francis J. Newlands. With the aid of President Theodore Roosevelt, the Reclamation Act of 1902 was adopted on June 17. Almost immediately, the Secretary of the Interior withdrew lands from six surveys and projects: the Truckee-Cason Survey (Nevada); the Colorado River Survey (California-Arizona); the South Platte Survey (Colorado); the Grand River Survey (Colorado-Utah); and the Bighorn Survey (Wyoming). Withdrawal of the lands blocked their use under other federal laws. It allowed the surveys to be classified and blocked dispersal. If not needed, the lands were returned to the public domain. By 1905, five reclamation projects had been authorized and begun. In 1903, the Reclamation Service oversaw its first projects—the Roosevelt Dam, which impounded the water used in the Salt River Project (SRP). The SRP has supplied Arizona with water drinking, irrigation, and electricity for a century. This success was followed by a number of dams and canals. At the same time, the emergence of electricity as a new energy source for lighting and other uses led it into electrical power generation. The core service area of the BOR has been defined to include from all or part of 17 states. These are, east to west, Oklahoma, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Kansas, Nebraska, the Dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Washington State, Oregon, and California. Texas was excluded at first because it did not have federal lands due to the terms of its annexation, but it was added later. The funding for the reclamation projects was to come from the sale of public lands and from the payment for water. The Secretary of the Interior, Ethan Allen Hitchcock, created the Reclamation Service and housed it within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Its first head was General G. H. Chittenden. In 1907, the Reclamation Service was separated from the USGS and organized as an independent bureau within the DOI. Frederick Haynes Newell was appointed its director. The early years of the Reclamation Service have been called the ‘‘age of irrigation.’’ The first two decades focused on water projects for irrigation, but problems developed when irrigation was attempted on land not suited for it, or when settlers unfamiliar with irrigation failed to use water in environmentally sound ways by overirrigating or by defaults on water payments. In other cases, land swindles developed and projects were opened that yielded low agricultural returns.

Bureau of Reclamation | 149

In 1923, the Reclamation Service was renamed the Bureau of Reclamation. In 1924, Congress authorized its engineers to build Boulder Dam in Boulder Canyon, Nevada. The Hoover Dam was re-sited to its current location on the Grand Canyon for geologic reasons. At first named Boulder Dam, its name was permanently changed by Congress permanently to Hoover Dam in 1947. It was completed in 1935. It ended the Colorado’s floodtide rampages of springtime that were often replaced by a dry river bed by the end of summer. Eventually, Lake Meade—named for Elwood Mead (1858–1936), a pioneer in water law and irrigation—was impounded behind Hoover Dam. The building of the great dams including the Hoover Dam occupied the BOR during its ‘‘age of great dams.’’ It was also a time of political opposition of a new sort because its primary purposes became flood control and hydroelectric generation. At the time, its dams were great engineering marvels that matched the building of the Egyptian pyramids. However, today environmentalists often look upon the great dams as a great ecological mistake. Other great dams of the period that were monumental projects were the Shoshone Dam on the Shoshone River in Wyoming (1910), the Arrowrock Dam on the Boise River in Idaho (1915), and the Owyhee Dam on the Wyhee River in Oregon (1933). Water from these great dams was fed into power plants and canals such as the 152-mile-long Friant-Kern Canal or the Central Valley Water Project in California and the All-American Canal connecting the Imperial Valley and the Coachella Valley with the Colorado River. Other projects were in the Missouri River and Columbia River basins. The success of these projects made the engineers of the BOR world famous in irrigation science. After World War II, western conservationists had consolidated the water supplies so that water for irrigation as well as for fish and wildlife was near a maximum. Hydroelectrically generated power was supplying cities in the west and flood control was in excellent shape. Hydroelectric power revenues were often paying for irrigation projects or for the few remaining dam projects. This era became one of multipurpose use because there arose in the post-war economy a demand for recreational facilities in the BOR’s artificial lakes and its wild rivers. The growing use of BOR facilities for recreation also opened the door for public awareness of the ecological issues dams posed when the environmental movement emerged from the conservation movement in the 1970s. A major disaster occurred for the BOR in 1976 when the Teton Dam collapsed when it was being filled. The failure damaged the BOR’s reputation and its international status. Environmental concerns arose from studies of wild, free flowing rivers that were used for spawning by Pacific salmon. The loss of wild rivers to dams for electric power was increasingly viewed as destructive. The BOR had to deal with economists and cost-benefit studies that demanded ecological as well as economic justification.

150 | Burford (Gorsuch), Anne

By the 1980s, the BOR reported that the arid west had been reclaimed. Today it is engaged in managing its projects. These include millions of acres, more than 50 power plants, and numerous other resources. Today the BOR is concerned with issues of climate change, landscape conservation, and other challenges, such as water conservation. It is also constantly challenged by ecologists who seek to tear down dams in order to restore waterfalls or otherwise return rivers to their original state. Andrew J. Waskey See also Reclamation Act of 1902; Reclamation Reform Act of 1982

References Berkman, Richard L., and W. Kip Viscusi. Damming the West: The Report on the Bureau of Reclamation. New York: Penguin Group, 1973. Billington, David P., and Donald C. Jackson. Big Dams of the New Deal Era: A Confluence of Engineering and Politics. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2006. Dawdy, Doris Ostrander. Congress in Its Wisdom: The Bureau of Reclamation and the Public Interest. Jackson, TN: Westview Press, 1989. Kluger, J. R. Turning on Water with a Shovel: The Career of Elwood Mead. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1992. Linenberger, Toni Rae, and Leah S. Glaser. Dams, Dynamos, and Development: The Bureau of Reclamation’s Power Program and Electrification of the West. Washington DC: United States Department of the Interior, 2002. Miler, Frederic P., Agnes F. Vandome, and John McBrewster. Hoover Dam. Beau Bassin, Mauritius: Alphascript Publishing, 2009. Pisani, Donald J. Water and American Government: The Reclamation Bureau, National Water Policy, and the West, 1902–1935. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002. Rowley, William. The Bureau of Reclamation: Origins and Growth to 1945. Washington DC: United States Department of the Interior, 2006. Warne, William E. The Bureau of Reclamation. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1973.

Burford (Gorsuch), Anne Formerly a corporate attorney and state representative in Colorado, Anne Gorsuch was appointed EPA Administrator by President Ronald Reagan in 1981. An outspoken and controversial official since appointment, she resigned in 1983 amid a scandal over mismanagement of the Superfund hazardous waste cleanup program. She married Robert Burford, Bureau of Land Management director, and was also known as Anne Burford.

Burford (Gorsuch), Anne | 151

At EPA, Gorsuch pursued Reagan administration policies of deregulation. She cut her agency’s budget and personnel deeply in areas of enforcement and research, sharply reduced lawsuits against polluters, and cut volumes of rules. Her senior staff was comprised of former industry lawyers and lobbyists with ties to energy, development, and industrial interests, and they pursued a cooperative enforcement approach with businesses and states as an antidote to overzealous regulation. Where statutes allowed, the EPA delegated program authority to the states, proposed generic rules to increase state discretion, and relaxed supervision of state implementation. Reductions in regulatory resources and intent coincided with an expansion of EPA responsibilities to imple- Anne Gorsuch Burford, director of the ment drinking water, air quality, Environmental Protection Agency, testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., Thurshazardous waste, and toxics pro- day, March 3, 1983. Anne McGill Gorsuch grams under laws enacted in the Burford, who spent two years as Environmenprior decade. Weak rulemaking and tal Protection Agency director under Presienforcement angered and mobilized dent Reagan before resigning in a fight with environmental groups in opposition. Congress over toxic waste documents, died Interest groups fiercely lobbied Con- of cancer Sunday, July 18, 2004. She was 62. (AP/Wide World Photos) gress and brought lawsuits to oppose EPA’s lax Clean Air Act enforcement, pursuit of toxic waste incineration, and acceleration of pesticide permits, among other policies. In the fall 1982, the House of Representatives investigated abuse in the Superfund program directed by Rita Lavelle, assistant administrator for hazardous waste. Congress cited Gorsuch for contempt when she refused to appear and withheld Superfund records, as directed by the Justice Department. President Reagan fired Lavelle during the scandal but also withdrew legal support from Gorsuch and she resigned. Gina L. Keel

152 | Burton, Phillip See also Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

References Landy, Marc, Marc Roberts, and Stephen Thomas. The Environmental Protection Agency, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. Mintz, Joel A. Enforcement at the EPA: High Stakes and Hard Choices. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. Sullivan, Patricia. ‘‘Anne Gorsuch Burford, 62, Dies; Reagan EPA Director.’’ Washington Post, July 22, 2004, p. B06.

Burton, Phillip Phillip Burton was a powerful figure in California Democratic politics from the 1950s until the early 1980s. He served 10 terms in Congress representing San Francisco, California. As chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks and Insular Affairs, he crafted landmark legislation expanding the National Park Service. Burton was born in Cincinnati, Ohio, on June 1, 1926. Burton and his brother, John Lowell Burton, built the ‘‘Burton machine,’’ a political organization that exerted powerful influence in Democratic Party politics, particularly in San Francisco. Burton was elected to the California Assembly in 1957. He was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1964, where he served until his death in 1983. Burton served as chairman of the House Democratic Caucus and in 1976 unsuccessfully challenged Jim Wright (D-TX) for the position of majority leader in the House of Representatives. As chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks and Insular Affairs, he presided over the creation of numerous units in the National Park Service along with dramatic expansion of existing park units and wilderness areas. Burton’s most significant environmental legislation, the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, has been called the ‘‘Park Barrel’’ bill. This unprecedented legislation included $1.8 billion in spending for 150 projects affecting more than 200 congressional districts in 44 states. It was the first packaging of a collection of park authorizations in the same way that omnibus bills previously packaged road or water projects (Jacobs, 1995). In the 1978 act and several subsequent pieces of parks legislation, Burton used this approach to generate broad congressional support for significant expansions of federal parklands. Following his death, Burton was succeeded in Congress by his widow Sala Burton. The Phillip Burton Wilderness in Point Reyes National Seashore was named in honor of Burton’s accomplishments. Dan Wakelee See also National Park Service

Bush, George H. W. | 153

References Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. http://bioguide.congress.gov/ scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=B001156 (accessed December 20, 2008). Jacobs, John. A Rage for Justice: The Passion and Politics of Phillip Burton. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995.

Bush, George H. W. George Herbert Walker Bush, the forty-first president of the United States, 1989–1993, took office expressing a desire to be the ‘‘environmental president.’’ Running as the Republican Party candidate on a conservative platform, he had a successful political leader’s instinct for reaching out to his adversaries and incorporating into his priorities a portion of the opposition program. The Republican platform for 1988 referred to environmental preservation many times, mostly in connection with technologies such as ‘‘clean coal,’’ or balanced exploitation of national forests, but clearly laying claim to a ‘‘long and honored tradition of preserving our nation’s natural resources and environment’’ (Asher, 1990, 357). President Bush’s choice for administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency was William K. Reilly, who had previously served in the White House

The Grand Teton Mountains served as the backdrop as President George H. W. Bush spoke on clean air issues at the Teton Science School, Tuesday, June 13, 1989, Jackson, Wyoming. (AP/Wide World Photos)

154 | Bush, George H. W.

under Russell Train (appointed EPA administrator in 1972) on the Council for Economic Quality, and was at the time president of the World Wildlife Fund. President Bush’s first two State of the Union addresses set forth a number of environmental protection goals, including attention to the looming threat of global warming. Less than a month after taking office, on February 9, 1989, he called for a new, more effective Clean Air Act and a ‘‘date certain’’ to reduce emissions that cause acid rain. He also promised full funding for a clean coal technology agreement with Canada, emphasizing that the agreement was a commitment, and the United States would fulfill it. He also announced an indefinite postponement of three offshore oil lease sales, two off the coast of California and one that could threaten the Everglades, pending the report of a special task force to measure the potential for environmental damage from drilling for oil in each of the designated areas (American Presidency Project, 2010). In his second State of the Union address, on January 31, 1990, President Bush spoke of the means to ‘‘reconcile the needs of a clean environment and a strong economy,’’ announcing that ‘‘as just one sign of how serious we are, we will elevate the Environmental Protection Agency to cabinet rank.’’ Although he and subsequent presidents have invited EPA administrators to attend cabinet meetings, Congress has never passed legislation to create a Department of Environmental Protection. He also committed that, in the budget he submitted to Congress, he was proposing more than $2 billion in new spending to protect the environment and more than $1 billion for global climate change research (American Presidency Project). Exxon Valdez Oil Spill President Bush had been in office a little over two months when the Exxon Valdez ran aground March 24, 1989, on the Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound, Alaska, spilling 10.9 million gallons of crude oil in six hours (Friis, 2007, 223). Damage to the shoreline of the Kenai Peninsula was substantial and long-lasting, but the cleanup effort was not politically controversial. The president dispatched two cabinet members and the coast guard commandant to assess the disaster. Congress enacted, and President Bush signed (Levantrosser, 2004, 66), legislation requiring all tankers operating in Prince William Sound to be double-hulled by 2015, a measure that could have reduced the spill by more than half. President Bush activated a National Response Team comprising personnel from 14 federal agencies to review the spill and recommend actions to prevent recurrence. The team was headed by Secretary of Transportation Samuel K. Skinner and EPA administrator Reilly. Skinner was assigned to coordinate the efforts of all federal agencies involved in the cleanup of the oil spill, while Reilly coordinated long-term recovery of affected areas of the Alaska environment. What was controversial was that Bush continued to advocate opening 1.5 million acres of coastal plains along Alaska’s north slope for oil exploration—which

Bush, George H. W. | 155

many environmentalists expected to be shelved in the wake of the Exxon Valdez spill. Eventually Bush changed course, issuing an order in June 1990 banning offshore drilling in 85 percent of the outer continental shelf, including areas off the coast of Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, and parts of Alaska, overlapping with a congressional moratorium that covered a large part of the California coast and had been expanded to other areas (Levantrosser, 2004, 66). This order consolidated what had been a series of distinct moratoria on separate areas into one omnibus system, which would be challenged during the administration of his son, George W. Bush, 2001–2009, but was not rescinded until October 2008. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 One accomplishment during George H. W. Bush’s administration was passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (Public Law 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399), amending the Clean Air Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. Chapter 85). Reilly, the EPA administrator in the Bush administration, played a significant role in getting the amendments passed, along with Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell (D-ME), Paul Portney, President of Resources For the Future (RFF), and Fred Krupp, the president of the Environmental Defense Fund (Manheim, 2008, 172). President Bush proposed in June 1989 legislation to curb acid rain, urban air pollution, and toxic air emissions. Bills containing these proposals passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan majorities. A reconciled bill was signed by the president on November 15, 1990. Particular targets for urban pollution were concentrations of ozone, carbon monoxide, and smaller particulate matter known as PM-10, 10 micrometers or less in size, responsible for growing problems in the lower respiratory tract. New standards were established for emissions from autos and trucks, beginning in the 1994 model year. The law also listed 189 toxic air pollutants not otherwise covered by the previous act and provided for the EPA to list sources emitting 10 tons per year of any one, or 25 tons per year of any combination of such pollutants, enforcing use of the maximum achievable control technology (EPA, 2010). The first cap-and-trade measure for air pollution control was introduced to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions (Naftali, 2007, 133). The method proved to be quite successful, providing a precedent for proposals to establish a cap-and-trade system for the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions to limit global warming. More than 15 years later, carbon cap and trade remained an idea yet to be adopted, but by 2000, the market for sulfur dioxide emission permits at the Chicago Board of Trade had grown to $3 billion. The EPA issued emission permits for an allowable level of sulfur dioxide, which remained within goals for a reduced level of air pollution. Companies able to reduce their emissions below targeted levels could sell their excess permits to companies less able to do so, generally due to equipment too old to meet requirements, but not so obsolete that

156 | Bush, George H. W.

it was cost-effective to replace it immediately. Cost of administration was much less than across-the-board enforcement procedures, and companies were able to experiment with different methods to reduce emissions, including varied fuel mixes, installing new equipment, or filtering exhaust from existing facilities. Incorporating the president’s conservative preference for relying on market forces, the measure was estimated by Krupp to have reduced emissions by more than 50 percent. The flexibility allowed for by this approach achieved clean air goals at one-tenth of the predicted cost. Northern Spotted Owl President Bush’s administration struggled with the controversial case of the northern spotted owl, a species with habitat exclusively in old-growth forests. Most old-growth forest on private lands, and 80 percent of old-growth forest in the Pacific Northwest, where the owl was commonly found, had been harvested for timber. Any decisions under the Endangered Species Act concerning the spotted owl were going to have some impact on the already declining timber industry of the region, which depended heavily on trees from federally owned and managed forests. An Interagency Scientific Committee (ISC) was established, with forestry and biology scientists from the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to create a management plan for preserving spotted owl habitat (Thomas, 2006, 189). Jack Ward Thomas, who was in charge of the ISC and later chief of the U.S. Forest Service, estimated that no matter how the controversy was resolved, 30,000 to 40,000 forestry service jobs would be lost in the foreseeable future (Thomas, 2006, 190), which made the entire matter politically controversial. The ISC was not permitted to consider the social impact of any possible plan on the immediately affected communities or residents. When its management plan was presented, Bush’s interior secretary, Manuel Lujan, asked the Endangered Species Committee to review it. This committee, sometimes nicknamed ‘‘the God Squad,’’ was authorized by amendments to the Endangered Species Act to consider whether to allow a specific species in a specific set of circumstances to become extinct, balancing public interests against the value of a species. The members of the committee, all appointed by the Bush administration, voted to sustain the ISC’s plan, with the exception of Interior Secretary Lujan (Thomas, 2006, 190). It was at this point that the controversy over efforts to save the northern spotted owl actually resulted in reduced timber harvesting and layoffs of workers in the timber and lumber industries. Judge William Dwyer ordered all timber harvesting within the range of the northern spotted owl to cease, pending resolution of the lawsuits. The court ordered a study of the relevant facts and practical options, which necessarily meant considering the impact not only on the spotted owl and old-growth forests, but also on the communities and economy of the

Bush, George H. W. | 157

region. Congress got involved as well: A committee of four scientists working under direction of the House Agriculture Committee developed an array of alternatives, also assessing the social and economic consequences of each one. This work was highly praised in Congress, but no action was taken (Rockwood, 2008, 172). Meanwhile, the entire matter became political football in the election campaign. Ross Perot, an independent challenger for president, and President Bush, running for reelection, promised to revise the Endangered Species Act, or the way it was administered, to reopen timber harvesting. William Clinton, the Democratic Party candidate, upheld the Endangered Species Act, while acknowledging that the impact on local communities had to be considered (Rockwood, 2008, 172–173). No resolution was actually settled and implemented until 1994, after a third committee was appointed by newly elected President Clinton. Numerous court challenges—from both the timber industry and environmental organizations, to the plan Clinton finally settled on—were rejected by the federal courts. Earth Summit and Election Campaign Near the end of Bush’s term in office, in the midst of his unsuccessful campaign for reelection, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, informally known as the Earth Summit, convened in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in July 1992. The United States was represented among 178 participating nations, and President Bush addressed the summit personally on July 12. He announced that the United States would not sign a treaty to protect rare and endangered animals and plants. The Bush administration maintained a policy of refusing to sign international environmental agreements on the grounds that such measures undermined American sovereignty. He did sign the Framework Convention on Climate Change, aimed at preventing continued global warming, which committed signatory governments to voluntary non-binding goals (Naftali, 2007, 133). This was ratified by the Senate on October 7, 1992. The United States did not generally act on the remaining draft language for international legislation to preserve ecological diversity and combat global warming, contained within an 800-page blueprint for environmental growth. Environmental concerns had little place in President Bush’s last two State of the Union addresses and received much less attention from the administration in 1991–1992. Reilly, who remained as EPA administrator until late 1992, expressed appreciation to Bush for ‘‘more than my share of good days,’’ but lost influence in the administration because the agency was unable to garner support or praise from environmental organizations that would be politically valuable for Bush’s reelection. Environmental organizations came to believe that Bush’s chief of staff John Sununu was undermining the president’s commitment to the environment. National Wildlife Federation’s president Jay D. Hair observed, ‘‘We

158 | Bush, George H. W.

believe George Bush is the environmental president. But what we have is an environmental nightmare in Chief of Staff John Sununu.’’ It is a matter of continued debate among historians whether Sununu was doing exactly what Bush wanted him to do (Feldman, 2002, 83). By a politically natural prioritization process, the administration emphasized work that would please constituencies likely to provide support during the 1992 reelection campaign. During 1992, President Bush faced a primary election challenge from Patrick Buchanan, who was supported by constituencies in the Republican Party least concerned with environmental protection. The 1992 Republican platform had noticeably less emphasis on environmental protection than the 1988 platform. The section on the environment applauded the United States’ world leadership in environmental progress, giving President Bush credit for the bipartisan Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 over ‘‘the Democrats’ command-andcontrol approach.’’ While sections on energy, public lands, airports, and agriculture called for programs to be implemented in an environmentally responsible or sound manner, the platform referred to the domestic oil and gas industry being ‘‘crippled by environmental rules’’ and sharply advocated restriction in the definition of wetlands to be preserved. Charles Rosenberg See also Bush, George W.; Clean Air Act of 1970; Exxon Valdez Spill; Northern Spotted Owl; Oil Pollution Act of 1990; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

References American Presidency Project. ‘‘State of the Union Messages.’’ University of California at Santa Barbara. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu (accessed September 11, 2009). Asher and Associates. Official Report of the Proceedings of the Thirty-fourth Republican National Convention. Washington DC: Republican National Committee, 1990. Environmental Protection Agency. ‘‘Overview—The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.’’ http://www.epa.gov/oar/caa/caaa_overview.html (accessed September 11, 2009). Faber, Daniel. Capitalizing on Environmental Injustice: The Polluter-Industrial Complex in the Age of Globalization. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2008. Feldman, Leslie Dale, and Rosanna Perotti. Honor and Loyalty: Inside the Politics of the George H. W. Bush White House. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002. Friis, Robert H. Essentials of Environmental Health. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett, 2007. Levantrosser, William F., and Rosanna Perotti. A Noble Calling: Character and the George H. W. Bush Presidency. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004. Manheim, Frank T. The Conflict Over Environmental Regulation in the United States: Origins, Outcomes and Comparisons with the EU and Other Regions. Berlin: Springer, 2008.

Bush, George W. | 159 Naftali, Timothy J. George H. W. Bush. New York: Times Books, 2007. Rockwood, Larry L., Ronald E. Stewart, and Thomas Dietz. Foundations of Environmental Sustainability: The Coevolution of Science and Policy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Thomas, Jack Ward. ‘‘Federal Agencies in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.’’ In 8th Biennial Scientific Conference on the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, A. Wondrak Biel, ed. Yellowstone Center for Resources, 2006.

Bush, George W. George W. Bush, the forty-third president of the United States, did not generally receive support from major environmental organizations in the 2000 election, and did not win over many with the policies of his administration. He did include environmental protection in the tone set by his first State of the Union address on February 27, 2001. ‘‘A budget’s impact is counted in dollars but measured in lives,’’ he told Congress and the nation. A cleaner environment was among the important needs to be funded. More specifically, he announced a budget to accelerate ‘‘the cleanup of toxic brownfields,’’ fully funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and allocating $4.9 billion over five years for the upkeep of the National Park System. The new president’s nominee for administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Christine Todd Whitman, had a positive reputation as governor of New Jersey for reducing ozone levels and beach closings, instituting a new watershedmanagement program, and preserving open space, earning recognition of the state by the Natural Resources Defense Council. Bush’s initial choice for Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton, was described by the Sierra Club as ‘‘an anti-environmental extremist’’ who ‘‘would be a natural disaster as Interior Secretary.’’ Her deputy secretary, a position that handles much of the day-to-day administration of the department, was J. Steven Griles, who had spent most of the 1990s as a lobbyist for the coal industry and was recognized as the coal industry’s choice for the job. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) challenged Griles’s presentation of himself, at confirmation, as a man who had devoted himself to upholding coal-mining regulations during a previous period in Ronald Reagan’s Interior Department. Wyden asserted that Griles had gutted the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, and that confirming him would be assigning the fox to guard the henhouse (Shnayerson, 2008, 120). Bush’s appointments to deputy secretary and assistant administrator positions in cabinet departments such as Interior and at the EPA were drawn largely from those in industries regulated by the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, who had been working for years to change regulations they were now charged with overseeing or revising (Barcott, 2004).

160 | Bush, George W.

President Bush finishes signing the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law, with Senator Peter Domenici, R-NM, center, chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, during a ceremony at the Sandia National Laboratories on Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, NM, Monday, August 8, 2005. The legislation hoped to diversify the U.S. energy supply and make America less dependent on foreign oil. (AP/Wide World Photos)

Clear Skies, Healthy Forests By his second State of the Union address on January 29, 2002, the environment was not even mentioned, as military priorities and homeland security overwhelmingly dominated the administration’s priorities. Clean air was back on the agenda for his third address on January 28, 2003, albeit secondary to energy independence. The president had proposed to Congress an initiative called Clear Skies, which, he promised, would mandate a 70 percent cut in air pollution from power plants over 15 years. He also proposed the Healthy Forests Initiative to ‘‘help prevent the catastrophic fires that devastate communities, kill wildlife, and burn away millions of acres of treasured forests.’’ His budget proposed $1.2 billion for research on hydrogen-fueled motor vehicles ‘‘to make our air significantly cleaner and our country much less dependent on foreign sources of energy.’’ Clear Skies never reached a floor vote in the Senate, even with a Republican majority. It proposed to replace regulations developed to enforce the 25-year-old

Bush, George W. | 161

Clean Air Act with a cap-and-trade system. Cap-and-trade had worked well under the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments to reduce acid rain, so there were vehement arguments that it would work for other forms of air pollution. Everyone agreed that existing regulations were clumsy, restricted innovation, and expensive (Easterbrook, 2004). But Clear Skies was estimated to allow 50 percent more sulfur dioxide, nearly 40 percent more nitrogen oxide, and three times as much mercury than would be allowed by consistent enforcement of Clean Air Act rules already on the books (Shulman, 2008, 68). Bush’s EPA estimated that an amendment proposed by three Republican senators (Gregg, Alexander, and Chafee) and one Democrat (Carper) would cut a larger quantity of all three pollutants sooner than Clear Skies, result in 17,800 fewer deaths by 2020, and reduce carbon dioxide emissions at ‘‘negligible’’ cost to the industries concerned. However, the EPA withheld the report for months after the senators requested it, and it became public only through a leak to the Washington Post (Shulman, 2008, 69–70). The Healthy Forests Restoration Act fared better, passing both houses of Congress so that Bush could sign it into law in 2003. The rationale was that 190 million acres of federal lands were at risk of fire, which could be ameliorated by selective timber harvesting and thinning. A new process streamlined approval and relaxed regulations so that legal challenges would not delay vitally needed work. Trees that most need to be thinned out are commercially worthless, but the timber industry praised the new law. Conservationists objected that the law was a thinly disguised measure to streamline logging, which did not focus ‘‘thinning’’ operations in the younger forests where dense growth made it beneficial, nor on land close to residential development (Weidensaul, 2005, 269). Forest scientists supportive of the program have noted that contractors will not bid on a thinning job if they cannot take enough larger trees to make a profit and generate revenues to offset costs, and that judicial review was restricted due to a possibility that unthinned forests will catch fire while management plans are being litigated (Omi, 2005, 39–40). Air Pollution and New Source Review A closely related controversy in 2003 was adjustment in standards for ‘‘new source review’’ of air pollution sources. When the Clean Air Act was passed, Congress provided that new industrial plants would have to install the latest pollution-control technology, but older plants would be required to do so only when equipment was upgraded. This was conceived of as a reasonable way to phase in costs, but it created a financial incentive to keep older plants running longer. Many in the EPA and environmental organizations believed that plants that were upgraded had flagrantly failed to install required pollution controls. Under the Clinton administration, EPA administrator Carol Browner had launched an enforcement unit to review compliance. Many electric utilities complained that EPA regulations gave

162 | Bush, George W.

them no clear definition of what was routine maintenance and what was an upgrade requiring that pollution-control equipment be installed. In Bush’s first term, the EPA shifted its position, proposing to define an upgrade costing less than 20 percent of the value of a pre-1970 plant as ‘‘routine maintenance.’’ Even many conservatives conceded this was a dubious standard that would allow a plant to be totally replaced in five years and continue to pollute at 1970 levels (Van Doren and Taylor, 2003). As former oil industry executives, Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were thought to share the views of power company executives, who by and large consider their industry the ‘‘turbines’’ that run economic growth and are averse to regulation, particularly environmental regulation. Eric Schaeffet, a former EPA official, documented in 2004 that 50 of the nation’s top sulfur dioxide sources are responsible for 43 percent of all sulfur dioxide released into the air, and these were the largest single group of contributors to Bush’s campaigns (Shulman, 2008, 65). Energy and Air Pollution The hydrogen fuel cell program, which became known as Freedom-CAR, replaced a research partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) that had been running since 1993, with the goal by 2004 of producing economically viable car models able to drive 80 miles on a gallon of gasoline. PNGV was halted just two years short of its scheduled completion. Although the potential of hydrogen fuel cells is exciting, obstacles include the lack of production, transportation, storage, and delivery infrastructure for the tremendous amount of hydrogen required, the high pressure it would need to be stored at, while mass-produced fuel cells are likely to cost 10 times what an internal combustion engine giving comparable power would sell for (Hanson and Giuliano, 2004, 286). Amounts actually appropriated for the Freedom-CAR program ranged from $56 million to $118 million. Starting in 2005 and continuing through the end of his second term, Bush emphasized ‘‘reliable supplies of affordable, environmentally responsible energy.’’ Renewing advocacy of his Clear Skies legislation, he advocated development of hydrogen-fueled cars, clean coal, and renewable sources such as ethanol. In 2006, he added a proposed Advanced Energy Initiative, including a 22 percent increase in clean-energy research to build zero-emission coal-fired plants, solar and wind technologies, ‘‘clean, safe nuclear energy,’’ batteries for hybrid cars, and methods for producing ethanol that could be economically competitive within six years. In his final State of the Union address on January 28, 2008, he added to these consistent themes of his second term that the United States should help China and India make greater use of clean energy sources, and for the first time explicitly addressed greenhouse gases and climate change. He called for developing technology to generate coal power ‘‘while capturing carbon emissions’’ and advocated that the United States should work to ‘‘complete an international agreement that has the potential to slow, stop and eventually reverse the growth of greenhouse gases.’’

Bush, George W. | 163

Kyoto Protocol and Global Warming For most of his two terms in office, President Bush was considered by people on all sides of the global warming debate to be an opponent of international efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. His administration declined to either sign or conform to the goals of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change protocol developed in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997. The agreement had sufficient signatures to go into effect in 2005, and by April 2006, had 163 signatories. As early as 1997, the U.S. Senate voted overwhelmingly that the United States should not sign the treaty, and Bush consistently expressed reservations about the impact that reducing carbon dioxide emissions would have on the U.S. economy. He also questioned whether human industry and carbon dioxide emissions caused the evident rise in global temperature, or whether the increased temperature had a significant impact on climate (Lind and Tamas, 2007, 101). In June 2001, he called the Kyoto Protocol ‘‘fatally flawed in fundamental ways,’’ questioned ‘‘how much effect natural fluctuations in climate may have had on warming,’’ and observed that ‘‘a growing population requires more energy to heat and cool our homes, more gas to drive our cars.’’ At the same time, he acknowledged that ‘‘this is a challenge that requires a 100 percent effort, ours and the rest of the world’s.’’ He particularly objected to exemption of China and India from the Kyoto Protocol, while noting that many countries cannot meet their Kyoto targets. From about fiscal year 2002, he did budget about $1.5 billion a year for energy supply and conservation research, carbon dioxide sequestration research, clean coal and natural gas research, and nuclear energy research. However, throughout his second term, scientists in and out of government reported being pressured to tailor reports and data to fit the administration’s skepticism. A survey by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that 150 climate scientists had personally experienced political interference over five years, in a total of at least 435 incidents. White House official Phil Cooney was specifically mentioned—he was a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute before becoming chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality. An Absence of Enforcement Bush had a total of five EPA administrators. Whitman lasted for one and a half years, citing political interference in agency work when she resigned. Linda J. Fisher served as acting administrator for two weeks in mid-2003, followed by Marianne Lamont Horinko for three and a half months, then Mike Leavitt became administrator for a little over a year, until January 2005. He was succeeded by Stephen L. Johnson, first as acting administrator, then as administrator, until the end of President Bush’s second term. The appointment of Johnson, a career scientist, drew rare praise from environmental organizations and critics such as senators James Jeffords of Vermont and Thomas Carper of Delaware. An

164 | Bush, George W.

EPA economist said Johnson ‘‘would be good for morale, but people in the agency are skeptical about whether he is really going to be allowed to accomplish anything’’ (Vedantam, 2005). What was conspicuously missing for all but the first months of Bush’s two terms in office was attention to halting water pollution, protecting wilderness areas, restoring wetlands, or protecting endangered species. These were, in fact, never priorities for his administration, and he seldom claimed them as priorities. In his third State of the Union message on January 28, 2003, he announced that ‘‘in this century, the greatest environmental progress will come about not through endless lawsuits or command-and-control regulations but through technology and innovation.’’ Technology and innovation did not produce immediate breakthroughs, but lack of enforcement of existing regulations was a hallmark of Bush’s administration. Charles Rosenberg See also Bush, George H. W.: Energy Policy Act of 2005; Gore, Albert Arnold Jr.; Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

References Barcott, Bruce. ‘‘Up in Smoke: The Bush Administration, the Big Power Companies and the Undoing of 30 Years of Clean Air Policy.’’ New York Times Magazine, April 4, 2004. Easterbrook, Gregg. ‘‘Greener Pastures.’’ The New Republic, December 14, 2004. Hanson, Susan, and Genevieve Giuliano. The Geography of Urban Transportation. New York: The Guilford Press, 2004. Lind, Nancy S., and Bernard Ivan Tamas. Controversies of the George W. Bush Presidency: Pro and Con Documents. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2007. Omi, Philip N. Forest Fires: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2005. Shnayerson, Michael. Coal River. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2008. Shulman, Seth. Undermining Science: Suppression and Distortion in the Bush Administration. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008. Van Doren, Peter, and Jerry Taylor. ‘‘Congress Vs. Responsibility: New Source Review Problems are on Capitol Hill.’’ National Review Online, December 8, 2003. http://article.nationalreview.com (accessed September 26, 2009). Vedantam, Shankar. ‘‘Scientist Named to Head the EPA.’’ Washington Post, March 5, 2005, A01. Weidensaul, Scott. Return to Wild America: A Yearlong Search for the Continent’s Soul. New York: North Point Press, 2005.

C Caldwell, Lynton Lynton Caldwell was Arthur F. Bentley Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Indiana University, Bloomington. He held that rank from 1984, the year of his retirement, until his death in 2006. The author of hundreds of articles and dozens of books, Caldwell is most notable for his work as a founder of the field of environmental policy studies and as an architect of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Lynton Keith Caldwell was born November 21, 1913, in Montezuma, Iowa. He completed his undergraduate degree at the University of Chicago in 1934 and his PhD at the same institution in 1943. In the 1950s, Caldwell was attached to UN missions to Colombia, the Philippines, and Japan, and was appointed codirector of the UN’s Public Administration Institute for Turkey and the Middle East. He had appointments at Syracuse University and the University of California, Berkeley. In 1956, he was appointed professor of government at Indiana University, Bloomington, where he remained until his retirement in 1984. Besides his voluminous academic achievements, Caldwell is most notable for his work on the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970. NEPA’s most significant contribution to the enhancement of the environment was first to formalize the procedure by which government agencies prepare environmental assessments, and second to create the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The existence of the EIS has been attributed to Caldwell’s testimony before the U.S. Senate. NEPA’s influence can be seen in similar acts in many states as well as in many foreign countries. Caldwell was honored by many organizations, including the American Political Science Association, the American Society for Public Administration, the United Nation’s Environmental Program, and others. An avid outdoorsman and lover of nature, he was a founding member of the Audubon Society’s South Bend, Indiana chapter, and the Nature Conservancy’s New York and Indiana chapters. The Caldwell Center for Culture and Ecology was established in his name in 2006. Caldwell died August 15, 2006, in Bloomington, Indiana. Robert C. Robinson See also National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

165

166 | California Quincy Library Group

Reference The Nature Conservancy. ‘‘Lynton Keith Caldwell, Indiana’s Conservation Giant.’’ http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/indiana/misc/art24490.html (accessed May 14, 2010).

California Quincy Library Group The Quincy Library Group (QLG) is an environmental group dedicated to addressing both logging and environmental interests in northern California. The group was named after their neutral meeting place, the Quincy Public Library. The QLG was made up of people who may otherwise have been at odds with each other—loggers and environmentalists. Their joining together to address the best interests of everyone—economic well-being and the threat of catastrophic forest fires—is a key example of civic environmentalism and collaborative decision-making, where local government units, rather than the federal government, are encouraged to solve environmental problems. The Quincy Library Group was formed in 1992 by a timber industry forester, a county supervisor, and an environmental attorney. These people recognized that the ‘‘timber wars’’ were not good for the community and sought to find a reasonable solution. This group covers a three-county area, Lassen, Plumas, and Sierra, in northern California. Through 1992 and 1993, the QLG worked to develop a plan to protect both environmental and logging interests. However, the U.S. Forest Service refused to implement the plan. The QLG took the plan to Washington, D.C., where Congress passed the Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and Economic Stability Act in 1997. The 1999 Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act established a five-year program to test how best to protect a forest and its habitat from fires and destructive logging while still producing enough wood to keep the timber industry thriving. As much as the QLG has attempted to be a group of cooperation, there are other groups that have been against the QLG, such as the Sierra Forest Legacy, who argue that these compromise plans are too heavily dominated by the logging industry. The Quincy Library Group has struggled with many of its plans being locked up in litigation. This may have a dire impact on the group’s success, and may have implications on the group’s future. Melinda Mueller See also Sustainable Forestry

References John, Dewitt. Civic Environmentalism: Alternatives to Regulation in States and Communities. Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1994.

California v. General Motors Corp. (2006) | 167 Plumas County News. ‘‘Critics, Quincy Library Group, Meet with Senator.’’ http:// www.plumasnews.com (accessed February 3, 2009). Quincy Library Group. http://www.qlg.org (accessed February 3, 2009). Red Lodge Clearinghouse. ‘‘Quincy Library Group.’’ http://www.rlch.org (accessed February 25, 2009).

California v. General Motors Corp. (2006) California sued six automakers in September 2006, alleging that the vehicles of GM, Ford, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, and DaimlerChrysler introduced into the atmosphere 289 million metric tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. California regarded this pollution as a public nuisance under state and federal common law. Vehicle pollution reduced the snowpack, raised sea levels, increased ozone, and added to risks of wildfire and flooding. It harmed the elderly, children, fish, and wildlife. California wanted monetary damages to compensate for the millions it spent correcting the problems caused by the automakers. The case was consistent with Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency in that the court found that the public-nuisance argument was inappropriate in seeking redress for climate damage from industry. After a district court ruled, as the manufacturers contended, that the matter was political and not appropriate for judicial resolution, California dropped the case in 2009. The automakers also contended that the Clean Air Act and Energy Policy and Conservation Act made the California case inappropriate. California’s withdrawal of its appeal came with a statement that the Obama administration was showing signs of progress on related issues such as fuel economy and emission standards and a finding by the EPA that greenhouse gases are a public health hazard under the Clean Air Act. Related litigation still in the circuit courts in 2009 included Connecticut v. American Electric Power and Comer v. Murphy Oil. Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., filed in 2008, dealt with a barrier reef Eskimo village endangered by rising water levels due to oil company negligence. The case was dismissed in October 2009 at the same time that Comer v. Murphy, a Katrina-related case, was reinstated on appeal. John H. Barnhill See also Clean Air Act of 1970; Energy Policy Act of 2005; Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp. (2008); Massachusetts v. EPA (2007)

References Endangeredlaws.Org. California v. General Motors Corp. http://www.endangered laws.org/case_california.htm (accessed April 2010).

168 | Calvert Cliffs’ Committee v. Atomic Energy Commission (1971) Lichtman, Joanne. ‘‘California v. General Motors: State moves to voluntarily dismiss climate change lawsuit against major automakers.’’ Global Climate Law Blog, June 23, 2009. http://www.globalclimatelaw.com/2009/06/articles/climate-change-litigation/ california-v-general-motors-state-moves-to-voluntarily-dismiss-climate-change-lawsuit -against-major-automakers/. McCrea, Hannah. ‘‘A Victory For Katrina Victims; A Defeat For Alaskan Villagers. Climate Law Update.’’ October 20, 2009. http://www.grist.org/article/2009-10-19-a -victory-for-katrina-victims-a-defeat-for-alaskan-villagers/. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. California v. General Motors, et al., 2007. http://www.pewclimate.org/federal/analysis/judicial/california-v-general-motors-et-al-2007 (accessed April 2010). Theusconstitution.org. ‘‘Update: California Drops Its ‘Nuisance’ Suit Against Carmakers; Other Tort-Based Climate Change Lawsuits Await Decisions in Federal Courts.’’ Warming Law, July 24, 2009. http://theusconstitution.org/blog.warming/?p=664.

Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Committee v. Atomic Energy Commission (1971) This case involved a proposal to build a nuclear power facility in Calvert Cliffs, Maryland, along the Chesapeake Bay. Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Committee was a conservation group formed to fight pollution in the Chesapeake Bay. It sued the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) over the authorization of the nuclear plant and the AEC’s implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. In this 1971 District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals decision, Judge Skelly Wright’s majority decision created an early benchmark for implementation of NEPA. Signed by President Nixon on January 1, 1970, NEPA created a broad national environmental that was intended to create an increased level of ecological sensitivity in the halls of bureaucratic cost-benefit decision-making. Nixon dubbed the signing of NEPA as the beginning of the ‘‘environmental decade.’’ In order to insure the consideration and incorporation of environmental values and to minimize environmental impacts of federal projects, NEPA mandated all federal agencies to conduct an investigation of the environmental impacts of their decisions and projects if they are perceived to significantly affect the environment. This is called environmental impact analysis and is now practiced by more than 25 states and dozens of counties. The documents are called environmental impact statements (EIS). The wheels of environmental enthusiasm met reality when federal agencies began to figure out how they were going to implement NEPA. The Atomic Energy Commission claimed within its discretion the ability to license a nuclear plant after approval by the state public utility commission that did not require an EIS. The Calvert Cliffs’ case rested on the requirement for federal agencies to

Carbon Footprint | 169

implement NEPA’s EIS requirement and the EIS’s relationship to the substantive environmental ethics also articulated by NEPA. The AEC contended they were exempt from NEPA’s policy requirements. Judge Skelly Wright issued a scathing opinion saying that the AEC ‘‘makes a mockery of the act’’ by rejecting NEPA’s EIS requirement. The court ruled that NEPA’s language did not create the level of bureaucratic discretion so as to provide ‘‘an escape hatch for foot-dragging agencies.’’ Judge Wright’s decision is one of the strongest judicial opinions defending the broad environmental goals as well as the procedural EIS requirement of NEPA. Subsequent Supreme Court decisions on NEPA, especially Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council and Stryker’s Bay Neighborhood Council v. Karlen, struck down Judge Wright’s precedent that federal agencies must incorporate NEPA’s substantive goals of conservation and environmental ethics in their decision-making. Matthew Lindstrom See also National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; Nixon, Richard

References Caldwell, Lynton K. The National Environmental Policy Act: An Agenda for the Future. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998. Lindstrom, Matthew J., and Zachary A. Smith. The National Environmental Policy Act: Judicial Misconstruction, Legislative Indifference, and Executive Neglect. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2002. Open Jurist. Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Committee v. Atomic Energy Commission 449 F2d 1109. http://openjurist.org/449/f2d/1109/calvert-cliffs-coordinating-committee -inc-v-united-states-atomic-energy-commission (accessed on April 17, 2010).

Carbon Footprint A carbon footprint is the total amount of greenhouse emissions produced by an organization, event, or product to support human activities such as electricity, heating, and transportation. The footprint is expressed in equivalent tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) or a total set of greenhouse gases (GHG) during a given time frame. The carbon footprint concept is part of the broader ecological footprint theory. The ecological footprint studies the human demand on Earth’s ecosystems to determine if the demand outpaces the planet’s ecological capacity to regenerate. The carbon footprint comprises approximately 50 percent of humanity’s ecological footprint, making it the most significant component. A carbon footprint is generally comprised of two parts, the primary footprint and the secondary footprint. The primary footprint is calculated from direct emissions of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels, including domestic energy consumption

170 | Carbon Footprint

and transportation. The secondary footprint is based on indirect emissions from the manufacturing and disposal of products that individuals purchase and consume (Carbon Footprint, 2010). The term ‘‘ecological footprint’’ was first coined in 1992 by the Canadian ecologist William Rees. The concept and calculation was developed as part of the dissertation of Mathis Wackernagel, who was under Rees’ advisement at the University of British Columbia between 1990 and 1994. The idea was originally called ‘‘appropriated carrying capacity,’’ but was changed by Rees to ‘‘ecological footprint’’ to make it more straightforward. Rees was inspired to the footprint reference after a computer technician visiting his office remarked on his computer’s small footprint on his desk (Helium, 2010). The term evolved into ‘‘carbon footprint’’ during the late 1990s. The basis of the idea was Rees’ belief that the problem would resonate more with society if consumption and resulting consequences were measured against a benchmark. In 1996, Wackernagel and Rees published the book Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth (Associated Content, 2010). In 1992, concerns about the implications of carbon emissions compelled several nations within the UN to develop an accord for the reduction of greenhouse gases. The UN summit produced the Kyoto Protocol, a legally binding commitment among Annex I (industrialized) nations and a general commitment from other member countries to reduce greenhouse emissions. The objective was to stabilize concentrations of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere at a level that would not be detrimental to the climate system (Global Footprint Network, 2010). Another partnership launched since the UN summit was the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, which includes the United States, Australia, Canada, China, India, Japan, and South Korea. This partnership was established with the goal of reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, addressing global warming concerns, and working cooperatively to develop clean energy technologies. Collectively, these nations are responsible for more than half of the world’s economy, population, energy use, and carbon dioxide emissions; therefore, the partnership was deemed critical to any worldwide green initiative (Global Footprint Network, 2010). The carbon footprint concept continues to serve as a basis for nations that are interested in mitigating civilization’s impact on the environment. Most recently, focus has been gauged toward carbon offsetting, a term used to reduce a carbon footprint through investments in alternatives such as solar energy, wind energy, and reforestation. On an individual level, environmental groups advocate for instituting more practical behavior in daily routines, such as turning off electronic equipment when not in use, reducing the temperature of air and water heating units, replacing appliances with energy-efficient models, using public transportation, carpooling, purchasing local fruit and vegetables, buying food

Carey Act of 1894 | 171

products that are in season locally, avoiding products that are not manufactured domestically, and practicing the three R’s (reduce, reuse, and recycle) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010). Giuseppe Fazari See also Alternative Energy; Automobile Emissions; Kyoto Protocol

References Associated Content. ‘‘Do You Know What Your Ecological Footprint Is?’’ http:// www.associatedcontent.com/article/145090/do_you_know_what_your_ecological_foot print.html (accessed April 10, 2010). Carbon Footprint. ‘‘What is a Carbon Footprint?’’ http://www.carbonfootprint.com/ carbonfootprint.html (accessed April 5, 2010). Global Footprint Network. ‘‘What Exactly is the Carbon Footprint?’’ http:// www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/ (accessed April 2, 2010). Helium. ‘‘What is a Carbon Footprint?’’ http://m.www.helium.com/items/1766113 -what-is-carbon-footprint (accessed April 10, 2010). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ‘‘Climate Change: What You Can Do.’’ http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/index.html (accessed April 11, 2010).

Carey Act of 1894 The Carey Act of 1894 provided for federal, state, and private cooperation in the settlement of millions of acres of arid western land still held in the public domain. Preexisting federal land programs such as the Homestead Act of 1863, the Timber Culture Act of 1873, and the Desert Land Act of 1877 successfully promoted the settlement of the American west. However, by the late nineteenth century, millions of acres of dry and inhospitable land remained unclaimed. In an effort to promote this otherwise uncultivable land, Wyoming Senator Joseph Maull Carey introduced legislation that would make the land more appealing by allowing private companies to build irrigation systems and profit from the use of water by future settlers. Under the Carey Act, the federal government’s General Land Office (GLO) made up to one million acres of desert land available to each western state for reclamation. In order to qualify for the federal land grants, individual states were required to enact policies that regulated the settlement of lands they were to acquire from the GLO. This process included entering into an agreement with a private project developer that would provide settlers with a reliable and affordable supply of water. The requirements for settlers varied on a stateby-state basis. In Idaho, for example, prospective settlers had to pay a one-dollar entry fee in addition to one-half of the purchase price per acre. Settlers were then

172 | Carson, Rachel

required to cultivate one-sixteenth of their land within the first year of settlement and one-eighth by the end of the following year. Idaho is home to some of the most notable Carey Act settlements, such as Boise and Twin Falls. Jason Hostutler See also Desert Land Act of 1877; Pacific Northwest Rain Forests; Sustainable Agriculture; Sustainable Forestry

References Fiege, Mark. Irrigated Eden: The Making of an Agricultural Landscape in the American West. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1999. Gertsch, William Darrell. ‘‘The Upper Snake River Project: A Historical Study of Reclamation and Regional Development, 1890–1930.’’ PhD diss., University of Washington, 1974. Idaho State Historical Society. ‘‘The Carey Act in Idaho.’’ http://www.idahohistory .net/Carey_Act.pdf.

Carson, Rachel Rachel Carson’s 1962 book Silent Spring warned against indiscriminate use of synthetic pesticides and helped launch the modern environmental movement. Carson also authored three books about the ecology of oceans, including the bestseller The Sea Around Us, which won the 1952 National Book Award. In all her writings, Carson described the interconnections within what she called the ‘‘web of life’’ in language that was scientifically informed, poetically expressed, and comprehensible to the general reader. Carson was born May 27, 1907, and grew up in western Pennsylvania. From a young age, she displayed unusual writing gifts and a fascination with nature. She majored in biology at Pennsylvania College for Women and received her master’s in marine biology from Johns Hopkins in 1932. She worked for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, producing public information materials until 1952, when the success of The Sea Around Us enabled her to turn full time to writing (Lytle, 2007). Carson’s Under the Sea Wind (1941), The Sea Around Us (1951), and The Edge of the Sea (1956) adopted a nature-centered perspective, humanity serving merely as spectator to an age-old evolutionary drama. In Silent Spring, the human race becomes instead a dangerously ignorant protagonist, irreversibly altering natural systems it barely understands. Carson documented the badly targeted, often counterproductive consequences of widespread deployment of synthetic pesticides like DDT, dieldrin, and chlordane by federal and state agencies in what was proclaimed as a ‘‘war’’ against harmful insects: mosquitoes, gypsy

Cato Institute | 173

moths, fire ants, and other pests. The poisons persisted in the environment and concentrated as they moved up the food chain, killing or sterilizing fish and birds, breeding new pesticide-resistant insects, and ultimately endangering human health. Carson advocated much more restricted pesticide use, though not an absolute ban, and where possible the substitution of biological for chemical controls (Carson, 1962). When Silent Spring was published, Carson was ill with cancer and died on April 14, 1964. The book’s enduring political impact led the newly formed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to ban most uses of the pesticide DDT in 1972. Carson ignited a debate about pesticides that continues to this day. James H. Read See also DDT; Sustainable Agriculture

References Carson, Rachel. The Sea Around Us. New York: Oxford University Press, 1951. Carson, Rachel. Silent Spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1962.

American biologist and author Rachel Carson shown shortly before her death on April 14, 1964. She died of cancer at her home in Silver Spring, Maryland. She was 56. Her last book, Silent Spring, created a world-wide controversy over the use of pesticides. (AP/Wide WorldPhotos)

Carson, Rachel. Under the Sea Wind: A Naturalist’s Picture of Ocean Life. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1941. Lytle, Mark Hamilton. The Gentle Subversive: Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, and the Rise of the Environmental Movement. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Cato Institute Through the Cato Institute, the Libertarian Party seeks to influence U.S. decisionmakers on many concerns, including the environment. Representing the thirdlargest political party in the country, its scholars’ aim is smaller government,

174 | Cato Institute

lower taxes, and more individual freedom. They would achieve that through deregulation and blocking regulation worldwide to assure free markets, entrepreneurship, increased individual liberties, and peace. In 1977 in San Francisco, California, Edward H. Crane founded the Cato Institute with funding from Charles G. Koch. Libertarian founding member Murray Rothbard suggested the name based on eighteenth-century essays by John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon known as Cato’s Letters. Rothbard’s regular biting disagreements with other board members led to his dismissal in 1981, the year Cato relocated to a townhouse on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. In 1993, Cato headquarters moved to Massachusetts Avenue. Cato’s Republican centrist counterpart is the American Enterprise Institute. The institute advocates philosopher John Locke’s political views and market liberalism, the Jeffersonian philosophy influencing conservative politicians such as Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, for example. Scholars and lobbyists for Cato contend private business and citizens will do the right thing concerning the environment if the government does not intervene. Lawmakers buying into the idea were in the majority at the turn of the twenty-first century. Voting their conscience led to weakened environmental protection laws in the United States. In 2000, Cato anticipated the ‘‘militarizing’’ of environmental issues. It imagined the movement infringing on civil liberties. In 2001, the USA PATRIOT Act, which did just that, positioned contaminated sites as a security concern. In 2002, Cato opposed the idea of sustainable development, labeling the notion ‘‘dubious.’’ More recently, it weightily disputed the ‘‘polluter pays’’ principle of land, air, and water contamination cleanup on the grounds that polluters alone should not be responsible for correcting environmental degradation that at one time was not regulated. Cato’s opponents call it ‘‘intellectually bankrupt’’ and attribute the beleaguered state of the U.S. economy in 2009 to deregulation actions advocated by recent U.S. presidents who were influenced by libertarian ideals. Debra A. Schwartz References Benjamin, P. ‘‘Green Wars: Making Environmental Degradation a National Security Issue Puts Peace and Security at Risk.’’ Policy Analysis 369 (2000): 1–5. Cato Institute. ‘‘About Us.’’ http://www.cato.org/about (accessed May 31, 2009). Center for American Progress Action Fund. ‘‘New Study Quoted by Cato Institute Deniers Concludes ‘Warming Over the 21st Century May Well Be Larger Than That Predicted by he Current Generation of Models.’’’ ClimateProgress.org. http:// climateprogress.org/2009/03/25/cato-institute-global-warming-denial-ad-patrickmichaels (accessed May 31, 2009). Real Climate—Climate Science from Climate Scientists. ‘‘With All Due Respect . . .’’ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/03/with-all-due-respect/ (accessed May 31, 2009).

Center for Biological Diversity | 175 Taylor, J. ‘‘Sustainable Development: A Dubious Solution in Search of a Problem.’’ Policy Analysis 449 (2002): 1–49.

Center for Biological Diversity The Center for Biological Diversity is an organization that uses biological data, legal experts, and the citizen petition provision of the Endangered Species Act to force officials to protect animals, plants, and ecosystems in the United States. They have gone to court and obtained judgments forcing the government to set aside habitats and to protect hundreds of species. The center has a 93 percent success rate in its lawsuits and has become a major stakeholder in environmental protection in the United States. The center was founded in 1989 after three men doing an owl survey in New Mexico’s Gila Wilderness found a rare Mexican spotted owl. The area was due to be clear-cut, and the Forest Service did not want to block that. Kieran Suckling, Peter Galvin, and Todd Schulke went to the media about the problem, and the area was spared. Dr. Robin Silver joined the three in forming the group that would eventually become the Center for Biological Diversity. First the group focused on New Mexico, then widened the focus to the southwestern United States, and now works on causes throughout the country. They also do some international work. The suits the center brings can block development, restrict the right to use water from rivers, and force landowners to restore habitat. As such, the center often stirs bitter opposition. Cook (2007) discusses the impact of forcing the Environmental Protection Agency to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- Wildlife biologist Monica Bond of the Cenvice before licensing a new pesti- ter for Biological Diversity listens for spotted owls to respond to her calls in the cide. As a pest-control professional, Lassen National Forest near Belden, CaliforCook claims that is unreasonable and nia, on May 17, 2004. Despite a past wildwill result in increased costs and pos- fire, the area is still inhabited by spotted sibly the removal of some pesticides owls. (AP/Wide World Photos)

176 | Central Valley Water Project

already on the market. Other groups object to the loss of jobs and restrictions on land and water use that result from the center’s actions. Stephanie Suesan Smith See also Alternative Energy; Environmental Compliance Program; Environmental Sustainability; Oil Pollution Act of 1990

References Center for Biological Diversity. ‘‘Our Story.’’ http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/ about/story/index.html. Cook, A. ‘‘Lawsuits against EPA Threaten Pesticide Use Nationwide.’’ Pest Management Profession (November 2007): 44–47.

Central Valley Water Project The Central Valley Project (CVP) is the largest water project in the United States. It includes 20 dams and reservoirs, 192 miles of drain, 1,437 miles of canals, and various pumping and power stations. The CVP provides water for industrial and urban use but it is primarily an irrigation source for the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys. Agriculture uses 90 percent of the 7 to 8 million acre-feet that waters 3 million acres annually. The CVP is 500 miles from north to south. Affected watersheds include the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers as well as the San Francisco Bay and Delta. The affected land is naturally desert. California has abundant sunshine, fertile soils, and spectacular scenery and weather—everything but water, except when it floods. At the turn of the twentieth century, demand arose for a water system that would not only provide predictable water for city dwellers and farmers, but also control flooding. The Reclamation Act of 1902 provided the basis for western water projects, promotion of settlement by small family farmers with a maximum of 160 acres, and mandatory owner occupancy. Agribusinesses were quick to lease lands beyond the allowed 160 acres and otherwise distort the intent of the law. The Central Valley Water Project dates to the 1930s, but the Great Depression meant that California could not carry it out. With federal funds, it was authorized in 1935, with the first construction on the Contra Costa Canal beginning in 1937. Contra Costa began providing water in 1940, and Shasta Dam, the major construction for the project, began in 1938, with completion in 1945. Over the next 30 years, the project continued, with the final dam, New Melones, finished in 1979. The Central Valley Water Project epitomizes the turning away to heavily subsidized commercial irrigated agriculture at a cost of inefficient use, damage to habitat of wildlife and fish, and significant-to-severe pollution. Affordable and pure water is unavailable to thousands of Californians, including some who work the subsidized farms of the Central Valley.

Central Valley Water Project | 177

The CVP cost $3.6 billion, and farmers agreed initially to pay back $1 billion over 50 years. Sixty years later, repayments totaled only 11 percent of the cost because 40-year CVP contracts allowed rates far below the amount needed to repay construction, and the repayment start date kept shifting as new facilities came on line. Some rates were too low to cover the cost of delivery. In 1982, the Reclamation Reform Act limited water subsidies for 960 acres but allowed water at full cost for leases beyond 960 acres. It also abandoned the residency requirement. With loose reclamation bureau oversight, agribusinesses divided their holdings to create smaller farms to qualify on paper while maintaining unitary operation. The Sacramento River is seen below Shasta The Central Valley Project Im- Dam near Redding, California, Friday, February provement Act of 1992 attempted to 22, 2008. A study about the threat of climate lower the CVP’s negative impact on change to chinook salmon suggested that wildlife and shortened contracts to California’s dams, like Shasta, could infuse desperately needed cold water into rivers 25 rather than 40 years but provided and stave off warm water that is fatal to fish. automatic renewal for conforming The peer-reviewed paper, which appeared in contractors, effectively providing a an issue of the Journal of Climatic Change, fol50-year contract. Critics noted that lowed months of concern about a record the Bureau of Reclamation was as low number of salmon returning to the Cennegligent in enforcing this act as it tral Valley. (AP/Wide World Photos) had been in implementing the Reclamation Reform Act. In 2002, the CVP gave 67 percent of its water to the largest 10 percent of farms, a subsidy averaging $349,000 per farm. Million-dollar subsidies went to 27 large farms while the median subsidy for all farmers was $7,076. One-fifth of all water used in California is used by the CVP, and they paid less than 2 percent of the Los Angeles drinking water rate for their irrigation water, one-tenth the replacement cost, and one-eighth of what the public pays the project to replenish the San Francisco Bay and Delta. The Environmental Working Group found in 2010 that despite scarce and expensive water in the state, California guaranteed farmers in the Central Valley

178 | Channel Islands National Park

abundant and cheap water by subsidizing the valley’s 6,800 growers up to $416 million a year. The finding came at the same time as the Bureau of Reclamation renegotiated long-term water contracts with valley farmers; The EWG objected that it made obvious the violation of the original intent to provide subsidized water to small family farmers and instead was subsidizing agribusinesses. In June 2009, NOAA reported that the Bureau of Reclamation’s pumping of water in the Central Valley jeopardized the existence of threatened and endangered species that NOAA’s Fisheries Service was responsible for protecting. The Bureau of Reclamation agreed provisionally to modify its pumping operations in accordance with NOAA recommendations. At risk were salmon, steelhead, sturgeon, and killer whales that feed on Chinook salmon. Changes would occur over time and affect 5 to 7 percent of the annually available water, including agriculture’s 30 million acre-feet. Modifications would be made to several dams at a cost to taxpayers of more than $150 million. John H. Barnhill See also American Fisheries Society; Reclamation Act of 1902; Reclamation Reform Act of 1982; Wise-Use Movement

References Bureau of Reclamation. ‘‘The Central Valley Project.’’ http://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvp/ index.html. Environmental Working Group. ‘‘California Water Subsidies Part 2, About the Central Valley Project.’’ http://archive.ewg.org/reports/Watersubsidies/part2.php. Environmental Working Group. ‘‘Taxpayers Guarantee Central Valley Farms Water Through a Subsidy Worth Up to $416 Million per Year.’’ http://archive.ewg.org/reports/ Watersubsidies/execsumm.php. NOAA, ‘‘NOAA Biological Opinion Finds California Water Projects Jeopardize Listed Species; Recommends Alternatives.’’ http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090604_biological.html.

Channel Islands National Park Channel Islands National Park is comprised of five of the eight islands located off the coast of southern California that are known as the Channel Islands. These include Anacapa, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, and San Miguel islands. The park contains 145 species that are unique to the islands and cultural artifacts that are more than 10,000 years old. The area was designated as a world biosphere preserve in 1976 by the United Nations (UNESCO, 2007). The national park was first recommended by a government survey in 1933. In 1938, President Franklin Roosevelt created Channel Islands National Monument, comprised of Anacapa and Santa Barbara islands. There were several unsuccessful efforts to establish the park over the next 40 years. In 1980, President Jimmy

Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act, United States (1999) | 179

Carter signed Public Law 96-199 creating Channel Islands National Park. This act combined the two islands in the national monument, transferred management of San Miguel Island from the U.S. Navy to the National Park Service, and authorized the purchase of private land on Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz islands. The National Park Service developed strong conservation and scientific study programs at the park. Projects were initiated to restore the native flora and fauna of the islands, including eradication of non-native animal species and captive breeding projects to reintroduce the endangered Island Fox on several islands. Hunting by the prior owners of Santa Rosa Island has been controversial. A court case permitted hunting of non-native deer and elk until 2011 (National Parks and Conservation Association v. Roger Kennedy, et al.), but in a highly unusual legislative maneuver, Duncan Hunter (R-CA), the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, added language to a 2005 appropriations bill preventing the park service from participating in the removal of deer and elk from the island. At the time, Hunter indicated a desire to make hunting on the island available to disabled veterans. Although this provision was repealed, it highlighted struggles over management of the island and larger issues of hunting in the National Park System. Dan Wakelee See also National Park Service

References Gherini, John. Santa Cruz Island: A History of Conflict and Diversity. Spokane, WA: Arthur H. Clark Company, 2005. National Park Service. ‘‘Channel Islands National Park.’’ http://www.nps.gov/chis/ (accessed December 20, 2008). National Parks and Conservation Association v. Roger Kennedy, et al. (Settlement Agreement). United States District Court for the Central District of California, January 14, 1988. Sellars, R. W. Preserving Nature in the National Parks: A History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. ‘‘UNESCO MAB Biosphere Reserves Directory.’’ http://www.unesco.org/mabdb/br/brdir/directory/biores.asp?mode=all&code=USAþ05 (accessed December 20, 2008).

Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act, United States (1999) When President Clinton signed the Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act (PL 106-40) in April 1999, a great burden

180 | Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act, United States (1999)

disappeared from the minds of some Americans, who actually were shocked, ‘‘by the word on the street,’’ that our government had access to and was prepared to use chemical weapons and their lethal byproducts experimentally, as well as the likelihood of including a simulated terrorist action within the United States. While most of the hearsay was untrue, the United States dismissed several concerns that underscored many American anxieties about chemical weapons with the development of this new enactment. With PL 106-40 came regulations and the listing of substances anticipated to cause death or serious health issues. The legislation controlled the environmental effects in case of an accidental chemical release from a flammable substance when used as a fuel or held for sale as a fuel at a retail facility solely because of its explosive or flammable properties, unless a fire or explosion caused by the substance results in acute adverse heath effects due to human exposure caused by the heat or fire or impact of the explosion. More specifically, Section 12 in the act required certain chemical facilities to have a risk management program (RMP) and to submit a summary of that program to the Environmental Protection Agency. The act also demanded that each owner of a stationary source of chemicals hold a public meeting three months after the enactment of the law to discuss risk management. Ten months after the enactment of the law, each owner was to present certification to the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation of its finding and its distribution of information to the public. President Clinton designated a one-year moratorium on the dissemination via the Internet of information about potential hazards from the more than 60 facilities using or making toxic chemicals, in addition to helping communities prepare ‘‘worst-case’’ scenarios for terrorists who used chemical weapons. In the event of an attack it would assure the nation that the United States had a solution, as well as criminal activity associated with the posting of off-site consequence analysis information. Further, the law removed from coverage, through the RMP program, any flammable fuel when used as fuel or held for sale as fuel by a retailed facility, until August 2000, when the federal government was to complete an assessment of rule-making to address the future public availability of the OCA (off-site consequence analysis guidance matter). The new law, among other things, limited public access to the OCA section, i.e., specifically two through five, of RMP and other related materials until August 2000. By that date, the federal government was to complete an assessment and the rule-making to address the future of public availability of those OCA materials. Fred Lindsey See also Clinton, William Jefferson

Cheney, Dick | 181

References Public Law 106-40, 106 Congress, August 5, 1999, Section 112 (r) (7) of the Clean Air Act, Section #3, Public Access to Off-Site Consequence Analysis Information. White House Office. ‘‘Keeping America Secure for the 21st century, the Initiative on Biological and Chemical Weapons.’’ Fact Sheet of the Press Secretary, January 22, 1999.

Cheney, Dick Richard Bruce Cheney, also known as Dick, has been one of the most influential Republican Party politicians of the last half-century. His first exposure to national politics came as an intern for Congressman William A. Steiger in 1968. In 1969, he assumed the first of several posts in President Richard Nixon’s administration. One of the individuals who helped groom Cheney’s political future during that era was Donald Rumsfeld, who was his supervisor in the Office of Economic Opportunity. During President Gerald Ford’s administration, Cheney served as the White House Chief of Staff. He claimed his first elective office in 1978 when voters in Wyoming elected him to the U.S. House of Representatives. He was reelected five times by his constituents. By 1988, he assumed a leadership role within the House of Representatives when he became the minority whip. Cheney returned to the legislative branch of government in 1989 when he became Secretary of Defense in President George H. W. Bush’s administration. From 1993 to 1995, Cheney served as a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. In 1995, he briefly left the political arena to assume the position of president and chief executive officer of Halliburton Energy Services, a Texas-based company that is heavily involved in the oil and gas industries. Cheney returned to presidential politics in 2000 when he agreed to serve as George W. Bush’s vice presidential running mate. Following their electoral victory, Cheney served as the forty-sixth vice president of the United States until January 2009. Cheney was born on January 30, 1941, in Lincoln, Nebraska. His family moved to Casper, Wyoming, during his childhood. From 1959 to 1962, he attended Yale University. After his academic career stalled at Yale, he briefly attended Casper Community College. He then attended the University of Wyoming, where he earned a bachelor of arts in political science in 1965 and a master of arts in political science a year later. Cheney commenced his doctoral studies at the University of Wisconsin in 1966, but abandoned his studies in 1968 to begin his political career. While running as George W. Bush’s running mate, Cheney was extremely critical of the Kyoto Protocol on Greenhouse Gases, which had been signed by

182 | Cheney, Dick

President William Clinton in 1997. The Kyoto Protocol was based on the premise that greenhouse gases were causing global warming. The warming was subsequently blamed for perceived climate changes around the world. Cheney, speaking on behalf of the Bush administration, did not argue that the climate was changing, but was unconvinced that man was the cause of the problem. He suggested instead that further study of the topic was needed to determine if climate change was the result of the activities of humans around the world or the Earth’s natural cycles. Since Bush and Cheney rejected the central premise of the Kyoto Protocol, they certainly were not willing to impose its regulations and restrictions on the United States’ industrial sector. Critics have blamed Cheney for the failure of Bush to agree to the conditions of the Kyoto Protocol, but the fact is that the document was signed by a president of the United States. It was the U.S. Senate that refused to ratify the agreement. The opposition to the legislation was led by Senator Robert Byrd, a Democrat from West Virginia. President Bush put Cheney in charge of developing an energy policy for the United States. Cheney’s background as president and chief executive officer of Halliburton Energy Services made him well-suited to represent industry’s concerns in energy policy. Cheney believed that the Clinton administration’s environmental policies had favored the environment over the energy and employment needs of the nation’s populace and thus needed to be corrected. Cheney described the challenge he faced in redefining the country’s energy policy in the following manner: ‘‘This will require overcoming what is for some a cherished myth, that energy production and the environment must always involve competing values. We can explore for energy, we can produce energy and use it, and we can do so with a decent regard for the natural environment’’ (Cheney, 2001). A task force, named the National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG), was formed by Cheney to assist him. Its membership was comprised of many individuals who had ties to energy companies, such as Enron. Not surprisingly, the NEPDG recommendations, such as refusing to regulate emissions of CO2 and encouraging exploration for natural gas deposits, infuriated environmentalists. Critics ultimately charged that the Bush administration’s energy policy consisted of pretending to do something about the environment through voluntary actions rather than actually doing something through regulation. Environmental groups have pinned their hopes on President Barack Obama’s administration revisiting the Bush/Cheney policies, much the same way that Bush and Cheney modified the policies enacted while President Clinton was in office. Although his term as vice president of the United States ended in 2009, he periodically reappears on the national stage to provide unsolicited advice on national security matters to President Obama’s administration. Cheney does have

Citizens Clearinghouse | 183

extraordinary expertise on the subject, having overseen both the United States’ intervention in Panama and Operation Desert Storm in Kuwait and Iraq. He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1991 by President George H. W. Bush. His current activities include penning his memoir. John R. Burch Jr. See also Bush, George W.; Conservation; Environmental Cap and Trade; Environmental Compliance Program; Ozone Layer Depletion

References Bobic, Michael P. ‘‘Quitting the Kyoto Protocol: The United States Strikes Out Alone.’’ In History Behind the Headlines: The Origins of Conflicts Worldwide, Vol. 4, S. Benson, N. Matuszak, and M. Appel, eds., 160–171. Detroit: Gale, 2002. Cheney, Dick. ‘‘The Energy Crisis is Serious, Not Perplexing: Conservation is not a Sound Basis for Energy Policy.’’ Vital Speeches of the Day, May 15, 2001. ‘‘Cheney, Dick (Richard Bruce Cheney).’’ In Who’s Who In America 2009: 63rd ed., Vol. 1, P. Delli Santi and A. Perruso, eds., 838. New Providence, NJ: Marquis Who’s Who, 2008. Dickinson, Tim. ‘‘Six Years of Deceit: Inside the Bush Administration’s Secret Campaign to Deny Global Warming and Let Polluters Shape America’s Climate Policy.’’ Rolling Stone, June 28, 2007. Halliburton. ‘‘Solutions for Today’s Energy Challenges—Halliburton.’’ http://www .halliburton.com (accessed April 7, 2010).

Citizens Clearinghouse The Citizens Clearinghouse on Hazardous Waste was created to empower people with little clout to fight corporate polluters laying waste to their neighborhoods. Its goal to protect the environment and inspire contamination cleanup is embodied in its philosophy: that environmental work best effects change when started at the local level and built upon peoples’ concerns and anxieties, especially of the women in those communities. With that strategy, the organization stopped or reduced many toxic waste streams in the United States over the last 30 years. Best-known is its successful 1990 McToxics campaign targeting McDonald’s to discontinue using Styrofoam packaging. In 1981, Citizens Clearinghouse founder Lois Gibbs left for Washington, D.C., with $10,000, a high school education, and her organizing skills gained as a Love Canal resident to establish the clearinghouse. Initially positioned as a lobbying organization focused on hazardous waste disposal and cleanup, its ever-broadening

184 | Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe (1971)

scope led to renaming it in 1998 the Center for Health, Environment & Justice (CHEJ). Environmental health threats to children and righting environmental injustice top its agenda today. However, the organization continues its campaigns around eliminating dioxin exposure initiated by CCHW. CHEJ aims to strengthen organizing and leadership skills among groups in locations with little influence. It also opposes the ever-increasing practice of transnational chemical corporations exporting toxic waste to Third World countries for disposal. More than 10,000 community-based groups have tapped the center for technical information. CHEJ battles industry and lawmakers who ask how clean is clean because the last 10 percent of soil pollution, for example, is the most expensive to remove. In the past, CHEJ bent to the question of how much pollution is acceptable; however, its current position is that no more pollution is acceptable because the battle is now for survival. Gibbs is known as ‘‘the mother of Superfund’’ because her organizing efforts in Love Canal, which was built on a toxic chemical waste dump that included dioxin and radioactive materials, inspired lawmakers to enact the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. Debra A. Schwartz See also Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; Environmental Justice; Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984; Love Canal

References Center for Health, Environment & Justice. ‘‘Formation of Center for Health, Environment and Justice.’’ http://www.chej.org (accessed June 1, 2009). Center for Health, Environment & Justice. ‘‘Lois Marie Gibbs.’’ http://www.chej.org/ about_lois.htm (accessed June 1, 2009). Newman, P. ‘‘Killing Legally With Toxic Waste: Women and the Environment in the United States.’’ Paper delivered at the conference on Women and the Environment, India, July 17–22, 1992. http://www.dhf.uu.se/pdffiler/92_1_2/92_1-2_4.pdf (accessed June 1, 2009). Pollution Issues. ‘‘Lois Gibbs: Grassroots Environmental Activist and the Mother of Superfund.’’ http://www.pollutionissues.com/Fo-Hi/Gibbs-Lois-Grassroots-Environmental-Activist-and-The-Mother-of-Superfund-1951.html (accessed June 1, 2009). United States Environmental Protection Agency. ‘‘Superfund: Basic Information.’’ http://www.epa/gov/superfund/about.htm.

Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe (1971) Citizens to Preserve Overton Park involved a decision by the U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary John Volpe to approve federal funding of an

Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe (1971) | 185

interstate highway through parts of Overton Park, a city park in Memphis, Tennessee. In the U.S. Supreme Court decision, the unanimous majority opinion by Thurgood Marshall reflected two lower court decisions and remanded the case back to the Department of Transportation on the grounds that the Department of Transportation did not follow the 1946 Administrative Procedures Act requirement that agency decisions must not be arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. The Department of Transportation argued that their decision was not subject to judicial review because the Administrative Procedures Act created a wide latitude for administrative discretion in policy implementation. While the Supreme Court routinely defers to administrative discretion, especially on technical matters, the Overton Park decision found that the Department of Transportation did not take a ‘‘hard look’’ at feasible alternatives, a requirement under the Administrative Procedures Act. According to the decision, this requires the Department of Transportation to mitigate environmental impacts and balance competing values, including the decision to preserve this established city park. The Supreme Court rejected the Federal District Court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decisions holding that the choice to route the interstate highway through a public park was within the federal agency’s power and discretion. A central implication of this decision relates to when administrative decisions are subject to judicial review. This case opened the door for more legal suits in that the Supreme Court ruled that Secretary Volpe’s decision was not exempt from judicial review and that the Department of Transportation did not fully consider the impacts to Overton Park. The decision helped pave the way for more citizen-based lawsuits related to public rights and ‘‘not-in-my-backyard’’ environmental disputes. This decision further solidified the idea of recognizing environmental values in all federal government decisions, a value that is embedded in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The Overton Park decision does not require the Department of Transportation or any federal agency to prioritize environmental impacts, but agencies are required to thoroughly consider the environmental impacts and alternatives. Matthew Lindstrom See also National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

References Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe (1971). 401 U.S. 402 (1971). http:// supreme.justia.com/us/401/402/case.html (accessed on April 17, 2010). Lindstrom, Matthew J., and Zachary A. Smith. The National Environmental Policy Act: Judicial Misconstruction, Legislative Indifference, and Executive Neglect. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2002. Porter, John R. ‘‘Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe: Environmental Law and the Scope of Judicial Review.’’ Stanford Law Review 24 (1972): 1,117–1,133.

186 | Civilian Conservation Corps

Civilian Conservation Corps The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) was a depression-era program designed to provide employment relief for young men and as an emergency conservation measure. On March 21, 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt asked Congress to create the Civilian Conservation Corps. One of the first and most successful of the New Deal programs, which were designed to initiate political, social, and economic reforms, the CCC provided jobs for 17- to 24-year-old single men whose families already received some sort of relief. Eventually, some 2.5 million young men would serve in the CCC. Organized and administered by the U.S. Army, the CCC consisted of companies of 200 men. Each volunteer received a monthly paycheck of $30, a portion of which they sent home. Much like army recruits, the CCC volunteers lived in camps or barracks and received uniforms, meals, and medical care. The agency stressed education, and many men learned to read and write in CCC camps. When Congress removed age and marital restrictions in 1935, participation in the CCC increased markedly. The CCC was open to all races, and many Native Americans and African Americans volunteered. However, African Americans were segregated in all-black camps. One of the most expensive of the New Deal programs, the CCC was also one of the most beneficial. CCC volunteers restored national historic sites, built various facilities in national parks, worked on dams and reservoirs, and helped fight forest fires. The group receives credit for their reforestation efforts; nicknamed ‘‘Roosevelt’s Tree Army,’’ the CCC planted more than two billion trees. Under the authority of the Tennessee Valley Authority, the CCC also worked to prevent topsoil erosion. As the economy improved, the CCC’s numbers began to decline, and in 1942, Congress cut funding. Cynthia Clark Northrup Reference Olson, James Stuart, ed. Historical Dictionary of the New Deal: From Inauguration to Preparation for War. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1985.

Clean Air Act of 1970 The Clean Air Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-604) was the first major piece of federal legislation to attempt to control air pollution at the national level. Passed by the 91st Congress in December of 1970, the legislation was an amendment of the Clean Air Act of 1963. The 1970 law set up a complex regulatory system that assigned the newly created Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to protect individual health through control of air pollutants.

Clean Air Act of 1970 | 187

Legislative attempts to control air pollution in the United States date back to the nineteenth century, when cities passed laws to control industrial soot. In 1948, the towns of Donora and Webster, Pennsylvania, were blanketed by a thick and lethal smog, the product of pollution from coal smoke, a steel mill, and a zinc smelter, trapped in the valleys by a temperature inversion, a layer of warm air blocking the dispersal of the cooled polluted air. Half of the two communities’ 14,000 residents were made ill, and 20 people died. Major pollution events such as the Donora disaster provided the impetus for state and national governments to pass pollution-control legislation. In 1952, Oregon set up a program to control air pollution, and several states followed suit. In 1955, the federal government became involved in air pollution policy with the passage of the Air Pollution Control Act, which funded research into the health effects of air pollution and monitoring and control techniques but did little to actively control emissions. The first Clean Air Act was passed in 1963, providing permanent funding for research into pollution and pollution abatement and directing the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to establish emissions standards for motor vehicles, but the federal government’s role remained by and large supportive rather than active. The 1970 act represented a major shift of air pollution control policy to the federal level and an ambitious attempt at establishing national air quality standards. It authorized laws at both state and national levels to control emissions from stationary sources such as factories and mobile sources such as automobiles. The 1970 act remains the framework for air quality management that is used today. The passage of the 1970 act must be seen in the context of the time. The civil rights and antiwar movements had fueled significant social change. The space program had shown Americans a picture of a fragile Earth against the vast backdrop of space, and public opinion polls showed increased public concern over the environment, particularly air pollution. Nevertheless, opposition to the Clean Air Act was rigorous, particularly from the automobile industry. Legislative discussion regarding automotive emissions standards took up much of the debate time in Congress. The CAA is occasionally referred to as the Muskie Act since it was authored by Senator Edward Muskie (D-ME), who was the chairman of the Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution of the Committee on Environment and Public Works at the time and a powerful environmental voice in Congress. Senator Muskie worked across the aisle to ensure that the bill had bipartisan support, although at the time he was heavily criticized by Ralph Nader’s group among others for not ensuring the implementation of national air quality standards in the 1967 Air Quality Act. The Clean Air Act of 1970 attempted to control emissions through the initiation of the four major regulatory programs. The first was National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which initially regulated the emission of five air pollutants: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ground-level ozone, sulfur dioxide, and particulate

188 | Clean Air Act of 1970

matter. In 1977, the EPA added lead as a regulated emission. Primary and secondary standards were set for each pollutant. Primary standards set emission limits to protect public health, including the health of sensitive populations such as people with respiratory diseases, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards were designed to protect public welfare, provide protection against decreased visibility, and protect crops, forests, and buildings when the primary standards failed to do so. The second regulatory program was the creation of New Source Performance Standards for both new and modified stationary-source emissions, such as factories and power plants. The standards for these pollution sources would be set by the EPA. Any major stationary new source of air pollution, such as an industrial plant, is required to have a permit from the EPA that sets its emission limits, which are based on the ‘‘best available control technology’’ (BACT) or ‘‘best available retrofit technology’’ (BART) that currently exists for pollution control. The third component was the establishment of requirements for state implementation plans (SIPs) to achieve the new air quality standards. Each state was to assess its air quality and establish procedures, timetables, and standards (at least as strict as the national standards, within the nationally determined deadline) for each major pollutant and have these plans approved by the EPA. If a state did not produce a satisfactory SIP, the EPA would administer the Clean Air Act in that state. The final component of the CAA was mobile source emissions standards, which were attempted to reduce vehicle tailpipe emissions. Rather than leaving these standards to be set by the EPA, these standards were written into the legislation—vehicles that were built in 1975 were to have 90 percent of the carbon dioxide and hydrocarbon emissions of the 1970 models, and 1976 models were to produce only 82 percent of the nitrogen oxide emissions of the 1971 model year. The EPA was required to enforce these standards by performing compliance tests, enforcing performance warranties from manufacturers, and imposing a $10,000 per vehicle fine for those that violated the standards. This program was remarkably unsuccessful, and the EPA granted extensions to the deadlines each year until Congress itself extended the deadlines for three years in 1977. In 1977, the CAA was amended to extend the deadlines to meet both the abovementioned motor vehicle emissions standards and ambient air standards. The amended act included a program to prevent deterioration of clean air, so that air that was already cleaner than the national standards could not be polluted. Although the motor vehicle emissions amendments were controversial with environmentalists, legislators, including Edward Muskie, defended the amendments as necessary and pragmatic, although environmental groups sued the EPA to enforce the stricter standards. The Clean Air Act was significantly overhauled in 1990, when existing regulations were strengthened and previously unregulated areas were brought into

Clean Air Act of 1970 | 189

compliance with the act. New NAAQ standards were set, automobile emissions standards were tightened, including the creation of a clean-fuel program, and permit programs for major sources of air pollution were authorized. Programs were also established to control 189 hazardous air pollutants and to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions—the source of acid rain—from power plants. The provisions of the Montreal Protocol (an international agreement to halt ozone depletion) were implemented. Most significantly, new enforcement provisions were included in the bill, making it easier to punish violators of the act. The Clean Air Act has had mixed success, although the national average pollutant levels for major pollutants have decreased, but in some areas some pollutants—particularly ground-level ozone (smog)—have increased, so that many urban areas have significant problems with smog. The act has, however, been very successful in reducing atmospheric lead by 93 percent between 1981 and 2007, and between 2000 and 2007, the visibility in most national park locations improved, even on the ‘‘worst visibility’’ days. In 2002, the Bush administration proposed the Clear Skies Initiative, which, if it had been passed into law, would have significantly amended the Clean Air Act. The initiative was based on a market-based ‘‘cap-and-trade’’ program. The Bush administration argued that the initiative was based on the successful sulfur dioxide trading program instituted in 1995, and that it would reduce the cost of compliance to both government and industry alike. The initiative was applauded by industry but roundly objected to by Democrats and environmental groups. Opponents of the initiative argue that such a program would have weakened existing air quality legislation, delaying the enforcement of smog and soot standards, and would have exempted power plants from rules requiring them to comply with emissions standards. The Clear Skies Bill passed the House in 2003 but was halted in the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee in March of 2005. After the initiative failed legislatively, the Bush administration implemented parts of the initiative through the EPA. The Clean Air Act, however, remains the fundamental statute regulating air quality in the United States. Claire Haeg See also Air Pollution Control Act of 1955; Air Quality Act of 1967; Muskie, Edmund; National Ambient Air Quality Standards

References Klyza, Christopher McGrory, and Paula Ford-Martin. ‘‘Clean Air Act (1963, 1970, 1990).’’ In Environmental Encyclopedia, 3rd ed., M. Bortman, P. Brimblecombe, and M. Cunningham, eds., 256–259. Detroit: Gale, 2003. Petersen, Shannon C. ‘‘Clean Air Act.’’ In Dictionary of American History, 3rd ed., S. I. Kutler, ed., 230. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2003, 230.

190 | Clean Water Act of 1972 Scicchitano, Michael J. ‘‘Congressional Oversight: The Case of the Clean Air Act.’’ Legislative Studies Quarterly 11 (3) (1986): 393–407. http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 439843. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Air and Radiation and Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. ‘‘The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1970 to 1990.’’ Washington DC, 1997. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. ‘‘The Plain English Guide to the Clean Air Act.’’ Washington, DC 2007.

Clean Water Act of 1972 The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-500), known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), is the principal federal legislation controlling pollution of the United States’ surface waters. The 1972 statute is in effect a complete revision of the Water Pollution Control Act of 1948, which was the first statute to provide state and local governments with funding for water pollution control and abatement. Introduced into the 95th Congress by Senator Edward Muskie (D-ME) and passed over President Nixon’s veto, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 has been significantly amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 and the Water Quality Act of 1987. The 1972 CWA remains, however, the basic framework for addressing water pollution in the United States. From the passage of the 1948 law and well into the 1950s, water pollution was regarded as a state and local issue. Subsequent amendments to the law (in 1956, 1961, and 1965) gradually expanded the jurisdiction of the federal government to include interstate waterways. During the 1960s, waterway depredation became obvious. In June of 1969, the Cuyahoga River in Ohio caught fire. Although this was not the first time the Cuyahoga had caught fire—in fact, it had done so nine times since the 1880s—media coverage of the blaze drew attention to the problem. At the time, Lake Erie was eutrophic because agricultural discharge had encouraged the growth of plants that then died and decayed, leaving the bottom of the lake without oxygen. The fish that survived this hostile environment were contaminated with heavy metals from industrial discharge. Many of the nation’s rivers and streams were too polluted to use for fishing or bathing. Increased public awareness of the issue meant pressure on legislators to ensure water pollution control and abatement. In 1965, the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, created by the Water Quality Act of 1965, administered federal water quality improvement and pollution control programs, and in 1970, President Nixon, facing an upcoming presidential election, responded to public dissatisfaction with the pace of the cleanup of water pollution by authorizing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to

Clean Water Act of 1972 | 191

issue discharge permits. The Congress, to preserve its own prerogatives in legislation and oversight, passed the CWA in 1972, and the federal government took the principal role in water pollution control. The CWA of 1972 set up two extremely ambitious new goals, eliminating the discharge of toxic pollutants and improving water quality. The first goal had two staggered deadlines: polluting industries were required to reduce their pollution in their discharge by July 1, 1977, using best practicable technology (BPT) and then have installed best available control technology by July 1, 1983, to achieve zero discharge of pollutants by 1985. The act’s second goal was to achieve water quality that was clean enough to fish or swim in by 1977. Older statutes had covered ‘‘navigable waters,’’ but the 1972 statute expanded the definition to include territorial seas, and the government expanded the definition still further in bureaucratic regulation to include such water systems as wetlands, sloughs, and intermittent streams. However, in Rapanos v. United States (2006), the Supreme Court questioned the breadth of the definition of ‘‘navigable waters’’ and ‘‘waters of the United States.’’ Major provisions of the 1972 CWA included the mandate that municipalities must reach a strict standard of secondary treatment of sewage (a biological process that reduces organic material in sewage) by 1977. To deal with these increasing requirements, the CWA dramatically increased grants for constructing publicly owned treatment works, funding up to 75 percent of capital costs. In 1981, however, Congress restricted the types of projects that could receive grants. The act included a permit system for point sources of pollution, including industrial facilities (such as factories, mines, and service industry facilities), municipal governments, other government facilities, and some agricultural facilities, such as animal feedlots. These point sources cannot discharge pollutants into surface waters without a permit granted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) run through the EPA, although the EPA has allowed many states to issue permits to discharging facilities directly. In this way, the CWA combines a water quality-based approach in the development of water quality standards, with a technology-based approach, wherein facilities within a given industry must all comply with the same standards in terms of the technology they use to clean up their discharge and prevent pollution. In 1977, Congress made major amendments to the act, renaming it the Clean Water Act, responding to the fact that some of the original deadlines had not been met. In particular, only 30 percent of all municipalities had complied with the standards for secondary treatment of sewage. The 1977 act devolved more authority and responsibilities to the states, particularly in terms of the grant programs, provided deadline extensions, and required the EPA to expand the number of pollutants that it regulates.

192 | Clean Water Act of 1972

Clean Water Act (1972) with Amendments (1977) 33 U.S.C. § 1251 Passed on October 18, 1972, this legislation was actually an amendment to the 1948 Federal Water Pollution Control Act and was itself further amended in 1977. The Clean Water Act set national standards for water quality and emissions, providing a comprehensive federal policy to eradicate water pollution. The act also established the National Water Quality Commission, which evaluated the development of water quality programs. Below is an excerpt of the act. SUBCHAPTER I—RESEARCH AND RELATED PROGRAMS Sec. 1251. Congressional declaration of goals and policy (a) Restoration and maintenance of chemical, physical and biological integrity of Nation’s waters; national goals for achievement of objective. The objective of this chapter is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. In order to achieve this objective it is hereby declared that, consistent with the provisions of this chapter— (1) it is the national goal that the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters be eliminated by 1985; (2) it is the national goal that wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water be achieved by July 1, 1983; (3) it is the national policy that the discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts be prohibited; (4) it is the national policy that Federal financial assistance be provided to construct publicly owned waste treatment works; (5) it is the national policy that areawide waste treatment management planning processes be developed and implemented to assure adequate control of sources of pollutants in each State; (6) it is the national policy that a major research and demonstration effort be made to develop technology necessary to eliminate the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters, waters of the contiguous zone, and the oceans; and (7) it is the national policy that programs for the control of nonpoint sources of pollution be developed and implemented in an expeditious manner so as to enable the goals of this chapter to be met through the control of both point and nonpoint sources of pollution. (b) Congressional recognition, preservation, and protection of primary responsibilities and rights of States. It is the policy of the Congress to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution, to plan the development and use (including restoration, preservation, and enhancement) of land and water resources, and to consult with the Administrator in the exercise of his authority under this chapter. It is the policy of Congress that the States manage the construction grant program under this chapter and implement the permit programs under sections 1342 and 1344 of this title. It is further the policy of the Congress to support and aid research relating to the

Clean Water Act of 1972 | 193

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution and to provide Federal technical services and financial aid to State and interstate agencies and municipalities in connection with the prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution. Congressional policy toward Presidential activities with foreign countries. It is further the policy of Congress that the President, acting through the Secretary of State and such national and international organizations as he determines appropriate, shall take such action as may be necessary to insure that to the fullest extent possible all foreign countries shall take meaningful action for the prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution in their waters and in international waters and for the achievement of goals regarding the elimination of discharge of pollutants and the improvement of water quality to at least the same extent as the United States does under its laws. Administrator of Environmental Protection Agency to administer chapter. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this chapter, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (hereinafter in this chapter called ’’Administrator’’) shall administer this chapter. Public participation in development, revision, and enforcement of any regulation, etc. Public participation in the development, revision, and enforcement of any regulation, standard, effluent limitation, plan, or program established by the Administrator or any State under this chapter shall be provided for, encouraged, and assisted by the Administrator and the States. The Administrator, in cooperation with the States, shall develop and publish regulations specifying minimum guidelines for public participation in such processes. Procedures utilized for implementing chapter. It is the national policy that to the maximum extent possible the procedures utilized for implementing this chapter shall encourage the drastic minimization of paperwork and interagency decision procedures, and the best use of available manpower and funds, so as to prevent needless duplication and unnecessary delays at all levels of government. Authority of States over water. It is the policy of Congress that the authority of each State to allocate quantities of water within its jurisdiction shall not be superseded, abrogated or otherwise impaired by this chapter. It is the further policy of Congress that nothing in this chapter shall be construed to supersede or abrogate rights to quantities of water which have been established by any State. Federal agencies shall co-operate with State and local agencies to develop comprehensive solutions to prevent, reduce and eliminate pollution in concert with programs for managing water resources.

Sec. 1252. Comprehensive programs for water pollution control (a) Preparation and development. The Administrator shall, after careful investigation, and in cooperation with other Federal agencies, State water pollution control agencies, interstate agencies, and the municipalities and industries involved, prepare or develop comprehensive programs for preventing, reducing, or eliminating the pollution of the navigable waters and ground waters and improving the sanitary condition of surface and underground waters. In the development of such comprehensive programs due regard shall be given to the improvements which are

194 | Clean Water Act of 1972

necessary to conserve such waters for the protection and propagation of fish and aquatic life and wildlife, recreational purposes, and the withdrawal of such waters for public water supply, agricultural, industrial, and other purposes. For the purpose of this section, the Administrator is authorized to make joint investigations with any such agencies of the condition of any waters in any State or States, and of the discharges of any sewage, industrial wastes, or substance which may adversely affect such waters. (b) Planning for reservoirs; storage for regulation of streamflow. (1) In the survey or planning of any reservoir by the Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, or other Federal agency, consideration shall be given to inclusion of storage for regulation of streamflow, except that any such storage and water releases shall not be provided as a substitute for adequate treatment or other methods of controlling waste at the source. (2) The need for and the value of storage for regulation of streamflow (other than for water quality) including but not limited to navigation, salt water intrusion, recreation, esthetics, and fish and wildlife, shall be determined by the Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, or other Federal agencies. (3) The need for, the value of, and the impact of, storage for water quality control shall be determined by the Administrator, and his views on these matters shall be set forth in any report or presentation to Congress proposing authorization or construction of any reservoir including such storage. (4) The value of such storage shall be taken into account in determining the economic value of the entire project of which it is a part, and costs shall be allocated to the purpose of regulation of streamflow in a manner which will insure that all project purposes share equitably in the benefit of multiple-purpose construction. (5) Costs of regulation of streamflow features incorporated in any Federal reservoir or other impoundment under the provisions of this chapter shall be determined and the beneficiaries identified and if the benefits are widespread or national in scope, the costs of such features shall be nonreimbursable. (6) No license granted by the Federal Energy regulatory for a hydroelectric power project shall include storage for regulation of streamflow for the purpose of water quality control unless the Administrator shall recommend its inclusion and such reservoir storage capacity shall not exceed such proportion of the total storage required for the water quality control plan as the drainage area of such reservoir bears to the drainage area of the river basin or basins involved in such water quality control plan. (c) Basins; grants to State agencies. (7) The Administrator shall, at the request of the Governor of a State, or a majority of the Governors when more than one State is involved, make a grant to pay not to exceed 50 per centum of the administrative expenses of a planning agency for a period not to exceed three years, which period shall begin after October 18, 1972, if such agency provides for adequate representation of appropriate State, interstate, local, or (when appropriate) international interests in the basin or portion thereof involved and is capable of developing an effective, comprehensive water quality control plan for a basin or portion thereof. (8) Each planning agency receiving a grant under this subsection shall develop a comprehensive pollution control plan for the basin or portion thereof which— (A) is consistent with any applicable water quality standards effluent and other limitations, and thermal discharge regulations established pursuant to current law within the basin;

Clean Water Act of 1972 | 195 (E) recommends such treatment works as will provide the most effective and economical means of collection, storage, treatment, and elimination of pollutants and recommends means to encourage both municipal and industrial use of such works; (F) recommends maintenance and improvement of water quality within the basin or portion thereof and recommends methods of adequately financing those facilities as may be necessary to implement the plan; and (G) as appropriate, is developed in cooperation with, and is consistent with any comprehensive plan prepared by the Water Resources Council, any areawide waste management plans developed pursuant to section 1288 of this title, and any State plan developed pursuant to section 1313(e) of this title. (9) For the purposes of this subsection the term ’’basin’’ includes, but is not limited to, rivers and their tributaries, streams, coastal waters, sounds, estuaries, bays, lakes, and portions thereof as well as the lands drained thereby. Sec. 1252a. Reservoir projects, water storage; modification; storage for other than for water quality, opinion of Federal agency, committee resolutions of approval; provisions inapplicable to projects with certain prescribed water quality benefits in relation to total project benefits In the case of any reservoir project authorized for construction by the Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, or other Federal agency when the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency determines pursuant to section 1252(b) of this title that any storage in such project for regulation of streamflow for water quality is not needed, or is needed in a different amount, such project may be modified accordingly by the head of the appropriate agency, and any storage no longer required for water quality may be utilized for other authorized purposes of the project when, in the opinion of the head of such agency, such use is justified. Any such modification of a project where the benefits attributable to water quality are 15 per centum or more but not greater than 25 per centum of the total project benefits shall take effect only upon the adoption of resolutions approving such modification by the appropriate committees of the Senate and House of Representatives. The provisions of the section shall not apply to any project where the benefits attributable to water quality exceed 25 per centum of the total project benefits. Sec. 1253. Interstate cooperation and uniform laws (a) The Administrator shall encourage cooperative activities by the States for the prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution, encourage the enactment of improved and, so far as practicable, uniform State laws relating to the prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution; and encourage compacts between States for the prevention and control of pollution. (b) The consent of the Congress is hereby given to two or more States to negotiate and enter into agreements or compacts, not in conflict with any law or treaty of the United States, for (1) cooperative effort and mutual assistance for the prevention and control of pollution and the enforcement of their respective laws relating thereto, and (2) the establishment of such agencies, joint or otherwise, as they may deem desirable for making effective such agreements and compacts. No such agreement or

196 | Clean Water Act of 1972

compact shall be binding or obligatory upon any State a party thereto unless and until it has been approved by the Congress. Sec. 1254. Research, investigations, training, and information (a) Establishment of national programs; cooperation; investigations; water quality surveillance system; reports. The Administrator shall establish national programs for the prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution and as part of such programs shall— (1) in cooperation with other Federal, State, and local agencies, conduct and promote the coordination and acceleration of research, investigations, experiments, training, demonstrations, surveys, and studies relating to the causes, effects, extent, prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution; (2) encourage, cooperate with, and render technical services to pollution control agencies and other appropriate public or private agencies, institutions, and organizations, and individuals, including the general public, in the conduct of activities referred to in paragraph (1) of this subsection; (3) conduct, in cooperation with State water pollution control agencies and other interested agencies, organizations and persons, public investigations concerning the pollution of any navigable waters, and report on the results of such investigations; (4) establish advisory committees composed of recognized experts in various aspects of pollution and representatives of the public to assist in the examination and evaluation of research progress and proposals and to avoid duplication of research; (5) in cooperation with the States, and their political subdivisions, and other Federal agencies establish, equip, and maintain a water quality surveillance system for the purpose of monitoring the quality of the navigable waters and ground waters and the contiguous zone and the oceans and the Administrator shall, to the extent practicable, conduct such surveillance by utilizing the resources of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the United States Geological Survey, and the Coast Guard, and shall report on such quality in the report required under subsection (a) of section 1375 of this title; and (6) initiate and promote the coordination and acceleration of research designed to develop the most effective practicable tools and techniques for measuring the social and economic costs and benefits of activities which are subject to regulation under this chapter; and shall transmit a report on the results of such research to the Congress not later than January 1, 1974. (b) Authorized activities of Administrator. In carrying out the provisions of subsection (a) of this section the Administrator is authorized to— (1) collect and make available, through publications and other appropriate means, the results of and other information, including appropriate recommendations by him in connection therewith, pertaining to such research and other activities referred to in paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this section;

Clean Water Act of 1972 | 197 (2) cooperate with other Federal departments and agencies, State water pollution control agencies, interstate agencies, other public and private agencies, institutions, organizations, industries involved, and individuals, in the preparation and conduct of such research and other activities referred to in paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this section; (3) make grants to State water pollution control agencies, interstate agencies, other public or nonprofit private agencies, institutions, organizations, and individuals, for purposes stated in paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this section; (4) contract with public or private agencies, institutions, organizations, and individuals, without regard to section 3324(a) and (b) of title 31 and section 5 of title 41, referred to in paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this section; (5) establish and maintain research fellowships at public or nonprofit private educational institutions or research organizations; (6) collect and disseminate, in cooperation with other Federal departments and agencies, and with other public or private agencies, institutions, and organizations having related responsibilities, basic data on chemical, physical, and biological effects of varying water quality and other information pertaining to pollution and the prevention, reduction, and elimination thereof; and (7) develop effective and practical processes, methods, and prototype devices for the prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution. (c) Research and studies on harmful effects of pollutants; cooperation with Secretary of Health and Human Services. In carrying out the provisions of subsection (a) of this section the Administrator shall conduct research on, and survey the results of other scientific studies on, the harmful effects on the health or welfare of persons caused by pollutants. In order to avoid duplication of effort, the Administrator shall, to the extent practicable, conduct such research in cooperation with and through the facilities of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. (d) Sewage treatment; identification and measurement of effects of pollutants; augmented streamflow. In carrying out the provisions of this section the Administrator shall develop and demonstrate under varied conditions (including conducting such basic and applied research, studies, and experiments as may be necessary): (1) Practicable means of treating municipal sewage, and other waterborne wastes to implement the requirements of section 1281 of this title; (2) Improved methods and procedures to identify and measure the effects of pollutants, including those pollutants created by new technological developments; and (3) Methods and procedures for evaluating the effects on water quality of augmented streamflows to control pollution not susceptible to other means of prevention, reduction, or elimination. (e) Field laboratory and research facilities. The Administrator shall establish, equip, and maintain field laboratory and research facilities, including, but not limited to, one to be located in the northeastern area of the United States, one in the Middle Atlantic area, one in the southeastern area, one in the midwestern area, one in the southwestern area, one in the Pacific Northwest, and one in the State of Alaska, for the conduct of research, investigations, experiments, field demonstrations and

198 | Clean Water Act of 1972

studies, and training relating to the prevention, reduction and elimination of pollution. Insofar as practicable, each such facility shall be located near institutions of higher learning in which graduate training in such research might be carried out. In conjunction with the development of criteria under section 1343 of this title, the Administrator shall construct the facilities authorized for the National Marine Water Quality Laboratory established under this subsection. (f) Great Lakes water quality research. The Administrator shall conduct research and technical development work, and make studies, with respect to the quality of the waters of the Great Lakes, including an analysis of the present and projected future water quality of the Great Lakes under varying conditions of waste treatment and disposal, an evaluation of the water quality needs of those to be served by such waters, an evaluation of municipal, industrial, and vessel waste treatment and disposal practices with respect to such waters, and a study of alternate means of solving pollution problems (including additional waste treatment measures) with respect to such waters. (g) Treatment works pilot training programs; employment needs forecasting; training projects and grants; research fellowships; technical training; report to the President and transmittal to Congress. (1) For the purpose of providing an adequate supply of trained personnel to operate and maintain existing and future treatment works and related activities, and for the purpose of enhancing substantially the proficiency of those engaged in such activities, the Administrator shall finance pilot programs, in cooperation with State and interstate agencies, municipalities, educational institutions, and other organizations and individuals, of manpower development and training and retraining of persons in, on entering into, the field of operation and maintenance of treatment works and related activities. Such program and any funds expended for such a program shall supplement, not supplant, other manpower and training programs and funds available for the purposes of this paragraph. The Administrator is authorized, under such terms and conditions as he deems appropriate, to enter into agreements with one or more States, acting jointly or severally, or with other public or private agencies or institutions for the development and implementation of such a program. (2) The Administrator is authorized to enter into agreements with public and private agencies and institutions, and individuals to develop and maintain an effective system for forecasting the supply of, and demand for, various professional and other occupational categories needed for the prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution in each region, State, or area of the United States and, from time to time, to publish the results of such forecasts. (3) In furtherance of the purposes of this chapter, the Administrator is authorized to— (A) make grants to public or private agencies and institutions and to individuals for training projects, and provide for the conduct of training by contract with public or private agencies and institutions and with individuals without regard to section 3324(a) and (b) of title 31 and section 5 of title 41; (B) establish and maintain research fellowships in the Environmental Protection Agency with such stipends and allowances, including traveling and

Clean Water Act of 1972 | 199

(h)

(i)

(j)

(k)

subsistence expenses, as he may deem necessary to procure the assistance of the most promising research fellows; and (C) provide, in addition to the program established under paragraph (1) of this subsection, training in technical matters relating to the causes, prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution for personnel of public agencies and other persons with suitable qualifications. (4) The Administrator shall submit, through the President, a report to the Congress not later than December 31, 1973, summarizing the actions taken under this subsection and the effectiveness of such actions, and setting forth the number of persons trained, the occupational categories for which training was provided, the effectiveness of other Federal, State, and local training programs in this field, together with estimates of future needs, recommendations on improving training programs, and such other information and recommendations, including legislative recommendations, as he deems appropriate. Lake pollution. The Administrator is authorized to enter into contracts with, or make grants to, public or private agencies and organizations and individuals for (A) the purpose of developing and demonstrating new or improved methods for the prevention, removal, reduction, and elimination of pollution in lakes, including the undesirable effects of nutrients and vegetation, and (B) the construction of publicly owned research facilities for such purpose. Oil pollution control studies. The Administrator, in cooperation with the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating, shall— (1) engage in such research, studies, experiments, and demonstrations as he deems appropriate, relative to the removal of oil from any waters and to the prevention, control, and elimination of oil and hazardous substances pollution; (2) publish from time to time the results of such activities; and (3) from time to time, develop and publish in the Federal Register specifications and other technical information on the various chemical compounds used in the control of oil and hazardous substances spills. In carrying out this subsection, the Administrator may enter into contracts with, or make grants to, public or private agencies and organizations and individuals. Solid waste disposal equipment for vessels. The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall engage in such research, studies, experiments, and demonstrations as he deems appropriate relative to equipment which is to be installed on board a vessel and is designed to receive, retain, treat, or discharge human body wastes and the wastes from toilets and other receptacles intended to receive or retain body wastes with particular emphasis on equipment to be installed on small recreational vessels. The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall report to Congress the results of such research, studies, experiments, and demonstrations prior to the effective date of any regulations established under section 1322 of this title. In carrying out this subsection the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating may enter into contracts with, or make grants to, public or private organizations and individuals. Land acquisition. In carrying out the provisions of this section relating to the conduct by the Administrator of demonstration projects and the development of field

200 | Clean Water Act of 1972

laboratories and research facilities, the Administrator may acquire land and interests therein by purchase, with appropriated or donated funds, by donation, or by exchange for acquired or public lands under his jurisdiction which he classifies as suitable for disposition. The values of the properties so exchanged either shall be approximately equal, or if they are not approximately equal, the values shall be equalized by the payment of cash to the grantor or to the Administrator as the circumstances require. (l) Collection and dissemination of scientific knowledge on effects and control of pesticides in water. (1) The Administrator shall, after consultation with appropriate local, State, and Federal agencies, public and private organizations, and interested individuals, as soon as practicable but not later than January 1, 1973, develop and issue to the States for the purpose of carrying out this chapter the latest scientific knowledge available in indicating the kind and extent of effects on health and welfare which may be expected from the presence of pesticides in the water in varying quantities. He shall revise and add to such information whenever necessary to reflect developing scientific knowledge. (2) The President shall, in consultation with appropriate local, State, and Federal agencies, public and private organizations, and interested individuals, conduct studies and investigations of methods to control the release of pesticides into the environment which study shall include examination of the persistency of pesticides in the water environment and alternatives thereto. The President shall submit reports, from time to time, on such investigations to Congress together with his recommendations for any necessary legislation. (m) Comprehensive studies of effects of pollution on estuaries and estuarine zones; reports. (1) The Administrator shall, in cooperation with the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Water Resources Council, and with other appropriate Federal, State, interstate, or local public bodies and private organizations, institutions, and individuals, conduct and promote, and encourage contributions to, continuing comprehensive studies of the effects of pollution, including sedimentation, in the estuaries and estuarine zones of the United States on fish and wildlife, on sport and commercial fishing, on recreation, on water supply and water power, and on other beneficial purposes. Such studies shall also consider the effect of demographic trends, the exploitation of mineral resources and fossil fuels, land and industrial development, navigation, flood and erosion control, and other uses of estuaries and estuarine zones upon the pollution of the waters therein. (2) In conducting such studies, the Administrator shall assemble, coordinate, and organize all existing pertinent information on the Nation’s estuaries and estuarine zones; carry out a program of investigations and surveys to supplement existing information in representative estuaries and estuarine zones; and identify the problems and areas where further research and study are required. (n) Agricultural pollution. In carrying out the provisions of subsection (a) of this section the Administrator shall, in cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture,

Clean Water Act of 1972 | 201

other Federal agencies, and the States, carry out a comprehensive study and research program to determine new and improved methods and the better application of existing methods of preventing, reducing, and eliminating pollution from agriculture, including the legal, economic, and other implications of the use of such methods. (o) Sewage in rural areas; national clearinghouse for alternative treatment information; clearinghouse on small flows. (1) The Administrator shall conduct a comprehensive program of research and investigation and pilot project implementation into new and improved methods of preventing, reducing, storing, collecting, treating, or otherwise eliminating pollution from sewage in rural and other areas where collection of sewage in conventional, communitywide sewage collection systems is impractical, uneconomical, or otherwise infeasible, or where soil conditions or other factors preclude the use of septic tank and drainage field systems. (2) The Administrator shall conduct a comprehensive program of research and investigation and pilot project implementation into new and improved methods for the collection and treatment of sewage and other liquid wastes combined with the treatment and disposal of solid wastes. (3) The Administrator shall establish, either within the Environmental Protection Agency, or through contract with an appropriate public or private non-profit organization, a national clearinghouse which shall (A) receive reports and information resulting from research, demonstrations, and other projects funded under this chapter related to paragraph (1) of this subsection and to subsection (e)(2) of section 1255 of this title; (B) coordinate and disseminate such reports and information for use by Federal and State agencies, municipalities, institutions, and persons in developing new and improved methods pursuant to this subsection; and (C) provide for the collection and dissemination of reports and information relevant to this subsection from other Federal and State agencies, institutions, universities, and persons.

In 1987, Congress passed a major overhaul of the Clean Water Act, renaming it the Water Quality Act. This legislation extended the permitting system to include non-point sources of pollution. Non-point pollution occurs when the pollutants are dispersed into the body of water over a wide area (as contrasted with point pollution, where pollutants are discharged at a single location, such as a drain from a factory.) Non-point source pollution covered by the act includes storm water runoff from agriculture, construction sites, and urban areas, as well as agricultural irrigation returns. The program created in the 1987 amendments provides grants to states, territories, and Indian tribes to support demonstration projects, technology transfer, education, training, technical assistance, and related activities designed to reduce non-point source pollution.

202 | Clean Water Act of 1972

The Water Quality Act of 1987 also attempted to extend the number of toxins regulated by the EPA, including those in sewage, and required states to identify waterways that did not meet water quality standards even if technology controls had been implemented. These failing waterways were to be targeted by additional federal controls. The WQA also phased out the grant program for publicly owned treatment works and replaced it with a revolving loan program. The 1987 amendments are regarded by state governments as providing unfunded mandates. Many state governments argue that they cannot fulfill all of the requirements and have put pressure on federal legislators to pass further amendments to provide greater flexibility for state lawmakers to prioritize water pollution problems. Despite this, a series of proposed clean water legislation or more simply amendments to the Clean Water Act—in 1991, 1994, and 1995—have failed to make it to the floor of the House or Senate. Most recently, Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI) and Representative James Oberstar (D-MN) introduced a Clean Water Restoration Bill. If enacted, the bill would expand the definition of ‘‘navigable waters’’ to include ‘‘all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, the territorial seas, and all interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries, including lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural ponds, and all impoundments of the foregoing.’’ This law would represent a significant addition to the CWA but would not replace it. Claire Haeg See also Federal Water Pollution Control Law of 1948; Muskie, Edmund; Water Pollution Control Act of 1948

References Copeland, Claudia, and United States Congressional Research Service. ‘‘Clean Water Act: A Summary of the Law, updated March 17, 2008.’’ Washington DC: U.S. Congressional Research Service, 2008. De Muizon, Priscillia. ‘‘‘Meaningfully Distinct’ Waters, the Unitary Waters Theory, and the Clean Water Act: Miccosukee v. South Florida Water Management District.’’ Ecology Law Quarterly 32 (3) (2005): 417–451. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=19324118&site=ehost-live. Library of Congress. Environmental Policy Division, and United States Congress. Senate. Committee on Environment and Public Works. Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution. ‘‘A Legislative History of the Clean Water Act of 1977: A Continuation of the Legislative History of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Together With a Section-by-Section Index.’’ Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978. U.S. Senate. Committee on Environment and Public Works. ‘‘The Clean Water Act Showing Changes Made by the 1977 Amendments.’’ Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977.

Climate Change | 203

Climate Change The term ‘‘climate’’ refers to a complex set of interactions between various Earth systems such as the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, and the biosphere. Average weather conditions in a particular area over a period of time form the climate for that region. ‘‘Climate change’’ refers to variations in meteorological factors that affect the weather in a given location over a period of time, ranging from months to millennia (Abatzoglou et al., 2007). The terms ‘‘climate change’’ and ‘‘global warming’’ are often used interchangeably. Climate change, as commonly used today, refers to long-term changes in global climate patterns as a result of anthropogenic (human-induced) interference. Current scientific research attributes global warming and the resulting changes in climate to the greenhouse effect caused by increased release of greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere. Developed nations are believed to be primarily responsible for these emissions as a result of increased industrial development and fossil fuel consumption over the past 150 years.

An oil refinery in Carson, California. In 2006, California became the first state to impose a cap on all greenhouse gas emissions. (AP/Wide World Photos)

204 | Climate Change

Although the concept was not new, few people paid attention to warnings about potentially hazardous effects of anthropogenic climate change until the environmental movement of the 1970s brought the issue to public awareness (Abatzoglou et al., 2007). As the climate change issue became more prominent in social and political arenas, controversy over the severity of the problem followed. Due to the multitude of factors involved in accurately researching and predicting the effects of climate change, there is debate in both scientific and political circles over the accuracy of climate change models. McCright and Dunlap have stated that global consensus on the reality of climate change emerged in the early 1980s. Reports from the National Academy of Sciences Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the World Climate Program from 1983 to 2001 all reflected the seriousness of the climate problem (McCright and Dunlap, 2003). The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was formed in 1992 but did not take effect until 1994. According to sociologists, press campaigns and political lobbying by industry groups in the 1990s sought to turn public and political influence against policies designed to ameliorate global warming. Even though such respected organizations as the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) supported the IPCC position on climate change, U.S. policymakers challenged the science behind the research. Hearings in 1995 by the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment investigated the possibility that political pressure caused scientists to distort reports on ozone depletion and global warming. The hearings also investigated accusations that the views of climate change skeptics were excluded by NASA and the EPA. No evidence of misconduct was found, but the hearings demonstrated a policy shift in favor of climate change skeptics (McCright and Dunlap, 2003). In 1997, delegates from more than 160 countries met in Kyoto, Japan, in accordance with earlier UNFCCC protocols. This summit resulted in the Kyoto Protocol. Unlike previous international agreements, this protocol legally bound participating nations to reduce the emissions of six different greenhouse gases by 7 percent from 2008 to 2012, relative to each country’s 1990 level (McCright and Dunlap, 2003). Under this agreement, countries that exceed the allowed emissions levels would still be able to meet the terms of the agreement through the use of emissions trading. Conditions for the protocol to take effect were met in 2004 when Russia ratified the treaty, and the protocol took effect on February 16, 2005. The Clinton administration signed the treaty on November 12, 1998. The U.S. Senate, however, voted unanimously not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, stating that they would not ratify any treaty that did not include restrictions on emissions from developing countries or any treaty that resulted in serious economic damage to the United States. Shortly after taking office in 2001, President George W. Bush withdrew U.S. support for the treaty, but stated that the administration would seek to find alternative solutions. In 2002, the Bush administration adopted a policy to

Climate Change | 205

reduce emissions through voluntary reductions and continued research on the climate change issue. A 2003 bipartisan bill (McCain-Lieberman) to place a cap on carbon emissions was defeated by the Senate the same year. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), chairman of the Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works, went as far as stating in 2003 that global warming was the ‘‘greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people’’ (Brulle and Jenkins, 2008). The Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling in the case of Massachusetts v. EPA decided that the EPA has the authority to regulate emissions from new motor vehicles because these emissions are considered an endangerment to public health and welfare. Therefore, the EPA has the authority to regulate these emissions under Section 202a of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPA administrator signed findings to this effect in December 2009. The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES), which passed the House on June 26, 2009, makes provisions to reduce GHG emissions through cap and trade. The ACES goal is to reduce emissions by 83 percent by 2050, based on 2005 levels. It also makes provisions to increase energy produced by renewable sources, increase energy efficiency, and promote the capture and sequestration of carbon (HR 2454, 2009). The UN Climate Change Conference in December 2009 began with high expectations for obtaining results, but ended with disappointment as parties failed to meet the deadline for adopting legally binding measures. The Senate has made several attempts since then to pass its own climate change legislation. In November, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act was passed by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee despite a boycott by Republicans. This bill seeks to address climate change by investing in clean and renewable energy sources, increasing energy efficiency, and reducing carbon pollution (U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, 2009). According to the Environment News Service, the most recent attempt to pass climate change legislation in the Senate is the introduction of the American Power Act, introduced by Senator John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (ICT). This bill also seeks to reduce emissions via a cap-and-trade system, but unlike previous bills, it targets only the largest industrial polluters. Sue Guyer See also Bush, George W.; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Kyoto Protocol; Massachusetts v. EPA (2007)

References Abatzoglou, John, et al. ‘‘A Primer on Global Climate Change and Its Likely Impacts.’’ In Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren, Joseph F. C. DiMento and Pamela Doughman, eds., 11–44. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007.

206 | Clinton, William Jefferson Brulle, Robert, and J. Craig Jenkins. ‘‘Fixing the Bungled U.S. Environmental Movement.’’ Contexts 7, no. 2 (2008): 14–18. http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~brullerj/Contexts%20%20Fixing%20the%20Bungled%20U.S.%20Environmental%20Movement.pdf (accessed May 10, 2010). Environment News Service. ‘‘Kerry-Lieberman Climate Bill Generates Praise and Outrage.’’ http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2010/2010-05-12-01.html (accessed May 12, 2010). McCright, Aaron M., and Riley E. Dunlap. ‘‘Defeating Kyoto: The Conservative Movement’s Impact on U.S. Climate Change Policy.’’ Social Problems 50:3 (August 2003): 348–373. http://ireswb.cc.ku.edu/~crgc/NSFWorkshop/Readings/Defeating%20 Kyoto.pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ‘‘Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.’’ April 23, 2010. http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/GHGEndangermentProposal.pdf (accessed May 10, 2010). U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. ‘‘Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act: Summary of Provisions.’’ September 30, 2009. Washington, DC. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=eb1619a 8-2b2f-4750-8aec-779726be03dc (accessed May 10, 2010). U.S. Senate. ‘‘HR 2454—American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.’’ Official Summary. Open Congress. Washington DC. http://www.opencongress.org/bill/ 111-h2454/show (accessed May 9, 2010).

Clinton, William Jefferson William Jefferson Clinton, the forty-second president of the United States, barely mentioned the environment in his first State of the Union address on February 17, 1993. Perhaps the bold call challenging Americans ‘‘not merely to consume the bounty of today but to invest for a much greater one tomorrow’’ could incorporate an ecological approach to human activity, but that wasn’t developed in the rest of his post-inauguration agenda of national priorities. Clinton’s comprehensive plan to set our nation on a new course focused on low productivity growth, stagnant wages, persistent unemployment and underemployment, huge government deficits, exploding health care costs, education, and job training. He also said, ‘‘We must pass a tough crime bill.’’ His proposal for a tax on energy, measured in British thermal units (btus) was presented first as a revenue source to lower the deficit, but secondarily, to combat pollution and promote energy efficiency. That measure was never adopted (American Presidency Project, 2009). Environmental organizations had by and large not supported the reelection of President George H. W. Bush and expected Clinton to shape policies more considerate of the entire ecological impact of human activity. His choice for administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was Carol M. Browner,

Clinton, William Jefferson | 207

who had previously served as secretary of environmental regulation in Florida from 1991 to 1993, legislative director for Senator Al Gore (D-TN, 1988–1991), and chief legislative aide for environmental issues to Senator Lawton Chiles (DFL, 1986–1988). She remained at the head of the EPA for Clinton’s entire eight years in office. Clinton nominated as Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, a former Arizona governor who had headed the League of Conservation Voters. On his first day in office, Clinton eliminated the Council on Competitiveness, established by the previous administration, which had frequently delayed or circumvented execution of environmental laws. However, as he backed off from campaign promises concerning below-cost timber sales, low grazing fees, and mining royalties bearing little relation to either value of extracted minerals nor long-term environmental costs, Clinton inspired National Wildlife Fund President Jay Hair to observe that ‘‘what started out like a love affair’’ was turning out ‘‘to be more like date rape’’ (Yaffee, 1994, 141). Settling the Spotted Owl Controversy On April 2, 1993, President Clinton and Vice President Gore convened a Forest Conference in Oregon (Yaffee, 1994, 141) to sort out the most acute

Democratic presidential hopeful Bill Clinton makes a point during a Washington news conference, June 12, 1992. In his remarks Clinton attacked President Bush, accusing him of slowing progress toward ‘‘a healthier and more prosperous planet’’ by advocating weak environmental positions at the Earth Summit in Brazil. (AP/Wide World Photos)

208 | Clinton, William Jefferson

environmental controversy passed along from the preceding Bush administration: the impact of the Endangered Species Act and the endangered spotted northern owl on the timber industry in the northwest. The panel, designed to play well to media coverage, did not include the head of the Forest Service, but did include 21 people representative of management and labor in the timber industry, members of four fishing industry groups, nine environmentalists, six experts in relevant sciences, two economists, two sociologists, a vocational counselor, an archbishop from Seattle, and a few representatives from local and state government (Yaffee, 1994, 142). Clinton was modestly successful in his goals to find a plan that addressed the needs of loggers and timber communities, protected forest health, was scientifically sound, provided for a sustainable and predictable level of timber harvest, and secured a single consistent government policy. Three interagency working groups were instructed to use an ecosystem-management approach encompassing all lands within range of the northern spotted owl and assessing 480 other species in the region (which might have been the object of a series of further lawsuits). The most influential group was the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) led by Jack Ward Thomas. It assembled a number of options; the one selected was vigorously and angrily opposed by industrial, labor, and environmental organizations, but allowed 1.2 billion board feet of timber harvesting per year while providing several layers of reserved old-growth forest, managed reserves, riparian buffers, adaptive management reserves, and ‘‘matrix’’ lands with guidelines for managing continued timber harvesting (Yaffee, 1994, 145–146). Perhaps most relevant, the plan was accepted by Federal District Judge William Dwyer, who had halted all timber harvesting in response to violations of the Endangered Species Act in the plans of the previous administration.

First-Term Priorities In his first year, Clinton issued a number of executive orders requiring federal agencies to reduce pollution resulting from their own activities. Executive Order 12843 directed reduction in the use of ozone-depleting chemicals by federal agencies at an accelerated rate compared to the phase-out required by law for industries in the private sector. Executive Order 12844 called for the accelerated purchase and use of vehicles using alternative fuels, such as natural gas, which burn more efficiently and have lower emissions. Order 12845 required computers, monitors, printers, and other electronics purchased by federal agencies to meet EPA ENERGY STAR standards for efficiency. Order 12873 directed federal agencies to evaluate the environmental attributes of the products and services they purchase, with green dots in the federal supply catalog highlighting environmentally friendly products (Chiras, 2006, 597), including the use of

Clinton, William Jefferson | 209

recycled paper, and to incorporate waste prevention and recycling into their own operations. Clinton’s 1994 State of the Union address again made no mention of environmental issues, focusing on crime, reducing the budget deficit, and health care reform. In 1995, following congressional elections that produced the first Republican majority in the House of Representatives in 40 years, neither pollution control nor ecosystem management had a prominent role in Clinton’s proposal for a ‘‘New Covenant.’’ Fiscal restraint, welfare reform, and fighting crime continued to hold center stage. But in 1996, heading into a difficult reelection campaign, Clinton listed as the fifth in a series of challenges facing America ‘‘to leave our environment safe and clean for the next generation.’’ Reciting some accomplishments of ‘‘a generation of bipartisan effort,’’ Clinton warned in his January 23 State of the Union address that ‘‘10 million children under 12 still live within four miles of a toxic waste dump. A third of us breathe air that endangers our health. And in too many communities, the water is not safe to drink.’’ Although proud of his overall efforts to cut the federal deficit and ‘‘reinvent government,’’ both with Democratic and Republican majorities in Congress, Clinton reminded the assembled representatives that by voting to cut environmental enforcement by 25 percent, Congress was allowing ‘‘more toxic chemicals in our water, more smog in our air, more pesticides in our food. Lobbyists for polluters have been allowed to write their own loopholes into bills to weaken laws that protect the health and safety of our children.’’ He also pointedly criticized efforts to let polluters off the hook for the cost of toxic waste cleanup, which would mean that ‘‘taxpayers should pick up the tab’’ (American Presidency Project, 2009).

Safe Water and Toxic Sites The most significant water pollution legislation approved by Congress and signed by the president during the two terms of the Clinton administration was the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 (Public Law 104-182, 110 Stat. 1613, 42 U.S.C. 300f-300j). This statute authorized a Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) to provide financing for public water systems to complete projects improving compliance with safe drinking water rules. Schedules were established for regulating contamination by chemicals such as arsenic and radon and biological contaminants such as Cryptosporidium. States were required to establish programs for assessment of drinking water sources, certifying operators of water systems and training staff and improving capacity for compliance enforcement. Annual reports to water consumers were established, referred to as consumer-confidence reports, providing information on contaminants in local drinking water. Appropriations were authorized through fiscal year 2003 (Carter, 2006, 4). The law made new provisions for water quality in small

210 | Clinton, William Jefferson

systems, where technology used by large city municipal water utilities may not be feasible or appropriate. These included a provision for the EPA, when issuing a regulation, to identify more affordable technologies that can be utilized by systems serving 10,000 people or less to meet the standards imposed. If no technologies can be identified that achieve full compliance, then the EPA will identify variance technologies, which may not fully meet the relevant standard, but will alternately protect public health (Carter, 2006, 20). Newly reelected, President Clinton reiterated in his February 4, 1997, State of the Union address his administration’s commitment to cleaning up toxic waste dumps while opening a new emphasis on preservation. Reciting the accomplishment of cleaning up 250 toxic sites in the previous four years, he called for another 500 to be cleaned up in the next four, ‘‘so that our children grow up next to parks, not poison.’’ He announced his intention to designate 10 American Heritage Rivers, adding to the three new national parks in the California desert, and protection of Utah’s Red Rocks region, previously legislated by Congress. And, for the first time, Clinton’s State of the Union agenda explicitly addressed reduction of greenhouse gases that challenge the global climate (American Presidency Project, 2009). Climate Change In 1997, the United States participated in the Kyoto conference of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which developed a protocol to reduce greenhouse gases and curtail global warming. Although President Clinton signed the protocol in 1998, it was never submitted to the Senate for ratification because it appeared to have the support of at most 15 senators (Rabe, 2004, 13). In his January 27, 1998, State of the Union address, Clinton affirmed that ‘‘the vast majority of scientists have concluded unequivocally that if we don’t reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, at some point in the next century, we’ll disrupt our climate and put our children and grandchildren at risk’’ (American Presidency Project, 2009). This was a continued theme for the remainder of his administration. In practical measures, the administration was divided, with the departments of Energy, Treasury, Defense, and Commerce voicing reservations, and faced considerable hostility from Congress (Rabe, 2004, 13). A number of greenhouse gas initiatives were floated in Congress to advance development of clean energy technologies, fund climate change research, and develop family-friendly automobiles with 80 miles per gallon fuel efficiency by 2004. Many proposals were built on programs launched by the previous president, George H. W. Bush, but were met with a hostile response in Congress and were not aggressively promoted (Rabe, 2004, 12). Greenhouse gas emissions from the United States increased by 15 percent between 1990 and 2000.

Clinton, William Jefferson | 211

Everglades Restoration Protection, preservation, and restoration of the Florida Everglades generated controversy throughout Clinton’s two terms in office, resulting in a bill that Clinton signed more than a month after the 2000 election, with Florida Governor Jeb Bush at his side (Grunwald, 2007, 3). At issue were the longstanding Central and Southern Florida water project (C&SF), which provided flood control and supplied water to both the sugar industry and growing urban subdivisions. In 1993, at the beginning of his first term, plans to save the Everglades were tied up in court, the Audubon Society facing off with the state’s sugar industry (Grunwald, 2007, 292), which occupied land needed to restore water flow and generated a good part of the phosphate pollution to be ameliorated. Appearing at the annual conference of the Everglades Coalition the same year, Interior Secretary Babbitt proposed a federal Everglades task force and that polluters be responsible for cleanup costs. In an atmosphere generally favorable to restoring the ‘‘natural treasure’’ of the Everglades, debate continued at both the state and federal level about how much to restore, how fast, and how to pay for it. Florida governors, later senators, Bob Graham, and Lawton Chiles, both Democrats, were heavily involved, as was Governor Jeb Bush after 1998. Along the way, there was a debate about developing a commercial airport on the ruins of Andrews Air Force Base, leveled by Hurricane Andrew’s 175-mile-per-hour winds. A leading developer, Carlos Herrera, was a Republican who had become a generous donor to the Clinton campaign funds, with access to both the president and administration officials (Grunwald, 2007, 309). Environmental reviews went quickly, despite projecting more than 600 flights a day over two national parks. That deal was not even held up until after the 2000 election, when Vice President Gore directed a more stringent environmental review (Grunwald, 2007, 313). On December 11, 2000, a $7.8 billion rescue mission, the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (Grunwald, 2007, 2) contained in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, became law, having been pushed through Congress by Senator Robert Smith (R-NH). The entire controversy showcased conflicting interests both inside and outside of the administration. In the end, Clinton made space for environmental protection in his vision for restoring ‘‘the vital center, replacing outmoded ideologies with a new vision anchored in basic, enduring values,’’ but he never made it a high priority for his administration. He was characterized by some as a pragmatic compromiser who made progress and by others as a dealmaker who would scuttle a sound policy if a well-connected industry or campaign finance resource protested. As often happens when there is a transition from one party to the other in the White House, the final months of Clinton’s administration were devoted to rushing through as many measures as possible to, among other things, protect environmental

212 | Coal Mining

resources and policies, measures that the incoming administration of George W. Bush was deemed unlikely to pursue. Notably, this included setting aside nearly 60 million acres of forestland in 39 states. Charles Rosenberg See also Bush, George H. W.; Endangered Species Act of 1973; Gore, Albert Arnold Jr.; Kyoto Protocol; League of Conservation Voters

References American Presidency Project. ‘‘State of the Union Messages.’’ University of California at Santa Barbara. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu (accessed September 25, 2009). Carter, Thomas W. Safe Drinking Water Act and Its Interpretation. New York: Novinka Books, 2006. Chiras, Daniel D. Environmental Science. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett, 2006. Grunwald, Michael. The Swamp: The Everglades, Florida, and the Politics of Paradise. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2007. Harris, John Furby. The Survivor: Bill Clinton in the White House. New York: Random House, 2005. Rabe, Barry George. Statehouse and Greenhouse: The Emerging Politics of American Climate Change. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2004. Yaffee, Steven Lewis. The Wisdom of the Spotted Owl: Policy Lessons for a New Century. Washington DC: Island Press, 1994.

Coal Mining Coal mining legislation, according to the coal industry’s All About Coal, is often less stringent than the companies’ guidelines. The companies voluntarily monitor air in the mines to reduce the risk of lung disease, wash coal or spray mine walls with limestone to reduce coal dust, restrict emissions when burning coal, reclaim mined areas to condition prior to mining or improve air, land, water, wildlife, and clean up abandoned mines before the law requires it, and create new wetlands or improve existing ones as a wildlife habitat. Despite the companies’ claims, historically coal mining safety and environmental safeguards have come as the result of legislative action resisted by the companies. Coal mining is impacted by more general laws such as the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 that covers preservation of historic properties, including some mines and mining structures. The national Environmental Policy Act of 1969 established a national standard for the environment, and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 protects endangered species. Other acts are the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, the Clean Water Act of 1977, and the

Coal Mining | 213

View of mine workings with seams and diggers. (AP/Wide World Photos)

Clean Air Act of 1990. The major law affecting mines is the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA), the first national surface mining law, enacted in the late 1970s. The Office of Surface Mining issues regulations concerning surface mining while the Mine Safety and Health Administration deals with coal mines. The industry contends that coal mining is safer than many industries, including not only construction and manufacturing, but also grocery, hospitals, and like industries. In 2001, there were only 6,093 injuries in coal, half the number of a decade earlier. Mines must have volunteer rescue teams with special training in detecting gases, use of breathing equipment, and firefighting. Over the years, coal mining has moved from the more dangerous underground method to strip mining, in which miners are heavy equipment operators rather than pick and shovel laborers. Injuries naturally have fallen as the number of miners has declined. Accidents, when they happen, are spectacular. On December 22, 2008, a spill of coal ash at the TVA’s Kingston fossil plant spread a billion gallons of toxic liquid over 300 acres, reigniting the debate over how to dispose of the waste generated by the burning of coal. The debate at that point was 30 years old and unresolved, and the United States generated 129 million tons of coal ash a year, ash

214 | Coal Mining

that contained lead, arsenic, and other toxic materials, waste without any federal regulation regarding its handling. The first attempt to define it as hazardous waste came in 1980, but little happened; in 2000, the EPA redesignated it as ‘‘contingent hazardous waste’’ but backed off when the electricity-generating industry protested, and it was classed as solid waste. Eight years later, there was no change, although the Bush administration pledged to issue regulations. The amount of waste has risen by one-third since 1990, and in 2008, there were 1,300 waste ponds in the United States. Some 25 million tons a year of waste went into active and closed mines, where an untold amount entered the groundwater, contaminating water in 24 states. For years, the Appalachian and western environmentalists sought a federal strip mine law, and finally got it in 1977. Since then, they have worked to improve enforcement. Whereas the east has mountaintop removal with overburden dumped into valleys, in the west the problem is that the coal seams are also aquifers; there is no federal or state law protecting this essential source of water for the western livestock and wildlife. Laws cover reclamation of the surface and replacement of damaged water supplies, not rebuilding of damaged aquifers. The SMCRA is also inadequate in regulating most effects of longwall mining other than at the mine mouth; the act predates mountaintop removal and does not regulate it enough, and there is inadequate Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and enforcement pursuit of companies that do not sufficiently reclaim water. Until 1977, there were no federal mining regulations, so mining companies extracted the coal and then moved on, leaving behind 1.1 million acres of abandoned mine sites. Sediment and acid runoff contaminated thousands of miles of streams, including municipal water supplies that had to have expensive water treatment for potability. There were also deaths in the abandoned mines, particularly those within easy walking distance of schools and neighborhoods. The mining areas are also commonly esthetically blighted and economically disadvantaged. The SMCRA was supposed to alleviate these problems. It was amended in 1990 and again in 1992. Under the SMCRA, coal companies had to reclaim lands, and all active operations had to pay 35 cents for each ton of surface mined coal and 15 cents per ton of underground coal mined. The money goes into the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund, with half reserved for the state that generates it and half for the federal government. The fund also includes interest, but that can be used for other items. Initially, 20 percent of the federal share was to go to the Rural Abandoned Mine Program, which is now inactive. There was no funding for RAMP in 1996 and 1997, and inadequate funding means that 40 percent of abandoned mines are reclaimed, leaving 60 percent as hazards. The SMCRA applies to abandoned coal mines, but non-coal mines are covered by other rules, including state solid waste permitting laws. State laws cover water

Coal Mining | 215

discharge, air quality, waste disposal, construction, reclamation, and operating permits. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 amended the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, the basic federal solid waste law. RCRA deals with both hazardous and solid waste. RCRA defines what products are hazardous and specifies how they will be created, stored, transported, processed, treated, and disposed of. The federal program includes guidelines as well as permits, inspections, and enforcement. States may implement comparable laws to serve in place of the federal one. Standards for hazardous wastes are more stringent than those for solid waste, which ban open dumping but require no permit and allow state standards to serve in lieu of federal ones. RCRA has a special section covering coal combustion wastes. It regulates landfill and mine fill. The latter is relatively new but involves 10 million tons a year at 250 coal or non-coal mines. The EPA regards mine fill as a means of improving mine lands, reducing acid damage, and limiting new greenfield facilities, i.e., buildings on land previously undeveloped. The downside is the potential for damaging groundwater. And there are no long-term studies. In January 2009, under the Obama administration, the EPA announced that it would issue no more permits for mountaintop mining. Tennessee experts interpreted the announcement as blocking new mountain fill operations. Tennessee was also considering reimposing the requirement that waste be kept at least 100 feet from streams. The 100-foot rule would not apply where old mines had already killed streams; reopening mines in those areas could occur only after a cleanup that would actually improve water quality. The national standard had been revoked in 2008 under President George W. Bush. John H. Barnhill See also Endangered Species Act of 1973; National Mining Association; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977; United Mine Workers of America; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

References Abandoned Mine Regulation Clearinghouse. ‘‘SMCRA—Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 and the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund.’’ http:// www.amrclearinghouse.org/Sub/LEGAL/SMCRA.htm (accessed April 2009). American Coal Foundation. ‘‘All About Coal: Coal Mining in America: Federal and State Regulations.’’ http://www.teachcoal.org/aboutcoal/articles/coalamer.html. Elperin, Juliet. Disposal of Coal Ash Rises as Environmental Issue, Washington Post, January 16, 2009. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/15/ AR2009011503987.html. Humphrey on the Hill. ‘‘Bredesen Offers Coal Mine Compromise.’’ Knoxnews.com blogs, March 25, 2009. http://blogs.knoxnews.com/knx/humphrey/2009/03/bredesenoffers-coal-mine-comp.html.

216 | Coastal Barrier Resources Act McElfish, James M., and Ann E. Beier. Environmental Regulation of Coal Mining: SMCRA’s Second Decade. Washington DC: Environmental Law Institute, 1990. http:// books.google.com/books?id=ASALPDfz_2wC. Western Organization of Resource Councils. ‘‘Coal Mining, Burning Coal, and Liquid Coal.’’ http://www.worc.org/energy-coal/.

Coastal Barrier Resources Act On October 18, 1982, President Ronald Reagan signed the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) (96 Stat. 1653; 16 U.S.C. 3501) that prohibited federal funding for road, water, and sewer projects on more than 450,000 acres of undeveloped coastal lands consisting of barrier islands. The act affected 186 coastal barrier units on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, which were collectively termed the Coastal Barrier Resources System. The CBRA assigned the task of mapping the 725 miles of beach length to the U.S. Geological Survey. Through various amendments since 1982, the act now covers 1.5 million acres of undeveloped coastal lands. The Department of the Interior monitors compliance with the act. Coastal barriers consist of sand, shell, and gravel that continuously shift shape and size to create a natural buffer for the mainland from the forces of ocean waves, tides, and hurricanes. Many fish, shellfish, birds, and mammals also depend on barriers and wetlands for crucial feeding, spawning, nesting, nursery, and resting habitats. As a result, coastal barriers are extremely vulnerable to damage from development and other human activities. The CBRA sought to discourage development in the ecologically vulnerable coastal barriers by prohibiting subsidies for flood insurance and funding for infrastructure projects. Congress has consistently amended the CBRA since 1982 to reflect the changing boundaries of various barrier islands and to conform to technological advancements such as digital mapping. By preventing infrastructure development and discouraging residential development, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act helps support the conservation of these vital areas. Yasmeen Waheed See also Reagan, Ronald Wilson; U.S. Department of the Interior

References Bohlen, Curtis C. ‘‘Washington Watch: Protecting the Coast.’’ BioScience 40 (April 1990): 243. Clark, John R. ‘‘Management of Coastal Barrier Biosphere Reserves.’’ BioScience 41 (May 1991): 331–336. Ray, G. Carleton, and William P. Gregg Jr. ‘‘Establishing Biosphere Reserves for Coastal Barrier Ecosystems.’’ BioScience 41 (May 1991): 301–309.

Coastal Zone Management Act | 217

Coastal Zone Management Act In 1972, Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). President Richard M. Nixon signed the comprehensive act, which addressed increasingly recognized threats to wildlife and habitats in the United States’ coastal, estuarial, and Great Lakes regions. It was reauthorized in 1990 and has undergone several changes and amendments since then. The CZMA comes under the general jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Commerce, under which the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NOAA’s subdivision, the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERSS), provide oversight. The act was proposed as a response to the rapidly growing human population and its consequent residential and industrial development in the targeted areas. It proposed solutions to the ‘‘serious conflicts among important and competing uses and values in coastal and ocean waters’’ (CZMA 1972: 16 U.S.C. 1451 Section 302) and addressed energy independence along with the threats of global warming and rising sea levels. A ‘‘coastal zone’’ is defined under Section 304 as near-shore waters, beaches, marshes, and any similar areas, including both surface and underwater territory. A ‘‘coastal resource’’ is any natural storm or surge barrier, a wetland or a habitat deemed by an individual state to be of vital importance. Coastal waters include the areas near the U.S. portions of the Great Lakes as well as the associated ocean and estuarine waters in other states. Territories covered by the CZMA outside the defined U.S. coastal states include ‘‘Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territories of the Pacific Islands, and American Samoa’’ (Section 304) and exclude ‘‘lands the use of which is by law subject solely to the discretion of or which is held in trust by the Federal Government, its officers or agents’’ (Section 304). The CZMA outlines oversight for its implementation among the individual states and calls for cooperation and information sharing among local, state, and federal agencies. It provides for grants and technical assistance and assigns responsibility for communication and management of the programs. Programs are voluntary, directed by region, and supported by the federal government through specific Coastal Zone Enhancement Grants (Section 309). Grants are awarded at the discretion of the Secretary of Commerce and are provided for coastal and estuarial states to put toward protection, pollution control, development, and public educational costs. States are required to submit detailed plans of action for how the grants will be used. Each affected state must, for example, define and map its targeted zones; outline its plans for interaction and communication with

218 | Coastal Zone Management Act

Coastal Zone Management Act (1972) 16 U.S.C. § 1451–1464, Chapter 33 The Congress finds that— (a) There is a national interest in the effective management, beneficial use, protection, and development of the coastal zone. (b) The coastal zone is rich in a variety of natural, commercial, recreational, ecological, industrial, and esthetic resources of immediate and potential value to the present and future well-being of the Nation. (c) The increasing and competing demands upon the lands and waters of our coastal zone occasioned by population growth and economic development, including requirements for industry, commerce, residential development, recreation, extraction of mineral resources and fossil fuels, transportation and navigation, waste disposal, and harvesting of fish, shellfish, and other living marine resources, have resulted in the loss of living marine resources, wildlife, nutrient-rich areas, permanent and adverse changes to ecological systems, decreasing open space for public use, and shoreline erosion. (d) The habitat areas of the coastal zone, and the fish, shellfish, other living marine resources, and wildlife therein, are ecologically fragile and consequently extremely vulnerable to destruction by man’s alterations. (e) Important ecological, cultural, historic, and esthetic values in the coastal zone which are essential to the well-being of all citizens are being irretrievably damaged or lost. (f) New and expanding demands for food, energy, minerals, defense needs, recreation, waste disposal, transportation, and industrial activities in the Great Lakes, territorial sea, exclusive economic zone, and Outer Continental Shelf are placing stress on these areas and are creating the need for resolution of serious conflicts among important and competing uses and values in coastal and ocean waters. (g) Special natural and scenic characteristics are being damaged by ill-planned development that threatens these values. (h) In light of competing demands and the urgent need to protect and to give high priority to natural systems in the coastal zone, present state and local institutional arrangements for planning and regulating land and water uses in such areas are inadequate. (i) The key to more effective protection and use of the land and water resources of the coastal zone is to encourage the states to exercise their full authority over the lands and waters in the coastal zone by assisting the states, in cooperation with Federal and local governments and other vitally affected interests, in developing land and water use programs for the coastal zone, including unified policies, criteria, standards, methods, and processes for dealing with land and water use decisions of more than local significance. (j) The national objective of attaining a greater degree of energy self-sufficiency would be advanced by providing Federal financial assistance to meet state and local needs resulting from new or expanded energy activity in or affecting the coastal zone. (k) Land uses in the coastal zone, and the uses of adjacent lands which drain into the coastal zone, may significantly affect the quality of coastal waters and habitats, and

Coastal Zone Management Act | 219

efforts to control coastal water pollution from land use activities must be improved. (l) Because global warming may result in a substantial sea level rise with serious adverse effects in the coastal zone, coastal states must anticipate and plan for such an occurrence. (m) Because of their proximity to and reliance upon the ocean and its resources, the coastal states have substantial and significant interests in the protection, management, and development of the resources of the exclusive economic zone that can only be served by the active participation of coastal states in all Federal programs affecting such resources and, wherever appropriate, by the development of state ocean resource plans as part of their federally approved coastal zone management programs. Sec. 1452. Congressional declaration of policy (Section 303) declares that it is the national policy—

The Congress finds and

(1) to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance, the resources of the Nation’s coastal zone for this and succeeding generations; (2) to encourage and assist the states to exercise effectively their responsibilities in the coastal zone through the development and implementation of management programs to achieve wise use of the land and water resources of the coastal zone, giving full consideration to ecological, cultural, historic, and esthetic values as well as the needs for compatible economic development, which programs should at least provide for— (A) the protection of natural resources, including wetlands, floodplains, estuaries, beaches, dunes, barrier islands, coral reefs, and fish and wildlife and their habitat, within the coastal zone, (B) the management of coastal development to minimize the loss of life and property caused by improper development in flood-prone, storm surge, geological hazard, and erosion-prone areas and in areas likely to be affected by or vulnerable to sea level rise, land subsidence, and saltwater intrusion, and by the destruction of natural protective features such as beaches, dunes, wetlands, and barrier islands, (C) the management of coastal development to improve, safeguard, and restore the quality of coastal waters, and to protect natural resources and existing uses of those waters, (D) priority consideration being given to coastal-dependent uses and orderly processes for siting major facilities related to national defense, energy, fisheries development, recreation, ports and transportation, and the location, to the maximum extent practicable, of new commercial and industrial developments in or adjacent to areas where such development already exists, (E) public access to the coasts for recreation purposes, (F) assistance in the redevelopment of deteriorating urban waterfronts and ports, and sensitive preservation and restoration of historic, cultural, and esthetic coastal features, (G) the coordination and simplification of procedures in order to ensure expedited governmental decision-making for the management of coastal resources, (H) continued consultation and coordination with, and the giving of adequate consideration to the views of, affected Federal agencies,

220 | Coastal Zone Management Act

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(I) the giving of timely and effective notification of, and opportunities for public and local government participation in, coastal management decision-making, (J) assistance to support comprehensive planning, conservation, and management for living marine resources, including planning for the siting of pollution control and aquaculture facilities within the coastal zone, and improved coordination between State and Federal coastal zone management agencies and State and wildlife agencies, and (K) the study and development, in any case in which the Secretary considers it to be appropriate, of plans for addressing the adverse effects upon the coastal zone of land subsidence and of sea level rise; and to encourage the preparation of special area management plans which provide for increased specificity in protecting significant natural resources, reasonable coastaldependent economic growth, improved protection of life and property in hazardous areas, including those areas likely to be affected by land subsidence, sea level rise, or fluctuating water levels of the Great Lakes, and improved predictability in governmental decision-making; to encourage the participation and cooperation of the public, state and local governments, and interstate and other regional agencies, as well as of the Federal agencies having programs affecting the coastal zone, in carrying out the purposes of this title; to encourage coordination and cooperation with and among the appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, and international organizations where appropriate, in collection, analysis, synthesis, and dissemination of coastal management information, research results, and technical assistance, to support State and Federal regulation of land use practices affecting the coastal and ocean resources of the United States; and to respond to changing circumstances affecting the coastal environment and coastal resource management by encouraging States to consider such issues as ocean uses potentially affecting the coastal zone.

Sec. 1453. Definitions (Section 304) For the purposes of this title— (1) The term ‘‘coastal zone’’ means the coastal waters (including the lands therein and thereunder) and the adjacent shorelands (including the waters therein and thereunder), strongly influenced by each other and in proximity to the shorelines of the several coastal states, and includes islands, transitional and intertidal areas, salt marshes, wetlands, and beaches. The zone extends, in Great Lakes waters, to the international boundary between the United States and Canada and, in other areas, seaward to the outer limit of State title and ownership under the Submerged Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.), the Act of March 2, 1917 (48 U.S.C. 749), the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America, as approved by the Act of March 24, 1976 (48 U.S.C. 1681 note), or section 1 of the Act of November 20, 1963 (48 U.S.C. 1705), as applicable. The zone extends inland from the shorelines only to the extent necessary to control shorelands, the uses of which have a direct and significant impact on the coastal waters, and to control those geographical areas which are likely to be affected by or vulnerable to sea level rise. Excluded from the

Coastal Zone Management Act | 221 coastal zone are lands the use of which is by law subject solely to the discretion of or which is held in trust by the Federal Government, its officers or agents. (2) The term ‘‘coastal resource of national significance’’ means any coastal wetland, beach, dune, barrier island, reef, estuary, or fish and wildlife habitat, if any such area is determined by a coastal state to be of substantial biological or natural storm protective value. (3) The term ‘‘coastal waters’’ means (A) in the Great Lakes area, the waters within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States consisting of the Great Lakes, their connecting waters, harbors, roadsteads, and estuary-type areas such as bays, shallows, and marshes and (B) in other areas, those waters, adjacent to the shorelines, which contain a measurable quantity or percentage of sea water, including, but not limited to, sounds, bays, lagoons, bayous, ponds, and estuaries. (4) The term ‘‘coastal state’’ means a state of the United States in, or bordering on, the Atlantic, Pacific, or Arctic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, Long Island Sound, or one or more of the Great Lakes. For the purposes of this title, the term also includes Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territories of the Pacific Islands, and American Samoa. (5) The term ‘‘coastal energy activity’’ means any of the following activities if, and to the extent that (A) the conduct, support, or facilitation of such activity requires and involves the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of any equipment or facility; and (B) any technical requirement exists which, in the determination of the Secretary, necessitates that the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of such equipment or facility be carried out in, or in close proximity to, the coastal zone of any coastal state; (i) Any outer Continental Shelf energy activity. (ii) Any transportation, conversion, treatment, transfer, or storage of liquefied natural gas. (iii) Any transportation, transfer, or storage of oil, natural gas, or coal (including, but not limited to, by means of any deepwater port, as defined in section 3(10) of the Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (33 USC 1502(10)) [33 USC Sec.1502 (10)]. For purposes of this paragraph, the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of any equipment or facility shall be ‘‘in close proximity to’’ the coastal zone of any coastal state if such siting, construction, expansion, or operation has, or is likely to have, a significant effect on such coastal zone. (6) The term ‘‘energy facilities’’ means any equipment or facility that is or will be used primarily— (A) in the exploration for, or the development, production, conversion, storage, transfer, processing, or transportation of, any energy resource; or (B) for the manufacture, production, or assembly of equipment, machinery, products, or devices which are involved in any activity described in subparagraph (A). The term includes, but is not limited to (i) electric generating plants; (ii) petroleum refineries and associated facilities; (iii) gasification plants; (iv) facilities used for the transportation, conversion, treatment, transfer, or storage of liquefied natural gas; (v) uranium enrichment or nuclear fuel processing facilities; (vi) oil and gas facilities, including platforms, assembly plants, storage depots, tank

222 | Coastal Zone Management Act

farms, crew and supply bases, and refining complexes; (vii) facilities including deepwater ports, for the transfer of petroleum; (viii) pipelines and transmission facilities; and (ix) terminals which are associated with any of the foregoing. (6a) The term ‘‘enforceable policy’’ means State policies which are legally binding through constitutional provisions, laws, regulations, land use plans, ordinances, or judicial or administrative decisions, by which a State exerts control over private and public land and water uses and natural resources in the coastal zone. (7) The term ‘‘estuary’’ means that part of a river or stream or other body of water having unimpaired connection with the open sea, where the sea water is measurably diluted with fresh water derived from land drainage. The term includes estuary-type areas of the Great Lakes. (8) The term ‘‘estuarine sanctuary’’ means a research area which may include any part or all of an estuary and any island, transitional area, and upland in, adjoining, or adjacent to such estuary, and which constitutes to the extent feasible a natural unit, set aside to provide scientists and students the opportunity to examine over a period of time the ecological relationships within the area. (9) The term ‘‘Fund’’ means the Coastal Zone Management Fund established under section 308(b) [16 USC Sec. 1456a(b)]. (10) The term ‘‘land use’’ means activities which are conducted in, or on the shorelands within, the coastal zone, subject to the requirements outlined in section 307(g) [16 USC Sec. 1456(g)]. (11) The term ‘‘local government’’ means any political subdivison of, or any special entity created by, any coastal state which (in whole or part) is located in, or has authority over, such state’s coastal zone and which (A) has authority to levy taxes, or to establish and collect user fees, or (B) provides any public facility or public service which is financed in whole or part by taxes or user fees. The term includes, but is not limited to, any school district, fire district, transportation authority, and any other special purpose district or authority. (12) The term ‘‘management program’’ includes, but is not limited to, a comprehensive statement in words, maps, illustrations, or other media of communication, prepared and adopted by the state in accordance with the provisions of this title, setting forth objectives, policies, and standards to guide public and private uses of lands and waters in the coastal zone. (13) The term ‘‘outer Continental Shelf energy activity’’ means any exploration for, or any development or production of, oil or natural gas from the outer Continental Shelf (as defined in section 2(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331(a)) [43 USC Sec. 1331(a)]), or the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of any new or expanded energy facilities directly required by such exploration, development, or production. (14) The term ‘‘person’’ means any individual; any corporation, partnership, association, or other entity organized or existing under the laws of any state; the Federal Government; any state, regional, or local government; or any entity of any such Federal, state, regional, or local government. (15) The term ‘‘public facilities and public services’’ means facilities or services which are financed, in whole or in part, by any state or political subdivision thereof, including, but not limited to, highways and secondary roads, parking, mass transit, docks, navigation aids, fire and police protection, water supply, waste collection

Coastal Zone Management Act | 223 and treatment (including drainage), schools and education, and hospitals and health care. Such term may also include any other facility or service so financed which the Secretary finds will support increased population. (16) The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of Commerce. (17) The term ‘‘special area management plan’’ means a comprehensive plan providing for natural resource protection and reasonable coastal-dependent economic growth containing a detailed and comprehensive statement of policies; standards and criteria to guide public and private uses of lands and waters; and mechanisms for timely implementation in specific geographic areas within the coastal zone. (18) The term ‘‘water use’’ means a use, activity, or project conducted in or on waters within the coastal zone.

Sec. 1454. Management program development grants (Section 305) (a) In fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999, the Secretary may make a grant annually to any coastal state without an approved program if the coastal state demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the grant will be used to develop a management program consistent with the requirements set forth in section 306 [16 USC Sec. 1455]. The amount of any such grant shall not exceed $ 200,000 in any fiscal year, and shall require State matching funds according to a 4-to-1 ratio of Federalto-State contributions. After an initial grant is made to a coastal state pursuant to this subsection, no subsequent grant shall be made to that coastal state pursuant to this subsection unless the Secretary finds that the coastal state is satisfactorily developing its management program. No coastal state is eligible to receive more than four grants pursuant to this subsection. (b) Any coastal state which has completed the development of its management program shall submit such program to the Secretary for review and approval pursuant to section 306 [16 USC Sec. 1455]. Sec. 1455. Administrative grants (Section 306) (a) The Secretary may make grants to any coastal state for the purpose of administering that state’s management program, if the state matches any such grant according to the following ratios of Federal-to-State contributions for the applicable fiscal year: (1) For those States for which programs were approved prior to enactment of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 [enacted Nov. 5, 1990], 1 to 1 for any fiscal year. (2) For programs approved after enactment of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 [enacted Nov. 5, 1990], 4 to 1 for the first fiscal year, 2.3 to 1 for the second fiscal year, 1.5 to 1 for the third fiscal year, and 1 to 1 for each fiscal year thereafter. (b) The Secretary may make a grant to a coastal state under subsection (a) only if the Secretary finds that the management program of the coastal state meets all applicable requirements of this title and has been approved in accordance with subsection (d).

224 | Coastal Zone Management Act

(c) Grants under this section shall be allocated to coastal states with approved programs based on rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary which shall take into account the extent and nature of the shoreline and area covered by the program, population of the area, and other relevant factors. The Secretary shall establish, after consulting with the coastal states, maximum and minimum grants for any fiscal year to promote equity between coastal states and effective coastal management. (d) Before approving a management program submitted by a coastal state, the Secretary shall find the following: (1) The State has developed and adopted a management program for its coastal zone in accordance with rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary, after notice, and with the opportunity of full participation by relevant Federal agencies, State agencies, local governments, regional organizations, port authorities, and other interested parties and individuals, public and private, which is adequate to carry out the purposes of this title and is consistent with the policy declared in section 303 [16 USC Sec. 1452]. (2) The management program includes each of the following required program elements: (A) An identification of the boundaries of the coastal zone subject to the management program. (B) A definition of what shall constitute permissible land uses and water users within the coastal zone which have a direct and significant impact on the coastal waters. (C) An inventory and designation of areas of particular concern within the coastal zone. (D) An identification of the means by which the State proposes to exert control over the land uses and water uses referred to in subparagraph (B), including a list of relevant State constitutional provisions, laws, regulations, and judicial decisions. (E) Broad guidelines on priorities of uses in particular areas, including specifically those uses of lowest priority. (F) A description of the organizational structure proposed to implement such management program, including the responsibilities and interrelationships of local, areawide, State, regional, and interstate agencies in the management process. (G) A definition of the term ‘‘beach’’ and a planning process for the protection of, and access to, public beaches and other public coastal areas of environmental, recreational, historical, esthetic, ecological, or cultural value. (H) A planning process for energy facilities likely to be located in, or which may significantly affect, the coastal zone, including a process for anticipating the management of the impacts resulting from such facilities. (I) A planning process for assessing the effects of, and studying and evaluating ways to control, or lessen the impact of, shoreline erosion, and to restore areas adversely affected by such erosion. (3) The State has— (A) coordinated its program with local, areawide, and interstate plans applicable to areas within the coastal zone—(i) existing on January 1 of the year

Coastal Zone Management Act | 225

(4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

(9)

(10)

in which the State’s management program is submitted to the Secretary; and (ii) which have been developed by a local government, an areawide agency, a regional agency, or an interstate agency; and (B) established an effective mechanism for continuing consultation and coordination between the management agency designated pursuant to paragraph (6) and with local governments, interstate agencies, regional agencies, and areawide agencies within the coastal zone to assure the full participation of those local governments and agencies in carrying out the purposes of this title; except that the Secretary shall not find any mechanism to be effective for purposes of this subparagraph unless it requires that— (i) the management agency, before implementing any management program decision which would conflict with any local zoning ordinance, decision, or other action, shall send a notice of the management program decision to any local government whose zoning authority is affected; (ii) within the 30-day period commencing on the date of receipt of that notice, the local government may submit to the management agency written comments on the management program decision, and any recommendation for alternatives; and (iii) the management agency, if any comments are submitted to it within the 30-day period by any local government— (I) shall consider the comments; (II) may, in its discretion, hold a public hearing on the comments; and (III) may not take any action within the 30-day period to implement the management program decision. The State has held public hearings in the development of the management program. The management program and any changes thereto have been reviewed and approved by the Governor of the State. The Governor of the State has designated a single State agency to receive and administer grants for implementing the management program. The State is organized to implement the management program. The management program provides for adequate consideration of the national interest involved in planning for, and managing the coastal zone, including the siting of facilities such as energy facilities which are of greater than local significance. In the case of energy facilities, the Secretary shall find that the State has given consideration to any applicable national or interstate energy plan or program. The management program includes procedures whereby specific areas may be designated for the purpose of preserving or restoring them for their conservation, recreational ecological, historical, or esthetic values. The State, acting through its chosen agency or agencies (including local governments, areawide agencies, regional agencies, or interstate agencies) has authority for the management of the coastal zone in accordance with the management program. Such authority shall include power– (A) to administer land use and water use regulations to control development to ensure compliance with the management program, and to resolve

226 | Coastal Zone Management Act conflicts among competing uses; and (B) to acquire fee simple and less than fee simple interests in land, waters, and other property through condemnation or other means when necessary to achieve conformance with the management program. (11) The management program provides for any one or a combination of the following general techniques for control of land uses and water uses within the coastal zone: (A) State establishment of criteria and standards for local implementation, subject to administrative review and enforcement. (B) Direct State land and water use planning and regulation. (C) State administrative review for consistency with the management program of all development plans, projects, or land and water use regulations, including exceptions and variances thereto, proposed by any State or local authority or private developer, with power to approve or disapprove after public notice and an opportunity for hearings. (12) The management program contains a method of assuring that local land use and water use regulations within the coastal zone do not unreasonably restrict or exclude land uses and water uses of regional benefit. (13) The management program provides for— (A) the inventory and designation of areas that contain one or more coastal resources of national significance; and (B) specific and enforceable standards to protect such resources. (14) The management program provides for public participation in permitting processes, consistency determinations, and other similar decisions. (15) The management program provides a mechanism to ensure that all State agencies will adhere to the program. (16) The management program contains enforceable policies and mechanisms to implement the applicable requirements of the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program of the State required by section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 [16 USC Sec. 1455b]. (e) A coastal state may amend or modify a management program which it has submitted and which has been approved by the Secretary under this section, subject to the following conditions: (1) The State shall promptly notify the Secretary of any proposed amendment, modification, or other program change and submit it for the Secretary’s approval. The Secretary may suspend all or part of any grant made under this section pending State submission of the proposed amendments, modification, or other program change. (2) Within 30 days after the date the Secretary receives any proposed amendment, the Secretary shall notify the State whether the Secretary approves or disapproves the amendment, or whether the Secretary finds it is necessary to extend the review of the proposed amendment for a period not to exceed 120 days after the date the Secretary received the proposed amendment. The Secretary may extend this period only as necessary to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). If the Secretary does not notify the coastal state that the Secretary approves or disapproves the amendment within that period, then the amendment shall be conclusively presumed as approved.

Coastal Zone Management Act | 227 (3) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a coastal state may not implement any amendment, modification, or other change as part of its approved management program unless the amendment, modification, or other change is approved by the Secretary under this subsection. (B) The Secretary, after determining on a preliminary basis, that an amendment, modification, or other change which has been submitted for approval under this subsection is likely to meet the program approval standards in this section, may permit the State to expend funds awarded under this section to begin implementing the proposed amendment, modification, or change. This preliminary approval shall not extend for more than 6 months and may not be renewed. A proposed amendment, modification, or change which has been given preliminary approval and is not finally approved under this paragraph shall not be considered an enforceable policy for purposes of section 307 [16 USC Sec. 1456]. Sec. 1455a. Coastal resource improvement program (Section 306A) (a) Definitions. For purposes of this section— (1) The term ‘‘eligible coastal state’’ means a coastal state that for any fiscal year for which a grant is applied for under this section— (A) has a management program approved under section 306 [16 USC Sec. 1455]; and (B) in the judgment of the Secretary, is making satisfactory progress in activities designed to result in significant improvement in achieving the coastal management objectives specified in section 303(2)(A) through (K) [16 USC Sec. 1452(2)(A)—(K)]. (2) The term ‘‘urban waterfront and port’’ means any developed area that is densely populated and is being used for, or has been used for, urban residential recreational, commercial, shipping or industrial purposes. (b) Resource management improvement grants. The Secretary may make grants to any eligible coastal state to assist that state in meeting one or more of the following objectives: (1) The preservation or restoration of specific areas of the state that (A) are designated under the management program procedures required by section 306(d)(9) [16 USC Sec. 1455(d)(9)] because of their conservation recreational, ecological, or esthetic values, or (B) contain one or more coastal resources of national significance, or for the purpose of restoring and enhancing shellfish production by the purchase and distribution of clutch material on publicly owned reef tracts. (2) The redevelopment of deteriorating and underutilized urban waterfronts and ports that are designated in the state’s management program pursuant to section 306(d)(2)(C) [16 USC Sec. 1455(d)(2)(C)] as areas of particular concern. (3) The provision of access to public beaches and other public coastal areas and to coastal waters in accordance with the planning process required under section 306(d)(2)(G) [16 USC Sec. 1455(d)(2)(G)]. (4) The development of a coordinated process among State agencies to regulate and issue permits for aquaculture facilities in the coastal zone. (c) Uses, terms and conditions of grants. (1) Each grant made by the Secretary under this section shall be subject to such terms and conditions as may be appropriate to ensure that the grant is used for purposes consistent with this section.

228 | Coastal Zone Management Act (3) Grants made under this section may be used for— (A) the acquisition of fee simple and other interests in land; (B) low-cost construction projects determined by the Secretary to be consistent with the purposes of this section, including but not limited to, paths, walkways, fences, parks, and the rehabilitation of historic buildings and structures; except that not more than 50 per centum of any grant made under this section may be used for such construction projects; (C) in the case of grants made for objectives described in subsection (b)(2)— (i) the rehabilitation or acquisition of piers to provide increased public use, including compatible commercial activity, (ii) the establishment of shoreline stabilization measures including the installation or rehabilitation of bulkheads for the purpose of public safety or increasing public access and use, and (iii) the removal or replacement of pilings where such action will provide increased recreational use of urban waterfront areas, but activities provided for under this paragraph shall not be treated as construction projects subject to the limitations in paragraph (B); (D) engineering designs, specifications, and other appropriate reports; and (E) educational, interpretive, and management costs and such other related costs as the Secretary determines to be consistent with the purposes of this section. (d) Maximum amount of grants. (1) The Secretary may make grants to any coastal state for the purpose of carrying out the project or purpose for which such grants are awarded, if the state matches any such grant according to the following ratios of Federal to state contributions for the applicable fiscal year: 4 to 1 for fiscal year 1986; 2.3 to 1 for fiscal year 1987; 1.5 to 1 for fiscal year 1988; and 1 to 1 for each fiscal year after fiscal year 1988.’’. (2) Grants provided under this section may be used to pay a coastal state’s share of costs required under any other Federal program that is consistent with the purposes of this section. (3) The total amount of grants made under this section to any eligible coastal state for any fiscal year may not exceed an amount equal to 10 per centum of the total amount appropriated to carry out this section for such fiscal year. (e) Allocation of grants to local governments and other agencies. With the approval of the Secretary, an eligible coastal state may allocate to a local government, an areawide agency designated under section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 [42 USC Sec. 3334], a regional agency, or an interstate agency, a portion of any grant made under this section for the purpose of carrying out this section; except that such an allocation shall not relieve that state of the responsibility for ensuring that any funds so allocated are applied in furtherance of the state’s approved management program. (f) Other technical and financial assistance. In addition to providing grants under this section, the Secretary shall assist eligible coastal states and their local governments in identifying and obtaining other sources of available Federal technical and financial assistance regarding the objectives of this section.

Coastal Zone Management Act | 229 Sec. 1455b. Protecting coastal waters (Section 6217) (a) In general. (1) Program development. Not later than 30 months after the date of the publication of final guidance under subsection (g), each State for which a management program has been approved pursuant to section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 [16 USC Sec. 1455] shall prepare and submit to the Secretary and the Administrator a Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program for approval pursuant to this section. The purpose of the program shall be to develop and implement management measures for nonpoint source pollution to restore and protect coastal waters, working in close conjunction with other State and local authorities. (2) Program coordination. A State program under this section shall be coordinated closely with State and local water quality plans and programs developed pursuant to sections 208, 303, 319, and 320 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1288, 1313, 1329, and 1330) and with State plans developed pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 [16 USC Secs. 1651 et seq.], as amended by this Act. The program shall serve as an update and expansion of the State nonpoint source management program developed under section 319 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act [33 USC Sec. 1329], as the program under that section relates to land and water uses affecting coastal waters. (b) Program contents. Each State program under this section shall provide for the implementation, at a minimum, of management measures in conformity with the guidance published under subsection (g), to protect coastal waters generally, and shall also contain the following: (1) Identifying land uses. The identification of, and a continuing process for identifying, land uses which, individually or cumulatively, may cause or contribute significantly to a degradation of— (A) those coastal waters where there is a failure to attain or maintain applicable water quality standards or protect designated uses, as determined by the State pursuant to its water quality planning processes; or (B) those coastal waters that are threatened by reasonably foreseeable increases in pollution loadings from new or expanding sources. (2) Identifying critical coastal areas. The identification of, and a continuing process for identifying, critical coastal areas adjacent to coastal waters referred to in paragraph (1)(A) and (B), within which any new land uses or substantial expansion of existing land uses shall be subject to management measures in addition to those provided for in subsection (g). (3) Management measures. The implementation and continuing revision from time to time of additional management measures applicable to the land uses and areas identified pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) that are necessary to achieve and maintain applicable water quality standards under section 303 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1313) and protect designated uses. (4) Technical assistance. The provision of technical and other assistance to local governments and the public for implementing the measures referred to

230 | Coastal Zone Management Act in paragraph (3), which may include assistance in developing ordinances and regulations, technical guidance, and modeling to predict and assess the effectiveness of such measures, training, financial incentives, demonstration projects, and other innovations to protect coastal water quality and designated uses. (5) Public participation. Opportunities for public participation in all aspects of the program, including the use of public notices and opportunities for comment, nomination procedures, public hearings, technical and financial assistance, public education, and other means. (6) Administrative coordination. The establishment of mechanisms to improve coordination among State agencies and between State and local officials responsible for land use programs and permitting, water quality permitting and enforcement, habitat protection, and public health and safety, through the use of joint project review, memoranda of agreement, or other mechanisms. (7) State coastal zone boundary modification. A proposal to modify the boundaries of the State coastal zone as the coastal management agency of the State determines is necessary to implement the recommendations made pursuant to subsection (e). If the coastal management agency does not have the authority to modify such boundaries, the program shall include recommendations for such modifications to the appropriate State authority. (c) Program submission, approval, and implementation. (1) Review and approval. Within 6 months after the date of submission by a State of a program pursuant to this section, the Secretary and the Administrator shall jointly review the program. The program shall be approved if— (A) the Secretary determines that the portions of the program under the authority of the Secretary meet the requirements of this section and the Administrator concurs with that determination; and (B) the Administrator determines that the portions of the program under the authority of the Administrator meet the requirements of this section and the Secretary concurs with that determination. (2) Implementation of approved program. If the program of a State is approved in accordance with paragraph (1), the State shall implement the program, including the management measures included in the program pursuant to subsection (b), through— (A) changes to the State plan for control of nonpoint source pollution approved under section 319 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act [33 USC Sec. 1329]; and (B) changes to the State coastal zone management program developed under section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 [16 USC Sec. 1455], as amended by this Act. (3) Withholding coastal management assistance. If the Secretary finds that a coastal State has failed to submit an approvable program as required by this section, the Secretary shall withhold for each fiscal year until such a program is submitted a portion of grants otherwise available to the State for the fiscal year under section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 [16 USC Sec. 1455], as follows: (A) 10 percent for fiscal year 1996. (B) 15 percent for fiscal year 1997.

Coastal Zone Management Act | 231 (E) 20 percent for fiscal year 1998. (F) 30 percent for fiscal year 1999 and each fiscal year thereafter. The Secretary shall make amounts withheld under this paragraph available to coastal States having programs approved under this section. (4) Withholding water pollution control assistance. If the Administrator finds that a coastal State has failed to submit an approvable program as required by this section, the Administrator shall withhold from grants available to the State under section 319 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act [33 USC Sec. 1329], for each fiscal year until such a program is submitted, an amount equal to a percentage of the grants awarded to the State for the preceding fiscal year under that section, as follows: (A) For fiscal year 1996, 10 percent of the amount awarded for fiscal year 1995. (B) For fiscal year 1997, 15 percent of the amount awarded for fiscal year1996. (C) For fiscal year 1998, 20 percent of the amount awarded for fiscal year1997. (D) For fiscal year 1999 and each fiscal year thereafter, 30 percent of the amount awarded for fiscal year 1998 or other preceding fiscal year. The Administrator shall make amounts withheld under this paragraph available to States having programs approved pursuant to this subsection. (d) Technical assistance. The Secretary and the Administrator shall provide technical assistance to coastal States and local governments in developing and implementing programs under this section. Such assistance shall include— (1) methods for assessing water quality impacts associated with coastal landuses; (2) methods for assessing the cumulative water quality effects of coastal development; (3) maintaining and from time to time revising an inventory of model ordinances, and providing other assistance to coastal States and local governments in identifying, developing, and implementing pollution control measures; and (4) methods to predict and assess the effects of coastal land use management measures on coastal water quality and designated uses. (e) Inland coastal zone boundaries. (1) Review. The Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall, within 18 months after the effective date of this title, review the inland coastal zone boundary of each coastal State program which has been approved or is proposed for approval under section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 [16 USC Sec. 1455], and evaluate whether the State’s coastal zone boundary extends inland to the extent necessary to control the land and water uses that have a significant impact on coastal waters of the State. (2) Recommendation. If the Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator, finds that modifications to the inland boundaries of a State’s coastal zone are necessary for that State to more effectively manage land and water uses to protect coastal waters, the Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator, shall recommend appropriate modifications in writing to the affected State. (f) Financial assistance. (1) In general. Upon request of a State having a program approved under section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management

232 | Colorado River

the public, other states, and other agencies; and supply specifics of energy development and its consequences to the designated areas. The secretary is authorized to suspend funding if a state is found to be in violation of its award terms. The Walter B. Jones Excellence in Coastal Zone Management Awards (Section 302) established research grants, cash awards, and recognition for accomplishments in coastal and estuarine zone management. Awards are given to one individual who is not federally employed; five states exhibiting best practices in compliance; and up to 10 graduate students who are involved in promising research. The CZMA has been amended several times. Its reauthorization expired in 1999 and it awaits the attention of Congress as of 2010. Anne Maclachlan See also Nixon, Richard

References Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). http://www.fema.gov/plan/ehp/ ehplaws/czma.shtm. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. ‘‘Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972.’’ http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/about/media/CZMA_10_11_06.pdf (accessed April 6, 2010). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. ‘‘Congressional Action to Help Manage Our Nation’s Coasts.’’ http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/czm/czm_act.html (accessed April 6, 2010). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Estuarine Research Reserve System. http://nerrs.noaa.gov/. Upton, Harold F. ‘‘Coastal Zone Management: Background and Reauthorization Issues.’’ http://natural-resources-reports.blogspot.com/2010/02/coastal-zone-management -background-and.html (accessed April 6, 2010). Upton, Harold F. ‘‘CRS Report for Congress.’’ http://ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/ 08July/RL34339.pdf (accessed April 6, 2010).

Colorado River The Colorado River travels 1,450 miles from Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado to the Gulf of California in Mexico. It falls from 14,000 feet to sea level through canyons, including the Grand Canyon, which it helped to form over millions of years. It is not large in volume, with an average flow of 14 million acre-feet per year, comparable to the Hudson River. However, this volume is highly variable and it drains the most arid basin in North America (Solomon 2010). The river basin drains about 242,000 square miles in the United States

Colorado River | 233

and 2,000 square miles in Mexico. The tributary rivers include the Little Colorado, Gila, Green, Gunnison, San Juan, and Virgin. Two national governments and seven state governments share rights involving this river, resulting in many legal disputes. The seven states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming (Bureau of Reclamation, 2000). Because the southwest is a desert region, the Colorado River has been vital to its development, and government actions have replaced the riparian, river adjacency, water rights of most eastern states with contractually decreed apportionment, not always agreed to by all the recipients. Important for agricultural and urban growth, for drinking, bathing, recreation, fish, and wildlife, rights to the resources of the river became an important issue at both state and federal levels. Cyclic flooding and drought had created real difficulties for settlers, and the land had to be ‘‘reclaimed’’ through irrigation. Government agencies and funding became necessary for irrigation projects, such as dams and canals. The Colorado River Basin now contains 22 major reservoirs and eight major water diversions. The two largest and most significant reservoirs, located at opposite sides of the Grand Canyon, are Lake Mead, created by the Hoover Dam, completed in 1935, and Lake Powell, created by the Glen Canyon Dam, completed in 1963 (U.S. Geological Survey, 2005). First appearing very successful, such projects were later found to have adverse environmental effects. A growing population and declining water supply has resulted in water conservation, recycling projects, and desalinization studies.

History An extensive canal network in central Arizona indicates that attempts to irrigate the area began as early as 500 AD by the Hohokam, a lost civilization (Solomon 2010). Spanish soldier Francisco de Ulloa is believed to have discovered the Colorado River in 1536, and Captain Garcia Lopez de Cardenas of Coronado’s army to have found the Grand Canyon in 1540 (U.S. Geological Survey, 2005). Beginning with the Mormons in 1847, settlers in the region tried to irrigate from small tributary rivers with private funds, even utilizing some Hohokam canals. However, this proved inadequate for the burgeoning need, spurring a movement for a federally subsidized irrigation program. An important supporter of this movement was Major John Wesley Powell, who carried out the first meaningful exploration of the Colorado River in 1869 (Solomon, 2010). Fighting for the Union during the Civil War, Powell lost an arm at the battle of Shiloh and became a professor of geology. At age 35, he and a crew of nine in four ill-equipped boats embarked on an unfunded journey down the uncharted river. Beginning at Green River Station in the Wyoming Territory, he reached

234 | Colorado River

the mouth of the Grand Canyon in three months and six days with only five of his men. One man left near the start of the trip, and three more attempted to leave and were killed two days before its completion. Powell emerged a popular hero and easily convinced Congress to fund another trip to map the geology and topography of the area. This was completed in 1872, and in 1875 his findings were published, along with his diary, containing information from both expeditions. In 1877, he published Report on the Lands of the Arid Regions of the United States, warning of the inadequacy of water for farming in the southwest and the importance of careful planning (Leydet, 1968). Many territorial surveys were now taking place, and recognition of the importance of managing them within a single agency resulted in the establishment of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) under the Department of the Interior in 1879. Powell became its second director from 1881 to 1894. He spoke at the First International Irrigation Congress in Los Angeles in 1893, and when he observed the overambitious, unrealistic plans of the attendees, put aside his prepared speech for an impassioned prediction that available water would run out. His words went unheeded, and he resigned the following year (Leydet, 1968). By 1888, Congress had funded the study of irrigational possibilities by the USGS, along with passing other legislation to foster such endeavors. However, public demand for more direct involvement of the federal government in irrigation projects, the promise of such projects in the 1900 presidential campaigns by both political parties, and the presidency of environmentally conscious Theodore Roosevelt following McKinley’s assassination in 1901 resulted in the Reclamation Act of 1902, establishing the United States Reclamation Service (USRS) as part of the USGS for ‘‘the construction of dams and aqueducts.’’ Separating from the USGS in 1907, it became the Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) in 1923 (Bureau of Reclamation, 2000). In 1922, a meeting was held in Santa Fe by Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover to allocate the reclamation use of Colorado River resources equitably among the seven states. Here, an extremely complex Colorado River Compact was devised and signed by representatives of all the concerned states, except Arizona. The Colorado River Basin was divided into the Upper Basin and Lower Basin at Lees Ferry, located about 30 miles south of the Utah-Arizona boundary. The parts of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming that drain into the river system or may benefit from diverted water above Lees Ferry are considered part of the Upper Basin. The Lower Basin is made up of the remaining river-dependent sections of Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah. Each basin was granted 7,500,000 acre-feet of water per year, with the Lower Basin given the right to increase its annual use by 1,000,000 acre-feet. The compact was ratified by Congress in 1928 without Arizona’s agreement. Disputes between Arizona and California lasted for many years, and Arizona

Colorado River | 235

finally signed the compact in 1944, later suing California over its interpretation. The Upper Basin states signed an apportionment agreement in 1948, but the Lower Basin parties were not able to agree. Arizona filed suit in the U.S. Supreme Court. This litigation lasted from 1952 to 1962, when the Court ruled that California is entitled to 4,400,000 acre-feet, Arizona 2,800,000, and Nevada 300,000 (Bureau of Reclamation, 2000). In 1944, Mexico’s rights to the river were also addressed. A treaty was signed guaranteeing Mexico 1,500,000 acre-feet of water annually, subject to change with specific circumstances. The numerous Colorado River federal and state laws, treaties, compacts, and administrative actions are known as the ‘‘Law of the River’’ (Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, 2009). A momentous reclamation project was the construction of the Hoover Dam. In the inception stage almost from the establishment of the USBR, it took many years of legal processes and planning before President Herbert Hoover could begin the project in 1929. Originally named Boulder Dam because the Black Canyon location had been incorrectly designated, in 1947 the name was changed to honor Hoover. When the dam was completed in 1935, it had become a model public works project for President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal to combat the Great Depression, as well as a model reclamation project for the entire world. It was innovative and impressive in size, purpose, and design. Elegantly curved in art deco style, its multipurpose use combined hydropower with irrigation. At 726 feet, it was twice as tall as any other existing dam, and created Lake Mead, 110 miles long, the world’s largest human-made reservoir. Its provision of electric power and water enabled the growth of cities such as Las Vegas, Los Angeles, and Phoenix, as well as two million acres of fertile farmland; 30 million people became dependent upon its resources (Solomon, 2010). When the Glen Canyon Dam was built 28 years later, it elicited a very different reaction. The environmental movement was beginning, and negative ecological effects were observed downstream from the dam and Lake Powell. These included changes in habitats, water temperature, and air and water quality, as well as the loss of archeological sites, recreational resources, and species of wildlife, fish, and vegetation. Dependence on herbicides, pesticides, and artificial fertilizers, loss of soil-replenishing silt, drying up of deltas and wetlands, and extra evaporation of standing reservoir water were also blamed on dams. Moreover, canyon areas deemed by environmentalists to be especially awe-inspiring were now lost, covered by Lake Powell (Leydet, 1968). Following the construction of the Glen Canyon Dam, preservationist leaders arose in opposition to two more hydroelectric dams planned for Bridge Canyon and Marble Canyon sites. These dams, to be built by the USBR, were part of the Central Arizona Project (CAP) for the irrigation of the central valleys of Arizona. Senate authorization for the project had been granted twice during the 1950s, but

236 | Colorado River

due to the continuing compact litigation, representatives from California had voted against it. This gave David Brower, president of the Sierra Club, time to mount a massive public opinion campaign. Media giants such as the New York Times supported Brower, and letters poured into Washington. In 1966, when an article by physics professor Richard Bradley, ‘‘Ruin for the Grand Canyon,’’ was published by Audubon magazine and reprinted by Reader’s Digest, the public response was overwhelming. Articles appeared in popular magazines, and classrooms of children wrote letters to Congress, but the politicians still did not give up. Brower placed full-page ads in important newspapers across the country, and the Internal Revenue Service became involved. The Sierra Club was informed that its taxexempt status was being reevaluated in the light of its attempts to influence

(AMP Colorado River Basin)

Colorado River | 237

legislation. This tactic appeared to backfire as the public perceived a David and Goliath battle and increased donations to the Sierra Club. The situation was resolved when the CAP bill was passed in 1968, without the hydroelectric dams; a coal-fired power plant was to provide electricity (Pearson, 1994). Because of growing environmental awareness, the work of the USBR and other governmental agencies has changed substantially since the 1960s. New laws and public and political pressure required that staff be hired to address ecological issues. In 1975, the Grand Canyon National Park Enlargement Act was passed, giving the Bridge and Marble Canyon sites National Park status. The Grand Canyon Protection Act was passed in 1992, expressing support of preservationist values and calling for an environmental impact statement. The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (AMP) was established in 1997 to determine the means for improving resources in Glen and Grand Canyons and to foster the mission of the Grand Canyon Protection Act. Its responsibilities include overseeing operations and empirical experimentation (Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, 2009). Unfortunately, there are no easy solutions to current Colorado River problems. Mexico was the first to feel the effects of an increasing need and diminishing supply of water. The 4.24 million acre-feet of Colorado River water that annually had flowed into Mexico fell during the 1960s to the 1.5 million minimum entitlement of the 1944 treaty. The river no longer reaches the sea, and the delta ecosystem has been destroyed. Moreover, drainage backflow resulted in excessive salinity, rendering the water unfit for irrigation. In 1973, after a decade of Mexican requests for the irrigation-quality water that the treaty guaranteed, the United States agreed to provide it (Solomon, 2010). The river management also discovered that an unusually wet 18 years had resulted in a considerable overestimation of the annual volume of water. By 1965, the USBR realized that 14 million acre-feet was more accurate than the 17.5 million estimate that had determined the compact apportionment. With reservoir evaporation of 1.5 million acre-feet and Mexico’s 1.5 million, only 11 million acre-feet of annual water remains for the seven states. A wet period lasting until the beginning of the twenty-first century postponed the effects of this water shortage. However, it is now evident in half-full reservoirs and there are attempts to find creative ways to conserve water (Solomon, 2010). Sandra Marcus See also Bureau of Reclamation

References Bureau of Reclamation. Brief History of the Bureau of Reclamation, 2000, http:// www.usbr.gov/history/BRIEFHist.pdf (accessed April 8, 2010). Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program. ‘‘AMP Background—2009.’’ http://www.gcdamp.gov/aboutamp/background.html (accessed April 8, 2010).

238 | Commerce Clause Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program. Colorado River Basin. http:// www.gcdamp.gov/images/ColBasinfinal.jpg (accessed April 8, 2010). Leydet, Francois. Time and the River Flowing: Grand Canyon. San Francisco: Ballantine Books, 1968. Pearson, Byron E. ‘‘Salvation for Grand Canyon: Congress, the Sierra Club, and the Dam Controversy of 1966–1968.’’ Journal of the Southwest 36, no. 2 (Summer 1994): 159–175, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40169960 (accessed April 8, 2010). Solomon, Steven. Water: The Epic Struggle for Wealth, Power, and Civilization. New York: HarperCollins, 2010. U.S. Geological Survey. ‘‘The State of the Colorado River Ecosystem in Grand Canyon.’’ http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1282/index.html (accessed April 8, 2010).

Commerce Clause The Commerce Clause is a power listed in the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) that grants Congress the power ‘‘To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes.’’ Generally, the Commerce Clause has been viewed as a grant of congressional authority to regulate and a restriction on states’ power to regulate. However, ‘‘commerce’’ is not defined in the Constitution, and the extent to which ‘‘commerce’’ is understood varies. Some believe in a limited definition of ‘‘commerce’’ in that commerce refers to ‘‘trade’’ or ‘‘exchange,’’ while others insist that the Commerce Clause was intended to be interpreted with a much broader definition of commercial and social intercourse between citizens of different states. Subsequently, since its establishment, the extent of the Commerce Clause has evolved in definition as significant court decisions have gradually clarified the actual powers and limits of the clause. U.S. Supreme Court case Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) extended federal regulatory capabilities as it acknowledged that the federal government’s power to regulate interstate commerce extended to interstate navigation or traffic. Additionally, the right to regulate interstate navigation extends to navigable waters. Swift and Company v. United States (1905) stated that even commerce on the local-to-local level could be regulated through congressional authority because local commerce has the potential to become part of a continuous ‘‘current’’ of commerce. The passing of the New Deal brought the issue of federal authority in state commerce to be questioned further, and the landmark case of NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp (1937) outlined broader grounds of the Commerce Clause by stating that the clause could be used to regulate state activity if it had a ‘‘substantial economic effect on interstate commerce’’ or if the ‘‘cumulative effect’’ of one act could have an effect on such commerce. The

Commercial Fishing | 239

Commerce Clause has been an instrumental tool to justify legislative action, as it was how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed and enacted. However, court decisions have also restricted the use of the Commerce Clause. The decision in Lopez v. United States (1995) rejected the argument to use the Commerce Clause as justification for federal gun control. The decision reiterated that Congress only has the power to regulate ‘‘action that substantially affects interstate commerce.’’ Morrison v. United States (2000) was another Supreme Court decision that limited federal power through the Commerce Clause. Morrison overturned the Violence Against Women Act, which substantially relied on the Commerce Clause for making domestic violence against women a federal crime. Collectively, Lopez and Morrison have illustrated that the Supreme Court will protect states’ power from undo federal regulation when an activity or policy does not substantially involve interstate commerce. Yet, by and large, the majority of U.S. Supreme Court decisions have extended the regulatory powers of the federal government expressed in the Commerce Clause. Matt Magnan See also Environmental Justice

References Bork, Robert H., and Daniel E. Troy. ‘‘Locating the Boundaries: The Scope of Congress’s Power to Regulate Commerce.’’ Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 2002. Legal Information Institute, Cornell University Law School. ‘‘Commerce Clause.’’ http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Commerce_Clause.

Commercial Fishing Commercial fishing is the practice of catching fish and other seafood to sell. Commercial fishers work in wild fisheries (marine and inland) and on fish farms. The UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) estimates that in 2006, fishing (traditional and commercial) netted nearly 144 million tons of fish. The majority (some 110 million tons) of the fish is caught for human consumption. According to the FAO, 43.5 million people worldwide worked directly as fishers or fish farmers, but some at least 500 million depend on fishery sector activity for their livelihoods (FAO, 2009). Commercial fishing as an activity has existed throughout time. It is a relatively dangerous and precarious occupation and fishers are affected by extreme weather, collisions, and the ups and downs of the market for fish. Both individual

240 | Commercial Fishing

fishers with small boats and fishing companies with large refrigerated ships engage in commercial trade. Worldwide catches have grown over the years, as has employment in the fisheries sector. According to FAO statistics, Asia has largest number of fishers and fish farmers, some 38 million. Growth in the fisheries sector in China has been particularly strong, and nearly 13 million Chinese people work as fishers or fish farmers. The Chinese industry is responsible for about one-third of world fishery production, according to the FAO (51.5 million tons). India, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam also have large numbers of fishers and fish farmers. The FAO postulates that the recent increases in the numbers of people working in the fisheries sector is due to the expansion of aquaculture or fish farming (FAO, 2009). The development of commercial fishing was aided in 1982 with the signing of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This allowed each country to extend an exclusive economic zone 200 nautical miles off that country’s coast over which that country has special rights to explore and use its resources. These boundaries are important for fisheries management but are often under dispute (Gale, 1999). Fishers work on a variety of vessels and use different methods to catch fish in marine or inland fisheries. Improvements in fishing vessels and gear have increased fishing capacity of individual fishers. Some fishers still use poles, hooks, and lines. Others fish with harpoons and spears and stun guns. Lobstermen and crab fishers use baited cages to catch their prey. Other fishers use nets (purse seines, gill nets, and lift nets). Net sizes can vary from a few feet to a several hundred feet. Local fishery officials in many countries regulate the size of the net’s mesh. If the mesh is too small, it will bring in too much bycatch, fish that are too small, too young, or different from the target fish. Trawlers also use nets, dropping one and dragging it along a specified route. Methods have evolved over time. Nowadays, fishers often use sonar and GPS to find worthwhile sites to fish. Fishers who can process their catch on their ships can go to sea for longer and sell quickly once they dock at a port of call (FAO, 2009). Fish farmers work in both freshwater and saltwater environments. The farming can be practiced in ponds or pens or cages in the open water. Farmed fish are harvested when they reach an appropriate size (FAO, 2009). Commercial fishers and fish farmers target their fish production for consumers. In 2006, about 10 species (anchoveta, Atlantic herring, chub, Chilean jack mackerel, Japanese anchovy, skipjack tuna, yellowfin tuna, Alaska pollock, blue whiting, and the largehead hairtail) made up about 30 percent of the total marine production. Wild catches of cephalopods like squid and octopus and crustaceans like shrimp, crab, and lobster are also important commercial products worldwide. Aquaculture has become more prevalent and its contribution to global fish production increased to 36 percent of fish production from 3.9 percent in 1970. The most

Commercial Fishing | 241

important species vary from region to region. In the United States, catfish is the most farmed species, while in China and much of Southeast Asia, they focus on species of carp, and in Canada, fish farmers cultivate Atlantic and Pacific salmon. Other species like cod, tilapia, and shrimp are also widely farmed (FAO, 2009). Even though worldwide fish production has steadily increased, it has become clear that the global marine and inland fisheries are in crisis. Pollution has adversely affected some fishing grounds, especially inland fisheries (lakes and rivers) and reef systems. But the bigger challenge to global wild fisheries is their overexploitation. The FAO reports that in 2007, 28 percent of marine stocks were overfished, exhausted, or recovering from depletion. Another 52 percent of stocks were being harvested at or near the limit of sustainability. The situation is most acute in the Northeast Atlantic, the Northwest Pacific, and the Western Indian Ocean. The FAO’s State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture report states: ‘‘the maximum wild capture fisheries potential from the world’s oceans has probably been reached.’’ Research has suggested that overfishing could lead to a global collapse of species by the middle of the twenty-first century (Dean 2006). Important fish stocks have collapsed before due to overfishing, notably the cod fishery in the North Atlantic. Many countries aggressively manage their fisheries by lowering quotas or establishing moratoriums on the hunting of certain species. Other countries still have open access to their fisheries. This air of scarcity and, possibly, an excess of fishers, has increased the prevalence of illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing (IUU) in some areas (FAO, 2009). The precarious state of wild fisheries means that the main avenue of commercial fishing expansion has to be in aquaculture. While wild fish production has leveled off in the last century, aquaculture production has increased from 40.4 million tons in 1990 to 51.7 million tons in 2006. The rapid increases in fish farming has other repercussions since fish farms often overuse antibiotics and have contaminated coastal and inland waters with waste pollution. Some fish farms that farm predatory fish like salmon use wild-caught fish such as anchovies and herring as feed and overuse those wild species (EDF). Jori Lewis See also Food and Agriculture Organization

References Dean, Cornelia. ‘‘Study Sees ‘Global Collapse’ of Fish Species. New York Times, November 3, 2006. Environmental Defense Fund. ‘‘The Promise and Perils of Fish Farming.’’ http:// www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=16150 (accessed April 10, 2010). FAO. Fisheries Topics: Technology. ‘‘Aquaculture Systems.’’ http://www.fao.org/ fishery/topic/12313/en (accessed April 10, 2010).

242 | Commoner, Barry FAO. Fisheries Topics: Technology. ‘‘Fishing Gears and Methods.’’ http:// www.fao.org/fishery/topic/1617/en (accessed April 10, 2010). FAO. State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2008. Rome: FAO, 2009 Gale Encyclopedia. ‘‘Fishing Industry (Commercial).’’ Gale Encyclopedia of U.S. Economic History. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3406400319.html (accessed April 10, 2010).

Commoner, Barry Barry Commoner (1917–) is a Harvard-trained cellular biologist and director of the Critical Genetics Project, Center for Biology of Natural Systems, which he founded in 1966 at Washington University before moving to Queens College. In a career that spans several decades, he served as professor of plant physiology at Washington University, campaigned against nuclear weapons testing, ran as the Citizens Party candidate in the 1980 presidential election, and continues to spread his message of social justice and environmental balance. In his groundbreaking eco-critique of modern capitalism, The Closing Circle, Commoner argues that poverty, health issues, and environmental harm are the result of inequities in global industrialized economies. While his call for social justice is a familiar theme in all of his varied projects, he is perhaps best known for his four laws of ecology found in The Closing Circle: (1) everything is connected to everything else; (2) everything must go somewhere; (3) nature knows best; and (4) there is no such thing as a free lunch. Since the 1950s, Commoner has been at the fore of the American environmental movement along with Buckminster Fuller and his championing of the ‘‘Spaceship Earth’’ theory and James Lovelock with the ‘‘Gaia hypothesis.’’ All postulated the interconnectedness of human life, and Earth’s varied flora and fauna occupying a bounded yet living ecosystem. Thus, Commoner’s call for equilibrium in the full range of social, economic, and environmental systems is more than a cri de coeur, but a strategy for human survival. Jonathan Bergman See also Environmental Justice; Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982; Pollution Prevention Act of 1990

References Center for the Biology of Natural Systems. Queens College. http://qcpages.qc.edu/ CBNS/ (accessed on May 5, 2010). Columbia University. Columbia 250: C250 Celebrates Columbians Ahead of Their Time. ‘‘Barry Commoner.’’ http://www.c250.columbia.edu/c250_celebrates/remarkable _columbians/barry_commoner.html.

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act | 243

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), referred to as Superfund, inaugurated broad federal authority for response to hazardous substance releases into the environment and forcing hazardous waste site cleanup. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) and EPA’s 10 regional offices work with state agencies to implement Superfund and respond to hazardous substances releases. The Love Canal disaster in Niagara, New York, in the mid-1970s illuminated the public health problem caused by toxic industrial waste pollution and the inadequacy of hazardous waste regulation. The disaster created a window of opportunity to expand federal power to regulate hazardous substances in order to protect public health and environmental quality, and Congress responded by passing two historic laws. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (1976) focused on managing hazardous substance use and disposal practices, and CERCLA (1980) focused on emergency and remedial response to hazardous substance releases,

An upended boat lies on a bank of the Gowanus Canal, Tuesday, March 2, 2010 in the Brooklyn borough of New York. The Environmental Protection Agency announced that day that the Gowanus Canal was the nation’s newest superfund site. (AP/Wide World Photos)

244 | Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

identifying hazardous waste sites, determining liability, and providing processes for cleanup. CERCLA authorizes the EPA to respond to emergency release threats, enhancing its power beyond RCRA and Clean Water Act authority to respond to spills that may contaminate groundwater. The term hazardous ‘‘releases’’ was intentionally broad so as to cover ‘‘any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing into the environment’’ from any facility, according to the Superfund draft. The EPA directly acts upon hazardous releases only when state and local first responders need support, but it has power for removal actions when necessary to protect human health and the environment. The act also authorizes extended remedial actions at sites to permanently or significantly reduce hazardous waste threats that are serious but not life-threatening emergencies. The act requires the EPA to make rules for closed and abandoned waste sites and to determine liability of responsible parties. It established a trust fund to support cleanup without responsible parties, using fees paid by chemical and petroleum industries that create hazardous substances. The EPA must assess and list a site on the National Priorities List (NPL) before establishing and implementing appropriate cleanup plans. More than 1,500 sites are currently on the NPL, and more than 340 sites have been cleaned up for reuse since the program began. The liability section of CERCLA allows the EPA to hold parties responsible for the full costs of hazardous waste site cleanup and to sue nonpaying polluters in federal court for three times the cost. Defendants are liable for site cleanup even if their dumping was legal at the time, even if they were not legally negligent, and even if they contributed little to the harm on a site with multiple responsible parties in the chain of land title. This is called ‘‘strict, joint, and several liability.’’ The responsible party may conduct the cleanup or pay others to do it, and the EPA has the power to take over the cleanup and force parties to pay reimbursement. The U.S. Government Accountability Office determined that the number of NPL sites without financially viable responsible parties may be increasing. Abandoned waste sites and defunct businesses threaten the ability to recover cleanup costs from responsible parties without additional revenue. The EPA fought against industry lobbyists to get a fee-based system in the legislation to finance a long-term cleanup program, rather than exclusive reliance on general funds. Fines, penalties, recoveries from responsible parties, interest income, and general funds add to the trust fund. The proportion of fees to other revenues greatly declined when the EPA’s Superfund taxing authority expired in 1996, and Congress continues to struggle with the issue of how much the public and how much private industry should contribute. The liability policy design increased the likelihood of recovering cleanup costs and reduced the dependence on the fee-based fund, but it also generated great

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act | 245

resentment and controversy among industry and anti-regulation groups. The emphasis on liability, and the litigation it generated, diminished resources for actual cleanup, especially in the early years, when legal costs consumed up to half of Superfund expenditures. Critics also assert that CERCLA created disincentives for redevelopment of abandoned sites, or brownfields, because of liability fears of investors and uncertainty about hazardous contamination type, extent, and cleanup costs. Since lenders could be held liable, financing for redevelopment was onerous until a 1996 amendment created a safe harbor from federal liability. The act did not address the questions of which sites to clean up first, how much to clean a site, or how to allocate limited resources to a widespread problem. According to EPA estimates, approximately one in four Americans lives within a few miles of a hazardous waste site, and nearly 50,000 hazardous waste sites may require cleanup. The EPA was left to use its discretion to establish priorities and to determine remediation methods and spending. As a result, Superfund listing and remediation decision-making is highly contentious, and local interests push for extensive and expensive cleanup out of fear. Fewer sites are cleaned up when great resources are consumed by a few highly publicized sites. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) added funds to speed cleanups and mandated identification of hazardous waste sites on federal lands, which had a significant effect on military and nuclear sites. Cleanup of these sites is hindered by interagency conflicts and multi-billion-dollar cost estimates. GAO has recommended greater enforcement and reporting to enhance cleanup at the 140 Department of Defense sites on the NPL. Annual appropriations laws determine how much the EPA can spend from the cleanup trust fund, and appropriations have declined in recent years. Superfund program expenditures declined nearly 30 percent and enforcement expenditures declined 23 percent in the period from 1999 to 2007. Gina L. Keel See also Love Canal; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

References Landy, Marc, Marc Roberts, and Stephen Thomas. The Environmental Protection Agency, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. Rahm, Dianne, ed. Toxic Waste and Environmental Policy in the 21st Century United States. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co., 2002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ‘‘Superfund: Cleaning up the Nation’s Hazardous Waste Sites.’’ http://www.epa.gov/superfund/ (accessed April 15, 2009). U.S. Government Accountability Office. ‘‘Superfund: Funding and Reported Costs of Enforcement and Administration Activities.’’ Report: GAO-08-841R, July 18, 2008. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-841R (accessed April 15, 2009).

246 | Connecticut v. American Electric Power Company

Connecticut v. American Electric Power Company Connecticut v. American Electric Power Company has been one of the few largescale climate change nuisance suits heard in U.S. courts. Eight states, the city of New York, and three land trusts sought an injunction to stop the five biggest U.S. carbon dioxide emitters—American Electric Power Company, Southern Company, the Tennessee Valley Authority, Xcel Energy, and Cinergy Corporation—from emitting roughly 650 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. Carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas that traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, and as a result of this trapped heat, Earth’s temperature has risen over the years, leading to global warming. The plaintiffs in Connecticut v. American Electric Power Company asked a federal court in New York to issue an abatement order to reduce the emissions. However, a judge dismissed the case in 2005, saying that public policy about greenhouse gas emissions was a political question that needed to be answered legislatively through the implementation of new laws by Congress. The plaintiffs then appealed to the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the lower district court’s ruling, noting that the plaintiffs’ claims did not present a political question and that they were entitled to have their lawsuit heard in court. Notably, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals was made up of a three-judge panel that included the current Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Upon her elevation to the Supreme Court, a two-judge panel unanimously decided the case, which effectively entitled the plaintiffs to have their lawsuit heard again. Yasmeen Waheed See also Carbon Footprint

References Dahl, Richard. ‘‘A Changing Climate of Litigation.’’ Environmental Health Perspectives 115 (April 2007): A204–A207. Natural Resources Defense Council. ‘‘Landmark Ruling: Court Holds Power Companies Accountable for their Global Warming Pollution.’’ http://www.nrdc.org/media/ 2009/090921a.asp (accessed April 7, 2010). United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. ‘‘State of Connecticut, et al. v. American Electric Power Company Inc., et al.’’ Docket No. 05-5104-cv. http:// www.ca2.uscourts.gov/opinions.htm (accessed April 7, 2010).

Conservation Conservation involves both restrictions on demand for resources and efforts to replenish supplies whenever possible. As such, it necessitates management based on sound ecological and economic principles, emphasizing the role of processes

Conservation | 247

and interconnections. Touching on every variety of threatened natural resource, conservation often requires consideration of entire habitats or ecosystems. It mandates efficiency and cost-effectiveness and requires constant data collection and monitoring. The policy of conservation emerged during the Progressive Era in the late nineteenth century, when industrial growth strained supplies of valuable raw materials such as minerals and timber. The western frontier, once assumed limitless, appeared almost depleted, prompting a reform movement culminating in the administration of President Theodore Roosevelt, conservation’s earliest champion. Out of this era emerged the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service—the former created to ensure protection of sites historically and ecologically significant and the latter meant to ensure reforestation and a continual supply of lumber. Irrigation and other reclamation efforts sought to use water wisely. During the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, as the Dust Bowl ravished much of the Great Plains, soil conservation became a national priority. The need to conserve natural resources is extensive today, and a wide array of federal, state, and local agencies implement conservation initiatives. These agencies range from the Fish and Wildlife Service, charged with protecting threatened species in a system of wildlife refuges, to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, charged with managing ocean resources. The Bureau of Land Management controls almost one-third of America’s land, constantly balancing the needs of ranchers, miners, and others seeking to utilize its extensive holdings. Several private industries also practice conservation, either for their own economic self-interest or because of legal requirements dictated by agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency. Conservation legislation at all levels of government influences the lives of millions, regulating every activity from hunting to the use of electricity. Laws designed to stimulate recycling of plastics, paper, and tin, for example, have created new industries. As economic growth continues to deplete finite energy resources, conservation will grow in importance as a national priority. Balancing the needs of conflicting interests, conservation has often provoked debate. This conflict has pertained not only to questions of utility—who, when, and how the resource in question should be used—but also more basic issues, such as whether the resource should be used at all. Finding value in undisturbed nature, preservationists often challenge conservationists. Today, many federal agencies operate under ‘‘multiple-use’’ mandates, attempts to define clearly and balance priorities, facilitating conservation and, it is hoped, diminishing conflict. Brooks Flippen

248 | Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species

References Hays, Samuel P. Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency: The Progressive Conservation Movement, 1890–1920. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959. Helms, Douglas, and Susan Flader, eds. The History of Soil and Water Conservation. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985. Opie, John. Nature’s Nation: An Environmental History of the United States. Ft. Worth, TX: Harcourt, Brace, 1998. Petulla, Joseph M. American Environmental History, second edition. Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing, 1988. Worster, Donald, ed. American Environmentalism: The Formative Period, 1860– 1915. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1973.

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) is an international government agreement that controls trade of endangered plants and animals. The goal is to prevent further endangerment or extinction of protected species. After coming into power in 1975, CITES protects endangered species by regulating the trade of more than 5,000 animal species and 28,000 plant species. Although only 21 countries participated in the early days of the convention, as of 2009, 175 countries now agree to abide by the rules set forth and regulate the trade of endangered species both within and outside their borders. Protecting endangered species became an important issue during the 1960s environmental movement. This idea held importance in the United States but it was globally understood that international cooperation was the only way that species would be protected unilaterally. An organization like CITES was first called for in 1963 at the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources meeting in Nairobi, Kenya. General rules for the convention were drawn up and distributed to all of the members of the United Nations. UN member governments discussed the details of the protection convention for nearly a decade. Even though a convention was not created until 1973, individual nations set up their own rules for the protection of endangered species. In early 1973, over 80 nations met in Washington, D.C., at the invitation of the United States, at a conference meant to create, or at least discuss, the possibility of creating a convention to regulate the trade of endangered species. It was long since decided that the actions of individual states were not enough. An international body had to be created in order to effectively protect against endangerment and extinction. These problems were not solely located inside of individual nations but instead crossed borders and were, therefore, a global issue. On March 3, 1973, at the conference, CITES was created and 21 nations agreed to

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species | 249

participate. Individual governments needed to ratify the convention before it gained any international power. Between 1973 and 1975, Chile, Cyprus, Ecuador, Nigeria, Switzerland, Sweden, Tunisia, the United States, and Uruguay ratified. On July 1, 1975, Canada’s government ratified, the tenth to do so. At this point, CITES had enough countries on board to became a legally enforceable international body. The United States was highly influential in strengthening the international power of CITES. Environmental lobbying and pressure for stronger environmental protection legislation persuaded the federal government to pursue environmental policy. In December 1969, the Endangered Species Conservation Act was signed into law. Its purpose was primarily to prevent extinction of plant and animal species but it also legislated the necessity to preserve endangered species and to create programs to help endangered populations grow, such as breeding programs at zoos. There were numerous previous acts meant to protect endangered species but none of them were strong enough to do the job properly. Additionally, the Endangered Species Conservation Act legitimates U.S. participation in CITES. In this way, the act serves as legal precedent for CITES and made ratification by Congress acceptable and virtually inevitable. In fact, it called for the secretaries of the State and Interior departments to facilitate and call for an international conference for the creation of an international agreement. That is what they did when they created the 1973 conference that ended with the creation of CITES. In this way, without the intervention of the United States, CITES may not have come to fruition as quickly. The rules that these countries agreed to began to have a profound effect on international environmentalism. CITES ensures that all species that are imported or exported from a member country go through a licensing process. This way, only animals with safe futures can cross borders unless they are crossing those borders for breeding or expansion programs. Not all plants and animals are involved in the licensing process, only those in need of protection. These species are broken down into three appendices based on the level of threat to their survival. Appendix one is for those species that are close to extinction and must be treated with the greatest level of care. Appendix two are for endangered species, or those that are not threatened with near extinction but still must be protected. This appendix contains the vast majority of species considered under CITES. Appendix three is for species that are protected in at least one country. In these cases, a member country asked that the rest of the convention take steps to protect the species even though it may not be technically classified as endangered. While CITES has managed to protect many different species from extinction, this convention is not without critique. Since it is based around UN and international agreements, much bureaucratic red tape must be cut for action to take place. Some have critiqued that the convention is too slow in dealing with

250 | Council on Environmental Quality

environmental problems. There also has been worry over how CITES is paid for. Though it is currently funded with a trust fund established by member countries, the convention has grown in size and scope. It may be necessary to reevaluate CITES in the years to come based on economic necessity as the program will need more funds the larger it gets. Still, these criticisms aside, it is hard to ignore the successes the convention has made for many plant and animal species. Chelsea Griffis See also Biodiversity; Endangered Species Act of 1973

References Baur, Donald C., and William Robert Irvin. The Endangered Species Act: Law, Policy, Perspective. Chicago: American Bar Association, 2002. CITES Secretariat, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna. http://www.cites.org/. Favre, David S. International Trade in Endangered Species: A Guide to CITES. Boston: M. Nijhoff Publishers, 1989.

Council on Environmental Quality The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is a presidential-appointed panel that works closely with federal agencies to assist in the coordination and development of federal environmental policy, procedures, and initiatives. Specifically, the CEQ assists in the review and publication of environmental impact statements for all applicable federal projects. It is the principal advisor to the president on environmental issues. On January 1, 1970, President Richard Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which created the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The responsibilities of this three-person council included the following: (1) gathering information on conditions and trends pertaining to environmental quality, (2) reviewing and appraising federal government activities as they apply to the federal environmental policy, and (3) making recommendations to the president relating to investigations, environmental policy, and environmental change. Rising public interest in increasing amounts of air and water pollution in the United States along with large environmental catastrophes such as the Santa Barbara Oil Spill of 1969 and Congress’ response to these concerns drove the creation of the CEQ. On January 29, 1970, Nixon appointed Undersecretary of the Interior Russell Train as the first chairperson of the CEQ. Nixon also appointed geophysicist and University of California Santa Barbara Vice

Council on Environmental Quality | 251

Chancellor Gordon MacDonald and Pulitzer Prize-winning Christian Science Monitor journalist Robert Cahn as the remaining CEQ members. In Nixon’s February 10, 1970, environmental message to Congress, he specifically charged the CEQ to be the ‘‘keeper of our environmental conscience, and a goad to our ingenuity’’ (Nixon, 1970a). Under Executive Order 11514, Nixon tapped the CEQ to develop procedures for the preparation of environmental impact statements and to mediate conflicts among agencies concerning the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (Nixon, 1970b). With this mandate, the CEQ strengthened the procedures of NEPA and other environmental laws to facilitate federal agency compliance with these laws. In its first annual report, the CEQ outlined the environmental problems that the United States faced in the coming decades. Issues addressed included air and water pollution, climate change, solid waste, noise, pesticides, radiation, population growth, land use, international cooperation, citizen participation, and environmental education (Council on Environmental Quality, 1970). The CEQ published an annual environmental report from 1970 to 1997, when the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act (Public Law 104-66) eliminated the publication of the report. In its final year, the report included sections on energy, transportation, and the global environment.

Russell Train, chairman of the new Council on Environmental Quality, tells of government programs for pollution control as he addresses a Washington, D.C., conference on the environment, February 19, 1970. (AP/Wide World Photos)

252 | Cuyahoga River Fires

The CEQ works with the organizations in the executive branch of the federal government to set policies that meet the environmental agenda of the current president. In conjunction with other federal agencies, the CEQ further develops federal environmental policy and works as a facilitator when conflicts arise between federal agencies when designated agencies implement environmental policies. At its beginning, the CEQ had substantial influence on the structure and function of the federal government’s response to environmental issues. As agencies—specifically the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—have grown and matured, the influence of the CEQ has waned. The CEQ continues to set policy for each president who appoints his own members to the CEQ. Its members promote the environmental priorities to the president and provide information to the general public on environmental issues. Teresa Spezio See also National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; Nixon, Richard; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

References Council on Environmental Quality. ‘‘Environmental Quality: The First Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Quality.’’ U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970. Nixon, Richard. ‘‘Special Message to the Congress on Environmental Quality. February 10, 1970.’’ http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=2757 (accessed March 27, 2010). Nixon, Richard. ‘‘Executive Order 11514: Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality. March 5, 1970.’’ http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=59077 (accessed March 27, 2010).

Cuyahoga River Fires The Cuyahoga River fire of June 22, 1969, the 1962 publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, and the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill are credited, in an era of major social, political, and economic upheaval, with accelerating the environmental movement of the 1970s (Scott, 2009). The 100-mile, U-shaped Cuyahoga starts in Geauga County, runs south to Akron, then heads north through Cleveland, Ohio, to empty into Lake Erie. Enhanced by Ohio’s canal system and later railroads, Cleveland experienced tremendous industrial growth starting in the mid-nineteenth century. During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the Cuyahoga served as an ‘‘industrial river,’’ providing transportation for cargo, water for manufacturing, and a receptacle for industrial wastes. Because the debris and oil deposited in the river were often flammable, numerous fires broke out on the water’s surface.

Cuyahoga River Fires | 253

The fire of June 22, 1969, started when sparks from a railroad car on a bridge ignited oil and debris on the river (Adler, 2004). Although it was a minor fire that burned for only 20 minutes, it was transformed into a ‘‘poster child’’ for the country’s emerging environmental movement. In an era of deindustrialization, Americans connected the fire to urban decay and an environmental crisis (Stradling and Stradling, 2008). A Time magazine article at the time proclaimed the river a ‘‘fire hazard’’; the accompanying photo of a fire on the Cuyahoga (actually a 1952 fire) had a caption that read, ‘‘if you fall in, you don’t drown— you decay away’’ (1969). While sensationalism of the burning river may have accelerated cities’ efforts to clean up their polluted waterways, Cleveland had already passed a multimillion dollar bond issue for that purpose in 1968, before the notorious fire (Adler, 2004).

A fire tug fights flames on the Cuyahoga River near downtown Cleveland, Ohio, where oil and other industrial wastes caught fire June 25, 1952. When Canada and the United States approved the first version of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement in 1972, the running joke in Cleveland was that anyone unlucky enough to fall into the Cuyahoga River would decay rather than drown. The Cuyahoga, which meanders through the city before reaching Lake Erie, helped inspire the cleanup initiative by literally catching fire three years earlier. (AP/Wide World Photos)

254 | Cuyahoga River Fires

The public outcry over the river fire and growing environmental concerns nationwide helped spur signing of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) into law on January 1, 1970; that same year, Earth Day was first celebrated and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created. Since then, fish, insects, and plants have returned to the Cuyahoga River. Current initiatives of the Cuyahoga River Community Planning Organization aim to clean up, maintain, and protect the river and its watersheds. Local businesses and environmental groups, Ohio’s EPA, and the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District remain focused on reducing sewage and rainwater discharges, bacteria, and unwanted species, and creating a more natural habitat for fish to continue the Cuyahoga’s recuperation. Christina Miller See also Earth Day; National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; Santa Barbara Oil Spill, 1969; Silent Spring; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

References Adler, Jonathan H. ‘‘The Fable of Federal Environmental Regulation: Reconsidering the Federal Role in Environmental Protection.’’ Case Western Reserve Law Review 55, no. 1 (2004): 93–113. Cuyahoga River Community Planning Organization. http://www.cuyahogariverrap .org. Scott, Michael. ‘‘Cuyahoga River Fire Galvanized Clean Water and the Environment as a Public Issue.’’ Cleveland Plain Dealer, April 12, 2009. http://www.cleveland.com/ science/index.ssf/2009/cuyahoga_river_fire_galvanized.html. Stradling, David, and Richard Stradling. ‘‘Perceptions of the Burning River: Deindustrialization and Cleveland’s Cuyahoga River.’’ Environmental History 13, no. 3 (2008). http://www.historycooperative.org/ehindex.html. Time. ‘‘The Cities: The Price of Optimism.’’ August 1, 1969, 41.

D Darling, Jay Norwood ‘‘Ding’’ Born in 1876, J. N. ‘‘Ding’’ Darling was a two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist who published more than 11,000 cartoons from 1900 to 1949. He was also a dedicated conservationist and is credited with laying the groundwork for today’s national wildlife refuge system (J. N. ‘‘Ding’’ Darling Foundation, 2010). Darling began using the contraction ‘‘D’ing’’ to sign illustrations while attending Beloit College (Lendt, 1989). He published his first drawing at 23 while working for the Sioux City Journal (Iowa Digital Library, 2010). His nationally syndicated cartoons appeared in more than 150 newspapers nationwide and had enormous impact on public opinion during this time before television when newspapers were the primary source of news. In 1943, President Roosevelt appointed him part of a three-man committee to study the conservation of migratory waterfowl. Soon after, he was named chief of the Biological Survey, the forerunner of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, where he implemented the Federal Duck Stamp Program, designed the first duck stamp, and vastly expanded the acreage of the National Wildlife Refuge system. Known for his bulldog tactics, Darling caused upheaval in the survey during the 20 months he worked there, but ultimately built a program the nation could be proud of. He also founded the National Wildlife Federation in 1936 (Lendt 1989; U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2008). After his death in 1962, the J. N. ‘‘Ding’’ Darling Foundation was created to advocate for wise use of natural resources and wildlife conservation. A wildlife refuge named for Darling was created on Sanibel Island, Florida, in 1965. In 2006, the Darling Foundation assigned its copyrights and trademarks to a nonprofit corporation the ‘‘Ding’’ Darling Wildlife Society, in order to support the National Wildlife Refuge system (J. N. ‘‘Ding’’ Darling Foundation, 2010). Katherine McLaughlin See also National Wildlife Federation; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

References J. N. ‘‘Ding’’ Darling Foundation. ‘‘About the Man.’’ http://www.dingdarling.org/ about.html (accessed May 6, 2010). Iowa Digital Library. ‘‘The Editorial Cartoons of J. N. ‘Ding’ Darling.’’ http://digital .lib.uiowa.edu/ding/ (accessed May 6, 2010). 255

256 | DDT Lendt, David L. Ding: The Life of J. Norwood Darling. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1989. http://www.dingdarling.org/darling.pdf. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. ‘‘Jay Norwood ‘Ding’ Darling.’’ http://www.fws.gov/ dingdarling/About/DingDarling.html (accessed May 6, 2010).

DDT For many years one of the most widely used pesticides in the United States, DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane) was first synthesized in 1874. Its effectiveness as an insecticide was discovered in 1939. During World War II, the United States produced large quantities of DDT to control vector-borne diseases such as typhus and malaria. After 1945, domestic use of DDT on farms and forests became widespread. Over the next 30 years, approximately 1.35 billion pounds of DDT was used domestically. Although scientists voiced warnings as early as the mid-1940s, it was Rachel Carson’s 1962 book Silent Spring that stimulated widespread public concern over use of the chemical. After 1959, DDT usage in the

A plane dusts 1,200 sheep against ticks with 10 percent DDT powder. (AP/Wide World Photos)

Defenders of Property Rights | 257

United States declined greatly, dropping from a peak of approximately 80 million pounds in that year to just under 12 million pounds in the early 1970s. Adam M. Sowards See also Carson, Rachel

Defenders of Property Rights The Defenders of Property Rights (DPR), established in 1991, is a nonprofit legal defense corporation with 9 staff and 6,000 members. Founders Roger and Nancy Marzulla are former staffers with the Mountain States Legal Foundation and current wise-use activists. DPR is anti-regulation and pro-free market and claims to be the only national legal organization devoted to protection of the Constitution’s guarantees of property rights. DPR claims a large national membership of owners, users, and those who benefit from property rights guaranteed by Anglo-Saxon common law and the U.S. Constitution, including the Fifth Amendment. Advocating intellectual and traditional property rights, DPR rejects eminent domain and environmental laws that restrict property rights. DPR is active in the takings movement that dates to the Reagan administration and requires the government to avoid taking private property for public use or to budget for adequate compensation. The takings movement is more active at the state level, with Mississippi and Texas enacting relevant laws in 1995. DPR uses litigation and lobbying to reduce government regulation of property and make getting government compensation easier. DPR has been involved in property cases, including Lucas v. South Carolina Council (1992) and Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994). DPR also works with the tobacco industry, helping to block tobacco regulation in return for tobacco’s help in promoting the concept of property rights. DPR’s Ian MacKenzie sought funding from Philip Morris in 1995, arguing that voluntary programs were inadequate and a better way of fighting regulation was to argue for smoking as a property right under the Constitution. DPR regards trade secrets as property rights and contends that smoking is a matter of personal choice and individual freedom. DPR affiliations and memberships include the Cooler Heads Coalition, Get Government Off Our Backs, Grassroots ESA Coalition, and the Alliance for America. DPR’s funding is derived from contributions from the Sarah Scaife Foundation, Coors’ Castle Rock Foundation, other Scaife family foundations, and the tobacco industry. John H. Barnhill See also Mountain States Legal Fund; Reagan, Ronald Wilson; Wise-Use Movement

258 | Desert Land Act of 1877

References Corporations and the Constitution. ‘‘Defenders of Property Rights.’’ http://www.cor poratepolicy.org/issues/Defenders.htm (accessed March 2010). Exxonsecrets.org. ‘‘FACTSHEET: Defenders of Property Rights, DPR.’’ http://www .exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=94 (accessed March 2010). Marzulla, Nancie G. ‘‘Today’s Fight for Property Rights,’’ The Freeman, Volume 46, No. 6 (June 1996). http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/todays-fight-for-property-rights/. Sourcewatch. ‘‘Defenders of Property Rights.’’ http://www.sourcewatch.org/index .php?title=Defenders_of_Property_Rights (accessed March 2010).

Desert Land Act of 1877 Congress enacted and Ulysses S. Grant signed the Desert Land Act in 1877. Under the law, for 25 cents an acre, a settler could buy up to 640 acres of public land if he or she irrigated the land. The current law provides for no more than 320 acres in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Desert lands have no marketable minerals or timber and are worthless without irrigation, according to BLM standards. The Desert Land Act was intended to promote western economic development and settlement. The principal senatorial advocate, Aaron Sargent, served the interests of San Francisco’s James B. Haggin and Lloyd Tevis, Along with interests in Wells Fargo, the Southern Pacific Railroad, and the various mining interests of Senator George Hearst, Haggin and Tevis also owned the Kern Valley Land Company. Haggin and Tevis had by the 1870s collected several hundred thousand acres in the San Joaquin Valley. With advance knowledge of the Desert Land Act, Haggin and Tevis used illegal applicants, phony claims, and other abuses of the system to collect 150 square miles of the water-rich valley under Desert Land, in the process evicting homesteaders whose unperfected claims under the Homestead Act were invalidated by the Desert Land Act. Agribusiness giant Tenneco bought the Kern Valley Land Company in the 1960s. The Desert Land Act’s legacy in the San Joaquin Valley as elsewhere in the west was corporate agriculture, mechanized monopolies rather than a patchwork of small individual holdings. But abuses did not kill the law. The current cost of an irrigation system for 320 acres is $250,000. The application must still be accompanied by payment of 25 cents an acre. The successful applicant has four years to prove a claim by cultivating and irrigating an eighth of the land sought. Applicants can form irrigation cooperatives with BLM approval. John H. Barnhill See also Bureau of Land Management

Dingell, John D. Jr. | 259

References Barnes, Peter. ‘‘The Great American Land Grab.’’ The New Republic (1972). http:// www.progress.org/barnes4.htm. Bureau of Land Management. ‘‘Desert Land Entries.’’ http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/ prog/more/lands/desert_land_entries.html. WETA. New Perspectives on the West (2001). http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/events/ 1870_1880.htm. Zonlight, Margaret Aseman Cooper. Land, Water, and Settlement in Kern County, California, 1850–1890. New York: Arno Press, 1979.

Dingell, John D. Jr. Democratic Congressman and chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, John D. Dingell Jr. of Michigan has historically functioned as a key advocate for energy conservation and environmental-protection legislation. Dingell’s proactive role in the Clean Water Act of 1972 aimed to legally cease practices of the emission and disposal of pollutants into the navigable waters. Nevertheless, the Clean Water Act continues to face resistance due to its ambiguity in defining the parameters of navigable waters and the interests of inversely affected industries. As the drafter of the 1972 Clean Air Act, Dingell established the foundation for progressive environmental laws expanding beyond the traditions of common-law nuisance from health-threatening industrial activities. Byproducts of the legislation include nationalizing standards Representative John Dingell, D-MI, smiles in his for maximum levels of pollutants office on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., in such as ozone, lead, and carbon mon- this December 13, 2005 file photo. Dealing with oxide (Bagley and Savage, 2006). global warming will be painful, said Dingell, then Preserving the visibility in major one of the most powerful Democrats in Congress. To back up his claim he proposed a national parks and requiring the Envirecipe many people wouldn’t like, a 50-cent ronmental Protection Agency to raise gasoline tax, a carbon tax, and scaled-back tax gas emission standards also derived breaks for some homeowners. (AP/Wide from the enacted law. World Photos)

260 | Douglas, William O.

During his 50-plus years of service, the 2009 economic crisis involving Ford, GM, and Chrysler, all headquartered in Michigan, produced the greatest political strain for Dingell, despite an overall politically successful career. He has a record of balancing environmental goals with protecting the automotive industry. Dingell’s work in the House of Representatives has produced a record that has pleased neither the auto industry nor the environmental community. Michael D. Royster See also Clean Air Act of 1970; Clean Water Act of 1972; National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

References Bagley, Constance E., and Diane W. Savage. Managers and the Legal Environment: Strategies for the 21st Century. Mason, OH: South-Western College, 2006. Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. ‘‘Congressman Dingell’s Work Protecting and Preserving the Environment.’’ http://www.house.gov/dingell/ issue_environment.shtml (accessed May 12, 2010). Broder, John M., and Micheline Maynard, ‘‘As Political Winds Shift Detroit Charts New Course.’’ New York Times, May 19, 2009; revised May 27, 2009.

Douglas, William O. William Orville Douglas was one of the most progressive justices to ever sit on the bench of the U.S. Supreme Court. He served as associate justice from 1939 to 1975 and quickly became a champion of environmental issues. In 1954, the federal government planned to build a parkway along the C&O Canal, thus destroying the surrounding nature trails. Douglas protested the construction of the road by challenging the proponents of the project to hike the trail with him. The trip was a success, and the road was not built. Douglas’ success in this cause made him a leader of the bourgeoning environmental movement. Douglas used his position of power to influence environmental legislation and awareness. Throughout the mid-1950s, Douglas backed an environmental preservation bill in Congress and contended the spraying of chemicals such as DDT over Long Island. In the early 1960s, Douglas wrote strong endorsements of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring. In July 1964, Douglas wrote an article in Ladies Home Journal that was entitled ‘‘America’s Vanishing Wilderness.’’ The article brought environmental awareness to a larger audience. This encouraged President Lyndon Johnson to sign the Wilderness Act of 1964, which protected nine million acres of land. In 1967, he authored the opinion in Udall v. Federal Power Commission. Secretary of the Interior Udall wanted to prevent the FPC from building a dam on

Douglas, William O. | 261

the Snake River until they had more knowledge of the impact that the dam would have on recreational fishing. The decision mandated that all federal regulatory agencies thoroughly investigate the impacts of future decisions. The 1971 case Sierra Club v. Morton was Douglas’ most important contribution to environmental law. Disney planned to build a ski resort in the Mineral King Valley of the Sierra Nevadas in California and an environmental group, the Sierra Club, opposed it. The Court ruled 4–3 against the Sierra Club. In his dissent, Douglas boldly argued that inanimate objects had legal standing. By this interpretation, people or groups could take legal measures to protect inanimate objects in nature. Although the Sierra Club lost the case, they won the publicity battle. As a result, Mineral King Valley was spared, and it became part of Sequoia National Park in 1978. Throughout his career, Douglas championed many causes, and environmental issues were near to his heart. He helped preserve the Olympic Beaches in Washington, the Buffalo River in Arkansas, Lake Erie, Lake Michigan, Lake Tahoe, and the Allagash River in Maine, and many others. In 1984, four years after his death, the William O. Douglas Wilderness was created in Washington State. He was a forerunner in environmental preservation, and influenced an entire new generation of environmentalists. Matthew K. Shannon See also DDT; Sierra Club v. Morton (1972); Silent Spring

References Douglas, William O. The Court Years, 1939–1975: The Autobiography of William O. Douglas. New York: Random House, 1980. Douglas, William O. Go East, Young Man: The Early Years: The Autobiography of William O. Douglas. New York: Random House, 1974. Douglas, William O. Nature’s Justice: Writings of William O. Douglas. James O. Fallon., ed. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press, 2000. Douglas, William O. Of Men and Mountains. New York: Harper, 1950. Hulst, Tom R. The Footpaths of Justice William O. Douglas: A Legacy of Place. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse, Inc., 2004. Murphy, Bruce Allen. Wild Bill: The Legend and Life of William O. Douglas. New York: Random House, 2003. Simon, James F. Independent Journey: The Life of William O. Douglas. New York: Harper & Row, 1980.

E Earth Day Earth Day consists of annual events designed to focus political and public attention on environmental concerns. Taking place on April 22, Earth Day gives participants the opportunity to celebrate the Earth while simultaneously considering ways to protect it. Despite its now well-known name, Earth Day began with humble origins. According to Earth Day founder and former Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson, the original idea for an Earth Day-like event occurred to him in 1962. Dismayed by what he perceived to be a lack of political will to engage environmental issues, he felt it would be necessary to mobilize large segments of

Part of crowd observing Earth Day, including youngster wearing ‘‘Let Me Grow Up!’’ sign on back relaxes on hilltop in Philadelphia’s Fairmount Park, Wednesday, April 23, 1970. The crowd, made up mostly of young people, was estimated at more than 20,000 persons. (AP/Wide World Photos)

263

264 | Earth Day

the public to put green issues onto politicians’ agendas. ‘‘The evidence of environmental deterioration was all around us, and everyone noticed except the political establishment. The environmental issue simply was not to be found on the nation’s political agenda’’ (Nelson, 2002, 5). While Nelson was attempting to convince politicians, others were doing their part to build momentum for the early environmental movement. Rachel Carson published Silent Spring in 1962, exposing the public dangers of DDT, Paul Ehrlich published The Population Bomb in 1968, prophesying mass starvation, and in 1969, newspapers across the country printed stories about the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland that was set ablaze and the Santa Barbara oil spill off the coast of California. The culture of the 1960s and the ubiquitous media coverage of environmental crises formed the social and political backdrop for what was to become the first of many Earth Day observances. Nelson originally suggested President John F. Kennedy should make the Earth Day cause his own to drum up political support for environmental legislation, but the event did not materialize until years later. It was not until 1969 that Nelson finally found the source of organizational inspiration he needed. Amid fervent anti-Vietnam War demonstrations, Nelson observed protesters using ‘‘teachins’’ to express their pacifist views. Along with Denis Hayes, a recent Stanford college graduate who put his career on hold to get involved with Earth Day planning, Nelson believed teach-ins could also be used to draw attention to environmental issues. Nelson and Hayes paved the way for the first Earth Day teach-ins and events in 1970. The first Earth Day was an overwhelming success. For Nelson, ‘‘the goal of Earth Day was to inspire a public demonstration so big it would shake the political establishment out of its lethargy and force the environmental issue onto the national political agenda’’ (Nelson, 2002, 3). The evidence indicates Nelson’s goal was largely accomplished. In 1970, the U.S. population was approximately 200 million people. Standard accounts of the 1970 Earth Day events estimate that 20 million Americans participated in activities across the country, a staggering 10 percent of the entire population. This feat is all the more remarkable when one realizes that Nelson and Hayes only had $125,000, primarily gathered from donations, at their disposal. Although the sheer number of participants is impressive, many observers point to the environmental acts passed in the wake of the first Earth Day as the true testament of its success. In 1970, President Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act into law. Earth Day added to the momentum that was already beginning to develop on the national stage. Many commentators contend that the first Earth Day helped to put political pressure on lawmakers to pass at least two important legislative acts: the Clean Air Act of 1972 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Some even credit the first Earth Day as being the event that sparked an entire

Earth Day | 265

decade of environmental legislation. With 28 major environmental laws enacted, the 1970s was one of the most environmentally active decades in U.S. political history. The 1970 Earth Day observances stand out as a shining moment in the development of American environmental consciousness. Although the first Earth Day was a success, later Earth Days did not match the energy, excitement, or turnout of the first. Organizers soon discovered that turnout to Earth Day events depended largely on important years, such as the Earth Days celebrated during significant anniversaries (e.g., 10, 20, and 30 years). But even then, not every Earth Day after the first could match the original day’s success. Ten years after the founding of Earth Day, environmentalists had the opportunity to reflect on what they had accomplished. The 1980 Earth Day was emotionally different when compared to the first. While the 1970 event was energized and directed to the flower children of the 1960s, the 1980 Earth Day was more reserved. According to New York Times journalist Philip Shabecoff, the 1980 Earth Day was ‘‘more sober and introspective than the spontaneous, ebullient mass demonstrations of April 1970’’ (Shabecoff, 1980). Mike McCabee, executive director of Earth Day 1980, noted that, ‘‘the crowds were generally smaller than in 1970’’ (Smolowe, 1980). The Earth Day mood reflected tensions over a sense of backlash against the environmental movement and all that had been accomplished in the preceding decade. With energy questions weighing heavily on the minds of politicians after the oil crises of the 1970s, as well as mounting economic pressures at the pump, many business leaders argued much of the environmental legislation that had been passed since 1970 was too costly to maintain in the long run. McCabe commented on the political and cultural pressures environmentalists were facing: ‘‘The past 10 years have tempered our perspective of the issues and the enormity of the task. There is tremendous pressure to modify our goals and roll back our gains’’ (Shabecoff, 1980). Yet Earth Day continued to be an important cultural phenomenon. Despite the skeptical countermovement of the 1980s, Earth Day eventually recovered from its lackluster performance. Twenty years after its inception, Earth Day 1990 marked a significant turning point in the way observances were handled. Earth Day 1990 once again captured the spirit of the first Earth Day, but with a significant difference. Unlike the national focus of the 1970 observations, which consisted of events that were primarily spontaneous in nature, Earth Day 1990 witnessed a concerted effort to bring international attention to some of the world’s most pressing environmental concerns. Denis Hayes, 20 years after being involved in the first Earth Day, was the executive director of Earth Day 1990. With hundreds of individuals involved in the management of the 1990 Earth Day planning, compared to only seven in 1970, organizers raised millions of dollars for their cause. Their marketing

266 | Earthjustice

techniques were also far more sophisticated than past efforts. Earth Day 1990 was an even bigger success than Earth Day 1970. Nearly 200 million people participated in Earth Day events in more than 140 countries. According to New York Times journalist Robert D. McFadden, Earth Day 1990 was ‘‘the largest grassroots demonstration in history’’ (McFadden, 1990). Many observers also credit Earth Day 1990 for generating momentum for the 1992 Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro. With Earth Day 1990, Earth Day was no longer seen as being a narrowly focused national observance; Earth Day became a day of international importance. Earth Day 2000 continued to build on its past successes. Like Earth Day 1990, Earth Day 2000 remained an international observance. However, organizers were now using the Earth Day Network and new technologies to make connections throughout the world. Hundreds of millions participated in Earth Day 2000 events in 183 nations. With more than 17,000 partners, the Earth Day network claims observances after Earth Day 2000 now exceed one billion participants, making it ‘‘the largest secular civic event in the world.’’ Richard D. Besel See also DDT; Endangered Species Act of 1973; National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; Nixon, Richard; Silent Spring

References Earth Day Network. ‘‘About Earth Day Network.’’ http://www.earthday.net/about (accessed May 3, 2009). Graham, Mary. The Morning After Earth Day: Practical Environmental Politics. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1999. McFadden, Robert D. ‘‘Millions Join Battle for a Beloved Planet.’’ New York Times, April 23, 1990. Nelson, Gaylord. Beyond Earth Day: Fulfilling the Promise. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2002. Shabecoff, Philip. ‘‘Earth Day ’80 Dawns Tomorrow Amid Reflections and Plans for a New Decade.’’ New York Times, April 21, 1980. Smolowe, Jill. ‘‘Crowds Enjoy Earth Day ’80 By Strolling in Midtown Sun.’’ New York Times, April 23, 1980.

Earthjustice With nine regional offices throughout the United States, an international agenda, and more than 30 years of legal representation, Earthjustice, formerly known as the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, has become one of the key nonprofit law firms in the United States. Although the group’s primary function is to file

Earthjustice | 267

lawsuits without charge for public-interest clients, it also aims to protect existing environmental statutes from being watered down or overturned. Through the two environmental law clinics it has established at the University of Denver and Stanford University, Earthjustice is also training law students and preparing them to work for other organizations. On June 1, 2000, another public-interest firm, Earthlaw, merged its legal staff with Earthjustice’s attorneys in a move designed to provide more effective legal representation. One of the most historically noteworthy actions of the group focused on a development in California’s Sierra Nevada range planned by Walt Disney Productions. In one of the first citizen-enforced environmental law cases, Sierra Club v. Morton, the U.S. Supreme Court established in 1972 the right of citizens to sue to protect natural resources. The case served as a precedent for other citizenbased suits that have become common strategies for environmental groups. Typical of other environmental-defense groups, Earthjustice has often sued a government agency to enforce a law. In 1968, for instance, the National Park Service was alleged to have failed to protect critical timberland adjacent to the new Redwood National Park. The lawsuit resulted in a doubling of the size of the park as nearby timberland was acquired from logging companies. On the border of Yellowstone National Park, the group successfully sued a mining company that had planned to reopen a gold and silver mine. The company was not allowed to resume mining operations and was fined millions of dollars in penalties, and the site is undergoing restoration. In recent years, Earthjustice has become more involved in issues related to environmental justice. Citizens in a predominantly minority community in Louisiana sought help from the organization when a uranium plant was scheduled to be constructed in their area. After hearing citizens’ protests, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission denied the necessary permit for the facility. The organization has also expanded its agenda to a global perspective, seeking to address human rights and the environment, international trade, and support for environmental legislation in other countries. Although legal expertise is a valuable resource, the organization also uses its own policy experts who work to prevent legislative backlash and the amending of long-standing environmental statutes. Staff members have focused on the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Air Act, two laws that have been targeted by conservative members of Congress and their supporters. After several years of attempting to develop a strategic plan, the group turned to an advertising agency. Underground Advertising surveyed potential donors, competing organizations, and prior marketing efforts and developed a new logo, brochures, and a tag line that has become synonymous with the organization’s goal, ‘‘Because the earth needs a lawyer.’’ Jacqueline Vaughn Switzer

268 | Earthwatch Institute

References Drielak, Steven C. Environmental Crime. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, 1998. Earthjustice. ‘‘About Us: Major Accomplishments.’’ http://www.earthjustice.org/ about/major (accessed October 15, 2001).

Earthwatch Institute In its mission statement, Earthwatch Institute notes that it ‘‘operates on a very simple but radical notion: that if you fully involve the general public in the process of science, you not only give them understanding, you give the world a future.’’ Even though this might at first sound like traditional environmental rhetoric, there is a difference. Earthwatch activists learn by doing. Founded in 1971 in Boston, the nonprofit group now has more than 50,000 members and supporters. Offices in Oxford, England; Melbourne, Australia; and Tokyo, Japan, coordinate Earthwatch activities, which focus on research, conservation, and education. All three goals are met by the organization’s unique volunteer program, in which more than 4,000 participate each year. The volunteers, who pay about $1,600 each for the experience, work side by side with the institute’s researchers on six continents throughout the world. There are seven main categories of research: endangered ecosystems, oceans, biodiversity, cultural diversity, global change, world health, and archaeology. Scientists may apply for funding through the Center for Field Research, and scholarships are available for high school students and teachers. One of the group’s concerns is that researchers seldom have sufficient Earthwatch Institute President and CEO, Edward Wilson, gestures while speaking at resources to conduct expeditions in the rollout of Google Earth Outreach, a pro- the field. Many potential projects are gram designed to help nonprofit organiza- abandoned, and even when research tions use the popular computer search tool is completed, it seldom is reported to illustrate and advocate for their work, during a news conference in New York, by the media. By involving citizens Tuesday, June 26, 2007. (AP/Wide World in research projects, Earthwatch Photos) believes it is possible to engage the

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 | 269

public, bring findings to the policy agenda, and serve a purpose greater than just academic curiosity. Earthwatch produces an illustrated guide to research projects where volunteers are needed. Some choose to work on a one-week project, whereas others may serve even longer in the field, working with noted scientists and getting hands-on training. Some of the group’s members are ‘‘armchair explorers’’ who are able to support the organization’s efforts without becoming involved in an expedition. Other volunteers use the field research project as an opportunity to travel, taking vacation time or a summer break to participate. The volunteers themselves come from all over and represent a variety of interests and ages. They may be retirees, artists, nutritionists, health care professionals, teachers, architects, scientists, or simply activists who seek out a different way of expressing their desire to help protect the environment. More than 2,000 scientific papers and books have been published through Earthwatch research, and hundreds of species new to science have been discovered. Many projects have been conducted in partnership with other groups, such as Conservation International, or have been sponsored by one of the group’s corporate sponsors. For example, Ford Motor Company donated $5 million to Earthwatch Institute to implement conservation research stations at key sites of exceptional conservation value that are also highly threatened. The company is also funding a fellowship program to enable educators and staff from corporations to work at the field stations. Experiential education opportunities such as those provided by Earthwatch are in one sense priceless. Some volunteers stay in European hotels; others sleep in tent camps. But regardless of the nature of the accommodations, participants agree that the experience provides them with the skills and motivation to undertake local community projects when they return. Jacqueline Vaughn Switzer References Basinger, Julianne. ‘‘To Scientists Who Use Paying Volunteers in Fieldwork, the Benefits Outweigh the Bother.’’ Chronicle of Higher Education (June 19, 1998): A14. ‘‘Ford Motor Company to Donate $5 Million to Earthwatch Institute.’’ http://www.theauto channel.com/news/press/date/20001126/press031447.html (accessed November 8, 2001). Gallagher, Leigh. ‘‘Walter Mitty Meets Uncle Sam.’’ Forbes 167, no. 14 (June 11, 2001): 160. ‘‘Welcome to Earthwatch Institute.’’ http://www.earthwatch.org/abouted (accessed November 5, 2001).

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 The Emergency Planning and the Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) is a federal law concerned with emergency response preparedness.

270 | Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986

Passed by the 99th Congress, it is located in the U.S. Code Title 42, Chapter 116. This law is a component of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), which amended the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). The primary catalyst for the passage of EPCRA was the Bhopal, India, industrial disaster on December 2 and 3, 1984. Although outside the United States, the world was shocked when more than 500,000 people were exposed to gas and toxins. The incident, resulting in thousands of immediate and subsequent deaths, raised concerns about the lack of planning and preparation for a similar accident in the United States. The EPCRA is threefold. First, it mandates state and local planning for chemical emergencies. Second, it provides for notification of emergency releases of chemicals, and third, it addresses communities’ right-to-know about toxic and hazardous chemicals. This act’s ultimate purpose is to force proactive interventions to reduce the consequences of deadly and tragic chemical releases through four major provisions. These are emergency planning, hazardous chemical inventory reporting, public access to chemical information, toxic chemical release reporting, and the maintenance of a toxics release inventory (TRI) database. The first provision stipulates that every U.S. community must participate in a comprehensive emergency response plan. Sections 301 to 303 of the EPCRA define the local emergency planning requirements. The act stipulates that each state must establish a State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) to oversee the implementation of EPCRA requirements. The act also creates emergency response infrastructure through the creation of Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs). The establishment and existence of LEPCs allows for coordinated efforts and provides essential information to emergency responders for effectiveness at the local level. Each LEPC is responsible for the work to understand chemical hazards, develop emergency plans to respond to chemical accidents, and implement prevention measures. LEPC membership at a minimum must include: • elected state and local officials, • emergency responders: police, fire, civil defense, and public-health professionals, • industry: environment, transportation, and hospital officials, • facility representatives, and • representatives of the community and media. To increase accountability, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides a list of the contact information for each SERC and a searchable LEPC

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 | 271

database on its Web site. As described by the EPA (2000), local emergency plans must: • identify facilities and transportation routes of extremely hazardous substances, • describe on- and off-site emergency response procedures, • designate a community coordinator and facility coordinator(s) to implement the plan, • outline emergency notification procedures and evacuation plans, • describe how to determine the probable affected area and population releases, • describe local emergency equipment and facilities and the persons responsible for them, • provide training to emergency responders, and • provide methods and schedules for exercising emergency response plans. Prior to the passage of the EPCRA, most facilities and communities were not prepared to adequately respond to chemical disasters in a coordinated effort. This federal legislation forced these actions for the protection of communities. The EPA also has a program to reimburse local communities for certain expenses incurred during an incident. This helps assure implementation in places that may not have the fiscal resources for full response. The federal government does not directly fund the work of the LEPCs, so many communities struggle to meet the compliance standards of the EPCRA planning requirements. Beyond planning, three of the four provisions of the EPCRA deal with chemical reporting. This burden lies with facilities. Reporting requirements are substantial and require significant manpower to assure compliance as the rules are regularly being reviewed and updated by the federal government. All facilities must report hazardous substance spills and releases. In the case of emergencies, response plans are implemented when facilities report a release that is equal to or exceeds the minimum reportable quantity set by the regulations. The emergency reporting requirement pertains to 356 chemicals defined as extremely hazardous substances and more than 700 other hazardous substances. Without this act, many private companies might not report these incidents and local responders would not be as prepared to protect the public during an event. The act’s community right-to-know provision aims to increase the public’s awareness of chemical hazards in their community. It also allows the public and local governments to obtain information about risk-imposing chemicals. The provision works in conjunction with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations requiring employers maintain material data safety data sheets (MSDSs) for hazardous chemicals stored or used in the workplace. For

272 | Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (1986) 42 U.S.C. 11001–11050 Sec. 11001. Establishment of State commissions, planning districts, and local committees (a) Establishment of State emergency response commissions. Not later than six months after October 17, 1986, the Governor of each State shall appoint a State emergency response commission. The Governor may designate as the State emergency response commission one or more existing emergency response organizations that are State-sponsored or appointed. The Governor shall, to the extent practicable, appoint persons to the State emergency response commission who have technical expertise in the emergency response field. The State emergency response commission shall appoint local emergency planning committees under subsection (c) of this section and shall supervise and coordinate the activities of such committees. The State emergency response commission shall establish procedures for receiving and processing requests from the public for information under section 11044 of this title, including tier II information under section 11022 of this title. Such procedures shall include the designation of an official to serve as coordinator for information. If the Governor of any State does not designate a State emergency response commission within such period, the Governor shall operate as the State emergency response commission until the Governor makes such designation. (b) Establishment of emergency planning districts. Not later than nine months after October 17, 1986, the State emergency response commission shall designate emergency planning districts in order to facilitate preparation and implementation of emergency plans. Where appropriate, the State emergency response commission may designate existing political subdivisions or multijurisdictional planning organizations as such districts. In emergency planning areas that involve more than one State, the State emergency response commissions of all potentially affected States may designate emergency planning districts and local emergency planning committees by agreement. In making such designation, the State emergency response commission shall indicate which facilities subject to the requirements of this subchapter are within such emergency planning district. (c) Establishment of local emergency planning committees. Not later than 30 days after designation of emergency planning districts or 10 months after October 17, 1986, whichever is earlier, the State emergency response commission shall appoint members of a local emergency planning committee for each emergency planning district. Each committee shall include, at a minimum, representatives from each of the following groups or organizations: elected State and local officials; law enforcement, civil defense, firefighting, first aid, health, local environmental, hospital, and transportation personnel; broadcast and print media; community groups; and owners and operators of facilities subject to the requirements of this subchapter. Such committee shall appoint a chairperson and shall establish rules by which the committee shall function. Such rules shall include provisions for public notification of committee activities, public meetings to discuss the emergency plan, public comments, response to such comments by the committee, and distribution of the emergency plan. The local emergency planning committee shall establish procedures for receiving and

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 | 273

processing requests from the public for information under section 11044 of this title, including tier II information under section 11022 of this title. Such procedures shall include the designation of an official to serve as coordinator for information. (d) Revisions. A State emergency response commission may revise its designations and appointments under subsections (b) and (c) of this section as it deems appropriate. Interested persons may petition the State emergency response commission to modify the membership of a local emergency planning committee.

EPCRA, facilities are required to have MSDSs for chemicals above certain quantities and these must be reported to the SERC, LEPC, and the local fire department. Any community member also has the right to review and obtain copies of the MSDSs, chemical storage reports, facility and regional emergency plans, and incident follow-up reports. The right to access this information facilitates accountability under the federal law as well as helps the public to be engaged with safety efforts and to know their exposure risks. Compliance with ECPRA is mandatory; however, there are limited federal resources for oversight. To help with enforcement, the EPCRA allows civil and administrative penalties from $10,000 to $75,000 per violation per day for facility reporting violations. Any person who knowingly and willfully fails to provide emergency release notification can be charged criminally with up to $50,000 in penalties or five years in prison. Citizens can also file civil suits against the EPA, the SERCs, and the owner or operator of a facility for failure to meet the requirements. Environmental protection of the EPCRA is complimented by two other pieces of federal legislation that deal with chemical accidents: the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and the 1990 CAA Amendments. Denese M. Neu See also Clean Air Act of 1970; Oil Pollution Act of 1990

References U.S. Congress. U.S. Code Title 42, Chapter 116—Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know. Cornell University Law School. http://law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/ uscode42/usc_sup_01_42_10_116.html (accessed April 8, 2010). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ‘‘Emergency Planning and Community Rightto-Know Act (EPCRA) Requirements.’’ http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/epcra/index.htm (accessed April 8, 2010). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. ‘‘The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act.’’ http://www .epa.gov/emergencies/docs/chem/epcra.pdf (accessed April 8, 2010). Wisconsin Emergency Management. ‘‘An Information Guide: Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act.’’ http://www.uwsa.edu/oslp/em/compliance/uwsys guidetoepcra050725.pdf (accessed April 8, 2010).

274 | Endangered Species Act of 1973

Endangered Species Act of 1973 The most comprehensive, controversial, and perhaps the most complicated wildlife protection law in the world, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) mandates a wide range of measures to preserve species that are perilously close to becoming extinct. When the ESA was enacted in December 1973, a list of 109 such imperiled species was compiled; 27 years, later there are 1,788 species from around the world on the list, 495 of which are animals found in the United States, our focus here. Over this time, just 31 species have been removed from the tally, and only 11 of those because they are no longer in danger of vanishing. Thirteen were either incorrectly listed or renamed. Seven others were not saved; they became extinct. Extinction is a very common natural process. As many as 98 percent of all the animal and plant species that have ever existed on the planet have disappeared. In one massive die-off some 65 million years ago, at least eight out of every ten animal species expired when a large meteor collided with Earth, ending the reign of the dinosaurs. Usually, however, extinctions have occurred gradually at a rate of about 30 animal species per millennium, a pace that has been substantially accelerated by human activities over the last few centuries, though far from meteoric. Since the Pilgrims arrived in North America in 1620, approximately 125 species of birds and mammals have been eliminated, mainly by excessive hunting.

Man on horseback with rifle riding next to bison. (Library of Congress)

Endangered Species Act of 1973 | 275

The most recent victims are the passenger pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius) and the Carolina parakeet (Conuropsis carolinensis). Once flocking by the millions, the pigeons were blasted from the skies for food and fun, while the parakeets were shot primarily so that their brilliant feathers could adorn ladies’ hats, although they also proved an eliminable nuisance in farmers’ fields and orchards. The last specimens of both birds died in zoos in 1914, a pigeon named Martha and a parakeet called Incas. Yet it was not until the early 1960s that Congress seriously attempted to do anything about the loss of species. Hearings at that time acknowledged that various kinds of wildlife in the United States had become extinct during the twentieth century, among them the passenger pigeon and the Carolina parakeet, and that a number of other species were at risk of the same fate. In light of these findings, Congress announced that these depleted taxa were of ‘‘aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the nation and its people.’’ The federal government would therefore pursue means of preserving them and the ecosystems on which they depend. Initial Attempts to Preserve Depleted Wildlife The first federal measure that protected vanishing wildlife was not primarily intended for that purpose; rather, it was designed to safeguard the country’s first national park, Yellowstone, established in Wyoming Territory in 1872. Although boundaries had been drawn, no laws were created to regulate conduct in the park, so in 1893, Representative John Lacey of Iowa sponsored a bill prohibiting mining, logging, and hunting in Yellowstone. One of the last remaining bands of American bison or buffalo (Bison bison) inhabited the park at that time. Numbering a couple of hundred individuals, the Yellowstone herd represented most of what was left of a species that in a few decades had catastrophically declined from a total of perhaps 50 million, gunned down by hunters for their hides, their tongues, and for sport. When President Grover Cleveland signed Lacey’s Yellowstone Protection Act in May 1894, the new law in effect provided the world’s first legal shield for an endangered species. A long period of legislative quiescence followed in which next to nothing was done to save disappearing wildlife. Finally, in 1966, after finding that urbanization, burgeoning human populations, and increasing reliance on technology had exterminated some wild animal species and severely depleted others, Congress passed the Endangered Species Preservation Act. This law directed the Secretary of the Interior to identify each ‘‘fish and wildlife’’ species native to America whose ‘‘existence is endangered’’ so that ‘‘its survival requires assistance.’’ It also consolidated various wildlife refuges, ranges, and management areas administered by the Interior Department into the National Wildlife Refuge System (this stipulation was later designated the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966).

276 | Endangered Species Act of 1973

Beyond these items, the new law was timid and tentative. Its sole substantive provision authorized the interior secretary to protect habitat by buying land with money drawn from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, capped at $5 million annually and limited to $750,000 for any single acquisition. This is a severe constriction of a project intended to preserve species. Habitat loss can be devastating, but it is merely one of several critical factors that threaten wildlife. Others include overhunting, predation, disease, introduction of nonnative species, and severe weather. Moreover, there are many other ways to protect habitat besides simply buying land. Incredibly, the 1966 act also failed to prohibit killing, injuring, or removing any wildlife identified as ‘‘threatened with extinction’’ except those found on federal lands; this authority in other jurisdictions was left entirely to the individual states, then the traditional source for regulations on taking wildlife. Finally, no restrictions were placed on the commercial movement of endangered species across state borders or on the importation of such species from foreign lands. Few were satisfied with the 1966 law, and it did not take Congress long to produce a supplement to it. The Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 corrected some of the flaws, notably by prohibiting interstate commerce in endangered species and by raising the ceiling on single acquisitions of land to $2.5 million. It also clarified the meaning of ‘‘fish and wildlife,’’ originally interpreted by the Interior Department as referring only to vertebrates, to include ‘‘any wild mammal, fish, wild bird, amphibian, reptile, mollusk, or crustacean.’’ The most important feature of the 1969 act, however, was to significantly expand the duty to protect species, extending the shield beyond the borders of the United States, and authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to draw up a list of wildlife threatened with extinction anywhere on the planet. Importation of these species into this country was outlawed. Nonetheless, the act also specified several exceptions to the ban on importation, empowering the secretary to allow the introduction of foreign endangered species for zoological, educational, and scientific purposes, and to produce breeding populations in captivity. Although an improvement, the 1969 act had its own shortcomings. Unfortunately, it also permitted the states to devise their own regulations concerning the taking of endangered species in their jurisdictions. Another unsolved problem was that most federal agencies were not required to ensure that their projects and activities did not detrimentally affect endangered species and their habitats. Finally, by the early 1970s, it was obvious that many plants were also at risk of extinction, yet neither the 1966 nor 1969 acts provided any protection for endangered plant species even though their continued existence would clearly promote the same values as did the preservation of wild animals. Federal Protection for Threatened and Endangered Species In December 1973, President Richard Nixon signed the Endangered Species Act (ESA), remedying the defects of the earlier statutes and providing far more

Endangered Species Act of 1973 | 277

extensive protections. Now, any animal or plant species can be safeguarded, all federal agencies are directed to avoid activities that harm protected species, and the taking of endangered species anywhere is expressly forbidden by federal law. Primary responsibility for the administration and enforcement of the ESA and regulatory action in accordance with it is vested in the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). A branch of the Department of the Interior, the FWS is the major actor in the legal moves authorized by the ESA. The National Marine Fisheries Service in the Department of Commerce is responsible for certain maritime species. Ultimately, administrative and regulatory responsibility traces back to the Secretary of the Interior, who must approve the initial listing of a taxon as protected by the ESA, FWS regulations, and any human activity impinging upon a listed species. The ESA mandates cooperation between the states and the federal government. The secretary must enter into cooperative agreements with the states to manage and acquire land for the conservation of threatened and endangered species. Federal assistance may also be offered to states that establish conservation programs. Although the states are consulted before species found in their jurisdictions are listed, they have no veto power, and the final decision belongs to the secretary. Attempts must also be made to influence foreign governments. Communicating through the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Interior must exhort foreign countries to take steps to conserve various wild animals and plants, including those listed as threatened or endangered. With the approval of the president, the secretary may also provide financial and technological resources to other nations to encourage the protection of wildlife and plants. The ESA also implements the terms of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), an international agreement that currently has 132 nations as signatories. CITES seeks to regulate trade in imperiled species by requiring the management authority of both the exporting and the importing nation to register their approval before any individuals of such a species can be exchanged between them. The ESA designates the Secretary of the Interior as the management authority for the United States. The basic purpose of the ESA is to save wildlife from extinction, so at its core is a list of species that are designated as being at risk. The listing process that forms the foundation of the ESA divides imperiled species into two general categories. An ‘‘endangered’’ species is one ‘‘which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range’’ unless recovery and rehabilitation efforts are implemented. ‘‘Threatened’’ species are those that are ‘‘likely to become endangered species in the foreseeable future.’’ The term ‘‘species’’ here includes not only subspecies of animals and plants, but also ‘‘any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish and wildlife.’’ The inclusion of populations under the definition of species recognizes that one group of animals may be endangered in a particular area while another of the same species may be thriving

278 | Endangered Species Act of 1973

somewhere else. For example, the brown bear population is healthy in Alaska but threatened in the lower 48 states. The process of adding a species to the ESA list usually begins with a petition submitted to the Secretary of the Interior asking him or her to declare the species as an endangered or threatened one. Petitions concerning marine wildlife and plants are presented to the Secretary of Commerce, who may then direct the Secretary of the Interior to list a species. Either secretary may also propose the listing of a species. In practice though, the processing, evaluation, and federal initiation of petitions are done by the FWS. A petition for ESA protection of a species may be tendered by anyone, but typically representatives of wildlife organizations and scientists working in both the public and private sectors take the initiative. Whoever presents the petition, to be successful it must be based upon the best scientific and economic data available and clearly indicate that due to predation or disease; habitat loss or modification; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; or any other natural or human-caused factors, the species warrants protection. Once received, the secretary has up to 90 days to determine whether the status of the species is worthy of deeper investigation. If it is, the decision to propose that the taxon be designated as threatened or endangered, or one not to issue such a proposal, must be made within one year. A decision not to propose any listing of the species may be reviewed by an administrative law judge. If the secretary decides otherwise, a notice of a proposal to list a species must be published in the Federal Register, the governors of the affected states notified, and a summary of the proposal printed by a local newspaper. Any interested parties then have three months to submit their recommendations and comments on the proposal. A public hearing may also be held upon request. Within one year, the secretary must issue a final rule, also appearing in the Federal Register, declaring that the species is endangered, threatened, or that it will not be listed at all. The Prohibition on Harming Endangered and Threatened Species Once a species is classified as endangered or threatened, Section 9 of the ESA declares it unlawful for any person to take or to try to take any protected species within the United States, in U.S. territorial waters, or on the open ocean. To ‘‘take’’ is defined as ‘‘to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.’’ The ESA also prohibits importing, exporting, possessing, selling, delivering, carrying, or transporting threatened or endangered wildlife, or violating any regulation promulgated by the secretary concerning protected species. With the exception of ‘‘harass’’ and ‘‘harm,’’ the prohibited actions in the definition of ‘‘take’’ are the standard sorts of human interventions with wildlife that traditionally have been regulated by conservation laws. Forbidding ‘‘harming’’

Endangered Species Act of 1973 | 279

and ‘‘harassing’’ introduces new terms into the legal equation, yet Congress did not further refine the meaning of ‘‘take’’ by explaining the significance of these novel ideas. This is puzzling because including ‘‘harm’’ in a definition that also lists ‘‘shoot,’’ ‘‘wound,’’ and ‘‘kill’’ is plainly redundant, unless lawmakers had some other injurious activity in mind. Similarly, ‘‘to harass’’ can denote many different kinds of conduct, and it is unusual to find the verb used to refer to something done to an animal. The FWS eventually defined ‘‘harass’’ as any ‘‘intentional or negligent act or omission that creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns.’’ Surprisingly, this definition has remained essentially unchanged, and federal courts have had few occasions to dissect its denotations. This is not so with the word ‘‘harm.’’ The endeavor to understand this concept took years of analysis in the Department of the Interior and in the federal courts, culminating in a Supreme Court decision. The controversy began in 1975, when the FWS issued a regulation defining ‘‘harm’’ to an endangered or threatened species as any action or failure to act ‘‘which annoy[s] it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt essential behavior patterns.’’ As examples of these behaviors, the FWS listed ‘‘breeding, feeding, or sheltering.’’ Also, ‘‘environmental modification or degradation’’ that ‘‘disrupt[s] essential behavior patterns’’ counts as harm to a protected species in violation of the ESA. This regulation went unchallenged and uninterpreted until 1979. Then the Sierra Club, the National Audubon Society, and the Hawaii Audubon Society initiated legal action on behalf of a rare bird species, the palila (Loxioides bailleui). A variety of Hawaiian honeycreeper, the palila is found only in the forests of mamane and naio trees around Mauna Kea on the Big Island of Hawaii. The bird first appeared on the endangered species list in 1967. The state Department of Land and Natural Resources had been keeping herds of feral sheep (Ovis aries) and goats (Capra hircus) on the slopes of Mauna Kea since 1950, selling permits to parties interested in hunting the animals. The plaintiffs contended that these half-wild, nonnative sheep and goats were damaging the native forests by eating mamane shoots and saplings, and because these trees are nearly the exclusive source of food for the palila, this in turn placed the continued existence of the bird at considerable risk. Maintaining the herds thus caused ‘‘environmental degradation,’’ constituting a harm to the palila that fell under the definition of prohibited taking. The federal district court agreed with the plaintiffs and ordered the state ‘‘to eradicate the feral sheep and goats from the palila’s critical habitat.’’ In 1981, the Ninth Circuit affirmed that judgment on appeal (Palila v. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources or Palila I). Apparently displeased with this outcome, the FWS quickly revised the definition of ‘‘harm,’’ allowing ‘‘habitat modification or degradation’’ to qualify as

280 | Endangered Species Act of 1973

Endangered Species Act (1973) 7 U.S.C. § 136, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. (Excerpt) Also known as the Environmental Species Conservation Act, this law was enacted on December 28, 1973, and became a milestone in the environmental conservation movement, offering federal protection to a broad range of animals and plants threatened with extinction due to past environmental carelessness. Section 2. Findings, Purposes, and Policy (a) Findings. The Congress finds and declares that— (1) various species of fish, wildlife, and plants in the United States have been rendered extinct as a consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation; (2) other species of fish, wildlife, and plants have been so depleted in numbers that they are in danger of or threatened with extinction; (3) these species of fish, wildlife, and plants are of aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people; (4) the United States has pledged itself as a sovereign state in the international community to conserve to the extent practicable the various species of fish or wildlife and plants facing extinction, pursuant to— (A) migratory bird treaties with Canada and Mexico; (B) the Migratory and Endangered Bird Treaty with Japan; (C) the Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere; (D) the International Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries; (E) the International Convention for the High Seas Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean; (F) the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora; and (G) other international agreements; and (5) encouraging the States and other interested parties, through Federal financial assistance and a system of incentives, to develop and maintain conservation programs which meet national and international standards is a key to meeting the Nation’s international commitments and to better safeguarding, for the benefit of all citizens, the Nation’s heritage in fish, wildlife, and plants. (b) Purposes. The purposes of this Act are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth in subsection (a) of this section. (c) Policy. (1) It is further declared to be the policy of Congress that all Federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act. (2) It is further declared to be the policy of Congress that Federal agencies shall cooperate with State and local agencies to resolve water resource issues in concert with conservation of endangered species.

Endangered Species Act of 1973 | 281 Section 3. Definitions For the purposes of this Act— (1) The term ‘‘alternative courses of action’’ means all alternatives and thus is not limited to original project objectives and agency jurisdiction. (2) The term ‘‘commercial activity’’ means all activities of industry and trade, including, but not limited to, the buying or selling of commodities and activities conducted for the purpose of facilitating such buying and selling: Provided, however, that it does not include exhibitions of commodities by museums or similar cultural or historical organizations. (3) The terms ‘‘conserve,’’ ‘‘conserving,’’ and ‘‘conservation’’ mean to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated with scientific resources management such as research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking. (4) The term ‘‘Convention’’ means the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, signed on March 3, 1973, and the appendices thereto. (5) (A) The term ‘‘critical habitat’’ for a threatened or endangered species means— (i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of this Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of this Act, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. (B) Critical habitat may be established for those species now listed as threatened or endangered species for which no critical habitat has heretofore been established as set forth in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph. (C) Except in those circumstances determined by the Secretary, critical habitat shall not include the entire geographical area which can be occupied by the threatened or endangered species. (6) The term ‘‘endangered species’’ means any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range other than a species of the Class Insecta determined by the Secretary to constitute a pest whose protection under the provisions of this Act would present an overwhelming and overriding risk to man. (7) The term ‘‘Federal agency’’ means any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States. (8) The term ‘‘fish or wildlife’’ means any member of the animal kingdom, including without limitation any mammal, fish, bird (including any migratory, nonmigratory,

282 | Endangered Species Act of 1973

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13) (14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18) (19)

(20)

or endangered bird for which protection is also afforded by treaty or other international agreement), amphibian, reptile, mollusk, crustacean, arthropod or other invertebrate, and includes any part, product, egg, or offspring thereof, or the dead body or parts thereof. The term ‘‘foreign commerce’’ includes, among other things, any transaction— (A) between persons within one foreign country; (B) between persons in two or more foreign countries; (C) between a person within the United States and a person in a foreign country; or (D) between persons within the United States, where the fish and wildlife in question are moving in any country or countries outside the United States. The term ‘‘import’’ means to land on, bring into, or introduce into, or attempt to land on, bring into, or introduce into, any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, whether or not such landing, bringing, or introduction constitutes an importation within the meaning of the customs laws of the United States. The term ‘‘permit or license applicant’’ means, when used with respect to an action of a Federal agency for which exemption is sought under section 7, any person whose application to such agency for a permit or license has been denied primarily because of the application of section 7(a) to such agency action. ‘‘The term person means an individual, corporation, partnership, trust, association, or any other private entity; or any officer, employee, agent, department, or instrumentality of the Federal Government, of any State, municipality, or political subdivision of a State, or of any foreign government; any State, municipality, or political subdivision of a State; or any other entity subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’’ The term ‘‘plant’’ means any member of the plant kingdom, including seeds, roots and other parts thereof. The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means, except as otherwise herein provided, the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce as program responsibilities are vested pursuant to the provisions of Reorganization Plan Numbered 4 of 1970; except that with respect to the enforcement of the provisions of this Act and the Convention which pertain to the importation or exportation of terrestrial plants, the term also means the Secretary of Agriculture. The term ‘‘species’’ includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species or vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature. The term ‘‘State’’ means any of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. The term ‘‘State agency’’ means any State agency, department, board, commission, or other governmental entity which is responsible for the management and conservation of fish, plant, or wildlife resources within a State. The term ‘‘take’’ means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. The term ‘‘threatened species’’ means any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The term ‘‘United States,’’ when used in a geographical context, includes all States.

Endangered Species Act of 1973 | 283 Section 4. Determination of Endangered Species and Threatened Species (a) General. (1) The Secretary shall by regulation promulgated in accordance with subsection (b) determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the following factors: (A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. (2) With respect to any species over which program responsibilities have been vested in the Secretary of Commerce pursuant to Reorganization Plan Numbered 4 of 1970— (A) in any case in which the Secretary of Commerce determines that such species should— (i) be listed as an endangered species or a threatened species, or (ii) be changed in status from a threatened species to an endangered species, he shall so inform the Secretary of the Interior, who shall list such species in accordance with this section; (B) in any case in which the Secretary of Commerce determines that such species should— (i) be removed from any list published pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, or (ii) be changed in status from an endangered species to a threatened species, he shall recommend such action to the Secretary of the Interior, and the Secretary of the Interior, if he concurs in the recommendation, shall implement such action; and (C) the Secretary of the Interior may not list or remove from any list any such species, and may not change the status of any such species which are listed, without a prior favorable determination made pursuant to this section by the Secretary of Commerce. (3) The Secretary, by regulation promulgated in accordance with subsection (b) and to the maximum extent prudent and determinable— (A) shall, concurrently with making a determination under paragraph (1) that a species is an endangered species or a threatened species, designate any habitat of such species which is then considered to be critical habitat; and (B) may, from time-to-time thereafter as appropriate, revise such designation. (b) Basis for Determinations. (1) (A) The Secretary shall make determinations required by subsection (a)(1) solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available to him after conducting a review of the status of the species and after taking into account those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to protect such species, whether by predator control, protection of habitat and food supply, or other conservation practices, within any area under its

284 | Endangered Species Act of 1973 jurisdiction, or on the high seas. (B) In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall give consideration to species which have been— (i) designated as requiring protection from unrestricted commerce by any foreign nation, or pursuant to any international agreement; or (ii) identified as in danger of extinction, or likely to become so within the foreseeable future, by any State agency or by any agency of a foreign nation that is responsible for the conservation of fish or wildlife or plants. (2) The Secretary shall designate critical habitat, and make revisions thereto, under subsection (a)(3) on the basis of the best scientific data available and after taking into consideration the economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude any area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based on the best scientific and commercial data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species concerned. (3) (A) To the maximum extent practicable, within 90 days after receiving the petition of an interested person under section 553(e) of title 5, United States Code, to add a species to, or to remove a species from, either of the lists published under subsection (c), the Secretary shall make a finding as to whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. If such a petition is found to present such information, the Secretary shall promptly commence a review of the status of the species concerned. The Secretary shall promptly publish each finding made under this subparagraph in the Federal Register. (B) Within 12 months after receiving a petition that is found under subparagraph (A) to present substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, the Secretary shall make one of the following findings: (i) The petitioned action is not warranted, in which case the Secretary shall promptly publish such finding in the Federal Register. (ii) The petitioned action is warranted in which case the Secretary shall promptly publish in the Federal Register a general notice and the complete text of a proposed regulation to implement such action in accordance with paragraph (5). (iii) The petitioned action is warranted but that— (I) the immediate proposal and timely promulgation of a final regulation implementing the petitioned action in accordance with paragraphs (5) and (6) is precluded by pending proposals to determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species, and (II) expeditious progress is being made to add qualified species to either of the lists published under subsection (c) and to remove from such lists species for which the protections of the Act are no longer necessary, in which case the Secretary shall promptly

Endangered Species Act of 1973 | 285 publish such finding in the Federal Register, together with a description and evaluation of the reasons and data on which the finding is based. (C) (i) To the maximum extent practicable, within 90 days after receiving the petition of an interested person under section 553(e) of title 5, United States Code, to revise a critical habitat designation, the Secretary shall make a finding as to whether the petition presents substantial scientific information indicating that the revision may be warranted. The Secretary shall promptly publish such finding in the Federal Register. (ii) Within 12 months after receiving a petition that is found under clause (i) to present substantial information indicating that the requested revision may be warranted, the Secretary shall determine how he intends to proceed with the requested revision, and shall promptly publish notice of such intention in the Federal Register. (4) Except as provided in paragraphs (5) and (6) of this subsection, the provisions of section 553 of title 5, United States Code (relating to rulemaking procedures), shall apply to any regulation promulgated to carry out the purposes of this Act. (5) With respect to any regulation proposed by the Secretary to implement a determination, designation, or revision referred to in subsection (a) (1) or (3), the Secretary shall— (A) not less than 90 days before the effective date of the regulation— (i) publish a general notice and the complete text of the proposed regulation in the Federal Register, and (ii) give actual notice of the proposed regulation (including the complete text of the regulation) to the State agency in each State in which the species is believed to occur, and to each county or equivalent jurisdiction in which the species is believed to occur, and invite the comment of such agency, and each such jurisdiction, thereon; (B) insofar as practical, and in cooperation with the Secretary of State, give notice of the proposed regulation to each foreign nation in which the species is believed to occur or whose citizens harvest the species on the high seas, and invite the comment of such nation thereon; (C) give notice of the proposed regulation to such professional scientific organizations as he deems appropriate; (D) publish a summary of the proposed regulation in a newspaper of general circulation in each area of the United States in which the species is believed to occur; and (E) promptly hold one public hearing on the proposed regulation if any person files a request for such a hearing within 45 days after the date of publication of general notice. (6) (A) Within the one-year period beginning on the date on which general notice is published in accordance with paragraph (5)(A)(i) regarding a proposed regulation, the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register— (i) if a determination as to whether a species is an endangered species or a threatened species, or a revision of critical habitat, is involved, either— (I) a final regulation to implement such determination,

286 | Endangered Species Act of 1973 (II) a final regulation to implement such revision or a finding that such revision should not be made, (III) notice that such one-year period is being extended under subparagraph (B)(i), or (IV) notice that the proposed regulation is being withdrawn under subparagraph (B)(ii), together with the finding on which such withdrawal is based; or (ii) subject to subparagraph (C), if a designation of critical habitat is involved, either— (I) a final regulation to implement such designation, or (II) notice that such one-year period is being extended under such subparagraph. (B) (i) If the Secretary finds with respect to a proposed regulation referred to in subparagraph (A)(i) that there is substantial disagreement regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of the available data relevant to the determination or revision concerned the Secretary may extend the one-year period specified in subparagraph (A) for not more than six months for purposes of soliciting additional data. (ii) If a proposed regulation referred to in subparagraph (a)(i) is not promulgated as a final regulation within such one-year period (or longer period if extension under clause (i) applies) because the Secretary finds that there is not sufficient evidence to justify the action proposed by the regulation the Secretary shall immediately withdraw the regulation. The finding on which a withdrawal is based shall be subject to judicial review. The Secretary may not propose a regulation that has previously been withdrawn under this clause unless he determines that sufficient new information is available to warrant such proposal. (iii) If the one-year period specified in subparagraph (A) is extended under clause (i) with respect to a proposed regulation, then before the close of such extended period the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register either a final regulation to implement the determination or revision concerned, a finding that the revision should not be made, or a notice of withdrawal of the regulation under clause (ii), together with the finding on which the withdrawal is based. (C) A final regulation designating critical habitat of an endangered species or a threatened species shall be published concurrently with the final regulation implementing the determination that such species is endangered or threatened, unless the Secretary deems that— (i) it is essential to the conservation of such species that the regulation implementing such determination be promptly published; or (ii) critical habitat of such species is not then determinable, in which case the Secretary, with respect to the proposed regulation to designate such habitat, may extend the one-year period specified in subparagraph (A) by not more than one additional year, but not later than the close of such additional year the Secretary must publish a final regulation, based on such data as may be available at that time, designating, to the maximum extent prudent, such habitat.

Endangered Species Act of 1973 | 287 (8) The publication in the Federal Register of any proposed or final regulation which is necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this Act shall include a summary by the Secretary of the data on which such regulation is based and shall show the relationship of such data to such regulation; and if such regulation designates or revises critical habitat, such summary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, also include a brief description and evaluation of those activities (whether public or private) which, in the opinion of the Secretary, if undertaken may adversely modify such habitat, or may be affected by such designation. (c) Lists. (1) The Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the Federal Register a list of all species determined by him or the Secretary of Commerce to be endangered species and a list of all species determined by him or the Secretary of Commerce to be threatened species. Each list shall refer to the species contained therein by scientific and common name or names, if any, specify with respect to such species over what portion of its range it is endangered or threatened, and specify any critical habitat within such range. The Secretary shall from time to time revise each list published under the authority of this subsection to reflect recent determinations, designations, and revisions made in accordance with subsections (a) and (b). (2) The Secretary shall— (A) conduct, at least once every five years, a review of all species included in a list which is published pursuant to paragraph (1) and which is in effect at the time of such review; and (B) determine on the basis of such review whether any such species should— (i) be removed from such list; (ii) be changed in status from an endangered species to a threatened species; or (iii) be changed in status from a threatened species to an endangered species. Each determination under subparagraph (B) shall be made in accordance with the provisions of subsection (a) and (b). (d) Protective Regulations. Whenever any species is listed as a threatened species pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, the Secretary shall issue such regulations as he deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of such species. The Secretary may by regulation prohibit with respect to any threatened species any act prohibited under section 9(a)(1), in the case of fish or wildlife, or section 9(a)(2), in the case of plants, with respect to endangered species; except that with respect to the taking of resident species of fish or wildlife, such regulations shall apply in any State which has entered into a cooperative agreement pursuant to section 6(c) of this Act only to the extent that such regulations have also been adopted by such State. (f) (1) Recovery Plans. The Secretary shall develop and implement plans (hereinafter in this subsection referred to as ‘‘recovery plans’’) for the conservation and survival of endangered species and threatened species listed pursuant to this section, unless he finds that such a plan will not promote the conservation of the species. The Secretary, in development and implementing recovery plans, shall, to the maximum extent practicable— (A) give priority to those endangered species or threatened species, without regard to taxonomic classification, that are most likely to benefit from such

288 | Endangered Species Act of 1973

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

plans, particularly those species that are, or may be, in conflict with construction or other development projects or other forms of economic activity; (B) incorporate in each plan— (i) a description of such site-specific management actions as may be necessary to achieve the plan’s goal for the conservation and survival of the species; (ii) objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a determination, in accordance with the provisions of this section, that the species be removed from the list; and (iii) estimates of the time required and the cost to carry out those measures needed to achieve the plan’s goal and to achieve intermediate steps toward that goal. The Secretary, in developing and implementing recovery plans, may procure the services of appropriate public and private agencies and institutions, and other qualified persons. Recovery teams appointed pursuant to this subsection shall not be subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Secretary shall report every two years to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the House of Representatives on the status of efforts to develop and implement recovery plans for all species listed pursuant to this section and on the status of all species for which such plans have been developed. The Secretary shall, prior to final approval of a new or revised recovery plan, provide public notice and an opportunity for public review and comment on such plan. The Secretary shall consider all information presented during the public comment period prior to approval of the plan. Each Federal agency shall, prior to implementation of a new or revised recovery plan, consider all information presented during the public comment period under paragraph (4).

Section 5. Land Acquisition (a) Program. The Secretary, and the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to the National Forest System, shall establish and implement a program to conserve fish, wildlife, and plants, including those which are listed as endangered species or threatened species pursuant to section 4 of this Act. To carry out such a program, the appropriate Secretary— (1) shall utilize the land acquisition and other authority under the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended, and the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, as appropriate; and (2) is authorized to acquire by purchase, donation, or otherwise, lands, waters, or interest therein, and such authority shall be in addition to any other land acquisition vested in him. (B) the State agency has established acceptable conservation programs, consistent with the purposes and policies of this Act, for all resident species of plants in the State which are deemed by the Secretary to be endangered or threatened, and has furnished a copy of such plan and program together

Endangered Species Act of 1973 | 289 with all pertinent details, information, and data requested to the Secretary; (C) the State agency is authorized to conduct investigations to determine the status and requirements for survival of resident species of plants; and (D) provision is made for public participation in designating resident species of plants as endangered or threatened; or that under the State program— (i) the requirements set forth in subparagraphs (C) and (D) of this paragraph are complied with, and (ii) plans are included under which immediate attention will be given to those resident species of plants which are determined by the Secretary or the State agency to be endangered or threatened and which the Secretary and the State agency agree are most urgently in need of conservation programs; except that a cooperative agreement entered into with a State whose program is deemed adequate and active pursuant to clause (i) and this clause shall not affect the applicability of prohibitions set forth in or authorized pursuant to section 4(d) or section 9(a)(1) with respect to the taking of any resident endangered or threatened species. Section 7. Interagency Cooperation (a) Federal Agency Actions and Consultations. (1) The Secretary shall review other programs administered by him and utilize such programs in furtherance of the purposes of this Act. All other Federal agencies shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered species and threatened species listed pursuant to section 4 of this Act. (2) Each Federal agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency (hereinafter in this section referred to as an ‘‘agency action’’) is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species which is determined by the Secretary, after consultation as appropriate with affected States, to be critical, unless such agency has been granted an exemption for such action by the Committee pursuant to subsection (h) of this section. In fulfilling the requirements of this paragraph each agency shall use the best scientific and commercial data available. (3) Subject to such guidelines as the Secretary may establish, a Federal agency shall consult with the Secretary on any prospective agency action at the request of, and in cooperation with, the prospective permit or license applicant if the applicant has reason to believe that an endangered species or a threatened species may be present in the area affected by his project and that implementation of such action will likely affect such species. (4) Each Federal agency shall confer with the Secretary on any agency action which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under section 4 or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat proposed to be designated for such species. This

290 | Endangered Species Act of 1973

paragraph does not require a limitation on the commitment of resources as described in subsection (d). (B) Consultation under subsection (a)(3), and an opinion based by the Secretary incident to such consultation, regarding an agency action shall be treated respectively as a consultation under subsection (a)(2), and as an opinion issued after consultation under such subsection, regarding that action if the Secretary reviews the action before it is commenced by the Federal agency and finds, and notifies such agency, that no significant changes have been made with respect to the action and that no significant change has occurred regarding the information used during the initial consultation.

(4) If after consultation under subsection (a)(2) of this section, the Secretary concludes that— (A) the agency action will not violate such subsection, or offers reasonable and prudent alternatives which the Secretary believes would not violate such subsection; (B) the taking of an endangered species or a threatened species incidental to the agency action will not violate such subsection; and (C) if an endangered species or threatened species of a marine mammal is involved, the taking is authorized pursuant to section 1371(a)(5) of this title; the Secretary shall provide the Federal agency and the applicant concerned, if any, with a written statement that— (i) specifies the impact of such incidental taking on the species, (ii) specifies those reasonable and prudent measures that the Secretary considers necessary or appropriate to minimize such impact, (iii) in the case of marine mammals, specifies those measures that are necessary to comply with section 1371(a)(5) of this title with regard to such taking, and (iv) sets forth the terms and conditions (including, but not limited to, reporting requirements) that must be complied with by the Federal agency or applicant (if any), or both, to implement the measures specified under clauses (ii) and (iii).

(c) Biological Assessment. (1) To facilitate compliance with the requirements of subsection (a)(2) each Federal agency shall, with respect to any agency action of such agency for which no contract for construction has been entered into and for which no construction has begun on the date of enactment of the Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1978, request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action. If the Secretary advises, based on the best scientific and commercial data available, that such species may be present, such agency shall conduct a biological assessment for the purpose of identifying any endangered species or threatened species which is likely to be affected by such action. Such assessment shall be completed within 180 days after the date on which initiated (or within such other period as is mutually agreed to by the Secretary and such agency, except that if a permit or license applicant is involved, the 180-day period may not be

Endangered Species Act of 1973 | 291

extended unless such agency provides the applicant, before the close of such period, with a written statement setting forth the estimated length of the proposed extension and the reasons therefor) and, before any contract for construction is entered into and before construction is begun with respect to such action. Such assessment may be undertaken as part of a Federal agency’s compliance with the requirements of section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332). (2) Any person who may wish to apply for an exemption under subsection (g) of this section for that action may conduct a biological assessment to identify any endangered species or threatened species which is likely to be affected by such action. Any such biological assessment must, however, be conducted in cooperation with the Secretary and under the supervision of the appropriate Federal agency.

(e) (1) Establishment of Committee. There is established a committee to be known as the Endangered Species Committee (hereinafter in this section referred to as the ‘‘Committee’’). (2) The Committee shall review any application submitted to it pursuant to this section and determine in accordance with subsection (h) of this section whether or not to grant an exemption from the requirements of subsection (a)(2) of this action for the action set forth in such application. (3) The Committee shall be composed of seven members as follows: (A) The Secretary of Agriculture. (B) The Secretary of the Army. (C) The Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors. (D) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Agency. (E) The Secretary of the Interior. (F) The Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (G) The President, after consideration of any recommendations received pursuant to subsection (g)(2)(B) shall appoint one individual from each affected State, as determined by the Secretary, to be a member of the Committee for the consideration of the application for exemption for an agency action with respect to which such recommendations are made, not later than 30 days after an application is submitted pursuant to this section. (4) (A) Members of the Committee shall receive no additional pay on account of their service on the Committee. (B) While away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services for the Committee, members of the Committee shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in the Government service are allowed expenses under section 5703 of title 5 of the United States Code. (5) (A) Five members of the Committee or their representatives shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of any function of the Committee, except that, in no case shall any representative be considered in determining the existence of a quorum for the transaction of any function of the Committee if

292 | Endangered Species Act of 1973 that function involves a vote by the Committee on any matter before the Committee. (B) The Secretary of the Interior shall be the Chairman of the Committee. (C) The Committee shall meet at the call of the Chairman or five of its members. (D) All meetings and records of the Committee shall be open to the public. (6) Upon request of the Committee, the head of any Federal agency is authorized to detail, on a nonreimbursable basis, any of the personnel of such agency to the Committee to assist it in carrying out its duties under this section. (7) (A) The Committee may for the purpose of carrying out its duties under this section hold such hearings, sit and act at such times and places, take such testimony, and receive such evidence, as the Committee deems advisable. (B) When so authorized by the Committee, any member or agent of the Committee may take any action which the Committee is authorized to take by this paragraph. (C) Subject to the Privacy Act, the Committee may secure directly from any Federal agency information necessary to enable it to carry out its duties under this section. Upon request of the Chairman of the Committee, the head of such Federal agency shall furnish such information to the Committee. (D) The Committee may use the United States mails in the same manner and upon the same conditions as a Federal agency. (E) The Administrator of General Services shall provide to the Committee on a reimbursable basis such administrative support services as the Committee may request. (8) In carrying out its duties under this section, the Committee may promulgate and amend such rules, regulations, and procedures, and issue and amend such orders as it deems necessary. (9) For the purpose of obtaining information necessary for the consideration of an application for an exemption under this section the Committee may issue subpoenas for the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of relevant papers, books, and documents. (10) In no case shall any representative, including a representative of a member designated pursuant to paragraph (3)(G) of this subsection, be eligible to cast a vote on behalf of any member. (f) Regulations. Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of the Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1978, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations which set forth the form and manner in which applications for exemption shall be submitted to the Secretary and the information to be contained in such applications. (g) Application for Exemption and Report to the Committee. (1) A Federal agency, the Governor of the State in which an agency action will occur, if any, or a permit or license applicant may apply to the Secretary for an exemption for an agency action of such agency if, after consultation under subsection (a)(2), the Secretary’s opinion under subsection (b) indicates that the agency action would violate subsection (a)(2). An application for an exemption shall be considered initially by the Secretary in the manner provided for in this subsection, and shall be considered by the Committee for a final determination under subsection (h) after a

Endangered Species Act of 1973 | 293

report is made pursuant to paragraph (5). The applicant for an exemption shall be referred to as the ‘‘exemption applicant’’ in this section. (2) (A) An exemption applicant shall submit a written application to the Secretary, in a form prescribed under subsection (f), not later than 90 days after the completion of the consultation process; except that, in the case of any agency action involving a permit or license applicant, such application shall be submitted not later than 90 days after the date on which the Federal agency concerned takes final agency action with respect to the issuance of the permit or license. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term ‘‘final agency action’’ means (i) a disposition by an agency with respect to the issuance of a permit or license that is subject to administrative review, whether or not such disposition is subject to judicial review; or (ii) if administrative review is sought with respect to such disposition, the decision resulting after such review. Such application shall set forth the reasons why the exemption applicant considers that the agency action meets the requirements for an exemption under this subsection. (B) Upon receipt of an application for exemption for an agency action under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall promptly (i) notify the Governor of each affected State, if any, as determined by the Secretary, and request the Governors so notified to recommend individuals to be appointed to the Endangered Species Committee for consideration of such application; and (ii) publish notice of receipt of the application in the Federal Register, including a summary of the information contained in the application and a description of the agency action with respect to which the application for exemption has been filed. (3) The Secretary shall within 20 days after the receipt of an application for exemption, or within such other period of time as is mutually agreeable to the exemption applicant and the Secretary (A) determine that the Federal agency concerned and the exemption applicant have— (i) carried out the consultation responsibilities described in subsection (a) in good faith and made a reasonable and responsible effort to develop and fairly consider modifications or reasonable and prudent alternatives to the proposed agency action which would not violate subsection (a)(2); (ii) conducted any biological assessment required by subsection (c); and (iii) to the extent determinable within the time provided herein, refrained from making any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources prohibited by subsection (d); or (B) deny the application for exemption because the Federal agency concerned or the exemption applicant have not met the requirements set forth in subparagraph (A) (i), (ii), and (iii). The denial of an application under subparagraph (B) shall be considered final agency action for purposes of chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code. (4) If the Secretary determines that the Federal agency concerned and the exemption applicant have met the requirements set forth in paragraph (3)(A) (i), (ii) and (iii) he shall, in consultation with the Members of the Committee, hold a hearing on the application for exemption in accordance with sections 554, 555, and 556 (other than subsection (b) (1) and (2) thereof) of title 5, United States Code, and prepare the report to be submitted pursuant to paragraph (5).

294 | Endangered Species Act of 1973

(5) Within 140 days after making the determinations under paragraph (3) or within such other period of time as is mutually agreeable to the exemption applicant and the Secretary, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee a report discussing— (A) the availability of reasonable and prudent alternatives to the agency action, and the nature and extent of the benefits of the agency action and of alternative courses of action consistent with conserving the species of the critical habitat; (B) a summary of the evidence concerning whether or not the agency action is in the public interest and is of national or regional significance; (C) appropriate reasonable mitigation and enhancement measures which should be considered by the Committee; and (D) whether the Federal agency concerned and the exemption applicant refrained from making any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources prohibited by subsection (d). (6) To the extent practicable within the time required for action under subsection (g) of this section, and except to the extent inconsistent with the requirements of this section, the consideration of any application for an exemption under this section and the conduct of any hearing under this subsection shall be in accordance with sections 554, 555, and 556 (other than subsection (b)(3) of section 556) of title 5, United States Code. (7) Upon request of the Secretary, the head of any Federal agency is authorized to detail, on a nonreimbursable basis, any of the personnel of such agency to the Secretary to assist him in carrying out his duties under this section. (8) All meetings and records resulting from activities pursuant to this subsection shall be open to the public.

(h) Exemption. (1) The Committee shall make a final determination whether or not to grant an exemption within 30 days after receiving the report of the Secretary pursuant to subsection (g)(5). The Committee shall grant an exemption from the requirements of subsection (a)(2) for an agency action if, by a vote of not less than five of its members voting in person— (A) it determines on the record, based on the report of the Secretary, the record of the hearing held under subsection (g)(4), and on such other testimony or evidence as it may receive, that— (i) there are no reasonable and prudent alternatives to the agency action; (ii) the benefits of such action clearly outweigh the benefits of alternative courses of action consistent with conserving the species or its critical habitat, and such action is in the public interest; (iii) the action is of regional or national significance; and (iv) neither the Federal agency concerned nor the exemption applicant made any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources prohibited by subsection (d); and (B) it establishes such reasonable mitigation and enhancement measures, including, but not limited to, live propagation, transplantation, and habitat acquisition and improvement, as are necessary and appropriate to minimize the adverse effects of the agency action upon the endangered species, threatened species, or critical habitat concerned. Any final determination by Committee under this subsection shall be considered final agency action for purposes of chapter 7 of title 5 of the United States Code.

Endangered Species Act of 1973 | 295 (2) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), an exemption for an agency action granted under paragraph (1) shall constitute a permanent exemption with respect to all endangered or threatened species for the purposes of completing such agency action— (i) regardless whether the species was identified in the biological assessment; and (ii) only if a biological assessment has been conducted under subsection (c) with respect to such agency action. (B) An exemption shall be permanent under subparagraph (A) unless— (i) the Secretary finds, based on the best scientific and commercial data available, that such exemption would result in the extinction of a species that was not the subject of consultation under subsection (a)(2) or was not identified in any biological assessment conducted under subsection (c), and (ii) the Committee determines within 60 days after the date of the Secretary’s finding that the exemption should not be permanent. If the Secretary makes a finding described in clause (i), the Committee shall meet with respect to the matter within 30 days after the date of the finding. (i) Review by Secretary of State. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Committee shall be prohibited from considering for exemption any application made to it, if the Secretary of State, after a review of the proposed agency action and its potential implications, and after hearing, certifies, in writing, to the Committee within 60 days of any application made under this section that the granting of any such exemption and the carrying out of such action would be in violation of an international treaty obligation or other international obligation of the United States. The Secretary of State shall, at the time of such certification, publish a copy thereof in the Federal Register. (j) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Committee shall grant an exemption for any agency action if the Secretary of Defense finds that such exemption is necessary for reasons of national security. (k) Special Provisions. An exemption decision by the Committee under this section shall not be a major Federal action for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.): Provided, That an environmental impact statement which discusses the impacts upon endangered species or threatened species or their critical habitats shall have been previously prepared with respect to any agency action exempted by such order. (l) Committee Orders. (1) If the Committee determines under subsection (h) that an exemption should be granted with respect to any agency action, the Committee shall issue an order granting the exemption and specifying the mitigation and enhancement measures established pursuant to subsection (h) which shall be carried out and paid for by the exemption applicant in implementing the agency action. All necessary mitigation and enhancement measures shall be authorized prior to the implementing of the agency action and funded concurrently with all other project features. (2) The applicant receiving such exemption shall include the costs of such mitigation and enhancement measures within the overall costs of continuing the proposed action. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence the costs of such measures shall not be treated as project costs for the purpose of computing benefit-cost or other ratios for the proposed action. Any applicant may request the Secretary to carry

296 | Endangered Species Act of 1973

out such mitigation and enhancement measures. The costs incurred by the Secretary in carrying out any such measures shall be paid by the applicant receiving the exemption. No later than one year after the granting of an exemption, the exemption applicant shall submit to the Council on Environmental Quality a report describing its compliance with the mitigation and enhancement measures prescribed by this section. Such report shall be submitted annually until all such mitigation and enhancement measures have been completed. Notice of the public availability of such reports shall be published in the Federal Register by the Council on Environmental Quality. (n) Judicial Review. Any person, as defined by section 3(13) of this Act, may obtain judicial review, under chapter 7 of title 5 of the United States Code, of any decision of the Endangered Species Committee under subsection (h) in the United States Court of Appeals for (1) any circuit wherein the agency action concerned will be, or is being, carried out, or (2) in any case in which the agency action will be, or is being, carried out outside of any circuit, the District of Columbia, by filing in such court within 90 days after the date of issuance of the decision, a written petition for review. A copy of such petition shall be transmitted by the clerk of the court to the Committee and the Committee shall file in the court the record in the proceeding, as provided in section 2112, of title 28, United States Code. Attorneys designated by the Endangered Species Committee may appear for, and represent the Committee in any action for review under this subsection. Section 8. International Cooperation (a) Financial Assistance. As a demonstration of the commitment of the United States to the worldwide protection of endangered species and threatened species, the President may, subject to the provisions of section 1415 of the Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1953 (31 U.S.C. 724), use foreign currencies accruing to the United States Government under the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 or any other law to provide to any foreign country (with its consent) assistance in the development and management of programs in that country which the Secretary determines to be necessary or useful for the conservation of any endangered species or threatened species listed by the Secretary pursuant to section 4 of this Act. The President shall provide assistance (which includes, but is not limited to, the acquisition, by lease or otherwise, of lands, waters, or interests therein) to foreign countries under this section under such terms and conditions as he deems appropriate. Whenever foreign currencies are available for the provision of assistance under this section, such currencies shall be used in preference to funds appropriated under the authority of section 15 of this Act. (1) The head of any Federal agency which has issued a lease, license, permit, or other agreement authorizing a person to import or export fish, wildlife, or plants, or to operate a quarantine station for imported wildlife, or authorizing the use of Federal lands, including grazing of domestic livestock, to any person who is convicted of a criminal violation of this Act or any regulation, permit, or certificate issued hereunder may immediately modify, suspend, or revoke each lease, license, permit, or other agreement. The Secretary shall also suspend for a period of up to one year, or cancel, any Federal hunting or fishing permits or stamps issued to any

Endangered Species Act of 1973 | 297 person who is convicted of a criminal violation of any provision of this Act or any regulation, permit, or certificate issued hereunder. The United States shall not be liable for the payments of any compensation, reimbursement, or damages in connection with the modification, suspension, or revocation of any leases, licenses permits stamps, or other agreements pursuant to this section. (2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, it shall be a defense to prosecution under this subsection if the defendant committed the offense based on a good faith belief that he was acting to protect himself or herself, a member of his or her family, or any other individual, from bodily harm from any endangered or threatened species. (d) Rewards and Certain Incidental Expenses. The Secretary or the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, from sums received as penalties, fines, or forfeitures of property for any violation of this chapter or any regulation issued hereunder (1) a reward to any person who furnishes information which leads to an arrest, a criminal conviction, civil penalty assessment, or forfeiture of property for any violation of this chapter or any regulation issued hereunder, and (2) the reasonable and necessary costs incurred by any person in providing temporary care for any fish, wildlife, or plant pending the disposition of any civil or criminal proceeding alleging a violation of this chapter with respect to that fish, wildlife, or plant. The amount of the reward, if any, is to be designated by the Secretary or the Secretary of the Treasury, as appropriate. Any officer or employee of the United States or any State or local government who furnishes information or renders service in the performance of his official duties is ineligible for payment under this subsection. Whenever the balance of sums received under this section and section 6(d) of the Act of November 16, 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3375(d)) as penalties or fines, or from forfeitures of property, exceed $500,000, the Secretary of the Treasury shall deposit an amount equal to such excess balance in the cooperative endangered species conservation fund established under section 6(i) of this Act. (e) Enforcement. (1) The provisions of this Act and any regulations or permits issued pursuant thereto shall be enforced by the Secretary, the Secretary of the Treasury, or the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating, or all such Secretaries. Each such Secretary may utilize by agreement, with or without reimbursement, the personnel, services, and facilities of any other Federal agency or any State agency for purposes of enforcing this Act. (3) Any person authorized by the Secretary, the Secretary of the Treasury, or the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating, to enforce this Act may detain for inspection and inspect any package, crate, or other container, including its contents, and all accompanying documents, upon importation or exportation. Such persons may make arrests without a warrant for any violation of this Act if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested is committing the violation in his presence or view and may execute and serve any arrest warrant, search warrant, or other warrant or civil or criminal process issued by any officer or court of competent jurisdiction for enforcement of this Act. Such person so authorized may search and seize, with or without a warrant, as authorized by law. Any fish, wildlife, property, or item so seized shall be held by any person authorized by the Secretary, the Secretary of the Treasury, or the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating pending disposition of civil or criminal proceedings, or the

298 | Endangered Species Act of 1973 institution of an action in rem for forfeiture of such fish, wildlife, property, or item pursuant to paragraph (4) of the subsection; except that the Secretary may, in lieu of holding such fish, wildlife, property, or item, permit the owner or consignee to post a bond or other surety satisfactory to the Secretary, but upon forfeiture of any such property to the United States, or the abandonment or waiver of any claim to any such property, it shall be disposed of (other than by sale to the general public) by the Secretary in such a manner, consistent with the purposes of this Act, as the Secretary shall by regulation prescribe. (4) (A) All fish or wildlife or plants taken, possessed, sold, purchased, offered for sale or purchase, transported, delivered, received, carried, shipped, exported, or imported contrary to the provisions of this Act, any regulation made pursuant thereto, or any permit or certificate issued hereunder shall be subject to forfeiture to the United States. (B) All guns, traps, nets, and other equipment, vessels, vehicles, aircraft, and other means of transportation used to aid the taking, possessing, selling, purchasing, offering for sale or purchase, transporting, delivering, receiving, carrying, shipping, exporting, or importing of any fish or wildlife or plants in violation of this Act, any regulation made pursuant thereto, or any permit or certificate issued thereunder shall be subject to forfeiture to the United States upon conviction of a criminal violation pursuant to section 11(b)(1) of this Act. (5) All provisions of law relating to the seizure, forfeiture, and condemnation of a vessel for violation of the customs laws, the disposition of such vessel or the proceeds from the sale thereof, and the remission or mitigation of such forfeiture, shall apply to the seizures and forfeitures incurred, or alleged to have been incurred, under the provisions of this Act, insofar as such provisions of law are applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act; except that all powers, rights, and duties conferred or imposed by the customs laws upon any officer or employee of the Treasury Department shall, for the purposes of this Act, be exercised or performed by the Secretary or by such persons as he may designate. (6) The Attorney General of the United States may seek to enjoin any person who is alleged to be in violation of any provision of this Act or regulation issued under authority thereof. (f) Regulations. The Secretary, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating, are authorized to promulgate such regulations as may be appropriate to enforce this Act, and charge reasonable fees for expenses to the Government connected with permits or certificates authorized by this Act including processing applications and reasonable inspections, and with the transfer, board, handling, or storage of fish or wildlife or plants and evidentiary items seized and forfeited under this Act. All such fees collected pursuant to this subsection shall be deposited in the Treasury to the credit of the appropriation which is current and chargeable for the cost of furnishing the services. Appropriated funds may be expended pending reimbursement from parties in interest. (g) Citizen Suits. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection any person may commence a civil suit on his own behalf— (A) to enjoin any person, including the United States and any other governmental instrumentality or agency (to the extent permitted by the eleventh

Endangered Species Act of 1973 | 299 amendment to the Constitution), who is alleged to be in violation of any provision of this Act or regulation issued under the authority thereof; or (B) to compel the Secretary to apply, pursuant to section 6(g)(2)(B)(ii) of this Act, the prohibitions set forth in or authorized pursuant to section 4(d) or section 9(a)(1)(B) of this Act with respect to the taking of any resident endangered species or threatened species within any State; or (C) against the Secretary where there is alleged a failure of the Secretary to perform any act or duty under section 4 which is not discretionary with the Secretary. The district courts shall have jurisdiction, without regard to the amount in controversy or the citizenship of the parties, to enforce any such provision or regulation or to order the Secretary to perform such act or duty, as the case may be. In any civil suit commenced under subparagraph (B) the district court shall compel the Secretary to apply the prohibition sought if the court finds that the allegation that an emergency exists is supported by substantial evidence. (2) (A) No action may be commenced under subparagraph (1)(A) of this section— (i) prior to sixty days after written notice of the violation has been given to the Secretary, and to any alleged violator of any such provision or regulation; (ii) if the Secretary has commenced action to impose a penalty pursuant to subsection (a) of this section; or (iii) if the United States has commenced and is diligently prosecuting a criminal action in a court of the United States or a State to redress a violation of any such provision or (5) The injunctive relief provided by this subsection shall not restrict any right which any person (or class of persons) may have under any statute or common law to seek enforcement of any standard or limitation or to seek any other relief (including relief against the Secretary or a State agency). (h) Coordination with Other Laws. The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary shall provide for appropriate coordination of the administration of this Act with the administration of the animal quarantine laws (21 U.S.C. 101–105, 111–135b, and 612–614) and section 306 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1306). Nothing in this Act or any amendment made by this Act shall be construed as superseding or limiting in any manner the functions of the Secretary of Agriculture under any other law relating to prohibited or restricted importations or possession of animals and other articles and no proceeding or determination under this Act shall preclude any proceeding or be considered determinative of any issue of fact or law in any proceeding under any Act administered by the Secretary of Agriculture. Nothing in this Act shall be construed as superseding or limiting in any manner the functions and responsibilities of the Secretary of the Treasury under the Tariff Act of 1930, including, without limitation, section 527 of that Act (19 U.S.C. 1527), relating to the importation of wildlife taken, killed, possessed, or exported to the United States in violation of the laws or regulations of a foreign country.

300 | Energy-Efficient Labeling Section 12. Endangered Plants The Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, in conjunction with other affected agencies, is authorized and directed to review (1) species of plants which are now or may become endangered, or threatened and (2) methods of adequately conserving such species, and to report to Congress, within one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the results of such review including recommendations for new legislation or the amendment of existing legislation.

taking in violation of the ESA only ‘‘where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavior patterns.’’ This conceptual tightening was clearly intended to rule out the notion that actions causing deterioration of the environment could be equivalent to an unlawful taking. Indeed, the FWS had initially tried to extract any mention of ‘‘environmental modification or degradation’’ from the definition, but relented to vigorous objections. Despite the new emphasis on an actual kill or injure standard, the same plaintiffs prevailed again several years later when they demanded that, in addition to the feral animals, domesticated mouflon sheep also be removed from Mauna Kea, and the state resisted. In 1988, the same district and circuit courts concurred that the survival of the palila could not be ensured as long as the mouflon sheep were present in the same area. Once again both benches ruled that Hawaii had violated the ESA and the regulation prohibiting harm caused by environmental degradation. Even so, neither court asserted that the damage to the palila habitat directly resulted in death or injury to any of the birds. In light of the 1981 regulation, this would seem to be the finding necessary to rule against the state, yet these judges saw it otherwise (Palila v. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources or Palila II). In any case, the issue was far from settled. Jordon Curnutt References Bean, Michael J., and Melanie J. Rowland. The Evolution of National Wildlife Law, 3rd ed. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1997. Donahue, Debra L. Conservation and the Law. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 1998. Musgrave, Ruth, et al. Federal Wildlife Laws Handbook. Rockville, MD: Government Institutes, 1998. Palila v. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (Palila II), 852 F.2d 1106 (9th Cir. 1988).

Energy-Efficient Labeling As individuals and families interact with their environment, they are faced with rules and policies that govern or guide their behavior. Home energy codes and standards, incorporated to ensure safety and performance levels, are among these

Energy-Efficient Labeling | 301

guidelines. To assist consumers with their decision-making behavior regarding energy-related products, energy labels have been developed that identify the most energy-efficient products available. Residential energy standards, codes, and labels are established guidelines for energy performance used in the production and purchase of a home and its equipment. Energy standards are documents prepared by recognized standard-setting organizations that prescribe methods and materials for energy efficiency. Standards act as a technical base for codes. Codes are legal instruments adopted within a political jurisdiction that prescribe acceptable features of structural design and/or performance for energy usage. Energy codes are adopted by state and local governing bodies to designate level of efficiency desired for homes in that locality. Energy labels are placed on homes and home equipment to assist consumers in their purchasing decisions. EnergyGuide and Energy Star are two such labels.

In this March 9, 2010, photo, an ENERGY STAR label is shown on a washing machine at an appliance store in Mountain View, California. About three dozen states are ramping up programs that will provide rebates on ENERGY STAR-rated appliances. About $300 million has been distributed to the states and territories from the federal government as part of the stimulus package approved a year ago. The size of the rebates will vary from state to state, typically maxing out at $250 depending on the appliance. (AP/Wide World Photos)

Appliance and Equipment Energy Standards The first appliance standards to establish minimum energy efficiency were introduced by many states in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Appliance manufacturers, facing the burden of complying with differing state standards, supported the development of federal energy standards. In the late 1970s, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) required the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to develop test procedures for residential appliances that would indicate maximum improvements in energy efficiency that were technologically feasible and economically justified. The National Appliance Energy Conservation Act set the first national efficiency standards for appliances in 1987. The act called for improvements in water use,

302 | Energy-Efficient Labeling

insulation, and motor efficiency, and the incorporation of electronic ignition for gas appliances to replace the standing pilot light. The act also established a schedule for regular updates to these standards that would reflect new product designs or technologies (Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Network, 2001b). Current standards have already saved consumers $1.9 billion and will ultimately save $58 billion in energy costs over the lifetime of appliances installed between 1990 and 2015 (Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Network, 2001a, 3). Model Energy Code The Model Energy Code (MEC), as of 1998, is published and maintained by the International Code Council (ICC) as the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). It lists energy-efficiency criteria for new residential and commercial buildings, as well as additions to existing buildings. The MEC was first published in 1983 and has been amended periodically, with the latest edition appearing in 1998. Different states adopt different versions of the code because they have different schedules for code updates (Office of Building Technology, State and Community Programs, 2002). States may also add their own amendments. EnergyGuide Labels The EnergyGuide label is a bright yellow label with black lettering found affixed to certain types of new home appliances where large differences in energy use exist between similar products on the market. The Federal Trade Commission’s Appliance Labeling Rule of 1980 is a mandatory program that requires that the label be placed on all new refrigerators, freezers, water heaters, dishwashers, and clothes washers. The EnergyGuide label is not required on microwave ovens, electric ranges, clothes dryers, on-demand water heaters, and portable space heaters, but labels could be required in the future (Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Network, 2001c). The EnergyGuide label will not tell you which appliances are the most efficient, but it will allow you to compare annual energy consumption and operating costs. In the center of the label is the estimated yearly electricity consumption shown in kilowatt-hours (kWhs), along with a scale designating the operating costs of similar products from the least to most energy used. The kWh figure is based on average usage assumptions, and actual energy consumption may vary depending on the appliance usage and consumer habits. The labeled model is indicated by an arrow pointing to its position among similar models on the scale. This allows the consumer to see how this product compares to similar products on the market or products in the store (Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Network, 2001c). Labels for appliances that may use either gas or electricity to

Energy-Efficient Labeling | 303

heat water for operation, like clothes washers and dishwashers, also provide a comparison of estimated cost of operation between the two fuels. This estimated cost is based on national average energy costs. Air conditioners, heat pumps, furnaces, and boilers are also required to carry an EnergyGuide label to help consumers compare one model to another, but these labels differ somewhat from the appliance labels. Because the operating costs for these products vary greatly from one home to another depending upon the climate, family size, and other factors, energy use cannot be estimated (Wilson, Thorne, and Morrill, 1999). Instead, these labels include an energy-efficiency rating, and the type of rating varies by product. Some of the ratings used are as follows: 1. AFUE: Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency. Used to compare gas furnaces. Represents the percentage of heat going into the house out of the total burned. 2. HSPF: Heating Season Performance Factor. The heating system performance of an electric heat pump based on standard heating load and outdoor climate over a season. 3. EER: Energy-Efficiency Ratio. Energy efficiency of electric air conditioning equipment based on laboratory tests. 4. SEER: Seasonal Energy-Efficiency Ratio. Seasonal cooling efficiency of a heat pump in its cooling mode, based on a standard cooling load and outdoor climate during a cooling season. 5. COP: Coefficient of Performance. Ratio of a heat pump’s BTU heat output to the BTU electric input based on laboratory tests.

ENERGY STAR Labels The ENERGY STAR labeling program was introduced in 1992 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to identify and promote energy-efficient products in an effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The ENERGY STAR label is not mandatory, so the EPA relies on the voluntary cooperation of manufacturers in having their products tested and retailers in displaying the labels in stores. The use of more energy-efficient products means less electric production and reduced levels of carbon dioxide and other emissions from power plants. The EPA partnered with the Department of Energy (DOE) in 1996 to promote the ENERGY STAR label, with each agency being responsible for particular product categories. ENERGY STAR covers new homes, many building products, residential heating and cooling equipment, major appliances, office equipment, lighting, consumer electronics, and more (Environmental Protection Agency, 2001).

304 | Energy Policy Act of 1992

Consumer products that carry the ENERGY STAR label are among the most energy-efficient products in their category, with energy performances that exceed current standards established for that product. These products also have lower standby energy losses. ENERGY STAR homes are houses constructed with energy-efficient features and equipment that make the structure at least 30 percent (Wilson, Thorne, and Morrill, 1999, 4) more efficient than the current International Energy Conservation Code (formally known as the Model Energy Code) or state energy codes (Kibert, 1999). Julia R. Miller, et al References Alliance to Save Energy. ‘‘Consumers.’’ http://www.ase.org/consumer/home/furnace.htm (accessed January 9, 2002). Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Network. 2001a. ‘‘About DOE’s Appliance Standards Program.’’ http://www.eren.doe.gov (accessed December 20, 2001). Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Network. 2001b. ‘‘Appliance and Lighting Standards.’’ http://www.eren.doe.gov (accessed December 20, 2001). Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Network. 2001c. ‘‘EnergyGuide Labels.’’ http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/consumer_information/energguide.html (accessed December 20, 2001). Kibert, Charles J., ed. Reshaping the Built Environment: Ecology, Ethics, and Economics. Washington DC: Island Press, 1999. Office of Building Technology, State and Community Programs. 2002. ‘‘Codes and Standards: The Model Energy Code.’’ http://www.energycodes.gov (accessed January 25, 2003). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. ‘‘Energy Star.’’ http://www.energy star.gov (accessed December 19, 2001). Wilson, Alex, Jennifer Thorne, and John Morrill. Consumer Guide to Home Energy Savings. Washington DC: American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, 1999.

Energy Policy Act of 1992 On October 24, 1992, President George H. W. Bush officially signed Public Law 102-486, the Energy Policy Act (EPAct). The EPAct aimed to increase clean energy use and promote energy conservation and efficiency in the United States (Kraft, 2005). Its main purpose was to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil by providing tax incentives for renewable energy technologies and restructuring the electric utility industry to promote greater competition (Vaughn, 2007). Additional sections of the EPAct supported coal, oil, and natural gas exploration, alternativefuel vehicles, nuclear power, and energy-related research and development. The EPAct developed in the wake of the Persian Gulf War, at a time when the American political agenda was focused on energy security and Congress was eager

Energy Policy Act of 1992 | 305

President George H. W. Bush is surrounded by gas well workers as he holds up the National Energy Policy Act of 1992, which he signed into law, Saturday, October 24, 1992, on the grounds of a 19,000 foot-deep gas well being drilled near Maurice, Louisiana. Bush hailed the sweeping energy bill as a bipartisan effort to lead the United States into a new era. (AP/Wide World Photos)

to pass a national energy strategy (Vaughn, 2007). For the first time in a decade, Congress and the White House were able to compromise on a policy dealing with alternative fuels and energy-related tax provisions (Idelson, 1992). One noteworthy provision of the statute directed the federal government to increase energy conservation in public buildings and purchase alternative-fuel vehicles. The EPAct has been met with mixed reaction. In November 1992, President George H. W. Bush lauded the EPAct during his unsuccessful reelection bid. Critics, however, attacked the statute for lacking a provision on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and failing to raise fuel efficiency standards for automobiles (Layzer, 2006). The ultimate criticism of the EPAct suggests it has not significantly reduced U.S. dependence on foreign oil (Vaughn, 2007). Scott D. Hardy See also Bush, George H. W.

References Idelson, Holly. ‘‘National Energy Strategy Provisions.’’ Congressional Quarterly (November 28, 1992): 3,722–3,730.

306 | Energy Policy Act of 2005 Kraft, Michael E. ‘‘Environmental Policy in Congress.’’ In Environmental Policy: New Directions for the Twenty-First Century. N. Vig and M. Kraft, eds., 124–147. Washington DC: CQ Press, 2006. Layzer, Judith A. The Environmental Case: Translating Values into Policy. Washington DC: CQ Press, 2006. Vaughn, Jacqueline. Environmental Politics: Domestic and Global Dimensions. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing, 2007.

Energy Policy Act of 2005 The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) was passed by a 74–26 vote and signed into law by President George W. Bush on August 8, 2005. The act was passed in response to growing pressures concerning a lack of a comprehensive energy policy, increasing demand for domestic energy production, and the need to decrease reliance on fossil fuels. In general, the EPAct changed energy policy by authorizing many types of provisions, guarantees, and tax incentives for corporations and individuals related to energy use and development in the United States. Proponents of the EPAct have argued that it provided significant incentives for homeowners to make environmentally friendly home improvements and purchase hybrid vehicles. It also makes strides in reducing the overall consumption of fossil fuels, which could have the long-term effect of reducing reliance on foreign oil and improving the national trade deficit. However, the EPAct has also received strong opposition from scientists, analysts, and politicians, who oppose the heavy incentives and subsidies for corporations, which include loan guarantees for the continued development of ‘‘clean-coal’’ technologies, exemptions for oil and gas producers from specific provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act, and incentives for oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Although Public Law 109-58 was designed to overhaul the energy policy of the United States, it has been argued by many that by focusing on tax incentives and loan guarantees, the United States failed in its attempt to create an adequate and sustainable energy policy. Rachel A. Steagall See also Alternative Energy; Bush, George W.; Safe Drinking Water Act

ENERGY STAR Program The ENERGY STAR Program was established in 1992 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a way to promote cost savings through increased energy efficiency. ENERGY STAR first provided its label on the most efficient

ENERGY STAR Program | 307

computers and computer monitors. In 1995, the U.S. Department of Energy joined the EPA in order to deliver the ENERGY STAR program to a growing number of product categories. The program aims to increase energy efficiency in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and deliver cost savings. The program works with consumers, manufacturers, homebuilders, and business owners and organizations to achieve this goal. ENERGY STAR partners with more than 17,000 organizations to deliver its services. The most well-known feature of the ENERGY STAR program is the ENERGY STAR label, which is found on products in more than 60 categories, including household appliances, office equipment, lighting, and power-management systems. The ENERGY STAR label aims to decrease greenhouse gas emissions by promoting efficient products. Products with the ENERGY STAR label provide equal or better performance in comparison with their peers and use less energy. President Obama’s federal stimulus package included $300 million in rebates for consumers who purchased ENERGY STAR appliances. In addition to the labeling program, ENERGY STAR works with businesses and organizations to improve strategic energy use practices. ENERGY STAR also provides assessment tools to homeowners and building managers. ENERGY STAR-certified buildings and plants are judged against comparable types of facilities in their energy use. These facilities must meet strict energy use standards set by the EPA. In order to receive the ENERGY STAR qualification, a facility must use less energy, operate less expensively, and produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions than its peers. ENERGY STAR-qualified buildings score a 75 or higher on a scale of 1–100 in comparison with their peers. In April 2010, the federal government announced that it would significantly tighten the certification process for products with the ENERGY STAR label. This decision followed a critical audit of the ENERGY STAR labeling program by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the inspector general of the Department of Energy. The audit found that the ENERGY STAR label had been granted to nonexistent products and cited excessive flexibility for companies already registered as ENERGY STAR partners. Increased stringency in the certification process will require that ‘‘all tests submitted by manufacturers will have to be from independent certified labs’’ (Wald and Kaufman, 2010). Furthermore, the EPA will no longer rely on an automated application and approval process to qualify products for the ENERGY STAR program. Anna Schumacher See also Energy Policy Act of 2005; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

References ENERGY STAR. 2009. ‘‘Buildings and Plants.’’ http://www.energystar.gov/index .cfm?c=business.bus_bldgs (accessed March 29, 2010).

308 | Energy Tax Act of 1978 ENERGY STAR. 2009. ‘‘History of ENERGY STAR.’’ http://www.energystar.gov/ index.cfm?c=about.ab_history (accessed March 28, 2010). ENERGY STAR. 2009. ‘‘Major Milestones.’’ http://www.energystar.gov/index .cfm?c=about.ab_milestones (accessed March 28, 2010). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ‘‘U.S. EPA, DOE Announce Changes to Bolster Energy Star Program.’’ Wald, Matthew L., and Leslie Kaufman. ‘‘U.S. Tightens Requirements For Energy Star Certification.’’ New York Times, April 15, 2010.

Energy Tax Act of 1978 During the 1970s, a rising federal budget, higher oil prices, and growing environmental concerns led to a heightened energy conservation movement and the development of alternatives to fossil fuels. As a result, Congress passed several major pieces of new energy legislation, including the Energy Tax Act of 1978. The Energy Tax Act, enacted on November 9, 1978, contained tax credit provisions for homeowners who utilized solar energy in their homes. The act also contained tax credits for businesses using renewable energy equipment. Another important provision of the act introduced the Gas Guzzler Tax, which applies to the sales of vehicles with official EPA-estimated gas mileage below certain specified levels, tax subsidies for gasohol, the Windfall Profits Tax, and various investment tax credits for conservation and renewable-energy production. The Energy Tax Act has undergone numerous revisions in keeping with changing political climates and a free-market approach to energy policy. In keeping with the Reagan policy of a free-market approach to energy, the Windfall Profits Tax was largely repealed in 1988 along with federal tax credits for energy production or investment. By 1988, only the investment tax credits for solar and geothermal power remained. The post-Reagan era saw a number of changes to the tax code, with the most significant being the Energy Policy Act of 1992, which renewed existing production and investment tax credits and raised the gasoline tax. The most recent change is the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which further extended and expanded production and investment tax credits. Yasmeen Waheed See also Reagan, Ronald Wilson

References Metcalf, Gilbert E. ‘‘Federal Tax Policy Towards Energy.’’ Tax Policy and the Economy 21 (2007): 145–184. Procter, Robert J., and Wallace E. Tyner. ‘‘Assessing the Impact of Peak-Load Electricity Pricing and Solar Tax Credits on the Adoption of Solar Energy.’’ Land Economics 60 (February 1984): 49–55.

Environment Reporting | 309

Environment Reporting When lawmakers created the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1970, they didn’t realize it marked the beginning of a new beat in journalism. Before that, reporting about the environment mostly consisted of conservation writing, advocacy journalism crusading to protect wilderness from bulldozers. It was no accident that the public accepted pollution as part of industrial society and progress at that time. Professional public relations specialists working for corporate America actively promoted the view. But by the late 1960s, the picture had changed. As public officials began to talk about the environment, media outlets began to treat the environment as a serious government story. News reporters began getting press releases about environmental quality not only from industry and related sources, but also from government agencies and officials, citizen-action pressure groups, and other institutions, including universities. Opposing viewpoints in the releases led skeptical journalists to begin questioning the accuracy of information from sources they had previously trusted. Until then, the general public was not aware that important issues, such as clean drinking water, were involved. Reporters Rae Tyson in the United States and Michael Keating in Canada were the first to articulate the notion of a cancer cluster to the public and hold lawmakers accountable for pollution. Backed by supporting science and other documentation, Tyson and Keating wrote that dioxin was suspected of causing cancer and other ailments in schoolchildren and their families in the Love Canal, New York, neighborhood of Niagara Falls, the city they covered. Their reports helped make Love Canal a modern-day ghost town in 1980 when former President Jimmy Carter agreed to evacuate and relocate all families living there. The case and its reporting led to public support for the Comprehensive Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (Superfund), which lawmakers approved in 1980 despite heavy lobbying against it by big industrial polluters. By 1985, the public was savvier. That year, the New York Times carried an op-ed by researchers David Sarokin and Warren Muir for the environmental group INFORM challenging lawmakers to know how much and what type of pollution characterized communities. A year later, in 1986, Congress approved the Emergency Planning and Community Rightto-Know-Act (EPCRA), which created the Toxic Release Inventory. The law grew out of public concern surrounding Union Carbide’s releases of toxic gases in the 1984 Bhopal disaster and a smaller 1985 release in Institute, West Virginia. A few years later, in 1989, television reporters showed the world an environmental holocaust for the first time. The oil tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground in Prince William Sound, Alaska, spilling 11 million gallons of oil in one of the

310 | Environmental Cap and Trade

world’s most fragile ecosystems. In 1990, Congress approved an expanded version of EPCRA, the Pollution Prevention Act. In 2005, during the George W. Bush administration, lawmakers proposed changes lowering the reporting standards for TRI. It drew intense criticism, and the matter was dropped. Debra A. Schwartz See also Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know-Act of 1986; Exxon Valdez Spill; Love Canal; Pollution Prevention Act of 1990; Toxics Release Inventory;

References Rubin, D. C., and D. P. Sachs ‘‘Mass Media and the Environment.’’ In The Symbolic Earth: Discourse and Our Creation of the Environment, J. Cantrill and C. Oravec, eds. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1996. Sachsman, D. ‘‘The Mass Media ‘Discover’ the Environment: Influences on Environmental Reporting in the First Twenty Years.’’ In The Symbolic Earth: Discourse and Our Creation of the Environment. J. Cantrill and C. Oravec, eds., 242. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1996. Sachsman, D. ‘‘Public Relations Influence on Environmental Coverage (in the San Francisco Bay Area).’’ PhD diss, Stanford University, 1973. Schwartz, D. A. ‘‘In the Lion’s Mouth: Advocacy and Investigative Reporting About the Environment in the Early 21st Century.’’ PhD diss., University of Maryland, College Park, 2004. Serrin, J., and W. Serrin. Muckraking! The Journalism That Changed America. New York: New Press, 2002.

Environmental Cap and Trade Environmental cap and trade describes a system of reducing pollution by mandating a cap on emissions levels and regulating the exchange of emission allowances. This approach to environmental policy seeks to incorporate free-market principles and represents an alternative to direct taxation and emissions limitation. In the cap-and-trade system, an institution or governing body creates an overall ceiling (or cap) on the emissions of one or more pollutants. The institution then creates a finite number of allowances and distributes them to its associates. Each associate (which may include units as small as privately owned companies or as large as entire nations) may then exhaust, trade, or store allowances within the regulations of the institution. The flexibility provided by this system of exchange allows units to reduce emissions in the manner that is most cost-effective for the individual unit: Associates are not required to reduce emissions by the same amount or at the same rate as others. Although cap-and-trade programs use similar mechanisms, their design and function is unique to the governing body that has created it.

Environmental Cap and Trade | 311

In this September 18, 2009 photo a man works at the ExxonMobil refinery in Baytown, Texas. Texas’ oil and chemical industries are worried about a crackdown on pollution permits in the state. The Environmental Protection Agency has scrapped the state’s ‘‘flexible’’ permits. Those permits have allowed about 140 plants and refineries to exceed toxic emissions limits in the short term, provided they complied with overall federal averages in the long term. The change is set to take effect in 2011. (AP/Wide World Photos)

Economically, cap-and-trade systems attempt to reduce pollution at the lowest abatement cost. Since the cost of reducing emissions varies for individual units, each may choose the most cost-effective method of ensuring the acquisition of allowances equal to the amount of pollutants it emits. Units that can reduce emissions more easily are encouraged by the potential of selling excess allowances and the incentive of lower energy consumption. Those who cannot reduce as efficiently may purchase allowances, thus funding the development of other units. However, members that emit pollutants beyond the amount their allowances provide are penalized for noncompliance. Subsequently, this penalty is significantly more costly than the market value of an allowance. In many cap-and-trade programs, individuals or organizations may also participate in the market. In this way, citizens who are not directly involved in the cap-and-trade system may acquire, trade, or retire allowances. By reducing the number of allowances on the market, retiring

312 | Environmental Cap and Trade

an allowance increases the value of those remaining and prevents the allowance from being used by a regulated unit to cover their emissions. Because associates are financially discouraged to emit high levels of pollutants and are rewarded through the opportunity to sell or bank allowances, cap-and-trade programs provide both negative and positive incentives for reducing emissions. The merits of the cap-and-trade system are most frequently compared with emission-control policies and taxation. The alternatives to cap-and-trade include two different methods of taxation. For instance, a state may choose to set an emissions limit and tax units that emit beyond this threshold. This encourages units to reduce emissions to a specific level. However, this policy may present substantial financial difficulty for some affected units since the cost of emissions abatement varies. Otherwise, a state may simply tax all emissions. While this system encourages units to lower emissions as much as possible, it does not set a limit on the amount of pollutants emitted. Both systems also lack positive incentives for reduction. Although the Environmental Protection Agency began experimenting with emissions trading programs in the 1970s, the first large scale cap-and-trade program was created in the United States through the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Known as the Acid Rain Program, Title IV of the bill sought to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides ‘‘by requiring compliance by affected sources with prescribed emission limitations by specified deadlines, which limitations may be met through alternative methods of compliance provided by an emission allocation and transfer system’’ (Senate, 1990, S 1630). Accordingly, each unit affected by the act was granted allowances based on their consumption of fossil fuels over a two-year period. One allowance permitted a unit to emit one ton of sulfur dioxide. Besides the allotted number, units could purchase additional allowances at an annual Environmental Protection Agency auction or through direct EPA sale (this option became defunct as of 1997). Units were also free to buy and sell allowances to one another as long as the EPA was notified of all transactions and were responsible for calculating and reporting their annual emission levels. The penalty for excess emissions was $2,000 per ton. The act also provided individuals and groups the opportunity to purchase allowances through EPA auction or allowance brokers and retire them. Since the implementation of the Acid Rain Program in 1995, emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxides in the United States had dropped by nearly 50 percent in 2006, and the cost of reductions was lower than initially estimated (Napolitano et al., 2007). The cap-and-trade system became significant on a global scale following the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol in December 1997 by members of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Initial discussion of a global cap-and-trade program was encouraged by the United States at the UNFCCC’s Second Conference of Parties in January 1997. At that meeting,

Environmental Cap and Trade | 313

the U.S. contingent to the conference submitted a formal proposal to the UN Secretariat that advocated a market for emissions equivalents that would be available to member nations and private firms. At the conference in Kyoto, Japan, later that year, the UNFCCC adopted the Kyoto Protocol, which obliged industrialized countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5 percent from 1990 levels (de Lopez et al., 2009). Any member nation that emits greenhouse gases above its mandated target is allowed to purchase emissions-reduction units from a party that is both under their emissions target and willing to sell. However, the protocol did not create a specific exchange market for this purpose. In addition, industrialized nations may receive and trade certified emission reductions through the Clean Development Mechanism by implementing projects that reduce emissions in developing countries. Applicable projects deal with renewable energy, energy efficiency, agriculture, fuel switching, transport, waste, and afforestation. Trading for emissions units is monitored and regulated by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention, and industrialized nations (classified as Annex I states) must submit an annual report on their emissions levels. The Kyoto Protocol has been ratified by all Annex I nations except the United States and came into effect in 2005. In the first year of operation, the Clean Development Mechanism recorded 180 transactions totaling $2.5 billion in carbon finance to developing countries (Lecocq and Ambrosi, 2007). To facilitate compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, the European Union created the world’s largest cap-and-trade market, the European Climate Exchange. On January 1, 2005, the EU’s Emission Trading Scheme (EU-ETS) began to operate in 15 EU member nations. Nations and privately owned companies alike were allowed to buy and sell European Union Allowances (EUAs). These official units of measurement (one allowance permits the holder to emit one metric ton of carbon dioxide) were allocated to member nations throughout the EU. In accordance with the Emissions Trading Directive, at least 95 percent of total EUAs were required to be distributed among emitting installations. However, the lack of sufficient, accurate carbon dioxide inventory data made the allocation process difficult, and data had to be obtained directly from the sources being regulated. Despite this, reports of fraudulent data were relatively few (Ellerman and Buchner, 2007). While each member nation was responsible for proposing a plan for allowance allocation, calculating the total number of allowances required, and actual distribution, these decisions were subject to review by the European Commission. Besides approving the distribution of allowances, the commission sought to limit and eventually reduce the number of EUAs available, assist and regulate the trade of allowances, and provide education about emissions cap-and-trade programs. The EU’s climate program has two distinct phases: a three-year trial phase that lasted from 2005 to 2007 and a second phase corresponding with the Kyoto Protocol that will be in effect from 2008 to 2012. In the program’s initial phase, only

314 | Environmental Cap and Trade

carbon dioxide emissions from combustion installations in excess of 20 megawatts were included in emission totals. This included installations such as power plants, oil refineries, and manufacturers of lime and ceramics, such as brick, glass, pulp, paper, and board (Convery and Redmond, 2007). In Phase I, governments distributed the vast majority of their nation’s EUAs free of charge instead of auctioning them. In fact, only four governments exercised the option to hold auctions: Denmark, Hungary, Lithuania, and Ireland (Ellerman and Buchner, 2007). These factors drove down the market value of emissions allowances to fewer than 50 cents per unit by mid-2007 (Brozek and Hillebrecht, 2008). In Phase II of the EU-ETS, the European Commission reduced emissions allowances in order to reach the target levels set out by the Kyoto Protocol and substantially reduced the number of allowances requested by member nations in their allocation plans. Member nations were also allowed to auction up to 10 percent of EUAs as opposed to the 5 percent allowed in Phase I. For the post-2012 period, the commission has proposed to create an overall cap on emission allowances instead of separate national caps, increase the percentage of auctionable allowances, and include new industries and pollutants. Most recently in the United States, legislators have crafted a bill that would institute a national cap-and-trade program for emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), authored by Democratic representatives Henry A. Waxman of California and Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, passed in the U.S. House of Representatives on June 26, 2009, with a margin of seven votes. Of the 219 ayes, eight voters were members of the Republican Party, while 44 out of 212 representatives who voted no were Democrats. The ACES’s objective is to establish a cap-and-trade program and promote energy efficiency and clean energy technology. To this end, affected units will collectively limit emissions to an amount 3 percent below 2005 levels beginning in 2012. This cap will lower to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050 (Ceronsky and Van Ness Feldman, 2009). Units will initially be allocated emission allowances equivalent to their baseline, defined as the average carbon dioxide consumption equivalent over a three-year period (2004 to 2006). Units may exhaust, trade, bank, and even borrow allowances from their future allocation. However, units that borrow allowances from two to five years in advance will be charged interest. Of the total cap, 85 percent of allowances will be distributed freely and 15 percent will be auctioned. Most of these freely allocated allowances will be phased out after 2025 as the percentage being auctioned expands. The allowance cap is further divided into categories: energy producers and importers and secondary users. Eighty percent of allowances will be made available to energy providers and 20 percent will be accessible to other emitters. From the energy-providers pool, 90 percent of total allowances will be distributed free of charge. This will shrink to 10 percent after

Environmental Cap and Trade | 315

2020 as the amount auctioned increases. Electric utilities would receive the greatest amount of freely allocated emissions in the system’s initial phase (43.75 percent). In comparison, oil refineries would receive only 2 percent. The ACES also allows and regulates the use of offset credits. Units will receive credit for funding emission reductions in uncapped sectors of the domestic economy or in less-developed countries up to a two billion ton limit. Only half of these credits may come from non-domestic projects. Offset credits will be treated as equivalent to emission allowances until 2017, when their value will be reduced to only 20 percent of an allowance. The economic impact of the bill will also be significant. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the ACES will increase federal revenues by $846 billion through the auction of emissions and direct federal spending through the administration of the cap-and-trade system by $821 billion over 10 years (Inside Track, 2009). The Congressional Budget Office also estimates that the average American household would pay an additional $175 annually for energy in 2020, while families who record income in the lowest fifth percentile would save $40 because of energy-assistance funding. Because the bill must also pass the U.S. Senate, the ACES may not become law, and its future is uncertain. Opponents of the ACES bill cite possible problems commonly associated with cap-and-trade programs. These concerns include the possibility of economically handicapping affected units. Because the overall number of emissions allowances will be lowered and auctioned instead of distributed, the market value of an allowance will rise. While this discourages emissions, opponents worry that the natural growth of the economy will actually increase the need for energy while the number of allowances shrinks (Inside Track, 2009). The need to purchase allowances may also increase costs for the consumer and put unaffected units at a competitive advantage. As affected units must purchase allowances or invest in emissions-reducing technology, the price of their product may rise. Another area of concern is the mechanism for distributing allowances. Accurate, verifiable data is required to establish an emissions baseline. Since allowances are not allocated uniformly to different sectors of the economy, certain units will receive a greater amount of distributed allowances than others. Creating a market for emissions trading also provides the opportunity for economic exploitation by firms and brokers. To prevent abuses, an administrative department must be created to oversee the dispensation and exchange of emissions credits, which will increase federal spending and expand governmental bureaucracy. As a recent development in pollution-reduction strategy, cap and trade’s merits and its consequences on a macroeconomic scale over a long period of time continue to be the subject of much debate. Questions concerning the cost, volume, and effectiveness of allowance trading and their relationships have not been fully answered. However, the cap-and-trade system continues to expand and evolve. Emissions-reduction legislation has increasingly used allowance trading

316 | Environmental Cap and Trade

as a policy tool, and programs such as the Clean Air Act, ETS, the Kyoto Protocol, and numerous regional trading schemes ensure that emissions cap and trade will remain politically and economically relevant in the immediate future. Elijah Mendoza See also Acid Rain; Clean Air Act of 1970; Kyoto Protocol

References Brozek, J., and C. Hillebrecht. ‘‘Buying Noncompliance: How Kyoto’s Emissions Market Challenges Existing Concepts of Institutional Effectiveness.’’ Conference Papers—International Studies Association: 1–30. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed April 7, 2010). Ceronsky, M., and C. P. Van Ness Feldman. ‘‘Current Developments in Carbon and Climate Law.’’ Carbon & Climate Law Review 3 (2) (2009): 218–224. Cl o, S. ‘‘The Effectiveness of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme.’’ Climate Policy (Earthscan) 9 (3) (2009): 227–241. Colker, R. M. ‘‘Here’s What’s Likely for New Energy Bill.’’ ASHRAE Journal 51 (8): 84. Convery, F. J., and L. Redmond. ‘‘Market and Price Developments in the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme.’’ Review of Economics and Policy 1 (1) (2007): 88–111. de Lopez, T., et al. ‘‘Clean Development Mechanism and Least Developed Countries: Changing the Rules for Greater Participation.’’ Journal of Environment & Development 18 (4) (2009): 436–452. Ellerman, A. D., and B. K. Buchner. ‘‘The European Union Emission Trading Scheme: Origins, Allocation, and Early Results.’’ Review of Economics and Policy 1 (1) (2007): 66–87. Environmental Protection Agency. ‘‘Acid Rain Program Reconciliation Fact Sheet.’’ http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/arp/reconciliation-factsheet.html (accessed April 7, 2010). European Commission. ‘‘Emission Trading System.’’ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ climat/emission/index_en.htm (accessed April 7, 2010). European Commission. ‘‘Further Guidance on Allocation Plans for the 2008 to 2012 Trading Period of the EU Emission Trading Scheme.’’ Communication from the Commission (December 12, 2005). European Commission. ‘‘Questions and Answers on the Commission’s Proposal to Revive the EU Emissions Trading System.’’ Memo 08/35 (January 23, 2008). European Commission. ‘‘Questions and Answers on Emissions Trading and National Allocation Plans for 2008 to 2012.’’ Memo 06/452 (November 29, 2006). Hiserodt, E. ‘‘CAP & Trade.’’ New American 25 (20) (2009): 10–16. Inside Track. ‘‘$846 Billion ‘Cap and Trade’ Tax Would Damage Struggling Economy.’’ New American 25, No. 15 (2009): 8. Lecocq, F., and P. Ambrosi. ‘‘The Clean Development Mechanism: History, Status, and Prospects.’’ Review of Economics and Policy 1 (1) (2007): 134–151.

Environmental Compliance Program | 317 Napolitano, Sam, et al. ‘‘The U.S. Acid Rain Program: Key Insights from the Design, Operation and Assessment of a Cap-and-Trade Program.’’ Electricity Journal 20 (7) (2007): 47–58. U.S. Congress. Senate. Clean Air Act of 1990. S 1630. 101st Congress, 2nd Session (October 27, 1990).

Environmental Compliance Program As more environmental laws, regulations, and standards are implemented, companies and organizations have begun to create environmental compliance programs to ensure that they meet, or exceed, legal requirements in certain areas. Such a program may include monitoring of the following: air quality, emergency response, lead or asbestos contamination, OSHA guidelines, disposal of hazardous waste, drinking water quality, and many more issues. An environmental compliance program is usually divided into assessment and monitoring. First, an assessment must be carried out to determine what aspects within a company’s operations have an environmental impact. Once these aspects are identified, a system is established by which they may be measured. Many companies take their monitoring and measuring practices to the next level by implementing an environmental management system such as ISO 14001. The International Standards Organization (ISO) has set up a series of guidelines for businesses to follow that will ensure they are acting in compliance with all environmental laws and regulations in their area. Certification to the ISO 14001 standard is maintained through accredited third-party audits, and once obtained, it can be used as proof that business entities meet or exceed regulatory requirements. Certification to the standard is also a source of ‘‘green pride’’ for companies and allows them to prove their legal compliance, while also gaining good public opinion for their actions. The monitoring and measuring of environmentally significant aspects of a business’s activities alone may not be enough to ensure compliance with all laws and regulations. Businesses must also be prepared to act upon the information gathered. Reduction of waste sent to landfills and decreasing the use of nonrenewable natural resources are common objectives that businesses set as part of their efforts to maintain environmental compliance and act as good corporate citizens. Fiona Young-Brown See also Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970

References Environmental Compliance Assistance Platform. http://www.envcap.org/ (accessed April 1, 2010).

318 | Environmental Council of the States International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement. http:// www.inece.org/ (accessed April 1, 2010). International Organization for Standardization. http://www.iso.org/iso/home.html (accessed April 1, 2010).

Environmental Council of the States The Environmental Council of the States fosters states’ roles in air, water and hazardous waste management to protect human health. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rules delegate 75 percent of permits and 90 percent of monitoring and enforcement to the states (Rabe, 2010; Brown and Green, 2001). So the council coordinates across borders and with Congress and federal agencies regarding regulatory policy, funding, technical implementation and public information (Environmental Council of the States, 2010). After the Environmental Protection Agency’s creation in 1970, Congress enacted the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, among other laws through the 1990s (Vig and Kraft, 2010) that stipulated state implementation along with shared costs. ECOS was founded as a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization in 1993. It established an office and staff in Washington, D.C., in 1995. Membership comprises the 50 states’ environmental agency executives, their designees, and alumni. The District of Columbia and Puerto Rico also may join. Because these officials serve their respective governors, ECOS policy positions align with the National Governors Association (Environmental Council of the States, 2010). ECOS emphasizes improving compliance and environmental quality, including states’ authority to exceed federal standards with separate regulation and integrated approaches to pollutants affecting air, water, and industrial commodities (Brown and Green, 2001; Environmental Council of the States, 2010; Brown, 2010). The Environmental Research Institute of the States is a subsidiary that undertakes policy research and education programs. The institute also sponsors the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council. This group reviews new remediation technologies and offers training and guidance to regulators, consultants, and public and private users. The ITRC is supported by industry, the U.S. Departments of Energy and Defense, and the Environmental Protection Agency (Environmental Council of the States, 2010). ECOS began an Environmental Health Forum in 2003 to collaborate with state health agencies and assess connections between environmental situations and public health (Environmental Council of the States, 2010). ECOS administers the ChemicalRight2Know.org Web site under an agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency to provide information about toxic pollutants. Rita Truschel

Environmental Decade | 319 See also Air Pollution Control Act of 1955; Air Quality Act of 1967; Clean Air Act of 1970; Safe Drinking Water Act

References Brown, R. Steven, executive director, Environmental Council of the States. Interview with author, April 7, 2010. Brown, R. Steven, and Valerie Green. ‘‘Environmental Council of the States.’’ Report to Congress: State Environmental Agency Contributions to Enforcement and Compliance, 2001. http://www.ecos.org (accessed April 7, 2010). ChemicalRight2Know. http://www.chemicalright2know.org (accessed April 7, 2010). Environmental Council of the States. http://www.ecos.org (accessed April 7, 2010). Rabe, Barry, professor of public policy, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan. Interview with author, April 8, 2010. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. www.epa.gov (accessed April 8, 2010). Vig, Norman J., and Michael E. Kraft, eds. Environmental Policy: New Directions for the Twenty-First Century. Washington DC: CQ Press, 2010.

Environmental Decade The 1970s was a very important decade for U.S. environmental policy and is often referred to as the ‘‘Environmental Decade.’’ This is due to the fact that several prominent environmental laws were passed during this time. The 1970s saw major public involvement and pressure on government to address growing environmental concerns. On April 22, 1970, the first Earth Day was held, and millions of citizens participated across the country. The U.S. government responded to these demands for state protection of the environment with the passage of important environmental laws like the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act, to name a few. The decade has been deemed by historians as one of the most successful for environmental policy (Sale, 1993). This article explores the actors, events, and laws that have resulted in the designation of the 1970s as the Environmental Decade. During the 1970s, the public awareness for environmental issues garnered in the 1960s was built upon by the environmental movement, which is credited for much of the political success during this time (Shabecoff, 2000, and Hays, 1987). Events like Love Canal and the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor accident jarred public confidence in the ability and desire of private industry to protect human and environmental health, creating demand for government intervention. In the 1970s, the environmental movement made the transition from a grassroots movement with a strategy of direct action to a more nationally organized political force through the professionalization of key environmental movement groups such as

320 | Environmental Decade

the Sierra Club and the creation of those like Greenpeace and the Natural Resources Defense Council (Sale, 1993; Bosso, 2005). These groups opened offices in Washington, D.C., and brought scientists and lawyers onto their payrolls in order to better compete with polluting industries in the political arena. Their voices did not go unheeded. President Richard Nixon addressed the salient issue of the environment in an attempt to gain political support to help him get reelected to a second term (Flippen, 2000). He signed the National Environmental Policy Act on January 1, 1970, and created the Environmental Protection Agency on December 2, 1970. In the same year, the Clean Air Act was signed, strengthening the standards established by the Air Pollution Control Act of 1955 and the first Clean Air Act of 1963. Historians have given much of the credit for the 1970 Water Pollution Control Act to Congress (Milazzo, 2006). Congressional action on environmental policy was not only instigated by the demands of a vocal public through the environmental movement, but also in response to industries wanting uniform national standards. For example, some would argue that the federal government introduced national ambient air standards in the 1970s through the Clean Air Act and amendments in response to private industry pressure to have one simpler system of regulations to adhere to rather than the multitude that existed and differed from state to state (Smith, 2009). After winning reelection in 1972 on a platform that continued to address growing environmental concerns, presidential and congressional action on the environment continued to be strong in the early half of the decade. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, which has often been called the only environmental law with teeth, was passed (Sale, 1993). The courts have played an important role in enforcing environmental policy, especially in the case of the ESA and NEPA. In Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, et al., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Tellico Dam project be halted despite government investment of more than $80 million into it. The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 was also passed and set national standards for maximum levels of toxins in drinking water. The Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council were formed to specifically specialize in environmental litigation, of which NEPA was a major focus (Wenner, 1982). While Nixon has often been called ‘‘the environmental president,’’ his predecessor, President Gerald R. Ford, was not a major player where the issue of the environment was concerned. This was due to the political climate of the time, which saw heavy concern for government scandals like Watergate and the controversial war in Vietnam. Additionally, President Ford held a free-market, antiregulatory position on the environment (Soden and Steel, 1999). Although policies like the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, a law to protect public lands, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, a law to safely and efficiently deal with waste, were passed during President Ford’s term,

Environmental Decade | 321

momentum for these policies had begun before he came into office (Soden, 1999). President Jimmy Carter is remembered as the first president to attempt to create a comprehensive national energy plan in response to the energy crisis caused by the OPEC oil embargo of 1973. His National Energy Act of 1978 established the first electricity feed in law in the world through the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA), significantly increasing renewable-energy development. He also presided over Love Canal, which he declared an emergency when it was discovered that neighborhood had been built on top of a toxic waste dump. The Love Canal incident ultimately led to the passage of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as ‘‘Superfund,’’ which ensures the cleanup of toxic waste sites (Hays, 1987). Also during President Carter’s term amendments to the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act were passed as well as the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, which establishes standards for damage caused to land from coal mining and was originally vetoed when sent to President Ford in 1974 and 1975. Subsequent federal action on the environment has failed to reach the level that it did in the 1970s. During the following decade, presidents like Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush revised, repealed, or rolled back many of the laws and regulations passed during the Environmental Decade. Growing concern about the issue of climate change could result in a revival of environmental policymaking in the coming years. Katrina Darleen Taylor See also Clean Air Act of 1970; Clean Water Act of 1972; Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; Earth Day; Endangered Species Act of 1973; Greenpeace; Nixon, Richard; Safe Drinking Water Act; Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977

References Bosso, Christopher. Environment, INC. From Grassroots to Beltway. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2005. Flippen, J. Brooks, Nixon and the Environment, Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2000. Hays, Samuel. Beauty, Health, and Permanence: Environmental Politics in the United States, 1955–1985. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Milazzo, Paul. Unlikely Environmentalists: Congress and Clean Water, 1945–1972. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 2006. Sale, Kirkpatrick. The Green Revolution: The American Environmental Movement, 1962–1992. New York: Hill and Wang, 1993. Smith, Zachary A. The Environmental Policy Paradox. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2009.

322 | Environmental Defense Fund Soden, Dennis L., and Brent S. Steel, ‘‘Evaluating the Environmental Presidency.’’ In The Environmental Presidency, ed. Dennis L. Soden. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999. Wenner, Lettie M. The Environmental Decade in Court. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982.

Environmental Defense Fund The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) is a mainstream, nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting the environmental rights of all people. It defines those rights as access to clean air and water, healthy and nourishing food, and flourishing ecosystems. The EDF is guided by science and works to create solutions that

In this handout photo provided by EDF, David Yarnold (right) executive director of the Environmental Defense Fund, displays EDF’s new report ‘‘Innovations Review 2008: Making Green the New Business as Usual,’’ as California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (center) and Sun Microsystems CEO Jonathan Schwartz look on, May 20, 2008, at EDF offices in San Francisco, California. ‘‘Innovations Review 2008’’ highlighted best practices that provided both environmental and business benefits and showcased green innovations by many California corporations. (Getty Images)

Environmental Defense Fund | 323

are nonpartisan, cost-efficient, and fair. Their goals include stabilizing Earth’s environment, preserving species and habitat, protecting human health, and safeguarding ocean and marine life. The EDF has more than 500,000 members, a yearly expenditure of over $100 million in programming and supporting services, and nine offices in the United States. Its staff of 300 includes scientists, attorneys, economists, and support personnel. Scientists from the Brookhaven National Laboratory, the State University of New York, and residents made up Long Island’s Brookhaven Town Natural Resources Coalition (BTNRC), an environmental discussion group that later became the Environmental Defense Fund. The BTNRC’s leaders were concerned about the use of the pesticide DDT. They joined forces with attorney Victor Yannacone in 1966 when he enlisted them for their scientific expertise for a classaction lawsuit regarding a DDT-related fish kill in a lake on Long Island. During the litigation, a state supreme court judge granted a temporary injunction that stopped the DDT spraying. This showed that litigation backed by science and technical expertise was an effective tool to stop DDT. The Yannacone/BTNRC group tried but failed to get the Audubon Society to start a legal defense fund. Their only choice was to begin their own organization. They incorporated the EDF in New York state in 1967. The EDF’s early adversarial strategy was encapsulated by Yannacone’s trademark phrase, ‘‘Sue the bastards.’’ But as times changed and Yannacone left the organization in 1970, its strategy refocused to linking science, litigation, and policy process. A major grant it received from the Ford Foundation stipulated that it install a litigation review committee that had final say over EDF litigation. By 1970, the EDF helped bring all hunted whales on the endangered species list. Through the mid-1970s, the EDF litigated major cases in pesticides, lead toxicity, and the fight against the SST. In addition to litigation strategy, the EDF cooperated with industry to find solutions. During the Reagan and Bush years, this method worked as a strategy to promote market incentives instead of regulation to change environmental policy. When Frederic Krupp, an attorney, became the executive director in the early 1980s, he emphasized fund-raising and reinforced the group’s market-based initiatives ideology. One of their major victories during the eighties was helping convince the government to ban leaded gasoline. Other wins were playing a part in getting the state of California to pass the first vehicle emission law to reduce global warming in 2002. One of the EDF’s current major focuses is global warming. In 2007, the potential purchasers of energy giant TXU Energy asked the EDF and other environmental groups to negotiate an agreement where they would approve of the deal. This unprecedented agreement resulted in the cancellation of eight out of eleven proposed coal plants in Texas, the reduction of TXU’s carbon emissions to 1990

324 | Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corporation (2007)

levels by 2020, and other environmental considerations. This corporate turnaround in dealing with global warming sends a strong signal to the business community and secures the EDF’s place in affecting environmental policy. Timothy O’Brien See also Natural Resources Defense Council

References Environmental Defense Fund, http://www.edf.org/. Gottlieb, Robert. Forcing the Spring: The Transformation of the American Environmental Movement. Washington DC: Island Press, 1993.

Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corporation (2007) In the 1970s, Congress amended the Clean Air Act with New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) programs, which required power plants to apply for government permits before making modifications that would increase air-polluting emissions. In 1980, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued rules and regulations to carry out these programs. Between 1988 and 2000, Duke Energy Corporation modified dozens of its coal-fired electric generators without first obtaining permits. As a result, the United States filed an enforcement action, and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), a nonprofit environmental rights organization founded in 1967, filed a lawsuit against Duke in federal court. Duke maintained that because its modifications did not increase hourly emissions—a feat attained by extending the plants’ hours of operation—it did not have to obtain PSD permits. Both the EPA and the EDF disagreed, arguing that modified plants must reduce their total annual emissions through pollution-control measures. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court vacated the Fourth Circuit Court’s ruling and sided with the EDF. Delivering the opinion of the Court, Justice David Souter (2007) explained, ‘‘Absent any iron rule to ignore reasons for regulating PSD and NSPS ‘modifications’ differently, EPA’s construction need do no more than fall within the limits of what is reasonable.’’ Therefore, the petitioners’ insistence on measuring annual emissions rates, rather than hourly rates, was perfectly reasonable. Environmental groups have hailed the decision as a victory for air quality and a signal that power plants will begin to modernize pollution controls. Dennis Urban See also Clean Air Act of 1970; Environmental Defense Fund; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Environmental Education Act of 1970 | 325

References Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corporation, No. 05-848 (U.S. April 2, 2007). Environmental Defense Fund. ‘‘Court Rules 9–0 for Environmental Defense.’’ http:// www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentID=5569 (accessed February 19, 2009).

Environmental Education Act of 1970 The National Environmental Education Act of 1970 (NEEA, also known as the Environmental Quality Education Act of 1970 or Public Law 91-516) was signed into law by President Richard Nixon on October 30, 1970. The act was one of many environmentally related laws passed during the 1970s (e.g., the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act), as this was a time of high environmental consciousness in the United States. Senator Gaylord Nelson (D-WI) is credited with writing the act, which had the expressed purpose of protecting the environment and/or enhancing environmental quality through education. Considered the impetus of environmental education in the United States, the NEEA’s mandate was to incorporate environmental education into the larger fabric of both formal and informal American education, especially K–12 schools. Specifically, it called for an enhancement of environmental appreciation and management through broadly diffused education (Marcus, 1984). The NEEA authorized the creation of an Office of Environmental Education (OEE) in the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW); the establishment of a National Advisory Council for environmental education; and the establishment of a domestic grants program to provide professional development for teachers and develop environmental-education curricula. The act also provides a definition of environmental education. For the purposes of the NEEA, environmental education was defined as the educational process dealing with man’s relationship with his natural and human-made surroundings, and including the relation of population, pollution, resource allocation and depletion, conservation, transportation, technology, and urban and rural planning to the total human environment (Public Law 91-516). Though the intent of the NEEA was to incorporate learning about the environment into the American school system, it was controversial and unpopular with many school officials, especially those at the elementary and secondary levels (Marcus, 1984). Officials claimed overload: that environmental education could not be incorporated into the existing curriculum without giving up something else. In addition, although the NEEA and its amendments (PL 93-278, PL 94-273, and PL 95-561) authorized significant annual budgets to the OEE, congressional allocations to support the OEE’s work were minimal. Allocations maintained the

326 | Environmental Impact Statements

office but limited the number of grants that the OEE could provide. By 1981, funding issues, problems with implementation, and an eventual shifting of focus toward economic issues brought about the NEEA’s demise. The passage of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 repealed the NEEA and eliminated the OEE and the programs it managed. The federal government’s commitment to environmental education was restored however, on November 16, 1990, with the passage of the National Environmental Education Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-619). The 1990 act again established an Office of Environmental Education, placing it within the Environmental Protection Agency to develop and administer. The 1990 act also authorized an environmental education and training program, environmental education grants, student fellowships, the President’s Environmental Youth Awards Program, the Federal Task Force and National Advisory Council, the National Environmental Education and Training Foundation, and the Council for Environmental Education. Brigette Bush-Gibson References Brezina, Dennis W. Congress in Action: The Environmental Education Act. New York: Free Press, 1974. Marcus, Melvin G. ‘‘The Environmental Education Act: Success or Failure?’’ Transition: A Quarterly Journal of the Socially and Ecologically Responsible Geographers 14 (4) (1984): 2–8. Palmer, Joy A. Environmental Education in the 21st Century: Theory, Practice, Progress, and Promise. New York: Routledge, 1998. Public Law 91-516. National Environmental Education Act, 1970.

Environmental Impact Statements Projects and programs have potential negative impacts on the environment. U.S. law (PL 91-190) mandates an environmental impact statement (EIS) for federal government agency actions significantly affecting the quality of the ecological and human environment. This document is a requirement of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), which was drafted and passed in response to growing concerns about ecological health. It does not prohibit the federal government or its contractors from harming the environment, but requires that the potential impacts be understood, disclosed, and addressed. In addition to establishing EIS reporting, the act also created the president’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The CEQ, an executive branch committee, coordinates federal environmental efforts and works with agencies to develop environmental and energy policies and initiatives. The CEQ also works to balance often-

Environmental Impact Statements | 327

conflicting social, economic, and environmental goals and oversees the implementation of the EIS process. The primary purpose of NEPA is to promote informed decision-making by federal agencies with regard to the environment. The EIS provides the detailed information necessary to determine the significance of impact. It is the document that outlines the potential environmental effects of a particular project in which the federal government is involved. For the purpose of EIS reporting, a project is considered federal if it requires federal licensing, federal funding, or is undertaken by the federal government. The original guidelines drafted in 1971 were significantly revised in 1978 and mostly remain as the present standards (40 CFR Parts 1500– 15081). The EIS is specifically described in Part 1502 of the regulations. Because projects and actions greatly differ, the reporting requirements may also differ, but each one has four sections: • an introductory statement which defines the purpose and need for the proposed action, • a description of the affected environment and the adverse effects that cannot be avoided if the proposal is implemented, • alternatives to the proposed action, and • an analysis of the environmental impacts of each alternative. The consistent principal for all EISs is that the report must discuss the total impact of the project on the environment. According to CEQ guidelines, the EIS should consider the following: • direct and indirect effects of the project, • interference with other activities, • energy and resource requirements, • conservation and reparation potential, • preservation of urban, historic, and cultural quality, and • ways to minimize damage. The NEPA/EIS process can be lengthy as there are several steps for analysis. The documents that comprise an EIS often require substantial expertise and are most often compiled by contracted consulting firms rather than the federal agency. For complex projects, it can take years to complete a draft and can result in voluminous reports. The process also involves a public participation process that aims to resolve conflicts prior to the commencement of work.

328 | Environmental Impact Statements

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a unique role in the EIS review process. Under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, it is responsible for reviewing and publicly commenting on federal actions addressed by an EIS. It also has assures disclosure to the public. However, the EPA does not maintain copies of EISs for public distribution but provides a weekly list (Notice of Availability) that is published in the Federal Register. This list contains the agency contact person so interested parties can make a direct request for the documents. The EPA also informs the public of other means to obtain EISs. In addition to the EPA Repository and private companies, the Northwestern University Transportation Library has one of the largest collections and holds nearly all of the EISs issued by federal agencies since 1969. Thus, disclosure is not direct but requires actions by affected and concerned citizens and stakeholders. In addition to disclosure, the EIS process requires a public review and comment period. In fact, the public role in the NEPA process is considered particularly important for providing input on the issues that should be addressed in an EIS and for commenting on findings within the documents. The public participates by attending public meetings, NEPA-related hearings, and by submitting comments directly to the lead agency. The initial opportunity for participation is called ‘‘scoping’’—this occurs after an EIS has been determined necessary. This is the early phase during which the scope of issues to be addressed is identified and during which citizens and other stakeholders (e.g., politicians, special interest groups, etc.) can assist the process through oral and written comment. It normally lasts from 45 to 60 days. The second phase of public involvement is the 45-day review and comment period after distribution of the draft EIS, or DEIS. No less than one public hearing is held during this period. All comments must be addressed by the lead agency and incorporated into the final EIS. Afterward, the record of decision is publicized and the plan goes to implementation. The rules for the phases and actions are stipulated in the CEQ regulations. An EIS is not always required and is not necessarily an option during emergencies. When an action may not cause a significant impact, the reporting agency can submit an abbreviated document called an environment assessment (EA). This will be reviewed to determine if an EIS is required. If no significant impact is likely, the agency will release a statement and can proceed with the action. When an action is identical or closely similar to previous work, an EIS or EA may be waived under the criteria for categorical exclusion (CATEX). Some agencies maintain a list of actions that fall within these categories. A CATEX can also be issued for emergency situations because of the lack of time to prepare the documents. Regardless of the reporting mechanism, when the EPA determines that a proposed federal action is environmentally unsatisfactory, the matter is referred to the CEQ. For resolution, the CEQ functions as a referee over disagreements regarding the adequacy of and assessment contained in the reports. Denese M. Neu

Environmental Justice | 329 See also Clean Air Act of 1970; Conservation; Environmental Decade; National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

References Council on Environmental Quality. NEPAnet. http://ceq.hhs.doe.gov/nepanet.htm. Heimlich, Joe E., and Mitchell Smith. ‘‘Environmental Impact Statements: CDFS-188 (Fact Sheet).’’ Ohio State University. http://ohioonline.osu.edu/cd-fact/0188.html (accessed April 10, 2010). U.S. Department of the Navy. ‘‘The Public Process for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).’’ http://projects.earthtech.com/uswtr/Public_Involvement_index.htm (accessed April 10, 2010). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Environmental Policy Act. http:// www.epa.gov/compliance/basics/nepa.html (accessed April 10, 2010).

Environmental Justice Although issues of environmental justice can be traced back to ancient Roman laws and codes, the 1970s began a resurgence of movements related to environmental conditions and their impact on humans. This revival has continued throughout the 1990s and into the twenty-first century. Interestingly, the issues of environmental justice addressed vary according to the involvement of a particular interest group. The primary interest groups involved with environmental justice issues are activists, researchers, and lawyers. Corporate leaders and politicians also have exerted considerable influence on environmental problems and decisions about how to deal with them (Cable, Hastings, and Mix, 2002; Simon, 2000). Operational Definitions What is environmental justice? In the most general sense, environmental justice is defined as the broad conceptual frameword used by organizations and groups that seek and promote social justice and equity in the face of the social inequities implicit in environmental policies (Rios, 2000). More specific terms are environmental racism and environmental equity (Fritz, 1999; Rios, 2000). Environmental racism is operationally defined as deliberate or intentional decisions that have been made to place hazardous waste sites, incinerators, landfills, and industries producing air pollutants in poor communities (Rios, 2000). Environmental equity is a term frequently used by regulatory agencies that accept the proposition that procedural equity exists in the current system and that it is impossible to make environmental decisions that involve no risk to anyone. According to this way of thinking, each interest group must lobby for what it wants, and the result will be equity (Rios, 2000).

330 | Environmental Justice

Movements and Legislation Addressing Environmental Justice Environmental justice issues and movements are rooted in environmental protection and civil rights. The United Church of Christ’s Commission for Racial Justice is an example of a civil rights initiative that has focused on uncovering and connecting racial disparities in the location of hazardous waste sites. And in 1991, the first National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit, organized by the Commission for Racial Justice, was held. Issues of the movement broadened from a specific focus on antitoxins to public health, worker safety, land use, transportation, housing, resource allocation, and community empowerment. The U.S. Office of Environmental Equity was created in 1992, the result of a discussion of environmental racism by representatives of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, and a group of academics (Cable, Hastings, and Mix, 2002; Perhac, 2000; Williams, 1999). In 1994, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12898, addressing environmental justice for low-income and minority populations and reinforcing Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title IV prohibits racial discrimination in the practices of programs receiving federal funding and in federal agencies, and ensures that people will not be denied participation or benefits because of race, color, or national origin. This executive order also was created to develop methodologies for better data collection and to encourage affected populations to participate in impact assessment. Another outcome of this action was the formation of the National Environmental Advisory Council to serve in an advisory capacity to the Environmental Protection Agency on methods of achieving environmental justice (Cable, Hastings, and Mix, 2002; Perhac, 2000). Later in 1994, one of the members of the National Environmental Advisory Council established the Environmental Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University for the purpose of bringing together community activists and academic researchers. The center acts as a clearinghouse, sharing information on research and policy on a broad range of issues central to environmental problem solving and decision-making, and provides education to support the expansion of knowledge related to environmental issues (Cable, Hastings, and Mix, 2002). Environmental Justice within a Human Ecological Framework A common human ecological thread is woven throughout the environmental justice literature, which focuses on analysis of the interaction and interdependence of human and social systems with ecological systems. Shirley Zimmerman (2001) gives a good account of the elements that must be considered in any understanding of the problems associated with achieving environmental justice: 1. The institutional perspective, based on the structure of government, the values and norms that underlie this structure, and the legitimacy, authority, and universality of policy decisions.

Environmental Justice | 331

2. Political-cultural theory, dealing with values, attitudes, and habitual behaviors constrained and influenced by the perceptions that people hold toward government and each other. 3. Interest-group theory, focused on the balance and imbalance of different groups in influencing government action. 4. Elite theory, focused on the importance of hierarchy, and the position, influence, and power of the elite. 5. Systems theory, focused on outputs, links, interactions, and interdependencies among individuals, families, and aspects of the environment such as climate, natural resources, cultural norms, values, economy, technology, and so on. Keeping in mind the elements Zimmerman lays out, it’s possible to make a meaningful comparison between those involved in mainstream environmental movements and those who are affected by environmental degradation. Demographically, the former group is predominantly white, upper middle class, well educated, politically involved and astute, and focused on the national level of environmental problems. Frequently, this orientation does not adequately address the social, political, and economic consequences for the poor of environmental decisions by which they are most affected. The poor typically include people of color, poor whites, or members of female-headed households, who are characterized by political and economic weakness, as well as by exposure to high environmental risks. The use of protest is a primary strategy for influencing the political process, yet those who are most apt to suffer from environmental decisions have the least ability to engage in effective protest (Clay, 1999; Fritz, 1999; Cable, Hastings, and Mix, 2002; Rios, 2000). Major functions of the family involve valuing, goal setting, decision-making, acting, and interacting. Environmental inputs to the system are matter/energy and information. Environmental outputs include human capital, goods, and services. Outputs are influenced by the manner in which inputs are translated and transformed within the system. Information, feedback, and responses are a necessary part of the system. They aid in the self-regulation and self-direction of individual, family, and community behaviors. Hampered at the outset, individuals, families, and communities that are the victims of environmental injustice are typically unsuccessful in addressing issues of environmental justice; they operate from a base of powerlessness, suffering from economic, social, and political disparities that confine their effectiveness within established, narrow boundaries. Further, they often hold a basic mistrust of government. That is, their understanding of the value of the political process differs from those in the mainstream of the environmental movement and other community-based interest groups, and thus they tend to be skeptical about the efficacy of environmental actions. The voices of the disenfranchised have not been heard and have not often succeeded in influencing political decision-making. For the disenfranchised, the

332 | Environmental Justice

negative impact of environmental degradation and environmental health outcomes continues, while knowledge of laws, rules, and organizational structures— which is contained in documents filled with technical, culturally insensitive language—remains limited. The results of these inputs into family and community environments are not positive, disabling the potentially constructive interaction and feedback between human society and the larger ecosystem. Although environmental interest groups are mobilized, the elite—often representing corporations—hold a position of influence, power, and an economic base that have impeded equitable participation in environmental decision-making for marginalized social groups (Simon, 2000). If the transformation of individuals, families, and communities, and the growth of human capital and an improved quality of life are expected from environmental inputs, a holistic or systems approach is crucial. The future of political actions—locally, nationally, and globally—depends on the clarity of collective voices (Cable, Hastings, and Mix, 2002). Lawyers, activists, researchers, corporate leaders, government officials, and all stakeholders must unite in a coherent manner. Furthermore, the dominance of a largely capitalistic, profit-driven agenda, implemented at the expense of environmental justice, must end or be significantly minimized in order to successfully deal with the moral and critical health dilemmas created by environmental degradation and injustices. By doing this, advocates for environmental justice can turn the many environmental challenges now facing our most vulnerable communities into promising futures. Julia R. Miller References Bubolz, Margaret M. Beatrice Paolucci: Shaping Destiny through Everyday Life. East Lansing, MI: Paolucci Book Committee, 2002. Cable, Sherry, Donald W. Hastings, and Tamara L. Mix. ‘‘Environmental Racism Claims by Activists, Researchers and Lawyers.’’ Human Ecology Review 9 (2002): 26–42. Clay, Rebecca. ‘‘Still Moving toward Environmental Justice.’’ Environmental Health Perspectives 107 (1999): 308–310. Fritz, Jan, Marie. ‘‘Searching for Environmental Justice: National Stories, Global Possibilities.’’ Social Justice 26 (1999): 174–189. Perhac, Ralph. ‘‘Environmental Quagmire.’’ Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy 15 (2000): 90–94. Rios, Jo Marie. ‘‘Environmental Justice Groups: Grass-Roots Movement or NGO Networks? Some Policy Implications.’’ Policy Studies Review 17 (2000): 179–211. Simon, David, R. ‘‘Corporate Environmental Crimes and Social Inequality: New Directions for Environmental Justice Research.’’ American Behavioral Scientist 43 (2000): 633–645. Williams, Robert W. ‘‘The Contested Terrain of Environmental Justice Research: Community as Unit of Analysis.’’ Social Science Journal 36 (1999): 313–328. Zimmerman, Shirley L. Family Policy: Constructed Solutions to Family Problems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001.

Environmental Protection Information Center | 333

Environmental Protection Information Center The Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC) is a community-based nonprofit organization that protects and restores forests, coastal areas, and native species in northwestern California. Local residents began mobilizing in 1977 to oppose the use of herbicides by industrial logging companies. Since then, EPIC has worked toward promoting sustainable practices surrounding natural resources through grassroots organizing and outreach campaigns. EPIC members often identify as environmental activists who accomplish their goals through political participation, lobbying, research, and litigation to ensure that environmental laws are enforced and biodiversity is protected. Often, their activities focus on the protection of species threatened by logging in the region. Several successful conservation campaigns to protect fish, wildlife, fauna, and agriculture have altered timber practices. Specifically, EPIC has successfully challenged large multinational corporations in protection of old-growth forests in the area. EPIC operates from the principal that human practices can and do threaten ecological and biological systems, often unnecessarily. Further, EPIC holds public community forums, events, and media outreach that educates citizens that global corporate capitalism often participates in the oppression of people and the destruction of nature. For example, among EPIC’s primary work has been challenges to lumber companies that have resulted in injunctions of foresting of redwood timber in the area (Bergman, 1999; Hill, 2000). Recent EPIC efforts have been initiatives that focus on climate change in the region, specifically the reduction of coastal fog and its effects on the redwood forests and dependent species. EPIC argues that clear-cut foresting practices of logging and timber companies are creating changes to the coastal climate system, creating drought and heat stress for redwood forests, resulting in fewer trees growing to maturity. In recent years, EPIC has developed a group of allies from academic to legal entities to effectively protect old-growth and threatened habitats within four national forests. EPIC provides expert level knowledge on public land issues, biodiversity protection, clean water, industrial forestry, and wildfires. EPIC continues to monitor projects and policies on private and public lands across northwestern California, primarily in shaping forest regulations, and in challenging projects and rules that fail to protect key habitats and ecosystems. Jessica Ziembroski References Bergman, B. J. ‘‘Hearts, Minds, and Headwaters.’’ Sierra 84 (5) (1999): 22–24. Hill, J. B. ‘‘The Hole in the Headwaters.’’ Earth Island Journal 15 (4) (2000): 9.

334 | Environmental Sustainability

Environmental Sustainability Environmental sustainability (ES) is defined by Farrell and Hart (1998) as: ‘‘improving the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems.’’ Many confuse this term with sustainable development (SD), which is defined by the 1987 World Commission on Environment and Development or Brundtland Commission as: ‘‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.’’ Though environmental sustainability and sustainable development terms are used interchangeably, these terms are not synonymous. By incorporating the term ‘‘development’’ in the definition of SD, the primary focus of sustainable development is placed on economics—the consumption, production, and distribution of goods in society—rather than on sustaining natural ecosystems. Sustainable development in this sense supports growth through use of resources that possibly originate from finite ecosystems. Rather than supporting growth, environmental sustainability supports rather the protection of the actual ecosystem from which consumer goods and products come. According to Goodland (1995), environmental sustainability adds consideration of the physical inputs from the environment into economic and physical production of goods, placing emphasis on environmental systems. The basic idea of environmental sustainability is simply to sustain natural systems indefinitely. The current and ongoing debate regarding environmental sustainability is which degree or type of ES to employ in maintaining natural ecosystems. There are four degrees of environmental sustainability depending on how much substitutability one believes exists for each type or how much human-made resources can be substituted for natural resources. These are: weak, intermediate, strong, and absurdly strong (Goodland and Daly, 1996; Pearce, 1993; Dobson, 1996). Weak ES means that all or most of the world’s natural resources could be converted into human-made resources allowing for infinite growth and development. Weak ES implies that different kinds of resources, whether natural or humanmade, are perfect substitutes for one another. This means that as long as there is a human-made substitute for a natural resource, no limits for using the natural resource are required. Intermediate ES makes a distinction between natural and human-made resources and requires that restrictions or caps be put on resource use. This is so as to not completely destroy one specific type of resource no matter the increases in similar resources. Thus, intermediate ES implies that a natural resource can be used as long as the money made on that resource is invested in another resource. Strong ES requires that different kinds of resources are preserved or sustained separately. This view assumes that natural and human-made resources are not exact substitutes but act as complements to one another. Finally, absurdly strong ES means never depleting any resource, ever. Nonrenewable

Exclusive Economic Zone | 335

resources could not be used at all, for any purpose. Renewable resources could only be used according to how quickly they are replenished. Currently, environmental sustainability continues to be misinterpreted. As of 2008, the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goal number seven describes an ‘‘environmental sustainability’’ target, yet speaks of ‘‘integrating the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programs.’’ Brigitte Bush-Gibson References Dobson, Andrew. ‘‘Environmental Sustainabilities: An Analysis and Typology.’’ Environmental Politics 5 (1996): 401–428. Farrell, Alex, and Maureen Hart. ‘‘What Does Sustainability Really Mean? The Search for Useful Indicators.’’ Environment 40 (1998): 4–31. Goodland, Robert. ‘‘The Concept of Environmental Sustainability.’’ Annual Review of Ecological Systems 26 (1995): 1–24. Goodland, Robert, and Herman Daly. ‘‘Environmental Sustainability: Universal and Non-negotiable.’’ Ecological Applications 6 (1996): 1,002–1,017. Pearce, David W. Blueprint 3: Measuring Sustainable Development. London: Earthscan, 1993.

Exclusive Economic Zone An Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is the area in which a country has sovereign control over territorial waters. Disputes over the extent of EEZs are a common source of conflict between states over marine waters (Turpinseed et al., 2009). Generally, a state’s EEZ extends to a distance of 200 nautical miles (370 km) from its coastal baseline as established by the Third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1982. This law defines oceanic jurisdiction for all nations and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) exists to attempt to resolve disputes through interpretation of and communication about standards. The term ‘‘Exclusive Economic Zone’’ was first used in the early 1970s in Latin America, the Caribbean, Asia, and Africa, and stems from the 1945 Truman Proclamations on ocean subsoil, seabed, and conservation of coastal fisheries. The proclamation influenced the growth of ocean-related policies and laws of the sea that determine jurisdiction over marine resources and the utilization of the marine environment. Exclusive Economic Zones primarily serve to delineate boundaries of control by states over natural resources, marine science research, and environmental protection in oceans and seas. Fisheries management and undersea mining are the key natural resources managed by EEZs (Ferreira et al., 2009). Particularly, the extraction of

336 | Exxon Shipping Company v. Baker (2008)

seabed petroleum and increased seafood consumption has necessitated regulation of maritime space. Oceans and seas in terms of market and non-market resources and services have been estimated at $21 trillion (U.S.) per year (Pedrozo, 2010). Therefore, with nation’s EEZs having authority over 20% of the oceans and 90–95% of the world’s fisheries, there are significant economic and political capital at stake. Thus within EEZs, all nations are held to a code of conduct agreed upon by member states and enforcement of laws falls upon international members who can bring combined penalties on violators. However, control of sea resources is a complex issue and is often based on the relative power of the states involved. Jessica Ziembroski See also Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Water Resources Development Act of 2007

References Ferreira, M. A. M., J. A. Felipe, and M. Coelho. ‘‘The Importance of the Enlargement of Economic Exclusive Zones for the Fisheries,’’ International Journal of Academic Research 1 (2) (2009): 158–161. Pedrozo, R. ‘‘Preserving the Navigational Rights and Freedoms: The Right to Conduct Military Activities in China’s Exclusive Economic Zone,’’ Chinese Journal of International Law 9 (1) (2010): 9–29. Turpinseed, M., S. E. Roady, R. Sagarin, and L. B. Crowder. ‘‘The Silver Anniversary of the United States’ Exclusive Economic Zone: Twenty-Five Years of Ocean Use and Abuse, and the Possibility of a Blue Water Public Trust Doctrine,’’ Ecology Law Quarterly 36 (1) (2009): 1–70.

Exxon Shipping Company v. Baker (2008) After 19 years, the litigation over the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill culminated with the U.S. Supreme Court case Exxon Shipping Company v. Baker in 2008. The court ruled in a 5–3 decision in favor of the defendant, reducing the award to $500 million in punitive damages. The state of Alaska and the federal government had settled litigation against Exxon in 1991, but private suits continued. The 1991 settlement awarded the 32,000-member Alaska plaintiff class $287 million in compensatory and $5 billion in punitive damages. Exxon appealed. In 2001, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the overall verdict, but reduced the punitive damages award to $4.5 billion. Both parties filed cross appeals. In 2006, the court reduced the award again to $2.5 billion due to a ruling of an unrelated Supreme Court case regarding punitive damages. Exxon petitioned for a rehearing, which was denied. In 2007, Exxon filed a petition with the Supreme Court (WholeTruth Campaign, 2008).

Exxon Valdez Spill | 337

The defendant asked that the court reject any punitive damages awarded against it under maritime law, or at least to consider whether such a high award was justified. Exxon also argued that it had already been punished under the Clean Water Act (Supreme Court, 2008), The verdict vacated the award with instructions to reduce it to a 1:1 ratio with the compensatory damages. This decision was made under maritime law, not constitutional law. The majority opinion found that while the captain of the Exxon Valdez was reckless, neither the captain nor the company had profited from the spill, therefore, the punitive damages cannot exceed the amount awarded for total compensatory damages (Strasser, 2010). This decision may have far reaching impacts in Supreme Court punitive damage jurisprudence. Katherine McLaughlin See also Clean Water Act of 1972; Coastal Zone Management Act; Exxon Valdez Spill

References Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, Oil Spill Facts, Settlement 2007. http:// www.evostc.state.ak.us/facts/settlement.cfm (accessed March 29, 2010). Strasser, Ryan, J., ed. ‘‘Highlights of the 2007–2008 Supreme Court Term.’’ Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute, 2010. http://www.law.cornell.edu/ supct/08highlts.html (accessed March 30, 2010). Supreme Court of the United States, Exxon Shipping Co., et al., petitioners v. Grant Baker, et al., no. 07-219, Alderson Reporting Company, 2008. http://www.supremecourt .gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-219.pdf (accessed March 31, 2010). The WholeTruth Campaign. ‘‘Learn More About the Case, Litigation History.’’ Prince William SoundKeeper and Cordova District Fishermen United, 2008. http://wholetruth .net/casebriefs.htm

Exxon Valdez Spill It was just after midnight on March 24, 1989, when having strayed more than one and one-half miles outside of the normal shipping lanes, the oil tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground on Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound, Alaska (Paine et al., 1996; Schneider, 1989). The impact ruptured eight of its eleven cargo tanks, spilling some 36,000 metric tons of crude oil into the ecologically rich marine environment (Kurtz, 2004; Paine et al., 1996). By volume, it was the largest spill in U.S. history, and quickly became one of the costliest and most highly publicized environmental tragedies ever. The Valdez incident served as a major focusing event, heightening public awareness of the toxic effects of oil, the need for more stringent regulation of industry activities, and

338 | Exxon Valdez Spill

for increased preparedness on the part of state and federal regulatory bodies. In so doing, it provided the impetus for the passage of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, a major piece of federal environmental legislation that fundamentally altered the way in which industry and government prevent, prepare for, respond to, and mitigate the effects of oil spill (Lee and Bridgen, 2002). Congressional efforts aimed at creating legislation specifically to address petroleum releases into the environment began in the 1970s. At the time of the Valdez spill, however, none had successfully passed both houses, due In this March 26, 1989, file photo, the in part to the oil-friendly attitudes of Exxon Baton Rouge, the smaller ship on many influential legislators, as well as left, attempts to off-load crude oil from the the fact that the ongoing energy crisis Exxon Valdez after the Valdez ran aground discouraged any actions that could in the Prince William Sound in Valdez, prove burdensome to the oil industry Alaska, spilling more than 11 million gallons (Kurtz, 2004). At the time of the inciof crude oil. (AP/Wide World Photos) dent, therefore, oil spills were regulated under a number of existing federal laws, most important of which was the Clean Water Act (Lee and Bridgen, 2002.). At the time of the spill, industry was required to create contingency plans outlining response strategies in the event of a release, yet they were created with the assumptions that only a few thousand gallons would be spilled, and that any incident would occur during daylight hours in calm seas. Verification of plans’ effectiveness through drills and exercises was also not required (Herz, 1989; Schneider, 1989). Further limiting response capabilities in place at the time, the 20-member team of emergency responders that had been stationed in the port of Valdez was disbanded by industry in the early 1980s, and the maintenance of emergency equipment had been allowed to lapse (Schneider, 1989). Unprepared for a release of this magnitude, Valdez’s approved contingency plan was ignored entirely, and cleanup did not begin until more than 13 hours after the initial impact (Mathews, 1989). Response efforts were hampered, first by poor weather conditions, then by bitter disagreements between industry and regulatory officials as to how best to mitigate the oil’s effects (Heller, 1989).

Exxon Valdez Spill | 339

Equipment was slow in coming and in short supply (Mathews, 1989; Schneider, 1989). Booms were used in select areas to protect salmon hatcheries; oiled sea birds and mammals were recovered and attempts made to clean and rehabilitate them; heated and high-pressure hoses were used to clean oiled beaches; and a small amount of the spill was disposed of through burning. As the days passed, much of the oil reached land, eventually impacting some 1,750 km of coastline, as far as 750 km from the original spill site. All told, Exxon employed some 1,500 boats and 12,000 people in response-related activities. Ironically, these efforts resulting in the removal of 10 to 14 percent of the oil spilled, while using more than 40 times that amount to operate vehicles and other equipment (Paine et al., 1996). Exxon reports spending nearly $12 billion1 to settle third-party suits, pay for cleanup, and fund the restoration of damaged natural resources. Despite these efforts, oil claimed the lives of thousands of sea mammals and birds, as well as countless marine species, including important commercial species such as larval salmon and herring. Lighter oil fractions likely vaporized within 10 days of the event; however, heavier components can take years to degrade (Paine et al., 1996), and the spill’s impacts are still perceptible to this day. Clearly, the Exxon Valdez spill was a major environmental tragedy born out of human negligence, but the spill also called attention to the need for stricter environmental regulation and led to the passage of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA90). By superseding all other legislation in place at the time, OPA90 created a comprehensive and effective means of regulating the activities of the oil industry, as well as preparing for, responding to, and mitigating the effects of oil spills (Lee and Bridgen, 2002; Ramseur, 2008). Josephine Faass See also Exxon Shipping Company v. Baker (2008); Oil Pollution Act of 1990; Santa Barbara Oil Spill, 1969

References Heller, Jean. ‘‘Alaska Cleanup Continues as Bill Mounts: Spill Response Called Too Little, Too Late.’’ St. Petersburg Times, August 19, 1989. Herz, Michael. ‘‘Exxon’s Faile Promises; Test the Cleanup Plans Before the Spills.’’ Washington Post, April 5, 1989. Kurtz, Rick S. ‘‘Coastal Oil Pollution: Spills, Crisis, and Policy Change.’’ Review of Policy Research 21 (2) (2004): 201–219. Lee, Valerie Ann, and P. J. Bridgen. The Natural Resource Damage Assessment Deskbook: A Legal and Technical Analysis. Washington DC: Environmental Law Institute, 2002.

1

Expressed in 1997 dollars.

340 | Exxon Valdez Spill Mathews, Jay. ‘‘Spill Contingency Plan Flawed, Pipeline Official Says: Strategy for Quick Response Could not Be Applied to a ‘Real-World’ Situation.’’ Washington Post, May 20, 1989. Paine, R. T., et al. ‘‘Trouble on Oiled Waters: Lessons from the Exxon Valdez Spill.’’ Annual Review of Ecological Systems 27 (1996): 197–235. Ramseur, Johnathan L. 2008. ‘‘Oil Spills in U.S. Coastal Waters: Background, Governance, and Issues for Congress.’’ Congressional Research Reports, RL-33705, http:// opencrs.com/document/RL33705/. Schneider, Keith. ‘‘Under Oil’s Powerful Spell, Alaska Was Off Guard.’’ New York Times, April 2, 1989.

F Farmers’ Markets On a global scale, the idea of the public marketplace as a venue to obtain food and wares has been around since antiquity. Ancient Greece provided for its citizens in municipal marketplaces, the Senate of Ancient Rome guarded a right for it to establish public markets, and during the feudal period in the Middle Ages, markets continued to flourish under the discretion of the papal canon. Today, food production, food distribution, and food consumption systems in the United States are overwhelmingly organized through global corporations. Prior to refrigeration and trucking systems, early farmers’ markets in the United States provided critical markets area for farmers and area residents alike. Local governments took charge at providing a safe and fair marketplace for both vendors and consumers, and the public market system was critical throughout the nineteenth century in the United States, despite the growing number of private food stores (Tangires, 2003). While farmers’ markets continued to exist throughout the twentieth century, there was a noticeable resurgence of farmers’ markets across the United States beginning in the 1990s. Urban planners are increasingly taking note of farmers’ markets as an important opportunity to address community welfare. As the planning profession grows more interested in the interplay between the built environment and health, some scholars are urging their colleagues to take a more active interest in community food issues (Kaufman and Pothukuchi, 2000). Civic leaders with multiple motives are creating farmers’ markets because of their role in the economic, social, and environmental improvements in many cities and towns across the United States. Since 1994, the number of farmers’ markets has increased 79 percent to just over 3,700 markets in all 50 states, and the number of participating farmers has more than tripled to 67,000 (Payne, 2002). The number of farmers’ markets in the United States continues to grow, and according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, there were 4,685 in August 2008. The 2007 Census of Agriculture reported a remarkable $1.2 billion in food sold directly from farmers to consumers. This is a 17 percent increase over the previous five years. In October 2009, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported 5,274 farmers markets operating in the United States. This represents an 84 percent increase over the last 10 years. Fifteen percent of these markets operate in winter months, extending their seasons to generate more reliable income for small-scale family farmers and build sustainable local economies (USDA, 2009). 341

342 | Farmers’ Markets

Two salesmen in a farmers’ market selling chanerelles, strawberries, blueberries and raspberries. (iStockPhoto)

Farmers’ markets are largely regulated by state agriculture agencies as well as local and county food safety agencies and local zoning boards. The federal government supports market development through USDA grants, research, and promotion. If the national concern for locally produced food continues, it is expected that the number of farmers’ markets will also continue to grow. Matthew Lindstrom See also Alternative Farming Systems Information Center, USDA; Organic Food and Farming; Sustainable Agriculture

References Farmers’ Market Coalition. ‘‘‘Markets Are Up’ Campaigns. http://farmersmarketcoalition .org/membership/markets-are-up-campaign/ (accessed April 10, 2010).

Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 | 343 Kaufman, Jerome, and Kemeshwari Pothukuchi, ‘‘The Food System: A Stranger to the Planning Field.’’ Journal of the American Planning Association 66 (2) (2000): 113, 119. Payne, Tim. ‘‘U.S. Farmers’ Markets 2000: A Study of Emerging Trends.’’ USDA, May 2002. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/27625/1/33010173.pdf http://webharvest.gov/ peth04/20041108033659/http://www.ams.usda.gov/directmarketing/FarmMark.pdf (accessed April 10, 2010). Tangires, Helen. Public Markets and Civic Culture in the Nineteenth-Century America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. http://www.ams.usda .gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateS&navID=Wholesaleand FarmersMarkets&leftNav=WholesaleandFarmersMarkets&page=WFMFarmersMarket Growth&description=Farmers%20Market%20Growth&acct=frmrdirmkt (accessed April 10, 2010).

Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 This is legislation that scaled back government-subsidized agricultural production and gave farmers more flexibility in relying on market forces to decide the type and amount of crops they produced. Congress passed the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act of 1996 during a period of economic prosperity in the United States and reflected a desire to significantly lower the influence of government agricultural assistance programs. The FAIR Act discontinued payments to farmers based on differences between target and market prices and put an end to production-adjustment programs. The act established a schedule of declining payments given to farmers heavily dependent on government aid, which aided them in making a gradual transition toward relying on market forces instead of government programs to determine the extent and types of crops they produced. Other important provisions of the act addressed conservation and rural development. Congress promoted more environmentally responsible farming not only by limiting government-subsidized production, but also by increasing funds for U.S. Department of Agriculture conservation programs. The FAIR Act of 1996 also created the Rural Performance Partnership Initiative to provide states with more flexibility in how they use federal agricultural aid money, and it allocated $300 million for rural development and agricultural research. The act cut back or simplified many complex federal government agricultural programs. However, many in Democratic and liberal circles criticized the bill for not being able to provide enough financial security to U.S. farmers in tougher economic times. In addition, Congress omitted from the final legislation more effective conservation

344 | Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937

measures, such as paying farmers directly for environmentally responsible farming practices. Johan Katz References Clinton, William J. ‘‘Statement on Signing the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996.’’ Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents 32, No. 14 (1996): 614. Smith, Katherine R. ‘‘Congress Again Considers ‘Green’ Payments to Farmers.’’ Issues in Science and Technology 17 (3) (2001): 26.

Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937 The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (16 USC 669–669k) was enacted on September 2, 1937. It is also known as the Pittman-Robertson Act, named after the two congressional sponsors. The act’s goal is to purchase land for wildlife restoration. Funds are gathered by placing an excise tax on firearms and ammunition. The taxes are gathered at the federal level and then distributed to the states. The states can use the money on specific wildlife restoration projects or on a long-term resource management plan. By 1937, many wild animals, such as wild turkeys and white-tailed deer, were close to extinction due to overhunting and habitat loss. The act was directed at hunters but was supported by them as well. Even though excise taxes were no longer in fashion, wildlife conservationists, firearms manufacturers, and hunters worked together to pass the act. In 1950, these groups successfully fought against its possible repeal. With the help of these different interest groups, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act was a success. Since 1937, millions of acres have been purchased as wildlife reserves with the tax money procured, and many different species have been saved from extinction. The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act still holds legal standing and was amended numerous times to expand its power. In 1972, the act was amended to include archery equipment, including crossbows, in the tax’s jurisdiction. Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa now receive tax funds as well. Chelsea Griffis See also National Wildlife Federation; U.S. National Wildlife Refuge System

References Buck, Susan J. Understanding Environmental Administration and Law. Washington DC: Island Press, 1996.

Federal Emergency Management Agency | 345 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. ‘‘Digest of Federal Resource Laws: Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act.’’ http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/fawild.html.

Federal Emergency Management Agency The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) federal agency was established in 1979 to be responsible for emergency planning and for coordinating disaster relief efforts. The origins of federal disaster relief can be traced to the Congressional Act of 1803, which provided financial aid to a New Hampshire town devastated by fire. In subsequent years, the federal government provided ad hoc legislative assistance to communities hit by hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, and other natural disasters. Federal action widened in the 1930s, first when Congress granted authority to the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (an agency that provided assistance to banks and businesses) to provide loans to repair facilities damaged by natural disasters, and then when the Bureau of Public Roads and the Army Corps of

New Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Director Craig Fugate, accompanied by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, speaks to the media during a news conference at FEMA headquarters in Washington, D.C., Tuesday, May 19, 2009. (AP/ Wide World Photos)

346 | Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Engineers assumed responsibility for repairing roads and bridges and for developing flood-control projects. Efforts to better coordinate federal relief efforts among executive agencies accelerated in the 1960s and 1970s in the wake of several major hurricanes and earthquakes in Alaska and California. By the late 1970s, more than 100 federal agencies participated in aspects of emergency planning and disaster relief. Led by the National Governors Association, state and local officials appealed to President Jimmy Carter to centralize and consolidate federal disaster relief efforts. Prompted by these and other concerns, Carter issued an executive order in 1979 creating FEMA. FEMA absorbed the functions of many federal agencies responsible for dealing with natural disasters, such as fires, floods, and severe weather, and it also assumed responsibility for civil defense formerly held within the Defense Department’s Defense Civil Preparedness Agency. The comprehensive nature of federal disaster planning continued into the twenty-first century, as FEMA planned to take a leading role in response to terrorist attacks, such as those of September 11, 2001. FEMA is now part of the Department of Homeland Security, which was created after those attacks. Christopher A. Preable

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is an independent regulatory agency within the Department of Energy (DOE) responsible for regulating some aspects of the electric, natural gas, oil, and hydroelectric industries. FERC has jurisdiction over wholesale energy sales and interstate transportation of oil, electricity, and natural gas. The commission is also responsible for protecting against discriminatory and manipulative pricing practices and resolving disputes. FERC’s roots lie in the Federal Power Commission (FPC), which was established by Congress in 1920 in an effort to coordinate federal hydroelectric power operations. In 1935, the FPC was also given authority to regulate the transportation and sale of electricity under the Federal Power Act of 1935. In 1938, the Natural Gas Act gave similar authority over the natural gas industry. The primary function of the FPC was to ‘‘assure an abundant supply of electric energy’’ (Breyer and MacAvoy, 1974, 1) In the wake of events such as the 1965 Northeast Blackout and the 1973 Arab oil embargo, public concerns over U.S. energy supplies and prices brought energy policy to the forefront of the political agenda (Hakes, 1998). As a result, Congress developed a comprehensive plan for bringing the various agencies responsible for energy regulation under the umbrella of a single cabinet-level organization and passed the Department of Energy Organization Act on September 30,

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission | 347

Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski, left, sits next to Senator Lisa Murkowski, R-AK, as he testifies before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in Anchorage, Alaska Friday, December 3, 2004. FERC commissioners, starting third from left, are Suedeen Kelly, Joe Kelliher, Nora Brownell and FERC chairman Pat Wood, right, listen. (Associated Press)

1977. FERC was established on October 1, 1977, under the Department of Energy Organization Act and Executive Order 12009, replacing the FPC. Congress transferred the majority of the FPC’s responsibilities, as well as responsibilities formerly held by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) in regards to oil pipelines, to the new agency. FERC derives its jurisdictional authority from many sources, but primarily from the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA). Part I of the FPA gives FERC the authority to investigate hydroelectric projects, to evaluate the costs and net investment figures for these projects, and to issue the necessary permits and licenses. Parts II and III provide jurisdiction over investor-owned, or ‘‘public,’’ electric utility companies, as well as the interstate transmission of electricity and wholesale electric sales. The commission does not have jurisdiction over local distribution of electricity or government utilities and rural electric cooperatives (REOs). The NGA grants authority for the commission to regulate the interstate sale and transport of natural gas, as well as regulating the companies involved, but it does not permit FERC to regulate the intrastate transportation or local distribution of natural gas. The ICA gives FERC the authority to regulate interstate oil pipelines and to ensure that the transportation charges are ‘‘just and reasonable’’

348 | Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

(McGrew, 2009, 26). While FERC generally has no authority over the importation and exportation of energy, there is an exception in the case of liquid natural gas (LNG). The DOE delegated responsibility for the site approval, construction, and operation of LNG facilities, including points of entry or exit, back to the FERC, but the DOE retains authority over import and export policy issues (McGrew, 2009, 13). FERC has issued a number of rulings providing for the restructuring and deregulation of the energy industries under its jurisdiction. FERC Order 436 (1985) gave consumers the ability to negotiate prices with natural gas producers and to enter into separate contracts for transportation. Known as the Restructuring Rule, FERC Order 636 (1992) mandated that natural gas pipeline companies ‘‘unbundle’’ services for sales and transportation. The goal was to eliminate any discriminatory practices that favored one supplier or producer over another. Order 888 (1997) required companies that provide transmission service to adopt the ‘‘open access’’ rule, increasing market competition. Following the 2000 California Energy Crisis and the collapse of Enron in 2001, energy policy once again became a priority. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 made significant changes to the commission’s authority. These changes to FERC’s scope include enforcement standards for electric grid transmission, additional tools to prevent manipulation of energy markets, and incentives designed to encourage investment in electric transmission. FERC is comprised of a maximum of five commissioners, one of whom acts as chairman. The chairman is appointed by the president and must receive Senate confirmation before taking the position. Each commissioner serves a five-year term. No more than three members of any political party can serve at the same time. FERC is a self-sufficient agency, charging the industries that it regulates a combination of annual charges and other fees that are equal to FERC’s operating costs. The commission’s formal monthly meetings are open to the public and also broadcast on closed-circuit television (McGrew, 2009, 8). Sue Guyer See also Alternative Energy; Energy Policy Act of 2005

References Breyer, Stephen G., and Paul W. MacAvoy. Energy Regulation by the Federal Power Commission. Washington DC: Brookings Institution, 1974. Hakes, Jay E. Energy Information Administration. ‘‘25th Anniversary of the 1973 Oil Embargo: Administrator’s Message.’’ http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/25opec/anniversary.html (accessed April 10, 2010). McGrew, James H. FERC: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Chicago: ABA Publishing, 2009.

Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972 | 349 U.S. Energy Information Administration. ‘‘FERC Order 636: The Restructuring Rule (1992).’’ ‘http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/ngmajorleg/ ferc636.html. U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. http://www.ferc.gov/.

Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972 Signed into law by Richard M. Nixon on October 21, 1972, the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act (FEPCA) of 1972 amended the FIFRA to require registration of all pesticides sold in the United States, even those used within a single state. The first pesticide regulation law in 1910 dealt with deceptive labeling and ineffective pesticides. Pesticide use was largely a minor concern until the massive increase in use after World War II. Pesticides allowed the U.S. farmer to feed the world, but when used improperly, they also harmed humans and their environment. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) of 1947 dealt with product labeling and covered products in interstate commerce, but its focus remained on effectiveness, not use. FEPCA corrected the absence of measures to control misuse of properly registered pesticides and applied coverage to intrastate commerce as well as interstate. Only in 1970 did administration move from agriculture to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Nixon proposed federal regulation in 1971, and the bill he signed in 1972 is regarded as the strongest since the FIFRA of 1947. The EPA administrator registers a pesticide only if it conforms with labeling requirements and does not unduly harm the environment. A pesticide may be for general or restricted use (high risk to humans or the environment), with applicators of restricted-use pesticides having to be trained and certified. The adverseeffect criterion allows the EPA to classify, cancel, and suspend registrations. Establishments that produce pesticides have to register and report regularly and be available for periodic inspection. FIFRA does not preempt state or tribal law, so those entities can establish their own regulation. FEPCA provides for state administration of pesticide control programs with federal oversight. Civil and criminal penalties are provided under the law. John H. Barnhill See also Agent Orange; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1947; Nixon, Richard; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

References Carriker, Roy R. ‘‘Federal Environmental Policy: A Summary Overview.’’ Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 28 (1) (July 1996): 99–107.

350 | Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1947 Nixon, Richard. ‘‘Statement on Signing the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972.’’ October 21, 1972, Papers of the Presidents. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ ws/index.php?pid=3642. Southern Agricultural Economics Association. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/ 15231/1/28010099.pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ‘‘EPA to Ask for Comments on New Pesticides Law.’’ http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/fifra/03.htm. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ‘‘Overview of FIFRA.’’ http://www.epa.gov/ oecaagct/lfra.html.

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1947 Pesticides are chemicals or other products whose primary use is killing, repelling, or otherwise controlling pests. They include insecticides and herbicides to control pests that damage yields or quality of ornamental plants, agricultural crops, wooden structures, forests, and pastures. Pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1947 (FIFRA) include sterilizers and disinfectants, rat poison, animal repellant, and substances that control algae, mold, and other growths on water, stored grain, or equipment. The first pesticide legislation in 1910 ameliorated economic hardship for farmers by controlling manufacture and distribution of adulterated, ineffective, or deceptively labeled pesticides. There was no attempt to deal with human health hazards from pesticides. FIFRA is one of two EPA-administered pesticide laws. The other major pesticide regulatory statute is the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), which restricts residues of pesticides on food in interstate commerce. The USDA administered FIFRA until the establishment of the EPA in 1970. FIFRA sets procedures for labeling and registering pesticides with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Like its predecessor, FIFRA focused on efficiency rather than use. It lacked an effective regulatory component. It remained focused on efficiency until 1972. In 1972, FIFRA was completely rewritten because of concerns about longand short-term exposure by pesticide applicators, consumers, wildlife, and birds and insects other than target types. A 1998 change expedited re-registration, and a 1996 change expedited registration of special-use pesticides, authorized fees for re-registration, and mandated that FIFRA and FFDCA regulations be coordinated. The most significant of subsequent amendments is the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. Currently, FIFRA requires that the EPA regulate the sale and use of pesticides in order to preserve the environment and protect human health. The EPA must consider cost and benefits of use as well.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 | 351

The EPA enforces prohibitions of banned and unregistered products, requires manufacturers to prove a pesticide’s validity, and establishes a regulatory process that the original law lacked. The EPA controls sale and use by requiring accurate labels and registration. Sale of a pesticide without the registration and an accurate label is illegal as is use of a pesticide in ways other than specified on the label. Labels must include instructions on how to apply the product, how long applicators must remain out of an area after application, and other safety information. Applicators must have state certification for certain pesticides. FIFRA sets the rules for disposal and management of waste material and containers. The EPA lists authorized uses. A given product is authorized for controlling specific pests on specific crops and may not be used for others. As new scientific data generates new standards, old products must be re-registered. Establishments that produce or sell pesticides must register with the EPA, maintain specific records, and allow inspection by the EPA or the state. The EPA estimates that there are just over 19,000 pesticide products in use in the United States. FIFRA regulates all of these, and FFDCA also regulates the 6,502 used in food production. FIFRA does not preclude additional regulation by states or tribes or localities. John H. Barnhill See also Organic Food and Farming; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

References Bergeson, Lynn L. FIFRA: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. American Bar Association, 2000. CampusERC. ‘‘Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (2007).’’ http:// www.campuserc.org/resources/EHSguide/FIFRA/Pages/default.aspx. Eoearth.org. ‘‘Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, United States.’’ http://www.eoearth.org/article/Federal_Insecticide,_Fungicide_and_Rodenticide_Act, _United_States. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ‘‘Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).’’ http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/lfra.html.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-579), also called the Bureau of Land Management Organic Act, was passed by the 94th Congress as a response to a perceived need to provide direction to and increase the accountability of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The BLM was formed by executive reorganization rather than statute and thus lacked a clear mandate. The law repealed or made obsolete many prior public land laws

352 | Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

and outlined a policy of retention of lands under management, including grazing lands. In essence, the FLPMA is a piece of legislation aimed at an administrative entity, in that it consolidated and provided clarity of jurisdiction for the BLM so that it could effectively manage public lands. Public land management in the United States reflects the history of the nation and its changing social fabric. Throughout the nineteenth century, the government had transferred public lands into private hands for settlement, especially homesteading and private development. In 1812, the General Land Office was created to transfer federal public lands to state and private ownership. Despite the creation of this central administrative entity, over the next century, thousands of public authorities with jurisdiction over public lands and resources were created, leading to confusing overlapping jurisdictions and inconsistent resource management. Throughout the nineteenth century, the government’s interest was ensuring the settlement of the west, yet in the 1870s, Congress began to move toward protecting some undeveloped lands for the public interest. The General Land Reform Act of 1891 and the creation of Yellowstone National Park in 1872 were examples of the recognition among government officials and the general public that some open lands should be held in the public trust. Later legislation, such as the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, sprang from a shift in attitude toward land conservation and scientific management. This recognition of the need for better management can be seen in the passage of the Reorganization Act of 1945, which combined the Grazing Service and the General Land Office into the Bureau of Land Management (BLM, 2009). Like the history of public land policy, the history of the development of the FLPMA is extensive and convoluted. In the 1960s, after various government studies of public land use, Congress established the Public Land Law Review Commission (PLLRC) in 1964. It was to complete a comprehensive review of all public land laws and the rules, regulations, policies, and practices of all governments and agencies and recommend any necessary modifications in a final report. In February 1970, the commission’s report, One Third of the Nation’s Land, was presented to Congress and the president. The PLLRC report identified significant problems with public land management, including lack of regulation and enforcement authority that had led to vandalism, littering, overuse, and neglect of land resources. Because many resources did not have public access, millions of acres of public land were available for hunting and fishing to only a few. The following three Congresses considered several bills that attempted to address the problems revealed by the PLLRC report. In February 1970, a bill was presented to the 91st Congress that attempted to address the problem of public access and management shortcomings as outlined in the report. The bill passed the Senate but no action was taken by the House. Bills introduced to both chambers of the 92nd Congress addressed not only management issues, but also

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 | 353

the disposal of resources on public lands in terms of mineral leases and created environmental safeguards, but the legislation failed to pass through the chamber before the end of the session. Bills in the 93rd Congress had a similar fate, but one such bill, introduced by Senator Henry Jackson of Washington in 1973, was passed by the Senate and failed to pass the House only because it was blocked by the Rules Committee (Schwartz, 1979). Senator Jackson introduced a nearly identical bill during the 94th Congress, and it was passed by the Senate in February 1976. The House bill, developed in the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee and heavily influenced by committee members from western districts, included several provisions regarding grazing and grazing fees. This version was supported by livestock interests but disliked by environmentalists and narrowly passed the House in July of 1976. The conference committee had to address significant differences between the two bills, particularly three issues involving grazing and one involving mining. The conference struggled to achieve some sort of compromise, and the legislation seemed in danger of dying in committee, although it eventually emerged and was signed into law by President Ford in October of 1976. The act includes provisions that encompass a wide variety of subjects. First, it contains sections covering the reorganization of the BLM and the ‘‘organic act’’ portions of the bill, which gave the bureau the authority to implement the statute and enforce its provisions. Second, the legislation includes grazing policy guidelines, giving the bureau jurisdiction over range management, including grazing permits and fees. Third, it provides preservation policy guidelines and includes directives on the development of land-use plans, restrictions on the sale of public land and its acquisition, and restrictions on when exchanges of private land for federal land can take place. Finally, it provides mining policy guidelines and guidelines for the grant and renewal of rights-of-ways across federal lands. The grazing policy guidelines had been one of the most significant hurdles for the FLPMA through the Congress. The controversial grazing fee formula, which had stalled the bill in conference committee but which was so favored by the livestock industry, had been dropped in the final legislation. As a compromise, the FLPMA had frozen grazing fees at 1976 levels for a year until the Departments of Agriculture and Interior could study the issue and come up with an equitable fee. A new fee formula was imposed in 1978 through the Public Rangelands Improvement Act. Nevertheless, Congress has had to revisit the issue of grazing fees for public lands on numerous subsequent occasions, and it remains a controversial subject. In terms of preservation policy guidelines, the act’s opening statements make it clear that the intention of the law is to retain public lands in public ownership and that these lands should be managed in order to protect their ‘‘scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values.’’ There are certainly extremely important provisions regarding

354 | Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

land preservation written into the FLPMA. In particular, there are provisions for land under BLM authority to be reviewed for wilderness protection (since they had not been included under the 1964 Wilderness Protection Act) and recommended for this designation by Congress. The BLM, under the authority of the Department of the Interior, is authorized to manage all public lands under its jurisdiction for ‘‘multiple use’’ and developing usage plans and resource inventories. The FLPMA provides strict guidelines for the Secretary of the Interior’s withdrawal authority, often used to close lands to mineral development, and provides guidelines for the sale of public lands. Furthermore, it gives authority for the BLM to grant rights-of-way, which are often needed to build energy infrastructure such as electrical transmission lines and oil pipelines. Under the FLPMA, public lands can be sold, but only with the approval of Congress, and only at fair market value and when the sale is deemed in the national interest. The act also ensures that fair market value is paid for the mineral interests on public lands. The full implementation of the FLPMA has been controversial, in part because of the vastness of federal public lands but also because the BLM was authorized to undertake law enforcement on the lands that it managed. Despite the fact that the bureau was directed to cooperate with local law enforcement, local agencies were concerned about the potential for overreaching. The FLPMA and the BLM are particularly unpopular among western mining and grazing interests. The implementation of the wilderness provision of the FLPMA, for example, was extremely contentious in the 13 western states where federal land comprises of 30 percent to more than half of the state’s total land area. Indeed, some observers believe that the FLPMA caused the Sagebrush Rebellion, a movement to bring federal lands under state control. These implementation problems are blamed on the BLM’s lack of fiscal and administrative capacity as well as the political power of multiple stakeholders in this policy area. Claire Haeg See also Bureau of Land Management; Conservation; Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965; Sagebrush Rebellion

References Bureau of Land Management. ‘‘The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976: How the Stage Was Set for BLM’s ‘Organic Act.’’’ http://www.blm.gov/flpma/ organic.htm. Schwartz, Eleanor R. ‘‘A Capsule Examination of the Legislative History of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.’’ Arizona Law Review 21 (285) (1979): 59. U.S. Department of the Interior. United States Bureau of Land Management, and Office of the Solicitor. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 as Amended. Washington DC: Bureau of Land Management, Office of Public Affairs, 2001.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 | 355

Federal Land Policy and Management Act (1976) 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701–1782 [excerpt] SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 1701. Congressional declaration of policy (a) The Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States that— (1) the public lands be retained in Federal ownership, unless as a result of the land use planning procedure provided for in this Act, it is determined that disposal of a particular parcel will serve the national interest; (2) the national interest will be best realized if the public lands and their resources are periodically and systematically inventoried and their present and future use is projected through a land use planning process coordinated with other Federal and State planning efforts; (3) public lands not previously designated for any specific use and all existing classifications of public lands that were effected by executive action or statute before October 21, 1976, be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of this Act; (4) the Congress exercise its constitutional authority to withdraw or otherwise designate or dedicate Federal lands for specified purposes and that Congress delineate the extent to which the Executive may withdraw lands without legislative action; (5) in administering public land statutes and exercising discretionary authority granted by them, the Secretary be required to establish comprehensive rules and regulations after considering the views of the general public; and to structure adjudication procedures to assure adequate third party participation, objective administrative review of initial decisions, and expeditious decisionmaking; (6) judicial review of public land adjudication decisions be provided by law; (7) goals and objectives be established by law as guidelines for public land use planning, and that management be on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield unless otherwise specified by law; (8) the public lands be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values; that, where appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition; that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; and that will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use; (9) the United States receive fair market value of the use of the public lands and their resources unless otherwise provided for by statute; (10) uniform procedures for any disposal of public land, acquisition of non-Federal land for public purposes, and the exchange of such lands be established by statute, requiring each disposal, acquisition, and exchange to be consistent with the prescribed mission of the department or agency involved, and reserving to the Congress review of disposals in excess of a specified acreage; (11) regulations and plans for the protection of public land areas of critical environmental concern be promptly developed;

356 | Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (12) the public lands be managed in a manner which recognizes the Nation’s need for domestic sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber from the public lands including implementation of the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1876, 30 U.S.C. 21a) as it pertains to the public lands; and (13) the Federal Government should, on a basis equitable to both the Federal and local taxpayer, provide for payments to compensate States and local governments for burdens created as a result of the immunity of Federal lands from State and local taxation. Sec. 1702. Definitions Without altering in any way the meaning of the following terms as used in any other statute, whether or not such statute is referred to in, or amended by, this Act, as used in this Act— (a) The term ‘‘areas of critical environmental concern’’ means areas within the public lands where special management attention is required (when such areas are developed or used or where no development is required) to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life and safety from natural hazards. (b) The term ‘‘holder’’ means any State or local governmental entity, individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other business entity receiving or using a right-of-way under subchapter V of this chapter. (c) The term ‘‘multiple use’’ means the management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people; making the most judicious use of the land for some or all of these resources or related services over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing needs and conditions; the use of some land for less than all of the resources; a combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources, including, but not limited to, recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific and historical values; and harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources without permanent impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the environment with consideration being given to the relative values of the resources and not necessarily to the combination of uses that will give the greatest economic return or the greatest unit output. (d) The term ‘‘public involvement’’ means the opportunity for participation by affected citizens in rulemaking, decisionmaking, and planning with respect to the public lands, including public meetings or hearings held at locations near the affected lands, or advisory mechanisms, or such other procedures as may be necessary to provide public comment in a particular instance. (e) The term ‘‘public lands’’ means any land and interest in land owned by the United States within the several States and administered by the Secretary of the Interior

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 | 357

(f) (g) (h)

(i) (j)

(k)

(l)

(m)

(n) (o)

(p)

through the Bureau of Land Management, without regard to how the United States acquired ownership, except— (1) lands located on the Outer Continental Shelf; and (2) lands held for the benefit of Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos. The term ‘‘right-of-way’’ includes an easement, lease, permit, or license to occupy, use, or traverse public lands granted for the purpose listed in subchapter V of this chapter. The term ‘‘Secretary’’, unless specifically designated otherwise, means the Secretary of the Interior. The term ‘‘sustained yield’’ means the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of the public lands consistent with multiple use. The term ‘‘wilderness’’ as used in section 1782 of this title shall have the same meaning as it does in section 1131 (c) of title 16. The term ‘‘withdrawal’’ means withholding an area of Federal land from settlement, sale, location, or entry, under some or all of the general land laws, for the purpose of limiting activities under those laws in order to maintain other public values in the area or reserving the area for a particular public purpose or program; or transferring jurisdiction over an area of Federal land, other than ‘‘property’’ governed by the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, as amended (40 U.S.C. 472) from one department, bureau or agency to another department, bureau or agency. An ‘‘allotment management plan’’ means a document prepared in consultation with the lessees or permittees involved, which applies to livestock operations on the public lands or on lands within National Forests in the eleven contiguous Western States and which: (1) prescribes the manner in, and extent to, which livestock operations will be conducted in order to meet the multiple-use, sustained-yield, economic and other needs and objectives as determined for the lands by the Secretary concerned; and (2) describes the type, location, ownership, and general specifications for the range improvements to be installed and maintained on the lands to meet the livestock grazing and other objectives of land management; and (3) contains such other provisions relating to livestock grazing and other objectives found by the Secretary concerned to be consistent with the provisions of this Act and other applicable law. The term ‘‘principal or major uses’’ includes, and is limited to, domestic livestock grazing, fish and wildlife development and utilization, mineral exploration and production, rights-of-way, outdoor recreation, and timber production. The term ‘‘department’’ means a unit of the executive branch of the Federal Government which is headed by a member of the President’s Cabinet and the term ‘‘agency’’ means a unit of the executive branch of the Federal Government which is not under the jurisdiction of a head of a department. The term ‘‘Bureau means the Bureau of Land Management. The term ‘‘eleven contiguous Western States’’ means the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. The term ‘‘grazing permit and lease’’ means any document authorizing use of public lands or lands in National Forests in the eleven contiguous western States for the purpose of grazing domestic livestock.

358 | Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

(q) The policies of this Act shall become effective only as specific statutory authority for their implementation is enacted by this Act or by subsequent legislation and shall then be construed as supplemental to and not in derogation of the purposes for which public lands are administered under other provisions of law. SUBCHAPTER II—LAND USE PLANNING AND LAND ACQUISITION AND DISPOSITION Sec. 1711. Continuing inventory and identification of public lands; preparation and maintenance (a) The Secretary shall prepare and maintain on a continuing basis an inventory of all public lands and their resource and other values (including, but not limited to, outdoor recreation and scenic values), giving priority to areas of critical environmental concern. This inventory shall be kept current so as to reflect changes in conditions and to identify new and emerging resource and other values. The preparation and maintenance of such inventory or the identification of such areas shall not, of itself, change or prevent change of the management or use of public lands. (b) As funds and manpower are made available, the Secretary shall ascertain the boundaries of the public lands; provide means of public identification thereof including, where appropriate, signs and maps; and provide State and local governments with data from the inventory for the purpose of planning and regulating the uses of nonFederal lands in proximity of such public lands. Sec. 1712. Land use plans (a) Development, maintenance, and revision by Secretary. The Secretary shall, with public involvement and consistent with the terms and conditions of this Act, develop, maintain, and, when appropriate, revise land use plans which provide by tracts or areas for the use of the public lands. Land use plans shall be developed for the public lands regardless of whether such lands previously have been classified, withdrawn, set aside, or otherwise designated for one or more uses. (b) Coordination of plans for National Forest System lands with Indian land use planning and management programs for purposes of development and revision. In the development and revision of land use plans, the Secretary of Agriculture shall coordinate land use plans for lands in the National Forest System with the land use planning and management programs of and for Indian tribes by, among other things, considering the policies of approved tribal land resource management programs. (c) Criteria for development and revision. In the development and revision of land use plans, the Secretary shall— (1) use and observe the principles of multiple use and sustained yield set forth in this and other applicable law; (2) use a systematic interdisciplinary approach to achieve integrated consideration of physical, biological, economic, and other sciences; (3) give priority to the designation and protection of areas of critical environmental concern;

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 | 359 (4) rely, to the extent it is available, on the inventory of the public lands, their resources, and other values; (5) consider present and potential uses of the public lands; (6) consider the relative scarcity of the values involved and the availability of alternative means (including recycling) and sites for realization of those values; (7) weigh long-term benefits to the public against short-term benefits; (8) provide for compliance with applicable pollution control laws, including State and Federal air, water, noise, or other pollution standards or implementation plans; and (9) to the extent consistent with the laws governing the administration of the public lands, coordinate the land use inventory, planning, and management activities of or for such lands with the land use planning and management programs of other Federal departments and agencies and of the States and local governments within which the lands are located, including, but not limited to, the statewide outdoor recreation plans developed under the Act of September 3, 1964 (78 Stat. 897), as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-4 et seq.), and of or for Indian tribes by, among other things, considering the policies of approved State and tribal land resource management programs. In implementing this directive, the Secretary shall, to the extent he finds practical, keep apprised of State, local, and tribal land use plans; assure that consideration is given to those State, local, and tribal plans that are germane in the development of land use plans for public lands; assist in resolving, to the extent practical, inconsistencies between Federal and non-Federal Government plans, and shall provide for meaningful public involvement of State and local government officials, both elected and appointed, in the development of land use programs, land use regulations, and land use decisions for public lands, including early public notice of proposed decisions which may have a significant impact on non-Federal lands. Such officials in each State are authorized to furnish advice to the Secretary with respect to the development and revision of land use plans, land use guidelines, land use rules, and land use regulations for the public lands within such State and with respect to such other land use matters as may be referred to them by him. Land use plans of the Secretary under this section shall be consistent with State and local plans to the maximum extent he finds consistent with Federal law and the purposes of this Act. (d) Review and inclusion of classified public lands; review of existing land use plans; modification and termination of classifications. Any classification of public lands or any land use plan in effect on October 21, 1976, is subject to review in the land use planning process conducted under this section, and all public lands, regardless of classification, are subject to inclusion in any land use plan developed pursuant to this section. The Secretary may modify or terminate any such classification consistent with such land use plans. Sec. 1715. Acquisitions of public lands and access over non-Federal lands to National Forest System units (a) Authorization and limitations on authority of Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of Agriculture. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the Secretary, with

360 | Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

respect to the public lands and the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to the acquisition of access over non-Federal lands to units of the National Forest System, are authorized to acquire pursuant to this Act by purchase, exchange, donation, or eminent domain, lands or interests therein: Provided, That with respect to the public lands, the Secretary may exercise the power of eminent domain only if necessary to secure access to public lands, and then only if the lands so acquired are confined to as narrow a corridor as is necessary to serve such purpose. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as expanding or limiting the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to acquire land by eminent domain within the boundaries of units of the National Forest System. Conformity to departmental policies and land-use plan of acquisitions. Acquisitions pursuant to this section shall be consistent with the mission of the department involved and with applicable departmental land-use plans. Status of lands and interests in lands upon acquisition by Secretary of the Interior; transfers to Secretary of Agriculture of lands and interests in lands acquired within National Forest System boundaries. Except as provided in subsection (e) of this section, lands and interests in lands acquired by the Secretary pursuant to this section or section 1716 of this title shall, upon acceptance of title, become public lands, and, for the administration of public land laws not repealed by this Act, shall remain public lands. If such acquired lands or interests in lands are located within the exterior boundaries of a grazing district established pursuant to section 315 of this title, they shall become a part of that district. Lands and interests in lands acquired pursuant to this section which are within boundaries of the National Forest System may be transferred to the Secretary of Agriculture and shall then become National Forest System lands and subject to all the laws, rules, and regulations applicable thereto. Status of lands and interests in lands upon acquisition by Secretary of Agriculture. Lands and interests in lands acquired by the Secretary of Agriculture pursuant to this section shall, upon acceptance of title, become National Forest System lands subject to all the laws, rules, and regulations applicable thereto. Status and administration of lands acquired in exchange for lands revested in or reconveyed to United States. Lands acquired by the Secretary pursuant to this section or section 1716 of this title in exchange for lands which were revested in the United States pursuant to the provisions of the Act of June 9, 1916 (39 Stat. 218) or reconveyed to the United States pursuant to the provisions of the Act of February 26, 1919 (40 Stat. 1179), shall be considered for all purposes to have the same status as, and shall be administered in accordance with the same provisions of law applicable to, the revested or reconveyed lands exchanged for the lands acquired by the Secretary.

Sec. 1719. Mineral interests; reservation and conveyance requirements and procedures (a) All conveyances of title issued by the Secretary, except those involving land exchanges provided for in section 1716 of this title, shall reserve to the United States all minerals in the lands, together with the right to prospect for, mine, and remove the minerals under applicable law and such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, except that if the Secretary makes the findings specified in

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 | 361

subsection (b) of this section, the minerals may then be conveyed together with the surface to the prospective surface owner as provided in subsection (b) of this section. (b) (1) The Secretary, after consultation with the appropriate department or agency head, may convey mineral interests owned by the United States where the surface is or will be in non-Federal ownership, regardless of which Federal entity may have administered the surface, if he finds (1) that there are no known mineral values in the land, or (2) that the reservation of the mineral rights in the United States is interfering with or precluding appropriate nonmineral development of the land and that such development is a more beneficial use of the land than mineral development. (2) Conveyance of mineral interests pursuant to this section shall be made only to the existing or proposed record owner of the surface, upon payment of administrative costs and the fair market value of the interests being conveyed. (3) Before considering an application for conveyance of mineral interests pursuant to this section— (i) the Secretary shall require the deposit by the applicant of a sum of money which he deems sufficient to cover administrative costs including, but not limited to, costs of conducting an exploratory program to determine the character of the mineral deposits in the land, evaluating the data obtained under the exploratory program to determine the fair market value of the mineral interests to be conveyed, and preparing and issuing the documents of conveyance: Provided, That, if the administrative costs exceed the deposit, the applicant shall pay the outstanding amount; and, if the deposit exceeds the administrative costs, the applicant shall be given a credit for or refund of the excess; or (ii) the applicant, with the consent of the Secretary, shall have conducted, and submitted to the Secretary the results of, such an exploratory program, in accordance with standards promulgated by the Secretary. (4) Moneys paid to the Secretary for administrative costs pursuant to this subsection shall be paid to the agency which rendered the service and deposited to the appropriation then current. Sec. 1720. Coordination by Secretary of the Interior with State and local governments At least sixty days prior to offering for sale or otherwise conveying public lands under this Act, the Secretary shall notify the Governor of the State within which such lands re located and the head of the governing body of any political subdivision of the State having zoning or other land use regulatory jurisdiction in the geographical area within which such lands are located, in order to afford the appropriate body the opportunity to zone or otherwise regulate, or change or amend existing zoning or other regulations concerning the use of such lands prior to such conveyance. The Secretary shall also promptly notify such public officials of the issuance of the patent or other document of conveyance for such lands. Sec. 1721. Conveyances of public lands to States, local governments, etc. (a) Unsurveyed islands; authorization and limitations on authority. The Secretary is authorized to convey to States or their political subdivisions under the Recreation

362 | Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

and Public Purposes Act (44 Stat. 741 as amended; 43 U.S.C. 869 et seq.), as amended, but without regard to the acreage limitations contained therein, unsurveyed islands determined by the Secretary to be public lands of the United States. The conveyance of any such island may be made without survey: Provided, however, That such island may be surveyed at the request of the applicant State or its political subdivision if such State or subdivision donates money or services to the Secretary for such survey, the Secretary accepts such money or services, and such services are conducted pursuant to criteria established by the Director of the Bureau of Land Management. Any such island so surveyed shall not be conveyed without approval of such survey by the Secretary prior to the conveyance. Omitted lands; authorization and limitations on authority. (1) The Secretary is authorized to convey to States and their political subdivisions under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act (43 U.S.C. 869 to 869–4), but without regard to the acreage limitations contained therein, lands other than islands determined by him after survey to be public lands of the United States erroneously or fraudulently omitted from the original surveys (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘omitted lands’’). Any such conveyance shall not be made without a survey: Provided, That the prospective recipient may donate money or services to the Secretary for the surveying necessary prior to conveyance if the Secretary accepts such money or services, such services are conducted pursuant to criteria established by the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, and such survey is approved by the Secretary prior to the conveyance. (2) The Secretary is authorized to convey to the occupant of any omitted lands which, after survey, are found to have been occupied and developed for a fiveyear period prior to January 1, 1975, if the Secretary determines that such conveyance is in the public interest and will serve objectives which outweigh all public objectives and values which would be served by retaining such lands in Federal ownership. Conveyance under this subparagraph shall be made at not less than the fair market value of the land, as determined by the Secretary, and upon payment in addition of administrative costs, including the cost of making the survey, the cost of appraisal, and the cost of making the conveyance. Conformity with land use plans and programs and coordination with State and local governments of conveyances. (1) No conveyance shall be made pursuant to this section until the relevant State government, local government, and areawide planning agency designated pursuant to section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 1255, 1262) (42 U.S.C. 3334) and/or section 6506 of title 31 have notified the Secretary as to the consistency of such conveyance with applicable State and local government land use plans and programs. (2) The provisions of section 1720 of this title shall be applicable to all conveyances under this section. Applicability of other statutory requirements for authorized use of conveyed lands. The final sentence of section 1(c) of the Recreation and Public Purposes Act (43 U.S.C. 869(c)) shall not be applicable to conveyances under this section. Limitations on uses of conveyed lands. No conveyance pursuant to this section shall be used as the basis for determining the baseline between Federal and State

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 | 363

ownership, the boundary of any State for purposes of determining the extent of a State’s submerged lands or the line of demarcation of Federal jurisdiction, or any similar or related purpose. (f) Applicability to lands within National Forest System, National Park System, National Wildlife Refuge System, and National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any lands within the National Forest System, defined in the Act of August 17, 1974 (88 Stat. 476; 16 U.S.C. 1601), the National Park System, the National Wildlife Refuge System, and the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. (g) Applicability to other statutory provisions authorizing sale of specific omitted lands. Nothing in this section shall supersede the provisions of the Act of December 22, 1928 (45 Stat. 1069; 43 U.S.C. 1068), as amended, and the Act of May 31, 1962 (76 Stat. 89), or any other Act authorizing the sale of specific omitted lands. SUBCHAPTER III—ADMINISTRATION Sec. 1731. Bureau of Land Management (a) Director; appointment, qualifications, functions, and duties. The Bureau of Land Management established by Reorganization Plan Numbered 3, of 1946 shall have as its head a Director. Appointments to the position of Director shall hereafter be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Director of the Bureau shall have a broad background and substantial experience in public land and natural resource management. He shall carry out such functions and shall perform such duties as the Secretary may prescribe with respect to the management of lands and resources under his jurisdiction according to the applicable provisions of this Act and any other applicable law. (b) Statutory transfer of functions, powers and duties relating to administration of laws. Subject to the discretion granted to him by Reorganization Plan Numbered 3 of 1950, the Secretary shall carry out through the Bureau all functions, powers, and duties vested in him and relating to the administration of laws which, on October 21, 1976, were carried out by him through the Bureau of Land Management established by section 403 of Reorganization Plan Numbered 3 of 1946. The Bureau shall administer such laws according to the provisions thereof existing as of October 21, 1976, as modified by the provisions of this Act or by subsequent law. (c) Associate Director, Assistant Directors, and other employees; appointment and compensation. In addition to the Director, there shall be an Associate Director of the Bureau and so many Assistant Directors, and other employees, as may be necessary, who shall be appointed by the Secretary subject to the provisions of title 5 governing appointments in the competitive service, and shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter 3 of chapter 53 of such title relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates. (d) Existing regulations relating to administration of laws. Nothing in this section shall affect any regulation of the Secretary with respect to the administration of laws administered by him through the Bureau on October 21, 1976. Sec. 1732. Management of use, occupancy, and development of public lands (a) Multiple use and sustained yield requirements applicable; exception. The Secretary shall manage the public lands under principles of multiple use and sustained yield, in

364 | Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

accordance with the land use plans developed by him under section 1712 of this title when they are available, except that where a tract of such public land has been dedicated to specific uses according to any other provisions of law it shall be managed in accordance with such law. (b) Easements, permits, etc., for utilization through habitation, cultivation, and development of small trade or manufacturing concerns; applicable statutory requirements. In managing the public lands, the Secretary shall, subject to this Act and other applicable law and under such terms and conditions as are consistent with such law, regulate, through easements, permits, leases, licenses, published rules, or other instruments as the Secretary deems appropriate, the use, occupancy, and development of the public lands, including, but not limited to, long-term leases to permit individuals to utilize public lands for habitation, cultivation, and the development of small trade or manufacturing concerns: Provided, That unless otherwise provided for by law, the Secretary may permit Federal departments and agencies to use, occupy, and develop public lands only through rights-of-way under section 1767 of this title, withdrawals under section 1714 of this title, and, where the proposed use and development are similar or closely related to the programs of the Secretary for the public lands involved, cooperative agreements under section 1737(b) of this title: Provided further, That nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the Secretary concerned to require Federal permits to hunt and fish on public lands or on lands in the National Forest System and adjacent waters or as enlarging or diminishing the responsibility and authority of the States for management of fish and resident wildlife. However, the Secretary concerned may designate areas of public land and of lands in the National Forest System where, and establish periods when, no hunting or fishing will be permitted for reasons of public safety, administration, or compliance with provisions of applicable law. Except in emergencies, any regulations of the Secretary concerned relating to hunting and fishing pursuant to this section shall be put into effect only after consultation with the appropriate State fish and game department. Nothing in this Act shall modify or change any provision of Federal law relating to migratory birds or to endangered or threatened species. Except as provided in section 1744, section 1782, and subsection (f) of section 1781 of this title and in the last sentence of this paragraph, no provision of this section or any other section of this Act shall in any way amend the Mining Law of 1872 or impair the rights of any locators or claims under that Act, including, but not limited to, rights of ingress and egress. In managing the public lands the Secretary shall, by regulation or otherwise, take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands. Sec. 1733. Enforcement authority (a) Regulations for implementation of management, use, and protection requirements; violations; criminal penalties. The Secretary shall issue regulations necessary to implement the provisions of this Act with respect to the management, use, and protection of the public lands, including the property located thereon. Any person who knowingly and willfully violates any such regulation which is lawfully issued pursuant to this Act shall be fined no more than $1,000 or imprisoned no more than twelve months, or both. Any person charged with a violation of such regulation may be

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 | 365

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

tried and sentenced by any United States magistrate judge designated for that purpose by the court by which he was appointed, in the same manner and subject to the same conditions and limitations as provided for in section 3401 of title 18. Civil actions by Attorney General for violations of regulations; nature of relief; jurisdiction. At the request of the Secretary, the Attorney General may institute a civil action in any United States district court for an injunction or other appropriate order to prevent any person from utilizing public lands in violation of regulations issued by the Secretary under this Act. Contracts for enforcement of Federal laws and regulations by local law enforcement officials; procedure applicable; contract requirements and implementation. (1) When the Secretary determines that assistance is necessary in enforcing Federal laws and regulations relating to the public lands or their resources he shall offer a contract to appropriate local officials having law enforcement authority within their respective jurisdictions with the view of achieving maximum feasible reliance upon local law enforcement officials in enforcing such laws and regulations. The Secretary shall negotiate on reasonable terms with such officials who have authority to enter into such contracts to enforce such Federal laws and regulations. In the performance of their duties under such contracts such officials and their agents are authorized to carry firearms; execute and serve any warrant or other process issued by a court or officer of competent jurisdiction; make arrests without warrant or process for a misdemeanor he has reasonable grounds to believe is being committed in his presence or view, or for a felony if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony; search without warrant or process any person, place, or conveyance according to any Federal law or rule of law; and seize without warrant or process any evidentiary item as provided by Federal law. The Secretary shall provide such law enforcement training as he deems necessary in order to carry out the contracted for responsibilities. While exercising the powers and authorities provided by such contract pursuant to this section, such law enforcement officials and their agents shall have all the immunities of Federal law enforcement officials. (2) The Secretary may authorize Federal personnel or appropriate local officials to carry out his law enforcement responsibilities with respect to the public lands and their resources. Such designated personnel shall receive the training and have the responsibilities and authority provided for in paragraph (1) of this subsection. Cooperation with regulatory and law enforcement officials of any State or political subdivision in enforcement of laws or ordinances. In connection with the administration and regulation of the use and occupancy of the public lands, the Secretary is authorized to cooperate with the regulatory and law enforcement officials of any State or political subdivision thereof in the enforcement of the laws or ordinances of such State or subdivision. Such cooperation may include reimbursement to a State or its subdivision for expenditures incurred by it in connection with activities which assist in the administration and regulation of use and occupancy of the public lands. Uniformed desert ranger force in California Desert Conservation Area; establishment; enforcement of Federal laws and regulations. Nothing in this section shall prevent the Secretary from promptly establishing a uniformed desert ranger force

366 | Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

in the California Desert Conservation Area established pursuant to section 1781 of this title for the purpose of enforcing Federal laws and regulations relating to the public lands and resources managed by him in such area. The officers and members of such ranger force shall have the same responsibilities and authority as provided for in paragraph (1) of subsection (c) of this section. (f) Applicability of other Federal enforcement provisions. Nothing in this Act shall be construed as reducing or limiting the enforcement authority vested in the Secretary by any other statute. (g) Unlawful activities. The use, occupancy, or development of any portion of the public lands contrary to any regulation of the Secretary or other responsible authority, or contrary to any order issued pursuant to any such regulation, is unlawful and prohibited. Sec. 1739. Advisory councils (a) Establishment; membership; operation. The Secretary shall establish advisory councils of not less than ten and not more than fifteen members appointed by him from among persons who are representative of the various major citizens’ interests concerning the problems relating to land use planning or the management of the public lands located within the area for which an advisory council is established. At least one member of each council shall be an elected official of general purpose government serving the people of such area. To the extent practicable there shall be no overlap or duplication of such councils. Appointments shall be made in accordance with rules prescribed by the Secretary. The establishment and operation of an advisory council established under this section shall conform to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (86 Stat. 770). (b) Meetings. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, each advisory council established by the Secretary under this section shall meet at least once a year with such meetings being called by the Secretary. (c) Travel and per diem payments. Members of advisory councils shall serve without pay, except travel and per diem will be paid each member for meetings called by the Secretary. (d) Functions. An advisory council may furnish advice to the Secretary with respect to the land use planning, classification, retention, management, and disposal of the public lands within the area for which the advisory council is established and such other matters as may be referred to it by the Secretary. (e) Public participation; procedures applicable. In exercising his authorities under this Act, the Secretary, by regulation, shall establish procedures, including public hearings where appropriate, to give the Federal, State, and local governments and the public adequate notice and an opportunity to comment upon the formulation of standards and criteria for, and to participate in, the preparation and execution of plans and programs for, and the management of, the public lands. Sec. 1740. Rules and regulations The Secretary, with respect to the public lands, shall promulgate rules and regulations to carry out the purposes of this Act and of other laws applicable to the public lands, and the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to lands within the National Forest

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 | 367 System, shall promulgate rules and regulations to carry out the purposes of this Act. The promulgation of such rules and regulations shall be governed by the provisions of chapter 5 of title 5, without regard to section 553(a)(2). Prior to the promulgation of such rules and regulations, such lands shall be administered under existing rules and regulations concerning such lands to the extent practical. Sec. 1741. Annual reports SUBCHAPTER IV—RANGE MANAGEMENT Sec. 1751. Grazing fees; feasibility study; contents; submission of report; annual distribution and use of range betterment funds; nature of distributions. (a) The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior shall jointly cause to be conducted a study to determine the value of grazing on the lands under their jurisdiction in the eleven Western States with a view to establishing a fee to be charged for domestic livestock grazing on such lands which is equitable to the United States and to the holders of grazing permits and leases on such lands. In making such study, the Secretaries shall take into consideration the costs of production normally associated with domestic livestock grazing in the eleven Western States, differences in forage values, and such other factors as may relate to the reasonableness of such fees. The Secretaries shall report the result of such study to the Congress not later than one year from and after October 21, 1976, together with recommendations to implement a reasonable grazing fee schedule based upon such study. If the report required herein has not been submitted to the Congress within one year after October 21, 1976, the grazing fee charge then in effect shall not be altered and shall remain the same until such report has been submitted to the Congress. Neither Secretary shall increase the grazing fee in the 1977 grazing year. (b) (1) Congress finds that a substantial amount of the Federal range lands is deteriorating in quality, and that installation of additional range improvements could arrest much of the continuing deterioration and could lead to substantial betterment of forage conditions with resulting benefits to wildlife, watershed protection, and livestock production. Congress therefore directs that 50 per centum or $10,000,000 per annum, whichever is greater of all moneys received by the United States as fees for grazing domestic livestock on public lands (other than from ceded Indian lands) under the Taylor Grazing Act (48 Stat. 1269; 43 U.S.C. 315 et seq.) and the Act of August 28, 1937 (50 Stat. 874; 43 U.S.C. 1181d), and on lands in National Forests in the sixteen contiguous Western States under the provisions of this section shall be credited to a separate account in the Treasury, one-half of which is authorized to be appropriated and made available for use in the district, region, or national forest from which such moneys were derived, as the respective Secretary may direct after consultation with district, regional, or national forest user representatives, for the purpose of on-the-ground range rehabilitation, protection, and improvements on such lands, and the remaining one-half shall be used for on-the-ground range rehabilitation, protection, and improvements as the Secretary concerned directs. Any funds so appropriated shall be in addition to any other appropriations made to the respective Secretary for planning and administration of the range

368 | Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 betterment program and for other range management. Such rehabilitation, protection, and improvements shall include all forms of range land betterment including, but not limited to, seeding and reseeding, fence construction, weed control, water development, and fish and wildlife habitat enhancement as the respective Secretary may direct after consultation with user representatives. The annual distribution and use of range betterment funds authorized by this paragraph shall not be considered a major Federal action requiring a detailed statement pursuant to section 4332(c) of title 42. Sec. 1752. Grazing leases and permits (a) Terms and conditions. Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, permits and leases for domestic livestock grazing on public lands issued by the Secretary under the Act of June 28, 1934 (48 Stat. 1269, as amended; 43 U.S.C. 315 et seq.) or the Act of August 28, 1937 (50 Stat. 874, as amended; 43 U.S.C. 1181a-1181j), or by the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to lands within National Forests in the sixteen contiguous Western States, shall be for a term of ten years subject to such terms and conditions the Secretary concerned deems appropriate and consistent with the governing law, including, but not limited to, the authority of the Secretary concerned to cancel, suspend, or modify a grazing permit or lease, in whole or in part, pursuant to the terms and conditions thereof, or to cancel or suspend a grazing permit or lease for any violation of a grazing regulation or of any term or condition of such grazing permit or lease. Sec. 1753. Grazing advisory boards (a) Establishment; maintenance. For each Bureau district office and National Forest headquarters office in the sixteen contiguous Western States having jurisdiction over more than five hundred thousand acres of lands subject to commercial livestock grazing (hereinafter in this section referred to as ‘‘office’’), the Secretary and the Secretary of Agriculture, upon the petition of a simple majority of the livestock lessees and permittees under the jurisdiction of such office, shall establish and maintain at least one grazing advisory board of not more than fifteen advisers. (b) Functions. The function of grazing advisory boards established pursuant to this section shall be to offer advice and make recommendations to the head of the office involved concerning the development of allotment management plans and the utilization of range-betterment funds. (c) Appointment and terms of members. The number of advisers on each board and the number of years an adviser may serve shall be determined by the Secretary concerned in his discretion. Each board shall consist of livestock representatives who shall be lessees or permittees in the area administered by the office concerned and shall be chosen by the lessees and permittees in the area through an election prescribed by the Secretary concerned. Sec. 1762. Roads (a) Authority to acquire, construct, and maintain; financing arrangements. The Secretary, with respect to the public lands, is authorized to provide for the acquisition,

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 | 369

construction, and maintenance of roads within and near the public lands in locations and according to specifications which will permit maximum economy in harvesting timber from such lands tributary to such roads and at the same time meet the requirements for protection, development, and management of such lands for utilization of the other resources thereof. Financing of such roads may be accomplished (1) by the Secretary utilizing appropriated funds, (2) by requirements on purchasers of timber and other products from the public lands, including provisions for amortization of road costs in contracts, (3) by cooperative financing with other public agencies and with private agencies or persons, or (4) by a combination of these methods: Provided, That, where roads of a higher standard than that needed in the harvesting and removal of the timber and other products covered by the particular sale are to be constructed, the purchaser of timber and other products from public lands shall not, except when the provisions of the second proviso of this subsection apply, be required to bear that part of the costs necessary to meet such higher standard, and the Secretary is authorized to make such arrangements to this end as may be appropriate: Provided further, That when timber is offered with the condition that the purchaser thereof will build a road or roads in accordance with standards specified in the offer, the purchaser of the timber will be responsible for paying the full costs of construction of such roads. (b) Recordation of copies of affected instruments. Copies of all instruments affecting permanent interests in land executed pursuant to this section shall be recorded in each county where the lands are located. (c) Maintenance or reconstruction of facilities by users. The Secretary may require the user or users of a road, trail, land, or other facility administered by him through the Bureau, including purchasers of Government timber and other products, to maintain such facilities in a satisfactory condition commensurate with the particular use requirements of each. Such maintenance to be borne by each user shall be proportionate to total use. The Secretary may also require the user or users of such a facility to reconstruct the same when such reconstruction is determined to be necessary to accommodate such use. If such maintenance or reconstruction cannot be so provided or if the Secretary determines that maintenance or reconstruction by a user would not be practical, then the Secretary may require that sufficient funds be deposited by the user to provide his portion of such total maintenance or reconstruction. Deposits made to cover the maintenance or reconstruction of roads are hereby made available until expended to cover the cost to the United States of accomplishing the purposes for which deposited: Provided, That deposits received for work on adjacent and overlapping areas may be combined when it is the most practicable and efficient manner of performing the work, and cost thereof may be determined by estimates: And provided further, That unexpended balances upon accomplishment of the purpose for which deposited shall be transferred to miscellaneous receipts or refunded. (d) Fund for user fees for delayed payment to grantor. Whenever the agreement under which the United States has obtained for the use of, or in connection with, the public lands a right-of-way or easement for a road or an existing road or the right to use an existing road provides for delayed payments to the Government’s grantor, any fees or other collections received by the Secretary for the use of the road may be placed in a fund to be available for making payments to the grantor.

370 | Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

(e) Removal or use of mineral and vegetative materials. Mineral and vegetative materials, including timber, within or without a right-of-way, may be used or disposed of in connection with construction or other purposes only if authorization to remove or use such materials has been obtained pursuant to applicable laws or for emergency repair work necessary for those rights-of-way authorized under section 1761(c) of this title. (f) Rental payments; amount, waiver, etc. The holder of a right-of-way shall pay in advance the fair Sec. 1767. Rights-of-way for Federal departments and agencies (a) The Secretary concerned may provide under applicable provisions of this subchapter for the use of any department or agency of the United States a right-of-way over, upon, under or through the land administered by him, subject to such terms and conditions as he may impose. (b) Where a right-of-way has been reserved for the use of any department or agency of the United States, the Secretary shall take no action to terminate, or otherwise limit, that use without the consent of the head of such department or agency. SUBCHAPTER VI—DESIGNATED MANAGEMENT AREAS Sec. 1781. California Desert Conservation Area (a) Congressional findings. The Congress finds that— (1) the California desert contains historical, scenic, archeological, environmental, biological, cultural, scientific, educational, recreational, and economic resources that are uniquely located adjacent to an area of large population; (2) the California desert environment is a total ecosystem that is extremely fragile, easily scarred, and slowly healed; (3) the California desert environment and its resources, including certain rare and endangered species of wildlife, plants, and fishes, and numerous archeological and historic sites, are seriously threatened by air pollution, inadequate Federal management authority, and pressures of increased use, particularly recreational use, which are certain to intensify because of the rapidly growing population of southern California; (4) the use of all California desert resources can and should be provided for in a multiple use and sustained yield management plant to conserve these resources for future generations, and to provide present and future use and enjoyment, particularly outdoor recreation uses, including the use, where appropriate, of off-road recreational vehicles; (5) the Secretary has initiated a comprehensive planning process and established an interim management program for the public lands in the California desert; and (6) to insure further study of the relationship of man and the California desert environment, preserve the unique and irreplaceable resources, including archeological values, and conserve the use of the economic resources of the California desert, the public must be provided more opportunity to participate in such planning and management, and additional management authority must be provided to the Secretary to facilitate effective implementation of such planning and management.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 | 371

(b) Statement of purpose. It is the purpose of this section to provide for the immediate and future protection and administration of the public lands in the California desert within the framework of a program of multiple use and sustained yield, and the maintenance of environmental quality. (c) Description of Area. (1) For the purpose of this section, the term ‘‘California desert’’ means the area generally depicted on a map entitled ‘‘California Desert Conservation Area—Proposed’’ dated April 1974, and described as provided in subsection (c)(2) of this section. (2) As soon as practicable after October 21, 1976, the Secretary shall file a revised map and a legal description of the California Desert Conservation Area with the Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs of the United States Senate and the House of Representatives, and such map and description shall have the same force and effect as if included in this Act. Correction of clerical and typographical errors in such legal description and a map may be made by the Secretary. To the extent practicable, the Secretary shall make such legal description and map available to the public promptly upon request. (d) Preparation and implementation of comprehensive long-range plan for management, use, etc. The Secretary, in accordance with section 1712 of this title, shall prepare and implement a comprehensive, long-range plan for the management, use, development, and protection of the public lands within the California Desert Conservation Area. Such plan shall take into account the principles of multiple use and sustained yield in providing for resource use and development, including, but not limited to, maintenance of environmental quality, rights-of-way, and mineral development. Such plan shall be completed and implementation thereof initiated on or before September 30, 1980. (e) Interim program for management, use, etc. During the period beginning on October 21, 1976, and ending on the effective date of implementation of the comprehensive, long-range plan, the Secretary shall execute an interim program to manage, use, and protect the public lands, and their resources now in danger of destruction, in the California Desert Conservation Area, to provide for the public use of such lands in an orderly and reasonable manner such as through the development of campgrounds and visitor centers, and to provide for a uniformed desert ranger force. (f) Applicability of mining laws. Subject to valid existing rights, nothing in this Act shall affect the applicability of the United States mining laws on the public lands within the California Desert Conservation Area, except that all mining claims located on public lands within the California Desert Conservation Area shall be subject to such reasonable regulations as the Secretary may prescribe to effectuate the purposes of this section. Any patent issued on any such mining claim shall recite this limitation and continue to be subject to such regulations. Such regulations shall provide for such measures as may be reasonable to protect the scenic, scientific, and environmental values of the public lands of the California Desert Conservation Area against undue impairment, and to assure against pollution of the streams and waters within the California Desert Conservation Area. Sec. 1782. Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study (a) Lands subject to review and designation as wilderness. Within fifteen years after October 21, 1976, the Secretary shall review those roadless areas of five thousand

372 | Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

acres or more and roadless islands of the public lands, identified during the inventory required by section 1711(a) of this title as having wilderness characteristics described in the Wilderness Act of September 3, 1964 (78 Stat. 890; 16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.) and shall from time to time report to the President his recommendation as to the suitability or nonsuitability of each such area or island for preservation as wilderness: Provided, That prior to any recommendations for the designation of an area as wilderness the Secretary shall cause mineral surveys to be conducted by the United States Geological Survey and the United States Bureau of Mines to determine the mineral values, if any, that may be present in such areas: Provided further, That the Secretary shall report to the President by July 1, 1980, his recommendations on those areas which the Secretary has prior to November 1, 1975, formally identified as natural or primitive areas. The review required by this subsection shall be conducted in accordance with the procedure specified in section 3(d) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1132(d)). (b) Presidential recommendation for designation as wilderness. The President shall advise the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of his recommendations with respect to designation as wilderness of each such area, together with a map thereof and a definition of its boundaries. Such advice by the President shall be given within two years of the receipt of each report from the Secretary. A recommendation of the President for designation as wilderness shall become effective only if so provided by an Act of Congress. (c) Status of lands during period of review and determination. During the period of review of such areas and until Congress has determined otherwise, the Secretary shall continue to manage such lands according to his authority under this Act and other applicable law in a manner so as not to impair the suitability of such areas for preservation as wilderness, subject, however, to the continuation of existing mining and grazing uses and mineral leasing in the manner and degree in which the same was being conducted on October 21, 1976: Provided, That, in managing the public lands the Secretary shall by regulation or otherwise take any action required to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands and their resources or to afford environmental protection. Unless previously withdrawn from appropriation under the mining laws, such lands shall continue to be subject to such appropriation during the period of review unless withdrawn by the Secretary under the procedures of section 1714 of this title for reasons other than preservation of their wilderness character. Once an area has been designated for preservation as wilderness, the provisions of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.) which apply to national forest wilderness areas shall apply with respect to the administration and use of such designated area, including mineral surveys required by section 4(d)(2) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(d)(2)), and mineral development, access, exchange of lands, and ingress and egress for mining claimants and occupants. Sec. 1783. Yaquina Head Outstanding Natural Area (a) Establishment. In order to protect the unique scenic, scientific, educational, and recreational values of certain lands in and around Yaquina Head, in Lincoln County, Oregon, there is hereby established, subject to valid existing rights, the Yaquina Head Outstanding Natural Area (hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘area’’). The

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 | 373

boundaries of the area are those shown on the map entitled ‘‘Yaquina Head Area’’, dated July 1979, which shall be on file and available for public inspection in the Office of the Director, Bureau of Land Management, United States Department of the Interior, and the State Office of the Bureau of Land Management in the State of Oregon. (b) Administration by Secretary of the Interior; management plan; quarrying permits. (1) The Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Secretary’’) shall administer the Yaquina Head Outstanding Natural Area in accordance with the laws and regulations applicable to the public lands as defined in section 103(e) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1702) (43 U.S.C. 1702(e)), in such a manner as will best provide for— (A) the conservation and development of the scenic, natural, and historic values of the area; (B) the continued use of the area for purposes of education, scientific study, and public recreation which do not substantially impair the purposes for which the area is established; and (C) protection of the wildlife habitat of the area. (2) The Secretary shall develop a management plan for the area which accomplishes the purposes and is consistent with the provisions of this section. This plan shall be developed in accordance with the provisions of section 202 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1712). (3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the Secretary is authorized to issue permits or to contract for the quarrying of materials from the area in accordance with the management plan for the area on condition that the lands be reclaimed and restored to the satisfaction of the Secretary. Such authorization to quarry shall require payment of fair market value for the materials to be quarried, as established by the Secretary, and shall also include any terms and conditions which the Secretary determines necessary to protect the values of such quarry lands for purposes of this section. (c) Revocation of 1866 reservation of lands for lighthouse purposes; restoration to public lands status. The reservation of lands for lighthouse purposes made by Executive order of June 8, 1866, of certain lands totaling approximately 18.1 acres, as depicted on the map referred to in subsection (a) of this section, is hereby revoked. The lands referred to in subsection (a) of this section are hereby restored to the status of public lands as defined in section 103(e) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1702) (43 U.S.C. 1702(e)), and shall be administered in accordance with the management plan for the area developed pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, except that such lands are hereby withdrawn from settlement, sale, location, or entry, under the public land laws, including the mining laws (30 U.S.C., ch. 2), leasing under the mineral leasing laws (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), and disposals under the Materials Act of July 31, 1947, as amended (30 U.S.C. 601, 602) (43 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). (d) Acquisition of lands not already in Federal ownership. The Secretary shall, as soon as possible but in no event later than twenty-four months following March 5, 1980, acquire by purchase, exchange, donation, or condemnation all or any part of the lands and waters and interests in lands and waters within the area referred to in

374 | Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

subsection (a) of this section which are not in Federal ownership except that State land shall not be acquired by purchase or condemnation. Any lands or interests acquired by the Secretary pursuant to this section shall become public lands as defined in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). Upon acquisition by the United States, such lands are automatically withdrawn under the provisions of subsection (c) of this section except that lands affected by quarrying operations in the area shall be subject to disposals under the Materials Act of July 31, 1947, as amended (30 U.S.C. 601, 602) (30 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Any lands acquired pursuant to this subsection shall be administered in accordance with the management plan for the area developed pursuant to subsection (b) of this section. (e) Wind energy research. The Secretary is authorized to conduct a study relating to the use of lands in the area for purposes of wind energy research. If the Secretary determines after such study that the conduct of wind energy research activity will not substantially impair the values of the lands in the area for purposes of this section, the Secretary is further authorized to issue permits for the use of such lands as a site for installation and field testing of an experimental wind turbine generating system. Any permit issued pursuant to this subsection shall contain such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines necessary to protect the values of such lands for purposes of this section. (f) Reclamation and restoration of lands affected by quarrying operations. The Secretary shall develop and administer, in addition to any requirements imposed pursuant to subsection (b)(3) of this section, a program for the reclamation and restoration of all lands affected by quarrying operations in the area acquired pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. All revenues received by the United States in connection with quarrying operations authorized by subsection (b)(3) of this section shall be deposited in a separate fund account which shall be established by the Secretary of the Treasury. Such revenues are hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary as needed for reclamation and restoration of any lands acquired pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. After completion of such reclamation and restoration to the satisfaction of the Secretary, any unexpended revenues in such fund shall be returned to the general fund of the United States Treasury. (g) Authorization of appropriations. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated in addition to that authorized by subsection (f) of this section, such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this section. Sec. 1784. Lands in Alaska; designation as wilderness; management by Bureau of Land Management pending Congressional action Notwithstanding any other provision of law, section 1782 of this title shall not apply to any lands in Alaska. However, in carrying out his duties under sections 1711 and 1712 of this title and other applicable laws, the Secretary may identify areas in Alaska which he determines are suitable as wilderness and may, from time to time, make recommendations to the Congress for inclusion of any such areas in the National Wilderness Preservation System, pursuant to the provisions of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). In the absence of congressional action relating to any such recommendation of the Secretary, the Bureau of Land Management shall manage all such areas which

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 | 375 are within its jurisdiction in accordance with the applicable land use plans and applicable provisions of law. Sec. 1785. Fossil Forest Research Natural Area (a) Establishment. To conserve and protect natural values and to provide scientific knowledge, education, and interpretation for the benefit of future generations, there is established the Fossil Forest Research Natural Area (referred to in this section as the ‘‘Area’’), consisting of the approximately 2,770 acres in the Farmington District of the Bureau of Land Management, New Mexico, as generally depicted on a map entitled ‘‘Fossil Forest’’, dated June 1983. (b) Map and legal description. (1) In general. As soon as practicable after November 12, 1996, the Secretary of the Interior shall file a map and legal description of the Area with the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives. (2) Force and effect. The map and legal description described in paragraph (1) shall have the same force and effect as if included in this Act. (3) Technical corrections. The Secretary of the Interior may correct clerical, typographical, and cartographical errors in the map and legal description subsequent to filing the map pursuant to paragraph (1). (4) Public inspection. The map and legal description shall be on file and available for public inspection in the Office of the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior. (c) Management. (1) In general. The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, shall manage the Area— (A) to protect the resources within the Area; and (B) in accordance with this Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and other applicable provisions of law. (2) Mining. (A) Withdrawal. Subject to valid existing rights, the lands within the Area are withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under the mining laws and from disposition under all laws pertaining to mineral leasing, geothermal leasing, and mineral material sales. (B) Coal preference rights. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to issue coal leases in New Mexico in exchange for any preference right coal lease application within the Area. Such exchanges shall be made in accordance with applicable existing laws and regulations relating to coal leases after a determination has been made by the Secretary that the applicant is entitled to a preference right lease and that the exchange is in the public interest. (C) Oil and gas leases. Operations on oil and gas leases issued prior to November 12, 1996, shall be subject to the applicable provisions of Group 3100 of title 43, Code of Federal Regulations (including section 3162.5-1), and such other terms, stipulations, and conditions as the Secretary of the Interior considers necessary to avoid significant disturbance of the land surface or impairment of the natural, educational, and scientific research values of the Area in existence on November 12, 1996.

376 | Federal Water Pollution Control Law of 1948 (3) Grazing. Livestock grazing on lands within the Area may not be permitted. (d) Inventory. Not later than 3 full fiscal years after November 12, 1996, the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, shall develop a baseline inventory of all categories of fossil resources within the Area. After the inventory is developed, the Secretary shall conduct monitoring surveys at intervals specified in the management plan developed for the Area in accordance with subsection (e) of this section. (e) Management plan. (1) In general. Not later than 5 years after November 12, 1996, the Secretary of the Interior shall develop and submit to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives a management plan that describes the appropriate use of the Area consistent with this Act. (2) Contents. The management plan shall include— (A) a plan for the implementation of a continuing cooperative program with other agencies and groups for— (iii) laboratory and field interpretation; and (iv) public education about the resources and values of the Area (including vertebrate fossils); (B) provisions for vehicle management that are consistent with the purpose of the Area and that provide for the use of vehicles to the minimum extent necessary to accomplish an individual scientific project; (C) procedures for the excavation and collection of fossil remains, including botanical fossils, and the use of motorized and mechanical equipment to the minimum extent necessary to accomplish an individual scientific project; and (D) mitigation and reclamation standards for activities that disturb the surface to the detriment of scenic and environmental values.

Federal Water Pollution Control Law of 1948 Congress passed the first ever Water Pollution Control Act in 1948. The law was Congress’ first attempt to abate the increasing amounts of pollution entering into the lakes, rivers, streams, and oceans from industry and residential discharges. The law left the primary responsibility for water pollution abatement to the states. The law directed the surgeon general to provide technical support to ‘‘devise and perfect methods to treat industrial wastes’’ and to provide technical services and loans to the states for the design and construction of water pollution control facilities. In the law, Congress directed the appropriations committee to allocate $27.8 million each year for five years to conserve public water supplies and improve ‘‘propagation of fish and aquatic life, recreational purposes, and agricultural, industrial and other legitimate uses.’’ The majority of the appropriation ($22.5 million per year) went to the states for the water treatment facility construction. The federal government’s primary role involved supporting and aiding technical research and providing financial aid to the states. Federal enforcement of the

Food and Agriculture Organization | 377

law extended to preparing and adopting ‘‘comprehensive programs eliminating or reducing the pollution of interstate waters and tributaries thereof.’’ The law required a four-step process to force polluters to abate their discharges into interstate waters. First, the surgeon general submitted a formal notification to the polluter that directed them to perform remedial measures in a set period of time. Second, if the polluter did not abate the pollution, the surgeon general then recommended to the polluter’s state that it should file suit against the polluter. Third, if the polluter failed to adequately respond, a public hearing was held before a board of five persons who made recommendations to the surgeon general that the board found ‘‘reasonable and equitable to secure abatement of such pollution.’’ Fourth, if again the polluter did not adequately respond to the recommendations, the federal government with approval from the appropriate state filed suit against the polluter. A congressional historian noted that the surgeon general never issued a formal notification order under the original law (Milazzo, 2006). This complicated federal enforcement system did not substantially increase the abatement of water pollution. By 1952, Congress stopped funding state grants for water abatement programs. Moreover, Congress never formally appropriated money for state loans for construction of water treatment facilities. Congress amended the original 1948 law in 1956, 1961, 1965, and 1966 to strengthen its enforcement and provide state loans and grants to design and build water treatment facilities. As an example, the 1966 amendments appropriated $1.25 billion in 1971 for state grants to construct water treatment facilities. By 1970, the federal government realized that the original law and its amendments did not effectively control water pollution; therefore, Congress rewrote the law and passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. This law substantially changed the federal enforcement procedures for discharges of pollution into U.S. waters. Teresa Spezio See also Clean Water Act of 1972; Office of Drinking Water; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; U.S. Public Health Service

References Milazzo, Paul Charles. Unlikely Environmentalists: Congress and Clean Water, 1945–1972. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2006.

Food and Agriculture Organization The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations organizes international efforts to end hunger. Founded on October 16, 1945, in Quebec, the FAO has roots in a 1943 meeting on food and agriculture in Hot Springs, Virginia,

378 | Food Security Act of 1985

called by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and attended by 44 countries. The group was headquartered in Washington, D.C., until 1951, when it moved to Rome, Italy. The mandate of the FAO is to ‘‘raise levels of nutrition, improve agricultural productivity, better the lives of rural populations and contribute to the growth of the world economy’’ (Food and Agriculture Organization). The FAO works toward these goals by distributing food and food production resources to developing regions. The organization helps countries facing ongoing food shortages, as well as acute hunger crises caused by earthquakes and other natural disasters. The World Food Conference was held by FAO in 1974 to address issues of food security raised by the global food shortages linked to the oil crisis. Throughout its history, the organization has drawn criticism for not solving the problem of world hunger. In answer, FAO hosted a World Food Summit in 1996, World Food Summit: Five Years Later in 2002, and another World Food Summit in 2008, each time rededicating the organization’s commitment to its mission to end hunger. The FAO continues to advocate for food equity and agricultural development through field projects and policy work in forestry, agriculture, fisheries, and aquaculture. Examples of recent efforts include promoting sustainable farming practices such as conservation agriculture, striving for regulation of fishing waters, and working to keep plant material accessible to farmers by adopting the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Amy Halloran See also Food Security Act of 1985; Sustainable Agriculture

References Abbott, John. Politics and Poverty: A Critique of the FAO of the UN. London: Routledge, 1992. Food and Agriculture Organization. http://www.fao.org/. Kassam, Amir, et al. ‘‘The Spread of Conservation Agriculture.’’ International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 13 (4) (2009). Mann, Charles, and Barbara Huddleston, eds. Food Policy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986.

Food Security Act of 1985 The 1985 Farm Bill (officially the Food Security Act of 1985) was one of the periodic acts passed by the U.S. Congress since the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 to deal with issues of farm income, farm productivity, food safety and security, rural life, and resource use. Unlike previous agricultural acts, a conservation section was added to establish policies that would reduce the environmental impact of agriculture in the United States. The ‘‘sodbuster’’ and

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team | 379

‘‘swampbuster’’ provisions specified that any farmer who initiated farming on highly erodible lands or wetlands would be prohibited from participating in any federal farm programs, effectively cutting off subsidies to farmers who engage in farming on such marginal and environmentally sensitive lands. Moreover, the bill included what is now known as the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). Through financial incentives, the CRP encouraged the removal of highly erodible lands from cultivation and had a goal of removing between 40 and 45 million acres of such land from agricultural production by 1990. Finally, the conservation provisions of the bill extended the Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977 and required the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to evaluate the quality and extent of soil and water resources in 1995 and in 2005 (Glaser, 1985). Given these provisions, the 1985 Farm Bill established the role of the USDA to ensure the environmental sustainability of agriculture and laid the groundwork for further expansion of this role in all subsequent farm bills. Parker Wheatley References Glaser, L. K. ‘‘Provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985, Agricultural Information Bulletin, No. 498.’’ Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Hayden, F. ‘‘Wetlands Provisions in 1985 and 1990.’’ Journal of Economic Issues 24 (1990): 575–587. Luzar, E. J. ‘‘Natural Resource Management in Agriculture: An Institutional Analysis of the 1985 Farm Bill.’’ Journal of Economic Issues 22 (1988): 563–570. Ogg, C. ‘‘Addressing Environmental Needs in Farm Programs.’’ Agricultural History 66 (1992): 273–278. Reichelderfer, K. ‘‘Policy Issues Arising from Implementation of the 1985 Farm Bill Conservation Programs. Increasing Understanding of Public Problems and Understanding Paper Series.’’ Farm Foundation, 1988. http://purl.umn.edu/17657. Taff, S., and C. F. Runge. ‘‘Supply Control, Conservation, and Budget Restraint: Conflicting Instruments in the 1985 Farm Bill. Staff Paper No. P86-33.’’ Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, 1986.

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team The Forest Ecosystems Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) was appointed by President Bill Clinton following a one-day Forest Conference in Portland, Oregon, in April 1993. At the conference, President Clinton committed his administration to developing an effective, ecologically sound management system for federal lands. FEMAT was instructed to assess the consequences of an array of ecosystem management options for managing federal lands in the range

380 | Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team

of the northern spotted owl. The recommendations were to be scientifically sound, ecologically credible, and legally defensible. The Forest Conference attracted environmentalists, timber industry representatives, scientists, and residents of communities affected by a 1990 decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that declared the northern spotted owl a ‘‘threatened’’ species. The owl is considered an ‘‘indicator species’’ that signals the relative health of the ecosystem in which it lives. The designation meant a virtual halt to timber harvesting and other activities in the old-growth forests that are the owl’s habitat. Ecosystem management is a cooperative approach that attempts to simultaneously manage for all interests—economic, social, and biological—in a region or watershed. The creation of the Forest Ecosystems Management Assessment Team marked the first time most, if not all, government agencies responsible for overseeing different aspects of managing the same piece of federal property adopted a common management approach to an entire ecological region. Six federal agencies formed FEMAT. They were the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the National Park Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Participants included ecologists, foresters, biologists, hydrologists, geomorphologists, and social scientists. By the time the report was issued in July 1993, approximately 80 individuals from 40 federal and state agencies, universities, and private interest groups had reviewed data and options to develop plans for managing more than 26 million acres of federal land. Fran Severn See also Biodiversity; Bureau of Land Management; Clinton, William Jefferson; Conservation; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

References Cooperative Forest Ecosystem Research. http://www.fsl.orst.edu/cfer/rschneed/ ecomngt.html. Clinton’s remarks at the Forest Conference, call numbers are those from the University of Oregon Library, 1993. The Forest Conference: Portland Convention Center, Portland, Oregon, April 2, 1993. Clinton, William J., and Albert Gore, Jr. The FEMAT Report: 1993a. ‘‘The Forest Plan for a Sustainable Economy and a Sustainable Environment. Printed as Appendix A of the Northwest Forest Plan: A Report to the President and Congress.’’ The FEMAT Report: 1993c. ‘‘Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (U.S.) Forest Ecosystem Management: An Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment/Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team.’’ Steffenson, John, and Duane Dippon. ‘‘Building a GIS for the President’s Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team.’’ ACSM/ASPRS Annual Convention and Exposition. Baltimore: ACSM/ASPRS, 1994. 1: 617–623.

Free Market Environmental Policy | 381

Free Market Environmental Policy Free market environmental policy supports the practice of using market mechanisms and market-based policy instruments to encourage environmental protection. Rather than positioning the market as the source of environmental problems, free market environmental policy offers the market as a solution. Some examples of market-based environmental policies and policy instruments include pollution taxes, subsidies, land trusts and conservation easements, and emissions trading and permits under the cap-and-trade system (Tietenberg, 2005). Free market environmental policy derives largely from the theory of free market environmentalism, a belief in the importance of private property rights and opposition to government intervention in the economy and environment. Historically, environmental protection advocates have identified market forces as a significant source of environmental degradation. As shared common property, private firms and owners may overuse the environment and natural resources like land, water, and air for individual gains, and leave behind negative externalities such as pollution and waste that affect the larger public. This phenomenon, named the ‘‘tragedy of the commons’’ by Garrett Hardin (1968), suggests that individual users do not value common property and are inclined to act in their short-term self-interest, rather than in the long-term interest of all users. Economist Ronald Coase (1960) reasoned that the most effective way to control the costs and consequences of negative behavior and activity in the public and private sphere was to establish clearly defined property rights. Building upon the works of Coase and Hardin, proponents of free market environmentalism argue that environmental protection is best achieved through increased privatization of land and environmental resources. Economic scholars Terry L. Anderson and Donald R. Leal (1991) contend that if the wealth of the property owner is at stake, rational individuals will seek to protect their assets and derive the greatest possible value from their property. Anderson and Leal suggest that unlike the government and voters in the general public, private landowners have access to better information and will use it to act in the best interest of their property. Therefore, they argue that entrepreneurs, businesses, and industries will act as good stewards of the environment in order to protect their investment. Free market environmental policy supporters embrace the use of market prices, willingness to pay, and economic calculations like cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment as appropriate determinants of environmental values. Although market-based environmental policies can be effective in some scenarios, free market environmental policy also has many shortcomings. For example, in the case of land trusts and conservation easements, private individuals, companies, and groups are willing to purchase or donate land and limit property

382 | Friends of the Earth International

rights in order to ensure long-term protection. Also, the tradable permits system of the Clear Air Act cap-and-trade program assigns clear costs and benefits to increases or reductions in environmentally damaging pollution. When monetary values cannot be readily determined, however, market-based tools are inadequate to ensure environmental protection. Environmental issues are very diverse and require individualized examinations and solutions, and free market environmental policy provides one potential option. Erica A. Morin See also Clean Air Act of 1970; Environmental Compliance Program

References Anderson, T. L., and D. R. Leal. Free Market Environmentalism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991. Coase, R. ‘‘The Problem of Social Cost.’’ Journal of Law and Economics 3 (1960): 1–44. Hardin, G. ‘‘The Tragedy of the Commons.’’ Science 162 (3859) (1968): 1,243–1,248. Tietenberg, T. H. ‘‘Economic Instruments for Environmental Regulation.’’ In Economics of the Environment: Selected Readings, Robert Stavins, ed., 373–395. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2005.

Friends of the Earth International Friends of the Earth International is a grassroots organization that champions environmental sustainability along with a more peaceful and just world. This group encompasses more than 2 million members from all around the world. It is the world’s largest grassroots environmental organization with 77 national member groups and more than 5,000 local activist groups. It maintains a presence on most continents. The U.S. chapter of Friends of the Earth was established in 1969, and the international organization formed in 1971, with members from France, Sweden, England, and the United States. The first meetings were held in Roslagen, Sweden, where the group took a unanimous stance against nuclear power. In the early stages, this group was mainly a Northern Hemisphere organization, focusing on grassroots demonstrations and direct action. In the 1980s, this group expanded to Asia, Latin America, and Africa, and its focus grew to incorporate more global problems. Examples of current issues include the rights of indigenous peoples, genetically modified foods, and the impact the ongoing economic crisis has had on poverty and the environment. As Friends of the Earth has grown in both membership and scope, its tactics have grown more moderate. Today, it is a professional interest organization with a full-time staff and budget, but with a strong grassroots focus.

Friends of the Earth International | 383

Activists from Living Rivers, Friends of the Earth, and the Native Forest Network protest at a rest stop on the Arizona border overlooking the Hoover Dam Monday, June 17, 2002. The group chose the site of the Grand Canyon as a symbol representing the Bureau of Reclamation’s 600-dam inventory and its impact throughout the western United States. (AP/Wide World Photos)

This group grew from four independent groups into a force of 2 million environmentally conscience people. They espouse no religion, economic interest, or affiliation with any political party or ethnic organizations. Friends of the Earth International is a multi-issue group that fights for environmental sustainability. The highly decentralized leadership allows a considerable amount of autonomy between groups and their causes. Melinda Mueller and Nathan Garrett See also Sustainable Agriculture; Sustainable Forestry

References Carter, Neil. The Politics of the Environment: Ideas, Activism, Policy, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Doherty, Brian. ‘‘Friends of the Earth International: Negotiating a Transnational Identity.’’ Environmental Politics 15 (5) (2006): 860–880. Friends of the Earth International, http://www.foei.org/.

384 | Friends of the Earth v. Mosbacher (2005)

Friends of the Earth v. Mosbacher (2005) Friends of the Earth v. Mosbacher (2005) is a federal lawsuit challenging the actions of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the Export-Import Bank. Friends of the Earth (FOE), Greenpeace, and the cities of Arcata, Oakland, and Santa Monica, California, and Boulder, Colorado, are the plaintiffs in the case claiming that the defendants aid global warming by providing financial assistance to overseas fossil fuel projects that emit greenhouse gases (GHG). The plaintiffs’ position is that greenhouse gases significantly change the environment. FOE claims that the defendants failed to conduct an environmental review, which is mandatory under the National Environmental Policy Act. NEPA requires federal agencies to include environmental values in their decision-making processes by considering the environmental impacts of the proposed actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions. To meet the NEPA requirement, the agency files an environmental impact statement (EIS). The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted partial summary judgment to the defendants on March 30, 2007. The court wrote that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the defendants had energy programs that required a programmatic EIS analysis under NEPA. However, the court did not decide whether for the purposes of NEPA the programs were major federal actions. The court indicated that the question was but for federal financing, the projects would not have gone forward, thus contributing to global warming. The court concluded that it could not determine whether the defendants were the legally relevant cause of the alleged effects on the domestic environment. The court determined that it is undisputed that the projects emitted GHG. The case is still pending. Timothy O’Brien See also Friends of the Earth International; Sierra Club v. Morton (1972)

References 488 Federal Supplement 2d, 889, 2007. Knight, Richard L., and Sarah F. Bates. A New Century for Natural Resources Management. Washington DC: Island Press, 1995.

G General Mining Act of 1872 Ulysses S. Grant signed the Mining Act of 1872 to encourage the settlement and development of publicly owned lands in the west. There was plenty of western land for everyone, so prices were low. Ever since, manipulation of the generously worded act has allowed the dumping of waste, the cutting of timber, the creation of resorts and private homes, and other damaging activities. The 1872 law applies to 270 million acres of public land, mostly in the Rocky Mountain west and Alaska. The total is nearly one-fourth of all the land in the United States, two-thirds of federal lands. It exempts land purchased, received as a gift, or taken in condemnation proceedings. The law does not apply in eastern forests because although publicly owned, they are not public domain. National parks and other areas of public domain are excluded. The federal government has historically taken the position that it lacks the authority to reject a mining proposal. Private citizens and businesses may claimpatent or buy 20 acres of mineral lands for $2.50 or $5.00 an acre. They may enter public domain to prospect and mine the land, and sell gold, silver, uranium, and other minerals with no reimbursement and no permit. The law initially covered all types of mining, but over time amendments have excluded minerals such as coal and limestone. A 1920 change moved gas, phosphates, sulfur, oil shale, and other hydrocarbons from the claim-patent system to federal leasing. The 1947 Materials Act and the 1955 Common Varieties Act modified the law to regulate sand, stone, cinders, pumice, stone, and the like. The 1977 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act regulates coal mining to keep groundwater clean and provides other environmental safeguards needed by hardrock mines. The absence of environmental safeguards has allowed the pollution of as much as 40 percent of the headwaters in western watersheds. Mining has polluted more than 12,000 miles of river. Cleaning up the 550,000 abandoned hardrock mines will cost between $32 and $72 billion. Mining reform legislation has failed due to the inability of owners and environmentalists to reach common ground. The Senate’s Hardrock Mining Reform Act of 1993 was a corporation-friendly bill. It called for retaining patents but charging fair market value, tightened mining requirements, and set a $25 fee for each claim and an $100 annual maintenance fee for each claim. It levied a 2 percent royalty 385

386 | Gibbs, Lois

on value minus costs. Companies would have to post bond and file a plan of operation that included environmental considerations. The House’s Mineral Exploration and Development Act of 1993 had stricter environmental provisions and replaced patents with leases and set a $25 claim fee but set a $200 maintenance charge. Claims could be 40 acres rather than 20. And a royalty of 8 percent of smelter value, rather than mine-mouth value as the Senate proposed, was included. The two houses failed to reach a compromise, and the bills died. Subsequently, comparable bills have failed. John H. Barnhill See also Coal Mining; National Mining Association; Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977; United Mine Workers of America

References Bakken, Gordon Morris. The Mining Law of 1872: Past, Politics, and Prospects. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2008. Cyr, Tom, Jon-Paul Genest, John Kinne, Jamie Meads, Annette Quinlan, and Craig Smith. ‘‘The Mining Act of 1872.’’ http://www.anarchydivine.com/john/writings/mineact .html (accessed April 2009). Earthworks. ‘‘1872 Mining Law.’’ http://www.earthworksaction.org/1872.cfm (accessed April 2009). Earthworks. ‘‘Mining Law Basics.’’ http://www.earthworksaction.org/1872basics.cfm (accessed April 2009). OMB Watch. ‘‘Safeguards Weakened or Revoked.’’ February 13, 2002. http://www .ombwatch.org/node/227.

Gibbs, Lois Lois Marie Gibbs is executive director of the Center for Health, Environment, and Justice in Falls Church, Virginia. According to the CHEJ Web site, Gibbs and her staff advise community groups on strategic activism, scientific and technical evaluation, and public education to confront environmental health hazards. They also campaign to prevent pollution, eliminate PVC plastics, and reduce children’s exposure to toxins. Gibbs founded the center in 1981 following the Love Canal crisis in her hometown of Niagara Falls, New York. In 1978, Gibbs was 27, a high school graduate and housewife when toxic contamination in the blue-collar Love Canal neighborhood became a national disaster. Many local workers were employed by chemical manufacturers. The Niagara Gazette newspaper had reported about chemicals leaching from an old landfill near the Niagara River (State University of New York). There was a pattern of residents’ illnesses, particularly miscarriages and birth defects. Gibbs’ ill son attended

Gibbs, Lois | 387

Lois Gibbs, president of the Love Canal Homeowners Association, makes adjustments to a Christmas tree trimmed with decorations naming some of the chemicals found in the Love Canal, December 21, 1978, Niagara Falls, New York. The sign at the top saying Hooker is no angel refers to the Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp., which used the site as a chemical dump for 10 years. On the walls behind are posters warning of dioxin, a highly toxic substance also found at the dump. (AP/Wide World Photos)

an elementary school built atop the 16-acre dump site. The Niagara Falls Board of Education had bought the land in 1953 for $1 from Hooker Chemical Co. Though more than 21,000 tons of chemical waste was disposed of there since 1942, the school board’s deed included a disclaimer of liability. The original excavation dated to the 1890s, when developer William T. Love intended to divert the river for hydroelectric power to a model industrial city, a project that failed. Fearful for her children, Gibbs petitioned to close the school and organized families into the Love Canal Homeowners Association (Boston University School of Public Health). It was one of several advocacy groups to form as local, state, and federal authorities investigated. On August 2, 1978, the New York State Health Department declared an emergency, recommending that the school be closed and pregnant women and children younger than two be evacuated. On August 7, President Jimmy Carter approved financial aid so the state could begin

388 | Glen Canyon Dam

buying houses to relocate families. Gibbs became a prominent spokeswoman and political activist as residents pushed for health studies to determine the extent of contamination (State University of New York at Buffalo). In 1979, the U.S. Justice Department and Environmental Protection Agency sued Hooker Chemical and its parent Occidental Petroleum Corp. for emergency response and cleanup costs. In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), better known as Superfund, to regulate and remediate closed waste sites (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). In 1981, Gibbs moved to the Washington, D.C., area to create an organization to help people facing similar environmental threats. Ultimately, properties on the Love Canal site were razed, and waste remediation was undertaken. A 1982 TV movie ‘‘Lois Gibbs and the Love Canal’’ starred actress Marsha Mason. Gibbs received the 1990 Goldman Environmental Prize, 1998 Heinz Award in the Environment, 1999 John W. Gardner Leadership Award, and 2004 March of Dimes Maternal and Infant Health Award. She has honorary doctorates from the State University of New York at Cortland and Haverford College, and an honorary degree of humane letters from Green Mountain College. Rita Truschel See also Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; Love Canal; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

References Boston University School of Public Health. ‘‘Lessons from Love Canal: A Public Health Resource.’’ http://www.bu.edu/lovecanal (accessed May 11, 2010). Center for Health, Environment and Justice. http://www.chej.org (accessed May 5, 2010). State University of New York at Buffalo. Love Canal Collections. http://library.buffalo .edu/specialcollections/lovecanal (accessed May 11, 2010). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/lovecanal (accessed May 11, 2010). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/cercla (accessed May 12, 2010).

Glen Canyon Dam The Glen Canyon Dam is the second largest dam on the Colorado River and is located in Page, Arizona, just upstream from the Grand Canyon National Park. The dam took three years to construct and was finally completed in 1959. The dam is 710 feet high, 25 feet thick at the crest, 310 feet thick at the base, and 1,560

Glen Canyon Dam | 389

Water is released from Glen Canyon Dam near Page, Arizona on Sunday, November 21, 2004. The water, which flows into the Grand Canyon, was released by the Bureau of Reclamation in an effort to redistribute 800,000 metric tons of sediment to maintain ecosystems on the Colorado River. (AP/Wide World Photos)

feet long. It contains a total of 4,901,000 cubic yards of concrete (U.S. Department of the Interior Reclamation Bureau, 2010). The construction of the Glen Canyon Dam simultaneously created Lake Powell, a large reservoir that took 17 years to completely fill for the first time. Lake Powell has since become a very popular tourist attraction. The water from Lake Powell can be released in three different ways; the power plant, the river outlet, and the spillways. The spillways slow the flow of the river through the use of tunnels that reduce in size from 48 to 41 feet in diameter. The capacity of the spillways is 208,000 cubic feet per second, which is double the natural flow rate of the river, the capacity of the power plant is 33,200 cubic feet per second, and the capacity of the river is 15,000 cubic feet per second (U.S. Department of the Interior Reclamation Bureau, 2010). The dam is operated by a power plant that consists of eight generators driven by eight turbines. The dam in turn generates enough energy to supply 425,000 households with electricity for one year, which is approximately the same as using 2.5 million tons of coal. The power generated is sold in 20-year contracts with Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. The dam generates approximately 6 percent of the total electricity in Arizona and 13 percent in Utah (Frequently Asked Questions, 2007).

390 | Gore, Albert Arnold Jr.

The Sierra Club in recent years has called for the closing of the Glen Canyon Dam because in looking at the cost-benefit analysis, the relatively small amounts of energy produced from the dam do not outweigh the environmental degradation endured by the impacted land around the dam. In 1996 the Bureau of Reclamation discovered that almost 8 percent of the river’s flow had disappeared between the dams stations recording the inflow and outflow. This is in addition to the 600,000 acre-feet that are lost to evaporation (Bower, 2000). It is also believed that a downward-slanting stratum is creating a drain like effect in Lake Powell and it is uncertain whether or not the river will be able to regain the amount of water it has currently lost. The Glen Canyon Dam is a very large cement structure that was created during a time when little was known about the potential benefits and environmental problems that the dam could cause. It has been recommended by many environmental groups that the use of the dam be suspended and the Colorado River again permitted to flow its natural course. Madeline A. Dragich See also Colorado River

References Bower, D. R. Sierra Club. ‘‘Let the River Run Through It.’’ http://www.sierraclub .org/sierra/199703/brower.asp (accessed May 3, 2010). Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program. ‘‘Frequently Asked Questions.’’ http://www.gcdamp.gov/faq.html (accessed May 3, 2010). U.S. Department of the Interior Reclamation Bureau. ‘‘Reclamation: Managing Waters in the West: Glen Canyon Dam.’’ http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Facility.jsp?fac _Name=Glen%20Canyon%20Dam (accessed May 29, 2009).

Gore, Albert Arnold Jr. United States representative, senator, vice president under Bill Clinton from 1993 to 2001, and environmental activist, Albert Arnold Gore Jr. was born on March 31, 1948, in Washington, D.C., to Pauline Gore and Albert Arnold Gore Sr., a U.S. representative (and later senator) from Tennessee. As a child, Gore split his time between his family’s farm near Carthage, Tennessee, and an apartment in Washington, D.C., where the family lived while Congress was in session. Gore attended public elementary school in Carthage and graduated from St. Albans High School in Washington, D.C., in 1965 (Congressional Biography). Gore’s parents stressed to their children the importance of taking care of the earth. On the family farm, Gore’s father pointed out small gullies to his son and explained that uncontrolled gullies wash away rich topsoil. At the dinner

Gore, Albert Arnold Jr. | 391

Former Vice President Al Gore speaks in front of a poster of his documentary film An Inconvenient Truth on global warming during the Japan premiere at a Tokyo theater, Monday, January 15, 2007. (AP/Wide World Photos)

table, Gore’s mother read out loud passages from Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring to her son and daughter, Nancy. At a young age, Gore noticed how small, personal actions can affect Earth as a whole, either positively or negatively (Gore, 2006, 9). After high school, Gore attended Harvard University. One of his professors was Roger Revelle, the first scientist to measure the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to gauge pollution and global warming. Revelle shared his findings with his classes, drawing on the blackboard a dramatic upward shift of carbon dioxide—a greenhouse gas that many attribute to global warming—in the air each year. That graph, and Revelle’s passion for research, stayed with Gore through the years (Gore, 2006, 38). Gore graduated with honors from Harvard with a degree in government in 1969. He then entered the U.S. Army and served in Vietnam from 1969 to 1971 as an Army newspaper reporter. There, he witnessed firsthand the devastating effects of the chemical Agent Orange, used to strip jungles of foliage. While at the time a necessity, Gore saw the ramifications a chemical can have upon both nature and humans (Gore, 1992, 3). While on leave from the Army, Gore married Mary Elizabeth (Tipper) Aitcheson on May 19, 1970.

392 | Gore, Albert Arnold Jr.

Upon Gore’s discharge, he began a career in the newspaper industry. He moved to Nashville, Tennessee, and became a reporter at the Nashville Tennessean in 1971. While working at the Tennessean, he attended Vanderbilt University in Nashville. There, he attended the School of Religion from 1971 to 1972, and the Law School from 1974 to 1976 (Biographical Directory, 2009). He continued to work at the Tennessean until 1976, when he decided to run for Tennessee’s open Fourth District congressional seat. Gore won the election, propelling him into the world of politics. From the beginning, Gore focused on environmental issues while in Congress. One of his first actions was to visit Oak Ridge National Laboratory to become familiar with the latest environmental research (Gore, 2006, 212). In December 1980, Gore, along with fellow Congressmen Jim Florio, Tom Downey, and others, passed the Superfund Law, which mandated the cleanup of hazardous chemical dump sites throughout the U.S. (Gore, 1992, 7). Gore organized the first congressional hearing on global warming in March 1981 (Weart, 2008). He invited his Harvard professor, Roger Revelle, to be the leadoff witness. Gore was convinced that his colleagues would be just as shocked by Revelle’s research as Gore was when he was a student. But much to Gore’s disappointment, no one in Congress seemed too concerned about the global warming threat. Gore decided to take a different approach in emphasizing the importance of acknowledging climate change. From studying nuclear arms control in the early 1980s, Gore learned to take a large, sprawling issue and separate it into separate and manageable pieces of information. With global warming, Gore decided to separate local issues from larger, more global issues. He found it easier to convince people to take action regarding local issues while still providing information about bigger threats to the entire Earth (Gore, 1992, 7–8). In 1984, Gore was elected to the Senate. He and colleagues tried to pass legislation to cap carbon dioxide emissions, but they could not acquire enough support to find success (Gore, 2006, 40). After a little more than two years in the Senate, Gore decided to run for the 1988 Democratic presidential nomination. He began his campaign in 1987, focusing his platform on global warming and environmental issues. But Gore found the public and media were not receptive to his message, and he was often drawn into talking about other issues that dominated the race. Eventually, he withdrew from the campaign. Gore has said that his failed run for president gave him a new way of looking at his job as a senator (Gore, 1992, 10). He continued to champion for environmental causes. In the spring of 1990, Gore and other senators organized the first Interparliamentary Conference on the Global Environment. Representatives of 42 nations attended, identifying as a group threats to the global environment.

Gore, Albert Arnold Jr. | 393

Gore was instrumental in convincing the Navy to release information about sea ice thickness in the North Pole that was classified top secret. U.S. Navy submarines regularly patrolled the Arctic Ocean waters for decades and on each trip, crews took careful radar measurements of sea ice in order to know where to surface. Navy officials were afraid that the data would compromise national security and give enemies knowledge about submarine routes. But Gore helped the Navy reach a compromise, and the information was released in 1995. The data confirmed environmental suspicions that the ice indeed was thinning (Gore, 2006, 141). But it was a family tragedy that provided the impetus for Gore to throw himself fully behind environmental causes. In April 1989, Gore’s six-year-old son, Albert, was hit by a car and seriously injured. Over the next several months, the family focused its energies on helping Albert recover. Given the time to reflect, Gore found himself at a crossroads. He was fresh off the resounding defeat of the 1988 presidential campaign, and he had just turned 40 years old. This was a time, he decided, to dedicate himself to the things that mattered most. In evaluating his priorities, he decided he wanted to strengthen his commitment to creating awareness for the environment and the global warming threat. He gained new energy, passion, and focus (Gore, 2006, 8). While his son recovered from his injuries, Gore started to write what would become his first book, Earth in the Balance, published in 1992. The idea for an environmental book started after the 1988 campaign. Gore had long used flip charts and other visual aids in presenting information about the environment. He wanted a forum where his ideas could reach an even larger audience. Gore contemplated the idea of creating a TV series, even going so far as to meet with a documentary producer, when Albert’s accident occurred. The outline for the TV series instead became the outline for Earth in the Balance (Maraniss and Nakashima, 2000, 247). The year the book came out was the year that Gore was elected vice president under the nation’s forty-second president, William Jefferson Clinton. Clinton, the former governor of Arkansas, chose Gore as a running mate to strengthen Clinton’s weak areas: foreign policy and the environment (Maraniss, 267). As vice president, Gore had a new forum in which to spread the word about environmental issues. Gore played one of his most well-known environmental roles as vice president in 1997. That year, world leaders gathered in Kyoto, Japan, to solidify details of a global agreement that would aim to halt toxic emissions. But by late in the year, the talks appeared to collapse. Disagreement revolved around what countries should be making the steepest cuts against pollution and emissions. As a representative from the United States, Gore knew he could help leaders reach a deal if he stepped in. But it was a political risk. His attendance at the Kyoto talks risked upsetting those who thought the U.S. economy would suffer if the government agreed to cap emissions. But if Gore didn’t participate in the talks, he risked upsetting environmentalists who had supported him for the better part of two decades (Maraniss and

394 | Grand Canyon

Nakashima, 2000, 287). Gore ultimately decided to aid the negotiations, and the result was the Kyoto Protocol. However, he wasn’t successful in getting the United States to adopt the treaty. Upon his return, the White House didn’t even send the protocol to Congress. Gore pressed on, and in 2000 he sought and received the Democratic presidential nomination. In November, he was defeated by George W. Bush in a contested election that went to the U.S. Supreme Court. Once again, Gore was forced to decide a new direction for his life in the face of disappointment. He continued to present his global warming speech to audiences around the world, using slides that he had first developed when writing Earth in the Balance. In the spring of 2005, a Hollywood producer, Laurie David, saw one of the presentations. She suggested that the presentation be made into a movie. Gore was skeptical at first, but realized a movie would have the power to reach the mass audience he had dreamed of. In 2006, An Inconvenient Truth was released in movie theaters. A companion book of the same name also was released. The movie opened to critical acclaim. It won an Academy Award for best documentary. And in 2007, Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change received the Nobel Peace Prize for work in increasing knowledge of worldwide climate change. Gore continues to focus on environmental issues. He testifies before congressional committees and writes opinion articles for newspapers. His next book, Our Choice, a follow-up to An Inconvenient Truth, was released in November 2009. Rachael Hanel See also Clinton, William Jefferson; Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

References ‘‘Al’s Bio.’’ www.algore.com/about.html. Gore, Al. An Inconvenient Truth. Emmaus, PA: Rodale, 2006. Gore, Al. Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1992. Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, 2009. ‘‘Gore, Albert Arnold Jr.’’ http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=G000321. Maraniss, David, and Ellen Nakashima. The Prince of Tennessee: The Rise of Al Gore. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000. Weart, Spencer. ‘‘Money for Keeling: Monitoring CO2 Levels.’’ The Discovery of Global Warming. July 2008. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Kfunds.htm.

Grand Canyon The Grand Canyon, located in Arizona, is one of the greatest natural wonders in the world. The canyon is 277 miles long and ranges from 4 to 18 miles wide.

Grand Canyon | 395

View from top of the Grand Canyon. Man sitting on ledge is John Hillers. Colorado River is seen. (Library of Congress)

396 | Grand Canyon

It formed over the course of 2 billion years. The Grand Canyon is one of 58 national parks in the United States. It is home to a vast amount of wildlife and is a very popular tourist attraction. The formation of the Grand Canyon began about 2 billion years ago; it looked as it does today approximately 4.5 million years ago. The first human interaction with the canyon occurred in the sixteenth century by the Pueblo people who considered it a holy site and made pilgrimages to it. The first European to discover the Grand Canyon was Garcia Lopez de Cardenas in 1540. Theodore Roosevelt was the first U.S. president to show a significant interest in the Grand Canyon as he visited the canyon for the first time in 1903 and shortly afterward established the National Game Preserve. Roosevelt declared the Grand Canyon a national monument on January 11, 1908. The Grand Canyon was declared a national park by Congress and Woodrow Wilson on February 26, 1919 (National Park Service, 2010). The Grand Canyon was created through a long process of rock formation, uplift, and erosion from the Colorado River. Approximately 2 billion years ago, two land plates collided, and the heat and pressure produced from this process created a dark metamorphic rock at the base of the canyon, which hardened as a sort of granite. The striations seen in the canyon were created by the Grand Canyon Supergroup, which is composed of red shale, fossil-algae-bearing limestone, and dark lava. As the land mass was pulled apart, the layers began to tilt. The upper part of the canyon was created by sediment from rivers and swamps that solidified into sandstone. The Rocky Mountains began to form 70 million years ago, which also created the Colorado Plateau, which in turn created the valley where the Colorado River to begin to erode the land and carve out the canyon, approximately 5 to 6 million years ago. With no foundation for the soft layers of rock created by erosion, the layers collapsed, and the two sides of the canyon were created (National Park Service, 2009). The Grand Canyon is also host to a considerable amount of wildlife, which was what originally attracted Roosevelt to the area as he was interested in the rich hunting land. The canyon is home to animals such as beaver, bighorn sheep, mountain lion, mule deer, and many squirrels, among a few others. The canyon is found in both the Mojave and Sonoran deserts, which greatly affect the plant life that is capable of growing in the area. However, this climate is supportive of vast ponderosa and pinyon pine forests that grow on the rim as well as on the canyon walls (National Park Service, 2009). Grand Canyon National Park is one of the greatest tourist attractions in the United States, as it attracts more than 5 million visitors per year. The canyon is very conducive to activities such as hiking, running, biking, camping, rafting, or going on a mule ride. A significant amount of the park is completely handicap accessible. At the canyon, there are two rims, the South Rim and the North Rim. The North Rim is 1,000 feet higher in elevation than the South Rim and is closed

Green Cities | 397

from November to mid-May as it gets a significant amount of snow during these months. There are many different lodges and campgrounds to stay at during a visit to the Grand Canyon. Adventurous campers and hikers may obtain a backcountry camping permit and camp in the actual canyon instead of on the rim. The two most popular daily events at the Grand Canyon are sunrise and sunset over the canyon, which many people describe as one of the most beautiful areas in the world to watch the sunset. With the sun shining on the canyon and the variety of color in the different layers of the canyon, it shines like a bright rainbow of layered land. The canyon is 277 miles long and the national park area captures the central beauty of the entire canyon (National Park Service, 2010). Madeline A. Dragich See also Colorado River; National Park Service; Roosevelt, Theodore

References National Park Service. ‘‘Grand Canyon.’’ Washington DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, 2009. National Park Service. ‘‘Grand Canyon National Park.’’ http://www.nps.gov/grca/ index.htm (accessed April 11, 2010).

Grand Coulee Dam Begun in 1933 and completed in 1941, the Grand Coulee Dam is located on the Columbia River in Washington State. At the time, it was the largest dam in the United States. The Grand Coulee Dam was built for three different purposes: irrigation, hydroelectric power, and flood control. While irrigation may have been a leading factor in the initial construction, the timing of the completion of the dam shifted the focus, and irrigation came much later. Electricity became much more important as war industries grew in the northwest to help with World War II. Currently, the Grand Coulee Dam supplies more than 6.5 million kilowatts of power to the region. The Grand Coulee Dam did not accommodate fish passage, however, and thus effectively wiped out the salmon population upstream. Adam M. Sowards

Green Cities As there is a continuous rise of population shifting to cities, there are also exponentially increasing harmful impacts to the ecosystem, including massive amounts of pollution, colossal amounts of land usage, and immense consumption of natural resources. As a result of this influx of urban migration, economic

398 | Green Cities

growth, and industrial progress, there is a rapid rate of consumption of energy and nonrenewable resources. Urban design since the late twentieth century has explored various ways in which cities can be redesigned in order to reduce the negative consequences of urban sprawl, such as dependency on automobile traffic, excessive land and water consumption, and a lack of pedestrian environment. A true green city involves several variables of sustainability, environmental science, urbanism, and architecture. Sustainable urbanism is a growing field of study that integrates knowledge from these disciplines in an attempt to establish standards and seek new ways of restructuring development of infrastructure, architecture, and community in today’s cities in order to foster a progressive, environmentally sensitive way of life. The green cities movement has roots in the emergent desires of the late twentieth century, to return to the small-town lifestyle. During the post-war 1900s, there was an urge to revisit the garden city ideals pioneered by the English architect and planner Ebenezer Howard in the 1890s. His approach to urban design was the maximization of the qualitative aspects of the traditional agricultural town, while adapting to the needs of the modern city. This garden city movement not only brought about new ideas on land usage, but also attempted to reorganize society and its impact on urban migration. Urban design of the later 1900s was also significantly impacted by works of other prominent designers, including the book Design with Nature by Ian McHarg. This work by the Scottish landscape architect was influential in questioning the progress of human society within the ecosystem. Through his critique of such urban conditions as pollution, overcrowding of buildings, and the absence of open space, he encouraged a harmonious cityscape that merged human living with the natural environment. In the 1930s, a seminal group of European modernist architects at the International Congress of Modern Architecture proposed ideas that enforced a vertical growth of density (CIAM, 1930s). The central premise behind these studies was that the high-rise building type could accommodate urban population, allowing the potential to create the desired open public green space. Inspired by such ideas of restructuring the density of cities, the Congress for New Urbanism supported the creation of pedestrian walkways and narrow streets and the preservation of farmland and open space as solutions to the growing problems of urban sprawl of the 1990s. In addition, they promoted mixed-use communities, pedestrian networks, and a diversity of architectural styles to define the cityscape. Contemporary approaches toward sustainable urban design since the 1950s share the same underlying goals of the earlier models while placing priorities on the redesign of infrastructure, the zoning of open green space, and reducing the impact on the environment. Urban designers are rejecting the effects of autodependent suburban sprawl and are beginning to seek ways of integrating modern human ways of life with ‘‘natural systems.’’ As explored by the historic models

Green Cities | 399

of the early 1900s, the control of urban density is crucial to the success of a community. Although the ideal size of a neighborhood is variable according to local regional contexts, a community prospers with diversity in land use. The creation of compact, high-density, mixed-use developments reduces the overall demands of infrastructure for automobile traffic and other utilities. Therefore, density limits can not only address communal and environmental needs, but can also create a more engaging pedestrian environment for residents. However, designing these dense neighborhoods in isolation will only encourage the return of dependency on automobile transportation. Infrastructure, therefore, should be thought of a collective public system, consisting of a coherent dialogue between mass transit and traffic for pedestrians and automobiles. Mass-transit systems should utilize the capacity to connect these concentrated establishments to enable a convenient urban lifestyle for residents. In addition to maximizing accessibility and efficiency, infrastructure should also be supported accordingly, with zoning codes for other utilities, such as sewer, gas, electrical, and graywater systems. Through the overcrowded center cities and isolated private lots of today’s suburbs, humans have become detached from the outdoor environment. Furthering concepts by Howard, McHarg, and other leading visionaries, urbanists of the present century have studied ways in which the modern city can incorporate proportionate zones of public green space. Park spaces, greenways, and other such open green public spaces have numerous energy-efficient and experiential benefits in urban neighborhoods. In addition to providing opportunities for graywater recycling systems, these zones of open space also promote healthy lifestyles for residents. For example, the smart-growth movement views the design of greenfield development as another integral layer of urban infrastructure. This integration within the land uses of the city allows access for all residents and strengthens the natural biodiversity of the region. While there are numerous projects and developments that exemplify strategies of sustainable urbanism in cities throughout the country, the movements have yet to dynamically influence codes of practice. Specific legislative regulation is essential to the management of such redevelopment strategies. Some of the most successful groups that have stimulated enforcement in America’s large cities include the active leadership of architects and urban designers at different levels of legislation, along with elected officials and local citizens. It allows the potential to share their knowledge and design skills to educate the public about the rapid environmental decline and urge the steps of change. The Neighborhood Conservation Program in some states is one such influential body that has encouraged planning councils that urge policies for implementation into the existing urban fabric, before designing new communities. Following the lessons learned from various models from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, architects and urban designers of this decade are shifting

400 | Greenpeace

their focus toward progressive visions of cities for the twenty-first century. The goals for green cities of the future include establishing the balance between efficient living for all citizens, economic and industrial vitality, and environmentally conscious lifestyles. The ultimate challenge lies in that these designs must allow the city to constantly readapt to needs of changing society while highlighting conservation and enhancing the quality of life. Mohammad Gharipour See also Conservation; Smart Growth; Sustainable Development

References Brown, David E., ed. Sustainable Architecture: White Papers. New York: Earth Pledge, Inc, 2005. Buder, Stanley. Visionaries and Planners: The Garden City Movement and the Modern Community. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. Farr, Douglas. Sustainable Urbanism: Urban Design with Nature. Somerset, NJ: Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2008. Kahn, Matthew E. Green Cities: Urban Growth and the Environment. Washington DC: Brookings Institutional Press, 2006. Ward, Stephen Victor. The Garden City: Past, Present, and Future. New York: Routledge, 1992.

Greenpeace Greenpeace is a global independent nonprofit campaigning organization that works to protect the environment and promote peace. Its members’ core values include nonviolent confrontation to increase the quality of public debate, maintaining financial independence from commercial and political interests, bearing witness to environmental destruction in a peaceful way, and seeking solutions to promote debate about society’s environmental choices. While promoting environmental solutions, Greenpeace’s members believe they have no permanent allies and adversaries. Greenpeace has more than 2.9 million members and a presence in 41 countries. An international board with four members and a chairman governs the organization. Its current campaigns include stopping climate change, defending the oceans, saying no to genetic engineering, fostering peace and nuclear disarmament, protecting ancient forests, promoting sustainable trade, and others. Greenpeace began on September 15, 1971, when 12 Canadian activists sailed a chartered boat, christened Greenpeace for the trip, to Amchitka, an island off of Alaska. Their goal was to stop a five-megaton nuclear fusion blast by the U.S. government. The test would be the largest underground nuclear blast in American history. Amchitka Island sat on a fault line of one the world’s most active

Greenpeace | 401

Greenpeace activists Ingrid Gordon from San Francisco, California (left) and Seiei Nakahara from Tokyo, Japan hold a banner in front of the American Seafoods factory trawler Ocean Rover calling for the trawler to stop overfishing for pollock, Monday, September 9, 1996, in the Bering Sea off Alaska. Greenpeace believes the factory trawlers are overfishing pollock stocks and destroying the North Pacific ecosystem. (AP/Wide World Photos)

earthquake zones. The island had been declared a Federal Wildlife Zone in 1913 and was home to 131 species of sea birds. The activists were intercepted and the test went forward but they made international news. The action established the name Greenpeace in Canada. The group started as the Make a Wave Committee that spun off from the Sierra Club. In 1972, the organization officially took the name the Greenpeace Foundation. Some of the founders included Bill Darnell, who coined the name, Jim Bohlen, Paul Cote, and Irving Stowe from the Make a Wave Committee, and Patrick Moore, Robert Hunter, Ben and Dorothy Metcalfe, and Paul Watson. David McTaggart organized several groups to come together and form Greenpeace International in 1979. In its early days, the organization was loosely organized around issues and campaigns. Parts of the group worked on nuclear disarmament, and by late 1973, other Greenpeace activists adopted the Great Whale Conspiracy as their campaign to save whales. Greenpeace targeted Russia and Japan to change their whaling policies. After intense work, including sea actions where Greenpeace

402 | Greenpeace

vessels tracked whaling ships, the International Whaling Commission adopted a whaling moratorium in 1982. Greenpeace helped defeat an effort by Japan and others to reintroduce commercial whaling in 2002. A few of their victories were a worldwide ban on high-seas, large-scale driftnets in 1992, a worldwide ban on the sea dumping of radioactive and industrial waste in 1993, and playing a major role in the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol that addresses climate change. Six UK Greenpeace activists set an important precedent in September 2008 when they were acquitted of causing £30,000 in criminal damage for attempting to shut down a coal-fired power station in Kent, England. The activists painted the prime minister’s name on smokestacks. The campaigners used the lawful excuse defense, stating that they were acting to protect property around the world from the damage caused by burning coal. The acquittal showed the public support for direct action to protect the environment from coal burning and was the first time that this defense prevailed in a climate change case. Lisa A. Ennis See also Environmental Defense Fund; United States v. Greenpeace (2004)

References Hunter, Robert. Warriors of the Rainbow: A Chronicle of the Greenpeace Movement. New York: Henry Holt, 1979. Weyler, Rex. Greenpeace: How a Group of Journalists, Ecologists, and Visionaries Changed the World. Emmaus, PA: Rodale, 2004. Weyler, Rex. ‘‘Waves of Compassion: The Founding of Greenpeace, Where Are They Now?’’ Utne Reader, October 15, 2008. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/.

H Habitat Conservation Plan As open space has increasingly gained priority in most city and town developments within the past decade, residents and officials continuously search for a way to make it commercially viable while being environmentally responsible. Due to this growing acquisition of land and various other factors of environmental decline, extinction rates of more than 15,000 species have rapidly increased, particularly during recent decades. The Endangered Species Act (ESA), passed in 1973, was a monumental law that sought conservation and prohibited the ‘‘taking’’ of listed endangered species and their habitats. However, the U.S. Congress modified this act with the addition of Act 10, the Habitat Conservation Plan. This addendum was intended to encourage ‘‘creative partnerships’’ between private landowners, developers, and government agencies in order to protect threatened species and their natural habitats. Along with the Habitat Conservation Plan Application and a standard application fee, the incidental take permit is a crucial document for the approval process. The ESA defines the action of ‘‘take’’ as ‘‘harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, of any threatened or endangered species.’’ Thus, the incidental take permit is required for any action that will harm, destroy, or impact an endangered species or its habitat. The applicant can request an official from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to inspect the desired property to specify the species that are under potential danger. In most cases, the FWS regional director is the authority of the final decision based on established criteria that emphasizes ‘‘minimization’’ and ‘‘recovery’’ of the endangered species and their habitats. The Habitat Conservation Plan has now been adopted by more than 400 city governments as a way of allowing private individuals to not only take land, but also give back to the natural environment. Mohammad Gharipour and Anitha Deshamudre See also Endangered Species Act of 1973

References Audubon, A Citizen’s Guide to Habitat Conservation Plans, http://www.audubon.org/ campaign/esa/hcp-guide.html U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Publication, http://library.fws.gov/Pubs9/hcp_add _faqs00.pdf 403

404 | Hanford Nuclear Waste Site

Hanford Nuclear Waste Site The Hanford nuclear waste site is located in southeastern Washington State. The 586-square-mile area is the largest, most expensive environmental cleanup project in history. During World War II, efforts to build an atomic bomb led the Manhattan Project to select this region because of its proximity to the Columbia River for cooling and the Grand Coulee Dam for power. The remote location was necessary for national security reasons. Quick construction of a nuclear reactor to produce plutonium was required, and the hastily emptied farming community was replaced by an influx of workers who lived in Hanford Camp. Primitive living conditions at the tent city and sudden dust storms caused high worker turnover. Operations at Hanford Engineer Works were so secretive that many employees did not know that they were working in a nuclear plant until the Fat Man Bomb was dropped on Nagasaki in 1945 (http://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/WorldWarIIEra).

Unidentified workers at the ‘‘tank farms’’ on the Hanford nuclear reservation near Richland, Washington, enter an area known to have hazardous vapors, March 23, 2004. Initiative 297, which was approved by 69 percent of Washington State voters, barred the U.S. Department of Energy from sending more radioactive waste to Hanford until existing waste, including waste stored on the ‘‘tank farms,’’ was cleaned up. (AP/Wide World Photos)

Hanford Nuclear Waste Site | 405

This secrecy was accepted first because of the war effort, and later because of Cold War concerns. Economic benefits from Hanford, including jobs and regional development, were significant and led to great loyalty on the part of residents of the tri-cities area, which included the cities of Richland, Kennewick, and Pasco. This loyalty perhaps prevented citizens from questioning the hazards of the facility, even as health problems such as miscarriages and birth defects occurred (D’Antonio, 1993, 20–21). Although scientists measured radiation at regular intervals, information on radiation contamination was not shared with the public (D’Antonio, 1993, 279). During the Cold War and into the 1970s, the Hanford Nuclear Reservation was run by companies such as General Electric and DuPont for the federal government, which maintained autonomy and secrecy for operations. A 1973 story in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported that 100 billion gallons of low-level liquid waste were discharged into the ground over a 30-year period. Mounting media attention to nuclear issues, including the 1986 nuclear accident at Chernobyl, and the release by the Department of Energy (DOE) of thousands of documents revealing contamination at and around Hanford gave fuel to a vocal anti-nuclear movement around the nation. The same year also saw a Washington State referendum block the DOE from making Hanford a nuclear waste dump. Also in the mid-1980s, a new director at Hanford, Mike Lawrence, changed the climate of isolation. One example of this openness was his establishing a citizen committee that oversaw the development of the first Environmental Impact Statement of Hanford’s wastes (Oregon Department of Energy, 2009). The DOE shut down the last reactor at Hanford in 1987 and changed its mission from defense to environmental remediation (http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/nwp/aboutnwp.htm). After 14 months of negotiations, the Tri-Party Agreement was signed by the DOE, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Washington State Department of Ecology in May 1989. It set goals for Hanford’s cleanup under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA, also known as Superfund) (Lichtenstein, 2004, 5). The environmental toll of 45 years of defense industry on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation left a legacy of contamination. Increased cancer incidence, miscarriages, hypothyroidism, and other radiation-related illnesses were reported by people who lived downwind from Hanford. Downwinders continue to be involved in litigation with contractors who worked for DOE at Hanford (as of April 2010). Cleanup measures have also gone to court, as the DOE, because of its governmental status, has been allowed to regulate itself in the matter. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a lawsuit in 2002 fighting DOE attempts to reclassify high-level wastes as low-level or incidental waste (Lichtenstein, 2004, 5). Heart of America Northwest is a watchdog group that has been and remains involved in the cleanup project. The first 20 years of cleanup have cost $30 million, and have focused on moving hazardous liquids from leaky tanks, and

406 | Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984)

cocooning nuclear reactors. Contamination of the soil, groundwater and the Columbia River remain an environmental concern. Yet parts of the site are open for public tours, and the tri-city area is trying to promote its defense and Cold War history (Schlegel, 2009). Amy Halloran See also Natural Resources Defense Council; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

References D’Antonio, Michael. Atomic Harvest. New York: Crown, 1993. Lichtenstein, Noah D. ‘‘The Hanford Nuclear Waste Site: A Legacy of Risk, Cost and Inefficiency.’’ Natural Resources Journal, Summer 2004. Oregon Department of Energy. ‘‘Hanford Cleanup: The First 20 Years.’’ Salem: Oregon Department of Energy, 2009. Schlegel, Jeff. ‘‘Unspoiled Nature in Shadow of a Nuclear Site.’’ New York Times, September 4, 2009. United States Department of Energy, Hanford. http://www.hanford.gov/. Washington State Department of Ecology. ‘‘Nuclear Waste Program History.’’ http:// www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/nwp/aboutnwp.htm/. Washington State Department of Health, Hanford Health Information Network. ‘‘Timeline of Major Events Related to the Release of Radioactive Materials from Hanford.’’ http://www.doh.wa.gov/hanford/publications/history/timeline.html#VC1b1/.

Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984) The U.S. Supreme Court ruling Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff was built on precedent set by 1954’s Berman v. Parker ruling. In Berman, the Court ruled that land could be taken by eminent domain for public purposes—or ‘‘urban renewal’’— reasoning that if the property in question was run down, it was in the public’s interest to raze and redevelop it (FindLaw http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl? court=us&vol=348&invol=26). Hawaii v. Midkiff took this rationale a step further, ruling that the land didn’t necessarily have to be in dire need of attention, but could also be taken if ownership was concentrated in too few hands. The ruling more loosely defines ‘‘public use’’ as it is referred to in the Fifth Amendment. In fact, the ruling indicates that ‘‘public use’’ doesn’t even need to mean the public would ever even use the land in question (Hall 1992, 368). It basically authorized land redistribution by the state, reasoning that the Hawaii law did not intend to privilege anyone but rather sought to diffuse property ownership, and that doing so was an acceptable endeavor (FindLaw http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/ scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=463&invol=1323). The dispute originated when some Hawaiian landowners couldn’t reach an agreement with tenants seeking title to their land. The state’s housing authority

Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 | 407

had determined that a sale met the threshold of ‘‘public purpose,’’ but negotiations between the parties failed, and the landowners filed suit. The Supreme Court ruling overturned a court of appeals finding that the law was unconstitutional. The unanimous ruling was written by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Jessica Chapman See also Berman v. Parker (1954)

References Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954), http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase .pl?court=us&vol=348&invol=26 (accessed January 31, 2009, and June 27, 2009). ‘‘Constitutional Law—Fifth Amendment—Ninth Circuit Rejects Public Use Clause Challenge to Honolulu’s Lease to Fee Ordinance—Richardson v. City and County of Honolulu, 124 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 1997).’’ Harvard Law Review (April 1998). Hall, Kermit L., ed. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. New York: University of Oxford Press, 1992. Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984), http://caselaw.lp.findlaw .com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=463&invol=1323 (accessed February 3, 2009, and June 27, 2009). Hudson, David L. The Handy Supreme Court Answer Book. Detroit: Visible Ink Press, 2008.

Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 resulted from strong vocal public opposition to existing hazardous waste disposal practices perceived as harmful to human health and the environment. Signed into law by President Ronald Reagan on November 8, 1984, HSWA also is known as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act reauthorization bill. Enacting HSWA was an attempt by lawmakers to prevent future cleanup problems especially associated with contamination leaking from landfills. It also created a new regulatory program for underground tanks storing petroleum at gas stations, for example. HSWA’s controversial changes include expanding the definition of parties potentially responsible for contamination cleanup. Under the new law, anyone allowing a minimum of about 50 pounds of hazardous waste per month into a natural resource could now be held liable. That included ‘‘ma and pa’’ businesses. The standard was not well received by industry and business, but endured. HSWA embodies the fourth movement in federal solid waste law in the United States. The first is marked by the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965. That phase focused on research, demonstrations, and training. In the decade following, it became clear that the SWDA was not enough to resolve the mountain of waste

408 | Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1975

growing in the country. Phase two came with the Resource Recovery Act of 1970, which changed the tone of legislation from disposal efficiency to harnessing energy and materials from solid waste. In phase three, Congress took a more active regulatory role with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. In the fourth phase, HSWA regulated landfill disposal connected to untreated hazardous waste. Particular attention was paid to setting landfill liner and leachate collection requirements, deadlines for compliance, closure actions for landfills not meeting standards, and establishing a corrective action program. The HSWA are considered the most significant amendments to RCRA. Debra A. Schwartz See also Reagan, Ronald Wilson; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

References Answers.com. ‘‘Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984.’’ Excerpt from the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments. http://www.answers.com/topic/hazardousand-solid-waste-amendments-of-1984 (accessed May 31, 2009). Environmental Protection Agency. ‘‘Statement by the U.S. EPA on the President’s Signing of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984.’’ Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/rcra/04.htm (accessed May 31, 2009). National Council for Science and the Environment. ‘‘Solid Waste Disposal Act/ Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.’’ http://ncseonline.org/Nle/Crsreports/briefingbooks/laws/h.cfm (accessed May 31, 2009). Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. ‘‘25 Years of RCRA: Building on Our Past to Protect Our Future.’’ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. April 2002. http://www.epa.gov/osw (accessed May 31, 2009).

Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1975 Transporting hazardous materials around the nation for matters of commerce creates certain risks to life and property. The purpose of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1975 (HMTA) is to protect against those risks by providing more oversight. In order to do so, the HMTA improved the authority of the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to implement regulations and enforce them (U.S. DOE, 2010). Congress passed the HMTA to respond to incidents that involved spills or exposure to hazardous substances on public transportation routes, such as highways (Fishel, 2010). Maurer (2003) notes that Congress was motivated by a simple concern: the regulations that existed were fragmented. Federal agencies dealing with different modes of transportation created a hodgepodge of rules that led to conflicts and did not serve the public well. A cohesive approach to the problem of protecting the

Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 | 409

public and making it safe for these materials to move around, as needed, did not exist. Most shipments involved more than one kind of transportation, and that meant different regulations applied at different points along the shipment route (Maurer, 2003). Because incidents had already occurred that put the public at risk, Congress responded by enacting the HMTA (NTSB Publications, 2010). The HMTA established a uniform system of rules for transporting hazardous materials that is still in effect today, with subsequent amendments passed. It continues to be the authorization for the Secretary of Transportation to issue rules to implement a unified, cohesive approach to hazardous materials transportation (Maurer, 2003). Grenatta Thomassey See also Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984

References Fishel, Frederick M. Electronic Data Information Source (EDIS) of University of Florida/IFAS Extension. ‘‘Federal Regulations Affecting Use of Pesticides.’’ http://edis .ifas.ufl.edu/pi168 (accessed April 18, 2010). Maurer, William R. The Federalist Society. ‘‘The Transportation of Hazardous Materials After September 11: Issues and Developments.’’ December 1, 2003. http://www.fed-soc.org/ publications/pubID.112/pub_detail.asp (accessed April 18, 2010). National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Publications. ‘‘Hazardous Materials Accidents.’’ http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/Z_Acc.htm (accessed April 18, 2010). U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Health, Safety, and Security (HSS). ‘‘Hazardous Materials Transportation Act.’’ http://www.hss.energy.gov/nuclearsafety/ env/policy/hmta.html (accessed April 18, 2010).

Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 The Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003, signed into law by President George W. Bush, sought to reduce the danger of catastrophic wildfires and improve forest health by thinning dense undergrowth on federal and public lands (Bush White House, 2003). It was partly prompted by several years of intense fires: In 2002 and 2003, 147,049 fires burned 11 million acres, killing 51 firefighters and costing hundreds of millions of dollars to contain (The White House Office of Communications, 2003). The initiative stated that a century of fire suppression left ‘‘unnaturally dense’’ western forests that were increasingly fire-prone during droughts. However, the act was not without controversy. Environmental advocacy groups called the law’s active forest management a euphemism for uncontrolled logging, providing an economic windfall for timber interests. Reducing logging restrictions, they said, meant private timber companies would unnecessarily harvest older, larger trees with more economic value, while neglecting the greater issue of

410 | Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003

President Bush laughs during a ceremony at the Agriculture Department in Washington, D.C., Wednesday, December 3, 2003, where he signed the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. From left are, Senator Max Baucus, D-MT; Senator Mike Crapo, D-ID; Representative Richard Pombo, R-CA; Representative Bob Goodlatte, R-VA; Senator Thad Cochran, R-Miss., Interior Secretary Gale Norton; and Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman. (AP/Wide World Photos)

‘‘ladder fuels’’ (such as brush and small trees), and would increase logging of oldgrowth forests in the moist western Cascades, where fuel reduction was not a management objective. After a massive wildfire season in 2008, a look back at the law revealed both successes and failures (Reese, 2008). Mark Rey, a former timber industry lobbyist who oversaw the Forest Service as Bush’s Undersecretary for Natural Resources, said it was unrealistic to expect the federal government to prevent unusually hot-burning wildfires. ‘‘We didn’t amend the laws of nature [lightning strikes and man-made fires], we amended how we addressed forest fire,’’ he said, adding that the act’s greatest accomplishment was supporting community wildfire-protection plans (Reese, 2008). Karen Goodwin See also Bush, George W.; Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team; OldGrowth Forests; Sustainable Forestry; U.S. Forest Service

Heritage Foundation, The | 411

References Reese, April. ‘‘Wildfire: Five Years After Passage, Healthy Forests Restoration Act Falls Short of Goals, Critics Say.’’ Land Letter, E&E Publishing, November 6, 2008. http://www.eenews.net/public/Landletter/2008/11/06/1. The White House Office of Communications/President George W. Bush. ‘‘Bush Administration Actions to Promote Healthy Forests.’’ December 3, 2003. http://georgewbush -whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/healthyforests/restor-act-pg2.html.

Heritage Foundation, The The Heritage Foundation is a conservative research and educational organization whose self-described mission is ‘‘To formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense’’ (http:// www.heritage.org/About). Congressional aide Paul Weyrich formed the group in 1973 with financial support from beer magnate Joseph Coors, inspired by the success of lobbying efforts of environmental groups like the Sierra Club, and in response to the 1971 defeat of the supersonic transport (SST) program, a high-speed passenger jet that would have caused significant sonic disruptions and air pollution (Mooney, 2005, 33). The organization provides policymakers and the media with expert opinions on issues relevant to its mission. Starting with the Reagan presidency, the group worked to place policy experts in the administration, and supported a Third Generation Project to groom young conservatives for government roles (Longman, 1988). The foundation’s stance on the environment is exemplary of its interest in minimizing governmental involvement in business and industry. This has manifested in Heritage staff and consultants discouraging regulation by federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration that interfere with economic interests. The group is in favor of the use of public lands by private energy companies, such as drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Heritage Foundation scientists have fought issues from acid rain to climate change. A vocal opponent of the Kyoto Protocol, the foundation continues to work against the United States’ participation in global warming initiatives such as carbon dioxide emissions regulations, including cap-and-trade policies. Amy Halloran See also Alaska Oil Pipeline (1973); Reagan, Ronald Wilson

References The Heritage Foundation. http://www.heritage.org/. Longman, Phillip. ‘‘Reagan’s Disappearing Bureaucrats.’’ New York Times, February 14, 1988. Mooney, Chris. The Republican War on Science. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books, 2005.

412 | Homestead Act of 1862

Homestead Act of 1862 The passing of the Homestead Act in 1862 was one of the most important events in the westward expansion of the United States in the nineteenth century. Under this act, the federal government distributed free land to nearly any person willing to develop it. For a small filing fee and a requirement to complete five years of continuous occupation of their land, homesteaders received 160 acres of undeveloped public land. The government hoped to populate, develop, and defend the vast amount of territory that the United States had acquired in the first half of the nineteenth century, including the Louisiana Purchase, the annexation of Texas, the Oregon Territory, and the land acquired from Mexico after the MexicanAmerican War. Calls for land grants beyond the original 13 states date to the late eighteenth century. In 1797, settlers along the Ohio River requested land grants from the federal government. The government, however, refused repeated requests from these settlers. In 1812, some Ohio settlers organized the True American Society and again appealed to Congress for land grants, but again Congress refused. During the War of 1812, the government enacted the Military Tract of 1812, which granted federal lands as an incentive and payment for military service. After the war, Thomas Hart Benson, a senator from Missouri, proposed that the most valuable land in the west could be sold at market prices, while other lands would be distributed for free to homesteaders. While Congress again rejected such as proposal, the idea of homesteading grew in popularity. Soon, others took up the cause of homesteading. Two key figures were George Henry Evans and Horace Greeley. Evans was a writer who founded the National Reform Association and frequently published articles in the Working Man’s Advocate. It was Evans who coined the slogan ‘‘Vote Yourself a Farm’’ in an attempt to convince voters to choose candidates who favored passing a homestead bill. Greeley, who is generally given credit for the phrase ‘‘Go West, young man,’’ was the founder and editor of the New York Tribune and the author of the 1850 work Hints Towards Reforms. Both men led the campaign to make homesteading a national right. They equated land ownership with democracy and claimed that it was essential to the American way of life. They argued that homesteading would provide an outlet for the overpopulated eastern part of the country, where jobs were scarce. Furthermore, they claimed that as the population grew in the west, there would be a growing demand for the manufactured products of the east, thus benefitting the entire country. To this end, Evans and Greeley called on the American electorate to vote for lawmakers who supported homesteading. Support for homesteading received a major boost when the new Free Soil Party adopted the ideals proposed by Evans and Greeley. At their 1848 convention, in addition to announcing former U.S. president Martin van Buren as their

Homestead Act of 1862 | 413

candidate, the Free Soilers endorsed homesteading as part of their platform. They did so again at their 1852 convention. The backing of this political party helped make homesteading even more part of the public consciousness. Another key figure in the push to pass a homesteading law was future U.S. president Andrew Johnson. As the representative from Tennessee, Johnson championed the cause of homesteading starting in the 1840s. In 1846, he introduced legislation in Congress that called for the free distribution of 160 acres of land. Johnson encountered significant opposition to his bill, especially from southern lawmakers, who argued that the planters that they represented would require much larger plots of land. Opponents also feared that the national government would lose potential income by giving away free land. Johnson’s bill failed to pass the House of Representatives several times, leading him to look for help outside of Congress. Thus, he joined forces with men such as Greeley to promote homesteading. Finally, in 1852 the bill passed in the House of Representatives. However, at about the same time, Johnson lost his congressional seat as a result of gerrymandering of his district. Soon, the bill died in a Senate committee. When Johnson was elected senator from Tennessee in 1857, he again introduced the homestead bill. After an initial failure, a less generous bill passed the House in 1859. However, the bill narrowly lost a Senate vote when Vice President John C. Breckinridge voted against it to break a tie. In 1860, a bill once again passed the House. This time the bill was more generous with few restrictions, making it unlikely to pass the Senate. Johnson and others worked on a compromise that would pass the Senate, leading to a significantly less generous proposal. In this bill, homesteading would be restricted only to land that had previously been up for sale but that had not yet been sold. Furthermore, homesteaders would have to pay 25 cents per acre rather than receiving free land. This more restrictive bill passed the Senate in May 1860. After a Conference Committee worked out the differences between the two houses of Congress, President James Buchanan vetoed the bill. Abraham Lincoln, elected president in 1860, supported the idea of homesteading. With the outbreak of the Civil War, southern opposition to homesteading vanished, clearing the way for the bill to finally pass. In 1862, both the House and the Senate passed the bill. On May 20, 1862, President Lincoln signed the bill into law. Then on January 1, 1863, Dan Freeman made the first homestead claim in Montana. With some modifications, the law lasted for more than a century. Nearly two million Americans made claims to land available under the Homestead Act. Overall, the government distributed some 270 million acres of land. Despite the impressive number of people and land involved in the implementation of the Homestead Act, in many ways it failed to accomplish the goals of those who had promoted the cause. Less than 50 percent of homesteaders

414 | Homestead Act of 1862

Homestead Act (1862) Act of May 20, 1862 (Homestead Act), Public Law 37-64, 05/20/1862 Enacted on May 20, 1862, this landmark piece of legislation granted to settlers ownership of 160 acres of land merely by living on it and working it for five years. It proved one of the most important government incentives in settling the vast territory of the American West and provided economic opportunities to thousands of Americans and newly arrived immigrants. Below is an excerpt of the act. Be it enacted, That any person who is the head of a family, or who has arrived at the age of twenty-one years, and is a citizen of the United States, or who shall have filed his declaration of intention to become such, as required by the naturalization laws of the United States, and who has never borne arms against the United States Government or given aid and comfort to its enemies, shall, from and after the first of January, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, be entitled to enter one quarter-section or a less quantity of unappropriated public lands, upon which said person may have filed a pre-emption claim, or which may, at the time the application is made, be subject to pre-emption at one dollar and twenty-five cents, or less, per acre; or eighty acres or less of such unappropriated lands, at two dollars and fifty cents per acre, to be located in a body, in conformity to the legal subdivisions of the public lands, and after the same shall have been surveyed: Provided, That any person owning or residing on land may, under the provisions of this act, enter other land lying contiguous to his or her said land, which shall not, with the land so already owned and occupied, exceed in the aggregate one hundred and sixty acres. Section 2. That the person applying for the benefit of this act shall, upon application to the register of the land office in which he or she is about to make such entry, make affidavit before the said register or receiver that he or she is the head of a family, or is twenty-one or more years of age, or shall have performed service in the Army or Navy of the United States, and that he has never borne arms against the Government of the United States or given aid and comfort to its enemies, and that such application is made for his or her exclusive use and benefit, and that said entry is made for the purpose of actual settlement and cultivation, and not, either directly or indirectly, for the use or benefit of any other person or persons whomsoever, and upon filing the said affidavit with the register or receiver, and on payment of ten dollars, he or she shall thereupon be permitted to enter the quantity of land specified: Provided, however, That no certificate shall be given or patent issued therefor until the expiration of five years from the date of such entry; and if, at the expiration of such time, or at any time within two years thereafter, the person making such entry—or if he be dead, his widow; or in case of her death, his heirs or devisee; or in case of a widow making such entry, her heirs or devisee, in case of her death—shall prove by two credible witnesses that he, she or they have resided upon or cultivated the same for the term of five years immediately succeeding the time of filing the affidavit aforesaid, and shall make affidavit that no part of said land has been alienated, and that he has borne true allegiance to the Government of the United States; then, in such case, he, she, or they, if at that time a citizen of the United States, shall be entitled to a patent, as in other cases provided for by law: And provided, further, That in case of the death of both father and mother, leaving an infant child or children under twenty-one years of age, the right and fee shall inure to the benefit of said infant child or children; and the executor, administrator, or guardian may, at

Homestead Act of 1862 | 415 any time within two years after the death of the surviving parent, and in accordance with the laws of the States in which such children for the time being have their domicile, sell said land for the benefit of said infants, but for no other purpose; and the purchaser shall acquire the absolute title by the purchase, and be entitled to a patent from the United States, on payment of the office fees and sum of money herein specified. . . .

actually stayed on their land long enough to receive the deed to the property. The cities of the eastern seaboard remained crowded, as few could afford the cost of moving across the country. Much of the land was not suited for farming, but was better for ranching or mining, which were expensive pursuits that required larger plots. Also, railroad companies took much of the most desirable land as they expanded westward. Later, a loophole in the act allowed land speculators to purchase land from homesteaders after six months for $1.25 per acre. Ronald E. Young See also Essay: The U.S. Government and the Environment before 1960

References Cross, Coy F. Go West, Young Man!: Horace Greeley’s Vision for America. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1995. Dick, Everett. The Lure of the Land: A Social History of the Public Lands from the Articles of Confederation to the New Deal. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1970. Johnson, Dennis. The Laws That Shaped America: Fifteen Acts of Congress and Their Lasting Impact. New York: Routledge, 2009. Rohatyn, Felix. Bold Endeavors: How Our Government Built America, and Why It Must Rebuild Now. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2009.

I Inhofe, James Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) denies global warming, proclaiming it a great hoax; in 2006, he compared those who believe in global warming to Nazis in their use of the ‘‘big lie.’’ He also compared the EPA to the Gestapo and said that the global warming hoax was second only to the separation of church and state hoax. Inhofe also contends that there has been scientific refutation of all claims in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. Inhofe entered politics at the state level in 1967 and moved to Congress in 1987, shifting to the Senate by winning the unexpired term of David Boren. He has been a senator since 1994. After 2005’s Kelo v. City of New London decision allowed federal taking of farm and grazing land for public uses without the owner’s consent, Inhofe

U.S. Senator from Oklahoma, James Inhofe, center, speaks with journalists at a UN climate summit in Copenhagen, Thursday December 17, 2009. Environment ministers got down to the final hours of bargaining over a climate agreement to put before U.S. President Obama and more than 100 national leaders who converged on the Danish capital for a global warming summit. (AP/Wide World Photos) 417

418 | Inland Waterways Commission

indicated that he would prohibit taking of farm and grazing land for parks and open spaces other than utilities, roads, aqueducts, pipelines, prisons, and hospitals. He would allow eminent domain in event of a national disaster, though. In 2005, Inhofe opposed covering oil and gas smokestacks under mercury regulations. He backed the nomination of libertarian/conservative Gale Norton as interior secretary. He supports federal funding of additional roads in forests and fisheries, generally business friendly and anti-environmental stances. Inhofe claims that air pollution is at an all-time low and in 2008 opposed tighter EPA standards because they will negatively impact the economy while not significantly helping the environment. With the Republicans in control of the Senate, he chaired the Environment and Public Works committee, a platform for his criticism of the scientific view that human activity caused climate change. In 2003 he called it a hoax, citing sources that didn’t back his claim. He also backs freeing Corps of Engineers projects from environmental oversight and drilling offshore and in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR.) He voted to cut low-income energy assistance and environmental stewardship from the budget. Since taking office, he has received more than a million dollars from oil and gas interests, and in 2002 he received the second largest campaign contribution from the industry. The League of Conservation Voters rates Inhofe at 5 percent. John H. Barnhill See also Gore, Albert Arnold Jr.; Kelo v. City of New London (2005)

References ‘‘On the Issues. James Inhofe on Environment. Republican Jr Senator (OK).’’ http:// www.ontheissues.org/domestic/James_Inhofe_Environment.htm (accessed April 2009). Thinkprogress.org. ‘‘Sen. Inhofe Compares People Who Believe in Global Warming to ‘The Third Reich’,’’ July 24, 2006. http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/24/inhofe-third-reich/.

Inland Waterways Commission The Inland Waterways Commission (IWC), appointed on March 14, 1907, under the administration of Theodore Roosevelt, developed a ‘‘progressive plan for the development and control’’ of the canals, lakes, rivers, and railroads of the United States (Roosevelt, 1916, 422). The plan was based on two propositions. Commercial development was hindered by the underutilization of U.S. waterways and the inadequacy of existing railroads; and the conservation aims of the administration could be achieved only through express federal policy and management (‘‘Roosevelt Plans to Employ Rivers,’’ New York Times, 1907,).

Inland Waterways Commission | 419

Even as waterways management dates back to the colonial era, and legislation to the early national period, the all-encompassing mandate outlined by the commission represented a strategic advance in national waterways organization. It was also heralded by contemporary conservationists as a lynchpin to modern conservation policy (‘‘The Inland Waterways Commission,’’ 1907, 25). Chaired by Ohio Congressman Theodore Burton, former chairman of the Rivers and Harbors Committee of the 59th Congress, the commission released a preliminary report to the U.S. Congress in 1908. The commission recommended a comprehensive plan of action for national waterways and railroads focusing on the long-term improvement of water quality, flood management, and land reclamation. The report also advocated the creation of a national agency administered under the auspices of the executive branch, the National Waterways Commission (NWC) established in 1909, to continue the conservation and development goals outlined by the IWC (‘‘Preliminary Report of the Inland Waterways Commission,’’ 1908). Current waterways maintenance and policy is carried out by a variety of governmental agencies and interests, chief among them the United States Army Corps of Engineers, through legislative and executive directives. Jonathan Bergman References Bourne, Russell. Americans on the Move: A History of Waterways, Railways, and Highways. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Press, 1995. Church, G. E., et al. ‘‘Inland Waterways: Discussion.’’ The Geographical Journal 30 (1) (July 1907): 28–35. DeVany, Arthur S., Andrew J. Rettenmaier, and Thomas Robert Saving. The Inland Waterways: Institutions, Economics and Policy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2004. Hulbert, Archer B. The Paths of Inland Commerce: A Chronicle of Trail, Road, and Waterways. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1920. Hull, William J., and Robert W. Hull. The Origin and Development of the Waterways Policy of the United States. Washington DC: National Waterways Conference, 1967. Hunchey, James R., et. al. United States Inland Waterways and Ports. Fort Belvoir, VA: U.S. Army Engineers Institute for Water Resources, 1985. ‘‘The Inland Waterways Commission.’’ Science 25 (640) (April 5, 1907): 556–557. Johnson, Emory R. ‘‘Inland Waterway Policy.’’ The American Economic Review 12 (April 1911): 166–174. ‘‘Our National Inland Waterways Policy.’’ Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 31 (January 1908): 1–11. ‘‘Preliminary Report of the Inland Waterways Commission,’’ February 26, 1908; Message from the President of the United States, Transmitting a Preliminary Report of the

420 | Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Inland Waterways Commission; 60th Congress; Document No. 325; Washington DC GPO, 1908. Quick, Herbert. American Inland Waterways. New York: Putnam, 1909. Raphael, Joseph. ‘‘The Inland Waterways Commission.’’ MA thesis, DePaul University, 1943. ‘‘Roosevelt Plans to Employ Rivers.’’ New York Times, March 17, 1907. Roosevelt, Theodore. ‘‘Inland Waterways.’’ Science 27 (689) (March 13, 1908): 417–421. Roosevelt, Theodore. Theodore Roosevelt: An Autobiography. New York: Macmillan Co., 1916. U.S. Army Corps of Engineer’s Publication Page. http://140.194.76.129/publications/ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. http://www.usace.army.mil/Pages/default.aspx.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was organized in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The panel’s secretariat is housed at the headquarters of the meteorological association in Geneva, Switzerland. Its stated purpose is to assess scientific information related to climate change, to evaluate the environmental and socioeconomic consequences of climate change, and to formulate realistic response strategies. A number of governments and nongovernmental organizations have contributed to the IPCC Trust Fund, which supports the panel’s work. Princeton University science and technology scholar Shardul Agrawala observes that IPCC ‘‘has attempted to walk the tightrope of being scientifically sound and politically acceptable’’ (Agrawala, 1988, 621). After concluding in 1988 that an intergovernmental organization would be needed to advance scientific assessment of climate change and to take effective action if indicated, the WMO and UNEP invited governments to participate in the first session of the IPCC to meet in Berlin. Two objectives were formulated for the new panel: (1) to assess scientific information related to climate change, and (2) to put together ‘‘realistic response strategies.’’ Three working groups were established, and with some modification, research and reporting has continued to reflect this division. Working Group I reports on available scientific data. Working Group II assesses the social, economic, and political impact of climate change. Until 1992, Working Group III reported on ways to respond to climate change. This formulation could not be identified with the work or standards of a clearly defined scientific community, as the other working groups were, and therefore Working Group III primarily became a focus for political debate and negotiating priorities of the governments represented (Skodvin, 2000, 119–120). Since 1992, Working Group II has studied both the impact of climate change and ways to respond, while a revised

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change | 421

Working Group III assesses social and economic dimensions of climate change (Skodvin, 2000, 106). IPCC has released four reports, titled Assessment Reports in 1990, 1995, 2001, and 2007. The first assessment laid the foundation for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), initiated in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992 (Jones, 1997, 5). Subsequent assessments have provided authoritative advice to the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC. The First Conference convened in Berlin in 1995, followed by a Second Conference in Geneva in 1996. The UNFCCC, unlike the IPCC, was established by a UN General Assembly Resolution (45-212), and therefore is under direct control of the General Assembly. The Third Conference in Kyoto in 1997 was the first to agree on targets to reduce emission of six greenhouse gases, but at the end of the Fourth Conference in Buenos Aires in 1998, most decisions on how to reach those targets remained open. A meeting held in Copenhagen in December 2009 was the fifteenth Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC and the fifth meeting of parties to the Kyoto Protocol. The IPCC also produces special reports, technical papers, and methodology reports. The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) was the work of more than 500 lead authors and 2,000 expert reviewers. It is divided into four parts: the Synthesis Report, and three working group reports on ‘‘The Physical Science Basis,’’ ‘‘Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability,’’ and ‘‘Mitigation of Climate Change.’’ Each of the four reports are available as a downloadable Adobe Acrobat (pdf) file on the Internet and in published form from Cambridge University Press. A fifth comprehensive assessment report (AR5) is scheduled to be completed in 2013. Structure and Organization As an intergovernmental organization, the priorities and program of the IPCC are determined by plenary sessions representing all 194 governments that are members of the IPCC. Thirty countries were represented at the first plenary session in 1988, which had grown to 117 by the eleventh session in 1995 (Agrawala, 1988, 630). Plenary sessions, where decisions about IPCC program are made and reports received and approved, convene often; the thirty-first session convened in Bali in October 2009, 21 years after the IPCC was organized. Periodically, the plenary session elects a bureau of 31 members to guide the author teams through preparation of each Assessment Report. Chosen for a period of five to six years, bureau members are intended to be experts in the field of climate change and to represent all regions in the world. This bureau contains the three working groups; between 1989 and 1992 there was also a special committee for the participation of developing countries (Skodvin, 2000, 106). Reports prepared for each assessment report go through both scientific peer review, inside and outside the working groups, and governmental review, largely by people with relevant science credentials working within agencies of the member governments (Skodvin, 2000, 113).

422 | Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Since April 2002, Dr. R. K. Pachauri has served as chairman of the IPCC. Pachauri also serves as head of the Tata Energy Research Institute in India and is a director of the Indian Oil Corporation, Ltd. He holds a master’s degree and a PhD in industrial engineering, as well as a PhD in economics from North Carolina State University. His teaching experience includes serving on the faculty of North Carolina State, on the the Administrative Staff College of India, as a visiting professor at the College of Mineral and Energy Resources at West Virginia University, and teaching at the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies of Yale University. He has also served on several committees of the government of India concerning economic development, oil industry restructuring, and energy. He is assisted in directing the work of the bureau by three vice chairs: Dr. Ogunlade Davidson of Sierra Leone, Dr. Jean-Pascal van Ypersele of Belgium, and Dr. Hoesung Lee of the Republic of Korea. The rest of the bureau preparing the Fifth Assessment Report consists of the co-chairs and vice chairs of each working group. Other nations represented include Saudi Arabia, the Russian federation, New Zealand, Spain, United Kingdom, Malaysia, Australia, Italy, Mexico, Peru, Canada, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Maldives, Brazil, Sudan, Madagascar, Morocco, Mali, Cuba, Argentina, China, Switzerland, the United States, Germany, and Japan. Day-to-day planning and coordination of the work of the IPCC is handled by the IPCC secretariat in Switzerland. The secretariat organizes sessions of the panel and its bureau and sessions of each working group. It also proposes an annual budget, manages the trust fund, distributes reports (with at least a summary translation into all UN official languages), and handles liaisons with each member government. The secretary, Dr. Renate Christ, and deputy secretary, Dr. Gilles Sommeria, are responsible for directing the secretariat staff. In preparation for the Fifth Assessment Report, sometimes abbreviated AR5, four technical support units (TSU) have been established. Each working group has its own technical support: Group I at the University of Bern in Switzerland, Group II at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford, California, and Group III at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Potsdam, Germany. A fourth technical support unit works under the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories at the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies in Hayama, Japan. Each host country government provides the primary funding for the respective TSUs. Standards for Assessment and Reporting Assessment reports are written to provide a range of measurements, analyses, and possible outcomes, reflecting that there is no unanimous conclusion among relevant scientific disciplines, but there are areas of strong agreement. Where a report relies on expert judgment and statistical probability, uncertainty is evaluated with terms ranging from virtually certain to exceptionally unlikely. Reports offer assessment of how correct the data presented may be by defining a range

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change | 423

from very high confidence to very low confidence. Rules of procedure first adopted in 1993 emphasize that reporting should include different and potentially conflicting scientific viewpoints on a given subject. There is no rule requiring a consensus (Skodvin, 2000, 114). The Fourth Assessment Report concludes, however, ‘‘Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level.’’ Although this data does not face substantial direct challenge in relevant scientific disciplines, the climate models for determining causes and projecting future hazards have been questioned. Analysis relies heavily on computerized global circulation models, often criticized on the grounds that no such model can capture the complexity of the terrestrial atmosphere. Massachusetts Institute of Technology climatologist Richard Lindzen has observed that large models are known to agree with each other more than they do with nature (Jones, 1997, 6). Projections for future development and impact present six different possible outcomes, based on the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) developed in a 2000 special report. Scenario A1 assumes a world of very rapid economic growth, a global population that peaks in mid-century, and rapid introduction of new and more efficient technologies. These assumptions are further divided to show the likely impact on a world relying on fossil intensive technology (A1F1), on non-fossil energy resources (A1T), and on a balanced mix of energy sources (A1B). Scenario B1 assumes a world with the same global population as A1, but more rapid changes toward a worldwide service and information economy, while B2 assumes intermediate population and economic growth, with local solutions to economic, social, and environmental sustainability. Scenario A2 assumes high population growth, slow economic development, and slow technological change. Each scenario is reflected in a different projected rate of global warming and more hazardous or less hazardous outcomes for human and other life on the planet. Conclusions and Political Debate IPCC’s Fourth Assessment in 2007 predicted an increase in the global average surface temperature from 1980–1999 levels of 0.3 to 6.4 degrees Centigrade by 2090–2099, based on six different scenarios, and a rise in sea levels of 0.18 to 0.59 meters. The assessment projects that this will result in the greatest warming at high northern latitudes and the least over southern oceans and parts of the North Atlantic. Among the likely impacts are sharply reduced snow cover, including mountain snowpacks that provide melt water for downstream agricultural and drinking water, the disappearance of Arctic sea ice, an increase in tropical cyclone intensity, precipitation increases in high latitudes and some tropical wetlands, with precipitation decreases in mid-latitudes, particularly in already

424 | Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

arid regions such as the American west, the Mediterranean basin, southern Africa, and northeastern Brazil. However, the assessment concludes that the Antarctic ice sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and gain mass due to increased snowfall. The system of surface and deep water currents in the Atlantic Ocean, known as the meridional overturning circulation (MOC), are deemed very likely to slow down, but very unlikely to undergo an abrupt transition during the twenty-first century. These currents include the Gulf Stream, which keeps the average temperature in Europe well above that for similar latitudes in North America or Asia. The fourth assessment estimates that infrastructure investment decisions exceeding $20 trillion are being and will continue to be made worldwide between 2005 and 2030, which will have substantial impact on greenhouse gas emissions. Returning energy-related carbon dioxide emissions to 2005 levels by 2030 would require a large shift in investment patterns, but IPCC staff estimate that the net additional investment required would range from little or nothing to 5 or 10 percent. To evaluate the reduction of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to avoid the more extreme outcomes contemplated by current research, the IPCC uses two methods for evaluating possible mitigation. Market mitigation potential is defined as mitigation potential based on private costs and private discount rates, reflecting the perspective of private consumers and companies. Economic mitigation potential is defined as the mitigation potential that takes into account social costs and benefits and social discount rates, reflecting the perspective of an entire society, community, or culture. These terms are used in bottom-up studies, which assume that the macro-economy is unchanged, evaluating the impact of specific technologies and regulations. IPCC staff also conduct top-down studies, which assess the potential of economy-wide mitigation options, which would change the macro-economic incentives and market feedback of a society. One criticism of the impact from IPCC reports is that news coverage, and even policymakers, rely heavily on summaries, rather than the more detailed reports. While the reports reflect the many variables and uncertainties in studying climate change, this complexity is distilled out of the summaries (Jones, 1997, 6). In 2007, the IPCC was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, shared that year with former U.S. senator and vice president Albert Gore, for ‘‘their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.’’ The IPCC’s work remains a matter of fierce political debate. In February 2007, the British newspaper The Guardian reported that the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a think tank in Washington, D.C., had offered scientists and economists $10,000 each ‘‘to undermine a major climate change report’’ from the IPCC. The offer was made by AEI visiting scholar Kenneth Green in a letter appealing ‘‘to scientists in Britain, the U.S., and elsewhere.’’ More than 20 AEI staff worked as

International Whaling Commission | 425

consultants to the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush. Green’s letter asserted that the IPCC has been ‘‘resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent.’’ At the end of February 2010, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) decided to assemble an independent board of scientists to review reported inaccuracies in the 2007 assessment as part of a broad review of the workings of the IPCC. This decision emerged at the request of several governments, from the Eleventh Special Session of UNEP’s Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum, which closed in Bali, Indonesia, on February 26, 2010. On March 10, 2010, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri requested the InterAcademy Council (IAC) based in Amsterdam, Netherlands, to establish an ad hoc Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) to conduct the review. A report was scheduled for delivery at an IPCC plenary meeting in the Republic of Korea in October 2010. Charles Rosenberg See also Automobile Emissions; Carbon Footprint; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

References Argawala, Shardul. ‘‘Structural and Process History of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.’’ Climatic Change 39 (4) (August 1988). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Fourth Assessment Report. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. http://www.ipcc.ch. Jones, Laura. Global Warming: The Science and the Politics. Toronto: Fraser Institute, 1997. Skodvin, Tora. Structure and Agent in the Scientific Diplomacy of Climate Change: An Empirical Case Study of Science-Policy Interaction in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000.

International Whaling Commission The International Whaling Commission (IWC) is an intergovernmental organization that safeguards whale stocks and regulates whaling. A scientific committee made up of whale biologists and experts makes recommendations to the general body about how to maintain or increase the health of whale stocks. The IWC has the power to prohibit whaling of certain endangered whale species like the blue whale or to set catch limits for healthy populations; to establish areas as whale sanctuaries as it did in 1994 when it created the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary in the area around Antarctica; and to prohibit the capture of baby whales and female whales who are nursing their young (IWC). The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling established the terms of the IWC in 1946, citing persistent overhunting of many whale species

426 | International Whaling Commission

(IWC). Only 15 whaling countries signed the original convention, but membership in the IWC has grown over the years to include whaling and non-whaling nations alike (in 2010, there were 88 member nations). The commission started to meet annually in 1949 to set quotas and discuss statistics. The IWC, however, does not have any way to enforce its rules and quotas, and throughout the history of the commission, some nations have disregarded its authority (Carwardine, 1999). In 1982, in response to growing anti-whaling sentiments, IWC members voted for a moratorium on commercial whaling that went into effect in 1986. That ban is still in effect but member nations Iceland and Norway formally objected to the moratorium and both continue to allow commercial whaling. The moratorium does not extend to aboriginal subsistence whaling as practiced in Denmark, the Russian Federation, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and the United States. It also allows scientific whaling, which researchers in Japan practice, ostensibly to assess the stocks (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan). Many anti-whaling critics view Japan’s scientific whaling as an end-run around the moratorium, and anti-whaling activists have clashed with Japanese research vessels near Antarctica (BBC News, 2007). The whales those scientists gather often end up as meat in Japanese markets (Biggs, 2007). The commission’s annual meetings remain contentious, with pro-whaling nations pushing to overturn the moratorium and anti-whaling nations trying to preserve the ban (McCurry, 2010). Jori Lewis See also Commercial Fishing; Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972; Whaling

References BBC News. ‘‘Japan Whale Ship in Protest Clash.’’ BBC News, February 12, 2007. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6353415.stm (accessed April 8, 2010). Biggs, Stuart. ‘‘Kyokuyo Joins Maruha to End Whale Meat Sales in Japan.’’ Bloomberg, May 30, 2007. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=aPhG1CfyPue0 (accessed April 8, 2010). Cawardine, Mark. Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises. New York: Checkmark Books, 1999. The Economist. ‘‘Sharpening their Harpoons.’’ May 26, 2007. The International Whaling Commission. ‘‘IWC Information: A General Introduction to the IWC with Links to More Detailed Information.’’ International Whaling Commission. http://www.iwcoffice.org/commission/iwcmain.htm (accessed on April 8, 2010). McCurry, Justin. ‘‘Japan’s Whale Meat Obsession.’’ Global Post, April 8, 2010. http:// www.globalpost.com/dispatch/japan/100407/japan-whale-meat (accessed April 8, 2010). Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. ‘‘The Position of the Japanese Government on Research Whaling.’’ Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/ q_a/faq6.html (accessed April 8, 2010).

Interstate Highways | 427

Interstate Highways The development of the American interstate highway system is perhaps the single most significant economic, social, and ecological event of twentieth-century America. This engineering feat is visible from space at nighttime, changing the way Earth appears. Its effects on the nation are visible from the ground as well. The federal interstate highway system emerged from a series of legislative steps. The Federal Aid Road Act of 1916 was aimed at developing rural roads. The dual goals of delivering agricultural goods to the market and mail to rural addresses on free public roads were addressed in this bill. The Federal Aid Highway Act of 1921 aimed to create connectivity of roads between states. The federal government committed to a 50–50 share in expense. In addition, General John J. Pershing addressed the topic of what roads and planned routes would be the most significant militarily, creating the Pershing Map in 1922. President Franklin Roosevelt wanted a comprehensive road network that could serve federal needs Franklin, both economic and defensive. During his administration, he commissioned two studies that defined the routes and the funding for a comprehensive network.

The interstate highway system includes more than 46,000 miles, making it the largest highway system in the world. (iStockPhoto)

428 | Interstate Highways

President Eisenhower produced enough economic and defensive rationale to finally get Congress to create the Interstate Highway Act of 1956 (IHA). He further created a trust to convince lawmakers and other politicians that money earmarked for states really would reach their intended destinations. The creation of this road system, with its concentric rings around cities, had an unexpected impact on urban life. Suburbs growing up around the roads eventually became new central business districts, causing a host of economic, social, infrastructure, and security disasters for the inner cities. This process impacts the environment no less dramatically. The stresses of water consumption, sewage, solid waste, erosion, industrial runoff, as well as air and noise pollution destroyed the former ecosystems that ringed these cities. Though roads comprise less than 1 percent of the land area, a conservative estimate is that 20 percent of the environment is impacted by them (Natural Resources Defense Council, 2008, 5). The elevation of roads and the creation of a more or less impervious surface creates new drainage patterns for runoff water, which also contributes to new patterns of soil erosion. Engineering has to take into account groundwater sources, lest road runoff contaminate groundwater. Vehicles leave oil, rust, parts, heavy metals, and rubber behind, as well as all the substances that are carried by tires and vehicles, in addition to salt and other chemicals used on the roads. Roads serve as barriers for ecological niches. This can disrupt normal patterns of migrations or food gathering for some plant and animal species (and, conversely, create new ones). The presence of cars produces inanimate predators for animal, bird, and insect populations. The great awakening of federal environmental legislation began in the decade after the IHA was enacted. Some of this legislation is visible in the course of Title 23 of the United States Code, which sets up the parameters of highway regulation. Its amendments reflect the impact of the growth of environmental regulation. The best known is the amendment that created section 131, the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 (thoroughly revised in 1978). The act promotes the reduction of billboards and junkyards along federal interstate highways by the means of tax incentives for states. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is the branch of the Department of Transportation that is charged with constructing and maintaining federal highways. The FHWA on its Web site lists its ‘‘vital few priorities’’ as safety, congestion mitigation, and environmental stewardship. The latter is achieved by the means of aggressive planning and reviews of both proposed work and existing systems. Environmental concerns permeate every stage of highway creation, in terms of planning, design, and construction. The FHWA funds and disseminates studies on a variety of environmental issues, as well as producing works on how to comply with environmental laws. It also encourages the usage of recyclable materials in construction.

Interstate Highways | 429

The Clean Air Act of 1963 was the first step in regulating both stationary and mobile sources of air pollution. The act was substantially strengthened in 1970, with programs and sanctions enacted to address the issue. The Clean Air Act of 1990 expanded the horizons of the pollutants to be regulated, addressed acid rain, and further expanded sanctions. A noticeable impact this has had on the highway system is the growth of lanes for carpooling to reduce the total number of miles driven by vehicles. The 1970 incarnation of the Clean Air Act emerged a year after the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The EPA’s function is to implement regulations that they assign to laws that are passed by Congress. The EPA also disseminates the latest scientific information regarding the environment. The EPA requires environmental impact statements for virtually every federally funded highway project and has the authority to demand compliance. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 protects animal and plant species in danger of extinction from development of their specific habitats. The current list of species is in excess of 1,800. These protections are absolute, and projects cannot proceed if they threaten the ecological niches of any of these species or disrupt their mating. The Clean Water Act of 1977 affected road construction primarily in regard to the prohibition of dredging and dumping fill into wetlands (reinforced by Executive Order 111990). The law requires that all damaged wetlands be mitigated. The FHWA furthered this demand by requiring that 1.5 acres should be restored for every acre destroyed or compromised. The American landscape has been transformed by the presence of these roads and the massive population shifts that have followed their construction. The impact on the environment has not been as traumatic as the impact this process has had on the economy or society, thanks in part to legislation and to the receptivity of the FHWA to the ideal of environmental preservation. Mark Anthony Phelps See also Clean Air Act of 1970; Endangered Species Act of 1973; National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

References Natural Resources Defense Council. Testimony of Devon Lovass, Vehicles Campaign Director, Smart Growth and Transportation Program Deputy Director, before Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, June 25, 2008, http://www.nrdc.org/ energy/ene_08062501.asp. United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. http:// www.fhwa.dot.gov. United States Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov. United States Government Printing Office. http://www.gpoaccess.gov.

Encyclopedia of the U.S. Government and the Environment

Encyclopedia of the U.S. Government and the Environment HISTORY, POLICY, AND POLITICS

Volume Two: Entries J–Y

Matthew Lindstrom, Editor

J Johnson, Claudia Alta Claudia Alta (Lady Bird) Johnson was First Lady of the United States under President Lyndon Johnson and the principal force behind the movement to protect the American landscape from industrial eyesores and litter. She worked for 40 years with Keep America Beautiful, and the Beautification Act of 1965 is known as ‘‘Lady Bird’s bill.’’ She was also the inspiration for the Wilderness Act of 1964, the Water Conservation Fund, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Program, and additional parks in the National Park System. She exerted influence on more than 200 pieces of legislation, including the Lady Bird Wildflower Center in Texas.

Lady Bird Johnson, wife of President Johnson, right, and Evelyn Lowenstein of Fall River, Massachusetts, stand near tulips and a flowering crabapple tree as some 20 leaders of a ‘‘Let’s Beautify America’’ campaign call on the First Lady at the White House, April 28, 1965. Others are unidentified. (AP/Wide World Photos) 431

432 | Johnson, Lyndon

Lady Bird grew up in East Texas, a place of bayous and cypress trees covered with Spanish moss. She never lost her love for natural beauty, and as First Lady in the 1960s managed to translate it into national policy. After the 1964 election, she began working to clean up highway junkyards. The 1965 beautification act reduced billboards and junkyards and planted wildflowers along the interstates. The flower planting program became formalized under the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987, which required that one-fourth of 1 percent of highway landscaping funds go for native flowers, trees, and plants. Lady Bird created the Committee for a More Beautiful Capital and planted pansies on the National Mall shortly after her husband became president. She and an entourage of reporters and cameras brought overlooked national natural treasures to the nation’s attention. Lady Bird thought ‘‘beautification’’ was a prissy word, but she took it as a calm label for a cause that was controversial in the 1960s, cleaning air, water, and roadsides and disposing of waste and preserving old sites. Beautification also meant upgrading school facilities and neighborhoods, removing urban blight and rats, and adding green spaces to urban neighborhoods off the tourist path. She also worked to prevent dams in the Grand Canyon and to create Redwoods National Park. In 1968, Lyndon Johnson gave her a plaque with 50 pens he used to sign 50 conservation laws. He usually gave in when she wanted a new law. John H. Barnhill See also Johnson, Lyndon; Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968; Wilderness Act of 1964

References Gould, Lewis L. Lady Bird Johnson: Our Environmental First Lady. Modern First Ladies. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1999. Ladybird Johnson Wildflower Center, University of Texas. ‘‘Our Environmental First Lady.’’ http://www.wildflower.org/environmental_first_lady/ (accessed April 2009). Sapper, Neill. ‘‘Johnson, Claudia Alta Taylor (Lady Bird) (1912–2007).’’ Handbook of Texas Online. http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/JJ/fjocd.html (accessed June 13, 2008). Thompson, Anne. ‘‘Lady Bird Johnson: Green Before Green Was Cool: Lady Bird Johnson Spearheaded Environmentalism When It Wasn’t Easy.’’ July 12, 2007. http:// www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19732051/.

Johnson, Lyndon Lyndon Johnson, vice president to John F. Kennedy, became the thirty-sixth president of the United States on November 22, 1963, following Kennedy’s assassination in Dallas, Texas. Johnson won the presidential election in 1964,

Johnson, Lyndon | 433

defeating Republican challenger Barry Goldwater. Johnson enacted numerous environmental protection laws as part of the ‘‘Great Society,’’ the term given to Johnson’s broad range of domestic programs that focused on civil rights, poverty, education, urban development, and conservation. Johnson did not run for reelection in 1968 and died in 1973. Lyndon Baines Johnson was born in Stonewall, Texas, on August 27, 1908. His father, Sam Ealy Johnson Jr. was a farmer and politician, winning election to the House of Representatives in 1904 at the age of 27 (Dallek, 2004, 2). Lyndon Johnson graduated from Southwest Texas State Teacher’s College in San Marcos, Texas, in 1930 with a bachelor’s of science degree in education and history and briefly taught high school speech and debate in Houston, Texas, before entering politics as secretary to Congressman Richard Kleberg in 1931 (Dallek, 2004, 17–18). In 1937, Johnson was elected to Congress, where he served until 1948. Historian Sarah T. Phillips states that as a congressman, Johnson embraced the notion of the ‘‘New Conservation,’’ or the idea that rural living could be made more viable and farm areas more modernized through better use of natural resources such as soil and water (Phillips, 2007, 22). In his first year in Congress, Johnson worked to secure federal funding for the Lower Colorado River Authority to build dams to control floods and provide hydroelectric power for farmers, which Phillips claims defined Johnson’s role in the House of Representatives (Phillips, 2007, 156). During Johnson’s term as vice president, the Kennedy administration began to take a more active role in supporting environmental causes, such as providing federal assistance for state and local governments to acquire open spaces and supporting a measure to preserve wilderness (Rome, 2003, 532). Environmental historian Adam Rome states that when Johnson assumed the presidency after Kennedy’s death, he was intent to not only finish what the Kennedy administration had started, but move beyond that and make himself known as a great conservation president (Rome, 2003, 532). Johnson’s vision of conservation took on a broader scope from his years in Congress and included urban-based environmental issues, such as pollution, suburban sprawl, historic preservation, and beautification. He gave national focus to environmental issues through his set of domestic programs in the Great Society, which also included civil rights, poverty, health care, and education. During his administration, Johnson signed nearly 300 pieces of environmental legislation, more than $12 billion of federal funding was authorized to support those measures, and nine task forces were formed to address environmental issues. The number of environmental measures signed by Johnson surpassed the total number that had been passed over the previous 187 years (Melosi, 2000). The environmental acts signed by Johnson covered a wide range of issues. He was the first president to sign legislation to establish government authority over and set standards for air and water pollution, vehicle inspections, emissions, and fuel additives and alternatives, as well as provide funding for pollution research.

434 | Johnson, Lyndon

Johnson signed laws to protect land and the wilderness and greatly expanded the National Park System, adding more than 50 new national park units during his presidency (National Park Service). Beautification was an important issue to the Johnson administration, largely due to the influence of First Lady Claudia ‘‘Lady Bird’’ Johnson. Mrs. Johnson worked closely with the Secretary of the Interior, Stewart Udall, on beautification issues; during her work for highway beautification, she became the first spouse of a president to participate in lobbying and strategic meetings with White House staff (Eksterowicz and Paynter, 2000). In his analysis of the environmental movement of the 1960s, Rome credits Johnson’s environmental legislation with helping bring environmental issues away from being simply local concerns to being national problems requiring federal attention. President Dwight Eisenhower vetoed a clean water act in 1960 because he felt that water pollution was a local problem, but by the end of the decade, the federal government had clear responsibilities for the quality of the nation’s water and air (Rome, 2003, 534). Melosi also states that by moving what were previously considered local issues to national prominence, environmental issues in the cities were being given the same attention as the wilderness, bringing both the natural environment and the built environment together into the environmental movement (Melosi, 2000). Johnson served as president during a tumultuous era in American history, both at home and abroad. American involvement in the Vietnam War became increasingly unpopular during Johnson’s presidency, and the civil rights movement was accompanied by upheaval and rioting in U.S. cities. Dallek reports that by the beginning of 1968, Johnson had already been considering not running for reelection for more than a year. He had come to believe that it would be very difficult for him to be reelected due to the anticipated backlash from his support of minority issues, as well as indication in the polls that the American public was dissatisfied with his handling of the war. He was also concerned that he would not live through a second term due to his declining health. In a televised speech on March 31, 1968, after announcing that he intended to halt bombing in North Vietnam, Johnson said that he would not seek reelection as president of the United States (Dallek, 2004, 327–331). Johnson left office on January 29, 1969, following the inauguration of Richard Nixon. He returned to his ranch near Stonewall, Texas, and remained largely removed from politics and primarily devoted to the management of his ranch (Dallek, 2004, 367). Johnson died of a heart attack on January 22, 1973, at his ranch. Mrs. Johnson continued to live on the ranch and remained a lifelong supporter of environmental causes until her death in 2007. Johnson’s ranch, as well as his birthplace and his boyhood home, is now part of Lyndon B. Johnson National Historic Park in Texas. Amy Lively See also Air Quality Act of 1967; Conservation; U.S. Department of the Interior

Johnson, Lyndon | 435

References Dallek, R. Lyndon B. Johnson: Portrait of a President. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Eksterowicz, A. J., and Paynter, K. ‘‘The Evolution of the Role and the Office of the First Lady: The Movement toward Integration with the White House.’’ Social Science Journal 37 (4) (2000): 547–562. Melosi, M. V. ‘‘Environmental Justice, Political Agenda Setting, and Myths of History.’’ Journal of Policy History 12 (1) (2000): 43–71. National Park Service. ‘‘Lyndon B. Johnson and the Environment.’’ http://www .nps.gov/lyjo/planyourvisit/upload/EnvironmentCS2.pdf (accessed April 9, 2010). Phillips, S. T. This Land, This Nation: Conservation, Rural America, and the New Deal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Rome, A. ‘‘Give Earth a Chance: The Environmental Movement and the Sixties.’’ The Journal of American History 90 (2) (2003): 525–554.

K Kelo v. City of New London (2005) In late 2000, petitioners of the city of New London, Connecticut, brought action against the Superior Court of New London claiming that recent condemnation and seizure of their homes violated the public use restriction of the Fifth Amendment. This action was based on the January 2000 approval of an economic development plan that was approved by the city council and consisted of developing three separate parcels in an attempt to generate jobs and provide economic stimulus to the depressed city. In order to develop the parcels adequately and stimulate and encourage other private development, the city used the eminent domain clause of the Fifth Amendment to transfer private lands from one owner to another in the interest of economic development. However, this constituted the condemnation of several private homes that were not deemed to be in poor condition. The owners of those homes argued that the use of eminent domain for ‘‘economic development’’ violated the Fifth Amendment, blurred the boundary between public and private takings, was not in the ‘‘public interest,’’ and was immoral. Citing Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954) and Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff 467 U.S. 229 (1984), both the Connecticut state legislature and the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the determination of taking any land, developed or not, as part of an approved economic development plan is a ‘‘public use’’ and is in the best interest of the public through the generation of jobs, increasing state and local revenues, and revitalizing the area. Indeed, although the case caused significant public outrage, the Court’s 5–4 decision on Kelo v. City of New London 545 U.S. 469 (2005) justified the taking of public lands for private and economic interest and solidified the courts’ use of minimum scrutiny. In response to Kelo v. City of New London, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) introduced legislation to protect private land owners and limit the use of eminent domain by local and state governments. The Protection of Homes, Small Business, and Private Property Act of 2005 (S.B. 1313) prohibited the use of eminent domain by the federal government for economic purposes only and limited the use of eminent domain by state and local governments using federal funding limitations. Prior to Kelo, only eight states prohibited the use of eminent domain to eliminate blight; after Kelo, 42 states enacted some type of reform legislation to 437

438 | Kennedy, Robert Jr.

limit the power of municipalities to evoke eminent domain for economic development. Rachel A. Steagall See also Berman v. Parker (1954); Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984); Inhofe, James

Kennedy, Robert Jr. The Kennedy name has always opened closed doors and given its namesakes credibility. Although some Kennedys are more associated with scandal than the environment, one particular member of the family has made his name synonymous with environmental proSusette Kelo, left, former owner of the con- tection. As nephew of President John troversial little pink house, stands in front F. Kennedy and the son of the former of her old home at its new location in New London, Connecticut, Saturday, June 21, presidential candidate and attorney 2008. Kelo lost her home when the general who was assassinated in Supreme Court ruled 5–4 in June 2005 that 1968, there may have always been local governments may seize homes and high expectations for the attorneybusinesses—even against the owners’ will— cum-environmental activist. But there for private economic development. (AP/ is little doubt among those who know Wide World Photos) him that this Kennedy sincerely believes in his work and his goals. After his graduation from Harvard University, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. studied at the London School of Economics and received a law degree from the University of Virginia. After his graduation from law school, he did graduate work at the Pace University School of Law and received a master’s degree in environmental law. He worked as an assistant district attorney in New York and helped his uncle, Edward M. Kennedy, in his 1980 presidential campaign. Later, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. became the senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the nation’s most respected public interest law firms. He also serves as the chief prosecuting attorney for Riverkeeper, Inc., an organization founded in 1983 by members of the Hudson River Fisherman’s Association to monitor and protect the region’s watershed. In recent years, Kennedy has expanded his interests to cover a broad range of political and environmental issues. He is credited for having engineered a 1997 watershed agreement to regulate development around the reservoirs that provide

Kennedy, Robert Jr. | 439

Conservationist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. criticizes the Bush Administration as the worst in the nation’s history on environmental issues while testifying before a joint legislative committee at the Capitol in Sacramento, California, Wednesday, March 2, 2005. Kennedy, a nationally recognized environmental attorney and president of the Waterkeeper Alliance, accused the White House of rolling back more than 400 regulations and policies he believes has damaged the environment. (AP/Wide World Photos)

drinking water for New York City. In 1999, he accused popular New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of putting his political ambitions ahead of the protection of the city’s drinking water by failing to enforce the agreement. In a report issued by the environmental group Riverkeeper, Inc., Kennedy also said that the city’s Department of Environmental Protection was becoming ‘‘an agent of destruction in the New York City watershed.’’ Giuliani responded that the report covered previously identified problems, and the deputy mayor called it ‘‘a cheap political document focusing on his public relations and not substance’’ (Bumiller, 1999). Kennedy supported Giuliani’s opponent in the 2000 race for the U.S. Senate, former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, who eventually won the New York election. At one time, Kennedy considered a run for the Senate himself. In 2001, Kennedy was sentenced to 30 days in jail for his participation in a protest over Navy bombings at Camp Garcia on the island of Vieques. He had joined a number of celebrity activists who called for an end to the bombing maneuvers, which were believed to have caused negative environmental effects. Although he had been represented by former New York governor Mario Cuomo, whose son Andrew is Kennedy’s brother-in-law, his defense of having been involved in the tradition of civil disobedience did not sufficiently capture the

440 | Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp. (2008)

support of the judge. But the high-profile demonstrations were sufficient to persuade President George W. Bush to order a halt to the island bombings by 2003. During the 2000 presidential election, Kennedy was highly critical of Ralph Nader, who ran as the Green Party candidate for president. In an opinion piece published in the New York Times, Kennedy accused Nader of potentially torpedoing efforts to address the nation’s most important environmental challenges. He wrote that Nader would siphon votes away from the Democratic challenger, Vice President Al Gore—a prediction that was later fulfilled when Gore narrowly lost the election. Kennedy has subsequently addressed issues ranging from the factory hog industry and Clean Water Act violations to a luxury housing development in Clifton Cay in the Bahamas. He has spoken to large groups such as the American and Canadian Lung Associations and the International Association of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Clinical Toxicology. He has used his celebrity status to advance the causes in which he is most active. In 1999, he borrowed seed money from friends and relatives to start Tear of the Clouds, a company that produces a Tiffany-designer bottle for Keeper Springs water, named after the ‘‘keeper’’ groups across the country. A New York advertising firm developed the bottled water’s marketing campaign, which does not feature Kennedy himself. This competitive market is crowded with more than 500 brands worth an estimated $4.3 billion in sales; the new company’s profits will help finance efforts to preserve and protect the nation’s waterways. Kennedy’s efforts have not been without criticism, however. In June 2000, eight members of the board of Riverkeeper resigned after they learned about an employee whom Kennedy had hired to assist in the monitoring of the New York watershed agreement. Riverkeeper founder Robert Boyle said he was appalled that Kennedy had hired William Wegner, who had pled guilty to smuggling rare bird eggs into the United States from Australia and had been convicted of tax evasion in 1999. Boyle fired Wegner, but Kennedy insisted that he be retained, leading to the resignations. Amid all the criticism, Kennedy is a licensed master falconer and has written three books. Jacqueline Vaughn Switzer References Bumiller, Elisabeth. ‘‘Robert Kennedy Says Mayor Plays Politics with Water.’’ New York Times, November 10, 1999, B3. Cronin, John, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The Riverkeepers. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1997.

Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp. (2008) Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., et al. (2008) is a lawsuit filed under U.S. common law by the native Inupiat village of Kivalina and the city of Kivalina (collectively

Kyoto Protocol | 441

referred to as Kivalina), Alaska, against a group of 24 oil, power, and coal companies seeking damages related to the effects of climate change. Kivalina alleges that the trading activities of the defendants, which include ExxonMobil, contribute significantly to climate change that has, in turn, caused the melting of the Arctic Sea ice barriers that previously protected the village. Kivalina states that global warming is a nuisance that is destroying their village, and that relocation is required, as recommended by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Government Accountability Office findings. In addition, Kivalina asserts claims that some defendants, chief among them ExxonMobil, engaged in a civil conspiracy to mislead the public about the effects of climate change, through activities such as exploiting scientific studies, misleading advertising, and funding climate-change critics. On these grounds, the suit seeks monetary damages ranging between $95 million and $400 million to meet the cost of relocation. The suit was filed on February 26, 2008, in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. It was dismissed on September 30, 2009, due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Kivalina is appealing the dismissal (Schwartz, 2010). The suit is significant despite the dismissal because, along with its contemporaries Comer v. Murphy Oil and Connecticut v. AEP, it constitutes an attempt to shape U.S. climate-change policy in the absence of specific federal climatechange legislation (Schmidt and Williamson, 2008). Simone Kovago See also Environmental Impact Statements

References Climate Law Programme. ‘‘Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., et al. (2008).’’ http:// www.climatelaw.org/cases/country/us/kivalina/kivalina (accessed April 2, 2010). Native Village of Kivalina v. Exxon-Mobil, No. 4:08-CV-01138 (N.D. Cal. filed February 26, 2008). Schmidt, L. E., and G. M. Williamson. ‘‘Recent Developments in Climate Change Law.’’ The Colorado Lawyer 37 (11) (2008): 63–72. Schwartz, John. ‘‘Courts as Battlefields in Climate Fights.’’ New York Times, January 26, 2010.

Kyoto Protocol The United States has rejected the Kyoto Protocol against global warming, though it signed off on the treaty in 1997. Kyoto was an outgrowth of the 1992 UN Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC). This accord consisted of voluntary emission targets; however, countries did not in fact reduce emissions under this regime. The next effort was Kyoto, which established ‘‘legally binding’’ reductions

442 | Kyoto Protocol

With the White House in the background, joggers pass environmental activists urging President Bush to sign the Kyoto Protocol. (AP/Wide World Photos)

in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for all industrialized countries equal to 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2008 to 2012. The protocol enters into force when it has been ratified by at least 55 parties to the convention, including developed countries accounting for at least 55 percent of carbon dioxide emissions from this group in 1990. Since its inception, the protocol has been criticized for poor planning and lack of specifics when it comes to implementation and monitoring. The protocol was negotiated in great haste, with the majority of its components assembled in the two months prior to the final session in December 1997. Details of how the emissions trading system would actually work were not included, and the working of such a system is not a simple matter because of the difficulties of international law and of allocation of credits worth trillions of dollars. Enforcement of compliance and monitoring are other unanswered questions. In addition, the treaty called for no participation by developing nations, even though according to some estimates, greenhouse gas emissions by China, India, and Brazil, the three largest developing nations, will account for half the world’s emissions by later in this century. From 1997 to 2001, negotiations over the treaty’s final form focused on provisions for emissions trading and carbon sink allowances. The European Union,

Kyoto Protocol | 443

which formally ratified the treaty in mid-2002, opposes both programs, characterizing them as thinly veiled attempts to disguise real failures to meet the emission-reduction targets. But the United States and Canada and several other countries voiced strong support for the proposals, arguing that emissions trading and credit for carbon sinks (forests and other vegetation that hold carbon dioxide) would be the only way that they could meet reduction commitments without devastating their economies. Negotiations broke down at The Hague in November 2000 when no compromise could be reached, but since that time concessions to Canada and other proponents of carbon sinks have been made (Victor, 2004) In March 2001, the George W. Bush administration declared that the Kyoto Protocol was ‘‘fatally flawed’’ and announced that it was pulling out of the accord. The administration did not disavow the need to address human-made climate change, but it emphasized that the magnitude and rate of future warming are unknown. It also stated that meeting Kyoto emission-reduction targets would wreck the U.S. economy, and it charged that any multilateral agreement on global warming that did not include China, India, and other developing nations would fail in its ultimate goal of reining in climate change. The United States then outlined its intention to pursue a GHG-reduction course that emphasized voluntary actions and market mechanisms. The Global Climate Change Initiative seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the United States by 18 percent over the next 10 years, a change roughly equivalent to the Kyoto target. Emission credits would be established so that businesses that voluntarily reduce GHG emissions will not be penalized but rather given credit for reductions. The proposal also provides $4.6 billion over the next five years for climate changerelated activities and tax credits for renewable energy sources. Proponents of the Kyoto Protocol point to the need for a global solution to this global problem, however, and they condemned the United States—the nation most responsible for the generation of greenhouse gases—for its stance, claiming that its GHG-reduction program would have little impact. Some of the United States’ reasons for rebuffing Kyoto have also been rejected by some researchers over the years. ‘‘Under reasonable assumptions about the behavior of the economy and with sensible policy options, reducing emissions would have a negligible impact on U.S. economic growth,’’ stated one analyst. ‘‘A climate protection policy based on an explicit strategy of delay—doing little or nothing now and more later—is not credible. Without explicit market and policy signals in the near term, emissions will continue to rise while capital investments and technological developments will continue as before, making it harder, not easier, to implement policies and threatening greater, not less, disruption in the future’’ (Austin and Repetto, 1997). In addition to the environmental advocacy groups, multinational corporations such as DuPont and Atofina also believe that the United States should reconsider

444 | Kyoto Protocol

its opposition to the protocol. These corporations support the international emissions-trading program because they have already voluntarily cut emissions, and thus would benefit from being able to sell emission credits internationally. The U.S. withdrawal from Kyoto would mean less competition for credits, and the value of the credits would be lower. In June 2002, the Bush administration issued a report to the United Nations in which it formally acknowledged that ‘‘greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing global mean surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.’’ The report, prepared and released by the EPA, forecast that total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions will increase 43 percent between 2000 and 2020, and that average temperatures in the contiguous United States would rise from 5 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit during the twenty-first century. The analysis granted that global warming could increase U.S. production of soybeans, cotton, oranges, and some other crops. But the report also predicted massive disruptions to sensitive ecosystems and drastic shifts in continental precipitation patterns, and it raised the specter of major flooding of coastal population centers. Even after the report’s release, however, the Bush administration reaffirmed its rejection of Kyoto and reiterated its belief that voluntary measures to control greenhouse gases generated by polluters are the best way to address global warming. Canada, meanwhile, ratified the Kyoto Protocol in December 2002 after months of heated debate. Canadian energy producers, business groups, and conservative legislators all strongly opposed ratification, citing implementation as prohibitively expensive and damaging to the national economy. Advocates of Kyoto ratification, however, forecast a much more modest economic impact, and they characterized the ratification vote as one that was integral to the country’s environmental future. In the end, Prime Minister Jean Chretien and his Liberal Party majority, bolstered by public opinion polls showing broad support for adoption of the treaty, prevailed over pro-business opposition groups. The Canadian government has already produced a Kyoto implementation plan that calls for basic changes in energy use, with provisions for introducing more fuel-efficient cars, greater use of ethanol-spiked fuel, and incentives to increase household energy efficiency. In addition, Canada is continuing to seek credit under Kyoto mechanisms for the clean energy (primarily hydroelectric) that it exports to the United States and its vast carbon-holding forests. However, Canada is also grappling with outright defiance from the energy-rich province of Alberta. Provincial officials have indicated that Alberta might opt out of the Kyoto Protocol should Ottawa ratify it without provincial consent, and that it would take the federal government to court if necessary. ‘‘We clearly will not implement the Kyoto agreement as it applies to Alberta,’’ said Alberta environment minister Lorne Taylor in May 2002. ‘‘We recognize the federal government

Kyoto Protocol | 445

has every right to sign international agreements, but it’s very clear who owns the resource. The people of Alberta own the resources of Alberta’’ (Jones, 2002). For its part, Canada’s federal government insists that it has the constitutional right to ratify Kyoto and other international agreements over the objections of individual provinces. Kevin Hillstrom and Laurie Hillstrom References Adler, Jonathan. ‘‘Better Safe than Sorry?’’ Consumers’ Research Magazine 84 (July 2001). Austin, Duncan, and Robert Repetto. The Costs of Climate Protection: A Guide for the Perplexed. Washington DC: World Resources Institute, 1997. Ayers, Harvard, Jenny Hager, and Charles E. Little, eds. An Appalachian Tragedy: Air Pollution and Tree Death in the Eastern Forests of North America. San Francisco: Sierra Club, 1998. Baumert, Kevin A., and Nancy Kete. The United States, Developing Countries, and Climate Protection: Leadership or Stalemate. Christian Layke and Wendy Vanasselt, eds. Washington DC: World Resources Institute, 2002. Jones, Jeffrey. ‘‘Alberta Won’t OK Kyoto, May Take Ottawa to Court,’’ World Environment News. http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/16094/story.htm. 2002. Victor, David. The Collapse of the Kyoto Protocol and the Struggles to Slow Global Warming. Princeton University Press: 2004.

L Lacey Act On two occasions in 1896, an ornithologist named Frank Graham walked about the streets of Manhattan closely observing ladies’ hats. He counted them. Of the 700 hats perched on the heads of the women he encountered on his strolls, 542 of them contained bird feathers, representing some 40 different species. This was a serious problem. (Almost all of the remaining 158 featherless hats belonged to the elderly or women in mourning.) In 1886, the American Ornithologists Union estimated that 5 million birds were being killed every year so that their plumage could serve as a favorite Victorian ornament, satisfying the palate of fashion at the cost of an alarming depletion of many species. That same year, New York passed one of the first laws protecting ‘‘nongame’’ species. The New York Bird Law, intended to stop the slaughter for feathers, prohibited killing, wounding, or capturing ‘‘any bird of song or any linnet, blue bird, yellow hammer, yellow bird, thrush, woodpecker, cat bird, peewee, swallow, martin, blue jay, oriole, killdeer, snow bird, grass bird, grosbeak, bobolink, phoebe bird, humming bird, wren, robin, meadow lark, starling, or any wild bird.’’ The statute also banned selling, buying, or possessing any of these creatures. Plainly, birds of every sort were being plundered for their plumes, and if they were to be protected, laws of long reach had to be written. Yet state laws like this one, and others of similar construction that were inspired by New York’s example, could not reach far enough: they could not grasp a wrongdoer who had departed for another jurisdiction. So a market hunter could illegally shoot flamingos in Florida, or exceed the bag limit for pheasants in Illinois, and legally sell parts of both species in New York City. At the turn of the last century, the birds seemed doomed unless some regulation of interstate trafficking in feathers and other avian byproducts could be established. But no state had the legal authority to do that. The Lacey Act of 1900 Iowa Congressman John F. Lacey found the answer to the problem in the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to govern interstate commerce: ‘‘The Congress shall have the power . . . [t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,

447

448 | Lacey Act

and among the several States, and with Indian Tribes.’’ The movement of dead birds and their body parts across state lines for sale and trade, he reasoned, is clearly interstate commerce well within the purview of lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Congress agreed with Lacey, and so the Commerce Clause provided the first explicit authorization for the federal government to regulate wildlife. Unlike the Property Clause of the Constitution (Article IV, Section 3), federal regulation of wildlife as authorized by the Commerce Clause has never been seriously challenged. Lacey’s bill was signed into law by President William McKinley in 1900 and named for its sponsor. Evoking the constitutionally validated federal control, Section 5 of the new statute outlawed a standard maneuver designed to thwart state game laws: marketing in one state feathers from birds protected in another, where the act of commerce itself is not contrary to any state law. For example, in Alabama herons were protected, so a person who killed one and then sold its plumes was breaking the law. However, it was not illegal in Alabama to sell heron feathers from a bird killed in Georgia, so the nefarious shooter had simply to head west from Okefenokee, crossing into the other jurisdiction to avoid the law. The Lacey Act foiled this scheme: animal bodies or body parts brought into a state acquired the same legal status as those originating in that state. Further, this provision also barred transport for sale of a species not protected in one state and thus legally taken there into a state in which it was protected and where it could not be legally killed. After Lacey, any carrier who delivered such contraband across the borders of a state, or the person who turned it over to a carrier, was now committing a federal offense. The international component of the Commerce Clause also supplied the authority behind another provision of the Lacey Act. This one prohibited the importation of various species that the Secretary of Agriculture, charged with administering the law, ‘‘may . . . declare injurious to the interest of agriculture or horticulture.’’ Mongooses (Mungos mungo), fruit bats, starlings (Sturnus spp.), and English sparrows were among the first such species disallowed for importation. The secretary was further empowered to pursue methods of preserving and restoring populations of ‘‘game birds and other wild birds,’’ so long as these measures did not conflict with current state and territorial law. Finally, the packaging of dead animals or body parts for interstate shipment had to include clear markings of the contents. The Lacey Act did not present a robust deterrent. Congress provided light penalties for violation ($500 maximum fine for carriers and no jail time) and demanded a high standard of culpability. Conviction required scienter, that is, proof that the defendant knew his or her actions were unlawful and that he or she intended to violate the law. Although the Lacey Act is credited by some with ending illicit trade in plumage and thus reinvigorating many bird species, a likelier explanation for the recovery is that the fickle whims of fashion turned away from feathered hats and boas. The federal law in any case had no impact on commerce between states

Lacey Act | 449

without laws protecting the targeted birds. Moreover, it was too late to save the Carolina parakeet (Conuropsis carolinensis) or the passenger pigeon (Ecotopistes migratorius), the last of both species expiring in 1914. Nonetheless, this statute is the progeny of national lawmakers embarking on a very early foray into wildlife management. Along with an 1894 act of Congress that banned hunting in Yellowstone National Park (John Lacey also sponsored this bill), the Lacey Act of 1900 represents the federal government exerting its authority over U.S. wildlife for the first time. Through the first few decades of the twentieth century, federal influence in the governance of wildlife in the United States increased markedly. Dozens of reserves and sanctuaries that would eventually be organized as the National Wildlife Refuge System were created by acts of Congress and executive orders from the White House, areas where hunting was strictly regulated or completely banned. In 1911, an international agreement with Russia, Japan, and Great Britain restricted the numbers of, and the manner in which, fur seals in Alaskan waters could be taken. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 protected dozens of species crossing numerous state and national borders. In light of these and other developments, a 1935 amendment extended the scope of the prohibitions contained in the Lacey Act, outlawing interstate commerce in wild animals killed or captured in violation of federal laws or those of any other nation. Reflecting a greater concern with wildlife trade between the United States and other nations, an addition in 1949 prohibited transporting animals into the country in an ‘‘inhumane and unhealthful’’ manner. The Secretary of the Treasury, who has the responsibility for regulating imports, was directed to promulgate requirements for compassionate and hygienic modes of exporting wild animals to America. The amendment did not define ‘‘inhumane and unhealthful,’’ but declared that solid evidence of a violation is any shipment containing ‘‘a substantial ratio of dead, crippled, diseased, or starving’’ animals. The Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 The statute underwent a major overhaul in 1981, with virtually every section altered to some degree except the one banning imports of injurious wildlife. Congress removed Section 5 entirely, which asserted that animals transported into a state are to be regarded as though they originated there. Perhaps the most significant change is that now trafficking in any sort of protected animal is forbidden, either wild or bred in captivity, and including fish, reptiles, amphibians, mollusks, crustaceans, and invertebrates (plants either on state endangered species lists or protected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species are also covered). A further strengthening of the prohibition makes the mere possession of animal contraband illegal, if so enjoined by state law, where formerly this provision had been confined to taking, transporting, or selling specimens.

450 | Lacey Act

Penalties for violating the Lacey Act are dramatically enhanced to a maximum fine of $20,000 and five years in prison, provided the market value of the animal traded is at least $350. Offenses that qualify for this magnitude of punishment are felonies, and the guilty party is liable to the seizure of all equipment used in the unlawful activity. The Secretary of the Treasury may offer rewards for information that leads to an arrest or conviction. The amendments also weakened the scienter requirement for conviction; the Lacey Act can be violated even if the offender did not know that interstate commerce in species protected by state law is forbidden, and even if he or she had no intention of doing anything illegal. Nonetheless, to be blameworthy under the Lacey Act, an individual must be aware that in killing or capturing an animal he or she has broken a state law. These 1981 modifications and others produced a retooled Lacey Act that has become one of the most powerful weapons in the arsenal of federal wildlife law enforcement. Charges brought under the act were uncommon before the amendments, but frequent afterward. Subsequent litigation has ranged over several puzzling issues; for example, whether certain customs laws of foreign nations are motivated by wildlife conservation (which activates Lacey) or economics (which does not). Another problem is how to determine the market value of wildlife. A third addresses the constitutionality not only of the laws of foreign countries under their own constitutions, but also the laws of the states under ours: if such laws are unconstitutional, then there is no underlying violation upon which to base an offense against the Lacey Act. One of these complications produced conflicting judgments from two federal appellate courts. In 1984, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that someone who provides service as a guide for an illegal hunt is in effect offering to sell wildlife in violation of the Lacey Act (United States v. Todd). Two years later, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed and declared that the sale of guide services is not equivalent to selling wild animals, so a guide on an illegal hunt could not be charged with a violation (United States v. Stenberg). Congress decided to settle the matter. A 1988 amendment to the Lacey Act makes it quite clear that ‘‘a person who for money or other consideration offers or provides guiding, outfitting, or other services . . . for the illegal taking . . . of fish or wildlife is deemed to have conducted a sale in violation of the Act.’’ Jordon Curnutt References Nilsson, Greta. ‘‘Birds.’’ In Animals and Their Legal Rights, 4th ed. Washington DC: Animal Welfare Institute, 1999. United States v. Stenberg, 803 F.2d 422 (9th Cir. 1986). United States v. Todd, 735 F.2d 146 (5th Cir. 1984). Weyhrauch, Bruce B. ‘‘Waterfowl and Lead Shot.’’ Environmental Law 16 (1986): 883–934.

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 | 451

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act of 1965 was enacted by the U.S. Congress ‘‘to strengthen the health and vitality of the citizens of the United States (U.S. Code)’’ by funding the purchase of lands and developing areas to be used for recreational and conservation purposes. This act was the outcome of efforts by President Kennedy and conservationists in response to growing American demands for recreational land across the country. Prior to 1965, national and regional parks were carved from lands in the public domain; as a result, most of this land was concentrated in the west, with comparatively little elsewhere. The LWCF Act uses federal revenues from offshore oil drilling, park entrance fees, motorboat fuels taxes, and surplus real estate sales to acquire land for recreation and preservation purposes. It provides matching funds to states wishing to purchase these resources. The act funds two kinds of acquisitions: buying up inholdings, or privately held land within existing park boundaries, or the purchase of lands within new park areas authorized by Congress. All state projects must fit into a state’s existing recreation plan. Federal acquisitions should be located within or near an established or proposed federally owned or administered resource area. Since the act’s inception, state agencies and local communities have acquired nearly seven million acres of land with more than 37,000 state and local parks and recreation projects developed as a result (The Trust for Public Land). It is the principal source of funding for recreational land acquisition by four federal agencies: the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, and the Forest Service. Gwen Perkins See also Bureau of Land Management; Kennedy, Robert Jr.; National Park Service; Trust for Public Land

References Camp, William G., and Thomas B. Daugherty. Managing Our Natural Resources. Florence, KY: Delmar, 2000. Kline, Benjamin. First Along the River: A Brief History of the U.S. Environmental Movement. San Francisco, CA: Acada Books, 2000. ‘‘Land and Water Conservation Provisions; Statement of Purposes.’’ Title 16 U.S. Code, 4601–4. 2009 edition. Stegner, Wallace Earle, and Page Stegner. Marking the Sparrow’s Fall: The Making of the American West. New York: Henry Holt, 1998. The Trust for Public Land. ‘‘Land and Water Conservation Fund.’’ http:// www.tpl.org (accessed April 24, 2010).

452 | League of Conservation Voters

League of Conservation Voters In 1969, just before the signing of the National Environmental Policy Act and Earth Day, Marion Eddy was working in Washington, D.C., after recently graduating from college. She discovered that although there was a significant amount of environmental concern developing in the United States, activists had not been able to turn their fervor into electoral success in Congress. A year later, Eddy founded one of the nation’s most respected nonprofit environmental organizations, the League of Conservation Voters (LCV). The LCV has become known as the political arm of the environmental movement, providing an authoritative source of information for voters who want to know where a candidate stands on the issues. In 1970, the group produced its first report, the National Environmental Scorecard, which has become the model for other activist groups. The scorecard is developed in consultation with volunteer representatives of 25 environmental organizations who analyze the voting records of members of Congress on environmental health and safety, resource conservation, and spending for environmental programs. Members of Congress are rated on a scale from 0 to 100, with the highest number reflecting representatives with the strongest environmental records, according to LCV standards. The results are then distributed to the media and to voters throughout the country. The group also works between election cycles and on state ballot initiatives related to environmental protection. The organization claimed its first victory in 1972, when alerts to grassroots organizations enabled them to unseat two powerful congressional candidates with a record of voting against environmental issues. Eddy stepped down as president in 1985, and the organization chose Alden Meyer as its leader. This was a significant leadership crossroads for the LCV as the group took on the Reagan administration and its supporters in Congress. In 1987, the organization changed strategies and increased the number of political endorsements it issued through its Action Fund. Three years later, Bruce Babbitt, who would later become the Secretary of the Interior in the Clinton administration, helped to give the LCV more visibility and credibility. But in 1994, a Republican tidal wave led to the loss of some the most active supporters of the environment in Congress, and in the following two years, a legislative agenda resulted that was designed to roll back much of the progress that had been made in the previous decade. In 1996, with Deb Callahan serving as president, the LCV undertook its first Dirty Dozen campaign. The LCV identified members of Congress who they perceived to be vulnerable in their bid for reelection and with the worst records involving environmental issues, along with its Perfect Ten EarthList of the strongest environmental candidates. Spending $1.5 million campaigning, seven of the twelve were defeated

Leopold, Aldo | 453

that year, in part owing to the independent campaigns launched by the LCV. By targeting specific candidates and states, the LCV showed its political clout, hiring field organizers, sending out over a quarter million pieces of mail, running 9,000 radio and television ads, and holding media tours. An additional $450,000 was raised for the Perfect Ten candidates (LCV Annual Report, 1996, 6–7). Two years later, $2.3 million was spent against the Baker’s Dirty Dozen (thirteen candidates), nine of whom were defeated. All ten members of the EarthList won in their elections (LCV Biennial Report, 1998, 2). By 2000, LCV leaders moved a step further by publishing presidential profiles that outlined the candidates’ environmental records. The league’s board of directors represents a Who’s Who of environmental organizations and philanthropic leaders. The 2010 directors include the legal advocacy groups Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council as well as the Rockefeller family, Barclays Capital and the Turner Foundation. The press conference to announce the scorecard results is watched closely by political operatives as well as by potential candidates, who recognize that the LCV may also be the voice of other critical groups as well. Although other organizations now have their own versions of a scoring system, including groups whose rankings are virtually opposite to those of the LCV, it adds to its reputation by not only analyzing voting results, but also working toward the defeat of those with the weakest environmental records. By using celebrities such as Robert Redford to record ads for individual pro-environmental candidates, issues related to the environment can be placed on a political agenda when they otherwise might have been ignored. Jacqueline Vaughn Switzer References Duran, Nicole, and Alan Greenblatt. ‘‘An Abundance of Rankings.’’ CQ Weekly (August 12, 2000): 1,961. League of Conservation Voters. 1996 Annual Report. Washington DC: League of Conservation Voters, 1996. League of Conservation Voters. Biennial Report: 1997–98. Washington DC: League of Conservation Voters, 1998. League of Conservation Voters. National Environmental Scorecard 2000. Washington DC: League of Conservation Voters, 2000. Toner, Robin. ‘‘Interest Groups Take New Route to Congressional Election Arena.’’ New York Times, August 20, 1996.

Leopold, Aldo Aldo Leopold, called the ‘‘father’’ of the National Forest Wilderness System, and of the U.S. profession of wildlife management, was a noted forester, conservationist,

454 | Leopold, Aldo

Wisconsin university professor, and writer. An environmental philosopher, Leopold was the first to write of a land ethic. In A Sand County Almanac With Essays on Conservation, he called for man not to conquer land, but to be a citizen who enlarges the boundaries of community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively the land. A modest success when published in 1949, a year after Leopold’s death, the book became the ‘‘bible’’ of environmentalists in the 1970s, and Leopold’s views became widely known. Born in Burlington, Iowa, on January 11, 1887, as Rand Aldo Leopold, he began a lifelong habit while a young boy of writing daily journal entries on The influential writings of twentieth-century the outdoors (Flader, 1973). After earnenvironmentalist Aldo Leopold, changed the ing a master’s degree from Yale Forest way that many Americans viewed nature. An School in 1909, Leopold joined the employee of the U.S. Forest Service, Leo- U.S. Forest Service. He was assigned pold was instrumental in the creation of Gila to Holbrook, Arizona, a trading outpost National Forest, the nation’s first protected on the Navajo reservation. Initially, wilderness area. (Library of Congress) Leopold supported the Forest Service’s eradication policy toward wolves and other predators, but he soon became a sportsman with a keen commitment to game management. With his supervisor, Leopold surveyed the Gila National Forest in New Mexico, and proposed that the area be a roadless recreational area; it was designated the world’s first official wilderness in 1924 (Russell, 1992). Later that year, Leopold transferred to Madison, Wisconsin, to join the U.S. Forest Products Laboratory as associate director. He left the research center and the Forest Service in 1928. An authority on native game, Leopold was named in 1933 the first professor of game management at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where he authored the subject’s initial textbook Game Management (1933). His students thought Leopold had a youthful, inquiring mind, as he was open to new ideas and willing to move in new directions (Flader, 1973). Leopold served on President Franklin Roosevelt’s Committee on Wildlife Restoration (‘‘Dr. Aldo Leopold.’’ 1948). He advised the Civilian Conservation Corps, a Depression-era program that put unemployed young men to work preventing erosion

Leopold, Aldo | 455

and preserving natural resources (Fleming, 2003). Some found work in 1934 restoring prairie land and native woodlands, now known as restorative ecology, when the University of Wisconsin began an arboretum, with Leopold as its first director. (University of Wisconsin-Madison Arboretum, 2010). Active in Wisconsin’s Izaak Walton League, Leopold was among leading conservationists who founded the Wilderness Society in 1935. After purchasing an abandoned farm in the sand counties along the Wisconsin River near Baraboo, Leopold, his wife Estella, and their children began to restore the land and wildlife habitat while living in a converted chicken coop called ‘‘The Shack’’ (Frees, 2003). A week before suffering a fatal heart attack while helping fight a grass fire near his farm on April 21, 1948, Leopold found a publisher for A Sand County Almanac With Essays on Conservation (Flader, 1973). His five children, all noted naturalists, formed the Aldo Leopold Foundation in 1982. The Leopold Farm serves as an outdoor classroom for exploring ecological relationships (Aldo Leopold Foundation, 2010). Rita Ormsby See also Conservation; Civilian Conservation Corps; U.S. Forest Service

References Dictionary of Literary Biography, Vol. 275. Detroit: Gale, 2003. ‘‘Dr. Aldo Leopold, A Conservationist, Wisconsin Leader in Protection of Wildlife Dies at 62 After Helping Fight Grass Fire.’’ New York Times, April 22, 1948. Flader, Susan L. ‘‘A Biographical Study of Aldo Leopold: Thinking Like a Mountain.’’ Forest History 17 (1973): 14–28. Fleming, Deborah. ‘‘Aldo Leopold.’’ In Twentieth-Century American Nature Writers, Roger Thompson and J. Scott Bryson, eds. Detroit: Gale Group, 2003. Frees, Stephen J. ‘‘Aldo Leopold: An American Prophet.’’ The History Teacher 37 (2003) Special Feature Issue: Environmental History and National History Day 2003 Prize Essays, 99–118. Huffman, Thomas R. ‘‘Defining the Origins of Environmentalism in Wisconsin: A Study in Politics and Culture.’’ Environmental History Review 16 (1992): 47–69. Leopold, Aldo; illustrations by Allan Brooks. Game Management. New York: Scribner’s, 1933. Leopold, Aldo; photographs by Michael Sewell, introduction by Kenneth Brower. A Sand County Almanac With Essays on Conservation. New ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Russell, Peter. Gila Cliff Dwellings National Monument: An Administrative History. Santa Fe, NM: Southwest Cultural Resources Center Professional Papers No. 46 Southwest Region, Division of History, 1992. http://www.nps.gov/archive/gicl/adhi/adhi.htm (accessed May 10, 2010). Sutter, Paul S. ‘‘A Blank Spot on the Map: Aldo Leopold, Wilderness and U.S. Forest Service Recreational Policy, 1909–1924.’’ Western Historical Quarterly 29 (1998): 187–214.

456 | Love Canal The Aldo Leopold Foundation. http://www.aldoleopold.org/ (accessed May 10, 2010). University of Wisconsin-Madison Arboretum. ‘‘Arboretum History.’’ http://uwarboretum.org/about/history/ (accessed May 8, 2010). The Wilderness Society. ‘‘Aldo Leopold.’’ http://wilderness.org/about-us/aldo-leopold (accessed May 7, 2010).

Love Canal The story of Love Canal made dioxin a household word and is the first time the notion of a cancer cluster was articulated to the public. The Comprehensive Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (Superfund) of 1980 began here. CERCLA gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to force polluters to clean their toxic messes. CERCLA came about because of Lois Gibbs. In 1978, the 27-year-old housewife discovered her child was attending an elementary school atop a 20,000-ton toxic chemical dump in the Love Canal neighborhood of Niagara Falls, New

A bulldozer pushes soil away from one of the tanks used to hold toxic waste in Love Canal, New York. As a result, the town closed down for contamination caused by the Hooker Chemical Company. (Getty Images)

Love Canal | 457

York. She organized the Love Canal Homeowners Association to motivate elected officials to evacuate Love Canal. Their efforts led to CERCLA, which allowed the government to eventually collect $248 million from Occidental Petroleum for cleanup. Part of that settlement includes a $1 million Medical Trust Fund established to care for 1,328 Love Canal residents over time. Love Canal began in 1892 when William T. Love sought to create a canal and human-made waterfall that would provide cheap electricity. In 1920, the unfinished canal was sold. It became a municipal and chemical dump until 1953, when principal depositor Hooker Chemical Corporation, a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum, sold the land for $1 to the City of Niagara Board of Education. The sale included caveats absolving the company of any future liability and warning about the chemical wastes buried there. Among the chemicals was dioxin, the most toxic known. The U.S. Army also contributed hazardous waste to Love Canal, some suspected from the highly radioactive Manhattan Project. Homeowners were not told they were digging their foundations in toxic waste. Despite their complaints to lawmakers, elected officials acted slowly, hesitating to fund evacuation—temporary or permanent. Pressure in the media and from homeowners eventually brought government-funded studies. They documented higher-than-normal incidences of miscarriages, crib deaths, birth defects, nervous breakdowns, kidney and urinary tract disorders, cancer, chromosomal damage, and more, many caused by dioxin poisoning. Learning the results, frightened Love Canal residents in their most dramatic action held hostage two EPA representatives in 1980, challenging the White House to relocate all families within 48 hours. Two days later, President Jimmy Carter agreed, and Love Canal became a modern-day ghost town. In 1990, following cleanup, a section of Love Canal deemed safe was renamed Black Creek Village. On what is now called the most tested piece of real estate in the country, 239 homes were renovated and sold. Families who lived in Love Canal between 1953 and 1980 reported effects from exposure as recently as 2008. Debra A. Schwartz See also Citizens Clearinghouse; Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

References Center for Health, Environment and Justice. ‘‘Lois Marie Gibbs.’’ http://www.chej .org/about_lois.htm (accessed June 1, 2009).

458 | Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1985 Center for Health, Environment and Justice. ‘‘Love Canal Fact Pack.’’ http://www.chej.org (accessed June 1, 2009). Center for Health, Environment and Justice. ‘‘Love Canal Timeline.’’ http:// www.chej.org/love_canal_timeline.htm (accessed June 1, 2009). Hynes, H. P. ‘‘Ellen Swallow, Lois Gibbs and Rachel Carson: Catalysts of the American Environmental Movement.’’ Women’s Studies International Forum 8 (4) (1985): 291–298. James, Susan Donaldson. ‘‘Love Canal’s Lethal Legacy Persists.’’ ABC News, August 11, 2008. http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=5553393 (accessed June 1, 2009). Ruwart, M. ‘‘The Pollution Solution: Stopping the Environment’s Worst Enemy.’’ Libertarian Party.org. http://www.lp.org/issues/environment (accessed June 1, 2009). Tuchman, Gary. ‘‘Despite Toxic History, Residents Return to Love Canal.’’ CNN, August 7, 1998. http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/07/love.canal/ (accessed June 1, 2009).

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1985 President Reagan signed this act into law on January 15, 1986. An amendment to a 1980 act by the same name, the 1985 act defined ‘‘low-level radioactive waste’’ (LLRW) as containing radiation levels ‘‘below regulatory concern.’’ Examples include hospital diagnostic equipment or tools from nuclear plants— essentially all waste not containing ‘‘high levels’’ of radioactivity (Walker, 2000). According to the act, all LLRW not created by the federal government for national security purposes became the responsibility of the individual states. The act established an interim period of seven years for states to create their own dump sites or to enter interstate compacts for LLRW disposal. It also gave the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) power to impose penalties onto states that failed to comply (Peckingpaugh, 1989). Public interest over LLRW grew in the early 1980s. Only three states—Washington, South Carolina, and Nevada—dispose of LLRW, yet many states produce it. Displeased with their disproportionate dumping burden, governors of these states halted dumping. In response, Congress asked that all states establish safe dumping procedures for LLRW produced within their borders by January 1, 1986. As that deadline loomed, no states had complied. The 1985 amendment extended this deadline until 1992 (Peckingpaugh, 1989). As of 2010, no new LLRW disposal sites have been created (Walker, 2009). Currently, LLRW producers send waste to the aforementioned sites or simply let materials decay onsite. Largely, concern over LLRW has abated, but some environmental groups continue to criticize current LLRW dumping practices (Sierra Club, 2010). William M. Knoblauch See also Radioactive Waste; Reagan, Ronald Wilson

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992) | 459

References Peckingpaugh, Timothy L. ‘‘The Politics of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal.’’ In Low-Level Radioactive Waste Regulation: Science, Politics and Fear. Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers Inc., 1989. Sierra Club. ‘‘Nuclear Waste: ‘Low-Level’ Nuclear Waste (LLRW) Management.’’ http://www.sierraclub.org/nuclearwaste/low.asp (accessed April 8, 2010). Walker, J. Samuel. Permissible Dose: A History of Radiation Protection in the Twentieth Century. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. Walker, J. Samuel. The Road to Yucca Mountain: The Development of Radioactive Waste Policy in the United States. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009.

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992) Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council is a case involving David H. Lucas, the owner of two South Carolina beachfront properties, and the South Carolina Coastal Council, which grants permits for the use of such waterfront properties. The case further clarified what constitutes a ‘‘taking’’ under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. South Carolina’s Coastal Zone Management Act of 1977 required that the owners of land in ‘‘critical areas,’’ mainly near public beaches, obtain permits from the South Carolina Coastal Council before putting the land to new uses. David Lucas bought the properties in 1986 when, at the time, he was legally permitted to build upon the land. However, Lucas was prevented from building single-family homes on the properties in 1988 when the state of South Carolina passed the Beachfront Management Act averting Lucas from building any inhabitable residences on his land. When David Lucas first filed suit, a South Carolina trial court agreed with his positioning and awarded him with $1,232,387.50 as just compensation for the regulatory taking, holding that the lots were rendered ‘‘valueless’’ and had been ‘‘taken’’ by procedure of the Beachfront Management Act. However, the state of South Carolina appealed and the decision was overturned by the South Carolina Supreme Court, which claimed that the regulation was designed to prevent ‘‘harmful or noxious uses’’ of property parallel to public nuisances, and that in such circumstances, compensation is not due regardless of the regulations effect on a property’s value. The case was brought to the United States Supreme Court; Lucas sought reversal of the earlier South Carolina Supreme Court decision that the implementation of the Beachfront Management Act did not require compensation. This argument was made on the basis that Lucas was deprived of all economically viable uses of his land and therefore served as legitimate reasoning for a ‘‘taking’’ under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which, in turn, require just compensation.

460 | Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992) 505 U.S. 1003 (1992)

The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution (which now applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment) prevents the government from exercising its powers of eminent domain and engaging in a ‘‘taking’’ of private property for public purposes without compensating the property owners. In Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, Lucas had bought two beachfront lots. South Carolina’s 1988 Beachfront Management Act subsequently banned construction on these sites, significantly diminishing their value. Recognizing that South Carolina could enact such legislation under its police powers, Lucas demanded that he be compensated. Although a lower Carolina court had agreed, the state Supreme Court had reversed. JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court. In 1986, petitioner David H. Lucas paid $975,000 for two residential lots on the Isle of Palms in Charleston County, South Carolina, on which he intended to build singlefamily homes. In 1988, however, the South Carolina Legislature enacted the Beachfront Management Act, S.C.Code Ann. 48–39250 et seq., which had the direct effect of barring petitioner from erecting any permanent habitable structures on his two parcels. A state trial court found that this prohibition rendered Lucas’ parcels ‘‘valueless.’’ This case requires us to decide whether the Act’s dramatic effect on the economic value of Lucas’ lots accomplished a taking of private property under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments requiring the payment of ‘‘just compensation.’’ South Carolina’s expressed interest in intensively managing development activities in the so-called ‘‘coastal zone’’ dates from 1977 when, in the aftermath of Congress’s passage of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, the legislature enacted a Coastal Zone Management Act of its own. In its original form, the South Carolina Act required owners of coastal zone land that qualified as a ‘‘critical area’’ (defined in the legislation to include beaches and immediately adjacent sand dunes, to obtain a permit from the newly created South Carolina Coastal (Council) (respondent here) prior to committing the land to a ‘‘use other than the use the critical area was devoted to on [September 28, 1977].’’ In the late 1970’s, Lucas and others began extensive residential development of the Isle of Palms, a barrier island situated eastward of the city of Charleston. Toward the close of the development cycle for one residential subdivision known as ‘‘Beachwood East,’’ Lucas, in 1986, purchased the two lots at issue in this litigation for his own account. No portion of the lots, which were located approximately 300 feet from the beach, qualified as a ‘‘critical area’’ under the 1977 Act; accordingly, at the time Lucas acquired these parcels, he was not legally obliged to obtain a permit from the Council in advance of any development activity. His intention with respect to the lots was to do what the owners of the immediately adjacent parcels had already done: erect singlefamily residences. He commissioned architectural drawings for this purpose. The Beachfront Management Act brought Lucas’ plans to an abrupt end. Under that 1988 legislation, the Council was directed to establish a ‘‘baseline’’ connecting the landward-most ‘‘point[s] of erosion . . . during the past forty years’’ in the region of the Isle of Palms that includes Lucas’ lots. In action not challenged here, the Council fixed this baseline landward of Lucas’ parcels. That was significant, for under the Act, construction of occupable improvements was flatly prohibited seaward of a line drawn 20 feet landward of, and parallel to, the baseline. The Act provided no exceptions.

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992) | 461 Lucas promptly filed suit in the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas, contending that the Beachfront Management Act’s construction bar effected a taking of his property without just compensation. Lucas did not take issue with the validity of the Act as a lawful exercise of South Carolina’s police power, but contended that the Act’s complete extinguishment of his property’s value entitled him to compensation regardless of whether the legislature had acted in furtherance of legitimate police power objectives. Following a bench trial, the court agreed. Among its factual determinations was the finding that, at the time Lucas purchased the two lots, both were zoned for single-family residential construction and . . . there were no restrictions imposed upon such use of the property by either the State of South Carolina, the County of Charleston, or the Town of the Isle of Palms. The trial court further found that the Beachfront Management Act decreed a permanent ban on construction insofar as Lucas’ lots were concerned, and that this prohibition deprive[d] Lucas of any reasonable economic use of the lots, . . . eliminated the unrestricted right of use, and render[ed] them valueless. The court thus concluded that Lucas’ properties had been ‘‘taken’’ by operation of the Act, and it ordered respondent to pay ‘‘just compensation’’ in the amount of $1,232,387.50. The Supreme Court of South Carolina reversed. It found dispositive what it described as Lucas’ concession ‘‘that the Beachfront Management Act [was] properly and validly designed to preserve . . . South Carolina’s beaches.’’ Failing an attack on the validity of the statute as such, the court believed itself bound to accept the ‘‘uncontested . . . findings’’ of the South Carolina Legislature that new construction in the coastal zone—such as petitioner intended—threatened this public resource. The court ruled that, when a regulation respecting the use of property is designed ‘‘to prevent serious public harm,’’ (citing, inter alia, Mugler v. Kansas (1887)), no compensation is owing under the Takings Clause regardless of the regulation’s effect on the property’s value. Two justices dissented. They acknowledged that our Mugler line of cases recognizes governmental power to prohibit ‘‘noxious’’ uses of property—i.e., uses of property akin to ‘‘public nuisances’’—without having to pay compensation. But they would not have characterized the Beachfront Management Act’s ‘‘primary purpose [as] the prevention of a nuisance.’’ To the dissenters, the chief purposes of the legislation, among them the promotion of tourism and the creation of a ‘‘habitat for indigenous flora and fauna,’’ could not fairly be compared to nuisance abatement. As a consequence, they would have affirmed the trial court’s conclusion that the Act’s obliteration of the value of petitioner’s lots accomplished a taking. We granted certiorari. As a threshold matter, we must briefly address the Council’s suggestion that this case is inappropriate for plenary review. After briefing and argument before the South Carolina Supreme Court, but prior to issuance of that court’s opinion, the Beachfront Management Act was amended to authorize the Council, in certain circumstances, to issue ‘‘special permits’’ for the construction or reconstruction of habitable structures seaward of the baseline. According to the Council, this amendment renders Lucas’ claim of a permanent deprivation unripe, as Lucas may yet be able to secure permission to build on his property. ‘‘[The Court’s] cases,’’ we are reminded, uniformly reflect an insistence on knowing the nature and extent of permitted development before adjudicating the constitutionality of the regulations that purport to limit it. Because petitioner ‘‘has not yet obtained a final decision regarding how [he] will be allowed to develop [his] property,’’ Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City (1985), the Council argues that he is not yet entitled to definitive adjudication of his takings claim in this Court.

462 | Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992) We think these considerations would preclude review had the South Carolina Supreme Court rested its judgment on ripeness grounds, as it was (essentially) invited to do by the Council. The South Carolina Supreme Court shrugged off the possibility of further administrative and trial proceedings, however, preferring to dispose of Lucas’ takings claim on the merits. This unusual disposition does not preclude Lucas from applying for a permit under the 1990 amendment for future construction, and challenging, on takings grounds, any denial. But it does preclude, both practically and legally, any takings claim with respect to Lucas’ past deprivation, i.e., for his having been denied construction rights during the period before the 1990 amendment. See generally First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles (1987) (holding that temporary deprivations of use are compensable under the Takings Clause). Without even so much as commenting upon the consequences of the South Carolina Supreme Court’s judgment in this respect, the Council insists that permitting Lucas to press his claim of a past deprivation on this appeal would be improper, since ‘‘the issues of whether and to what extent [Lucas] has incurred a temporary taking . . . have simply never been addressed.’’ Yet Lucas had no reason to proceed on a ‘‘temporary taking’’ theory at trial, or even to seek remand for that purpose prior to submission of the case to the South Carolina Supreme Court, since, as the Act then read, the taking was unconditional and permanent. Moreover, given the breadth of the South Carolina Supreme Court’s holding and judgment, Lucas would plainly be unable (absent our intervention now) to obtain further state court adjudication with respect to the 1988–1990 period. In these circumstances, we think it would not accord with sound process to insist that Lucas pursue the late-created ‘‘special permit’’ procedure before his takings claim can be considered ripe. Lucas has properly alleged Article III injury in fact in this case, with respect to both the pre-1990 and post-1990 constraints placed on the use of his parcels by the Beachfront Management Act. That there is a discretionary ‘‘special permit’’ procedure by which he may regain—for the future, at least—beneficial use of his land goes only to the prudential ‘‘ripeness’’ of Lucas’ challenge, and for the reasons discussed, we do not think it prudent to apply that prudential requirement here. We leave for decision on remand, of course, the questions left unaddressed by the South Carolina Supreme Court as a consequence of its categorical disposition. Prior to Justice Holmes’ exposition in Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon (1922), it was generally thought that the Takings Clause reached only a ‘‘direct appropriation’’ of property, Legal Tender Cases (1871), or the functional equivalent of a ‘‘practical ouster of [the owner’s] possession,’’ Transportation Co. v. Chicago (1879). Justice Holmes recognized in Mahon, however, that, if the protection against physical appropriations of private property was to be meaningfully enforced, the government’s power to redefine the range of interests included in the ownership of property was necessarily constrained by constitutional limits. If, instead, the uses of private property were subject to unbridled, uncompensated qualification under the police power, the natural tendency of human nature [would be] to extend the qualification more and more until at last private property disappear[ed]. These considerations gave birth in that case to the oft-cited maxim that, ‘‘while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far, it will be recognized as a taking.’’ Nevertheless, our decision in Mahon offered little insight into when, and under what circumstances, a given regulation would be seen as going ‘‘too far’’ for purposes of the Fifth Amendment. In 70-odd years of succeeding ‘‘regulatory takings’’ jurisprudence, we have generally eschewed any ‘‘set formula’’ for determining how far is too far, preferring to ‘‘engag[e] in . . . essentially ad hoc, factual inquiries,’’ Penn Central Transportation

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992) | 463 Co. v. New York City (1978) (quoting Goldblatt v. Hempstead (1962)). We have, however, described at least two discrete categories of regulatory action as compensable without case-specific inquiry into the public interest advanced in support of the restraint. The first encompasses regulations that compel the property owner to suffer a physical ‘‘invasion’’ of his property. In general (at least with regard to permanent invasions), no matter how minute the intrusion, and no matter how weighty the public purpose behind it, we have required compensation. For example, in Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. (1982), we determined that New York’s law requiring landlords to allow television cable companies to emplace cable facilities in their apartment buildings constituted a taking, even though the facilities occupied, at most, only 1 1/2 cubic feet of the landlords’ property. The second situation in which we have found categorical treatment appropriate is where regulation denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land. As we have said on numerous occasions, the Fifth Amendment is violated when land use regulation ‘‘does not substantially advance legitimate state interests or denies an owner economically viable use of his land.’’ We have never set forth the justification for this rule. Perhaps it is simply, as Justice Brennan suggested, that total deprivation of beneficial use is, from the landowner’s point of view, the equivalent of a physical appropriation. Surely, at least, in the extraordinary circumstance when no productive or economically beneficial use of land is permitted, it is less realistic to indulge our usual assumption that the legislature is simply ‘‘adjusting the benefits and burdens of economic life,’’ Penn Central Transportation Co., in a manner that secures an ‘‘average reciprocity of advantage’’ to everyone concerned. And the functional basis for permitting the government, by regulation, to affect property values without compensation—that Government hardly could go on if, to some extent, values incident to property could not be diminished without paying for every such change in the general law—does not apply to the relatively rare situations where the government has deprived a landowner of all economically beneficial uses. On the other side of the balance, affirmatively supporting a compensation requirement, is the fact that regulations that leave the owner of land without economically beneficial or productive options for its use—typically, as here, by requiring land to be left substantially in its natural state—carry with them a heightened risk that private property is being pressed into some form of public service under the guise of mitigating serious public harm. As Justice Brennan explained: From the government’s point of view, the benefits flowing to the public from preservation of open space through regulation may be equally great as from creating a wildlife refuge through formal condemnation or increasing electricity production through a dam project that floods private property. The many statutes on the books, both state and federal, that provide for the use of eminent domain to impose servitudes on private scenic lands preventing developmental uses, or to acquire such lands altogether, suggest the practical equivalence in this setting of negative regulation and appropriation. . . . We think, in short, that there are good reasons for our frequently expressed belief that, when the owner of real property has been called upon to sacrifice all economically beneficial uses in the name of the common good, that is, to leave his property economically idle, he has suffered a taking. The trial court found Lucas’ two beachfront lots to have been rendered valueless by respondent’s enforcement of the coastal-zone construction ban. Under Lucas’ theory of the case, which rested upon our ‘‘no economically viable use’’ statements, that finding entitled him to compensation. Lucas believed it unnecessary to take issue with either

464 | Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992) the purposes behind the Beachfront Management Act or the means chosen by the South Carolina Legislature to effectuate those purposes. The South Carolina Supreme Court, however, thought otherwise. In its view, the Beachfront Management Act was no ordinary enactment, but involved an exercise of South Carolina’s ‘‘police powers’’ to mitigate the harm to the public interest that petitioner’s use of his land might occasion. By neglecting to dispute the findings enumerated in the Act or otherwise to challenge the legislature’s purposes, petitioner concede[d] that the beach/dune area of South Carolina’s shores is an extremely valuable public resource; that the erection of new construction, inter alia, contributes to the erosion and destruction of this public resource; and that discouraging new construction in close proximity to the beach/dune area is necessary to prevent a great public harm. In the court’s view, these concessions brought petitioner’s challenge within a long line of this Court’s cases sustaining against Due Process and Takings Clause challenges the State’s use of its ‘‘police powers’’ to enjoin a property owner from activities akin to public nuisances. It is correct that many of our prior opinions have suggested that ‘‘harmful or noxious uses’’ of property may be proscribed by government regulation without the requirement of compensation. For a number of reasons, however, we think the South Carolina Supreme Court was too quick to conclude that that principle decides the present case. The ‘‘harmful or noxious uses’’ principle was the Court’s early attempt to describe in theoretical terms why government may, consistent with the Takings Clause, affect property values by regulation without incurring an obligation to compensate—a reality we nowadays acknowledge explicitly with respect to the full scope of the State’s police power. . . . We made this very point in Penn Central Transportation Co., where, in the course of sustaining New York City’s landmarks preservation program against a takings challenge, we rejected the petitioner’s suggestion that Mugler and the cases following it were premised on, and thus limited by, some objective conception of ‘‘noxiousness’’: [T]he uses in issue in Hadacheck, Miller, and Goldblatt were perfectly lawful in themselves. They involved no blameworthiness, . . . moral wrongdoing or conscious act of dangerous risk-taking which induce[d society] to shift the cost to a pa[rt]icular individual,’’ Sax, Takings and the Police Power (1964). These cases are better understood as resting not on any supposed ‘‘noxious’’ quality of the prohibited uses, but rather on the ground that the restrictions were reasonably related to the implementation of a policy—not unlike historic preservation—expected to produce a widespread public benefit and applicable to all similarly situated property. ‘‘Harmful or noxious use’’ analysis was, in other words, simply the progenitor of our more contemporary statements that ‘‘land use regulation does not effect a taking if it ‘substantially advance[s] legitimate state interests’. . . .’’ The transition from our early focus on control of ‘‘noxious’’ uses to our contemporary understanding of the broad realm within which government may regulate without compensation was an easy one, since the distinction between ‘‘harm-preventing’’ and ‘‘benefit-conferring’’ regulation is often in the eye of the beholder. It is quite possible, for example, to describe in either fashion the ecological, economic, and esthetic concerns that inspired the South Carolina Legislature in the present case. One could say that imposing a servitude on Lucas’ land is necessary in order to prevent his use of it from ‘‘harming’’ South Carolina’s ecological resources; or, instead, in order to achieve the ‘‘benefits’’ of an ecological preserve. Compare, e.g., Claridge v. New Hampshire Wetlands Board (1984) (owner may, without compensation, be barred from filling wetlands because landfilling would deprive adjacent coastal habitats and marine fisheries of

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992) | 465 ecological support), with, e.g., Bartlett v. Zoning Comm’n of Old Lyme (1971) (owner barred from filling tidal marshland must be compensated, despite municipality’s ‘‘laudable’’ goal of ‘‘preserv[ing] marshlands from encroachment or destruction’’). Whether one or the other of the competing characterizations will come to one’s lips in a particular case depends primarily upon one’s evaluation of the worth of competing uses of real estate. A given restraint will be seen as mitigating ‘‘harm’’ to the adjacent parcels or securing a ‘‘benefit’’ for them, depending upon he observer’s evaluation of the relative importance of the use that the restraint favors. Whether Lucas’ construction of single-family residences on his parcels should be described as bringing ‘‘harm’’ to South Carolina’s adjacent ecological resources thus depends principally upon whether the describer believes that the State’s use interest in nurturing those resources is so important that any competing adjacent use must yield. When it is understood that ‘‘prevention of harmful use’’ was merely our early formulation of the police power justification necessary to sustain (without compensation) any regulatory diminution in value; and that the distinction between regulation that ‘‘prevents harmful use’’ and that which ‘‘confers benefits’’ is difficult, if not impossible, to discern on an objective, value-free basis; it becomes self-evident that noxious-use logic cannot serve as a touchstone to distinguish regulatory ‘‘takings’’—which require compensation—from regulatory deprivations that do not require compensation. A fortiori, the legislature’s recitation of a noxious-use justification cannot be the basis for departing from our categorical rule that total regulatory takings must be compensated. If it were, departure would virtually always be allowed. The South Carolina Supreme Court’s approach would essentially nullify Mahon’s affirmation of limits to the noncompensable exercise of the police power. Our cases provide no support for this: none of them that employed the logic of ‘‘harmful use’’ prevention to sustain a regulation involved an allegation that the regulation wholly eliminated the value of the claimant’s land. Where the State seeks to sustain regulation that deprives land of all economically beneficial use, we think it may resist compensation only if the logically antecedent inquiry into the nature of the owner’s estate shows that the proscribed use interests were not part of his title to begin with. This accords, we think, with our ‘‘takings’’ jurisprudence, which has traditionally been guided by the understandings of our citizens regarding the content of, and the State’s power over, the ‘‘bundle of rights’’ that they acquire when they obtain title to property. It seems to us that the property owner necessarily expects the uses of his property to be restricted, from time to time, by various measures newly enacted by the State in legitimate exercise of its police powers; ‘‘[a]s long recognized, some values are enjoyed under an implied limitation, and must yield to the police power,’’ Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon. And in the case of personal property, by reason of the State’s traditionally high degree of control over commercial dealings, he ought to be aware of the possibility that new regulation might even render his property economically worthless (at least if the property’s only economically productive use is sale or manufacture for sale). In the case of land, however, we think the notion pressed by the Council that title is somehow held subject to the ‘‘implied limitation’’ that the State may subsequently eliminate all economically valuable use is inconsistent with the historical compact recorded in the Takings Clause that has become part of our constitutional culture. Where ‘‘permanent physical occupation’’ of land is concerned, we have refused to allow the government to decree it anew (without compensation), no matter how weighty the asserted ‘‘public interests’’ involved, Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.— though we assuredly would permit the government to assert a permanent easement that was a pre-existing limitation upon the landowner’s title. Compare Scranton v. Wheeler

466 | Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992) (1900) (interests of ‘‘riparian owner in the submerged lands . . . bordering on a public navigable water’’ held subject to Government’s navigational servitude), with Kaiser Aetna v. United States (imposition of navigational servitude on marina created and rendered navigable at private expense held to constitute a taking). We believe similar treatment must be accorded confiscatory regulations, i.e., regulations that prohibit all economically beneficial use of land: Any limitation so severe cannot be newly legislated or decreed (without compensation), but must inhere in the title itself, in the restrictions that background principles of the State’s law of property and nuisance already place upon land ownership. A law or decree with such an effect must, in other words, do no more than duplicate the result that could have been achieved in the courts—by adjacent landowners (or other uniquely affected persons) under the State’s law of private nuisance, or by the State under its complementary power to abate nuisances that affect the public generally, or otherwise. On this analysis, the owner of a lakebed, for example, would not be entitled to compensation when he is denied the requisite permit to engage in a landfilling operation that would have the effect of flooding others’ land. Nor the corporate owner of a nuclear generating plant, when it is directed to remove all improvements from its land upon discovery that the plant sits astride an earthquake fault. Such regulatory action may well have the effect of eliminating the land’s only economically productive use, but it does not proscribe a productive use that was previously permissible under relevant property and nuisance principles. The use of these properties for what are now expressly prohibited purposes was always unlawful, and (subject to other constitutional limitations) it was open to the State at any point to make the implication of those background principles of nuisance and property law explicit. In light of our traditional resort to ‘‘existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law’’ to define the range of interests that qualify for protection as ‘‘property’’ under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth (1972); see, e.g., Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co. (1984); Hughes v. Washington (1967) (Stewart, J., concurring), this recognition that the Takings Clause does not require compensation when an owner is barred from putting land to a use that is proscribed by those ‘‘existing rules or understandings’’ is surely unexceptional. When, however, a regulation that declares ‘‘off limits’’ all economically productive or beneficial uses of land goes beyond what the relevant background principles would dictate, compensation must be paid to sustain it. The ‘‘total taking’’ inquiry we require today will ordinarily entail (as the application of state nuisance law ordinarily entails) analysis of, among other things, the degree of harm to public lands and resources, or adjacent private property, posed by the claimant’s proposed activities, the social value of the claimant’s activities and their suitability to the locality in question, and the relative ease with which the alleged harm can be avoided through measures taken by the claimant and the government (or adjacent private landowners) alike. The fact that a particular use has long been engaged in by similarly situated owners ordinarily imports a lack of any common law prohibition (though changed circumstances or new knowledge may make what was previously permissible no longer so). So also does the fact that other landowners, similarly situated, are permitted to continue the use denied to the claimant. It seems unlikely that common law principles would have prevented the erection of any habitable or productive improvements on petitioner’s land; they rarely support prohibition of the ‘‘essential use’’ of land, Curtin v. Benson (1911). The question, however, is one of state law to be dealt with on remand. We emphasize that, to win its case, South Carolina must do more than proffer the legislature’s declaration that the uses Lucas desires are

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992) | 467 inconsistent with the public interest, or the conclusory assertion that they violate a common law maxim such as sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas. As we have said, a ‘‘State, by ipse dixit, may not transform private property into public property without compensation . . .’’ Webb’s Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith (1980). Instead, as it would be required to do if it sought to restrain Lucas in a common law action for public nuisance, South Carolina must identify background principles of nuisance and property law that prohibit the uses he now intends in the circumstances in which the property is presently found. Only on this showing can the State fairly claim that, in proscribing all such beneficial uses, the Beachfront Management Act is taking nothing. The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. So ordered.

At the U.S. Supreme Court, the defendant claimed that the Beachfront Management Act is an acceptable exercise of police power because the beach and dune area is a valuable public resource. Continuing to build on such land causes erosion and devastation of that resource. Consequentially, all property applicable to this limitation may be regulated by the state in a manner that may preclude its use for profit. Discovering what constitutes a ‘‘taking’’ has been a long and complicated process that began with Penn Central Transportation Co. V. City of New York in 1978. This case arrived at a conclusion stating fundamentally that if the public interest outweighs the private, no taking is found. However, a taking may be found if the private interest outweighs the public. Unfortunately, this standard is often difficult to translate into real scenarios because it involves a weighted measure of abstract values. In turn, the Court then took the initiative to define instances that qualify as ‘‘per se’’ takings, or circumstances that serve as ‘‘automatic’’ takings. A new category of a per se taking was established in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, where ‘‘rare’’ regulations that deny a landowner of ‘‘all economically beneficial or productive use of land’’ constitute a per se taking. By articulating this new condition, the courts claim that there are two definite cases of regulatory deprivations that comply with the Fifth Amendment without a case-specific inquiry into the public interest: first, a physical invasion of private property, and second, a denial of all economically productive uses of private property. On June 29, 1992, the United States Supreme Court found in a 6–2 decision that the South Carolina Supreme Court made an error by stating that the Beachfront Management Act was a legitimate use of police power and did not require a taking. Regulations that leave the landowner without any economically productive means for his land constitute a taking. To leave one’s property economically idle in the name of the common good constitutes a taking. In this case, Lucas

468 | Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992)

met the prescribed requirements. The case established a ‘‘total takings’’ analysis wherein the amount of harm that will ensue to either public lands or adjacent property effected by the regulated activities, as well as the social value of such activities must be considered. This analysis must also take into consideration the difficulty by which the prescribed harms can be avoided through efforts by the plaintiff or the government. In other words, a law with the effect of depriving all economically beneficial use must do no more than duplicate the result that could have been achieved in the courts under the law of nuisance. The decision of the court was written by Supreme Court Justice Scalia; concurring was Justice Kennedy. Kersten A. Welch See also Coastal Zone Management Act; Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2002)

References Biers, Sam. ‘‘Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council 505 U S 1003 [1992].’’ http:// www.4lawschool.com/property/lucas.shtml (accessed April 11, 2010). ‘‘Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council.’’ Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Lucas_v._South_Carolina_Coastal_Council (accessed April 11, 2010). ‘‘Lucas v. South Carolina Coast Council.’’ http://www.oyez.org/cases (accessed April 11, 2010). Schmitz, Angela. ‘‘Taking Shape: Temporary Takings and the Lucas Per Se Rule in Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Coucil, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Authority.’’ http:// www.law.uoregon.edu/org/olr/archives (accessed April 11, 2010).

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992) Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife was a 1992 Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled that a group of environmental and conservation groups did not have any legal standing to challenge government regulations regarding a section of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. In 1973, the Endangered Species Act was signed into law, granting protection to threatened and endangered wildlife and their habitats. Federal agencies must coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that any actions funded or authorized by them would not jeopardize the well-being of those habitats protected by the act. Subsequent amendments extended the reach of the Endangered Species Act to cover action in foreign nations. However, President Reagan limited the act’s area of effect in 1986. Under the new regulation, the act only applied to U.S. land or the high seas.

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992) | 469

Meanwhile, the United States was funding two international development projects that would become the focus of this court case: rehabilitation of the Aswan High Dam in Egypt, and the Mahaweli Rehabilitation Project in Sri Lanka. The former encroached upon the traditional habitat of the Nile crocodile, the latter the leopard and elephant. All three species were threatened. Two members of Defenders of the Wildlife, a conservation organization, argued that they had traveled to these areas to view the native wildlife, and hoped to do so again, but were aware that these habitats were now being placed at risk, partially by U.S. action. In 1987, Defenders of Wildlife, along with several other American environmental organizations, filed suit in district court, seeking an injunction against the new limits and requiring the Secretary of the Interior to revert to the previous, wider geographic scope of the act. The district court dismissed the case, ruling that the bringers of the suit lacked standing. The court of appeals overturned the district court’s ruling. On remand, the district court this time decided that the Secretary of the Interior must publish a new rule, reverting to the international scope of the Endangered Species Act. The decision was affirmed by the court of appeals. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Defenders of the Wildlife had failed to demonstrate that they had sufficient legal standing to sue the U.S. Department of the Interior. In his opinion, Justice Scalia asserted that, in order to claim standing under the Environmental Species Act, the party must show that they as American citizens had suffered tangible injury and harm because of the 1986 regulation. Since neither woman had made concrete plans to return to Egypt or Sri Lanka (they simply stated that they would like to return), any perceived harm was theoretical. Even if the Court accepted that the actions taking place at each site did constitute a legitimate threat to the habitats in question, the respondents showed only an interest in the area, and therefore could claim nothing more than a general grievance. Justice Scalia noted that possession of a plane ticket to the destinations in question would have sufficed to demonstrate evidence of imminent threat. Justice Stevens filed an opinion concurring in part with the judgment but disagreeing with the Court’s opinion about the lack of legal standing. He argued that anyone who had visited the habitats and intended to visit them again could clearly demonstrate a professional interest. Further, he stated that the threat should be grounded in the likelihood of future harm and therefore the claim was valid, regardless of possession of an airplane ticket. Nevertheless, he concurred because he did not believe that the Endangered Species Act should apply to government action overseas. Justices Blackmun and O’Connor dissented. In his dissent, Blackmun argued that the requirement of a plane ticket as proof of interest and potential harm was ‘‘an empty formality.’’ Both women showed the professional background and

470 | Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992)

resources to indicate that their interest was genuine. He further claimed that the ruling of the Court was tantamount to a ‘‘slash-and-burn expedition through the law of environmental standing.’’ In his opinion, civil liberties granted every citizen the right to claim legal protection wherever they might perceive injury. The decision of the Court was praised by conservatives as being a rightful check of government power. Meanwhile, liberals and many legal scholars argued that the decision made it more difficult for people to challenge acts of government that do not affect them directly. Fiona Young-Brown See also Conservation; Endangered Species Act of 1973; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

References Henning, Lily. ‘‘Roberts and Scalia: Standing Side by Side.’’ Legal Times, August 2, 2005. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992). Pierce Richard J. Jr. ‘‘Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife: Standing as a Judicially Imposed Limit on Legislative Power.’’ Duke Law Journal 42 (6) Twenty-Fourth Annual Administrative Law Issue (1993): 1170–1201.

M Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 By the middle of the 1960s, the world’s marine mammals had reached a state of extreme crisis. Throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, millions of blue, gray, humpback, right, and sperm whales, fur and harp seals, walruses, sea otters, and polar bears had been hunted and killed in their habitat of ice and ocean, rocky coasts, and frigid waters of a dozen nations, including the United States. The sea-dwelling mammals were exploited for oil, baleen, fur, fat, and meat, as well as for sport. After World War II, spinner and spotted dolphins were slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands as a side effect of tuna fishing in the tropical Pacific Ocean. International efforts to save these severely depleted species began in 1911, when America joined three other nations in consenting to the Fur Seal Act. In 1964, the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling attempted to regulate whale hunting with a special whaling commission. Then the dolphin slaughter began in earnest. It eventually peaked at more than 200,000 dolphins killed annually in the 1960s, a period that also found sea otters and polar bears in danger of disappearing. At this time, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 provided a comprehensive federal law designed to protect a large class of wildlife, and marine mammals were not included. Even though some national wildlife refuges did completely ban hunting of certain animals, such as elk or buffalo, the preserved species were overwhelmingly birds (mostly waterfowl). In any case, the prohibitions were highly localized and covered only a small fraction of the territory where American wildlife lived and might die from human hands. Domestic legislation had ratified the whaling treaty in 1949. The Whaling commission accomplished little as it did not engage effective conservation measures. The international, piecemeal approach to conservation had largely failed to competently manage highly mobile populations of wild animals inhabiting a vast area of oceans and their coastal fringes. Moreover, a capacious federal law providing effective safeguards for any wildlife other than game birds was essentially absent.

471

472 | Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972

Sea lion C404 seen in the fish ladder at Bonneville Dam, Tuesday, March 21, 2006, in Cascade Locks, Oregon. Numerous sea lions headed for the dam in spring, but C404 was in a class alone. Extra gates, firecrackers, rockets, and rubber bullets did not keep the whiskered rascal out. They could not kill C404 because sea lions were protected under the 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act. (AP/Wide World Photos)

Federal Protection for Marine Mammals The situation began to change for marine mammals when President Lyndon Johnson signed the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966. This was followed three years later by President Richard Nixon’s signing of the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969. For the first time, the U.S. Congress was making a concerted effort to protect entire species of mammals found anywhere in the United States, and indeed the world—not just birds, and not just in the nation’s wildlife refuges. Nonetheless, the endangered species laws still left unprotected wildlife not officially identified as at risk. Perhaps more importantly, during the 1960s and early 1970s, many people were convinced that marine mammals—especially whales and dolphins—were intelligent, sensitive creatures living in complex social systems, and therefore were worthy of protection. Others demanding legal action argued that conservation of marine mammals was needed in order to sustain an important commercial and food resource. Others appealed to the crucial role of these mammals in maintaining healthy ecosystems.

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 | 473

With these diverse pressures present in Congress, it took over four years of hearings, debate, and compromise, before the Marine Mammal Protection Act in 1972 (MMPA) was passed. Only the Endangered Species Act eclipses the MMPA and its implementing regulations for length and complexity in the realm of animal law, reflecting the wide array of ideological commitments it was supposed to appease. By 1996, the MMPA had been amended 15 times. The MMPA is administered by two federal agencies, the Department of Commerce and the Department of the Interior, with ultimate authority vested in their respective secretaries. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is the administrative branch of the Commerce Department charged with implementing the MMPA and is responsible for whales, dolphins, porpoises, and seals. At the Interior Department, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) oversees walruses, sea otters, polar bears, and manatees. To achieve the objectives of the MMPA, the two agencies are required to consult with the Marine Mammal Commission, an advisory body intended to be impartial and without political allegiances. The three members of the commission are appointed by the president, who chooses them from a list of experts provided by the chairperson of the Council on Environmental Quality, the secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, the director of the National Science Foundation, and the chairperson of the National Academy of Sciences. At the core of the MMPA is a ‘‘complete cessation’’ of all taking and importing of marine mammals and products made from these animals, a suspension commonly known as a moratorium. The MMPA defines ‘‘to take’’ as meaning ‘‘to harass, hunt, capture, or kill’’ or to attempt to do so. In 1972, the prohibition on harassing marine mammals was an entirely new sort of government regulation on human activity involving animals, yet Congress did not define the term. It was not until a 1994 amendment that ‘‘harassment’’ was specified as ‘‘any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal [this is ‘level A harassment’] . . . ; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal . . . by causing disruption of behavioral patterns [‘level B harassment’].’’ Federal regulations now include the meaning of ‘‘take,’’ thus identifying prohibited behavior, detaining or restraining marine mammals for any length of time, feeding or attempting to feed them, and collecting dead animals or their body parts. In addition to the basic taking prohibition, according to the MMPA, it is unlawful to possess, transport, sell, offer to sell, buy, import, or export any marine mammal or product made from any marine mammal. Further, it is illegal to import any marine mammal that is nursing, pregnant, or less than eight months old unless the Interior Secretary has issued a permit for scientific research or to enhance the survival or recovery of the species. The MMPA also prohibits any ‘‘inhumane’’ taking of marine mammals, but rather than define this concept,

474 | Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. (Excerpt) Enacted on October 21, 1972, this law set out to establish a federal policy regarding the declining species of marine mammals. The act mandated the establishment of a Marine Mammal Commission, called for consultation between the commission and the Secretary of the Interior, and decreed the issuance of reports on the condition of marine mammal habitats. An act to protect marine mammals; to establish a Marine Mammal Commission; and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act, with the following table of contents, may be cited as the ‘‘Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972.’’ Section 2. Findings and Declaration of Policy The Congress finds that— (1) certain species and population stocks of marine mammals are, or may be, in danger of extinction or depletion as a result of man’s activities; (2) such species and population stocks should not be permitted to diminish beyond the point at which they cease to be a significant functioning element in the ecosystem of which they are a part, and, consistent with this major objective, they should not be permitted to diminish below their optimum sustainable population. Further measures should be immediately taken to replenish any species or population stock which has already diminished below that population. In particular, efforts should be made to protect the rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance for each species of marine mammal from the adverse effect of man’s actions; (3) there is inadequate knowledge of the ecology and population dynamics of such marine mammals and of the factors which bear upon their ability to reproduce themselves successfully; (4) negotiations should be undertaken immediately to encourage the development of international arrangements for research on, and conservation of, all marine mammals; (5) marine mammals and marine mammal products either— (A) move in interstate commerce, or (B) affect the balance of marine ecosystems in a manner which is important to other animals and animal products which move in interstate commerce, and that the protection and conservation of marine mammals is therefore necessary to insure the continuing availability of those products which move in interstate commerce; and (6) marine mammals have proven themselves to be resources of great international significance, esthetic and recreational as well as economic, and it is the sense of the Congress that they should be protected and encouraged to develop to the greatest extent feasible commensurate with sound policies of resource management and that the primary objective of their management should be to maintain the health and stability of the marine ecosystem. Whenever consistent with this primary objective, it should be the goal to obtain an optimum sustainable population keeping in mind the optimum carrying capacity of the habitat.

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 | 475 Section 3. Definitions For the purposes of this Act— (1) The term ‘‘depletion’’ or ‘‘depleted’’ means any case in which the Secretary, after consultation with the Marine Mammal Commission and the Committee of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals established under title II of this Act, determines that the number of individuals within a species or population stock— (A) has declined to a significant degree over a period of years; (B) has otherwise declined and that if such decline continues, or is likely to resume, such species would be subject to the provisions of the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969; or (C) is below the optimum carrying capacity for the species or stock within its environment. (2) The terms ‘‘conservation’’ and ‘‘management’’ mean the collection and application of biological information for the purposes of increasing and maintaining the number of animals within species and populations of marine mammals at the optimum carrying capacity of their habitat. Such terms include the entire scope of activities that constitute a modern scientific resource program, including, but not limited to, research, census, law enforcement, and habitat acquisition and improvement. Also included within these terms, when and where appropriate, is the periodic or total protection of species or populations as well as regulated taking. (3) The term ‘‘district court of the United States’’ includes the District Court of Guam, District Court of the Virgin Islands, District Court of Puerto Rico, District Court of the Canal Zone, and, in the case of American Samoa and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, the District Court of the United States for the District of Hawaii. (4) The term ‘‘humane’’ in the context of the taking of a marine mammal means that method of taking which involves the least possible degree of pain and suffering practicable to the mammal involved. (5) The term ‘‘marine mammal’’ means any mammal which (A) is morphologically adapted to the marine environment (including sea otters and members of the orders Sirenia, Pinnipedia and Cetacea), or (B) primarily inhabits the marine environment (such as the polar bear); and, for the purposes of this Act, includes any part of any such marine mammal, including its raw, dressed, or dyed fur or skin. (6) The term ‘‘marine mammal product’’ means any item of merchandise which consists, or is composed in whole or in part, of any marine mammal. (7) The term ‘‘moratorium’’ means a complete cessation of the taking of marine mammals and a complete ban on the importation into the United States of marine mammals and marine mammal products, except as provided in this Act. (8) The term ‘‘optimum carrying capacity’’ means the ability of a given habitat to support the optimum sustainable population of a species or population stock in a healthy state without diminishing the ability of the habitat to continue that function. (9) The term ‘‘optimum sustainable population’’ means, with respect to any population stock, the number of animals which will result in the maximum productivity of the population or the species, keeping in mind the optimum carrying capacity of the habitat and the health of the ecosystem of which they form a constituent element.

476 | Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972

(10) The term ‘‘person’’ includes (A) any private person or entity, and (B) any officer, employee, agent, department, or instrumentality of the Federal Government, of any State or political subdivision thereof, or of any foreign government. (11) The term ‘‘population stock’’ or ‘‘stock’’ means a group of marine mammals of the same species or smaller taxa in a common spatial arrangement, that interbreed when mature. (12) The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means— (A) the Secretary of the department in which the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is operating, as to all responsibility, authority, funding, and duties under this Act with respect to members of the order Cetacea and members, other than walruses, of the order Pinnipedia, and (B) the Secretary of the Interior as to all responsibility, authority, funding, and duties under this Act with respect to all other marine mammals covered by this Act. (13) The term ‘‘take’’ means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal. (14) The term ‘‘United States’’ includes the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Canal Zone, the possessions of the United States, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. (15) The term ‘‘waters under the jurisdiction of the United States’’ means— (A) the territorial sea of the United States, and (B) the fisheries zone established pursuant to the Act of October 14, 1966 (80 Stat. 908; 16 U.S.C. 1091–1094). Section 4. Effective Date The provisions of this Act shall take effect upon the expiration of the sixty-day period following the date of its enactment. TITLE I—Conservation and Protection of Marine Mammals Section 101. Moratorium and Exceptions (a) There shall be a moratorium on the taking and importation of marine mammals and marine mammal products, commencing on the effective date of this Act, during which time no permit may be issued for the taking of any marine mammal and no marine mammal or marine mammal product may be imported into the United States except in the following cases: (1) Permits may be issued by the Secretary for taking and importation for purposes of scientific research and for public display if— (A) the taking proposed in the application for any such permit, or (B) the importation proposed to be made, is first reviewed by the Marine Mammal Commission and the Committee of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals established under title II of this Act. The Commission and Committee shall recommend any proposed taking or importation which is consistent with the purposes and policies of section 2 of this Act. The Secretary shall, if he grants approval for importation, issue to the importer concerned a certificate to that effect which shall be in such form as the Secretary of the Treasury prescribes and such importation may be made upon presentation of the certificate to the customs officer concerned.

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 | 477 (2) During the twenty-four calendar months initially following the date of the enactment of this Act, the taking of marine mammals incidental to the course of commercial fishing operations shall be permitted, and shall not be subject to the provisions of sections 103 and 104 of this title: Provided, That such taking conforms to such conditions and regulations as the Secretary is authorized and directed to impose pursuant to section 111 hereof to insure that those techniques and equipment are used which will produce the least practicable hazard to marine mammals in such commercial fishing operations. Subsequent to such twenty-four months, marine mammals may be taken incidentally in the course of commercial fishing operations and permits may be issued thereof pursuant to section 104 of this title, subject to regulations prescribed by the Secretary in accordance with section 103 hereof. In any event it shall be the immediate goal that the incidental kill or incidental serious injury of marine mammals permitted in the course of commercial fishing operations be reduced to insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate. The Secretary shall request the Committee on Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals to prepare for public dissemination detailed estimates of the numbers of mammals killed or seriously injured under existing commercial fishing technology and under the technology which shall be required subsequent to such twenty-four-month period. The Secretary of the Treasury shall ban the importation of commercial fish or products from fish which have been caught with commercial fishing technology which results in the incidental kill or incidental serious injury of ocean mammals in excess of United States standards. The Secretary shall insist on reasonable proof from the government of any nation from which fish or fish products will be exported to the United States of the effects on ocean mammals of the commercial fishing technology in use for such fish or fish products exported from such nation to the United States. (3) (A) The Secretary, on the basis of the best scientific evidence available and in consultation with the Marine Mammal Commission, is authorized and directed, from time to time, having due regard to the distribution, abundance, breeding habits, and times and lines of migratory movements of such marine mammals, to determine when, to what extent, if at all, and by what means, it is compatible with this Act to waive the requirements of this section so as to allow taking, or importing of any marine mammal, or any marine mammal product, and to adopt suitable regulations, issue permits, and make determinations in accordance with sections 102, 103, 104, 111 of this title permitting and governing such taking and importing, in accordance with such determinations: Provided, however, That the Secretary, in making such determinations, must be assured that the taking of such marine mammal is in accord with sound principles of resource protection and conservation as provided in the purposes and policies of this Act: Provided further, however, That no marine mammal or no marine mammal product may be imported into the United States unless the Secretary certifies that the program for taking marine mammals in the country of origin is consistent with the provisions and policies of this Act. Products of nations not so certified may not be imported into the United States for any purpose, including processing for exportation.

478 | Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (B) Except for scientific research purposes as provided for in paragraph (1) of this subsection, during the moratorium no permit may be issued for the taking of any marine mammal which is classified as belonging to an endangered species pursuant to the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 or has been designated by the Secretary as depleted, and no importation may be made of any such mammal. (b) The provisions of this Act shall not apply with respect to the taking of any marine mammal by any Indian, Aleut, or Eskimo who dwells on the coast of the North Pacific Ocean or the Arctic Ocean if such taking— (1) is for subsistence purposes by Alaskan natives who reside in Alaska, or (2) is done for purposes of creating and selling authentic native articles of handicrafts and clothing: Provided, That only authentic native articles of handicrafts and clothing may be sold in interstate commerce: And provided further, That any edible portion of marine mammals may be sold in native villages and towns in Alaska or for native consumption. For the purposes of this subsection, the term ‘‘authentic native articles of handicrafts and clothing’’ means items composed wholly or in some significant respect of natural materials, and which are produced, decorated, or fashioned in the exercise of traditional native handicrafts without the use of pantographs, multiple carvers, or other mass copying devices. Traditional native handicrafts include, but are not limited to weaving, carving, stitching, sewing, lacing, beading, drawing, and painting; and (3) in each case, is not accomplished in a wasteful manner. Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this subsection, when, under this Act, the Secretary determines any species or stock of marine mammal subject to taking by Indians, Aleuts, or Eskimos to be depleted, he may prescribe regulations upon the taking of such marine mammals by any Indian, Aleut, or Eskimo described in this subsection. Such regulations may be established with reference to species or stocks, geographical description of the area included, the season for taking, or any other factors related to the reason for establishing such regulations and consistent with the purposes of this Act. Such regulations shall be prescribed after notice and hearing required by section 103 of this title and shall be removed as soon as the Secretary determines that the need for their imposition has disappeared. (c) In order to minimize undue economic hardship to persons subject to this Act, other than those engaged in commercial fishing operations referred to in subsection (a) (2) of this section, the Secretary, upon any such person filing an application with him and upon filing such information as the Secretary may require showing, to his satisfaction, such hardship, may exempt such person or class of persons from provisions of this Act for no more than one year from the date of the enactment of this Act, as he determines to be appropriate. Section 102. (a) Except as provided in sections 101, 103, 104, 111, and 113 of this title, it is unlawful— (1) for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States or any vessel or other conveyance subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take any marine mammal on the high seas;

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 | 479 (2) except as expressly provided for by an international treaty, convention, or agreement to which the United States is a party and which was entered into before the effective date of this title or by any statute implementing any such treaty, convention, or agreement— (A) for any person or vessel or other conveyance to take any marine mammal in waters or on lands under the jurisdiction of the United States; or (B) for any person to use any port, harbor, or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States for any purpose in any way connected with the taking or importation of marine mammals or marine mammal products; and (3) for any person, with respect to any marine mammal taken in violation of this title— (A) to possess any such mammal; or (B) to transport, sell, or offer for sale any such mammal or any marine mammal product made from any such mammal; and (4) for any person to use, in a commercial fishery, any means or methods of fishing in contravention of any regulations or limitations, issued by the Secretary for that fishery to achieve the purposes of this Act. (b) Except pursuant to a permit for scientific research issued under section 104 (c) of this title, it is unlawful to import into the United States any marine mammal if such mammal was— (1) pregnant at the time of taking; (2) nursing at the time of taking, or less than eight months old, whichever occurs later; (3) taken from a species or population stock which the Secretary has, by regulation published in the Federal Register, designated as a depleted species or stock or which has been listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969; or (4) taken in a manner deemed inhumane by the Secretary. (c) It is unlawful to import into the United States any of the following: (1) Any marine mammal which was— (A) taken in violation of this title; or (B) taken in another country in violation of the law of that country. (2) Any marine mammal product if— (A) the importation into the United States of the marine mammal from which such product is made is unlawful under paragraph (1) of this subsection; or (B) the sale in commerce of such product in the country of origin of the product is illegal; (3) Any fish, whether fresh, frozen, or otherwise prepared, if such fish was caught in a manner which the Secretary has proscribed for persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, whether or not any marine mammals were in fact taken incident to the catching of the fish. (d) Subsections (b) and (c) of this section shall not apply— (1) in the case of marine mammals or marine mammal products, as the case may be, to which subsection (b) (3) of this section applies, to such items imported into the United States before the date on which the Secretary publishes notice in the Federal Register of his proposed

480 | Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 rulemaking with respect to the designation of the species or stock concerned as depleted or endangered; or (2) in the case of marine mammals or marine mammal products to which subsection (c) (1) (B) or (c) (2) (B) of this section applies, to articles imported into the United States before the effective date of the foreign law making the taking or sale, as the case may be, of such marine mammals, or marine mammal products unlawful. (e) This Act shall not apply with respect to any marine mammal taken before the effective date of this Act, or to any marine mammal product consisting of, or composed in whole or in part of, any marine mammal taken before such date. Section 103. Regulations on Taking of Marine Mammals (a) The Secretary, on the basis of the best scientific evidence available and in consultation with the Marine Mammal Commission, shall prescribe such regulations with respect to the taking and importing of animals from each species of marine mammal (including regulations on the taking and importing of individuals within population stocks) as he deems necessary and appropriate to insure that such taking will not be to the disadvantage of those species and population stocks and will be consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of this Act. (b) In prescribing such regulations, the Secretary shall give full consideration to all factors which may affect the extent to which such animals may be taken or imported, including but not limited to the effect of such regulations on— (1) existing and future levels of marine mammal species and population stocks; (2) existing international treaty and agreement obligations of the United States; (3) the marine ecosystem and related environmental considerations; (4) the conservation, development, and utilization of fishery resources; and (5) the economic and technological feasibility of implementation. (c) The regulations prescribed under subsection (a) of this section for any species or population stock of marine mammal may include, but are not limited to, restrictions with respect to— (1) the number of animals which may be taken or imported in any calendar year pursuant to permits issued under section 104 of this title; (2) the age, size, or sex (or any combination of the foregoing) of animals which may be taken or imported, whether or not a quota prescribed under paragraph (1) of this subsection applies with respect to such animals; (3) the season or other period of time within which animals may be taken or imported; (4) the manner and locations in which animals may be taken or imported; and (5) fishing techniques which have been found to cause undue fatalities to any species of marine mammal in a fishery. (d) Regulations prescribed to carry out this section with respect to any species or stock of marine mammals must be made on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing on both the Secretary’s determination to waive the moratorium pursuant to section 101(a) (3) (A) of this title and on such regulations, except that, in addition to any other requirements imposed by law with respect to agency rulemaking, the Secretary shall publish and make available to the public either before or

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 | 481

concurrent with the publication of notice in the Federal Register of his intention to prescribe regulations under this section— (1) a statement of the estimated existing levels of the species and population stocks of the marine mammal concerned; (2) a statement of the expected impact of the proposed regulations on the optimum sustainable population of such species or population stock; (3) a statement describing the evidence before the Secretary upon which he proposes to base such regulations; and (4) any studies made by or for the Secretary or any recommendations made by or for the Secretary or the Marine Mammal Commission which relate to the establishment of such regulations. (e) Any regulation prescribed pursuant to this section shall be periodically reviewed, and may be modified from time to time in such manner as the Secretary deems consistent with and necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act. (f) Within six months after the effective date of this Act and every twelve months thereafter, the Secretary shall report to the public through publication in the Federal Register and to the Congress on the current status of all marine mammal species ad population stocks subject to the provisions of this Act. His report shall describe those actions taken and those measures believed necessary, including where appropriate, the issuance of permits pursuant to this title to assure the wellbeing of such marine mammals. Section 104. Permits (a) The Secretary may issue permits which authorize the taking or importation of any marine mammal. (b) Any permit issued under this section shall— (1) be consistent with any applicable regulation established by the Secretary under section 103 of this title, and (2) specify— (A) the number and kind of animals which are authorized to be taken or imported, (B) the location and manner (which manner must be determined by the Secretary to be humane) in which they may be taken, or from which they may be imported, (C) the period during which the permit is valid, and (D) any other terms or conditions which the Secretary deems appropriate. In any case in which an application for a permit cites as a reason for the proposed taking the overpopulation of a particular species or population stock, the Secretary shall first consider whether or not it would be more desirable to transplant a number of animals (but not to exceed the number requested for taking in the application) of that species or stock to a location not then inhabited by such species or stock but previously inhabited by such species or stock. (c) Any permit issued by the Secretary which authorizes the taking or importation of a marine mammal for purposes of display or scientific research shall specify, in addition to the conditions required by subsection (b) of this section, the methods of capture, supervision, care, and transportation which must be observed pursuant to and after

482 | Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 such taking or importation. Any person authorized to take or import a marine mammal for purposes of display or scientific research shall furnish to the Secretary a report on all activities carried out by him pursuant to that authority. (d) (1) The Secretary shall prescribe such procedures as are necessary to carry out this section, including the form and manner in which application for permits may be made. (2) The Secretary shall publish notice in the Federal Register of each application made for a permit under this section. Such notice shall invite the submission from interested parties, within thirty days after the date of the notice, of written data or views, with respect to the taking or importation proposed in such application. (3) The applicant for any permit under this section must demonstrate to the Secretary that the taking or importation of any marine mammal under such permit will be consistent with the purposes of this Act and the applicable regulations established under section 103 of this title. (4) If within thirty days after the date of publication of notice pursuant to paragraph (2) of this subsection with respect to any application for a permit any interested party or parties request a hearing in connection therewith, the Secretary may, within sixty days following such date of publication, afford to such party or parties an opportunity for such a hearing. (5) As soon as practicable (but not later than thirty days) after the close of the hearing or, if no hearing is held, after the last day on which data, or views, may be submitted pursuant to paragraph (2) of this subsection, the Secretary shall (A) issue a permit containing such terms and conditions as he deems appropriate, or (B) shall deny issuance of a permit. Notice of the decision of the Secretary to issue or to deny any permit under this paragraph must be published in the Federal Register within ten days after the date of issuance or denial. (6) Any applicant for a permit, or any party opposed to such permit, may obtain judicial review of the terms and conditions of any permit issued by the Secretary under this section or of his refusal to issue such a permit. Such review, which shall be pursuant to chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code, may be initiated by filing a petition for review in the United States district court for the district wherein the applicant for a permit resides, or has his principal place of business, or in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, within sixty days after the date on which such permit is issued or denied. (e) (1) The Secretary may modify, suspend, or revoke in whole or part any permit issued by him under this section— (A) in order to make any such permit consistent with any change made after the date of issuance of such permit with respect to any applicable regulation prescribed under section 103 of this title, or (B) (B) in any case in which a violation of the terms and conditions of the permit is found. (2) Whenever the Secretary shall propose any modification, suspension, or revocation of a permit under this subsection, the permittee shall be afforded opportunity, after due notice, for a hearing by the Secretary with respect to such proposed modification, suspension, or revocation. Such proposed action by the Secretary shall not take effect until a decision is issued by him after such

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 | 483 hearing. Any action taken by the Secretary after such a hearing is subject to judicial review on the same basis as is any action taken by him with respect to a permit application under paragraph (5) of subsection (d) of this section. (3) Notice of the modification, suspension, or revocation of any permit by the Secretary shall be published in the Federal Register within ten days from the date of the Secretary’s decision. (f) Any permit issued under this section must be in the possession of the person to whom it is issued (or an agent of such person) during— (1) the time of the authorized or taking importation; (2) the period of any transit of such person or agent which is incident to such taking or importation; and (3) any other time while any marine mammal taken or imported under such permit is in the possession of such person or agent. A duplicate copy of the issued permit must be physically attached to the container, package, enclosure, or other means of containment, in which the marine mammal is placed for purposes of storage, transit, supervision, or care. (g) The Secretary shall establish and charge a reasonable fee for permits issued under this section. (h) Consistent with the regulations prescribed pursuant to section 103 of this title and to the requirements of section 101 of this title, the Secretary may issue general permits for the taking of such marine mammals, together with regulations to cover the use of such general permits. Section 105. Penalties (a) Any person who violates any provision of this title or of any permit or regulation issued thereunder may be assessed a civil penalty by the Secretary of not more than $10,000 for each such violation. No penalty shall be assessed unless such person is given notice and opportunity for a hearing with respect to such violation. Each unlawful taking or importation shall be a separate offense. Any such civil penalty may be remitted or mitigated by the Secretary for good cause shown. Upon any failure to pay a penalty assessed under this subsection, the Secretary may request the Attorney General to institute a civil action in a district court of the United States for any district in which such person is found, resides, or transacts business to collect the penalty and such court shall have jurisdiction to hear and decide any such action. (b) Any person who knowingly violates any provision of this title or of any permit or regulation issued thereunder shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $20,000 for each such violation or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both. Section 106. Vessel Fine, Cargo Forfeiture, and Rewards (a) Any vessel or other conveyance subject to the jurisdiction of the United States that is employed in any manner in the unlawful taking of any marine mammal shall have its entire cargo or the monetary value thereof subject to seizure and forfeiture. All provisions of law relating to the seizure, judicial forfeiture, and condemnation of cargo for violation of the customs laws, the disposition of such cargo, and the proceeds from the sale thereof, and the remission or mitigation of any such forfeiture, shall apply with respect to the cargo of any vessel or other conveyance seized in

484 | Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972

connection with the unlawful taking of a marine mammal insofar as such provisions of law are applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions of this title. Section 107. Enforcement (a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, the Secretary shall enforce the provisions of this title. The Secretary may utilize, by agreement, the personnel, services, and facilities of any other Federal agency for purposes of enforcing this title. (b) The Secretary may also designate officers and employees of any State or of any possession of the United States to enforce the provisions of this title. When so designated, such officers and employees are authorized to function as Federal law enforcement agents for these purposes, but they shall not be held and considered as employees of the United States for the purposes of any laws administered by the Civil Service Commission. (c) The judges of the district courts of the United States and the United States magistrates may, within their respective jurisdictions, upon proper oath or affirmation showing probable cause, issue such warrants or other process, including warrants or other process issued in admiralty proceedings in United States district courts, as may be required for enforcement of this title and any regulations issued thereunder. (d) Any person authorized by the Secretary to enforce this title may execute any warrant or process issued by any officer or court of competent jurisdiction for the enforcement of this title. Such person so authorized may, in addition to any other authority conferred by law— (1) with or without warrant or other process, arrest any person committing in his presence or view a violation of this title or the regulations issued thereunder; (2) with a warrant or other process, or without a warrant if he has reasonable cause to believe that a vessel or other conveyance subject to the jurisdiction of the United States or any person on board is in violation of any provision of this title or the regulations issued thereunder, search such vessel or conveyance and arrest such person; (3) seize the cargo of any vessel or other conveyance subject to the jurisdiction of the United States used or employed contrary to the provisions of this title or the regulations issued hereunder or which reasonably appears to have been so used or employed; and (4) seize, whenever and wherever found, all marine mammals and marine mammal products taken or retained in violation of this title or the regulations issued thereunder and shall dispose of them in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary. (e) (1) Whenever any cargo or marine mammal or marine mammal product is seized pursuant to this section, the Secretary shall expedite any proceedings commenced under section 105 (a) or (b) of this title. All marine mammals or marine mammal products or other cargo so seized shall be held by any person authorized by the Secretary pending disposition of such proceedings. The owner or consignee of any such marine mammal or marine mammal product or other cargo so seized shall, as soon as practicable following such seizure, be notified of that fact in accordance with regulations established by the Secretary. (2) The Secretary may, with respect to any proceeding under section 105 (a) or (b) of this title, in lieu of holding any marine mammal or marine mammal product

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 | 485 or other cargo, permit the person concerned to post bond or other surety satisfactory to the Secretary pending the disposition of such proceeding. (3) (A) Upon the assessment of a penalty pursuant to section 105 (a) of this title, all marine mammals and marine mammal products or other cargo seized in connection therewith may be proceeded against in any court of competent jurisdiction and forfeited to the Secretary for disposition by him in such manner as he deems appropriate. (B) Upon conviction for violation of section 105 (b) of this title, all marine mammals and marine mammal products seized in connection therewith shall be forfeited to the Secretary for disposition by him in such manner as he deems appropriate. Any other property or item so seized may, at the discretion of the court, be forfeited to the United States or otherwise disposed. (4) If with respect to any marine mammal or marine mammal product or other cargo so seized— (A) a civil penalty is assessed under section 105(a) of this title and no judicial action is commenced to obtain the forfeiture of such mammal or product within thirty days after such assessment, such marine mammal or marine mammal product or other cargo shall be immediately returned to the owner or the consignee; or (B) no conviction results from an alleged violation of section 105(b) of this title, such marine mammal or marine mammal product or other cargo shall immediately be returned to the owner or consignee if the Secretary does not, with thirty days after the final disposition of the case involving such alleged violation, commence proceedings for the assessment of a civil penalty under section 105(a) of this title. Section 108. International Program (a) The Secretary, through the Secretary of State, shall— (1) initiate negotiations as soon as possible for the development of bilateral or multilateral agreements with other nations for the protection and conservation of all marine mammals covered by this Act; (2) initiate negotiations as soon as possible with all foreign governments which are engaged in, or which have persons or companies engaged in, commercial fishing operations which are found by the Secretary to be unduly harmful to any species of marine mammal, for the purpose of entering into bilateral and multilateral treaties with such countries to protect marine mammals. The Secretary of State shall prepare a draft agenda relating to this matter for discussion at appropriate international meetings and forums; (3) encourage such other agreements to promote the purposes of this Act with other nations for the protection of specific ocean and land regions which are of special significance to the health and stability of marine mammals; (4) initiate the amendment of any existing international treaty for the protection and conservation of any species of marine mammal to which the United States is a party in order to make such treaty consistent with the purposes and policies of this Act; (5) seek the convening of an international ministerial meeting on marine mammals before July 1, 1973, for the purposes of (A) the negotiation of a binding

486 | Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 international convention for the protection and conservation of all marine mammals, and (B) the implementation of paragraph (3) of this section; and (6) provide to the Congress by not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act a full report on the results of his efforts under this section. (b) (1) In addition to the foregoing, the Secretary shall— (A) in consultation with the Marine Mammal Commission established by section 201 of this Act, undertake a study of the North Pacific fur seals to determine whether herds of such seals subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are presently at their optimum sustainable population and what population trends are evident; and (B) in consultation with the Secretary of State, promptly undertake a comprehensive study of the provisions of this Act, as they relate to North Pacific fur seals, and the provisions of the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention signed on February 9, 1957, as extended (hereafter referred to in this subsection as the ‘‘Convention’’), to determine what modifications, if any, should be made to the provisions of the Convention, or of this Act, or both, to make the Convention and this Act consistent with each other. The Secretary shall complete the studies required under this paragraph not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act and shall immediately provide copies thereof to Congress. (2) If the Secretary finds— (A) as a result of the study required under paragraph (1) (A) of this subsection, that the North Pacific fur seal herds are below their optimum sustainable population and are not trending upward toward such level, or have reached their optimum sustainable population but are commencing a downward trend, and believes the herds to be in danger of depletion; or (B) as a result of the study required under paragraph (1) (B) of this subsection, that modifications of the Convention are desirable to make it and this Act consistent; he shall, through the Secretary of State, immediately initiate negotiations to modify the Convention so as to (i) reduce or halt the taking of seals to the extent required to assure that such herds attain and remain at their optimum sustainable population, or (ii) make the Convention and this Act consistent; or both, as the case may be. If negotiations to so modify the Convention are unsuccessful, the Secretary shall, through the Secretary of State, take such steps as may be necessary to continue the existing Convention beyond its present termination date so as to continue to protect and conserve the North Pacific fur seals and to prevent a return to pelagic sealing. Section 109. (a) (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no State may adopt any law or regulation relating to the taking of marine mammals within its jurisdiction or attempt to enforce any State law or regulation relating to such taking. (2) Any State may adopt and enforce any laws or regulations relating to the protection and taking, within its jurisdiction, of any species or population stock of

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 | 487 marine mammals if the Secretary determines, after review thereof, that such laws and regulations will be consistent with (A) the regulations promulgated under section 103 of this title with respect to such species or population stock, and (B) such other provisions of this Act, and any rule or regulations promulgated pursuant to this title, which apply with respect to such species or population stock. If the Secretary determines that any such State laws and regulations are so consistent, the provisions of this Act, except this section and sections 101 (except to the extent that the Secretary waives the application of section 101 to permit such State laws and regulations to take effect) and 110 of this title, and title II of this Act, shall not apply with respect to the species or population stock concerned within the jurisdiction of the State. (3) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this subsection and the provisions of subsection (c) of this section, the Secretary shall continuously monitor and review the laws and regulations of any State which has assumed responsibility for marine mammals as provided for in paragraph (2) of this subsection. Whenever the Secretary finds that the laws and regulations of any such State are not in substantial compliance with either paragraph (1) or (2), or both, he shall resume responsibilities under this Act for the marine mammals concerned within the jurisdiction of that State, superseding such State laws and regulations to the extent which, after notice and opportunity for hearing, he deems necessary. (4) Nothing in this Act shall prevent a State or local government official or employee, in the course of his duties as an official or employee, from taking a marine mammal in a humane manner if such taking (A) is for the protection or welfare of such mammal or for the protection of the public health and welfare, and (B) includes steps designed to assure the return of such mammal to its natural habitat. (b) The Secretary is authorized to make grants to each State whose laws and regulations relating to protection and management of marine mammals which primarily inhabit waters or lands within the boundaries of that State are found to be consistent with the purposes and policies of this Act. The purpose of such grants shall be to assist such States in developing and implementing State programs for the protection and management of such marine mammals. Such grants shall not exceed 50 per centum of the costs of a particular program’s development and implementation. To be eligible for such grants, State programs shall include planning and such specific activities, including, but not limited, to research, censusing, habitat acquisition and improvement, or law enforcement as the Secretary finds contribute to the purposes and policies of this Act. The Secretary may also, as a condition of any such grant, provide that State agencies report at regular intervals on the status of species and populations which are the subject of such grants. (c) The Secretary is authorized and directed to enter into cooperative arrangements with the appropriate officials of any State for the delegation to such State of the administration and enforcement of this title: Provided, That any such arrangement shall contain such provisions as the Secretary deems appropriate to insure that the purposes and policies of this Act will be carried out.

488 | Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Section 110. Marine Mammal Research Grants (a) The Secretary is authorized to make grants, or to provide financial assistance in such other form as he deems appropriate, to any Federal or State agency, public or private institution, or other person for the purpose of assisting such agency, institution, or person to undertake research in subjects which are relevant to the protection and conservation of marine mammals. (b) Any grant or other financial assistance provided by the Secretary pursuant to this section shall be subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary deems necessary to protect the interests of the United States and shall be made after review by the Marine Mammal Commission. (c) There are authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year in which this section takes effect and for the next four fiscal years thereafter such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section, but the sums appropriated for any such year shall not exceed $2,500,000, one-third of such sum to be made available to the Secretary of the department in which the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is operating. Section 111. Commercial Fisheries Gear Development (a) The Secretary of the department in which the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is operating (hereafter referred to in this section as the ‘‘Secretary’’) is hereby authorized and directed to immediately undertake a program of research and development for the purpose of devising improved fishing methods and gear so as to reduce to the maximum extent practicable the incidental taking of marine mammals in connection with commercial fishing. At the end of the full twenty-four calendar month period following the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall deliver his report in writing to the Congress with respect to the results of such research and development. For the purposes of this section, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated the sum of $1,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and the same amount for the next fiscal year. Funds appropriated for this section shall remain available until expended. (b) The Secretary, after consultation with the Marine Mammal Commission, is authorized and directed to issue, as soon as practicable, such regulations, covering the twenty-four-month period referred to in section 101 (a)(2) of this title, as he deems necessary or advisable, to reduce to the lowest practicable level the taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations. Such regulations shall be adopted pursuant to section 553 of title 5, United States Code. In issuing such regulations, the Secretary shall take into account the results of any scientific research under subsection (a) of this section and, in each case, shall provide a reasonable time not exceeding four months for the persons affected to implement such regulations. (c) Additionally, the Secretary and Secretary of State are directed to commence negotiations within the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission in order to affect essential compliance with the regulatory provisions of this Act so as to reduce to the maximum extent feasible the incidental taking of marine mammals by vessels involved in the tuna fishery. The Secretary and Secretary of State are further directed to request the Director of Investigations of the Inter-American Tropical

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 | 489

Tuna Commission to make recommendations to all member nations of the Commission as soon as is practicable as to the utilization of methods and gear devised under subsection (a) of this section. (d) Furthermore, after timely notice and during the period of research provided in this section, duly authorized agents of the Secretary are hereby empowered to board and to accompany any commercial fishing vessel documented under the laws of the United States, there being space available, on a regular fishing trip for the purpose of conducting research or observing operations in regard to the development of improved fishing methods and gear as authorized by this section. Such research and observation shall be carried out in such manner as to minimize interference with fishing operations. The Secretary shall provide for the cost of quartering and maintaining such agents. No master, operator, or owner of such a vessel shall impair or in any way interfere with the research or observation being carried out by agents of the Secretary pursuant to this section. Section 112. Regulations and Administration (a) The Secretary, in consultation with any other Federal agency to the extent that such agency may be affected, shall prescribe such regulations as are necessary and appropriate to carry out the purposes of this title. (b) Each Federal agency is authorized and directed to cooperate with the Secretary, in such manner as may be mutually agreeable, in carrying out the purposes of this title. (c) The Secretary may enter into such contracts, leases, cooperative agreements, or other transactions as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this title and on such terms as he deems appropriate with any Federal or State agency, public or private institution, or other person. (d) The Secretary shall review annually the operation of each program in which the United States participates involving the taking of marine mammals on land. If at any time the Secretary finds that any such program cannot be administered on lands owned by the United States or in which the United States has an interest in a manner consistent with the purposes of policies of this Act, he shall suspend the operation of that program and shall forthwith submit to Congress his reasons for such suspension, together with recommendations for such legislation as he deems necessary and appropriate to resolve the problem. Section 113. Application to Other Treaties and Conventions; Repeal (a) The provisions of this title shall be deemed to be in addition to and not in contravention of the provisions of any existing international treaty, convention, or agreement, or any statute implementing the same, which may otherwise apply to the taking of marine mammals. Upon a finding by the Secretary that the provisions of any international treaty, convention, or agreement, or any statute implementing the same has been made applicable to persons subject to the provisions of this title in order to effect essential compliance with the regulatory provisions of this Act so as to reduce to the lowest practicable level the taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations, section 105 of this title may not apply to such persons.

490 | Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972

(b) The proviso to the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to repeal certain laws providing for the protection of sea lions in Alaska water,’’ approved June 16, 1934 (16 U.S.C. 659), is repealed. Section 114. There are authorized to be appropriated not to exceed $2,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and the four next following fiscal years to enable the department in which the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is operating to carry out such functions and responsibilities as it may have been given under this title. TITLE II—Marine Mammal Commission Section 201. Establishment of Commission (a) There is hereby established the Marine Mammal Commission (hereafter referred to in this title as the ‘‘Commission’’). (b) (1) The Commission shall be composed of three members who shall be appointed by the President. The President shall make his selection from a list, submitted to him by the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, the Director of the National Science Foundation, and the Chairman of the National Academy of Sciences, of individuals knowledgeable in the fields of marine ecology and resource management, and who are not in a position to profit from the taking of marine mammals. No member of the Commission may, during his period of service on the Commission, hold any other position as an officer or employee of the United States except as a retired officer or retired civilian employee of the United States. (2) The term of office for each member shall be three years; except that of the members initially appointed to the Commission, the term of one member shall be for one year, the term of one member shall be for two years, and the term of one member shall be for three years. No member is eligible for reappointment; except that any member appointed to fill a vacancy occurring before the expiration of the term for which his predecessor was appointed (A) shall be appointed for the remainder of such term, and (B) is eligible for reappointment for one full term. A member may serve after the expiration of his term until his successor has taken office. (c) The President shall designate a Chairman of the Commission (hereafter referred to in this title as the ‘‘Chairman’’) from among its members. (d) Members of the Commission shall each be compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent of the rate for GS-18 of the General Schedule under section 5332 of title 5, United States Code, for each day such member is engaged in the actual performance of duties vested in the Commission. Each member shall be reimbursed for travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by section 5703 of title 5, United States Code, for persons in Government service employed intermittently. (e) The Commission shall have an Executive Director, who shall be appointed (without regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive service) by the Chairman with the approval of the Commission and shall be paid at a rate not in excess of the rate for GS-18 of the General Schedule

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 | 491

under section 5332 of title 5, United States Code. The Executive Director shall have such duties as the Chairman may assign. Section 202. (a) The Commission shall— (1) undertake a review and study of the activities of the United States pursuant to existing laws and international conventions relating to marine mammals, including, but not limited to, the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, the Whaling Convention Act of 1949, the Interim Convention on the Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals, and the Fur Seal Act of 1966; (2) conduct a continuing review of the condition of the stocks of marine mammals, of methods for their protection and conservation, of humane means of taking marine mammals, of research programs conducted or proposed to be conducted under the authority of this Act, and of all applications for permits for scientific research; (3) undertake or cause to be undertaken such other studies as it deems necessary or desirable in connection with its assigned duties as to the protection and conservation of marine mammals; (4) recommend to the Secretary and to other Federal officials such steps as it deems necessary or desirable for the protection and conservation of marine mammals; (5) recommend to the Secretary of State appropriate policies regarding existing international arrangements for the protection and conservation of marine mammals, and suggest appropriate international arrangements for the protection and conservation of marine mammals; (6) recommend to the Secretary of the Interior such revisions of the Endangered Species List, authorized by the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969, as may be appropriate with regard to marine mammals; and (7) recommend to the Secretary, other appropriate Federal officials, and Congress such additional measures as it deems necessary or desirable to further the policies of this Act, including provisions for the protection of the Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts whose livelihood may be adversely affected by actions taken pursuant to this Act. (b) The Commission shall consult with the Secretary at such intervals as it or he may deem desirable, and shall furnish its reports and recommendations to him, before publication, for his comment. (c) The reports and recommendations which the Commission makes shall be matters of public record and shall be available to the public at all reasonable times. All other activities of the Commission shall be matters of public record and available to the public in accordance with the provisions of section 552 of title 5, United States Code. (d) Any recommendations made by the Commission to the Secretary and other Federal officials shall be responded to by those individuals within one hundred and twenty days after receipt thereof. Any recommendations which are not followed or adopted shall be refereed to the Commission together with a detailed explanation of the reasons why those recommendations were not followed or adopted.

492 | Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Section 203. Committee of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals (a) The Commission shall establish, within ninety days after its establishment, a Committee of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals (hereafter referred to in this title as the ‘‘Committee’’). Such Committee shall consist of nine scientists knowledgeable in marine ecology and marine mammal affairs appointed by the Chairman after consultation with the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, the Director of the National Science Foundation, and the Chairman of the National Academy of Sciences. (b) Except for United States Government employees, members of the Committee shall each be compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent of the rate for GS-18 of the General Schedule under section 5332 of title 5, United States Code, for each day such member is engaged in the actual performance of duties vested in the Committee. Each member shall be reimbursed for travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by section 5703 of title 5, United States Code, for persons in Government service employed intermittently. (c) The Commission shall consult with the Committee on all studies and recommendations which it may propose to make or has made, on research programs conducted or proposed to be conducted under the authority of this Act, and on all applications for permits for scientific research. Any recommendations made by the Committee or any of its members which are not adopted by the Commission shall be transmitted by the Commission to the appropriate Federal agency and to the appropriate committees of Congress with a detailed explanation of the Commission’s reasons for not accepting such recommendations. Section 204. Commission Reports The Commission shall transmit to Congress, by January 31 of each year, a report which shall include— (1) a description of the activities and accomplishments of the Commission during the immediately preceding year; and (2) all the findings and recommendations made by and to the Commission pursuant to section 202 of this Act together with the responses made to these recommendations. Section 205. Coordination With Other Federal Agencies The Commission shall have access to all studies and data compiled by Federal agencies regarding marine mammals. With the consent of the appropriate Secretary or Agency head, the Commission may also utilize the facilities or services of any Federal agency and shall take every feasible step to avoid duplication of research and to carry out the purposes of this Act. Section 206. Administration of Commission The Commission, in carrying out its responsibilities under this title, may— (1) employ and fix the compensation of such personnel; (2) acquire, furnish, and equip such office space; (3) enter into such contracts or agreements with other organizations, both public and private; (4) procure the services of such experts or consultants or an organization thereof as is authorized under section 3109 of title 5, United States Code (but at rates for individuals not to exceed $100 per diem); and

Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 | 493

(5) incur such necessary expenses and exercise such other powers, as are consistent with and reasonably required to perform its functions under this title. Financial and administrative services (including those related to budgeting, accounting, financial reporting, personnel, and procurement) shall be provided the Commission by the General Services Administration, for which payment shall be made in advance, or by reimbursement from funds of the Commission in such amounts as may be agreed upon by the Chairman and the Administrator of General Services. Section 207. Authorization of Appropriations There are authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year in which this title is enacted and for the next four fiscal years thereafter such sums as may be necessary to carry out this title, but the sums appropriated for any such year shall not exceed $1,000,000. Not less than two-thirds of the total amount of the sums appropriated pursuant to this section for any such year shall be expended on research and studies conducted under the authority of section 202 (a) (2) and (3) of this title.

it leaves the determination of what is humane and inhumane to the judgment of the Interior Secretary. Subsequent regulations characterize ‘‘humane’’ as the infliction of the ‘‘least possible degree of pain and suffering practicable to the animal involved.’’ Violations of these provisions are punishable by up to one year in prison and a fine of $20,000. Jordon Curnutt References Busch, Briton. The War against the Seals: A History of the North American Seal Fishery. Kingston, OT: McGill-Queens University Press, 1985. Eichstaedt, Richard Kirk. ‘‘‘Save the Whales’ v. ‘Save the Makah’: The Makah and the Struggle for Native Whaling’’ Animal Law 4 (1998): 145–172. Stevens, Christine. ‘‘Marine Mammals.’’ In Animals and Their Legal Rights, 4th ed. Washington DC: Animal Welfare Institute, 1990. Stewart, Kristin L. ‘‘Dolphin-Safe Tuna: The Tide is Changing.’’ Animal Law 4 (1998): 111–137.

Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (also known as the ‘‘Ocean Dumping Act’’) is an act of the U.S. Congress to ‘‘regulate the transportation for dumping, and the dumping, of material into ocean waters.’’ Titles I and II of the Act address ocean dumping specifically and call for further research on the topic in order to safeguard the health of humans living near ocean waters and to preserve the overall ecological integrity of these waters in the face of dumping by both domestic and foreign agents. Anyone wishing to dump sewage sludge or

494 | Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972

industrial waste in the ocean was now required to obtain a permit, which would be granted only after studies had been done on how the dumping would impact human health and the environment. Perhaps the most influential part of this act is Title III, which empowers the Secretary of Commerce to establish National Marine Sanctuaries to preserve marine environments ‘‘of special national significance’’ in coastal and ocean waters, the Great Lakes, and submerged lands under U.S. jurisdiction (MPRSA, 1972). When Title III, which became known as the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, or NMSA, was reauthorized by Congress in 2002, it was expanded to create a single system of national marine sanctuaries covering nearly 150,000 square miles; it was dubbed the National Marine Sanctuary System (Dunnigan, 2008). Title IV establishes Regional Marine Research Programs in nine maritime regions of the United States. Title V, the National Coastal Monitoring Act, focuses on the welfare of coastal ecosystems specifically (MPRSA, 1972). The federal government has struggled with ocean dumping since the turn of the twentieth century. In 1899, it passed the Rivers and Harbors Act to regulate the pollution of the ocean, but this act did not stop cities from emitting raw sewage into coastal waters. Despite passage of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act in 1972, the coasts of New Jersey and Long Island saw an unusual amount of sewage debris on their shores in 1976 and 1977. When the act came up for reauthorization in 1977, Congress attached an amendment that forbid the dumping of sewage sludge altogether after December 31, 1981 (Payton, 1985), but a series of lawsuits brought by New York City meant that the dumping of municipal sludge was not permanently banned until 1988, when Congress passed the Ocean Dumping Ban Act (P.L. 100-688), which made such dumping illegal after August 14, 1989. Congress also banned the dumping of medical waste in 1988 (P.L. 100-688). In 1983, Public Law 97-424 was passed, banning the dumping of radioactive waste, and any dumping was made illegal after December 31, 1991, as part of P.L. 100-688 (EPA, 1991). Since the 1991 ban on dumping, Title I has been referred to most often regarding the removal of dredged matter from the ocean floor (FWS, 2010). Title III, or the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, stems from 11 different bills brought before the House of Representatives in 1968 that were spurred by the dumping of nerve gas and oil off the Florida coast and an oil spill off Santa Barbara, California, in 1968. Presidential interest varied. Only two sanctuaries were named during the Nixon and Ford administrations: the site of the wreckage of the USS Monitor off of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, and the shore of Key Largo, Florida. President Carter revived the NMSA with the naming of an additional five sanctuaries, including the Channel Islands off the coast of California. President Reagan designated only one sanctuary during his time in office, but the Bush and Clinton administrations enthusiastically designated

Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 | 495

numerous sanctuaries (Brax, 2002). NOAA established a Maritime Heritage Program to preserve underwater cultural artifacts as part of George W. Bush’s Preserve America Initiative. In 2002, NOAA and the U.S. Navy raised the armored turret from the wreck of the USS Monitor, and in 2004, a Maritime Archaeology Center was opened in Newport News, Virginia, as a means of supporting this initiative. In 2006, President Bush established the largest region of natural conservation in the United States and the largest marine sanctuary in the world when he designated the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, covering 140,000 square miles off the Hawaiian Islands. Looking to the future, some commentators have emphasized that the NMSA, which is the most active part of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, needs to have its mission better defined and guidelines for naming national marine sanctuaries need to be clarified to ease the process of designating sites (Dunnigan, 2008). Philip Swan See also Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972

References Brax, J. ‘‘Zoning the Oceans: Using the National Marine Sanctuaries Act and the Antiquities Act to Establish Marine Protection Areas and Marine Reserves in America.’’ Ecology Law Quarterly 29 (1) (2002): 71–129. Committee on House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Statement of John H. Dunnigan, National Marine Sanctuaries Act Reauthorization. FDCH Congressional Testimony, June 18, 2008. Payton, B. M. ‘‘Ocean Dumping in the New York Bight.’’ Environment 27 (9) (1985): 26–42. U.S. Congress. Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. (Public Law 92-532; October 23, 1972; 86 Stat. 1052 and 1061. Titles I and II are codified at 33 U.S.C. 1401–1445. Title III is codified at 16 U.S.C. 1431–1445.) Amendments to Titles I (ocean dumping permit program) and II (ocean dumping research) include: P.L. 93-254; March 22, 1974; 88 Stat. 50; P.L. 93-472; October 26, 1954; 88 Stat. 1430; P.L. 94-62; July 25, 1975; 89 Stat. 303; P.L. 94-326; June 30, 1976; 90 Stat. 725; P.L. 95– 153; November 4, 1977; 91 Stat. 1255; P.L. 96-381; October 6, 1980; 94 Stat. 2242; P.L. 96-470; October 19, 1980; 94 Stat. 2245; P.L. 96-572; December 22, 1980; 94 Stat. 3344; P.L. 97-16; June 23, 1981; 95 Stat. 100; P.L. 97-424; January 6, 1983; 96 Stat. 2165; P.L. 99-272; April 7, 1986; 100 Stat. 131; P.L. 99-499; October 17, 1986; 100 Stat. 79; P.L. 99-662; November 17, 1986; 100 Stat. 4259; P.L. 100-4; February 4, 1987; 101 Stat. 79; P.L. 100-17; April 2, 1987; 101 Stat. 172; P.L. 100-536; October 28, 1988; 102 Stat. 2710; P.L. 100-627; November 7, 1988; 102 Stat. 3213; P.L. 100-688; November 18, 1988; 102 Stat. 4153; P.L. 102-580, title V, October 31, 1992, 106 Stat. 4870 and P.L. 104-303, October 12, 1996, 110 Stat. 3791. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water (WH-556F). Report to Congress on Ocean Dumping 1987–1990 (EPA 503/9/90-007). Washington DC: Government

496 | Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) Printing Office, 1991. http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/mprsa/Annual%20Report%20to %20Congress%201987-1990.pdf (accessed April 6, 2010) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. ‘‘Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act.’’ http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/marprot.html (accessed April 6, 2010).

Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency was a significant, closely contested U.S. Supreme Court writ of certiorari ruling in which the Court—dealing with the issue of global warming for the very first time (‘‘Supreme Court Hears EPA Auto Emissions Case’’, 2006)—ruled 5–4 to require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The landmark environmental decision has been cited as one of the Court’s most important in years (Greenhouse, 2007), perhaps even the most important in EPA history (Taylor, 2008). Driven by concerns about global warming and the environmental effects of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions from cars, a host of states, cities, environmental organizations, and one U.S. territory filed a petition seeking EPA regulation of motor vehicle emissions under the Clean Air Act. The agency’s ruling that it lacked jurisdiction prompted the suit, brought against not only the environmental agency for its failure to regulate, but also against 11 U.S. states, auto manufacturing interests, and trade associations for allowing harmful emissions within their jurisdictions (Supreme Court opinion). The case brought several key issues before the Court. First, it had to grapple with whether it had jurisdiction to hear the case in the first place. If jurisdiction determined, then the court would be forced to consider whether the EPA in fact had authority to regulate emissions, and if so, it would have to define what kind of authority it would be. In order to legally gain jurisdiction before the Court, at least one party had to show that they had been injured by the EPA’s failure to regulate the emissions. The majority opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, ruled that Massachusetts qualified, as its coastline is threatened by rising sea levels attributed to global warming. The Court also surmised that the lack of regulation posed an imminent threat beyond Massachusetts. Having established the parties had proper ‘‘standing’’ to bring suit, the Court readily determined that the EPA actually had not only the authority, but indeed possessed a duty to regulate. In a nutshell, the suit clarified that greenhouse gases are pollutants and that the EPA must regulate them as such (Lobe, 2007). While the ruling is seminal, it remains toothless pending action by Congress (Lobe, 2007). However, the Obama administration has made moves in recent months to begin implementing and enforcing the ruling (‘‘United States,’’ 2009). The ruling is viewed as a direct influence on the Court’s more recent ruling that six different greenhouse gases pose a threat to human health (‘‘United States,’’ 2009).

Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) | 497

Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus MASSACHUSETTS ET AL. v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 05–1120. Argued November 29, 2006—Decided April 2, 2007 Based on respected scientific opinion that a well-documented rise in global temperatures and attendant climatological and environmental changes have resulted from a significant increase in the atmospheric concentration of ‘‘greenhouse gases,’’ a group of private organizations petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to begin regulating the emissions of four such gases, including carbon dioxide, under §202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, which requires that the EPA ‘‘shall by regulation prescribe . . . standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class . . . of new motor vehicles . . . which in [the EPA Administrator’s] judgment cause[s], or contribute[s] to, air pollution . . . reasonably . . . anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,’’ 42 U. S. C. §7521(a)(1). The Act defines ‘‘air pollutant’’ to include ‘‘any air pollution agent . . ., including any physical, chemical . . . substance . . . emitted into . . . the ambient air.’’ §7602(g). EPA ultimately denied the petition, reasoning that (1) the Act does not authorize it to issue mandatory regulations to address global climate change, and (2) even if it had the authority to set greenhouse gas emission standards, it would have been unwise to do so at that time because a causal link between greenhouse gases and the increase in global surface air temperatures was not unequivocally established. The agency further characterized any EPA regulation of motor-vehicle emissions as a piecemeal approach to climate change that would conflict with the President’s comprehensive approach involving additional support for technological innovation, the creation of nonregulatory programs to encourage voluntary private-sector reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and further research on climate change, and might hamper the President’s ability to persuade key developing nations to reduce emissions. Petitioners, now joined by intervenor Massachusetts and other state and local governments, sought review in the D. C. Circuit. Although each of the three judges on the panel wrote separately, two of them agreed that the EPA Administrator properly exercised his discretion in denying the rulemaking petition. One judge concluded that the Administrator’s exercise of ‘‘judgment’’ as to whether a pollutant could ‘‘reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,’’ §7521(a)(1), could be based on scientific uncertainty as well as other factors, including the concern that unilateral U. S. regulation of motor-vehicle emissions could weaken efforts to reduce other countries’ greenhouse gas emissions. The second judge opined that petitioners had failed to demonstrate the particularized injury to them that is necessary to establish standing under

498 | Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) Article III, but accepted the contrary view as the law of the case and joined the judgment on the merits as the closest to that which he preferred. The court therefore denied review. Held: 1. Petitioners have standing to challenge the EPA’s denial of their rulemaking petition. Pp. 12–23. (a) This case suffers from none of the defects that would preclude it from being a justiciable Article III ‘‘Controvers[y].’’ See, e.g., Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 1. Moreover, the proper construction of a congressional statute is an eminently suitable question for federal-court resolution, and Congress has authorized precisely this type of challenge to EPA action, see 42 U. S. C. §7607(b)(1). Contrary to EPA’s argument, standing doctrine presents no insuperable jurisdictional obstacle here. To demonstrate standing, a litigant must show that it has suffered a concrete and particularized injury that is either actual or imminent, that the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant, and that a favorable decision will likely redress that injury. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560–561. However, a litigant to whom Congress has ‘‘accorded a procedural right to protect his concrete interests,’’ id., at 573, n. 7—here, the right to challenge agency action unlawfully withheld, §7607(b)(1)—‘‘can assert that right without meeting all the normal standards for redressability and immediacy,’’ ibid. Only one petitioner needs to have standing to authorize review. See Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U. S. 47, 52, n. 2. Massachusetts has a special position and interest here. It is a sovereign State and not, as in Lujan, a private individual, and it actually owns a great deal of the territory alleged to be affected. The sovereign prerogatives to force reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, to negotiate emissions treaties with developing countries, and (in some circumstances) to exercise the police power to reduce motor-vehicle emissions are now lodged in the Federal Government. Because congress has ordered EPA to protect Massachusetts (among others) by prescribing applicable standards,§7521(a)(1), and has given Massachusetts a concomitant procedural right to challenge the rejection of its rulemaking petition as arbitrary and capricious, §7607(b)(1), petitioners’ submissions as they pertain to Massachusetts have satisfied the most demanding standards of the adversarial process. EPA’s steadfast refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions presents a risk of harm to Massachusetts that is both ‘‘actual’’ and ‘‘imminent,’’ Lujan, 504 U. S., at 560, and there is a ‘‘substantial likelihood that the judicial relief requested’’ will prompt EPA to take steps to reduce that risk, Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc., 438 U. S. 59, 79. Pp. 12–17. (b) The harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized. The Government’s own objective assessment of the relevant science and a strong consensus among qualified experts indicate that global warming threatens, inter alia, a precipitate rise in sea levels, severe and irreversible changes to natural ecosystems, a significant reduction in winter snowpack with direct and important economic consequences, and increases in the spread of disease and the ferocity of weather events. That these changes are widely shared does not minimize Massachusetts’ interest in the outcome of this litigation. See Federal Election Comm’n v. Akins, 524 U. S. 11, 24. According to petitioners’ uncontested affidavits, global sea levels rose between 10 and 20 centimeters over the 20th century

Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) | 499 as a result of global warming and have already begun to swallow Massachusetts’ coastal land. Remediation costs alone, moreover, could reach hundreds of millions of dollars. Pp. 17–19. (c) Given EPA’s failure to dispute the existence of a causal connection between manmade greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, its refusal to regulate such emissions, at a minimum, ‘‘contributes’’ to Massachusetts’ injuries. EPA overstates its case in arguing that its decision not to regulate contributes so insignificantly to petitioners’ injuries that it cannot be haled into federal court, and that there is no realistic possibility that the relief sought would mitigate global climate change and remedy petitioners’ injuries, especially since predicted increases in emissions from China, India, and other developing nations will likely offset any marginal domestic decrease EPA regulation could bring about. Agencies, like legislatures, do not generally resolve massive problems in one fell swoop, see Williamson v. Lee Optical of Okla., Inc., 348 U. S. 483, 489, but instead whittle away over time, refining their approach as circumstances change and they develop a more nuanced understanding of how best to proceed, cf. SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U. S. 194, 202–203. That a first step might be tentative does not by itself negate federal-court jurisdiction. And reducing domestic automobile emissions is hardly tentative. Leaving aside the other greenhouse gases, the record indicates that the U. S. transportation sector emits an enormous quantity of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Pp. 20–21. (d) While regulating motor-vehicle emissions may not by itself reverse global warming, it does not follow that the Court lacks jurisdiction to decide whether EPA has a duty to take steps to slow or reduce it. See Larson v. Valente, 456 U. S. 228, 243, n. 15. Because of the enormous potential consequences, the fact that a remedy’s effectiveness might be delayed during the (relatively short) time it takes for a new motor-vehicle fleet to replace an older one is essentially irrelevant. Nor is it dispositive that developing countries are poised to substantially increase greenhouse gas emissions: A reduction in domestic emissions would slow the pace of global emissions increases, no matter what happens elsewhere. The Court attaches considerable significance to EPA’s espoused belief that global climate change must be addressed. Pp. 21–23. 2. The scope of the Court’s review of the merits of the statutory issues is narrow. Although an agency’s refusal to initiate enforcement proceedings is not ordinarily subject to judicial review, Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U. S. 821, there are key differences between nonenforcement and denials of rulemaking petitions that are, as in the present circumstances, expressly authorized. EPA concluded alternatively in its petition denial that it lacked authority under §7521(a)(1)to regulate new vehicle emissions because carbon dioxide is not an ‘‘air pollutant’’ under §7602, and that, even if it possessed authority, it would decline to exercise it because regulation would conflict with other administration priorities. Because the Act expressly permits review of such an action, §7607(b)(1), this Court ‘‘may reverse [it if it finds it to be] arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,’’ §7607(d)(9). Pp. 24–25. 3. Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Act’s capacious definition of ‘‘air pollutant,’’ EPA has statutory authority to regulate emission of such gases from new motor vehicles. That definition—which includes ‘‘any air pollution agent . . . , including any physical, chemical, . . . substance . . . emitted into . . . the ambient air . . . ,’’ §7602(g) (emphasis added)—embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe.

500 | Massachusetts v. EPA (2007)

Moreover, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are undoubtedly ‘‘physical [and] chemical . . . substance[s].’’ Ibid. EPA’s reliance on postenactment congressional actions and deliberations it views as tantamount to a command to refrain from regulating greenhouse gas emissions is unavailing. Even if postenactment legislative history could shed light on the meaning of an otherwise-unambiguous statute, EPA identifies nothing suggesting that Congress meant to curtail EPA’s power to treat greenhouse gases as air pollutants. The Court has no difficulty reconciling Congress’ various efforts to promote interagency collaboration and research to better understand climate change with the agency’s preexisting mandate to regulate ‘‘any air pollutant’’ that may endanger the public welfare. FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U. S. 120, 133, distinguished. Also unpersuasive is EPA’s argument that its regulation of motor-vehicle carbon dioxide emissions would require it to tighten mileage standards, a job (according to EPA) that Congress has assigned to the Department of Transportation. The fact that DOT’s mandate to promote energy efficiency by setting mileage standards may overlap with EPA’s environmental responsibilities in no way licenses EPA to shirk its duty to protect the public ‘‘health’’ and ‘‘welfare,’’ §7521(a)(1). Pp. 25–30. 4. EPA’s alternative basis for its decision—that even if it has statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gases, it would be unwise to do so at this time—rests on reasoning divorced from the statutory text. While the statute conditions EPA action on its formation of a ‘‘judgment,’’ that judgment must relate to whether an air pollutant ‘‘cause[s], or contribute[s] to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.’’ §7601(a)(1). Under the Act’s clear terms, EPA can avoid promulgating regulations only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do. It has refused to do so, offering instead a laundry list of reasons not to regulate, including the existence of voluntary Executive Branch programs providing a response to global warming and impairment of the President’s ability to negotiate with developing nations to reduce emissions. These policy judgments have nothing to do with whether greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change and do not amount to a reasoned justification for declining to form a scientific judgment. Nor can EPA avoid its statutory obligation by noting the uncertainty surrounding various features of climate change and concluding that it would therefore be better not to regulate at this time. If the scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA from making a reasoned judgment, it must say so. The statutory question is whether sufficient information exists for it to make an endangerment finding. Instead, EPA rejected the rule-making petition based on impermissible considerations. Its action was therefore ‘‘arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law,’’ §7607(d)(9). On remand, EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute. Pp. 30–32. 415 F. 3d 50, reversed and remanded. STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS and ALITO, JJ., joined.

Metropolitan Edison Co. v. PANE | 501

In his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts said that the matter is not one for the courts, but rather for the legislative and executive branches to handle. Furthermore, standing should only be granted if the injury can be redressed, he wrote, and the problem of greenhouse gas emissions is not one that the EPA can possibly address. Its impact would be negligible, especially considering emissions from other, unregulated parts of the world, namely India and China. Further, motor vehicle emissions comprise only a fraction of greenhouse gas emissions. Jessica Chapman See also Clean Air Act of 1970; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

References ‘‘EPA Takes Big Step to Reduce CO2 Pollution.’’ USA Today, May 29, 2009. Greenhouse, Linda. ‘‘Justices Say EPA Has Power to Act on Harmful Gases.’’ New York Times, April 3, 2007. Lobe, Jim. ‘‘U.S. Supreme Court Says EPA Can Regulate Greenhouse Gases.’’ Global Information Network, April 3, 2007. ‘‘Supreme Court Hears EPA Auto Emissions Case.’’ All Things Considered, November 9, 2006. Supreme Court opinion, http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf (accessed February 14, 2009). Taylor, Tiffany. ‘‘From Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co. to Massachusetts v. EPA: An Overview of America’s History of Air Pollution Regulation and Its Effect on Future Remedies to Climate Change.’’ The University of Memphis Law Review (Spring 2008). ‘‘United States: A Green Figleaf; Climate Change.’’ The Economist, April 25, 2009.

Metropolitan Edison Co. v. PANE Following the 1979 meltdown of the second nuclear reactor (TMI-2) at Three Mile Island, Metropolitan Edison Co. (the plant’s owner) was required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to keep the first reactor (TMI-1) offline until it could be determined whether the plant could be run safely. The NRC also invited public briefs regarding whether any psychological harm of restarting TMI-1 should be considered. People Against Nuclear Energy (PANE) (an association of residents from nearby Harrisburg, Pennsylvania), responded, arguing that restarting TMI-1 would cause severe psychological damage and serious damage to the stability, cohesiveness, and well-being of people living nearby. When the NRC opted to ignore PANE’s evidence, PANE filed for review in the court of appeals, arguing that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) required the NRC to take account of these concerns. The appeals court agreed

502 | Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918

that the NRC improperly ignored the risk that an accident at TMI-1 might cause on the psychological health of residents of the surrounding areas. The Supreme Court overturned this decision, deciding that §102(c) of NEPA only requires the NRC to assess environmental impact, rather than every possible impact or effect. Since the NRC had evaluated the environmental risks, such as the release of low-level radiation, and the release of warm water into the Susquehanna River, it did not act improperly by not considering PANE’s concerns. The American Psychological Association filed an amicus brief in the case, with three objectives: (1) to ensure that the Court not make ill-informed findings about psychology; (2) to inform the Court that in some cases, psychological effects are cognizable under NEPA; and (3) to persuade the Court to decide the case on as narrow a ground as possible. The APA considers all three objectives to be achieved. Rehnquist delivered the opinion for a unanimous court. Brennan filed a concurring opinion. Robert C. Robinson See also Bates, et al. v. Dow AgroSciences LLC; National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 Nomadic flocks of birds travel hundreds of miles, even thousands of miles for some species, crossing the boundaries between states and international borders, too. Who is legally empowered to restrict taking them? Initial Attempts to Conserve Migratory Birds In the first decades of the 1900s, the federal government had yet to assert its authority over the states to comprehensively manage wildlife through regulation, and an international treaty for the same purpose was still in the experimental stage. Indeed, the historic case of Geer v. Connecticut, decided just before the turn of the century, saw the Supreme Court assert that the individual states had the right ‘‘to control and regulate the common property in game.’’ This ruling received strong reinforcement from the high court in 1912 in United States v. The Abby Dodge. The Fur Seal Treaty of 1911, the first multinational agreement aimed at wildlife conservation, was quite limited in scope and dubiously effective, prohibiting only the hunting of fur seals on the open ocean. In 1913, Congress boldly forged ahead into uncharted legal waters and passed the Migratory Bird Act, announcing that all migratory birds were under the care and protection of the U.S. government and could be hunted only according to federal regulations. Ill-fated and short-lived, within two years, two different

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 | 503

district courts had declared this law unconstitutional because the Supreme Court had already ruled in Geer that wildlife not on federal land was the property of the states (United States v. Shauver and United States v. McCullagh). While the high court mulled over whether to review these lower court decisions, the United States signed the Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds, an agreement with Canada to regulate hunting the birds, though the other signatory was Great Britain, the sovereign over our neighbors to the north. The Canadian Convention divides migratory birds into three groups: game birds, nongame birds, and insect-eating birds. It stipulates that hunting is not allowed for insectivorous or nongame birds, except by permit for scientific reasons or to propagate the species. Inuit (Eskimo) and American Indians may hunt some species of nongame birds for personal use as food and clothing. The same restrictions and exceptions apply to taking nests or eggs. Any migratory birds may be killed if they ‘‘become seriously injurious to agricultural or other interests in any particular community.’’ According to the treaty, Canada and the United States can establish open hunting seasons on the game birds of 107 days (or less) at any time between September 1 and March 10; for the rest of March through August, all taking of these birds is banned. The dates of an open season do not have to be consecutive, so there can be multiple hunting seasons over this span on the calendar, as long as the total does not exceed 107 days. In later years, other nations became parties to the convention: Mexico in 1936, Japan in 1972, and the Soviet Union in 1976. The terms of the treaty remained substantially unchanged when these countries signed on. For example, the Mexican treaty sets the season at four months maximum, while Japan simply requires that hunting be prohibited during the primary nesting season of the species. Similarly, Russia (which accepted the treaty obligations of the U.S.S.R. after it became defunct) allows hunting seasons of unspecified duration so long as they are consistent with preserving the flocks. The Japanese and Soviet conventions also added broadly worded exhortations to the signatories to protect and preserve habitats. Implementing the Treaty In 1918, Congress passed the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), executing and ratifying the Canadian Convention as federal law. Just as the 1913 Migratory Bird Act was immediately challenged, it did not take long before a state argued that the MBTA represented an unconstitutional exercise of federal power over property that did not belong to the government in Washington, D.C. Relying heavily on the Geer decision, Missouri sought a restraining order against a federal game warden who had attempted to enforce the MBTA there. Counsel for the United States appealed to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (Article VI, Section 2), which announces that duly enacted federal statutes ‘‘shall be the

504 | Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918

Supreme Law of the Land.’’ Repudiating Geer, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes asserted for the majority that ‘‘[w]ild birds are not in the possession of anyone, and possession is the beginning of ownership.’’ He added that given the depleted condition of bird populations, the states clearly could not be relied upon to protect these species. Missouri v. Holland validated the MBTA while beginning to sound the death knell for the state ownership of wildlife doctrine. The MBTA strengthens and adds more detail to the Canadian Convention and authorizes federal agencies to devise regulations to achieve its goals. Section 2 declares that it is illegal to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, or to attempt to take, capture, or kill any migratory bird. Further, possessing, offering to sell, purchasing, bartering, transporting, exporting, or importing any bird, part of a bird, nest, or egg is prohibited. The Canadian Convention had merely prohibited the ‘‘shipment or export’’ of unlawfully taken migratory birds or bird parts. Section 3 empowers the secretary to issue regulations specifying the extent to which migratory birds may be hunted, taken, captured, killed, possessed, sold, purchased, transported, or exported. The ‘‘secretary’’ here was originally in the Department of Agriculture, but in 1939 Congress transferred rule-making authority under the MBTA to the Department of the Interior. Since that time, MBTA regulations, in particular hunting restrictions, have been promulgated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), a division of the Interior Department. Also, the states are free to write their own laws or regulations to protect migratory birds, even more stringent ones, so long as they are consistent with the convention and the federal statute. The MBTA provides for both felony and misdemeanor penalties. For many years, the legal condition of scienter, or ‘‘knowledge,’’ that is, awareness of what one is doing, was not required to secure a felony conviction. However, in 1985 the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a felony conviction for violation of the MBTA without proof of scienter violated the right to due process of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment (United States v. Wulff). Congress wrote an amendment the next year to account for this ruling. Now, to prove a felony violation, prosecutors must show that the defendant knew he or she was taking, selling, bartering, or offering to sell a bird or bird part; at the same time, it is not necessary to prove that the accused knew he or she was violating the MBTA or that the bird was protected. At about the same time as this amendment, the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 significantly increased the punishment for federal crimes. Previously, MBTA maximums were a fine not to exceed $2,000 or incarceration for up to two years, or both, but with sentencing reform, the limits are now $250,000 and three years. A misdemeanor is any nonfelonious infraction of the MBTA and does not require scienter—it is punishable by, at most, a fine of $5,000 (increased from $500) and six months in jail. Jordon Curnutt

Mineral Leasing Act | 505

References Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519 (1896). Markarian, Michael. ‘‘Migratory Massacre.’’ The Animals’ Agenda 17 (4) (July—August 1997): 22–27. Migratory Bird Hunting: Regulations Regarding Baiting and Baited Areas, Final Rule, 64 Fed. Reg. 29,799–29,804 (June 3, 1999). Migratory Bird Hunting: Seasons, Limits, and Shooting Hours, 64 Fed. Reg. 47,421– 47,434 (August 31, 1999). Nilsson, Greta. ‘‘Birds.’’ In Animals and Their Legal Rights, 4th ed. Washington DC: Animal Welfare Institute, 1990. United States v. The Abby Dodge, 223 U.S. 166 (1912). United States v. McCullagh, 221 F. 288 (D. Kan. 1915). United States v. Shauver, 214 F. 154 (E.D. Ark. 1914), appeal dismissed, 248 U.S. 594 (1919).

Mineral Leasing Act The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 was created to reform the regulation of American land being utilized for its natural resources. Previous to this act, a policy was enacted in 1873 demanding a flat fee for rights to land areas containing coal for relatively large acreage plots of land. This regulation had become outdated due to shifting population, abuse of land rights, and popular opinions. New regulation was needed to fit the changing times. Oil and other natural resources were regulated by similarly outdated provisions under the Mining Law of 1870; prospectors were required to prove their findings visually before acquiring lease rights, which was impossible for petroleum without drilling (Kubiszewski, 2006). The new act would apply not only to oil and coal, but also to many other minerals and resources found on public lands. Controversy surrounding the act led to its protracted implementation, and the document was proposed several years before it was passed by Congress (Klyza, 2010). The act allowed the Department of the Interior to issue prospecting permits whereby if oil was found on the identified land, the prospector went through a leasing system for the resource, paying a royalty fee annually (Klyza, 2010). It also allowed pipelines to run through federal lands to ease the transport of oil resources. The act has been amended and affected by other regulation since 1920; it still exists in its updated form to fit the complexities surrounding natural resource trade today. B. J. Finley See also U.S. Department of the Interior

506 | Montreal Protocol

References Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute. ‘‘Title 30, Chapter 3A Leasing and Prospecting Permits.’’ 2010. http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html /uscode30/usc_sup_01_30_0_3A_20_1.html (accessed April 5, 2010). Klyza, Christopher McGrory. ‘‘Mineral Leasing Act (1920).’’ The Environmental Encyclopedia. 2010. http://find.galegroup.com/grnr/start.do?prodId=GRNR (accessed April 5, 2010). Kubiszewski, Ida. ‘‘Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, United States.’’ The Encyclopedia of Earth. 2006. http://www.eoearth.org/article/Mineral_Leasing_Act_of_1920,_United _States (accessed April 5, 2010).

Montreal Protocol The chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) treaty (formally called the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer) was created in Montreal in 1987. It is the first international agreement whose purpose is to avert global environmental disaster, and it is one of the most successful international consensus-building efforts ever undertaken. The treaty limits, and seeks to eventually eliminate, the production of CFCs, which are chemicals that destroy stratospheric ozone. The ozone layer protects Earth from the sun’s ultraviolet (UV) radiation. Without such protection, increased UV radiation can have harmful effects, including increased skin cancers, suppression of the immune system, and eye disorders. Increased UV radiation is expected to harm plants and animals as well. The negotiations over this treaty, like many other international environmental negotiations, were complex and difficult. Discussions were initiated by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in 1985 in Vienna, the same year the ‘‘ozone hole’’ over Antarctica was discovered. At the Vienna Convention, ‘‘governments committed themselves to protect the ozone layer and to cooperate with each other in scientific research to improve understanding of the atmospheric processes’’ (Ozone Secretariat). Difficult negotiations continued for two years, at which time the Montreal Protocol was signed by 48 countries. It has been amended twice so far—once in London in 1990, and again in Copenhagen in 1992. Currently, 155 countries are parties to the Vienna Convention and Montreal Protocol, including more than 100 developing countries as well as the United States (which is the largest CFC producer). Given the global nature of the problem, many stakeholders were involved, including producers of CFCs in the United States and abroad, environmental organizations, the UNEP, scientists, and many governments from both the north and the south. CFC producers were willing to acknowledge the veracity of the

Mountain States Legal Fund | 507

evidence about the harmfulness of CFCs, but they wanted to be sure that the time frame for their elimination was financially feasible. Developing countries, too, accepted the scientific data, especially since the problem seems to be worse in the Southern Hemisphere. However, they did not want the treaty to limit their ability to develop. Careful negotiations enabled the interests of all the parties to be respected and the goal of ozone protection to be met. According to the Ozone Secretariat, the organization formed to oversee the implementation of the treaty, ‘‘the Protocol is constructively flexible; it can be tightened as the scientific evidence strengthens, without having to be completely renegotiated. Indeed, it sets the ‘elimination’ of ozone-depleting substances as its ‘final objective.’’’ Although the protocol was considered to be only a first step, it has been immensely successful. Again, according to the Ozone Secretariat, ‘‘once it was agreed, events developed with astonishing speed. New scientific evidence showed that very much tighter and greater controls would be needed, and governments and industry moved further, and faster, than anyone would have believed possible.’’ Barbara Gray quotes Richard Benedict, one of the U.S. negotiators who helped write the treaty, as saying that several factors made the treaty possible. These included: ‘‘(1) close cooperation between policy makers and scientists; (2) an evolutionary step-by-step process of consensus building; (3) the enlightened self-interest of U.S. chlorofluorocarbon manufacturers, who agreed to a ban; (4) skillful leadership within several constituencies; (5) the absence of blame among industry and environmental organizations in the United States; and (6) a model role by the United Nations Environmental Program, which served as convener for the negotiations’’ (Gray 1989, 275). Heidi Burgess and Guy Burgess Reference Barbara Gray. Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems, (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1989)

Mountain States Legal Fund Mountain States Legal Fund (MSLF) is a Colorado corporation advocating private property, limited government, individual liberty, and free enterprise. Former Reagan interior secretary James Watt founded Mountain States in 1977 with a $58,000 start-up grant from the National Legal Center for the Public Interest. Additional funding came from the Coors Corporation and Joseph Coors. In 2002, MSLF’s revenues totaled $2.287 million and assets almost $3 million. Sources included the Castle Rock, Carthage, Bradley, and JM foundations, as well as corporations such as ExxonMobil, Phillips Petroleum, U.S. Steel, and Texaco.

508 | Muir, John

The Mountain States Legal Fund describes itself as the litigation arm of the anti-environmental wise-use movement. MSLF organized the first-ever wise-use conference, in Reno, Nevada, in 1988. Mountain States intervenes on behalf of property rights and against the Endangered Species Act by filing amicus briefs and taking environmental, limited government, and environmental cases. For the most part, it protects property rights in the midwest against environmental legislation. It participated in Mountain States Legal Foundation v. Colorado (1997), Montana Chamber of Commerce v. Argenbright (2000), Mulder v. National Labor Relations Board (2002), and Nike et al. v. Mark Kasky. Mountain States also sued George W. Bush after the Bush administration failed to overturn a Clinton action, the designation of national monuments, which Mountain States had challenged. The case was dismissed in 2002. MSLF’s Web site includes a monthly column by president Willliam Pendley, who also speaks frequently on property rights. MSLF serves as a training ground for attorneys who move on to other foundations or government; among them Gale Norton, Interior Secretary under George W. Bush, who served at MSLF from 1979 to 1983 then served in the Reagan Interior Department. Norton and wise-use argue that the Fifth Amendment takings clause requires government to pay whenever it imposes environmental laws at the expense of a developer’s profits. Another MSLF alumnus was Anne Gorsuch Burford, Reagan-era EPA head, and Roger and Nancy Marzulla, who founded Defenders of Property Rights. John H. Barnhill See also Burford (Gorsuch), Anne; Defenders of Property Rights; Endangered Species Act of 1973; Sagebrush Rebellion; Wise-Use Movement

References Findlaw. ‘‘Amicus Curiae Brief of Mountain States Legal Foundation in Support of the Petitioner, Nike, et al. v. Mark Kasky in the Supreme Court of the United States.’’ http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/02-575/02-575.mer.ami.mslf.pdf (accessed April 2010). Mountain States Legal Foundation. ‘‘Corporations and the Constitution.’’ http:// www.corporatepolicy.org/issues/MSLF.htm (accessed April 2010). National Trust Legal Defense Fund. ‘‘Protecting Sacred Sites, Archaeological Resources, and Cultural Landscapes on Public Lands. Federal Court of Appeals Affirms District Court’s Decision Upholding Presidential Authority to Designate National Monuments Under 1906 Antiquities Act.’’ May 2003. http://www.preservationnation.org/resources/ legal-resources/additional-resources/ldf-updates/May2003-LDF.pdf.

Muir, John John Muir was an author, conservationist, explorer, inventor, and naturalist. During his lifetime, he was known as the ‘‘Guardian of Yosemite’’ and the ‘‘Naturalist

Muir, John | 509

John Muir. (Library of Congress)

of the Sierras.’’ Today, because of his influence over policymakers and the public during his lifetime, he is called the ‘‘Father of our National Park System.’’ Muir was born on April 21, 1838, in Dunbar, Scotland. When he was 11, his family immigrated to Wisconsin. There, Muir not only worked on the family farm, but enjoyed observing nature and inventing. In 1860, he displayed some of his inventions at the Wisconsin State Fair. He won several prizes at the fair as well as a scholarship to the University of Wisconsin. After three years studying in Madison, Muir dropped out in order to travel and observe nature.

510 | Muskie, Edmund

In 1867, Muir injured his eyes in a factory accident in Indianapolis. The following year, Muir sailed to California and paid his first visit to Yosemite. He returned to the area in 1869 and spent his first summer in the High Sierra Nevada Mountains. He began making a name for himself by giving guided tours of Yosemite. In early 1871, Ralph Waldo Emerson visited Muir and they toured Yosemite together. Emerson found Muir to be a transcendentalist just like himself and Thoreau. On December 21, 1871, Muir’s first article, ‘‘Yosemite Glaciers,’’ was published in the New York Tribune. In 1881, Muir traveled to Alaska, and observed the glaciers by the Bering Sea. In fact, one of the glaciers he discovered was named after him, Muir Glacier. Additionally, he wrote several influential articles in Century Magazine in the late 1880s. This led Congress in 1890 to create Yosemite National Park. In the early 1890s, he also campaigned for the creation of King Canyon National Park, Sequoia National Park, and Mount Rainier National Park. He was helped by the Sierra Club, which he co-founded in 1892 and of which he served as president until 1914. In 1893, Muir traveled to Europe. In 1894, his first book, The Mountains of California, was published in New York by the Century Company. Between 1903 and 1904, Muir guided President Theodore Roosevelt around the Sierra High Country. It is assumed that they discussed the conservation needs of the country and that Muir influenced Roosevelt. In 1908, Roosevelt honored Muir by proclaiming Muir Woods National Monument. In 1913, Muir finished his autobiography, The Story of My Boyhood and Life. In 1914, John Muir died of pneumonia in a hospital in Los Angeles. Muir’s papers are located in the Holt-Atherton Special Collections at the John Muir Center at the University of the Pacific. Scott Sheidlower See also Roosevelt, Theodore; Sequoia National Park; Yosemite National Park

References ‘‘John Muir, Aged Naturalist, Dead.’’ New York Times, December 25, 1914. Sierra Club. ‘‘John Muir: A Brief Biography.’’ http://www.sierraclub.org/john_muir _exhibit/life/muir_biography.html (accessed May 5, 2010).

Muskie, Edmund Edmund Sixtus ‘‘Ed’’ Muskie, a Maine Democratic senator, presidential candidate, and Secretary of State, earned the title ‘‘Mr. Clean’’ in Washington as the author of the Clean Air Act of 1970 and the Clean Water Act of 1972, as well as legislative efforts to improve the quality of urban life. In a eulogy following Muskie’s death in 1996, his former chief of staff and president of the Clean Air Trust Leon G.

Muskie, Edmund | 511

Senator Edmund S. Muskie, D-ME, discloses his comprehensive program for fighting pollution at a news conference, January 23, 1970, in Washington, D.C. Muskie was Chairman of the Senate subcommittee on air and water pollution. (AP/Wide World Photos)

Billings said people were thanking Muskie for five decades of public service and for being ‘‘the first steward of the planet earth.’’ Muskie believed that each nation of the world must respond to the global environmental crisis not only by national programs, but also by commitments to global cooperative action. Born on March 28, 1914, in Rumford, Maine, Muskie was the son and grandson of Polish Catholic immigrants. As governor, Muskie worked to reduce air and water pollution in Maine. He won election to the U.S. Senate in 1958. As the first chairman of the Special Air and Water Pollution Subcommittee, Muskie received an envelope of soot in 1964 from a Cicero, Illinois, housewife who was outraged about the dirty air there. Muskie believed that environmental protection was fundamentally a political question that required voters to sort out their priorities. During 1968, Muskie was the vice presidential running mate of the Democratic presidential nominee Hubert H. Humphrey. They narrowly lost to the Republican ticket of Richard M. Nixon and Spiro T. Agnew. Early in 1972, Muskie was the leading Democratic challenger to Nixon’s reelection. During the

512 | Muskie, Edmund

New Hampshire primary campaign, Muskie was attacked by the Manchester Union Leader, which published an editorial and an anonymous letter accusing Muskie of using the slur ‘‘Canuck’’ to refer to the state’s French Canadians and also printed an unflattering portrayal of Muskie’s wife Jane. Muskie stood in a snowstorm outside the newspaper’s offices to defend his wife and to declare the letter a lie. It was reported that he wept (Naughton, 1972). Muskie later maintained melting snow, not tears, ran down his face (Apple, 1996). Muskie ended his quest for the nomination in April. South Dakota Senator George McGovern won the Democratic nomination to challenge Nixon, who was reelected in November. It was later revealed that the anonymous letter was the work of a Nixon political aide involved in campaign ‘‘dirty tricks’’ (Apple, 1996); the incident is recalled as one of America’s lowest points in political campaigns. Muskie remained in the Senate until May 1980, when President Jimmy Carter asked him to serve as U.S. Secretary of State, which ended when Ronald Reagan became president in 1981. He was then a partner in the Washington office of Chadbourne & Parke, a New York-based law firm, and remained active in organizations dealing with the environment and foreign relations. After suffering a heart attack following surgery, Muskie died in Washington, D.C., on March 26, 1996. A World War II Navy veteran, Muskie was buried in Arlington National Cemetery. The Edmund S. Muskie Foundation works to further his lifelong commitment to public service, civic responsibility, and the protection of the natural and human environment. Rita Ormsby See also Clean Air Act of 1970; Clean Water Act of 1972; Conservation; Nixon, Richard

References Apple, R. W. Jr. ‘‘Edmund S. Muskie, 81, Dies: Maine Senator and a Power on the National Scene.’’ New York Times, March 27, 1996. Billings, Leon. ‘‘Remarks by Leon Billings in Tribute to Edmund S. Muskie.’’ 104th Cong., 2nd sess., Congressional Record, April 18, 1996: S 3614, http://thomas.loc.gov/ (accessed April 7, 2010). The Edmund S. Muskie Foundation, http://www.muskiefoundation.org (accessed April 3, 2010). Lippman, Theo Jr., and Donald C. Hansen. Muskie. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1971. Muskie, Edmund S. ‘‘The Global Environmental Crisis.’’ Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 19 (4) (Summer 1992): 731. Naughton, James M. ‘‘Muskie Denies an Ethnic Slur.’’ New York Times, February 27, 1972. Oberdorfer, Don. ‘‘Senate Confirms Muskie.’’ Washington Post, May 8, 1980.

Muskie, Edmund | 513 Vick, Karl. ‘‘Muskie Buried Amid Tributes to Environmentalism: At Emotional Service, Former Secretary of State Also Recalled for Integrity, Statesmanship.’’ Washington Post, March 31, 1996. Walker, Martin. ‘‘It All Ended in Tears: Obituary: Senator Edmund Muskie.’’ Guardian, March 27, 1996.

N Nader, Ralph Ralph Nader is well known as both a political activist and a key figure in the development of the consumer movement during the final quarter of the twentieth century. Throughout his professional career, he has also been an ardent advocate for environmental causes, such as the Safe Drinking Water Act. Although Nader’s accomplishments are legion, he has proven to be a polarizing individual politically because he is such an idealist that he often refuses to compromise on issues. Nader was born on February 27, 1934, in Winsted, Connecticut, to Lebanese immigrants. His undergraduate education was undertaken at Princeton University, where he graduated magna cum laude in 1955. He graduated with distinction from Harvard Law School in 1958. A year later, he began practicing law in Hartford, Connecticut. While at Harvard, Nader developed an interest in automobile safety. After years of research, Nader published Unsafe at Any Speed in 1965. The book was a scathing indictment of the automobile industry’s low safety standards. His work prodded the U.S. Congress to pass the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Act of 1966, which gave the federal government the power to set safety standards for all motor Consumer advocate Ralph Nader is pictured during his testimony, Monday, May 7, vehicles operating in the country. Buoyed by the success of Unsafe at 1979, in Washington before a House subAny Speed, Nader began utilizing it as committee on environment, energy, and natural resources. The panel was hearing a model for other endeavors. Working testimony on contingency plans in the event with like-minded lawyers, dubbed of a nuclear power plant accident. (AP/ ‘‘Nader’s Raiders,’’ Nader began Wide World Photos) 515

516 | National Ambient Air Quality Standards

publishing studies that shed light on a multitude of issues, such as the harm arising from insecticide use. The studies were intended to force the government to expand its regulatory powers into the private sector because corporate entities could not be trusted to regulate themselves adequately. Nader and his colleagues had some successes, including the toughening of the Clean Air Act in 1970. Gradually over the course of the 1970s, Nader’s influence in Washington, D.C., waned as federal officials became increasingly hesitant to act decisively on issues that concerned him. Disillusioned by both of the major political parties in the United States, Nader opted to run for the presidency in 1996, 2000, and 2004 under the Green Party banner. His 2000 campaign has been bitterly credited by many of his former supporters with electing President George W. Bush. Bearing the brunt of the blame for Al Gore’s defeat resulted in little support for his presidential candidacy during the subsequent election cycle. Despite the political setbacks, Nader continues to advocate for the issues that he passionately supports. John R. Burch Jr. See also Bush, George W.; Clean Air Act of 1970; Gore, Albert Arnold Jr.; Safe Drinking Water Act

References Bollier, David. Citizen Action and Other Big Ideas: A History of Ralph Nader and the Modern Consumer Movement. Washington DC: Center for Study of Responsive Law, 1991. Holsworth, Robert D. Public Interest Liberalism and the Crisis of Affluence: Reflections on Nader, Environmentalism, and the Politics of a Sustainable Society. Boston: G. K. Hall, 1980. Martin, Justin. Nader: Crusader, Spoiler, Icon. New York: Perseus Books, 2002. ‘‘Nader, Ralph.’’ In Who’s Who In America 2009: 63ed, Vol. 2, P. Delli Santi and A. Perruso, eds., 3566. New Providence, NJ: Marquis Who’s Who, 2008. Nader, Ralph. Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-In Dangers of the American Automobile, 25th ann. ed. New York: Knightsbridge Publishing Company, 1991.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards In the 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments, Congress authorized the newly created Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Air quality improvement is the fundamental mission of the EPA under the Clean Air Act, and setting national standards that limit air pollutants was the first step toward this ambitious goal. Ambient air refers to air outside of buildings and accessible to the public, and air quality standards are

National Ambient Air Quality Standards | 517

expressed in terms of pollutant volume in the ambient air, parts per million (ppm) over ‘‘averaging times.’’ The standard for each pollutant must reflect the latest scientific information about the nature and extent of its risk to public health, which reflects legislative intent since the Clean Air Act of 1963. Legislators intended for the EPA to focus NAAQS on air pollutants generally found throughout the nation rather than localized hazards and sources, which may be regulated under other sections of the Clean Air Act. The EPA has established NAAQS for six air pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). These pollutants are referred to as ‘‘criteria pollutants,’’ and the voluminous EPA documentation to support the NAAQS for a pollutant is called the ‘‘criteria document.’’ The criteria document is announced in the Federal Register to begin the public input process when setting or revising an air quality standard. The Clean Air Act allows for two types of standards. Primary standards are intended to protect public health, including sensitive populations of children, the elderly, and those with respiratory ailments. Secondary standards seek broader protection of public welfare, including environmental, agricultural, infrastructure, and visibility concerns. Primary and secondary NAAQS are currently the same for four out of six criteria pollutants. The Clean Air Act requires the EPA administrator to create a list of air pollutants ‘‘emitted by numerous and diverse sources’’ that may ‘‘endanger public health or welfare.’’ The federal courts ruled in Natural Resources Defense Council v. Train (1976) that the EPA has a duty to list pollutants once their danger to public health and prevalence is established. This litigation forced EPA to list lead as an air pollutant. Within 12 months of listing a pollutant, the EPA administrator must set an air quality standard that protects public health within an ‘‘adequate margin of safety.’’ In Lead Industries Association v. EPA (1980), the D.C. Circuit Court affirmed the EPA’s authority to set standards without scientific certainty on the extent of risk reduction gained by an air quality standard. The margin of safety language, the court reasoned, shows legislative intent to protect against health effects not yet uncovered by research or where scientists disagree about the pollutant’s medical significance. The act also forces industry to develop pollution-control devices. Industry challenged NAAQS as unfeasible and costprohibitive, but the courts have ruled that the language of the CAA prevents the EPA from considering economic cost or technical feasibility in NAAQS rulemaking. Implementation of emissions controls has been technically difficult and politically contested from the start. The EPA does not directly enforce NAAQS; it relies upon states for attainment. National standards set pollution concentrations not to be exceeded anywhere in the nation, but the standards are implemented through source-specific emission limits and other air quality rules developed by

518 | National Ambient Air Quality Standards

the 50 states. The Clean Air Act of 1970 mandated state implementation plans (SIPs), including development of source controls, monitoring systems, and rulemaking procedures, to reduce emissions and achieve national standards within three years. Initially, the EPA found some state plans inadequate and used its authority to impose federal plans. NAAQS for ground-level ozone, a major component of smog, could not be achieved or deadlines met without drastic measures in some areas, most notably Los Angeles. Power plants and other industries struggled to develop and pay for emissions-control technology. Statutory deadlines for NAAQS expired in 1975 without achieving compliance in many areas. The 1977 Clean Air Act amendments authorized the EPA to designate nonattainment areas and required a review of NAAQS every five years and revision to protect public health. A conservative shift in national politics and deregulatory policy in the Reagan administration stalled national leadership on reauthorizing the Clean Air Act in the 1980s, but regions achieved incremental air quality improvements. The 1990 CAA amendments expanded the EPA’s authority to regulate air quality in new problem areas, including toxic emissions, acid rain, and atmospheric ozone depletion, and initiated new methods to achieve standards, including an emissions-trading approach. The legislation further defined air quality nonattainment areas for ozone, classifying them as extreme, severe, serious, moderate, marginal, or submarginal. It set new deadlines for states to meet federal standards, from three years in marginal nonattainment areas to 20 years in the extreme nonattainment area of Los Angeles/South Coast Air Basin. Implementing the various provisions required lengthy and extremely complex rulemaking and coordination with states. Health studies on asthma and other common diseases that demonstrate smog and soot cause or contribute to nationwide health problems created political pressure from environmental and health groups for more stringent standards. The American Lung Association sued the EPA in 1991 to force a revision of the ozone standard, which it had twice failed to review. Public and industry resistance to state plans limiting vehicle emissions and congressional curbs on enforcement spending hindered the EPA. After a long period of hearings and comment, the EPA revised the ozone and particulate matter standards in 1997 to reduce respiratory and cardiovascular illness, health costs, and premature deaths, and to improve visibility in national parks and wilderness areas. Resistance from industry coalitions and local governments and litigation by the American Trucking Association delayed final rule-making to 2004. As compliance deadlines approach, nonattainment of ozone and particulate matter NAAQS remains a challenge for most urban areas. Gina L. Keel See also Clean Air Act of 1970; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

National Association of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife | 519

References Martineau Robert Jr., and Novello, David P., eds. Clean Air Act Handbook, 2nd ed. Chicago: American Bar Association, 2004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ‘‘Technology Transfer Network: National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).’’ http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ (accessed April 3, 2009).

National Association of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife National Association of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife (551 U.S. 644) is a landmark 5–4 decision issued on June 25, 2007, by the U.S. Supreme Court. It reversed a Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling (420 F. 3d 946 (2005)) in favor of the Defenders of Wildlife that had challenged the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to transfer stormwater-discharge permitting authority under the Clean Water Act’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to the state of Arizona. Since homebuilders and developers need discharge permits before construction begins, the procedures to obtain and the issuance of such permits potentially impacts land development in Arizona, according to the EPA and the Home Builders Association. At the time, such permit transfers had been made in 44 other states as the Clear Water Act section 402(b) provides that the EPA shall approve a transfer application unless it determined that a state lacks adequate authority to perform the listed nine criteria. The Ninth Circuit’s rejection of the transfer was not due to a failure to meet the nine criteria. Rather, it ruled that, although the EPA had consulted with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the EPA had failed to ensure the protection of threatened and endangered species, as required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), 87 Stat. 884, as amended. Since the Supreme Court had not heard a case involving the Endangered Species Act in more than 10 years, the pending decision was of keen interest as it was expected to address to what extent federal agencies must comply with the ESA when implementing the CWA and whether the ESA has priority over other laws. The majority, Justices Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and Chief Justice Roberts, reversed the Ninth Circuit decision. Justice Samuel Alito, in writing the Court’s decision, determined that the nine criteria of the Clean Water Act (CWA) section 402(b) are exclusive and mandatory and not enlarged by the ESA. Thus, according to Justice Alito, ‘‘if the nine specified criteria are satisfied, the EPA does not have the discretion to deny a transfer application’’ (551 U.S. 661). The consultation requirement under ESA Section 7(a)(2) was determined not to be applicable because the EPA lacked discretion to make any decision other than the transfer; thus, the Supreme Court decision limited the ESA’s application.

520 | National Audubon Society

Justice John Paul Stevens began his dissent, in which he was joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, by stating the cases ‘‘present a problem of conflicting shalls’’ (551 U.S. 671) and opined that the majority was creating an exception to the ESA that ‘‘whittles away at Congress’ comprehensive effort to protect endangered species from the risk of extinction’’ (551 U.S. 671). Initially considered a victory for developers and for the Bush administration, the full impact of this Supreme Court decision will be determined by future applications by lower courts, congressional legislation, and Interior Department regulations (Lazarus, 2007). Rita Ormsby See also Endangered Species Act of 1973; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

References ‘‘Closely Divided U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Effort to Expand the Scope of the Endangered Species Act.’’ Issue Alert, June 27, 2007. http://www.nwhydro.org/resources/ litigation/docs/Van%20Ness%20Feldman%20Issue%20Alert_1.pdf (accessed April 3, 2010). Defenders of Wildlife v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 420 F. 3d 946 (9th Circ. 2005). ‘‘Endangered Species: NAHB Attorney Desiderio Discusses Oral Arguments in Supreme Court ESA Case.’’ Environment & Energy Daily, April 17, 2007. ‘‘EPA Faces Push to Seek High Court Review of Landmark Species Act Suit,’’ Environmental Policy Alert 23 (14) (July 5, 2006). Ginsberg, Beth S. et. al. ‘‘The Supreme Court Decides that the Endangered Species Act Does Not Trump the Clean Water Act.’’ Stoel Rivers LLP Endangered Species Act Law Alert, June 26, 2007. http://www.stoel.com/showalert.aspx?Show=2477 (accessed April 4, 2010). Lazarus, Richard. ‘‘Single Loss Sours Term for Greens.’’ Environmental Forum 24 (14) (September/October 2007). National Association of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 (2007). Pegg, J. R. ‘‘Supreme Court to Review Supremacy of Endangered Species Act.’’ Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News 35 (12) (January 15, 2007).

National Audubon Society Conservationist George Grinnell established the first Audubon Society in 1886, in order to fight plume hunting. The group was named after nineteenth-century illustrator John James Audubon, who authored Birds of America. This early organization was short-lived, shutting down in 1888. The National Audubon Society was founded in 1905 in New York City, with a broader mission of protecting bird species. The National Audubon Society has grown into a large, influential

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 | 521

environmental group. With its growth, its mission has expanded to broadly protect ecosystems and wildlife. From 1905 through the 1920s, the National Audubon Society was successful in achieving its early goals, benefitting in part from Progressive Era politics and conservationist politicians like Theodore Roosevelt. Beginning in the 1920s, the National Audubon Society began purchasing wetlands and other ecosystems as bird sanctuaries, open to the public for education and bird watching. After World War II, the group’s focus expanded to promote the dangers that DDT and other pesticides posed to bird species. During the 1960s and 1970s, the group worked to fight for the passage of the Endangered Species Act and Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. In 1969, the National Audubon Society established a second headquarters in Washington, D.C., allowing closer contact with federal policymakers. The National Audubon Society is a nonprofit organization, with approximately 550,000 members, and total 2006 revenues topping $116 million. Membership in the organization costs $20, providing subscribers benefits such as an Audubon magazine subscription and travel discounts. The group lobbies for environmental protection of birds, wildlife, and their ecosystems, including endangered species reform, climate change policy, Everglades restoration, and protection of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The organization also works to raise awareness of the value of bird species to humans by encouraging bird watching, coordinating the annual Christmas bird count, and promoting children’s educational programs. Melinda Mueller See also Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1947; National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

References Berry, Jeffrey M., and Clyde Wilcox. The Interest Group Society, 4th ed. New York: Pearson Longman, 2007. Bosso, Christopher J., and Deborah Lynn Guber. ‘‘Maintaining Presence: Environmental Advocacy and the Permanent Campaign.’’ In Environmental Policy: New Directions for the Twenty-First Century. Norman J. Vig and Michael E. Kraft, eds., 78–99. Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly, 2006. Layzer, Judith. The Environmental Case, 2nd ed. Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly, 2006. National Audubon Society, http://www.audubon.org.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 President Richard Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on January 1, 1970, as Public Law 91-90. The law focused on the establishment

522 | National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

of a U.S. national policy promoting the enhancement and protection of the environment, but perhaps more significantly, it established the requirement of environmental impact statements (EISs) for all major U.S. federal government actions. NEPA represents the first coordinated federal effort to employ a strategy for recognizing and preemptively responding to the potential environmental impacts of federal projects. It sets forth a paradigm for making choices that sustain and enhance the quality and richness of human and nonhuman life. NEPA has two sections or titles. Title I conveys its purpose, a declaration of environmental policy, and mandates the consistent use of environmental impact statements. Title II establishes the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) within the executive office of the president. Thus, NEPA included the establishment of two structural innovations in the federal government: the CEQ and the EIS process. The CEQ is a high-level reviewing and reporting agency, while EIS documentation is an information-gathering and organizing system for assessing and mitigating the environmental impacts of proposed federal projects. Historically, environmentalism has focused on specific issues, such as air quality or species loss, driven by environmental groups. NEPA, however, was not the product of a particular lobby or interest so much as a broad response to national interest. Public concern about environmental problems grew throughout the 1960s. The salience of nature and the planet’s health as a political issue was raised, and several natural crises further shifted attention to pollution and conservation issues. This public concern far preceded congressional or presidential perceptions regarding environmental degradation, and as a result, there was an attitude of crisis in the public realm that acted as the impetus for drastic rather than incremental policymaking. Several acts preceded NEPA, but all focused on specific issues. In other words, policies were very segmented rather than integrated and thus did not deal with the interconnected nature of the ecosystem. Between 1959 and 1965, there were several congressional attempts to address environmental policy in a more systematic way. None of these attempts, however, were successful. It was not until 1968 that comprehensive legislation began to take shape. The 1968 House-Senate Joint Environmental Colloquium held on July 17 helped to act as a springboard for the formation of integrated environmental policy. This was a seminal meeting between the Senate’s committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and the House of Representative’s Committee on Science and Astronautics. The committee was co-chaired by Senator Henry Jackson and Congressman George Miller. NEPA itself was first introduced to the Senate by Senator Jackson, chair of the committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, as Senate Bill 1075 (S 1075) on February 18, 1969. S 1075 was considered a ‘‘working paper’’ for a national policy on environmental management. Similar initiatives were under way in Congress under the leadership of Congressman John Dingell and his House Resolution

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 | 523

6750. At this point in the document’s development, however, neither the House nor Senate bills included an EIS provision. After several amendments and committee reports, the committee unanimously approved an amended version of S 1075 on June 18, 1969. It was then passed in full Senate on July 10, 1969, by a voice vote. Simultaneously, HR 6750 was submitted by Congressman Dingell as an amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act under the Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation subcommittee of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. HR 6750 was less comprehensive than NEPA but authorized the establishment of an executive council for the environment, which would discuss matters of environmental management and prepare an annual report. A compromise bill that included the requirements for investigative environmental findings was established as HR 12549. After much discussion, deliberation, and amendment, the bill was passed on July 11, 1969. The final form of NEPA combined both the S 1075 bill and the HR 12549 bill. Two notable pieces of language were removed before the compromised bill could pass: a provision allowing environmental health to all citizens as a right, and CEQ approval of unquantifiable environmental values. Following these alterations, the final bill was passed by voice vote in the Senate on December 20 and in the House on December 22. On January 1, 1970, President Nixon signed NEPA into law. NEPA accomplished four major goals. First, it was a declaration of comprehensive national policy for the environment. Next, it provided a new procedural tool for how federal agencies were to comply with the policy. Third, by establishing the CEQ, NEPA created an oversight mechanism to guide and supervise both the policy and its procedures. Finally, at the time of NEPA’s formulation, ecological studies were regarded as ‘‘second-class’’ science up to as late as the early 1960s. NEPA holds special importance because the policy goals and impact statement procedures reflect a desire to incorporate systems theory and, specifically, ecology into federal planning. Thus, ecological studies were deemed worthy of scientific attention. NEPA has been criticized for having substantial policy pronouncements with little practical effect. Agency administrators are left with considerable discretion as to precisely how to implement NEPA’s goals in their decision-making. As a result, there is often a considerable gulf between the intentions of NEPA’s creators, the environmental decisions of federal agencies, and court rulings or implementation of NEPA’s requirements. In short, NEPA has largely become a procedural requirement that does not mandate the mitigation of damage to the environment as long as reports are filed and hearings held. Nonetheless, the required notice and comment provisions of NEPA have shed light on and sometimes stopped projects that in the past would have proceeded with little notice.

524 | National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

National Environmental Policy Act (1969) 42 U.S.C. 4321 and 4331–4335 An act to establish a national policy for the environment, to provide for the establishment of a Council on Environmental Quality, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Environmental Policy Act of 1969’’. Purpose: Sec. 2. The purposes of this Act are: To declare a national place which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the logical systems and natural resources important to the nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality. Title I Declaration of National Environmental Policy Sec. 101. (a) The Congress, recognizing the profound impact of man’s activity on the interrelations of all components of the natural environment, particularly the profound influences of population exploitation, and new and expanding technological advances and recognizing further the critical importance of restoring and maintaining environmental quality to the overall welfare and development of man, declares that it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government, in cooperation with State and local governments, and other concerned public and private organizations, to use all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans. (b) In order to carry out the policy set forth in this Act, it is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of national policy, to improve and coordinate Federal plans, functions, programs, and resources to the end that the Nation may: (1) fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations: (2) assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings; (3) attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences; (4) preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual choice; (5) achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities; and (6) enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 | 525

(c) The Congress recognizes that each person should enjoy a healthful environment and that each person has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environment. Sec. 102. The Congress authorizes and directs that, to the fullest extent possible: (1) the policies, regulations, and public laws of the United States shall be interpreted and administered in accordance with the policies set forth in this Act, and (2) all agencies of the Federal Government shall: (A) utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decisionmaking which may have an impact on man’s environment: (B) identify and develop methods and procedures, in consultation with the Council on Environmental Quality established by title II of this Act, which will insure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values may be given appropriate consideration in decisionmaking along with economic and technical considerations; (C) include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on: (i) the environmental impact of the proposed action, (ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented (iii) alternatives to the proposed action, (iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and (v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented. Prior to making any detailed statement, the responsible Federal official shall consult with and obtain the comments of any Federal agency which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved. Copies of such statement and the comments and views of the appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, which are authorized to develop and enforce environmental standards, shall be made available to the President, the Council on Environmental Quality and to the public as provided by section 552 of title 5, United States Code, and shall accompany the proposal through the existing agency review processes; (D) study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources; (E) recognize the worldwide and long-range character of environmental problems and, where consistent with the foreign policy of the United States, lend appropriate support to initiatives, resolutions, and programs designed to maximize international cooperation in anticipating and preventing a decline in the quality of mankind’s world environment; (F) make available to States, counties, municipalities, institutions, and individuals, advice and information useful in restoring, maintaining, and enhancing the quality of the environment; (G) initiate and utilize ecological information in the planning and development of resource-oriented projects; and (H) assist the Council on Environmental Quality established by title II of this Act.

526 | National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 Sec. 103. All agencies of the Federal Government shall review their present statuary authority, administrative regulations, and current policies and procedures for the purpose of determining whether there are any deficiencies or inconsistencies therein which prohibit full compliance with the purposes and provisions of this Act and shall propose to the President not later than July 1, 1971, such measures as may be necessary to bring their authority and policies into conformity with the intent, purposes, and procedures set forth in this Act. Sec. 104. Nothing in Section 102 or 103 shall in any way affect the specific statutory obligations of any Federal agency (1) to comply with criteria or standards of environmental quality, (2) to coordinate or consult with any other Federal or State agency, or (3) to act, or refrain from acting contingent upon the recommendations or certification of any other Federal or State agency. Sec. 105. The policies and goals set forth in this Act are supplementary to those set forth in existing authorizations of Federal agencies. Title II Council on Environmental Quality Sec. 201. The President shall transmit to the Congress annually beginning July 1, 1970 an Environmental Quality Report (hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘report’’) which shall set forth (1) the status and condition of the major natural, manmade, or altered environmental classes of the Nation, including, but not limited to, the air, the aquatic, including marine, estuarine, and fresh water, and the terrestrial environment, including, but not limited to, the forest, dryland, wetland, range, urban, suburban, and rural environment; (2) current and foreseeable trends in the quality, management and utilization of such environments and the effects of those trends on the social, economic, and other requirements of the Nation; (3) the adequacy of available natural resources for fulfilling human and economic requirements of the nation in the light of expected population pressures; (4) a review of the programs and activities (including regulatory activities) of the Federal Government, the State and local governments, and nongovernmental entities or individuals, with particular reference to their effect on the environment and on the conservation, development and utilization of natural resources; and (5) a program for remedying the deficiencies of existing programs and activities, together with recommendations for legislation. Sec. 202. There is created in the Executive Office of the President a Council on Environmental Quality (hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Council’’). The Council shall be composed of three members who shall be appointed by the President to serve at his pleasure, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The President shall designate one of the members of the Council to serve as Chairman. Each member shall be a person who, as a result of his training, experience, and attainments, is exceptionally well qualified to analyze and interpret environmental trends and information of all kinds; to appraise programs and activities of the Federal Government in the light of the policy set forth in title I of this Act; to be conscious of and responsive to the scientific, economic, social, esthetic, and cultural needs and interests of the Nation; and to formulate and recommend national policies to promote the improvement of the quality of the environment. Sec. 203. The Council may employ such officers and employees as may be necessary to carry out its functions under this Act. In addition, the Council may employ and fix the compensation so such experts and consultants as may be necessary for the carrying

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 | 527 out of its functions under this Act, in accordance with section 3109 of title 5, United States Code (but without regard to the last sentence thereof). Sec. 204. It shall be the duty and function of the Council: (1) to assist and advise the President in the preparation of the Environmental Quality Report required by section 201; (2) to gather timely and authoritative information concerning the conditions and trends in the quality of the environment both current and prospective, to analyze and interpret such information for the purpose of determining whether such conditions and trends are interfering, or are likely to interfere, with the achievement of the policy set forth in title I of this Act, and to compile and submit to the President studies relating to such conditions and trends; (3) to review and appraise the various programs and activities of the Federal Government in the light of the policy set forth in title I of this Act for the purpose of determining the extent to which such programs and activities are contributing to the achievement of such policy, and to make recommendations to the President with respect thereto; (4) to develop and recommend to the President national policies to foster and promote the improvement of environmental quality to meet the conservation, social, economic, health, and other requirements and goals of the Nation; (5) to conduct investigations, studies, surveys, research, and analyses relating to ecological systems and environmental quality; (6) to document and define changes in the natural environment, including the plant and animal systems, and to accumulate necessary data and other information for a continuing analysis of these changes or trends and an interpretation of their underlying causes; (7) to report at least once each year to the President on the state and condition of the environment; and (8) to make and furnish such studies, reports thereon, and recommendations with respect to matters of policy and legislation as the President may request. Sec. 205. In exercising its powers, functions, and duties under this Act, the Council shall: (1) consult with the Citizens’ Advisory Committee on Environmental Quality established by Executive Order numbered 11472, dated May 29, 1969, and with such representatives of science, industry, agriculture, labor, conservation organizations, State and local governments and other groups, as it deems advisable; and (2) utilize, to the fullest extent possible, the services, facilities, and information (including statistical information) of public and private agencies and organizations, and individuals, in order that duplication of effort and expense may be avoided, thus assuring that the Council’s activities will not unnecessarily overlap or conflict with similar activities authorized by law and performed by established agencies. Sec. 206. Members of the Council shall serve full time and the Chairman of the Council shall be compensated at the rate provided for Level II of the Executive Schedule Pay Rates (5 U.S.C. 5313). The other members of the Council shall be compensated at the rate provided for Level IV or the Executive Schedule Pay Rates (5 U.S.C. 5313).

528 | National Estuary Program Sec. 207. There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the provisions of this Act not to exceed $300,000 for fiscal year 1970, $700,000 for fiscal year 1971, and $1,000,000 for each fiscal year thereafter. Approved January 1, 1970.

NEPA was the first environmental assessment requirement of its kind both in the United States and in the world. Since the passage of NEPA, more than 150 countries around the world have followed its example and added similar reporting requirements to their laws. Heather M. Farley and Zachary A. Smith See also Environmental Impact Statements; Nixon, Richard

References CEQ 1997 Annual Report (on information technology and NEPA), http://ceq.eh.doe .gov/nepa/reports/1997/index.html. CEQ regulations, http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ceq/toc_ceq.htm. Lindstrom, Matthew J., and Zachary A. Smith. The National Environmental Policy Act: Judicial Misconstruction, Legislative Indifference, & Executive Neglect. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2001. NEPA Net, http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/nepanet.htm. NEPA Task Force, http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/ntf/. White House CEQ, http://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/index.html.

National Estuary Program The National Estuary Program was established by Congress in 1987 in the Clean Water Act Section 320. The objective is ‘‘protection of public water supplies and the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and allows recreational activities, in and on water, requires that control of point and nonpoint sources of pollution to supplement existing controls of pollution’’ (Environmental Protection Agency). An estuary is a partially enclosed body of water along the coast where fresh water from rivers and streams meets and mixes with salt water from the ocean. They are critical to the health of coastal environments. Approximately one-half of the U.S. population lives within 200 miles of a coastline. Ecological stresses on estuaries from development and pollution result in unsafe drinking water, beach and shellfish bed closings, unproductive fisheries, and loss of habitats. To implement the program, the Environmental Protection Agency created National Estuary Programs (NEPs). There are currently 28 NEPs. These are

National Estuary Program | 529

adaptive, collaborative, community-based programs for the protection, restoration, and maintenance of a healthy estuary. Members include federal, state, and local governments, nonprofit organizations, community groups, industries, academia, and the general public. Governors nominate estuaries within their state to the EPA for inclusion. Since estuaries are defined by ecological boundaries, not political ones, some programs cross state lines. NEPs look at the sources and effects of upstream and localized pollution. They then develop a Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan to address specific issues for that estuary. Those vary depending on the needs of the estuary and the ability of the NEP to raise the funds needed to implement the plan. Since 2000, they are credited with restoring more than 1 million acres of estuary habitat. While some funding for NEPs is provided by the Environmental Protection Agency, most of the money must be generated by the participants. NEPs average $10 from local sources for every $1 from the EPA. Since 2003, NEPs have raised over $4 billion for their projects. The nonprofit Association of National Estuary Programs (ANEP) was created in 1996 as a way for NEPs to share information, coordinate the national agenda, and achieve support and communication among the NEPs. ANEP listed 144 ongoing projects in 2010, covering a wide range of actions. The 28 NEPs are Casco Bay, Maine; New Hampshire Estuaries, New Hampshire; Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts; Massachusetts Bays, Massachusetts; Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island; Long Island Sound, Connecticut and New York; Peconic Bay, New York; New York-New Jersey Harbor, New York and New Jersey; Barnegat Bay, New Jersey; Delaware Estuary, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey; Delaware Inland Bays, Delaware; Maryland Coastal Bays, Maryland; Albemarle-Pamlico Sound, North Carolina; Charlotte Harbor, Florida; Indian River Lagoon, Florida; Sarasota Bay, Florida; Tampa Bay, Florida; Mobile Bay, Alabama; Barataria-Terrebonne Complex, Louisiana; Corpus Christi Bay, Texas; Galveston Bay, Texas; Morro Bay, California; San Francisco Bay, California; Santa Monica Bay, California; Tillamook Bay, Oregon; Lower Columbia River, Oregon and Washington; Puget Sound, Washington; and San Juan Bay, Puerto Rico. Fran Severn See also Biodiversity; Clean Water Act of 1972; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

References Association of aboutanep.htm.

National

Estuary

Programs,

http://www.nationalestuaries.org/

530 | National Forest Management Act of 1976 Bearden, David. CRS Report for Congress. ‘‘97-644, National Estuary Program: A Collaborative Approach to Protecting Coastal Water Quality.’’ http://ncseonline.org/NLE/ CRSreports/Wetlands/wet-9.cfm. Clean Water Act Section 320, ‘‘Community-Based Watershed Management: Lessons from the National Estuary Program.’’ http://www.epa.gov/neplessons/documents/AppendixA.pdf. Conservancy of Southwest Florida, http://www.conservancy.org/Page.aspx?pid=474. National Council for Science and the Environment, http://NCSEonling.org. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Estuary Program, http://www.epa.gov/nep/.

National Forest Management Act of 1976 The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) is a U.S. federal law that expands and amends the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974. The NFMA required the Forest Service (the administrative body of the National Forest System) to undertake long-term planning and management at the national, regional, and local level in regard to public forest lands and sought to balance the use of forests as a commodity with the desire to preserve natural resources (Jones and Callaway, 1995). Passage of the act was motivated by a number of factors, including the concerns of conservationists, growing interest in economic sustainability and renewability, increased attention given to the recreational use of forests, and court rulings that curtailed certain types of logging and lumber industry practices. One of the act’s primary political goals was providing the Forest Service and lumber industry a means to respond to a federal circuit court ruling that banned clear-cutting (the practice of deforesting a majority of a plot of land) on a large portion of national forests. In the case of Izaak Walton League v. Butz, Secretary of Agriculture of the United States (1975), the Izaak Walton League successfully brought a lawsuit to stop clear-cutting in West Virginia’s Monongahela National Forest on the basis that the Organic Act of 1897 (outlining the management of national forests) disallowed it. Subsequently, the administration, management, and regulation of National Forest lands were amended and redefined by the NFMA the following year. The act addresses deforestation, reforestation, and the regulation of timber removal, and mandates public awareness. According to the act’s findings, the U.S. Congress acknowledged that the management of renewable resources was ‘‘highly complex,’’ but declared that the public interest is served by the assessment and development of renewable resources and a comprehensive program that is periodically reviewed and updated (NMFA, 1976). Furthermore, this program was to be based on a ‘‘comprehensive assessment’’ of supply and demand and uses of renewable resources. The act also identified ‘‘recycled timber product materials’’ as essential to extending ‘‘timber and timber fiber resources.’’ Notably, the NFMA places responsibility on the Forest

National Forest Management Act of 1976 | 531

Service to assist owners of nonfederal lands (including state and local governments and private citizens) and take the lead in maintaining and conserving natural resources. The act’s initial sections require the Secretary of Agriculture to report on the efficient use of wood and wood product. Section Three requires the report to include information on the fiber potential in the National Forest System, the potential to increase the use of wood product waste and recycling, and the efficiency of milling and other wood fiber production. The Secretary of Agriculture will then use this information to enact a program to encourage the adopting of technologies that improve wood fiber utilization. The NFMA also makes provisions for reforestation. Section Four commissions a report on lands in the National Forest System that have been denuded or deforested and an estimate of reforestation costs. Corresponding with the submission of the president’s annual budget, the Secretary of Agriculture must report on all National Forest lands that have been overcut and are identified as in need of reforestation. The Secretary of Agriculture must also present an estimate of the cost of reforestation including seed, preparing sites, growing seedlings, planting trees, thinning and removing deleterious growth and underbrush, building fences to exclude livestock and adverse wildlife, etc. Beginning in 1977, the NFMA would appropriate $200 million annually to meet these costs. Another renewability provision, Section Eight of the act, explains the conditions that are appropriate for the construction of roads. Unless determined as necessary in the forest development road system plan, any road construction ‘‘shall be designed with the goal of reestablishing vegetative cover’’ in disturbed areas within 10 years of the project’s termination. Section Six of the act mandates public participation in land management policies and requires that the general public in the vicinity of affected areas have access to any plan three months before its final adoption. During this threemonth period, participation would be invited through meetings or other processes that stimulate discussion. Notably, this section also creates a committee of scientists who are not employees of the Forest Service to give advice and counsel on proposed guidelines and procedures. The committee would provide an interdisciplinary perspective, and the committee’s views were required to be released to the public as part of Section Six’s disclosure policy. The decision to create a committee independent of the Forest Service would both add scientific credibility to the final decisions and serve to address the concerns of environmental leaders who believed that the Forest Service was overly sympathetic to resourcedevelopment projects (Davis, 2008). Sections Thirteen through Sixteen of the NFMA were new additions. In these sections, Congress sought to regulate timber removal in an environmentally conscious (yet flexible) manner, further incorporate public opinion, and ensure that future court rulings would not invalidate the NFMA or the Renewable Resources Planning Act

532 | National Forest Management Act of 1976

of 1974. Section Thirteen explains that the Secretary of Agriculture shall limit the amount of timber removed annually from each national forest to a quantity less than or equal to the quantity that can be removed ‘‘in perpetuity’’ on a sustainable basis. In other words, the annual amount of timber harvested could not exceed the amount that could be replenished. However, the Secretary of Agriculture may increase the amount sold in a particular forest for any decade beyond this threshold or allow harvesting beyond the annual limit so long as the limit for one decade is not exceeded. If the Secretary of Agriculture decides to increase the limit of timber harvested, the public in the vicinity of the forest must be made aware and allowed the opportunity to participate in planning. Section Fourteen reaffirms the right of federal, state, and local government and public involvement in the formulation of Forest Service projects. Finally, Section Sixteen specifies that any provision found to be invalid does not invalidate the rest of the text. The final sections of the act conform existing law to the Renewable Resources Planning Act and its new amendments. Significant changes include regulations for the sale of National Forest System lands and the acquisition of new territory. The NFMA confirms the Secretary of Agriculture’s authority to sell land and land rights provided the government is compensated for its appraised value, the public is made aware, dependant communities are not adversely affected, and fair and open competition is allowed. The Secretary of Agriculture is also given the authority to buy both deforested or denuded lands to ensure the navigability of bodies of water and purchase areas within the boundaries of national forests that the government does not own. While offering protection for natural resources, the NFMA also allows for and protects the rights and practices of the logging industry. For example, Section Six permits the amount of timber harvested in a particular forest to be increased provided that other measures such as reforestation, thinning, and tree improvement have also been implemented, the area’s topographical conditions will not be irreversibly damaged, the land can be restocked within five years of the harvest, and bodies of water are not seriously harmed. The act also stipulates that clear-cutting, seed tree cutting, and shelterwood cutting may be used under specific circumstances. Clear-cutting is allowed when ‘‘it is determined to be the optimum method’’ and meets the objective of an area’s land management plan. Clear-cutting and other types of harvesting also must be practiced in such a way as to blend with the natural terrain, be carried out in a manner that is consistent with the protection of the area’s soil, watershed, wildlife, and appearance, and have an established size limit for harvesting. However, the act also provides the opportunity to exceed established limits under these criterions after public notification and review by a designated Forest Service officer. From the time that the NFMA was implemented, its provisions were controversial. Though environmentalists were pleased with greater transparency and the

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 | 533

opportunity to voice their opinions, Forest Service administrators and some members of Congress became frustrated with the act’s planning process, and by the mid-1980s, the Forest Service was spending more than $200 million annually for planning (Davis, 2008). Consequently, legislation to alter the NFMA to address financial and environmental concerns has been passed many times. These include planning rules passed in 1982, 2000, 2005, and 2008. Nevertheless, the NFMA represents the last major piece of legislation that comprehensively altered how National Forest lands are managed (Jones and Callaway, 1995). Elijah Mendoza See also Sustainable Forestry; U.S. Forest Service

References Davis, C. ‘‘The Politics of Regulatory Change: National Forest Management Planning Under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.’’ Review of Policy Research 25 (1) (2008): 37–51. Jones, Elise S., and Paul Mohai. ‘‘Is the Forest Service Keeping Up With the Times?: Interest Group and Forestry School Perceptions of Post-NFMA Change in the United States Forest Service.’’ Policy Studies Journal 23 (2) (1995): 351–371. Jones, Elise S., and Will Callaway. ‘‘Neutral Bystander, Intrusive Micromanager, or Useful Catalyst?: The Role of Congress in Effecting Change Within the Forest Service.’’ Policy Studies Journal 23 (2) (1995): 337–350. Mohai, P. ‘‘The Forest Service Since the National Forest Management Act: Assessing Bureaucratic Response to External and Internal Forces for Change.’’ Policy Studies Journal 23 (2) (1995): 247–252. Pub. L. No. 94-588, 90 Stat. 2949 (National Forest Management Act of 1976). As amended at 16 U.S.C. 1600–1987.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA; 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) was signed into law by President Lyndon Baines Johnson on October 15, 1966. The legislation was intended to preserve historic sites by facilitating partnerships between federal, state, and local governmental entities, organizations interested in historical preservation, and other interested stakeholders. The act’s provisions applied only to projects that required federal funding or approval. Although the initial legislation was the most far-reaching federal effort to preserve historic sites at the time, its initial impact was mostly targeted toward urban areas. Since its initial passage, the NHPA has been amended more than 20 times. The amendments have broadened the scope of the legislation to include the preservation of archaeological sites and the inclusion of federally recognized Native American groups to the decision-making process.

534 | National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

In the aftermath of World War II, the United States began to radically reshape the countryside. In its zeal to modernize the country’s infrastructure, notable historic sites were being demolished without any consideration as to their value to future generations. A major cause of the damage could be traced to the National Interstate and Defense Highway Act of 1956, which created the interstate highway system. During the 1960s, the Urban Renewal Program resulted in the decimation of historically relevant buildings as localities struggled to economically stimulate their inner-city communities. Although it was never an intention of any of the pieces of legislation in the post-World War II era to destroy the country’s history, the unintended consequences of the modernization projects was appalling to many, including President Johnson’s wife, Claudia ‘‘Lady Bird’’ Johnson. She helped coordinate an anthology, entitled With Heritage So Rich, which served as an influential public awareness document that galvanized both the U.S. Congress and the president to action. The recommendations that concluded the anthology, which included the creation of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the establishment of the National Register of Historic Places, helped shape the subsequent legislation. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is one of the four primary components of the NHPA. Its membership is comprised of representatives from both the public and private sectors. Their primary responsibility is to provide advice to both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government on issues related to historic preservation. The body is also responsible for developing policies and guidelines that impact historical preservation efforts in the United States and associated territories. The NHPA also authorized the creation of a State Historic Preservation Office within each state. Additionally, preservation offices were also established in other areas overseen by the U.S. government, such as Puerto Rico. The respective State Historic Preservation Offices are responsible for drafting and implementing their state’s historic preservation plan. The offices are also tasked with providing technical assistance to citizens interested in topics related to historical preservation. Each office also serves as the intermediary between the state and the National Parks Service (NPS) on the placement of properties on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). It is the state office that nominates and evaluates candidates for potential inclusion on the register. The NRHP is the most recognized aspect of the NHPA. Before a site, building, or area can be added to the NRHP, is must first be vetted to determine whether it meets the criteria required to be preserved. Is the property historic, meaning at the minimum being at least 50 years old? Was the property associated with notable individuals or events? Is there any significance evident in the architectural features associated with a site or building? Can a locale be used for historical study in the future? If deemed worthy of inclusion on the NRHP, the property

National Marine Fisheries Service | 535

becomes eligible for applicable grants, loans, and tax incentives. It is important to note that inclusion on the NRHP does not mean that a property on the list is immune from being altered. It just means that before any changes can be made, they have to be approved through the Section 106 process. Section 106 is the most controversial element of the NHPA, as it mandates a review of any projects that impact archaeological sites or properties listed on the NRHP. If a particular project does not harm a historical site in any way, it must be certified in writing by the agency or company applying to do the work. If a planned project will affect a site in any manner, the agency or company must then work with the local State Historical Preservation Office to craft a plan that is, if possible, minimally invasive. That plan is then shared with all potential stakeholders, who are empowered to comment on the plan and suggest improvements. In theory, Section 106 provides a means to allow for a balanced view of preservation and modernization needs. Many critics charge that in practice, Section 106 has created a weapon for people to ensure that no properties on the NRHP will ever be altered, even when the alterations benefit the community at large. In essence, it is a bureaucratic nightmare that unfairly penalizes private companies. John R. Burch Jr. See also Johnson; Lyndon; Urban Renewal

References Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. ‘‘National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as Amended Through 2000 [With Annotations].’’ http://www.achp.gov/NHPA.pdf (accessed March 27, 2010). King, Thomas F. Cultural Resource Laws & Practice, 3rd ed. New York: AltaMira Press, 2008. Stipe, Robert E. A Richer Heritage: Historic Preservation in the Twenty-First Century. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003. Tyler, Norman, et al. Historic Preservation: An Introduction to Its History, Principles, and Practice. New York: W.W. Norton, 2009. U.S. Conference of Mayors, Special Committee on Historic Preservation. With Heritage So Rich: A Report. New York: Random House, 1966.

National Marine Fisheries Service As part of the federal government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) manages fish and marine mammal populations in the Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States, which extends 200 miles offshore. With six regional offices and eight regional councils covering New England, the Mid-Atlantic, the South Atlantic, the Caribbean, the

536 | National Marine Fisheries Service

Gulf of Mexico, the Pacific, the North Pacific, and the Western Pacific, the NMFS is charged with assessing and maintaining fish and marine mammal stocks in the United States under the guidelines provided by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the Endangered Species Act. In so doing, the NMFS must address the often-competing interests of environmentalists with both recreational and commercial fishermen (NOAA, 2010). The NMFS was founded largely in response to unregulated overfishing by Japanese and Soviet ‘‘factory’’ ships, which could legally fish within three miles of the coasts of the United States with no cap quotas. These floating fish-processing plants had decimated many fish populations, especially cod off the coast of New England. In 1966, the federal government extended its jurisdiction over American waters to 12 miles offshore and established the Stratton Commission to suggest measures to improve the administration of this vital national resource (Cooper, 2002). Based on the recommendations of the Stratton Commission, Congress established the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 1970, which included a National Marine Fisheries Service that was responsible for preserving healthy fish stocks and rebuilding those populations under threat by overfishing. In 1972, Congress passed the Marine Mammal Protection Act to protect the dolphin, porpoise, and whale populations, and in 1976, it passed the Fishery Conservation and Management Act, better known as the Magnuson-Stevens Act, to assist the domestic fishing industry by restricting foreign access to fish populations in U.S. waters (Cooper, 2002). The Magnuson-Stevens Act gave states jurisdiction over waters lying three miles or less off of their shores while greatly expanding the waters under federal jurisdiction to those lying up to 200 miles offshore, what Ronald Reagan would dub the ‘‘the exclusive economic zone’’ or EEZ in 1983 (Cooper, 2002). In 1994, an amendment to the Marine Mammal Protection Act required the NMFS to reduce the number of ‘‘incidental takes’’ in which dolphins or whales are accidently injured or killed by netting meant for fishing. Under this act, the NMFS is responsible for conducting surveys of marine mammal populations with the help of ‘‘take-reduction teams,’’ which explore ways to reduce the number of incidental takes for specific populations (GAO, 2008). In 1996, the NMFS took on additional responsibilities under the Sustainable Fisheries Act, which stipulates that fish stocks must not be reduced to less than a third of their original ‘‘virgin biomass’’ and, where they have been so reduced, that measures be taken within a decade to raise stocks to sustainable numbers (Safina, 2009). In 2008, the Commerce Department imposed strict catch limits after the NMFS reported that 41 U.S. fish stocks were being overfished (Zeller, 2008). Unfortunately, the Magnuson-Stevens Act has simply given the U.S. fishing industry the opportunity to overfish without foreign competition, with many populations no better off than they were prior to the passage of the act (Cooper, 2002). The NMFS has faced numerous lawsuits for failing to reduce bycatch, in

National Mining Association | 537

which unwanted fish are caught and usually killed alongside desired species (Cooper, 2002). The NMFS has also been criticized for being overly generous to the fishing industry in allowing it to overfish for a good decade in certain areas before ordering a stop so that populations can be rebuilt (Safina, 2009). The Government Accounting Office (GAO) has recently questioned the effectiveness of the NMFS in its enforcement of the Marine Mammal Protection Act because of its reliance on dated information regarding population sizes when calculating the effects of incidental takes. NMFS has blamed a lack of adequate funding for its failure to compile the data needed to fully comply with enforcement of the act. The GAO also found that the NMFS does not have a comprehensive strategy for assessing the effectiveness of take-reduction plans and implementing regulations that have been implemented (GAO, 2008). Under the vestiges of the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, the NMFS officially oversees 902 fish populations but has only fully assessed a fraction of this number (Cooper, 2002), leading many environmentalists to hope that an informed fishing industry can be persuaded to become willing partners in this critical effort. Philip Swan See also Endangered Species Act of 1973; Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972

References Cooper, M. H. ‘‘Threatened Fisheries.’’ CQ Researcher 12 (August 2, 2002). http:// library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2002080200 (accessed April 1, 2010). NOAA: National Marine Fisheries Service. ‘‘About National Marine Fisheries Service.’’ http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aboutus.htm (accessed April 1, 2010). Safina, C. ‘‘A Future for U.S. Fisheries.’’ Issues in Science & Technology 25 (2009): 43–46. U.S. General Accounting Office. ‘‘National Marine Fisheries Service: Improvements Are Needed in the Federal Process Used to Protect Marine Mammals from Commercial Fishing.’’ U.S. Government Printing Office, 2008. Zeller, S. ‘‘Catch Limits Give Fish a Break.’’ CQ Weekly Online (October 6, 2008). http://library.cqpress.com/cqweekly/weeklyreport110-000002970577 (accessed March 31, 2010).

National Mining Association The National Mining Association (NMA) is a nonprofit trade organization that represents the interests of the U.S. mining industry. Its membership includes coal and metal producers, industrial and agricultural mineral producers, and state mining associations. Mining equipment manufacturers, mining supply companies, mineral processors, engineering firms, mining consultants, financial institutions,

538 | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

and other businesses that provide goods and services to this industry also belong to the association. Its mission is to build political support for the mining industry and to inform the public about the industry’s practices and its contribution to the economy and national security. The NMA was formed in 1995 with the merger of the American Mining Congress and the National Coal Association, which were both established national organizations in the mining industry. The former association was founded in 1897, while the latter was created in 1917. The two organizations joined to increase the effectiveness of their influence on public policies that are made at the federal level (Schmitt, 1994). Since its inception, the NMA has built and maintained a strong voice on behalf of its members. It provides testimony before Congress and various federal agencies on such issues as mineral policy, mining process, environmental protection, land access, energy, and work safety. It also represents the mining industry in legal proceedings related to mining issues. The NMA spends millions of dollars each year on lobbying efforts to advocate the industry’s positions on legislation that affects its current or future needs (Eggen, 2010). Additionally, it donates money to political candidates through its political action committees known as CoalPAC and MinePAC. The NMA is run by a board of directors. In 2008, the board selected Hal Quinn, who previously served as legal counsel, to be the NMA president and CEO. The NMA headquarters is in Washington, D.C. Its Web site is http://www.nma.org. Susan Echaore-McDavid See also American Mining Congress; Coal Mining

References Eggen, Dan. ‘‘Mining Interests Are Heavily Invested in Capitol Hill.’’ Washington Post, April 8, 2010. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/07/ AR2010040704707.html (accessed April 8, 2010). National Mining Association. ‘‘About NMA.’’ http://www.nma.org/about/ (accessed April 7, 2010). Schmitt, Bill. ‘‘AMC Plans Merger with NCA; Details of the Agreement Still Need to Be Worked Out.’’ American Metal Market, September 21, 1994. http://find.galegroup .com/ (accessed April 7, 2010). SourceWatch. ‘‘National Mining Association.’’ http://www.sourcewatch.org/index .php?title=National_Mining_Association (accessed April 7, 2010).

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is a federal government agency within the U.S. Department of Commerce. NOAA’s roots were

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | 539

established in 1807 with the development of the Coast and Geodetic Survey, the first scientific agency in the United States. NOAA itself wasn’t established until 1970, when several of the oldest federal government agencies—the Coast and Geodetic Survey, the Weather Bureau, and the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries— came together (NOAA, ‘‘History’’). NOAA now encompasses six major organizations, including the National Environment Satellite, Data, and Information Service; the National Marine Fisheries Service; the National Ocean Service; the National Weather Service; the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research; and the Office of Program Planning and Integration (NOAA, ‘‘Organizations’’). The overarching mission of the agency is ‘‘to understand and predict changes in Earth’s environment and conserve and manage coastal and marine resources to meet our Nation’s economic, social, and environmental needs’’ (NOAA, ‘‘About Us’’). The many services and products provided by NOAA are used by millions of citizens every day, likely without them even being aware of it. Research done by NOAA is used in important decision-making processes, and the implications of this research play an important role in the economics and environmental issues concerning some of the natural resources our nation so greatly depends on. NOAA also plays a very direct role in our everyday lives, by forecasting local weather and broadcasting severe weather alerts when necessary, among other important responsibilities. The services and products of NOAA focus on the following topic areas: weather, oceans, fisheries, charting, satellites, climate, and coasts (NOAA). Weather The National Weather Service operates from 10 national centers, 122 weather forecast offices, and 13 forecast centers, which are utilized to provide local and regional forecasts, and also broadcasts emergency alerts for severe storms, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, extreme heat, winter storms, fire threats, tsunamis, and solar flares. The weather services provided by NOAA are used by marine, space, and aviation interests and weather- and climate-sensitive industries in the United States. These industries alone account for roughly one-third of the nation’s GDP (NOAA, ‘‘Weather’’). Ocean NOAA has the responsibility to manage, protect, and preserve resources in coastal and deep ocean waters covering approximately 3.5 million square miles. The state of the ocean and its resources are of significant importance because of the many jobs (one in six) in the United States that are marine related, and the large part (one-third) of the U.S. GNP that is derived from coastal areas. The National Ocean Service operates in four general areas: Monitoring and Understanding, Exploration and Research, Stewardship, and Education. The many responsibilities and services provided by the National Ocean Service are used to

540 | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

‘‘promote safe navigation, support coastal communities, sustain marine ecosystems, and mitigate coastal hazards’’ (NOAA, ‘‘Ocean’’). Fisheries NOAA is the main federal agency responsible for managing, conserving, and protecting the nation’s living marine resources. NOAA works within numerous acts, like the Endangered Species Act, to ensure healthy fisheries. Federally managed fisheries are an important source of food, employment, and recreation, and also provide specific social benefits for communities that have traditionally relied on fishing as their main income source and base their cultural identity around this practice. Multiple services and programs within NOAA work together in order to protect and maintain the health of our nation’s fisheries (NOAA, ‘‘Fisheries’’). Charting and Geodesy In order to manage waterborne cargo traded overseas, the Office of the Coast Survey and the Office of Marine and Aviation Operations have the responsibility of ensuring the functioning of the maritime commerce system by providing accurate and current charts and maps of our nation’s 3.4 million square nautical miles that are a part of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. NOAA produces these charts and maps with survey ships that scan the seafloor, calculating water depth data and identifying navigational hazards (NOAA, ‘‘Charting’’). The National Geodetic Survey established the National Spatial Reference System, a grid that provides the basis for mapping and charting, ‘‘all air, land and sea transportation and communications,’’ and for numerous engineering and scientific applications (NOAA, ‘‘Charting’’). Satellites NOAA’s satellites are vital in providing important, potentially life-saving information, including providing weather images, analyzing coastal waters, relaying emergency beacons, tracking tornadoes, and tracking tropical storms and hurricanes. NOAA’s satellites also provide data on ocean temperatures and monitor coral reefs, harmful algal blooms, volcanic ash, and fires. Aside from Earth imaging, satellites also relay distress signals from boats, airplanes, or isolated areas, and monitor space and solar flare conditions. Apart from its own satellites, NOAA also oversees commercial satellites by issuing licenses for their operation and promoting these commercial satellites for the benefit of the nation’s economy (NOAA, ‘‘Satellites’’). Climate Data and research done by NOAA have provided important and reliable information about weather patterns and climate change, including climate change data

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | 541

for use by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization of some of the most prominent climate change scientists whose work on climate change research has been highly recognized and even earned its scientists the Nobel Peace Prize (NOAA, ‘‘Climate’’). Due to the increasing severity of climate change and a demand for climate information products and services, the Department of Commerce and NOAA proposed the implementation of the NOAA Climate Service in February 2010. The service would expand on the work already done by NOAA’s established climate change scientists to continue to deliver accessible, substantial climate science (Environment News Service, 2010). Coast The United States contains more than 95,000 miles of shoreline that are often a part of relatively sensitive, diverse ecosystems that are also popular areas for commercial and housing developments. In order to protect our nation’s coastal resources, NOAA’s Coastal Zone Management Program operates to sustain the health of these coastal areas. There are numerous industries that rely on the coast—recreation, tourism, and fisheries, among others—and consequently, preservation and restoration of coastal areas is not only important in an environmental sense, but also in an economic and social sense (NOAA, ‘‘Coast’’). The extent of NOAA’s work is by no means limited to the above areas and programs. There are many programs and initiatives within each branch of the agency. The above is simply an overview of some of the most significant services provided by NOAA. Shannon Conk See also Coastal Barrier Resources Act; Coastal Zone Management Act; Commercial Fishing; National Marine Fisheries Service; Overfishing

References Environment News Service. ‘‘Obama Administration Creates New National Climate Service.’’ http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2010/2010-02-12-092.html. NOAA. ‘‘About Us.’’ http://www.noaa.gov/about-noaa.html (accessed April 10, 2010). NOAA. ‘‘Charting and Geodesy.’’ http://www.noaa.gov/charts.html (accessed April 10, 2010). NOAA. ‘‘Climate.’’ http://www.noaa.gov/climate.html (accessed April 10, 2010). NOAA. ‘‘Coasts.’’ http://www.noaa.gov/coasts.html (accessed April 10, 2010). NOAA. ‘‘Fisheries.’’ http://www.noaa.gov/fisheries.html (accessed April 10, 2010). NOAA. ‘‘History.’’ http://www.history.noaa.gov/ (accessed April 11, 2010). NOAA. ‘‘Ocean.’’ http://www.noaa.gov/ocean.html (accessed April 10, 2010). NOAA. ‘‘Organizations.’’ http://www.noaa.gov/organizations.html (accessed April 10, 2010).

542 | National Park Service NOAA. ‘‘Satellites.’’ http://www.noaa.gov/satellites.html (accessed April 10, 2010). NOAA. ‘‘Weather.’’ http://www.noaa.gov/wx.html (accessed April 10, 2010).

National Park Service The United States was the first nation to create a system of national parks, the National Park Service (NPS). Yellowstone National Park, the world’s first such park, was created in 1872. In 1916, Congress passed the Organic Act of the National Park Service, creating the National Park Service to administer the nation’s national parks. This system now administers more than 83 million acres of parkland, wilderness, recreation areas, and historic sites. Congress first acted to protect important natural areas at Hot Springs, Arkansas, and Yosemite Valley in California. In 1832, the Hot Springs Reservation was set aside to preserve its thermal springs. In 1864, Congress granted federal land to the state of California to protect Yosemite Valley (in 1906, it was reincorporated into the new Yosemite National Park). When Congress authorized Yellowstone National Park in 1872, it set a precedent for the establishment of modern national parks by the federal government. Congress added 14 new national parks between 1872 and 1916, including Sequoia, Yosemite, Crater Lake, Glacier, and Zion. These initial parks were created for various reasons. The establishment of Yellowstone was supported by individuals who wanted to protect the natural beauty from private encroachment as well as from the Northern Pacific Railroad, which saw the park as a tourist destination. The creation of individual national parks is often the result of conservation efforts coupled with local political and economic influences. Several early national parks and monuments were later deemed inappropriate for this designation and removed from the system. These included Mackinac National Park, which became a Michigan state park, and Sullys Hill National Park, which became a national wildlife refuge. In 1906, Congress passed the Antiquities Act. The Antiquities Act gave the president the authority to create national monuments to protect important areas from private development and removal of artifacts. The act gave the president broad powers to establish monuments and has been most frequently used to prevent exploitation of mineral or natural resources for commercial purposes. National monuments can be administered by the National Park Service, the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, or the Bureau of Land Management. This new power was used 18 times by President Theodore Roosevelt to create such monuments as Petrified Forest, Chaco Canyon, and Grand Canyon (later a national park). Since the creation of national monuments does not require congressional approval, this power has generated controversy when used to remove lands from potential development.

National Park Service | 543

By 1916, a diverse collection of national parks, monuments, and other sites was administered by a number of federal agencies, including the Army, Department of Agriculture, Department of the Interior, and other offices in Washington, D.C. Soldiers remained in Yellowstone until 1918. With so many agencies and their different missions operating parks, there was no consistent national policy on the management or use of these resources. Stephen T. Mather, a business leader from Chicago, and Frederick Law Olmsted, a renowned landscape architect, were among the key advocates of establishing a national park system. The Department of the Interior sponsored three conferences on national parks between 1911 and 1916. In addition to scientists, park managers, and government officials, these conferences were attended by representatives of railroads, the automobile industry, and other businesses seeking to benefit from the economic impact of an expanding network of parks. Efforts by Mather, Olmsted, and others led to the passage of the Organic Act in 1916. This act established the National Park Service and laid out a general mission for the agency. The mission focused on two primary purposes: (1) ‘‘to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein’’ and (2) ‘‘to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations’’ (National Park Service). The act also allowed for the development of accommodations and the leasing of concessions within parks. Despite its focus on conservation, the general language of the Organic Act established a tension between recreation and conservation that continues within the NPS. The park service was created as an agency within the Department of the Interior. The agency’s director is appointed by the Secretary of the Interior and reports to the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife. In addition to a headquarters in Washington, D.C., parks within the NPS are under the jurisdiction of seven regional offices. Under a decentralization plan from the 1950s, superintendents of national parks operate with a relatively high level of autonomy. The NPS is one of several federal agencies within the Department of the Interior charged with managing public land. Other agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Reclamation have missions that occasionally place them in conflict with the NPS. The proposed Echo Park Dam in Dinosaur National Monument highlighted policy differences with the Secretary of Interior and Bureau of Reclamation and led to the ouster of NPS director Newton Drury in 1951. At various times in its history, the NPS also has displayed a strong bureaucratic rivalry with the U.S. Forest Service (part of the Department of Agriculture). Following the creation of the National Park Service, Mather was named the agency’s first director. He and his assistant Horace Albright replaced politically appointed park superintendents and hired staff to fill the void left in some parks

544 | National Park Service

by the departure of troops who had acted as rangers. They set standards of operation for parks and organized the collection of existing parks into a system based on a utilitarian interpretation of the Organic Act. Although the Great Depression of the 1930s was a challenging period for the park service, New Deal economic recovery projects, including the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), resulted in development of many infrastructure projects, including roads, trails, campgrounds, and visitor facilities in parks throughout the NPS. Beginning with the start of World War II, the park service entered a period of neglect and decline that continued through the mid-1950s. Prior to the start of the war, in 1940, many scientific staff transferred to the Fish and Wildlife Service. In 1942, the CCC was eliminated as resources were shifted to the war effort. With the end of major public works projects, a huge drop in park visits and major cuts in staffing, the park service was reduced to a caretaker role during the war. Following the end of World War II, there were dramatic increases in the number of park visitors. Although parks experienced increased demands for facilities and services, there were few resources in postwar federal budgets. The strain placed by the growth in park visits from 17 million in 1940 to 56 million by 1955, combined with a lack of adequate funding from Congress, resulted in controversy about the decline of conditions in national parks. During this period, there were even calls for the closure of some parks to protect them from further deterioration (Sellars, 1997). When Conrad Wirth became director of the NPS in 1951, he inherited a system that was experiencing an enormous pressure to accommodate more visitors while struggling to operate with budgets that were stuck at approximately prewar levels. To counter this pattern of decline, in 1951, Wirth introduced Mission 66, a plan to expand park facilities, strengthen and increase NPS services, and accommodate significant increases in park visitors by the fiftieth anniversary of the park system in 1966. This ambitious effort resulted in additional funding and the construction of roads and facilities that allowed the NPS to accommodate more than 124 million visitors by 1966 (Carr, 2007). Because it involved significant construction in areas that were previously undeveloped, Mission 66 highlighted the conflict within the park service mission between preserving pristine parkland and providing access to the public for recreational activities. Controversies over development activities within parks during the Mission 66 era raised questions about the direction of the NPS. The Sierra Club and other conservation groups began to take active roles opposing development in national parks. There was concern that the NPS had focused on promoting recreation at the expense of preserving wilderness. The NPS did not actively support passage of the Wilderness Act of 1964. This act expressly prohibited development of park facilities in wilderness areas and was seen, in part, as a reaction to Mission 66. In 1963, concerns about NPS policies led to the Leopold Report (and a

National Park Service | 545

second report by the National Academy of Sciences) calling for changes in NPS management policies with greater emphasis on ecological systems and the use of scientific information in management decisions. The Leopold Report, commissioned by Secretary of Interior Stewart Udall to examine wildlife-management practices, recommended that the NPS attempt to preserve or restore wilderness in the parks. Resistance in the NPS to implementing recommendations from both reports highlighted tensions within the agency over the dual elements in its mission of conservation and recreation. George B. Hartzog, who became director in 1963, sought to maintain the funding and growth momentum created by Mission 66. Many of Hartzog’s initiatives were included in a program, known as Parkscape U.S.A., which sought to continue the growth of the NPS. During his tenure as director, several new types of park units were created. These included national scenic riverways, national lakeshores, and national trails. These were followed and enhanced by passage of the National Trails System Act of 1968 and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. During this period, there was significant expansion in the number and size of national recreation areas within the NPS. Hartzog also sought to expand political support for the NPS within Congress by consciously seeking to place park units in every possible congressional district. In the late 1970s, there was dramatic expansion of national park acreage. An important piece of legislation authored by Phil Burton (D-CA) was the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978. The Act included $1.8 billion in spending for 150 park-related projects in more than 200 congressional districts and 44 states. It was called the ‘‘park barrel’’ bill since it was the first time park authorizations had been packaged in the same way as omnibus bills for road or water projects. A second landmark piece of conservation legislation during this period was the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). This act was intended to resolve conflicts over federal lands that originated at Alaska’s statehood. When Congress failed to act in a timely manner, President Carter created 15 new national monuments in Alaska under the Antiquities Act. When it finally passed, ANILCA included more than 43 million acres of national parkland. The 1980s marked the end of rapid expansion of the NPS. Budgets for land acquisition were drastically reduced, and the agency faced challenges over its management of lands, particularly in western states. The number of new national parks slowed dramatically after the passage of ANILCA, with just two new national parks created during Ronald Reagan’s presidency, none under George H. W. Bush, four under Bill Clinton, and two under George W. Bush. Of the parks created since 1980, all except the National Park of American Samoa either incorporated national monuments into new larger parks or redesignated national monuments to park status. During the Clinton presidency, the Antiquities Act was utilized to create more national monuments than under any other president; however, only three of those

546 | National Research Council

are administered by the NPS. In 1997, Robert Stanton became the first African American to serve as director of the NPS; he was succeeded as director in 2001 by Fran Mainella, the agency’s first female director. The National Park Service is frequently cited as one of the most popular and publicly respected federal agencies. As of 2009, the NPS oversees 391 areas of natural, historic, or recreational significance, 58 of which are designated as national parks by acts of Congress. Today the NPS faces challenges posed by a multibillion dollar backlog of maintenance needs, lagging staff morale, and encroaching development activities on the borders of some parks. Dan Wakelee See also Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act; Burton, Phillip; Channel Islands National Park; National Trails System Act; National Wilderness Preservation System; Sequoia National Park; U.S. Department of the Interior; Wilderness Act of 1964; Yosemite National Park

References Carr, Ethan. Mission 66: Modernism and the National Park Dilemma. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2007. Lowry, William R. The Capacity for Wonder: Preserving National Parks. Washington DC: The Brookings Institution, 1994. Mackintosh, Barry. ‘‘The National Park Service: A Brief History.’’ http://www.nps.gov/ history/history/hisnps/NPSHistory/briefhistory.htm (accessed January 11, 2009). National Park Service. ‘‘The National Park Service Organic Act.’’ http://www.nps.gov/ legacy/organic-act.htm (accessed January 11, 2009). Rettie, Dwight F. Our National Park System. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1995. Ridenour, James M. The National Parks Compromised: Pork Barrel Politics and America’s Treasures. Merrillville, IN: ICS Books, 1994. Rothman, Hal. America’s National Monuments: The Politics of Preservation. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1989. Sellars, R. W. Preserving Nature in the National Parks: A History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997. Wirth, Conrad L. Parks, Politics, and the People. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1980.

National Research Council The National Research Council (NRC), created by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in 1916, is a semi-public institution with a mission to ‘‘improve government decision-making and public policy, increase public education and understanding, and promote the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge in

National Research Council | 547

matters involving science, engineering, technology, and health’’ (NRC, 2010). The NRC advises government agencies on scientific issues by convening meetings of experts and preparing consensus reports. The NRC also manages and evaluates government research programs, pursues its own research programs, sponsors postdoctoral fellowships, and produces materials for educators and the public. The NRC was created to help the NAS meet the increased demand for scientific advisory services during World War I. NAS in turn had been created by an act of Congress in 1863, during the Civil War. The NAS and NRC, together with the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), founded in 1964, and the Institute of Medicine (IOM), founded in 1970, operate under the original 1863 NAS charter, and are collectively known as the National Academies. The NRC functions as the ‘‘operating arm’’ (Teich and Pace, 1986) of the NAS and NAE, and to an extent the IOM. Though created by the federal government, the National Academies are private, nonprofit institutions. They have the prestige to draw on the expertise of the nation’s top scientists, who participate in committee work without compensation (per the original NAS charter). Government agencies pay the incidental expenses of the research programs they request NRC to undertake. The NRC has conducted research and published authoritative reports on a wide variety of environmental topics, including energy efficiency, resource management, ecosystem health, sustainable development, climate science, biotechnology, nanotechnology, nuclear technologies, and toxicology. The National Academies strive to maintain a reputation of being independent, apolitical, and authoritative. Nevertheless, the work includes a human element, as described in Stephen Hilgartner (2005). At least one accusation of bias and lack of transparency has been made from the left (Boffey, 1975). The movement of climate change skepticism on the right, while demonizing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has so far refrained from making the National Academies a major target; in one well-publicized instance, skeptics even tried to appropriate the academies’ prestige by mimicking the format and layout of an NAS scholarly publication (Hertsgaard, 2006). Brent Ranalli See also Energy-Efficient Labeling; Nuclear Energy Policy; Sustainable Development

References Boffey, Phillip M. The Brain Bank of America: An Inquiry into the Politics of Science. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975. Hertsgaard, Mark. ‘‘While Washington Slept.’’ Vanity Fair, May 2006. Hilgartner, Stephen. Science on Stage: Expert Advice as Public Drama. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. National Research Council. http://sites.nationalacademies.org/NRC/index.htm (accessed April 13, 2010).

548 | National Trails System Act Teich, Albert H., and Jill H. Pace. Science and Technology in the USA. Harlow, UK: Longman Group, 1986.

National Trails System Act President Lyndon Johnson signed the National Trails System Act into law on October 2, 1968. The act created the National Trails System, a network of hiking and multiple-use trails protected and administered according to jurisdiction by either the National Park Service or the National Forest Service. Private organizations had advocated with limited success for the protection of Vermont’s Long Trail, the Appalachian Trail, and other regional trails since the nineteenth and early twentieth century. The 1968 act came during a period of renewed environmental awareness and interest in outdoor recreation, especially walking, hiking, and backpacking. Twenty-first-century government trail conservation has focused on corridor acquisition, especially in rapidly suburbanizing metropolitan regions. The act specifies four categories of trails: (1) National Scenic Trails are continuous, primarily non-motorized trails, 100 miles or longer, that provide

Secretary of Interior Stewart Udall, left, points to a map during ceremony on October 2, 1968 in the White House in Washington. President Lyndon Johnson signed four bills to conserve national resources. The bills created Redwoods National Park, North Cascades National Park, a system of national trails, and the National System of Wild and Scenic Rivers. At right are Johnson with Lady Bird Johnson, Senator Henry M. Jackson, D-WA, Chairman of the Senate Interior Committee, and Senator Thomas Kuchel, R-CA, right. (AP/Wide World Photos)

National Wilderness Preservation System | 549

outstanding recreational opportunities. The 1968 Act approved the Appalachian National Scenic Trail and the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail as the first two trails in the system. (2) National Historic Trails traverse routes of prehistoric and historic importance. Congress must approve National Scenic and National Historic Trails. (3) National Recreation Trails are located near urban areas and are typically regional or local trails. The Secretary of the Interior or Agriculture can add a Recreation Trail to the system. (4) Connecting trails and side trails provide important links to longer trails. In 2009, the National Trails System included 8 National Scenic Trails, 18 National Historic Trails, more than 1,000 National Recreation Trails, and 2 side or connecting trails (National Trails System Act). Silas Chamberlin See also Conservation

References Cordes, Kathleen. America’s National Historic Trails. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1999. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. Trails for America: Report on the Nationwide Trail Study. Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1966. Foster, Charles. The Appalachian National Scenic Trail: A Time To Be Bold. Harpers Ferry, WV: Appalachian Trail Conference, 1987. U.S. Congress. ‘‘National Trails System Act.’’ P.L. 90-543 as amended through P.L. 111-11. 2009.

National Wilderness Preservation System The lands designated by Congress as wilderness areas combine to form the National Wilderness Preservation System, which includes a total of 103,438,972 acres. When the Wilderness Act was passed, it required all four land agencies to examine their holdings and make recommendations as to which areas might qualify as wilderness areas. Most of these tracts were then voted on for inclusion into the National Wilderness Preservation System; some are so controversial that a vote has not yet been taken. Just because an agency recommends an area as an addition to the system does not mean that Congress will approve it. Many recommended areas have been caught up in bureaucratic red tape in a legislative system that often considers the issue a low priority. In addition, the political sensitivity of some areas makes adding them to the system difficult. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, for example, has 8 million acres of wilderness designated, but an additional 11,285,922 acres within the refuge is not classified as wilderness because there is debate as to which is more important to the good of the nation: preserving the entire area, or extracting its oil deposits.

550 | National Wildlife Federation

Any lands that are added to federal agencies in the future may also be reviewed, and additional areas can be reviewed if a member of Congress appeals for a study. Private, state, or local lands can be added to the system only if they are first acquired by the federal government and placed under the jurisdiction of one of the four land agencies. Each individual agency is responsible for managing the wilderness areas within its jurisdiction. Kenneth A. Rosenberg

National Wildlife Federation The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) is a nongovernmental organization dedicated to the mission of ‘‘inspiring Americans to protect wildlife for our children’s future’’ (National Wildlife Federation, ‘‘Our Mission’’). The organization works to promote the conservation of wildlife through education and by trying to influence both state and federal public policy decisions. With four million members, the NWF is the largest environmental group in the United States. It also has 47 state affiliates (National Wildlife Federation, ‘‘History and Heritage’’). The NWF was founded in 1936 by Jay Norwood ‘‘Ding’’ Darling, an outdoor enthusiast, cartoonist, and conservationist. The original name of the organization was the General Wildlife Federation (Frankland, 2002). At this time, there was no national organization to promote the conservation work that needed to be done within the United States. Darling saw the General Wildlife Federation as a way to unite conservationists across the country in order to gain more political strength. He recognized that organization and size were key components to his goal of attaining congressional action in favor of wildlife conservation (National Wildlife Federation, ‘‘History and Heritage’’). Today, the NWF is continuing to support conservation efforts from a grassroots strategy that is unique among conservation groups. The organization emphasizes the importance of education. The NWF magazines circulate to 1.8 million people, it issues an annual Environmental Quality Index, it coordinates an annual bald eagle count, and is actively involved in lobbying government (Longe, 2003). The current focus of the organization has turned to three major areas. The NWF has put major emphasis on global climate change and is working to pass a cap on carbon legislation. The NWF also works to educate people on how to reduce their carbon footprint. Another area of concern for the organization is educating children and reintroducing them to nature through the ‘‘Be Out There’’ campaign and Ranger Rick children’s magazine. The NWF is also focused on conserving ecosystems and natural habitats in order to protect native wildlife. Kelsey Thorkelson

Natural Resources Defense Council | 551 See also Endangered Species Act of 1973; U.S. National Wildlife Refuge System

References Frankland, E. G. ‘‘National Wildlife Federation.’’ International Encyclopedia of Environmental Politics. London: Routledge, 2002. Longe, J. L. ‘‘National Wildlife Federation.’’ Environmental Encyclopedia, 3rd ed., vol. 2. M. Bortman, P. Brimblecombe, and M. Cunningham, eds. Detroit: Gale, 2003, 960–961. National Wildlife Federation. ‘‘Our History and Heritage.’’ http://www.nwf.org/About/ History-and-Heritage.aspx (accessed April 9, 2010). National Wildlife Federation. ‘‘Our Mission.’’ http://www.nwf.org/About/Our-Mission .aspx (accessed April 9, 2010).

Natural Resources Defense Council The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is a nonprofit national environmental advocacy organization geared toward safeguarding the Earth and its inhabitants as well as restoring the quality of the Earth’s land, air, and water. Environmental awareness began taking shape in the United States during the 1960s and 1970s; the establishment of the NRDC in 1970 was timely. During the same period, additional environmental-awareness organizations formed, including Friends of the Earth (1968) and the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund (1971). In an effort to protest the abuse of the environment and to promote awareness, 1970 marked the beginning of Earth Day. Programs within the NRDC include a focus on air, energy, health, international issues, land, nuclear, urban, and water and oceans. Priorities within the programs include curbing global warming, moving America beyond oil, saving wild land across the Americas, reviving the oceans, decreasing the use of toxic chemicals, and accelerating the greening of China. Members of the NRDC publish various texts promoting policy solutions, such as OnEarth magazine and online newsletters and blogs (all available on the NRDC’s Web site). NRDC staffers include attorneys, scientists, policy analysts, and educators, all of whom work toward protecting the environment and public health. Staff members present testimony before Congress in order to promote legislation geared toward the NRDC’s mission. Members of the NRDC encourage individuals to become activists by contacting decision-makers and voicing support for various local, state, and federal legislation geared toward the NRDC’s mission. Michele Lockhart See also Earth Day; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

552 | Nelson, Gaylord Anton

References Adler, Jonathan H. Environmentalism at the Crossroads: Green Activism in America. Washington DC: Capital Research Center, 1985. Natural Resources Defense Council. OnEarth. http://www.nrdc.org/ (accessed January 7, 2009).

Nelson, Gaylord Anton Gaylord Nelson, the founder of Earth Day, was a Democratic governor and a threeterm senator from Wisconsin before becoming counselor to the Wilderness Society, where he worked until his death at age 89 in 2005. Nelson co-sponsored the 1964 federal Wilderness Act and sponsored or co-sponsored laws that protected the Appalachian Trail and wild and scenic rivers, banned the pesticide DDT, supported fuel efficiency standards for motor vehicles, and assisted efforts to control strip-mining. He was also a consumer advocate. For his environmental leadership, Nelson received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Bill Clinton in 1995. Born June 4, 1916, in Clear Lake, Wisconsin, Nelson spent his youth exploring the nearby marshes and shorelines (Nelson, 2002, p. 59). After earning degrees from San Jose State College and the University of Wisconsin Law School,

Gaylord Nelson talks to reporters during the Celebrating Community-based Conservation 2001 conference on April 21, 2001, in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. Nelson, the former governor and U.S. senator from Wisconsin who founded Earth Day and helped spawn the modern environmental movement, died Sunday, July 3, 2005. He was 89. (AP/Wide World Photos)

New Urbanism | 553

Nelson’s World War II service included action on Okinawa. As Wisconsin’s governor in 1958, he began the Outdoor Recreation Acquisition Program, funded by a penny tax on packs of cigarettes (Nelson, Campbell, and Wozniak, 2002, p. 83). Following his election to the U.S. Senate in 1962, Nelson was known for his candor and independence, as he was one of three senators who opposed an appropriation that expanded U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War; he remained a war critic (Schneider, 2005). After viewing a California oil spill, Nelson adapted the idea of Vietnam War ‘‘teach-ins’’ to a nationwide grassroots demonstration on behalf of the environment, soon termed ‘‘Earth Day.’’ He selected April 22, 1970, which the John Birch Society criticized for 20 years, because, unknown to the senator, it marked the centennial of Vladimir Lenin’s birth (Nelson, Campbell, and Wozniak, 2002, 7–8). While more than 20 million Americans participated in the first Earth Day, Nelson had special gratitude for the 1970s generation of young people who ‘‘applied the energy, enthusiasm and idealism’’ for the day, which he envisioned as the catalyst for a continuing national drive to clean up the environment (Nelson, Campbell, and Wozniak, 2002, pp. 11, 159). Nelson died of cardiopulmonary disease on July 3, 2005, at his Kensington, Maryland, home and was survived by his wife Carrie, a daughter, two sons, and three grandchildren. The Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the Wilderness Society, and environmental awards named in Nelson’s honor continue his legacy. Rita Ormsby See also Earth Day; Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968; Wilderness Act of 1964; Wilderness Society

References Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies. ‘‘Gaylord Nelson and Earth Day: The Making of the Modern Environmental Movement.’’ http://www.nelsonearthday.net/ (accessed May 7, 2010). Nelson, Gaylord, Susan Campbell, and Paul Wozniak. Beyond Earth Day: Fulfilling the Promise. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 2002. Schneider, Keith. ‘‘Gaylord A. Nelson, Founder of Earth Day, is Dead at 89.’’ New York Times, July 4, 2005. Sullivan, Patricia. ‘‘Progressive Wis. Senator Was Founder of Earth Day.’’ Washington Post, July 4, 2005. The Wilderness Society. ‘‘Gaylord Nelson Founder of Earth Day, Counselor to the Wilderness Society.’’ http://wilderness.org/content/gaylord-nelson (accessed May 8, 2010).

New Urbanism New urbanism is a movement in urban design and planning that seeks to solve the problems emerging from the design of urban sprawl, which was based on

554 | New Urbanism

Residents of Harbor Town in Memphis eat lunch Thursday, March 22, 2001, at a newlyopened restaurant. Harbor Town, a residential community on Mud Island at the foot of Downtown Memphis on the Mississippi River, has grown up over the past decade. (AP/ Wide World Photos)

extending city boundaries and designing new suburban areas. It began in the 1990s primarily as a reaction to the social problems of the modernist approach in designing American cities based on a capitalist economy. Early twentieth-century cities in the United States were compact, consisting of mixed-use neighborhoods. Modernist planners and urban designers added suburban communities near these compact cities in order to accommodate larger populations. It necessitated the widespread use of cars in American cities. The choice of this system of fragmentation caused a lack of centers within the cities, which then weakened the communication among the people living there. As a result of this design and planning approach, which was supported by governmental policies, auto-oriented commercial buildings occupied the landscape surrounding the cities and caused a stratification in suburban areas based on socioeconomic status. Moving richer people to these new suburbs caused the inner-city neighborhoods to gradually turn to ghettoes and places for poor people. The earliest signals of disagreement with such policies appeared in the second decade of the twentieth century in John Nolen’s Garden City Vision for Florida, which discussed the

New Urbanism | 555

social and political issues raised from the ‘‘cursed’’ modern cities. As a solution, he initiated the planning of new towns based on the garden-city ideal. Later, his ideas were praised by writers such as Lewis Mumford, who criticized the ‘‘antiurban’’ development of postwar America. The first signs of what was later called new urbanism appeared in early 1960s in The Death and Life of American Cities, in which Janet Jacob condemned modernist planning theories and discussed the reasons behind the failure of the modernists’ approach in the design of great cities in the United States. Jacobs pointed to the lack of safety, the concentration of population, the dwindling levels of racial and economic diversity, and the car-oriented approach (instead of humanoriented approach that motivates people to walk within neighborhoods, interact, and encourages local businesses) as the major problems of the urban design at that time. Solutions to these problems, which result from single-use housing projects, car-dependent access roads, and isolated commercial centers, built the foundations of new urbanism. After the publication of Jacob’s book, planners and designers in the 1970s and 1980s tried to develop such ideas. The movement crystallized when the new urbanism emerged in the1990s. In 1993, the pioneer architects and town planners of this movement, Andres Duany, Elizabeth PlaterZyberk, Peter Calthorpe, Daniel Solomon, Stefanos Polyzoides, and Elizabeth Moule, founded the Congress for the New Urbanism to develop their ideas and promote new solutions. New urbanists believe that adding new cities and suburbs was a serious threat to natural resources as well as to the identity of existing cities. They try to increase quality of life through increasing connectivity, mixed-use diversity, and mixed housing, with an emphasis on high-quality architecture and urban design in terms of aesthetics and human comfort. To reach their aims, they employ principles of traditional neighborhood design by adding public centers and increasing the density of urban fabric by adding more buildings, residences, shops, and services, and by enhancing the pedestrian routes and the network of high-quality trains that connect cities, towns, and neighborhoods together. Through reductions in the use of fuel, stimulation of local production, and by using ecology-friendly technologies, they try to fight environmental crises such as global warming, climate change, rising oil costs, traffic congestion, and cultural problems in suburban areas. Taking cues from the failure of modernists, new urbanists reject adding sprawling suburbs to metropolitan areas because they increase pressure for transportation in freeways and parking in downtown, while competing with the core city in creating jobs and encouraging retail activities. Instead, they suggest that the best utilization of existing infrastructure and the best opportunity to preserve our open space is through infill and redevelopment of the inner city. This approach to urban design provides a higher quality of life through the creation of better places to live, work, and play. New urban planning creates less

556 | Nixon, Richard

traffic congestion, reduces driving, and promotes a healthier lifestyle with more walking and less stress. Such cities offer the opportunity for its residents to interact with others in public areas such as parks and pedestrian routes, fostering a true sense of community. With the creation of new businesses in these cities, the poor are able to acquire employment, and recreation and services for the elderly and children can be provided without the need for a car or someone to drive them. New urbanists believe that streets should work as communal rooms and passages and the blocks should reflect the individual life of the building while serving as part of the public realm of the city, and buildings should be placed in the city and designed based on their types, not their functions. Since the emergence of new urbanism, more than 600 towns, villages, and neighborhoods are planned or are under construction in the United States. In addition, hundreds of small-scale new urban infill projects are being restored in cities. Some examples are Seaside and Haile Village Center in Florida, Legacy Town Center in Texas, the Peninsula Neighborhood in Iowa, Cherry Hill Village in Michigan, Harbor Town in Tennessee, Orenco Station in Oregon, and the Cotton District in Mississippi. Mohammad Gharipour See also Suburban Sprawl; Urban Planning

References Duany, Andres, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, and Jeff Speck. Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream. New York: North Point Press, 2000. Dutton, John A. New American Urbanism: Re-forming the Suburban Metropolis. Milan: Skira, 2001. Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage Books, 1992. Katz, Peter. The New Urbanism: Toward an Architecture of Community. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994. Talen, Emily. New Urbanism and American Planning: The Conflict of Cultures. New York: Routledge, 2005.

Nixon, Richard Richard Nixon wore dress shoes to the beach. Despite his Southern California background, he never developed an affinity for the outdoor life. Even so, his environmental record is unequal to any other U.S. president. With establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on December 2, 1970, nearly a decade of rising environmental awareness culminated. The decades of widespread and highly noticeable pollution were behind the United States. The first stimulus for change was publication of Rachel Carson’s

Nixon, Richard | 557

President Richard M. Nixon signs a legislation placing new curbs on smog from auto exhaust in the White House in Washington, D.C., December 31, 1974. Applauding are William D. Ruckelshaus, left, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, and Russel Train, chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality. The painting on the wall of the Roosevelt Room is a Remington of a charge by Teddy Roosevelt’s troops in the Spanish Civil War. (AP/Wide World Photos)

Silent Spring in 1962. This work was the first attack on the widespread and careless use of pesticides. It aroused public opinion as Carson expressed her alarm at the loss of bird species and caused readers to wonder how many people were dying of the same pesticide poisoning in their salads. Carson’s crusade attracted thousands, particularly after her death in 1964. Not only were pesticides despoiling the land, but pollution of the air and water was highly visible. Vietnam defoliation was another factor in pushing environmental awareness, what came to be called ‘‘ecology,’’ the science of the environment. The old conservation movement that began at the turn of the century faded as environmentalism rose. The new movement had the goal of reversing the decline of the environment due to overpopulation and industrialization. Environmentalists were everywhere—on television, in the United Nations, and in Congress. For many, the issue was greater than civil rights and Vietnam combined. In 1969, the oil spill off Santa Barbara, California, brought awareness of the environment to the forefront of public opinion. The Santa Barbara spill occurred

558 | Nixon, Richard

a week into Nixon’s administration, and Cleveland’s burning Cuyahoga River followed shortly thereafter. Nixon’s environmental legislation came between 1969 and 1971 as he sought to take moderate voters from the Democrats. Nixon had conservationists in his administration from even before his inaugural. His transition team included a task force on the environment and natural resources; it included 20 academics, conservationists, and business people led by Russell Train, head of the Conservation Foundation and a strong Republican. But these were conservationists, not environmentalists. Nixon initially asked John Ehrlichman and John Whitaker to make sure that the environment didn’t get him into trouble. Then came Santa Barbara and Los Angeles smog and young environmental activists, and the American public in the millions became aware. His Interior Secretary, Walter Hickel, and various staffers encouraged Nixon to take the Democrats’ game and identify the Republicans with environmental issues. His environmentalism was out of fear that Democrats would seize the issue to his disadvantage. The Nixon administration was dealing with a recession and the war, but Nixon found time in May 1969 to establish a cabinet-level Environmental Quality Council and a Citizens’ Advisory Committee on Environmental Quality, which critics labeled ceremonial bodies lacking significant power. Nixon responded in December 1969 by appointing a White House committee to look into the benefit of a separate environmental agency. Nixon already had Roy L. Ash, founder of Litton, examining the overall governmental organization. Democrats such as Henry Jackson were introducing environmental legislation, and Nixon did not want to be caught short. He anticipated Edmund Muskie as his 1972 foe, and Muskie had gained from his failed 1968 vice presidential run and would have an environmental plank in his 1972 platform. Muskie was also chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public works, a strong position for environmental activism and attention. To counter Muskie and Jackson, Nixon signed the National Environmental Protection Act of 1970 as well as laws on pesticides, coastal protection, endangered species, marine mammals, ocean dumping, clean air, and national parks. This legislation established modern U.S. environmental law, but best of all for Nixon, it allowed him to outmaneuver Muskie and Jackson and set himself up as a solid environmental candidate. While Nixon was considering governmental reorganization, the National Environmental Policy Act came across his desk. NEPA set national environmental policy compatible with productive use, to reduce environmental damage, to promote mankind’s health and welfare, and to improve understanding of ecological systems and natural resources. The act prescribed formation of a Council on Environmental Quality to advise the president and to review environmental impact statements, required of all federal agencies for projects with potential major environmental consequences. The need for environmental policy was one

Nixon, Richard | 559

of the few non-contentious matters in an era when public opinion was divided on almost everything. Nixon consented reluctantly then made a splash by signing the law on New Year’s Day, making environmental reform the first official act of the decade. He appointed Russell E. Train as chair of the CEQ. Train would later head the EPA. After NEPA, 1970 became a year of the environment, a turning-point year. First came the State of the Union address on January 22, followed on February 10 by a 37-point environmental program that emphasized stronger federal action on water and air pollution. His 37-point program also included controls over strip mining. A year of environmental activism culminated in the first Earth Day in 1970 and made Nixon aware that environmentalism was a good political issue. On April 22, 20 million Americans celebrated the first Earth Day with peaceful pro-environmental demonstrations. Sponsored by Senator Gaylord Nelson (D-WI) and Congressman Paul McCloskey (R-CA), the day was widely popular. Nixon anticipated the reaction and had spokespersons selling the administration’s record throughout the country at teach-ins. For Earth Day, he had agents through the country and staffers cleaning the Potomac for the television cameras but maintained a low profile himself. He didn’t want to be linked with the extremists. In fact, he ordered Interior Secretary Wally Hickel to back the Alaska pipeline in his Earth Day address. Ash issued his report on April 15, calling strongly for an independent agency to coordinate all of the new environmental initiatives. On July 9, Nixon sent Reorganization Plan No. 3 to Congress. He acknowledged his initial reluctance to establish the agency but said he had been convinced by the arguments that it would be inappropriate to put the new environmental protection effort under any of the current departments. For one, the departments had their own missions that would bias their government-wide decisions, and for another, the same potential mission conflict would cloud the necessary perception of objectivity in setting standards for the entire government. Thus, there had to be an ‘‘Environmental Protection Agency.’’ The EPA took components out of several cabinet departments—Interior, Agriculture, the Atomic Energy Commission, and Health, Education, and Welfare. The EPA’s coverage included not only air and water pollution, but also pesticide registration and radiation standards. The new EPA also had to bring under one roof the 5,650 people who had long been rivals in the various agencies. And Nixon mandated that the EPA combine all environmental issues as a unified whole, giving a systems approach to the war on pollution. The first EPA director was William Ruckelshaus. Nixon chose Ruckelshaus over George H. W. Bush to head EPA because of Bush’s oil ties and Ruckelshaus’ image as a strong environmental lawyer in Indiana. After confirmation, Ruckelshaus turned his attention to water pollution in Cleveland (where the Cuyahoga River was so polluted that it caught fire), Detroit, and Atlanta. The cities had six months to come into compliance or head to court.

560 | Nixon, Richard

Nixon’s first State of the Union address in January 1970 contained what he viewed as a moderate environmental program, one that would be attractive to the pro-capitalist environmentalists. That package included $10 billion over five years for cleaner water, a commitment to parks and open spaces, and tighter regulation of air pollution, including automobile emission standards. After that first message, Nixon proposed 36 separate pieces of environmental reform. At the end of the year, the Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 became law. The 1970 CAA was the most far reaching as well as most controversial anti-air pollution law on record. This act established national standards for air quality, new pollution, and hazardous emissions. Nixon signed the Clean Air Act reluctantly. He preferred a more business friendly law but recognized that he would have an overridden veto. The Clean Air Act was the result of competition between Nixon and Muskie for the title of ‘‘Mr. Clean’’ or ‘‘Mr. Environment,’’ which produced a stronger law than either could have won alone. Nixon refused to invite Muskie to the signing ceremony. The CAA required automobile emission reductions of 90 percent in hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide by 1975 and 90 percent in nitrogen oxides by 1976. The CAA also set the tone for federal-state relations, with the states getting a chance to make good-faith efforts but facing strict federal action if they failed to do so. When Union Carbide resisted an EPA mandate at Marietta, Ohio, the EPA won a compromise that gained the desired pollution-reduction plan without costing jobs, setting the desired tone of strong enforcement without loss of jobs. As well as establishing the EPA and signing clean air, pesticide control, marine mammal protection, endangered species, and many other environmental laws, Nixon created the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. He was first to make a major address on the environment and the first to call for international law of the sea. At all times, Nixon acted as a politician, not an environmentalist. Other environmental laws came due to Whitaker and Ehrlichman’s insider wheedling. They dealt with oil spills, pesticides, noise control, ocean dumping, and management of state coastal zones. Nixon’s two major failures include emission controls and water pollution. He did not back the EPA in its efforts to force the big four automakers—General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, and American Motors—to comply with emission-control standards, and he vetoed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments of 1972. Nevertheless, Nixon failed to attract environmentalists. Nixon’s America was riven by the Vietnam War and the civil rights movement, and Nixon chose the conservative side of the split. Part of that conservative movement was minimizing environmentalism, supporting industries that polluted, and putting an end to reform. Rather, they criticized him for doing too little. Democrats in Congress stole his show.

Nixon, Richard | 561

Nixon didn’t trust environmentalists anyway. Nixon approved of conservationists but disliked environmentalists, the ones he regarded as trying to return to a pre-industrial age. Nixon believed that backers of environmental laws were of two sorts. One group opposed private enterprise, while the other did not. The second group was closer to conservationists than to 1970s environmentalists. Nixon himself was willing to live with pollution if necessary to maintain a strong economy. His environmentalism was not inherent; it was something he supported when it was to his advantage and abandoned when not. For instance, he required that the EPA incorporate OMB cost-benefit analysis the same as any other agency. Environmentalists resented that. Nixon’s detractors argue that his environmental record was purely political, a successful ploy to co-opt the environmental movement and block potential rivals while pandering to business interests by blocking stronger environmental legislation. According to this view, when environmentalists failed to support Nixon despite his accomplishments, he abandoned them. At that time, the environmental movement was weak due to the energy crisis, business opposition, and a stagnant economy. Nixon proclaimed the first official Earth Week for April 1971. That summer, the New York Times lauded Nixon for becoming an environmentalist. But he was already moving away from his early environmentalism. The Republican results in the 1970 congressional races were disappointing. Nixon complained often that the environmentalists were not giving credit, and were in fact demanding more. In early 1971, he changed course, confiding to administration insiders and others that environmentalists wanted to undo civilization and that environmentalism was not a good aggressive political issue. Already lukewarm to environmentalism and environmentalists, Nixon turned hostile after environmentalists used his law, NEPA, to block an Atomic Energy Commission nuclear test off the Alaskan island of Amchitka. The administration took seven court decisions, including a 4–3 Supreme Court ruling, to block the environmentalists. Nixon was convinced that environmentalists were running wild. In 1972, he moved to the business/industry camp, where he was more at home anyway. Nixon practiced market environmentalism, requiring cost-benefit analysis, setting stringent fees and other market mechanisms rather than regulatory structure. He vetoed the Clean Water Act because he regarded it as a budget-buster and harmful to industry, anti-capitalist and anti-taxpayer. After Congress overrode his veto of water pollution control legislation, he sequestered the funds until the Supreme Court ordered them released. In 1973, in the middle of the energy crisis, he exempted some industries from the Clean Air Act. His vice president, Spiro Agnew, cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate that won exemption of the Alaska Pipeline project from NEPA review.

562 | North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1989

Nixon’s EPA was less focused than environmentalists wanted. He devolved waste management to the state and local levels. His Legacy of Parks program, which appeared to be a plan to buy open spaces but didn’t have any funding, actually was a ploy to give federal lands to cities and states. Nixon and Ford did create 642 new federal parks but removed federal resources from the bureaucrats and liberals. Once assured of reelection, Nixon reassigned or dismissed most of his administration’s environmental advocates. When Nixon replaced Ruckelshaus with Train, he gave the new secretary a mandate to balance the environment with other needs. In 1974, Nixon sought relaxation of environmental standards as the energy crisis persisted. He withdrew backing for land-use legislation that subsequently failed, although it seemed assured of passage when he backed it. He was prevented from implementing conservative policies only by Watergate. His environmentalism fell before the anti-war protests, industrialists who found his environmentalism distasteful and expensive, an economy and energy sector in crisis, and Watergate. On his final day in office, he vetoed the EPA budget as excessive. He abandoned the programs he enacted, only late in life returning to his environmental legacy. John H. Barnhill See also Alaska Oil Pipeline (1973); Bush, George H. W.; Clean Air Act of 1970; Conservation; Earth Day; Muskie, Edmund; Ruckelshaus, William

References EPA.gov. ‘‘Special Message from the President to the Congress About Reorganization Plans to Establish the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970.’’ http://www.epa.gov/history/org/origins/reorg.htm. Flippen, J. Brooks. Nixon and the Environment. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2000. Hoff, Joan. Nixon Era Center. ‘‘Re-evaluating Richard Nixon: His Domestic Achievements.’’ http://www.nixonera.com/library/domestic.asp (accessed April 2009). Lazarus, Richard J. The Making of Environmental Law. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004. Lewis, Jack. ‘‘The Birth of EPA.’’ EPA Journal, November 1985. http://www.epa.gov/ history/topics/epa/15c.htm Schulman, Bruce J. The Seventies. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2001.

North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1989 The North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1989 (16 U.S.C. 4401–4412) was enacted on December 13, 1989. Congress created this law to provide federal

North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1989 | 563

funds to wetlands conservation projects in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. It also serves as the system used to implement the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Conservation projects receive federal money only when they find outside sources of revenue. Private funds are matched on a one-to-one ratio. Groups that apply for funding through the act must go through a number of steps. First, they must find supporters who will match federal funds. No projects are accepted that do not have an outside financial supporter. The groups then bring their projects to the North American Wetlands Conservation Council, which is responsible for recommending projects to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. This commission, whose members include numerous leaders of government wildlife groups, decides which projects will receive federal funding. If the commission deems the project worthwhile, then federal funds are given. These come from numerous sources, but most notably from taxes derived from the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act. The type of grant given is different depending on where the conservation project is located. Large-scale grants are given to the United States, Canada, and Mexico, and are meant for long-term projects. These projects include wetlands management and habitat conservation. Smaller grants are given only to projects in the United States. These projects are smaller in scale and therefore require fewer funds. In both cases, federal money must be matched by an outside source. Since 1990, hundred of millions of dollars have been given by the federal government and matched by contributors. The North American Wetlands Conservation Act has been successful. Since project funds must be matched by outside partners, many groups have been included in wetlands stewardship. These groups became a huge source of revenue for wetlands conservation. Some wetlands supporters, though, worry that funding, from the outside and from the federal government, may be lacking during times of economic crisis. The act was reauthorized in 1994, 1998, 2002, and 2006. Each time, the amount of federal funds available to wetlands conservations projects has grown substantially. The sources of available government funding have expanded to include penalty fees from the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and from a tax on small gasoline engines. These resources will go to expand the number of wetlands conservations projects that have already been funded by the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, more than 1,800 in total. Chelsea Griffis See also Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937

References Messina, Michael G., and William H. Conner. Southern Forested Wetlands: Ecology and Management. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers, 1998.

564 | Northern Spotted Owl U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. ‘‘North American Wetlands Conservation Act.’’ http://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/Grants/NAWCA/index.shtm. World Wildlife Fund. Statewide Wetlands Strategies: A Guide to Protecting and Managing the Resource. Washington DC: Island Press, 1992.

Northern Spotted Owl When a species is listed, the ESA requires the secretary to identify its ‘‘critical habitat’’ for federal protection. This key idea would become one of the most difficult and contentious ones in the statute, yet Congress did not define it in 1973 and no method for its determination was offered. Instead, lawmakers simply wrote a broad injunction in section 7, addressed to all federal agencies, that they ‘‘insure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them do not jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or modification of habitat of such species which is determined by the Secretary . . . to be critical.’’ A 1978 amendment stipulated that ‘‘critical habitat’’ referred to geographical areas either currently occupied by animals or ones not yet occupied that are ‘‘essential to the conservation of the species.’’ A subsequent regulation further detailed the criteria for designating critical habitat. These include adequate space for normal behavior and population growth, availability of basic physiological requirements (food, water, air, light, and nutrients), cover or shelter, and areas for breeding, reproduction, and rearing of offspring. Ironically, this 1978 amendment also seriously hindered the listing process. It additionally demanded an accounting of the economic impact of designating an area as a critical habitat, and allowed the secretary to refrain from making this designation when economically beneficial to do so. Given the already existing statutory requirement, this had the practical effect of stifling the appearance of species on the list. Moreover, the economic analysis of critical habitat for numerous listing proposals proved so complicated that after two years, they were still not complete, and the ESA requires that proposals be withdrawn if the secretary has not made a final determination within that time. In 1982, these obstacles were overcome with an amendment allowing listing without simultaneous designation ‘‘if critical habitat is not then determinable.’’ Yet the failure to specify critical habitat, even though a species is listed, can have its own disadvantages for imperiled wildlife. The famous case of the northern spotted owl illustrates this problem well. Weighing a pound or two and standing about a foot and a half tall, this subspecies is found only in the old-growth spruce and fir forests fringing the western slope of the Cascade Mountains, from southwestern British Columbia down through Washington, Oregon, and into

Northern Spotted Owl | 565

A spotted-owl masked-demonstrator, stands outside in the near freezing weather after being denied access, along with other protesters, to U.S. Senator Mark Hatfield’s office in Portland, Oregon, Friday, December 8, 1995. The protesters urged Hatfield, to help them protect the remaining old-growth timber and endangered species. (AP/Wide World Photos)

northwestern California. The owl lives in the large conifers, lining its nesting holes with alpine debris, and feeding on squirrels, mice, and small birds. The big trees are also much prized by the logging industry. As timber cutting in the northwestern United States steadily continued through the 1950s, 1960s, and into the 1970s, scientists began to take notice of a marked decline in spotted owl numbers. The bird, they discovered, is an ‘‘indicator species,’’ a barometer of forest health: if it is thriving, so are the woods, and if the trees disappear, so does the northern spotted owl. Nonetheless, during the 1970s, the United States Forest Service (USFS) flatly rejected several proposals to save the Strix variety by setting aside tracts of land in several national forests. These are public lands where some three-quarters of the nation’s old-growth forests are found. In 1988, the USFS announced that nearly 1 million acres of northern spotted owl territory would be placed off-limits to loggers, but about 25 percent of the other 6 million or so acres of prime owl habitat would be logged after 15 years,

566 | Northern Spotted Owl

and 60 percent after 50 years. Both tree cutters and ‘‘tree huggers’’ were infuriated by this arrangement. Almost immediately, representatives of the timber industry, led by the Washington Contract Loggers Association, sued the USFS for banning logging in any part of the old-growth forest. At the same time, the Seattle Audubon Society and other environmental organizations sued for allowing logging in any spotted owl habitat. After first issuing a preliminary injunction ordering the USFS not to sell any timber to logging firms, the federal district court then removed the order when Congress attached a rider to a 1989 appropriations bill protecting the USFS from legal challenges to its utilization of spotted owl habitat. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the rider was unconstitutional. However, by this time—late 1990—nearly all the timber had already been sold, and in any case the Supreme Court subsequently determined that Congress had done nothing illegal (Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Society). Meanwhile, undaunted, environmental groups had been trying another tactic: bringing the ESA to bear on the controversy by forcing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to list the spotted owl as an endangered species, and thus secure the protections of the federal law. In January 1987, an environmental organization called Greenworld submitted a petition to list the bird as endangered throughout its range. The idea was reinforced that summer when 29 other such groups filed a second petition for listing the species as endangered in parts of Washington and Oregon and threatened elsewhere. The FWS rejected both petitions in December with the pronouncement that listing the owl was ‘‘not warranted at this time.’’ Greenworld and most of the other organizations—including the Seattle chapter and several other regional chapters of the Audubon Society, the Wilderness Society, and the Sierra Club—promptly sued Interior Secretary Donald Hodel and the FWS. The plaintiffs argued that the rejection of the petitions was ‘‘arbitrary and capricious.’’ Judge Thomas Zilly agreed with them. The FWS had failed to provide any explanation or justification for denying the listing, and had seemingly ignored the opinion of its own population biologist that ‘‘continued old-growth harvesting is likely to lead to the extinction of the [spotted owl] subspecies in the foreseeable future.’’ Judge Zilly did not order the FWS to list the species; instead, he gave the FWS 90 days to explain why it wasn’t (Northern Spotted Owl v. Hodel). Rather than attempt to do that, the FWS relented and listed the northern spotted owl as threatened in June 1990. Yet, still evincing a certain obstinacy, the FWS did not designate any critical habitat for the bird on the grounds that it was not ‘‘determinable,’’ an omission apparently allowed by the 1982 amendment. This prompted many of the same plaintiffs from Hodel to file suit again in the same federal district court. Secretary Manuel Lujan, now head of the Interior Department, and the FWS were named as defendants.

Northwest Forest Management Plan | 567

The plaintiffs complained that the ESA demands the identification of critical habitat for the owl concurrently with the listing unless compelling reasons for not doing so are provided, and no such reasons had been offered. Once more, Judge Zilly found for the environmental organizations. ‘‘The federal defendants,’’ he wrote, ‘‘fail to direct this Court to any portion of the administrative record which adequately explains or justifies the decision not to designate critical habitat for the northern spotted owl.’’ This time, however, the judge directed the FWS to produce a critical habitat plan within 60 days. This was done, and in early 1992, the appropriate areas were officially identified (Northern Spotted Owl v. Lujan). The FWS’s motivations for refusing in 1990 to designate habitat crucial for the spotted owl are not transparent, but this failure did allow logging on federal lands inhabited by the bird to continue for nearly two years after the listing. After all, Section 7 of the ESA appears to impose one duty upon every federal agency to avoid ‘‘the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat,’’ and a second duty to avoid actions ‘‘likely to jeopardize the continued existence’’ of any listed species. If no critical habitat is specified, the first obligation cannot be violated, and without that specification, it is not clear how merely cutting down trees imperils an entire species of owl. On the other hand, it is also unclear that Section 7 states completely distinct legal duties because detrimental impacts on critical habitat would seem necessarily to create a hazard to an endangered or threatened species. The FWS and Congress labored over this distinction with guidelines, regulations, and amendments through the 1970s and 1980s. Finally, when the FWS designated critical habitat for the spotted owl in 1992, as so ordered in Lujan, the agency produced what remains the current government understanding of these Section 7 duties. If some activity destroys or unfavorably alters the habitat of a species that is near to becoming extinct, both the critical habitat duty and the jeopardy duty have probably been violated. If a species has nearly recovered from its endangered or threatened status, such activity likely violates only the critical habitat duty. Jordon Curnutt References Northern Spotted Owl v. Hodel, 716 F. Supp. 479 (W.D. Wash. 1988). Northern Spotted Owl v. Lujan, 758 F. Supp. 621 (W.D. Wash. 1991). Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Society, 503 U.S. 429 (1992).

Northwest Forest Management Plan Initiated in 1993, the Northwest Forest Management Plan was signed on April 13, 1994. This overall vision for the Pacific Northwest covers 24.5 million acres in Oregon, Washington, and northern California. Its goal was to end the conflict

568 | Northwest Forest Management Plan

concerning the management of federal forestlands in the Pacific Northwest. By the signing of the memorandum of understanding, federal agencies were to work together with a system of standards and guidelines to improve U.S. environmental politics and policy. The history of the Northwest Forest Management Plan began in the early 1990s, when the northern spotted owls and the marbled murrelets were in danger of extinction. Lawsuits and injunctions abounded against the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management concerning its management practices of allowing the logging industry’s harvesting of old-growth timber that disrupted their natural habitat. In April 1993, President Clinton convened a conference in Portland, Oregon, to address the issue. Later that year, President Clinton announced the proposed plan as a comprehensive forestry, economic development, and agency coordination package. At the opening of a northern spotted owls trial in Seattle, President Clinton defended the balanced forest-management plan. In a press release on November 17, 1994, the Clinton administration reported that Assistant Attorney General Lois Schiffer was traveling to the U.S. District Court to present the opening argument for the federal government. Numerous environmental groups were seeking to end all logging, while the timber industry wanted to stop the Northwest Forest Management Plan in order to increase logging in federal forests. The environmental groups included the Seattle Audubon Society, the Forest Conservation Council, Save the West, the Native Forest Council, and the Sierra Club. The timber industry was challenging through the Northwest Forest Resources Council, a coalition of industry groups, and an association of counties in Oregon and California. The Clinton administration called for a balance between protecting forests and providing sustainable timber. The plan was to manage the entire ecosystem for people, for employment, and for all species of the environment. Unfortunately, citing laitigation costs, federal agencies have not been able to achieve the balance envisioned in the Northwest Forest Management Plan. In August 2002, during a tour of Squires Peak in southwest Oregon after a fire there burned more than 2,800 acres of that federal land, President George W. Bush committed to fulfill the promise of the Northwest Forest Management Plan as part of his Healthy Forests Initiative for Wildfire Prevention and Stronger Communities. The policy of the Bush administration was to work with elected officials, community leaders, and interest groups to identify ways to fulfill the goals and to resolve pending litigation. One of the assertions of President Bush’s Healthy Forest Initiative was to encourage the thinning of national forests by the timber industry to prevent catastrophic fires, such as the Squires Peak fire, as well as to improve the local economy by allowing more logging. The Healthy Forests Restoration Act became law in 2003.

Northwest Forest Management Plan | 569

According to President Bush (2003), the bill would speed up the environmental review process to act more quickly to restore the forest. He did not want the government’s intentions bogged down by regulations, expressing the view that lawsuits now would no longer delay essential forest health projects. Environmental groups fought President Bush’s Healthy Forests Initiative after it became law, seeing the easing of federal logging restrictions to promote thinning of the forests as the opening for the timber industry to harvest the older, larger trees with the higher economic values. They saw the law as a monetary windfall to the timber companies with no positive results in preventing forest fires. The scientific findings from the Northwest Forest Management Plan’s 10-year monitoring reports showed strengths and weaknesses. Positive results were the increases in cooperation among federal agencies and between research and management, yet the weakness in implementation within the federal government still exists. The 2004 findings saw different threats to the ecological systems from those that initiated the Northwest Forest Management Plan in 1994, while supporting many of its assumptions. They supported limited distribution of old-growth forests, especially in reserves, which are the best habitat for northern spotted owls and marbled murrelets. They found key watersheds in better condition, the forests productive, and the reserves large enough to withstand natural disturbances without losing function (U.S. Regional Ecosystem Office, 2008). With the benefit of new evidence after 10 years, timber flow from federal lands was no longer a key determinant in community well-being for all communities. Many found the harvest of older trees and the thinning of older forests inside reserves unacceptable. Using the northern spotted owls and the marbled murrelets as indicator species for older forest-dependent species was only partially successful. New threats show that providing sufficient habitat is necessary, but that habitat alone will not conserve the species (U.S. Regional Ecosystem Office, 2008). Now the challenge to implement the Northwest Forest Management Plan exists for President Barack Obama’s administration. On August 10, 2007, the Bureau of Land Management released a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Revision of the Resource Management Plans of the Western Oregon Bureau of Land Management Districts. On July 16, 2008, the Obama administration announced support for the revisions to the western Oregon plan from the Bush administration. The initial plan is seen as causing increased logging of old-growth forests by 400 percent, and would harm threatened salmon spawning streams, healthy old-growth forests, and habitats for rare birds, such as the threatened northern spotted owls and marbled murrelets. In October 2008, the Bureau of Land Management released a Final Environment Impact Statement and Proposed Resource Management Plans. They received 255 protests to address.

570 | Nuclear Energy Institute

The Obama administration filed a motion in U.S. District Court on March 31, 2009, stating it would not defend the Bush administration’s decision to decrease protection for northern spotted owls. The struggle continues in and out of court. The Northwest Forest Management Plan has been instrumental in providing direction and some improvements, but there needs to be better implementation and improved cooperation. Angie Mangino See also Bureau of Land Management; Bush, George W.; Clinton, William Jefferson; Northern Spotted Owl

References Jorgensen, Scott. ‘‘Obama Administration Motion May Mean WOPR Reevaluation.’’ Illinois Valley News, April 15, 2009. Pipkin, James. ‘‘The Northwest Forest Plan Revisited.’’ Washington DC: Pipkin Report, 1998. U.S. Regional Ecosystem Office. 2008. ‘‘Northwest Forest Plan.’’ http://www.reo.gov/. U.S. White House Archives. 2003. ‘‘President Bush Signs Healthy Forest Restoration Act.’’ http://www.georgebush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031203-4.

Nuclear Energy Institute The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is a multinational lobbying organization focused on the expansion of nuclear energy. The NEI was formed by a merger in 1994 between organizations in the nuclear industry: the Nuclear Utility Management and Resource Council, the U.S. Council for Energy Awareness, the American Nuclear Energy Council, and the nuclear division of the Edison Electric Institute. The NEI, organized by a 48-member board of directors from various nuclear-interested companies, is focused on advancing nuclear energy through five different frames. These five frames include nuclear energy in reference to environmental protection, nuclear power plant expansion, nuclear energy as a reliable and affordable energy supply, nuclear waste disposal options, and the importance of safety and security in nuclear power plants. Throughout its history, the NEI has continued these trends of nuclear advancement. Along with lobbying efforts, the NEI develops policies and provides information to policymakers, the public, and mass-media outlets. The NEI also offers public conferences nationally and internationally. These resources are substantial because they bring together the various interests of nuclear energy and provide a comprehensive update of nuclear industry interests. ‘‘The NEI Backgrounders’’ for example, include updates about new plant activities and performance levels,

Nuclear Energy Policy | 571

environmental issues, nuclear power plant security, radiation safety, plutonium disposition, and transportation of radioactive materials, along with other interests. Most recently, the NEI is marketing nuclear energy under increasingly environmental and consumer-friendly frames. In 2008, a new program called Clean Energy America (CEA) was launched and funded by the NEI. CEA is a program built to progress the discussions of nuclear energy to young nuclear energy experts. CEA has specifically emphasized nuclear energy in Wisconsin, urging bans on the construction of nuclear reactors to be lifted. Building on a similar environmental framework, the NEI launched a widespread advertising campaign in 2010. The campaign highlights nuclear energy’s zero greenhouse gas emissions and its economic benefits to consumers. Amy B. Hoeschen See also American Nuclear Society; Nuclear Energy Policy; Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Radioactive Waste

References Clean Energy America. ‘‘Home.’’ Alexandria, VA: Clean Energy America, 2008. http://www.cleanenergy4america.org (accessed April 9, 2010). Nuclear Energy Institute. ‘‘Key Issues.’’ Washington DC. http://www.nei.org (accessed April 10, 2010).

Nuclear Energy Policy The development of nuclear energy policy deserves special mention because it has been guided by the federal government since the initial discovery of nuclear power. The government has subsidized much of the research and development of nuclear technology, has controlled the allocation and distribution of nuclear fuel, and has established various programs for the storage of radioactive waste. In short, nuclear energy is unique because the entire fuel cycle is regulated by the federal government. This section describes the various nuclear energy policies that have been enacted. Nuclear power was first developed for military purposes. The detonation of atomic bombs in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 demonstrated the power of nuclear weapons to the world. The two bombs killed more than 340,000 people either from the direct blast of the bomb or from radiation exposure (Fehner and Hall, 1994, 11). The devastation not only changed the nature of international relations, it also demonstrated the necessity for government control of nuclear power. In order to promote peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to ensure that international control over nuclear energy was maintained, the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission (UNAEC) was created in 1946.

572 | Nuclear Energy Policy

With domestic nuclear policy, the United States sought to maintain control over its atomic energy monopoly. In 1946, President Truman signed the Atomic Energy Act. This bill created two government agencies, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (JCAE). The AEC was given ownership of all nuclear materials and reactors in the United States. It acted as a regulatory agency for radioactive materials, granting licenses to facilities generating, using, and researching nuclear energy. The JCAE was established as a congressional information and watchdog agency to oversee the nuclear activities of the AEC. In 1954, the United States sought to enhance development of the nuclear power industry. The 1954 Atomic Energy Act promoted private nuclear development by granting subsidies for research and development of nuclear reactors. It stipulated that private companies could own nuclear reactors while the federal government retained ownership over nuclear fuels. The goal was to motivate a greater private interest in nuclear energy and to ensure the public that nuclear energy would provide the United States with cheap, abundant sources of electricity for many generations. Despite these efforts, support for nuclear plant construction remained low. Nuclear energy was still very expensive to develop, and the prevailing idea in industry was that nuclear power would cost more to produce than could be gained from profit. Additionally, the potential damage that would result from a nuclear accident substantially increased the liability for private operators of nuclear power plants. In an effort to address the liability issue, Congress in 1957 passed the Price-Anderson Act limiting the liability of individual companies. The PriceAnderson amendments in 1988 raised the liability limits from $5 million per facility per incident to $63 million per facility per incident. Furthermore, plant operators (or licensees) were not required to pay out more than $10 million in any one year in case of liability under the act. Although liability issues were addressed by the Price-Anderson Act, nuclear power became a viable option only when electricity shortages and environmental concerns shifted interest away from the coal-fired power plants. Consequently, the 1960s saw a dramatic growth in the nuclear power industry. The 1970s were a difficult decade for the development of nuclear power. The Ford administration significantly changed the structure of federal energy agencies with the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. This legislation dissolved the Atomic Energy Commission and created the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) in its place. The ERDA took over the research and development of all energy forms, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) assumed the AEC’s regulatory function over the nuclear industry. The 1974 act proved to be difficult for the nuclear power industry, and demand for reactors dropped after 1975 (Melosi, 1985, 308). The organizational changes of the 1977

Nuclear Energy Policy | 573

Energy Reorganization Act also undermined nuclear promotional campaigns and placed the NRC under the administration of the newly established Department of Energy (DOE). A final devastating blow to the nuclear power industry occurred with the Three Mile Island (TMI) accident in 1979. After the accident, all existing orders for reactors were canceled, and as of 2006, none have been placed since in the United States. In the 1980s, safety and waste issues dominated the nuclear energy agenda. The Nuclear Safety Research, Development, and Demonstration Act was passed in 1980 as a response to the TMI accident. This legislation sought to improve the safety of existing nuclear power plants. It mandated that standards be established for the construction of nuclear facilities and ensured that safety rules be implemented in U.S. nuclear power plants. Conflict over nuclear waste storage also became a heated issue in the 1980s as regulators sought agreement on site feasibility for long-term storage. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1982 mandated that geologic disposal was the solution for nuclear waste storage, and federal agencies were charged with the task of finding suitable locations for nuclear waste repositories, one in the east and one in the west. In 1987, this ruling was revised to only one central storage location, as it proved impossible to locate an appropriate site in the east. Despite the setback of the 1970s, the pursuit of nuclear power was not eliminated. Concerns over increasing reliance on foreign energy sources and global climate change caused President George W. Bush to rekindle efforts to develop nuclear resources. The Bush administration promoted nuclear energy as a means of addressing the problem of climate change. Abandoning the Kyoto Protocol was one particularly glaring consequence of the administration’s approach to energy. Stating that it would be devastating to the economy, the administration asserted that it was not fair that developing nations like India and China would not have to meet the same requirements as the United States. The nuclear option was offered as an alternative approach for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It remains to be seen whether the energy issues associated with nuclear power will be resolved. Jaina Moan and Zachary A. Smith See also Bush, George H. W.; Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982; U.S. Department of Energy

References DeVito, Karen L. Nuclear Energy Policy: A Comparative Analysis of the Nuclear Energy Policy Stances of Austria, France and the United States of America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2002. Melosi, Martin V. Coping with Abundance: Energy and Environment in Industrial America (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1985) [Also published in hardcover by Temple University Press, 1985]

574 | Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Nuclear Regulatory Commission The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), successor agency of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), is responsible for the development of civilian policy and regulation of nuclear reactors, materials safety, licensing, and the adjudication of legal issues (Walker, 1992). The commission was established under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, splitting the role of the AEC into two parts, with regulatory issues handled by the NRC and the current Department of Energy (DOE) responsible for nuclear weapons production and development and the promotion of nuclear energy (Mazuzan and Walker, 1984). Composed of a five-member panel selected by the president and confirmed by the Senate, the commission headquarters is located in Rockville, Maryland. The chairperson, also appointed by the president, is the official spokesperson and the most visible face of the commission to the public. Four regional offices in the northeastern, southeastern, midwestern, and western United States are responsible for the supervision of 104 power generating nuclear plants and approximately 36 research and test reactors located mainly at universities. Soon after its formation, the commission was tested during the 1979 Three Mile Island crisis. Even as a major radioactive release was avoided, a partial meltdown led to more stringent training protocols and a revised safety regime. The crisis also had the unintended consequence of souring public opinion to the benefits of nuclear power, with no new plants ordered for three decades (Walker, 2004). Despite safety and security issues made apparent by the 9/11 attacks, nuclear power is experiencing a ‘‘revival.’’ With low greenhouse gas emissions making nuclear power an attractive clean energy alternative, and energy shortfalls projected in the future, more than 30 new nuclear power plants are on order (Wald, 2008). Jonathan Bergman See also Nuclear Energy Policy

References The American Association of Physicists in Medicine, Nuclear Regulatory Commission. http://www.aapm.org/gov ernment_affairs/NRC/default.asp (accessed September 13, 2009). American Nuclear Society. http://www.new.ans.org/ (accessed September 13, 2009). Duffy, Robert J. Nuclear Politics in America: A History and Theory of Government Regulation. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1997. Lochbaum, David. ‘‘Fixing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.’’ Bulletin of Atomic Scientists February 5, 2008. http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/op-eds/fixing-thenuclear-regulatory-commission.

Nuclear Test Ban Treaty | 575 Los Alamos National Laboratory. ‘‘Nuclear Regulatory Commission Programs.’’ http://nuclear.lanl.gov/nrc.shtml (accessed September 13, 2009). Mazuzan, George T., and J. Samuel Walker. Controlling the Atom: The Beginnings of Nuclear Regulation 1946– 1962. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. NRC. ‘‘A Short History of Nuclear Regulation, 1946–1999.’’ http:// www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/short-history.html (accessed September 13, 2009). Nuclear Energy Institute. http:// www.nei.org/ (accessed September 13, 2009). Petrangeli, Gianni. Nuclear Safety. Burlington, MA: Elsevier ButterworthHeinemann, 2006. Rees, Joseph V. Hostages of Each Other: The Transformation of Nuclear Safety since Three Mile Island. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.

Richard DeVercelly, a reactor technology instructor for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, works the controls in an emergency drill in a control room simulator at the NRC’s training center in Chattanooga, Tennessee, on Wednesday, September 5, 2007. The red lights above him indicate the location of control rods in a reactor core. (AP/ Wide World Photos)

Rolph, Elizabeth S. Nuclear Power and the Public Safety: A Study in Regulation. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company, 1979. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. http://www.nrc.gov/ (accessed September 13, 2009). Wald, Matthew L. ‘‘Nuclear Power May Be in Early Stages of a Revival.’’ New York Times, October 24, 2008. Walker, J. Samuel. Containing the Atom: Nuclear Regulation in a Changing Environment, 1963–1971. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992. Walker, J. Samuel. Permissible Dose: A History of Radiation Protection in the Twentieth Century. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. Walker, J. Samuel. Three Mile Island: A Nuclear Crisis in Historical Perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004. Wood, William C. Nuclear Safety: Risks and Regulation. Washington DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1983.

Nuclear Test Ban Treaty The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of 1963 was an agreement between the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, and the USSR that prohibited

576 | Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

nuclear weapon tests, or any other nuclear explosions, in the atmosphere, under water, or in outer space. Also known as the Limited Test Ban Treaty, its goal was to end the radioactive contamination of the global environment. While the treaty did not specifically ban underground nuclear tests, it did prohibit nuclear explosions that caused radioactive debris, or ‘‘fallout,’’ to occur outside the territorial limits of the nation where the explosions were conducted. In November 1952, the United States had detonated its first hydrogen nuclear device, followed by the Soviet Union in August of the following year. These fission/fusion explosions were larger than earlier pure fission bomb tests. The prospects of even more powerful explosions, and more fallout, in the future accelerated international efforts to bring an end to nuclear testing. The dangers of radioactive fallout had been brought home in several tragic cases during the 1950s. On March 1, 1954, the United States exploded Bravo, a hydrogen bomb, on Bikini atoll. Bravo was expected to have the explosive power of 8 million tons of TNT. The actual yield was almost double that, about 15 million tons. As a consequence of this explosion, so much larger than had been anticipated, the area of dangerous radioactive fallout greatly exceeded scientists’ estimates. A Japanese tuna-fishing vessel, the Lucky Dragon, was in the area and was accidentally contaminated by the fallout, despite being 20 miles outside the proscribed danger zone. The Lucky Dragon’s crew suffered from radiation sickness, as did some of the inhabitants of the nearby Rongelap, Rongerik, Utrik, and Bikar atolls. In a similar accident, radioactive rain fell on Japan in 1956 in the wake of a Soviet nuclear test in Siberia.

United States President John F. Kennedy signs the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty on October 7, 1963. The treaty prohibited several types of nuclear tests. (Courtesy Robert Knudsen, White House/John F. Kennedy Presidential Library)

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 | 577

Efforts to impose a nuclear test ban had begun nearly a decade before the actual signing of the Test Ban Treaty. Negotiations began in May 1955, after the Soviet Union included the discontinuance of nuclear weapons testing in one of its proposals to the UN Disarmament Commission. The United States and Britain declared their willingness to negotiate a suspension of tests, but negotiations failed to produce a workable agreement. In 1957, Britain conducted its first hydrogen bomb test, and both the United States and the Soviet Union accelerated their testing programs. A ban on nuclear testing seemed unattainable. Relief came, however, on March 31, 1958, when the Soviets announced that they would unilaterally suspend nuclear testing. Later that year, all three nations entered into a trial one-year testing moratorium and resumed treaty negotiations. The moratorium lasted three years and ended when the Soviet Union abruptly resumed nuclear testing in August 1961. The United States began testing again less than a month later. International pressure to end testing grew in intensity. In the summer of 1963, British and U.S. negotiators met with the Soviets in Moscow, and on July 25, 1963, the Limited Test Ban Treaty was signed. Todd A. Hanson References Arnold, Lorna, and Katherine Pyne. Britain and the H-Bomb. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000. Cathcart, Brian. Test of Greatness: Britain’s Struggle for the Atom Bomb. London: Murray, 1994. Gowing, Margaret. Independence and Deterrence: Britain and Atomic Energy, 1945–52. 2 vols. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1975.

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 Nuclear reactors create byproduct materials called high-level radioactive waste. This waste is either spent (used) reactor fuel at the time it is accepted for disposal, or it is waste materials that remain after spent fuel is reprocessed (NRC, ‘‘High-Level,’’ 2010). With the passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, Congress established a responsibility for the federal government to provide a location where high-level radioactive waste can be disposed. It also established responsibility for the generator of this waste to bear the costs associated with permanent disposal (NRC, ‘‘Governing,’’ 2010). It has been reported that, across the nation, temporary storage facilities for spent fuel are full. Until a permanent disposal site is available, these temporary sites must be expanded. This is the number one problem for commercial nuclear power plants.

578 | Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982

In 1987, Congress amended the NWPA and directed study of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as the potential repository site for used nuclear fuel. In 2002, Congress and President George W. Bush approved Yucca Mountain, and in 2008, the Department of Energy submitted a license application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This was opposed by the state of Nevada. In 2009, President Obama announced plans to terminate the Yucca Mountain program and study alternatives (NEI, 2010). Obama rejected use of Yucca Mountain in the 2010 federal budget by eliminating most funding, ‘‘While the administration devises a new strategy toward nuclear waste disposal’’ (OMB, 2010). Debates are ongoing about the facility’s budget for 2011. Grenatta Thomassey See also Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Obama, Barack; Radioactive Waste

References Major Acts of Congress Ed. Brian K. Landsberg, eNotes.com. ‘‘Nuclear Waste Policy Act (1982).’’ http://www.enotes.com/major-acts-congress/nuclear-waste-policy-act (accessed April 18, 2010). Nuclear Energy Institute. ‘‘Key Issues: Repository Development.’’ http://www.nei.org /keyissues/nuclearwastedisposal/yuccamountain/ (accessed April 18, 2010). Office of Management and Budget. ‘‘A New Era of Responsibility: The 2010 Budget.’’ http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/A_New_Era_ of_Responsibility2.pdf (accessed April 18, 2010). U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ‘‘High-Level Waste.’’ http://www.nrc.gov/ waste/high-level-waste.html (accessed April 18, 2010). U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ‘‘Our Governing Legislation.’’ http://www.nrc .gov/about-nrc/governing-laws.html (accessed April 18, 2010).

O Obama, Barack Barack Hussein Obama II’s political career has been atypical when compared to most of the individuals who have ascended to the presidency of the United States. He is not a scion of a family that has been active in national or party politics for generations. He also did not have a significant amount of experience in electoral politics. His first notable political experience came in 1992, when he worked to register voters in Chicago, Illinois, on behalf of both U.S. Senator Carole Mosley Braun and President William Clinton. He gained his first elective office in 1994 when he was elected to the Illinois State Senate, a post to which his constituents reelected him twice. In 2000, he made a bid for the U.S. House of Representatives seat held by Bobby Rush but was soundly defeated. The setback did not derail his ascent to national prominence, as he opted to run for the U.S. Senate in 2003. During his senatorial campaign, he was invited to speak at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. The speech he delivered, entitled ‘‘The Audacity of Hope,’’ marked him as one of the shining stars of the Democratic Party at the national level. Later that year, he won election to the U.S. Senate. While serving in that august body, his committee appointments included the Committee on Environment and Public Works. Obama ensured that he stayed in the political limelight by authoring The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream in 2006. A second book, entitled Dreams of My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, followed a year later. The latter title helped introduce his political philosophies to the national electorate. It also helped launch a campaign for the presidency in 2007 that seemed to be a long-shot bid at best. Few people believed he could actually win, a perception due mostly to both his perceived political inexperience and his ethnic background. He proved to be one of the ablest political campaigners of his generation and became the 44th president of the United States in 2009. Obama was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii. He is the only son of Shirley Ann Dunham, an educator originally from Kansas, and Barack Obama, who was a Kenyan studying at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. His parents separated when Obama was two years old. Most of his childhood was spent in Hawaii, although he did live in Jakarta, Indonesia, from 1967 to 1971. Once he returned to Hawaii from Indonesia, he was awarded a scholarship to attend the Punahou School. He graduated from this elite college preparatory school in 1979. His collegiate career began at Occidental College in Los Angeles, but after two years, he 579

580 | Obama, Barack

President Barack Obama gestures during a statement on the Gulf Coast oil spill with federal and state officials, Friday, May 28, 2010, in Grand Isle, Louisiana. From left are, Alabama Governor Bob Riley, Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, National Incident Commander for the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Obama, U.S. Coast Guard Admiral James Watson, and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. (AP/Wide World Photos)

transferred to Columbia University, where he earned a bachelor of arts in political science in 1983. After graduation, he moved to Chicago, where he worked as a community organizer. In 1988, he enrolled at Harvard Law School. While at Harvard, he became an editor of the Harvard Law Review and in 1990 became the first African American to be elected as the academic journal’s president. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1991. After graduation, Obama returned to Chicago where, in 1992, he married fellow lawyer Michelle Lavaughn Robinson. The couple has two children together, Malia and Natasha (known as Sasha). From 1993 to 2004, he was employed by the law firm Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. During that same period, he also served as a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School. Despite holding such prestigious positions, Obama opted to devote all of his energies to politics in 2004. From the time he won a seat in the U.S. Senate, Obama had his sights set on the presidency. In order to raise his political profile, he often made public statements criticizing the environmental views of the Bush administration. He chastised administration officials for their inaction against the threat of global warming,

Obama, Barack | 581

especially President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney’s rejection of the Kyoto Protocol. He was also highly critical of President Bush’s proposal to allow offshore drilling near the mainland of the United States. Once he formally announced his intention to run for the presidency, Obama made protecting the environment a centerpiece of his campaign. He advocated investing in ‘‘green technologies’’ in order to wean the country off of its dependence on fossil fuels such as oil. He argued that a green economy would not only help repair the harm caused by global warming, but would also provide highpaying jobs for future generations. Such rhetoric was pleasing for Obama’s Democratic Party base, but made him highly suspect among individuals living in Appalachia. The electoral votes of the Appalachian portions of Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia were critical in order for Obama to win, thus he had to convince them that he was not interested in destroying their livelihoods, but was instead interested in modernizing the coal industry through ‘‘clean coal’’ technologies. He convinced enough coal miners and their families that his interest in their well-being was genuine and they helped propel him to victory. President Obama believed that his electoral victory gave him a mandate, but he quickly discovered that campaigning is much different that being president. Part of his problem was that, when he took office, the United States was mired in one of the worst economic recessions since the Great Depression. People were losing their jobs and expected the promised green economy to alleviate joblessness around the country. President Obama signed the Recovery Act in 2009 to address the employment problem. The act included substantial investments in green technologies, but a significant portion of the monies were for research and not immediate employment. The next part of Obama’s environmental agenda was the cap-and-trade legislation that was proposed during the summer of 2009. He described the goal of the legislation in the following manner: ‘‘. . . we’ve been called upon to cast off the old ways of doing business, and act boldly to reclaim America’s future. Nowhere is this more important than in building a new, clean energy economy, ending our dependence on foreign oil, and limiting the dangerous pollutants that threaten our health and the health of our planet’’ (Obama, 2009). The Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives enthusiastically passed the cap-and-trade legislation, but it has been completely stalled in the U.S. Senate. His biggest setback came in December 2009, when he went to Copenhagen, Denmark, to sign an international climate change agreement that was intended as the successor to the Kyoto Protocol. The event was supposed to cement his standing as a statesman on the international stage. An international meeting that began with high hopes quickly fell apart as countries such as China refused to negotiate binding treaties that would limit the growth of their respective economies. Instead, the president ended up signing a nonbinding accord.

582 | Obama, Barack

After more than a year in office, Obama has not been able to implement many of the environmental promises that he made on the campaign trail. Environmentalists continue to hold out hope that he will be able to enact his expressed environmental agenda, but there are signs that the unemployment level nationwide is beginning to force him to reassess his positions on the environment. In April 2010, his administration approved offshore oil drilling along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. This decision shocked and disappointed many of the president’s most ardent supporters, especially environmentalists. For the sake of the economy, President Obama had committed the very act that Senator Obama had severely criticized President George W. Bush’s administration for even considering. While this action may provide desperately needed jobs for some individuals, there is serious doubt whether enough oil will be found in order to lessen U.S. dependence on foreign petroleum. John R. Burch Jr. See also Cheney, Dick; Coal Mining; Kyoto Protocol

References Heilemann, John, and Mark Halperin. Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime. New York: Harper, 2010. Kennedy, Randall. ‘‘Obama, Barack.’’ In African American National Biography, Vol. 6. H. L. Gates Jr. and E. B. Higginbotham, eds., 175–176. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Moellendorf, Darrel. ‘‘Treaty Norms and Climate Change Mitigation.’’ Ethics and International Affairs 23 (2009): 247–265. Niven, Steven J. ‘‘Obama, Barack.’’ In Encyclopedia of African American History 1896 to Present: From the Age of Segregation to the Twenty-First Century, Vol. 4. P. Finkelman, ed., 1–5. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. Obama, Barack. The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream. New York: Crown Publishing Group, 2006. Obama, Barack. Dreams of My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. New York: Crown Publishing Group, 2007. Obama, Barack. ‘‘Energy: The Cap-and-Trade Legislation.’’ Vital Speeches of the Day, August 2009. Obama, Barack. ‘‘The State of the Union: ‘To Start Anew, to Carry the Dream Forward, and to Strengthen Our Union Once More.’’’ Vital Speeches of the Day, March 2010. ‘‘Obama, Barack Hussein, Jr.’’ In Who’s Who In America 2009: 63rd ed., Vol. 2. P. Delli Santi and A. Perruso, eds., 3,674. New Providence, NJ: Marquis Who’s Who, 2008. Shachtman, Tom. Airlift to America: How Barack Obama, Sr., John F. Kennedy, Tom Mboya, and 800 East African Students Changed Their World and Ours. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2009.

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 | 583

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 In 1970, with 14,000 workers dying on the job each year, and another two million suffering serious occupational injuries (Meiners, 2002, 412), Congress enacted the Occupational Safety and Health Act (Public Law 91-596, 84 Stat. 1590, 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.), signed by President Richard M. Nixon. The law that ultimately was adopted by Congress emerged from a House-Senate conference committee to reconcile bills introduced in the House by Representative William Steiger (R-WI) and in the Senate by Senator Harrison Williams (D-NJ). Several other versions had been introduced in both houses. The powers granted by the law are delegated to the Secretary of Labor to supervise that employers provide employees with working conditions ‘‘free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm.’’ Within the Department of Labor, an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) carries out the mandate of the law, supervised by an assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health. The Secretary of Labor was authorized by statute to issue occupational safety and health standards binding upon employers, which become part of the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29. The act also created the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), which is located in the Centers for Disease Control and works under the supervision of the Department of Health and Human Services. NIOSH studies occupational diseases and injuries, specific work environments, and research methods to develop proposals for occupational safety standards (Rom, 2007, 4–5). Section 18 of the act encourages states to assume administration of the law. To do so, a state must amend its own industrial safety laws to conform to OSHA standards. In other states, OSHA is administered by the U.S. Department of Labor (Weaver, 502). Twenty-two states have approved state plans, and four states have approved plans for public employees only. Eight states that once had their own plans have dropped them. A state must obtain OSHA approval for a developmental plan for all elements of an effective enforcement system. Once these are in place, a state is eligible for certification, and when a state has demonstrated capability to independently enforce OSHA standards, the administration may enter into an operational status agreement with the state. No less than one year after certification, a state is eligible for final approval, relinquishing authority for occupational safety and health to the state agency. Section 8 of the act authorizes the secretary (meaning, in practice, the staff of OSHA under the secretary’s direction) to ‘‘enter without delay and at reasonable times’’ any workplace to inspect and investigate ‘‘within reasonable limits and in a reasonable manner.’’ Inspections were restricted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Marshall v. Barlow’s Inc., 436 U.S. 307 (1978), ruling that if a business owner did not voluntarily accept inspection, a warrant was required to enter the

584 | Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970

premises. The court relied on previous decisions that commercial as well as residential property is protected by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, noting that acceptable procedures exist for obtaining an administrative warrant ex parte (without notice to the owner) so that the legitimate need for unannounced inspection should not be seriously threatened. OSHA’s most general standard is that employers must maintain a workplace free of preventable hazards that could cause injury or death. This is often referred to as the ‘‘general duty clause,’’ and can either provide the agency with broad powers or mean very little in practice, depending on the priorities of each succeeding administration. Specific OSHA regulations in the CFR provide more definite notice to employers and protection to employees in covered industries. However, many of the standards that OSHA publicizes remain advisory, particularly those adopted from the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), which use the permissive word ‘‘should.’’ OSHA’s intention to make such standards mandatory were derailed by federal court decisions such as Marshall v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Company, 584 F.2d 638 (1978). In general, OSHA and regulations adopted by the Department of Labor do not authorize an employee to walk off the job or refuse to perform assigned work because of potentially unsafe conditions. However, 29 CFR 1977.12(b)(2) does prohibit discrimination against an employee who in good faith refuses to work in a situation posing danger of serious injury or death. The Supreme Court upheld this regulation in Whirpool Corporation v. Marshall, 445 U.S. 1 (1980), as a valid exercise of the law’s provision prohibiting discrimination against an employee who exercises ‘‘any right afforded by’’ OSHA. The case concerned employees who had received written reprimands and brief unpaid suspensions after refusing to work on a wire mesh screen through which another employee had fallen to his death less than two weeks earlier. The foreman’s order that they do so expressly violated an announced company policy (445 U.S. at 7). OSHA standards and rule-making authority came back before the Supreme Court several more times. In 1977, OSHA adopted a standard that employee exposure to benzene, common in many petrochemical products, be limited to 1 part per million (ppm) because it was implicated in leukemia and other cancers (Graham, 1988, 84– 85). After extensive litigation, a badly fractured Supreme Court blocked the standard in Industrial Union v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607 (1980). One year later, the court agreed in American Textile Manufacturers v. Donovan, 452 U.S. 490 (1981), that OSHA was not required to show a ‘‘reasonable relationship’’ between the costs of a regulation and its benefits. Congress had specified that OSHA standards be the most feasible, meaning ‘‘capable of being done,’’ placing the benefit of the worker’s health above other considerations. This decision allowed a regulation requiring that textile mills keep respirable cotton dust to 0.2 milligrams per cubic meter of air to protect textile workers from byssinosis, sometimes known as brown lung disease.

Office of Drinking Water | 585

By 2000, OSHA was conducting 33,500 inspections a year, and states another 27,500. Whether OSHA has been effective in reducing workplace fatalities and injuries remains subject to debate. Business interests have argued that economic growth and capital are of equal importance to protection (Hogler, 2004, 228), while unions and unrepresented employees have found regulations to focus on minutiae while failing to address serious hazards. In 2002, the Bureau of Labor Statistics recorded 5,524 fatal workplace injuries and 4.4 million nonfatal injuries, with 294,500 new diagnoses of occupational illness. Of more than 70,000 chemicals currently in use, only 10,000 to 12,000 have been the subject of basic toxicity assessments (Goodman, 2007, 530). Statistical comparison may not even be a sound measure of results: the requirement that injuries be recorded may increase the number counted, making OSHA look worse, or the presence of OSHA enforcement may tempt managers to hide injuries previously reported (Asfahl, 100). Charles Rosenberg See also Nixon, Richard

References Asfahl, C. Ray, and David W. Reiske. Industrial Safety and Health Management, 5th edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2003. Goodman, Richard Alan, and Richard E. Hoffman. Law in Public Health Practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Graham, John D., et al. In Search of Safety. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988. Hogler, Raymond L. Employment Relations in the United States: Law, Policy and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2004. Meiners, Roger E., Al H. Ringleb, and Frances L. Edwards. The Legal Environment of Business, 7th ed. Florence, KY: Cengage Learning, 2002. Rom, William B., and Steven B. Markowitz. Environmental and Occupational Medicine. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2007. Weaver, Sanuel C., and J. Fred Weston Finance and Accounting for Nonfinancial Managers. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001.

Office of Drinking Water The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water (OGWDW) is responsible for overseeing the nation’s 170,000 public drinking water systems that service 90 percent of American homes. Without proper treatment, drinking water can be contaminated by a number of humanmade and naturally occurring pollutants, including disease-causing pathogens as well as agricultural and industrial chemicals. These substances can be harmful or even deadly.

586 | Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

In the late 1800s people were beginning to discover that diseases caused by microscopic organisms could be transmitted through water. The first federal water regulations were established by the U.S. Public Health Service in 1914. However, the scope and application of these regulations were limited. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, numerous environmental studies reported that many community water systems were inadequately treating drinking water. These findings motivated Congress to pass the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974. The OGWDW was established at that time to implement the provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and its subsequent amendments (EPA, 1999). The OGWDW uses updated scientific information to create comprehensive national standards for safe drinking water and its sources (EPA, 2004). The OGWDW then helps states to adopt these standards and take on the primary responsibility for enforcing them (EPA, 1999). The World Health Organization’s (2006) guidelines for drinking water quality recognize that it is not possible to monitor every single chemical that could pose a potential health risk. In keeping with this principle, the OGWDW works to identify the most likely threats to safe drinking water and then determines cost-effective methods for dealing with these threats (EPA, 2004). As a result, the OGWDW has been instrumental in significantly reducing the number of waterborne disease outbreaks as well as the number of communities reporting unacceptable chemical contamination levels (EPA, 1999). Jeffrey Ashley and Aaron Hacker See also Safe Drinking Water Act; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

References U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ‘‘25 Years of the Safe Drinking Water Act: History and Trends.’’ EPA 816-R-99-007, December 1999. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ‘‘Understanding the Safe Drinking Water Act.’’ EPA 816-F-04-030. World Health Organization. ‘‘Guidelines for Drinking Water, 1st Addendum to 3rd Ed., Vol. 1—Recommendations.’’ 2006.

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) is an office within the Department of Energy (DOE) devoted to developing energy-efficient technologies for multiple uses, including transportation, power systems, industry, and homes. As an organization, the EERE is committed to minimizing the United States’ foreign oil dependence and strengthening its energy security, environmental quality, and economic public-private partnership.

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs | 587

Specifically, the EERE leads the federal government’s research, development, and deployment efforts in energy efficiency. The role of the EERE is to invest in high-risk, high-value research and development that is critical to the nation’s energy future and would not be sufficiently conducted by the private sector acting on its own. The EERE conducts its research activities in partnership with the private sector, state and local government, DOE national laboratories, and universities. EERE also works with stakeholders to develop programs and policies to facilitate the deployment of advanced clean energy technologies and practices. All of the EERE’s efforts are aimed at providing reliable, affordable, and environmentally sound energy for the future of the United States. Currently, the EERE is organized around 10 energy programs that focus on specific areas of energy efficiency and renewable energies. The programs include Biomass, Building Technologies, Federal Energy Management, Geothermal Technologies, Industrial Technologies, Solar Energy Technologies, Vehicle Technologies, Weatherization and Intergovernmental, Hydrogen, Fuel Cells, and Infrastructure Technologies. The EERE programs work closely with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, yet the programs also work collaboratively with other national laboratories, federal agencies, and universities. Funding for the EERE is determined by the House Appropriations Committee and is allocated annually. Matt Magnan See also Alternative Energy; Energy-Efficient Labeling; Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

References Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy. http://www1 .eere.energy.gov/office_eere/organization.html (accessed April 9, 2010). Messner, Howard M. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy: Reorganizing for Results. Washington DC: National Academy of Public Administration, 2004.

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is charged with coordinating regulatory review and seeing that rules issued by federal agencies do not conflict with rules made by other agencies. They also review rules for consistency with presidential priorities, applicable law, and the guiding principle of regulatory review outlined in Executive Order 12866. OIRA operates within the Office of Management and Budget and is therefore part of the executive office of the president. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs was created by Congress under provisions specified by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1980. The

588 | Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

PRA, signed by President Carter in December of 1980, laid the foundation for OIRA. Formal review procedures took effect in 1981 under President Reagan’s Executive Order 12291. Executive Order 12498 (1985) expanded the scope of the regulatory review process by subjecting both independent agencies and cabinet departments to the review process (Copeland, 2009, 4). Controversy surrounded the initial formation of OIRA. Opponents viewed the legislation as a violation of the principles that maintained the separation of powers between branches of government. Supporters criticized the legislation for not going far enough because it excluded certain agencies, such as independent regulatory agencies (Copeland, 2009, 6). Additionally, concerns over the lack of transparency in the review process have fostered ongoing and persistent criticism (Copeland, 2009, 29). According to the General Services Administration, OIRA’s primary functions are to review and analyze the content of substantive rules submitted by federal agencies, to review information collected by the federal government, and to implement policies for statistical standards and information privacy. Additionally, the office oversees implementation of the Information Quality Act. OIRA is responsible for reviewing many types of information under the PRA. OIRA describes these documents: ‘‘forms (e.g., the IRS 1040), surveys (e.g., the Census), reporting and recordkeeping requirements (e.g., requirements on business to report workplace safety information to OSHA or air quality monitoring data to EPA), and thirdparty disclosures (e.g., the nutrition labeling requirements of food).’’ OIRA is headed by an administrator who is appointed by the president. Senate confirmation of the administrator was required under 1986 OIRA reauthorization legislation. The administrator oversees OIRA operations and acts as policy advisor on matters of federal information resources management under the provisions of Executive Order 12866. OIRA has a staff of approximately 50 full-time professionals. While the administrator is a political appointee, most of the staff members are civil servants. The Paperwork Reduction Act grants the OIRA director authority in a number of areas. PRA §3504 specifies that the OIRA administrator ‘‘provide direction and oversee—(i) the review and approval of the collection of information and the reduction of the information collection burden; (ii) agency dissemination of and public access to information; (iii) statistical activities; (iv) records management activities; (v) privacy, confidentiality, security, disclosure, and sharing of information; and (vi) the acquisition and use of information technology, including alternative information technologies that provide for electronic submission, maintenance, or disclosure of information as a substitute for paper and for the use and acceptance of electronic signatures.’’ In 1986, OIRA was reauthorized by Congress. Concerns over OIRA’s role in the rule-making process and lack of transparency prompted OIRA to implement new procedures that increased public and agency access to written materials (Copeland,

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs | 589

2009, 7). Executive Order 12866, issued by President Clinton in 1993, promoted a new regulatory philosophy that necessitated cost and benefit analyses of significant rules using both qualitative and quantitative measures (Copeland, 2009, 9). This order also limited OIRA’s review process to ‘‘significant’’ regulatory actions. Section 3 of Executive Order 12866 defines significant actions as having an economic impact of $100 million or more, as being inconsistent, or as actions that create legal or policy issues. Executive Order 12866 also charges OIRA with reviewing existing regulations ‘‘to confirm that regulations are both compatible with each other and not duplicative or inappropriately burdensome’’ (Section 5), and sets forth guidelines ‘‘to ensure greater openness, accessibility, and accountability in the regulatory review process’’ (Section 6). The order also specifies the type of documents made available to the public and the time frame for making them available. Controversy resurfaced in 2007 after President G. W. Bush issued Executive Order 13422, which made the most substantial changes to the review process since 1993 (Copeland, 2007, 1). These changes include a requirement that each agency designate a regulatory policy officer for the agency, a requirement specifying the identification of the market failure that necessitates new regulation, and a requirement that agencies provide estimates for rules they are developing for the upcoming year. It also brings significant guidance documents under the review process and permits agencies, in some cases, to consider alternate procedures (Copeland, 2007, 3). According to the GSA, President Obama issued Executive Order 13497 in January 2009, rescinding those changes, although the review of significant guidance documents has been reinstated by the OMB director. Regulatory analysis is at the core of the review process. Agencies must undergo the OIRA review process before they can publish notices of proposed or final rules in the Federal Register. Independent regulatory agencies such as the FAA and the FCC have congressional authority to regulate specific industries and are not subject to OIRA review. All other federal agencies and cabinet departments participate in the review process. As specified by Executive Order 12866, agencies submitting rules to OIRA must include a statement of the need for action, a cost-benefit analysis that includes an explanation of how the proposed rule conforms to law, and an examination of alternative approaches to address the need. Cost-benefit analyses must use both quantitative and qualitative measurements. Once OIRA reviews the submission, it can approve the rule for publication in the Federal Register, return the rule to the submitting agency for reconsideration, or encourage the submitting agency to withdraw the proposed or final rule (Copeland, 2009, 1) Approximately 500 proposed and final rule reviews are completed each year. A summary of OIRA activities is presented to Congress in an annual report. Sue Guyer See also Reagan, Ronald Wilson; U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration

590 | Office of the Federal Environmental Executive

References Clinton, William. ‘‘Presidential Documents: Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993,’’ Federal Register 58:190 (October 4, 1993). http://www.archives.gov/federal -register/executive-orders/pdf/12866.pdf. Copeland, Curtis W. ‘‘Changes to the OMB Regulatory Review Process by Executive Order 13422.’’ Congressional Research Service, RL33862 (February 5, 2007). http:// www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33862.pdf (accessed April 10, 2010). Copeland, Curtis W. ‘‘Federal Rulemaking: The Role of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.’’ Congressional Research Service, 7-7500, RL32397 (June 9, 2009). http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL32397_20090609.pdf (accessed April 10, 2010). U.S. General Services Administration. ‘‘Regulations and the Rulemaking Process.’’ http://www.reginfo.gov/public/jsp/Utilities/faq.jsp (accessed April 10, 2010). U.S. National Archives. ‘‘Paperwork Reduction Act,’’ United States Code 44:35. http:// www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/paperwork-reduction/3504.html (accessed April 10, 2010). U.S. Office of Management and Budget. ‘‘Information and Regulatory Affairs.’’ November 2009. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/OIRA (accessed April 10, 2010). U.S. Senate. ‘‘Senate Report 104-008—Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.’’ Library of Congress. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&dbname=cp104&sid=cp104MvakV &refer=&r_n=sr008.104&item=&sel=TOC_32232& (accessed April 10, 2010).

Office of the Federal Environmental Executive The Office of the Federal Environmental Executive is entrusted with the responsibility for promoting sustainability and environmental advocacy throughout the federal government. Working collaboratively with the Office of Management and Budget, the Office of the Federal Environmental Executive supports agency sustainability with information, strategies, academic studies, and other resources. Its primary objective is to aid in the implementation of public policies relating to environmental issues. Some examples of these types of activities include achieving federal benchmarks for the reduction of greenhouse gases, promoting efficient energy, and the conservation of water. The office is also charged with documenting the economic benefits of environmental responsibility (OFEE, 2010). The Office of the Federal Environmental Executive was created by Executive Order 12873 issued by President Clinton in 1993. The Environmental Executive is a position appointed by the president and housed in the Council on Environmental Quality within the executive office of the president. The duties of the office are to identify and support environmental policy initiatives, provide information to lawmakers, assist agencies in running in an environmentally responsible manner, and coordinate government agency training programs. President Obama’s choice to head this office is Michelle Moore. Before her admission to CEQ, Michelle was a senior vice president of Policy and Public Affairs

Office of Management and Budget | 591

for the U.S. Green Building Council (BuildingGreen.com, 2009). Moore is responsible for using the OFEE as a vehicle to help promote the issues of sustainability and environmental responsibility through the federal government and its programs. Recently, the Office of the Federal Environmental Executive has helped to promote Executive Order 13514 issued by President Obama in October of 2009. The order will require federal agencies to meet energy, water, and waste-reduction targets regarding federal vehicles, water reduction, contracting requirements, and net-zeroenergy building requirements (White House Office of the Press Secretary, 2009). Brittany Werner See also U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

References BuildingGreen.com. ‘‘Michelle Moore Joins the Obama Administration.’’ http:// www.buildinggreen.com/auth/article.cfm/2009/8/28/Michelle-Moore-Joins-the-Obama -Administration/ (accessed April 10, 2010). International Green Purchasing Network. ‘‘US Office of the Federal Environment.’’ http://www.igpn.org/global/national_governments/us_office.html (accessed April 9, 2010). The Office of the Federal Environmental Executive. ‘‘About the Office of the Federal Environmental Executive.’’ The Office of the Federal Environmental Executive. http:// www.ofee.gov/about.asp (accessed April 8, 2010). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Executive Order 12873. http://www.epa.gov/ epp/pubs/eo12873.pdf (accessed April 10, 2010). U.S. Government Services Administration. Executive Order 13423. http://www.gsa .gov/Portal/gsa/ep/ contentView.do?contentType=GSA_BASIC&contentId=22395 (accessed April 9, 2010). The White House Office of the Press Secretary. ‘‘President Obama Signs an Executive Order Focused on Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance.’’ http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/ president-obama-signs-executive -order-focused-federal-leadership-environmental-ener (accessed April 9, 2010).

Office of Management and Budget The Office of Management and Budget is an organization within the executive office of the president of the United States that has two primary purposes: to work with the president to develop a federal budget and to monitor the financial behavior of executive agencies. To help devise the president’s spending proposals, the OMB determines the effectiveness of executive agencies and their programs. It is the responsibility of the OMB to ensure that executive agencies and their actions are homogeneous with the president’s budget and with the policies of the administration. In a research book focused on the OMB’s politics and processes, Professor Shelly Lynne Tomkin has made the point that the OMB acts

592 | Office of Management and Budget

to curb the ambitious policies of federal agencies and to persuade Congress to pass the president’s budget. Tomkin maintains that because it is linked to the president, the entire executive branch, and Congress, and possesses powers of budgetary, legislative managerial, and regulatory oversight, the OMB is in a position to wield a great influence on public policy (Tomkin, 1998). The OMB’s origins trace back to the Bureau of the Budget (BOB), which was created when President Warren G. Harding signed the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. The BOB’s primary purpose was to create a means to restrict the spending of government funds. While initially a part of the Treasury Department, President Franklin D. Roosevelt made the BOB a part of his executive office in 1939. On July 1, 1970, President Richard M. Nixon reorganized the BOB into the Office of Management and Budget through an executive order. Today, the OMB has grown into the largest entity of the executive office, with its policy analysts, managers, and political appointees totaling more than 500. The OMB manifests its ability to impact public policy when President Ronald Reagan signed Executive Order 12291 on February 17, 1981, to ‘‘reduce the burdens of existing and future regulations, increase agency accountability for regulatory actions, provide for presidential oversight of the regulatory process, minimize duplication and conflict of regulations, and insure well-reasoned regulations.’’ This revoked rules that asserted the oversight of crude oil and refined petroleum products. To fulfill the requirements of the act, Reagan required that all federal agencies prepare financial assessment proposals for all projects known as a benefit-cost analysis (BCA). The BCA was required to experience the scrutiny of a regulatory impact analyses (RIA) to verify that the benefits of the plan or proposal would surpass the projected costs. It was the responsibility of the OMB to process the RIAs. Throughout the eight years of the Reagan presidency, more than 2,000 RIAs were processed by the OMB yearly. In a study on environmental politics and policy, Professor Walter Rosenbaum states that since those in the OMB consisted of Reagan’s political appointments who possessed an ideological bias against environmental regulations, the process of the BCA was rarely used when environmental deregulation policies were being evaluated. This resulted in a seclusion of environmental regulation and the creation of an element of distrust in the OMB’s role in regulatory review among environmentalists (Rosenbaum, 2008). Rosenbaum further maintains that the OMB’s role in reviewing regulatory BCAs declined throughout George H. W. Bush’s presidency and decreased significantly during Bill Clinton’s presidency. However, George W. Bush allowed the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to review the BCAs produced by environmental agencies and granted it the ability to scrutinize the scientific studies used to confirm the logicality of the environmental regulation and their BCAs. Proponents of this new policy felt that scientific reviews would

Office of Toxic Substances | 593

increase the effectiveness of environmental regulations, while critics felt that it gave the OMB more opportunities to delay or reject regulations under the facade of science (Rosenbaum, 2008). In a recent article on the OMB’s role in regulation under the administration of President Barack Obama, Robin Bravender states that the House of Representatives issued a panel on March 16, 2010, to investigate the regulatory process. This panel’s conclusion will influence the regulatory powers of Obama’s OMB and the extent of its ability to impact environmental regulations (Bravender, 2010). D. K. Wolgamott See also Reagan, Ronald Wilson

References Bravender, R. ‘‘OMB Role in Federal Rulemaking Under Scrutiny.’’ New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/03/15/15greenwire-omb-role-in-federal-rulemaking -under-scrutiny-31424.html (accessed April 9, 2010). Federal Archives. 2010. ‘‘Executive Order 12291—Federal Regulation.’’ http://www .archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12291.html. Rosenbaum, W. A. Environmental Politics and Policy. Washington DC: CQ Press, 2008. Tomkin, S. L. Inside OMB: Politics and Process in the President’s Budget Office. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1998. White House. 2010. ‘‘OMB’s Mission.’’ http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/organization _role/ (accessed April 7, 2010).

Office of Toxic Substances The Office of Toxic Substances was established in 1977 to enforce the laws of the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976. The office is a branch of the U.S. EPA and has expanded to the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS). The goal of the act and the office is to ensure the safety of the U.S. public by checking that chemicals used in the United States are not unnecessarily harmful to the public or the environment; the office also monitors the distribution of industrial and commercial chemicals. The OPPTS is broken down into three offices, the Office of Pesticides Programs, the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, and the Office of Science Coordination and Policy. The Office of Pesticides Programs monitors all pesticides in the United States and sets the regulations for the maximum amount of pesticide residues that can be present in food. They also help to provide information on issues such as the misuse of pesticides. The Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics focuses on promoting the use of safer chemicals, technology, and processes. It also works to manage the problems

594 | Oil Pollution Act of 1990

of asbestos and pollution prevention with actions through the industry. The Office of Science and Policy works to provide leadership, peer review, and the fusion of science and science policy inside OPPTS. The goal of the office ensures scientific decisions regarding pesticides and chemical management are safe to the public through the Scientific Advisory Panel. In April 2010, the OPPTS was renamed the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Maude Cooper See also Toxic Substances Control Act

References Ruggiero, Michael. ‘‘EPA’s Industry Assistance Office.’’ Environmental Science and Technology 13 (1) (1979): 46–48. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ‘‘Basic Information.’’ http://www.epa.gov/ opptintr/pubs/opptabt.htm (accessed April 6, 2010).

Oil Pollution Act of 1990 The passage of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) was a landmark piece of federal legislation. Coastal oil spill prevention and response provisions languishing for years within Congress all of a sudden became law (Kurtz, 2004). The OPA 90 passage followed a year of five devastating tanker spills in U.S. coastal waters. Most notable of these spills was the March 24, 1989, Exxon Valdez tanker running aground in Alaska’s Prince William Sound. The 10.8 million gallon tanker grounding was the largest spill in North American history. The spill soiled some 1,200 miles of predominantly wilderness coastline and killed thousands of marine mammals and several hundred thousand waterfowl. A common theme of the numerous government and scholarly reports concerning the Exxon Valdez disaster was the realization that the oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response system for U.S. coastal waters was broken. Neither government nor industry plans individually or collectively were up to the task of controlling a spill of the Exxon Valdez’s magnitude (National Response Team, 1989; Federal OnScene Coordinator, 1993; Kurtz, 2004; Birkland, 1997). Created to remedy these gaps, the OPA 90 contained several major provisions. All shippers operating in U.S. waters were required to have Coast Guardapproved contingency plans in place for responding to the ‘‘maximum extent practicable’’ to a worst-case discharge. Tankers needed to have their Coast Guard approved plans in place prior to being allowed to transport oil in U.S. waters (Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council, 1999; U.S. Coast Guard, 1993; Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, 1999). OPA 90 likewise included provisions for the preplacement of adequate containment and cleanup

Oil Pollution Act of 1990 | 595

equipment in the event of a spill. Under OPA 90, tankers plying the most heavily traveled shipping lanes were required to have backup equipment prepositioned and personnel available to respond to a spill within 12 hours. The maximum response time in other U.S. waters was set at 24 hours. OPA 90 also shifted greater financial cost liability to the spiller. For example, Title 1 raised the liability cap some eightfold. This increased the cap for an Exxon Valdez-size spill from $14 million to $100 million. Spiller liability was extended to include cleanup costs, damage assessment, loss of resources, and costs to local governments (Kurtz, 2004). Title 1 also established a $1 billion oil spill liability trust fund financed through a five cent per barrel fee on all oil produced or imported into the United States. Other noteworthy provisions included the phase in of double hulled tankers and use of tanker escort tugboats (Kurtz, 2004). Passage of OPA 90 has played a positive role in preventing and minimizing the effects of vessel spills in U.S. coastal waters (General Accountability Office, 2007; Kurtz, 2008). The total number of large spill incidents—exceeding $1 million in costs—has diminished. Spill response crews are better trained and equipped. Still, problems do remain. The cost of spill cleanup continues to rise. Vessel operators continue to make critical judgment errors. More vessel traffic increases the likelihood of another catastrophic spill. Future Congresses will need to reassess and possibly revise OPA 90 to combat these challenges. Rick Kurtz See also Exxon Valdez Spill

References Birkland, Thomas. After Disaster: Agenda Setting, Public Policy, and Focusing Events. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 1997. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council. ‘‘Online Status Report.’’ http://www.evostc .state.ak.us/ (accessed May 10, 2008). Federal On-Scene Coordinator. ‘‘Federal On-Scene Coordinator’s Report: T/V Exxon Valdez Oil Spill.’’ Washington DC: U.S. Coast Guard, 1993. Kurtz, R. ‘‘Coastal Oil Pollution, Spills, Crisis, and Policy Change.’’ Review of Policy Research 21 (2004): 201–219. Kurtz, R. ‘‘The M/V Selendang Ayu Disaster: Linkages between Policy Change, Gaps, and Crises.’’ The Social Science Journal 45 (2008): 633–645. National Response Team. ‘‘The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: A Report to the President.’’ Washington DC: Department of Transportation and Environmental Protection Agency, 1989. Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council. Then and Now: Changes in Oil Transportation since the Exxon Valdez Spill 1989–2009. http://www.pwsrcac.org/ docs/d0064000.pdf (accessed on May 15, 2010) U.S. Coast Guard. ‘‘OPA 90 Update, Number 15.’’ 1993.

596 | Old-Growth Forests U.S. General Accountability Office. ‘‘Marine Transportation: Major Oil Spills Occur Infrequently, But Risks Remain.’’ http://www.gao.gov/.

Old-Growth Forests The Oregon Society of American Foresters defines old-growth forests as containing downed trees and snags, patchiness, canopy layers, a mix of sizes and ages, and some large and old trees. Old growth is also referred to as late successional and it may have a qualitative label such as cathedral or ancient or heritage. Perhaps less than 10 percent of the world’s forests have been undisturbed for a hundred years or more, one criterion for old growth. Studies differ on how much old-growth forest there is—or was. Estimates of old growth in pre-European northwest Oregon range from 30 to 70 percent of the total forest. Currently foresters say western Oregon and Washington may have 6.5 million acres of mature and old-growth forest. The National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry (NCSSF) in 2009 reported that in 1991 the U.S. Forest Service and the Wilderness Society both measured forests in northern California and the Pacific Northwest. Using the same Forest Service definition, the Forest Service found 4.3 million acres while the Wilderness Society found 2 million. The NCSSF estimated that 3.5 million acres of the 56.8 million acres of forest in the area were old growth by the Forest Service’s definition. That’s 6 percent. In the northeast, old growth is one-half to 1 percent of total forestland. A 2009 study indicated that old growth in the U.S. west was declining due to global warming, and future forests might have fewer and smaller trees. Trees were dying in the previous two decades at double the earlier rates, and new trees were not growing fast enough to replace the losses. The forests under study were 200 to 500 years old and were located in diverse regions, including California, British Columbia, Colorado, and Arizona. Not all mature forests are old growth. Mature forests may have large trees but lack other old-growth traits. There is no set number or percentage of trees of any size or age because different types of forest grow differently. Pine and aspen forests are younger due to wind and fire and other natural events. And fire and other natural disturbances may prevent a mature forest from attaining old-growth status. Old growth is coveted because it is a source of hardwood. Advocates of selective logging say it can be limited to two or so trees per acre a year and still provide jobs while still sequestering carbon and maintaining biodiversity. On the other hand, once started, logging generally continues because logging roads improve access. As large trees disappear, Pacific Northwest mills have retooled to handle smaller trees, so the commercial demand for large old-growth trees is limited. Old growth is more important for recreational and heritage values, aesthetics,

Old-Growth Forests | 597

wildlife habitat, carbon storage, watershed protection, and the preservation of nature’s gene pool. Old-growth forests are both private and public, and different rules govern each. Private old growth is scarce, though. Discussions at Copenhagen, Denmark, in late 2009 about paying tropical countries to reduce deforestation and land degradation included efforts to include conservation of old-growth forests because they are the most carbon dense and biologically rich forests. Industry and associates preferred sustainable forest management, logging using lower impact methods. Studies indicate that logged forests are less biologically diverse, but recovery of 70 to 80 percent of the biodiversity can occur in 30 years. Recovery, of course, excludes species that cannot survive in a disturbed environment for 30 years. Between 2002 and 2005, more than 17 million acres of primary forest disappeared annually. Plantations help to compensate in terms of wood availability and carbon sequestration, but they do not match the losses of biodiversity from logged old forest. The shortage of old growth imperils animals and plants that require old growth, and some evidence shows that old growth also helps the world’s climate by balancing carbon dioxide volume. The first research in this area dates to the 1960s, and in 2008, preliminary research indicated that old-forest trees and soil are collectors of carbon, with the old growth remaining in the United States, Canada, and Russia taking 8 to 20 percent of the global carbon sink, some 440.9 million tons a year. Although short of the 1.8 billion tons released by deforestation or crop clearing, the volume is significant. The Bush administration as a parting gesture indicated that it would increase old-growth logging in Oregon by 700 percent, undoing the Northwest Forest Management Plan of 1994 that set aside most of the old growth for the spotted owl. Advocates say that old-growth water is some of the cleanest in the world, recreational opportunities are world class, salmon and wildlife have a critical need for this habitat, and carbon storage fights global warming. John H. Barnhill See also Bush, George W.; Northern Spotted Owl; Northwest Forest Management Plan; Wilderness Society

References Butler, Rhett A. ‘‘Destruction of Old-Growth Forests Looms Over Climate Talks.’’ December 08, 2009. http://news.mongabay.com/2009/1208-deforestation.html. The Editors of E—The Environmental Magazine. ‘‘Earth Talk: How Threatened Are U.S. Old-Growth Forests?’’ Christian Science Monitor, January 2, 2009. http://www .csmonitor.com/Environment/Wildlife/2009/0102/earthtalk-how-threatened-are-us-old -growth-forests.

598 | Olmsted, Frederick Law Handwerk, Brian. ‘‘U.S. Old-Growth Forests Withering With Warming,’’ National Geographic News, January 22, 2009. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/01/090122 -old-growth-warming.html. Oregon Society of American Foresters. ‘‘Position Statements: Management of Mature and Old-Growth Forests.’’ October 31, 2005. http://www.forestry.org/or/position/ oldgrowth.php. Saarinen, Marku. ‘‘Old-Growth Forest: Old-Growth Forests, Which Are Becoming Rarer, Can Help Combat Climate Change.’’ Scientific American, September 11, 2008. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=old-growth-forests-help-combat-climate -change. Satterfield, Terre. Anatomy of a Conflict: Identity, Knowledge, and Emotion in OldGrowth Forests. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2002.

Olmsted, Frederick Law Frederick Law Olmsted was a nineteenth-century landscape architect who both invented the profession of landscape architecture in the United States and started scientific forestry there as well. While he was not usually involved in creating policy, Olmsted, through his designs and projects, was involved in preserving both urban and rural open spaces. His philosophy influenced both the U.S. Park Service and the National Forest Service. Olmsted was born in Hartford, Connecticut, to an old Hartford family and as a young man studied civil engineering. Between 1846 and 1847, he worked at various model farms in New England and New York. In 1848, Olmsted purchased a farm on the south shore of Staten Island, New York, that he both landscaped and ran according to scientific farming principles. In 1850, he went to Europe, spending a great deal of time in England looking at scenery and public and private parks. He was especially impressed by Birkenhead Park in Liverpool, a free public park that had been designed by Joseph Paxton. It was the first public park he had seen and the fact that classes could intermingle in the park impressed him a great deal (Todd, 1982). After traveling through the antebellum South in order to report on conditions there, Olmsted was appointed as the superintendent of New York City’s Central Park in 1857. At the time, it was the largest public-works project in the nation and it was here that Olmsted’s ability to manage workers came to the fore. The following year, Calvert Vaux (1824–1895), an English architect, and Olmsted submitted a plan in the competition to design the park. This plan, known as the Greensward plan, was the winner of the competition, and Olmsted was named architectin-chief of Central Park. The park reflected some of Olmsted’s original design theories. For example, although almost entirely human-made, the space was both picturesque and natural, not formal, and allowed all visitors to enjoy unrefined

Olmsted, Frederick Law | 599

views. It also had sunken roadways that allowed traffic to freely flow while pedestrians commingled on its acreage (Rybczynski, 1999). Olmsted left his work on the park in 1861 to help out during the Civil War and, in 1863, moved to California to manage a large gold mine there. The following year, Congress ceded both the Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Big Tree Grove to the state of California under the condition that it be public land used for recreation and administered by the governor by means of a board of commissioners. Olmsted was appointed that commission’s first president and in August 1865 delivered a report on the Yosemite Valley. The report, although not followed, was impressive because it was the first to Frederick Law Olmsted, the first professional include the concept that democracies landscape architect in the United States, is must set aside areas of natural beauty famous for his public park designs and for for their citizens’ enjoyment. That year developing the first urban park systems. Olmsted returned to New York and He also designed landscapes for many pribegan work on Prospect Park in vate estates and college campuses and anticiBrooklyn, New York, as well as sev- pated the national parks movement with his promotion of conservation and preservaeral parkways in Brooklyn (Rybczyntion. (Library of Congress) ski, 1999). Beginning in 1875, Olmsted began to develop the plans of Boston’s interconnected park system, popularly known as the Emerald Necklace. In 1879, Olmsted became involved in an international project to preserve the scenery around Niagara Falls. The project was never completed (Fein, 1972). Starting in 1888, Olmsted began working on the approximately 120,000 acres of the estate of George W. Vanderbilt in Asheville, North Carolina. Here he introduced the concept of scientific forestry management, which later was used in the philosophy of the U.S. Forest Service. Vanderbilt and Olmsted allowed tree harvesting on the estate upon the condition that any trees that were cut down be replaced (Fein, 1972). Olmsted’s contemporaries considered his plan for the grounds of the World’s Columbian Exposition in 1893 in Chicago, Illinois (aka the White City) to be his

600 | Organic Food and Farming

greatest work. This space was later reworked and is now Jefferson Park (Fein, 1972). Urban studies professor Dr. Albert Fein (1972) identified the basis of Olmsted’s relationship to the environment as being respect for the characteristics of all living things. He further identified eight environmental planning principles, which he hypothesized out of Olmsted’s projects. These principles are: planning should include a social analysis; planning needs to lead to a democratic design; cities are important and successful urban planning places; the city is part of the larger natural region; all planning must respect nature and must include a team of members of the natural and social sciences; politics intrudes negatively upon sound environmental planning; completed projects need to be reviewed periodically to prevent them from becoming moribund and sterile; and, finally, projects must be considered within a wider historical context. Scott Sheidlower See also U.S. Forest Service; Yosemite National Park

References Fein, Albert. Frederick Law Olmsted and the American Environmental Tradition. New York: George Braziller, 1972. Rybczynski, Witold. A Clearing in the Distance: Frederick Law Olmsted and America in the Nineteenth Century. New York: Scribner, 1999. Todd, John Emerson. Frederick Law Olmsted. Arthur Brown, ed. Twayne’s World Leaders Series 83. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1982.

Organic Food and Farming Organic farming depends on organic wastes such as livestock manure, nitrogenfixing leguminous plants, other organic materials, and non-synthetic inorganic compounds such as phosphates and potassium obtained from mining. Organic farming also makes use of crop rotations to maintain soil quality and to control weed and pest problems. Natural pesticides (e.g., bacillus thuringiensis) and biological controls are also used to control pests (Klepper et al., 1979; Loomis, 1984). Organic livestock production depends on feeds and pastures that are managed in ways that are consistent with organic crop production, and organic food is any food that is derived from either organic farming or organic livestock production. With the rising use of synthetic fertilizers in the early twentieth century, some individuals began to lay the groundwork for what became the organic farming movement. Sir Albert Howard’s research beginning in the 1920s as well as later research by Lady Eve Balfour on the processes of composing represent the

Organic Food and Farming | 601

earliest works on the benefits of organic farming. Inspired by the research of Howard and Balfour, Jerome I. Rodale wrote, experimented, and advocated on the efficacy of organic farming relative to the conventional farming methods that had become increasingly dependent on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides by the mid-twentieth century. The organic farming movement had few followers until concerns about resource use, the environmental effects of conventional farming, and food safety arose in the 1960s (Barton, 2001; Blum, 1992; Klonsky and Tourte, 1998). Since that time and with the dramatic growth in organic farming, research has shown that organic farming has beneficial effects on soil quality, water quality, and biodiversity; however, these benefits are offset by lowered agricultural output per acre (Klepper, et al., 1977; Lockeretz, Shearer, and Kohl, 1981; M€ader et al., 2002). Grain crops and horticultural products were the most dominant outputs from organic farming in its early years; however, significant movement toward organic ranching has occurred since the mid-1990s. In 1997, total certified organic acreage in the United States was 1.35 million acres, with 63 percent of acreage in cropland. By 2005, the total organic acreage had grown to just over 4 million acres, a tripling of organic acreage, with organic pasturage growing to 54 percent of the total (USDA, 2008). The Organic Food Production Act of 1990 represents the U.S. government’s initiation of a process of establishing standards for organic practice and farm certification, promoting interstate commerce of organic products, and insuring the consistency of organic products for the benefit of consumers, farmers, and organic food handlers. This act led to the establishment of the National Organic Program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and ultimately the national standards for organic production, handling, and labeling that took effect in 2002 (USDA, 2000). The Farm Act of 2008 provided a significant increase in support for organic agriculture over any previous legislation. It included provisions to support transition from conventional to organic agriculture, cost sharing for certification costs, and increased funding for research and extension for organic agriculture (USDA, 2008) Parker Wheatley References Barton, G. ‘‘Sir Albert Howard and the Forestry Roots of the Organic Farming.’’ Agricultural History 75 (2001): 168–187. Blum, B. ‘‘Composting and the Roots of Sustainable Agriculture.’’ Agricultural History 66 (1992): 171–188. Klepper, R., W. Lockeretz, B. Commoner, M. Gertler, S. Fast, D. O’Leary, and R. Blobaum. ‘‘Economic Performance and Energy Intensiveness on Organic and Conventional Farms in the Corn Belt: A Preliminary Comparison.’’ American Journal of Agricultural Economics 59 (1977): 1–12.

602 | Overfishing Klonsky, K., and L. Tourte. ‘‘Organic Agricultural Production in the United States: Debates and Directions.’’ American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80 (1998): 1,119–1,124. Lockeretz, W., G. Shearer, and D. Kohl. ‘‘Organic Farming in the Corn Belt.’’ Science, New Series 211 (1981): 540–547. Loomis, R. S. ‘‘Traditional Agriculture in America.’’ Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 15 (1984): 449–478. M€ader, P., A. Fliessbach, D. Dubois, L. Gunst, P. Fried, U. Niggli. ‘‘Soil Fertility and Biodiversity in Organic Farming.’’ Science 296 (2002): 1,694–1,697. Organic Food Production Act of 1990. Title XXI of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990. Public Law 101-624. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. ‘‘National Organic Program; Final Rule, 7 CFR Part 205.’’ Federal Register, December 21, 2000. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. ‘‘Organic Agriculture: 2008 Farm Act Program Provisions.’’ 2008. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Organic/ ProgramProvisions.htm.

Overfishing Overfishing in its simplest definition is the taking of more fish than a system can support. It degrades the ecosystem and is an unsustainable use of the oceans. Overfishing can be commercial or not. Overfishing removes too many adults for the remainder to reproduce the population and it exceeds a system’s carrying capacity. Eventually, fishermen find there is not an adequate population to justify fishing a system. Demand for fish is rising rapidly, and fish prices are increasing faster than are prices for meat. Fisheries are an attractive investment for governments and entrepreneurs, harming small-scale fishing and fishing communities throughout the world. More than 200 million people, particularly in the developing world, depend on fishing for a living and a primary food source. People fish with spears, nets, poles, kayaks, canoes, and boats, and weekend fishermen are out there, too. These are not the problem. Fishing fleets, high-tech commercial giants, are the problem. One would think that the commercial fishers would realize that overharvesting would eventually put them out of business. Aquaculture is growing faster than any other form of animal food production. Aquaculture involves farming and stocking of fish, mollusks, crustaceans, and aquatic plants. Even so, overfishing and degradation of the environment are becoming unsustainable. Overfishing occurs because the worldwide fishing fleet is two or three times the size needed to catch the current sustainable yield of the oceans. In addition, current fishing practices are not selective and use gear that destroys non-target

Overfishing | 603

In this May 12, 2009, file photo, bigeye tuna line the floor of the United Fishing Agency’s auction house in Honolulu. Hawaii fishermen pondered how to deliver a steady supply of ahi to the islands after overfishing concerns prompted regulators to cap the annual catch of the popular fish. (AP/Wide World Photos)

species, also known as bycatch, as well as the ocean bottom (bottom trawling). Overfishing is often slighted because of other environmental crises—deforestation, depletion of energy resources, desertification, and the like. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization published a biannual report on aquaculture and world fisheries, ‘‘State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA).’’ The report tends to be conservative regarding problems, but it does discuss the larger issues. It lags several years behind the real world. Even so, SOFIA reports that 52 percent of fish stocks are totally exploited, 20 percent are moderately exploited, 17 percent are overexploited, 7 percent are depleted, and 1 percent are recovering from depletion. A fourth of the fish stocks are either depleted or overexploited, and another 52 percent are at their limit, on the verge of exceeding maximum sustainable production, and possibly collapsing. The FAO estimates that more than 70 percent of fish species are either fully exploited or depleted. Destructive fishing methods are destroying mammals and entire ecosystems. Illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing is increasing as fishermen try to avoid the stricter rules that came in response to smaller catches and declining stocks. About 90 percent of large predatory fish stocks are already

604 | Overfishing

gone, and 80 percent of the world’s fisheries are at or beyond capacity. Overfishing was reported in 2003 by the Pew Oceans Commission, which reported that high-tech fishing practices deplete stock, degrade nurseries, and generate bycatch. It noted the decline of prime species. A later Pew report noted that predatory fish—shark, cod, tuna—are in decline, with some down as much as 90 percent in half a century. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy reported in 2004 that 25 to 30 percent of the world’s stocks are overexploited. Of the United States’ 267 major fish stocks, about 20 percent are overfished or near it. The UN FAO reported in 2005 that one-fourth of the world’s commercial species are overexploited and 70 percent of species are at, near, or beyond their capacity. The world faces the loss of entire species and ecosystems, stressing the ecological unity of the world’s oceans and putting them at risk of collapse. The loss of this valuable food source will have detrimental impacts to the large populations that depend on fish and seafood for dietary, economic, or social reasons. Newfoundland, Canada, once had a prosperous codfishing industry. In 1992, no cod appeared at the beginning of fishing season. That was the price of decades of mismanagement and overfishing. Without cod, 40,000 people had no jobs, and 15 years later, many of the communities and fishermen were still struggling to adjust to the loss of the most important economic asset they had. Only crabbers prospered; Newfoundlanders once regarded crabs as a nuisance species. The preceding decade has seen declines of up to 95 percent in cod, haddock, flounder, and hake in the North Atlantic. Some calls are for zero catch until the stocks revive, a call that the industry finds unacceptable. Not only prime species become scarcer. Fishermen desperate for a catch are taking species down the food web, fishing for the less valuable species after the loss of the first—marine mammals, sharks, birds, and non-commercial fish, and in some fisheries, bycatch is up to 80 percent of the catch. Bycatch is waste to be discarded. The current rate of extraction means the loss of many of the important species will occur in 25 years, leaving the oceans a junkyard of unwanted trash species. The Johannesburg forum of 2002 emphasized restoring fisheries and acknowledged the necessity for governments, fishermen, industry, and communities to work together. Johannesburg also called for ratification of the Convention on the Law of the Sea and other treaties promoting marine safety and protecting the marine environment from damage by ships and pollution. The rate of depletion has risen more than fourfold in the past 40 years. The Johannesburg Plan of Implementation calls for the creation of marine protected areas to conserve and increase stocks. Less than 1 percent of the world’s oceans and seas are currently MPAs. Each region has a Regional Sea Convention. The European Commission and 109 governments signed on in 1995 to the UN Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-Based Activities. Still, oceans are cleared twice as fast as forests.

Ozone Layer Depletion | 605

The International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter, and Eliminate Unreported and Unregulated Fishing is undersubscribed by developed countries and virtually ignored by developing ones. Fish farms accounted for less than 10 percent of all fish in 1980. Fish farming in 2005 generated 50 million tonnes (43 percent of the total), but took some of the wild harvest to serve as fish food for the farms. Total world consumption in 2005 was 95 million tonnes (a long ton of 2,240 pounds), with 86 million long tons from marine fisheries and 9 million from inland fisheries. John H. Barnhill See also American Fisheries Society; Commercial Fishing; Environmental Sustainability; National Marine Fisheries Service; National Wildlife Federation; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

References Grinning Planet. Overfishing. ‘‘Pretty Mermaids Are Always Over Fishing for Compliments. The Causes and Effects of Overfishing.’’ May 7, 2005. http://www .grinningplanet.com/2005/06-07/overfishing-article.htm Koster, Pepijn. ‘‘Overfishing: A Global Disaster.’’ http://overfishing.org/pages/why _is_overfishing_a_problem.php (accessed April 2009). Nuttall, Nick. ‘‘Overfishing: A Threat to Marine Biodiversity.’’ http://www.un.org/ events/tenstories/06/story.asp?storyID=800 (accessed April 2009). United Nations Environment Programme. ‘‘The Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-Based Activities.’’ http://www.gpa .unep.org/ (accessed April 2009).

Ozone Layer Depletion Some human-made air emissions compromise the ozone layer in the stratosphere (which is between 6 and 30 miles above the surface), thinning it to the point that it can no longer protect Earth from the full force of the sun’s ultraviolet radiation, a known source of cancer in humans and a suspected threat to plant and aquatic ecosystems. For example, harm associated with increased exposure to ultraviolet radiation includes declines in plankton, a cornerstone of the global marine food chain and an important ‘‘sink’’ or absorber of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas responsible for climate change. Across much of North America, ozone levels in the upper atmosphere have declined by 5 percent in the summer and 10 percent in the winter (EPA, 2000). But numerous international initiatives to curb ozone loss have been launched in recent years, including the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and its subsequent extensions. Developing countries concentrated

606 | Ozone Layer Depletion

nearer the tropics, where ozone depletion is less severe, were initially skeptical of the plan and its expensive requirements. But once the developed nations created a fund to compensate developing countries, and also threatened trade sanctions against any country that did not participate, the developing nations shifted their position. The Montreal Protocol committed most of the world, including the United States and Canada, to limit its production of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, methyl bromide, and other ozone-depleting chemicals, most of which were generated by air conditioning and refrigeration units, insulating foams, and various industrial processes (under the accord, which now has 157 signatories, all production of CFCs in developed countries was halted on January 1, 1996). International use of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs)—a substitute for CFCs that also damages the ozone layer—remains extensive, but current multilateral environmental agreements call for a global phase-out of this class of chemicals by 2020. Finally, both the Canadian and U.S. governments have established their own regulatory programs and laws to deal with the issue. Scientific evidence suggests that these myriad efforts may be stabilizing ozone levels in the upper atmosphere. But researchers emphasize the importance of continued vigilance in ozone preservation efforts, and they note that full recovery above the Antarctic and Arctic regions, where ozone depletion has been most evident, is still decades away. In 2001, for instance, scientists estimated that the ozone hole above the Antarctic spanned 9.8 million square miles (25.4 million square kilometers). Kevin Hillstrom Reference U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ‘‘Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2000 Status and Trends’’ http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrnd00/brochure/00brochure .pdf.

P Pacific Northwest Rain Forests The rain forests of the Pacific Northwest cover a region that begins in Alaska, continuing south through Canada, through western Washington and Oregon, and ending with the redwoods of northern California. This region is unique because of its size as the largest continuous rain forest in the world. It covers a variety of terrains, including mountains, lowlands, and river deltas. Pacific Northwest rain forests are largely comprised of ‘‘old-growth’’ trees, including fir, hemlock, spruce, and cedar. Most of the Pacific Northwest’s commercially exploitable timber comes from the rain forest. Since the mid-1950s, this region has contributed nearly one-half of the United States’ domestic timber. The most common land-use practice is to protect mountainous rain forest areas, leaving the valleys for use by the logging industry. Despite the fact that the Pacific Northwest holds significant large areas of parkland and reserves, very little of it resides in areas of high-value timber.

Seniors enjoying a walk in a Pacific coastal forest. (iStockPhoto)

607

608 | Pacific Northwest Rain Forests

Use of rain forest resources has been a political issue since the United States began settlement of the west. The 1849 gold rush created an early demand for lumber as the rush of people and industries to the Pacific Northwest necessitated building supplies. The Homestead Act (1862) encouraged settlers to build farms and led to the Timber Culture Act (1873), which granted homesteaders an extra 160 acres of land if they agreed to plant trees on one-fourth of it. The Timber and Stone Act of 1878 extended lower prices to settlers who agreed to log and mine the claims. This encouraged production of lands unfit for farming, setting an early precedent for deforestation. Prior to the building of the transcontinental railroad, much of the timber exported from the Pacific Northwest was shipped by sea to international markets along the Pacific Basin. Railroad companies were granted large expanses of land on which to build railroad lines—much of what was granted was logged off or sold to timber companies in order to raise capital. Public awareness of resource preservation expanded during this time period. After the Timber Culture Act was accused of promoting fraud, the federal government recognized the need for a higher level of forest management accountability. The Forest Reserve Act (1891) attempted to preserve U.S. timber supplies and prevent overexploitation of forestlands. One of the first reserves established was the Pacific in Washington state (now part of Mount Rainier National Park). The Forest Management Act (1897) defined the conditions under which these reserves would be managed, laying the groundwork for government management and auction of the timber supply. These actions slowed the rate of landscape change within Northwest rain forests but did not cease it completely. Little national forest timber was cut before the 1940s. Corporate interests pressured the Forest Service to keep national timber out of U.S. markets to keep private companies’ prices from being undercut by oversupply. It was the growing demands of wartime industry that created the pressure under which national forest timber entered the market at a larger scale. A ‘‘sustained-yield’’ approach was first advocated by professional forester David T. Mason and U.S. Forest Service Chief William Greeley in the 1930s. This approach suggested that foresters should not cut down any more than they could plant. It was heavily opposed by logging companies. Mason and Greeley sponsored bills that required lumbermen to adopt conservation techniques. These efforts laid the foundation for major northwest logging companies like Weyerhaeuser to preserve old-growth forestlands using reforestation techniques. In the 1950s, the federal government set up two contracts with pulp mills in Alaska. This enabled the mills to create a monopoly on the trees owned in the Tongass National Forest. When the U.S. government transferred the titles to Alaskan tribes as part of the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, much of this land was selected by Native American-owned corporations. These corporations have concentrated their efforts on preservation and sustainable tree farming in that region.

Paint, Leaded | 609

Logging in the rain forests of the Northwest has been the subject of much controversy in the past 50 years as Americans have become more aware of the value of this natural resource. Maintaining forestlands as a habitat for increasing numbers of endangered and threatened species has become a growing concern. When, in the 1990s, scientists announced that the northern spotted owl was near extinction, local environmental groups began to campaign for its preservation. This fight brought attention to the need to preserve native species and rain forest habitats in the Pacific Northwest. In 2001, the Forest Service enacted another law, known as the Roadless Rule, to conserve millions of acres of national forests from logging and construction efforts. President George W. Bush later modified the policy to allow state governments autonomy to designate those areas. Shifts in political policy have resulted in a number of modifications to this legislation since Bush’s initial changes to the law. The question of forest management is still a difficult issue. Northwest states continue to seek a balance between an economy based on extractive resources and preserving the rain forests. Legislation and education now form the foundation for encouraging forest-based industry in sustainable-yield programs. Gwen Perkins See also Old-Growth Forests

References Bolsinger, Charles L., and Karen L. Waddell. Areas of Old-Growth Forests in California, Oregon, and Washington. Portland, OR: United States Department of Agriculture, Pacific Northwest Station, 1993. Davis, Wade, and David Suzuki. Rainforest: Ancient Realm of the Pacific Northwest. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing Company, 2000. Ficken, Robert E. The Forested Land: A History of Lumbering in Western Washington. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1987. Williams, Michael. Americans and Their Forests: A Historical Geography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Paint, Leaded In 2007, Mattel announced its third recall in six months of toys with dangerous levels of lead paint. Mattel also recalled several other products because of lead, and 16 other recalls by other manufacturers were due to lead. Lead carbonate and lead oxides provide paint with outstanding covering, adhesion, and drying properties. The paints also are easier to apply to hard surfaces and provide a shinier and richer coat. All the toys recalled by Mattel were made in China. China restricts lead to 90 parts per million, compared with the U.S. standard of 600 parts per million.

610 | Paint, Leaded

A laboratory manager at Specialized Technology Resources, Inc., uses a razor blade to demonstrate a paint removal technique on a toy car at the laboratory, in Enfield, Connecticut, Thursday, August 23, 2007. Paint removed from the toys using this method is then tested in the lab for possible dangerous levels of lead content. (AP/Wide World Photos)

However, enforcement is lax, and even high-end stores in China sell lead-painted goods. The same violation occurs in Malaysia, Singapore, and India. Some Middle Eastern countries have no lead restrictions. Lead is toxic, particularly in children six years old and younger but also to adults exposed to high levels in the workplace. In children, lead may be eaten accidentally or inhaled in the form of lead dust. Lead-based paint is also a hazard for items that children chew or play with a lot. It affects the brain and nervous system, causing headaches, hearing problems, behavior problems, and learning disabilities in children, and high blood pressure, nerve and memory problems, reproductive problems, and muscle and joint pain in adults. Lead lingers in the environment, contaminating water, crops, and outdoor surfaces. It is no longer used in gasoline, and the shift from its use in paint is a means of dealing with the same problem. The United States still allows lead-based paint outdoors and in industrial settings, but even this is slowly being phased out because of danger to the painters. Peeling, chalking, cracking, and chipping paint can release lead into the air. Some lead is found in dust, soil, drinking water, items stored in lead-contaminated containers, and toys and furniture.

Particulates | 611

In homes, the main source of lead is paint. In the eighteenth through the early twentieth centuries, white lead, linseed oil, and inorganic pigments were the components of paint. Lead-based paint was applied to trim work, window sashes and frames, baseboards, doors and frames, high-gloss walls, and wainscoting. Metal was routinely primed with red lead or painted with lead-based paint. Milk-based and water-based paints sometimes had lead as a hiding agent or pigment. Lead was also in some varnishes and window-glazing putty. The federal government banned the use of lead-based paint in residences in 1978. Even before then, because of the toxicity of lead, many companies replaced it with titanium and other less toxic elements. Thus, recent layers of paint are less likely to be lead-based but the ones underneath may be. Lead-based paint is one-third the price of clean paint, so Chinese factory owners, in an extremely competitive and poorly regulated market, stretch their profits by cutting corners by using lead-based paint. Chinese manufacturers say they give the client what he wants and tell the client that lead is in the cheap paint. John H. Barnhill References Barboza, David. ‘‘Why Lead in Toy Paint? It’s Cheaper.’’ New York Times, September 11, 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/11/business/worldbusiness/11lead.html. Park, Sharon C., and Douglas C. Hicks. ‘‘Preservation Brief: Appropriate Methods for Reducing Lead-Paint Hazards in Historic Housing.’’ http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/ tps/briefs/brief37.htm. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2. ‘‘Lead and Lead Poisoning. Lead in Historic Paints.’’ 2008. http://epa.gov/region2/lead/.

Particulates Particulates, also called particulate matter, are a mixture of water vapor and solid particles in the air. The resulting particulates range in size and composition. Some form acidic liquids, while some remain solid. Of the most concern are the smallest, as those can be inhaled and cause a range of health problems. These particulates are divided into two groups. Coarse particulates are between 10 and 2.5 micrometers in diameter. Fine particulates are under 2.5 micrometers in diameter. These are the most dangerous as they are inhaled deep into the lungs and can spread systemically. Particulates can come from natural causes such as a forest fire or volcanic eruption. Most particulates are caused by humans. Tilling a dry field, smokestacks sending out smoke and other gases, car emissions, and construction are common sources of particulates. The amount of particulates being created increased with the Industrial Revolution, as coal-burning factories emitted clouds of smoke. At first, such smoke was seen as a sign of progress.

612 | Particulates

Smoke covers a housing development causing severe air quality problems in Bonsall, California, Friday, October 26, 2007. As the fires die down and residents return to their homes, the lingering dust and particulate-laden air is making it difficult for many to breathe even a sigh of relief. (AP/Wide World Photos)

By the mid-twentieth century, episodes of severe pollution were being linked to deaths and hospitalizations. The Clean Air Act of 1970 established standards for particulate matter and established the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce them. These standards have been amended several times as more research found health effects at lower and lower concentrations of particulates. These health effects range from increased problems with asthma, heart problems, reduced lung function, chronic bronchitis, some cancers, and irregular heartbeat. In 2001, researchers looked at morbidity and found that every 10 percent reduction in the amount of pollution would result in a 12.7 percent reduction in morbidity costs. That is the cost of lost wages, productivity, medical care, and death. Such costs do not typically account for the suffering such illnesses and death cause, however. Due to stricter standards on the amount and type of air pollution that can be produced, national levels of particulate matter between 10 and 2.5 micrometers in diameter declined 28 percent from 1990 to 2007. Nationwide levels of particulate matter below 2.5 micrometers in diameter declined 11 percent from 2000 to 2007. These gains were uneven, however. Some places are very clean, and some very dirty. In 1990, the Clean Air Act was revised to require states to come up with a plan to meet EPA standards of air quality. The EPA monitors states and cities to make sure that the plan is being implemented and is sufficient to meet the standards. Ozone alert days, smog levels, and other factors are measured to assess compliance. States

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon (1922) | 613

that do not meet the requirements are subject to penalties in the amount of federal funds they receive. There are a number of activist groups that have formed in different states to monitor the state’s compliance with the Clean Air Act. For example, the governor of Texas sought to exempt several concrete manufacturers in Ellis County from the pollution standards for such businesses. Environmental groups and citizens complained and threatened to sue. The plan was dropped. Stephanie Suesan Smith See also Clean Air Act of 1970; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

References Liu, B., and E. S. H. Yu. ‘‘Regional Estimates of the Morbidity Cost of Total Suspended Particulates.’’ Growth and Change (April 1980): 26–31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ‘‘Particulate Matter (PM) Research.’’ http:// www.epa.gov/airscience/quick-finder/particulate-matter.htm (accessed April 5, 2010).

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon (1922) In Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled a Pennsylvania statute prohibiting mining a piece of land if it would disturb a residence on it. Rather, the Court ruled that the original deed to the property should take precedence, which, in this case, allowed mining to proceed. The ruling established a doctrine of ‘‘regulatory taking,’’ meaning that the government could intervene if it deemed regulations overstepped their boundaries (Witt, 1994, 318). Governmental ‘‘taking’’ of this nature occurs in many cases related to the environment (Patton-Hulce, 1995, 292). Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s landmark opinion stated that landowners aren’t necessarily entitled to any preferred status or protection when they knowingly buy merely the surface rights to land in a ‘‘narrow’’ view. Property rights are negligible, Holmes implied. In Mahon, whereas the property owner had purchased the land knowing fully that Pennsylvania Coal Company reserved the right to mine coal underneath the surface, once Pennsylvania passed legislation years later prohibiting mining if it placed nearby homeowners in danger, the owner sought full rights to his land (‘‘High Court Avoids Act Curbing Mining,’’). Holmes’ ruling sided with industry and took a ‘‘restrained approach’’ to property rights, finding that the public would be served better by the profits from mining the coal than any risk the act of mining itself might pose to anyone living on or near the land atop the mine. Jessica Chapman

614 | Pesticides

References ‘‘High Court Voids Act Curbing Mining.’’ New York Times, December 12, 1922. Patton-Hulce, Vicki R. Environment and the Law: A Dictionary. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 1995. Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/ scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=260&invol=393 (accessed February 7, 2009, and June 27, 2009). Witt, Elder, ed. The Supreme Court A to Z: A Ready Reference Encyclopedia. Vol. 3. Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly Books, 1994.

Pesticides Despite a recent increase in organic agricultural production, pesticides—chemicals that control the spread of pests and, at times, eliminate these pests altogether— remain a foundation of modern-day agriculture. Pesticides can be classified according to a number of attributes but are most commonly distinguished by their target organism. Insecticides, for example, are pesticides that target insect pests. Fungicides, in contrast, target fungi. Herbicides target weeds; avicides target birds; and rodenticides target rodents. Most pesticides currently in use have been synthetically produced, but cultures around the world used naturally occurring, botanical chemicals as pesticides for millennia. The first known usage of a pesticide occurred more than 5,000 years ago in ancient Mesopotamia: during the fifth century BCE, the Sumerians began using elemental sulfur to control insect pests. During the first century AD, groups in China began applying natural pyrethroid insecticides, and the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans also used natural chemicals (most commonly arsenic and mercury) to control garden pests. Pesticide use shifted dramatically in the 1940s. Synthetic chemicals had played a central role in the two world wars, and many nations turned to these same chemicals to stimulate the rebuilding process. Chemical corporations fed this optimistic sense of peacetime renewal by increasing the availability of cheap, synthetic pesticides. Pesticides encouraged suburbanization and urbanization once Americans discovered that they could export green lawns to hitherto brown areas. Pesticides also protected Americans from common vector diseases; many local and state governments encouraged routine spraying of populated areas. Most important, pesticides increased the production of foodstuffs for domestic consumption and export. Agricultural production increased exponentially after the introduction of synthetic pesticides. Americans quickly and understandably came to view pesticides as miracle chemicals, a sentiment echoed across the globe. Paul Hermann Muller, the man who discovered DDT’s application as an insecticide, won a Nobel Prize (1948)

Pesticides | 615

for his work with the chemical compound. Yet, scientists began to question the safety of these chemicals as early as the 1940s. Pesticides killed non-target organisms, drifted into non-target areas, and persisted in the environment. Moreover, certain classes of pesticides were accumulating in the fatty tissues of animals, a phenomenon known as bioaccumulation. The American public, however, generally did not question the safety of synthetic pesticides until the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962). Combining scientific data with an emotive narrative, Carson’s book highlighted the problems with pesticides (particularly the bioaccumulation of DDT in the tissues and eggshells of predatory birds) in a way that attracted international attention and public support. The publication of Silent Spring and the subsequent emergence of the environmental movement ushered in a period of heavy regulation for pesticides. In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), founded in 1970, regulates the production and use of pesticides as part of its mission to pursue cleaner air and drinking water. The agency has banned some pesticides entirely—most notably banning the use of DDT in the United States on June 14, 1972—and at other times has regulated the purchase and uses of pesticides. Yet, pesticides had been regulated as early as 1910, when Congress passed the Federal Insecticide Act. Early statutes monitored the quality of the pesticides produced for market. Regulatory legislation would not focus on the environmental impact of pesticides until the 1940s, when Congress began approving acts such as the 1947 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Congress has continued to pass and amend legislation regulating pesticide use and production, but regulation of the chemical industry is a complicated and difficult mission. The federal government must not only enforce regulatory laws, but also must monitor the quality of domestically produced agricultural goods, a difficult task considering the volume of chemicals produced and crops farmed. Yet, the government must also ensure the quality of imported agricultural goods. Even if pesticides have been banned in the United States, they may still be used in other nations that produce food for American consumption. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Stockholm Convention, for example, have banned some pesticides only for agricultural purposes, approving those same pesticides for the purposes of controlling vector diseases. Moreover, the United States has signed free-trade agreements so it, at times, imports agricultural goods exposed to pesticides not regulated by federal standards. In short, the dangers of pesticides take many forms, but so do the uses of these synthetic chemicals. Regulation will never come easily, but developing and developed nations alike will continue to turn to pesticides as a solution to their food and health problems, a thought-provoking if necessary concession to the pests of the world. Kenna Lang Archer

616 | Pinchot, Gifford See also Carson, Rachel; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; World Health Organization

References Carson, R. Silent Spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1962. Coats, J., and H. Yamamoto, eds. Environmental Fate and Effects of Pesticides. Washington DC: American Chemical Society, 2003. McWilliams, J. E. American Pests: The Losing War on Insects from Colonial Times to DDT. New York: Columbia University Press, 2008. Toth, J. ‘‘Federal Pesticide Laws and Regulations.’’ 1996. http://ipm.ncsu.edu/safety/ factsheets/laws.pdf (accessed May 10, 2010). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ‘‘DDT Ban Takes Effect.’’ 1972. http:// www.epa.gov/history/topics/ddt/01.htm (accessed December 29, 2009).

Pinchot, Gifford Gifford Pinchot (1865–1946) was an American conservationist and forester best known as the first chief of the U.S. Forest Service. Pinchot was the fourth chief of the Division of Forestry from 1895–1905 and served two terms as Pennsylvania governor (1923–1927; 1931–1935). He is widely considered to be the father of American conservationism because of his great impact on U.S. environmental issues and legislation. Pinchot was born on August 11, 1865, in Simsbury, Massachusetts. The child of James and Mary Eno Pinchot, he was raised as part of an elite family of American mercantilists. James Pinchot encouraged his son to study forestry in order to rectify the environmental damage caused by the Pinchot family enterprises. When Pinchot began his studies at Yale, there were no American forestry education programs. Pinchot went to Europe to study forestry as a result, enrolling at L’Ecole Nationale Forestiere in Nancy, France. While there, he met eminent European foresters William Schlich and Dietrich Brandis and developed an understanding of the forest as a crop rather than a strictly recreational resource. Upon returning to the United States, Pinchot worked as a resident forester for the Vanderbilts’ Biltmore Forest Estate for three years. Shortly thereafter, he became involved with the National Forest Commission, traveling throughout the west during the summer of 1896 to scout areas for potential forest reserves. He was named the fourth chief of the Division of Forestry shortly afterward. The Division (later Bureau) of Forestry was founded as part of the Department of Agriculture in reaction to public concerns that American national resources were rapidly disappearing. This agency answered citizens’ questions and gathered statistics but

Pinchot, Gifford | 617

did not formulate policy as public forestlands fell under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior. In 1905, the Transfer Act transferred forest reserve management to the newly created U.S. Forest Service. Pinchot acted as the primary advocate for this legislation, with support from his friend, President Theodore Roosevelt. Pinchot was selected as the U.S. Forest Service’s first chief, serving in this capacity from 1905 to 1910. During this period, this agency focused on providing public recreation, protecting lands against exploitation, controlling and combating wildfires, and mapping national forests. Pinchot also recognized the need for collaboration with the private sector. He created the Division of State and Private Forestry in 1908 to address issues of forest taxation and assist private forest owners with practical forestry problems. Arguments over coal leasing in Alaska brought Pinchot into conflict with Secretary of the Interior Richard A. Ballinger. Pinchot believed that Ballinger sought to Gifford Pinchot, chief of the Division of Forestry. (Library of Congress) halt the U.S. conservation movement and accused him of siding with private trusts. These arguments, which turned into a national debate, resulted in Pinchot’s dismissal in 1910 by President William Howard Taft for ‘‘insubordination.’’ Following his departure from the Forest Service, Pinchot went on to become a two-term governor of the state of Pennsylvania. He continued conservation efforts, founding the National Conservation Association and working for Progressive causes for the rest of his life. He died on October 4, 1946, of leukemia. The Gifford Pinchot National Forest in southern Washington is named in his honor, as is Gifford Pinchot State Park in York County, Pennsylvania. Gwen Perkins See also Roosevelt, Theodore; U.S. Forest Service

618 | Polluter Pays Principle

References Miller, Char. Gifford Pinchot and the Making of Modern Environmentalism. Washington DC: Island Press, 2001. Nash, Roderick. Wilderness and the American Mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001. Pinchot, Gifford. Breaking New Ground. Washington DC: Island Press, 1998. Pinchot, Gifford. The Conservation Diaries of Gifford Pinchot. Harold K. Steen, ed. Durham, NC: The Forest History Society, 2001.

Polluter Pays Principle The polluter pays principle assigns liability for pollution. A core tenet of sustainable development, it uses cost-benefit analysis techniques to determine responsibility. In the United States, this environmental policy requires those causing pollution to bear the cost of cleanup. The offender can either pay to remove the pollution or compensate those affected by the pollution. In addition to assigning liability, the polluter pays principle encourages reuse and recycling by forcing businesses to factor into a product’s market price the environmental costs of production, including waste disposal. Until this principle was instituted in the United States, polluters were not responsible for the cost of environmental cleanup related to waste disposal from production. The notion seeks to decrease the waste stream. The idea’s first mention surfaced in the 1972 Recommendation by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Council on Guiding Principles Concerning International Economic Aspects of Environmental Policies. Today, the principle is a staple of international environment law. How to allocate the environmental costs of natural resource contamination developed out of a need to resolve land, air, and water pollution cleanup issues associated with the Industrial Revolution. In the 1900s, the United States began chemically fertilizing crops and producing gargantuan mounds of trash, including industrial waste, which was making water, land, and air toxic. Three examples stand out. In 1969, the oily, bubbling, gaseous Cuyahoga River in Ohio burst into flames from a train spark. In 1980, the government evacuated Love Canal when severe illness clusters connected to dioxin and radioactive material from the 1942–1946 Manhattan Project were attributed to the chemical waste dump on which the Niagara Falls, New York, neighborhood was built. Three years later, in 1983, the U.S. government purchased Times Beach, Missouri, with $32 million from taxpayers because of dioxin-tainted oil sprayed onto dirt roads there, causing illness and killing many horses. Someone had to pay, and it wasn’t going to be the government. Elected officials in the United States decided it should be the main polluters. For that reason,

Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 | 619

lawmakers included the polluter pays principle in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. Industry fought the law and the principle as unjust. A Hollywood version of the polluter pays principle and how industry responded to it is embodied in the movie A Civil Action. The film shows how industry used the legal system to avoid payment associated with illness and water contamination in Woburn, Massachusetts. CERCLA allowed them to be held accountable. Today, companies polluting natural resources in the United States must put up an assurance bond to insure against worst-case environmental impact as determined by the government. If damage occurs, the bond will be used for restoration. If not, the money, along with the interest accrued, is returned to the company. Four benefits of the principle’s application were identified by Bugge in 1996: (1) it defines how to allocate costs within a state; (2) it promotes harmonization of international environmental policies; (3) from an economic perspective, it promotes efficiency; and (4) from a legal standpoint, it promotes justice. The notion began as a way to pinpoint and calculate the environmental costs associated with economic activities and include them in the price of goods and services. Debra A. Schwartz See also Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

References Costanza R., and L. Cornwell. ‘‘The 4P Approach to Dealing with Scientific Uncertainty.’’ Environment 34 (9) (1992). http://www.dieoff.org/page 33.htm (accessed June 1, 2009). Encyclopedia of Earth. ‘‘Polluter Pays Principle.’’ http://www.eoearth.org/article/ Polluter_pays_principle (accessed June 1, 2009). The Heritage Foundation. ‘‘The Foundry: Breaking Down the Energy Budget.’’ February 2009. http://www.blog.heritage.org/?s=breakingþdownþtheþenergyþbudget (accessed June 4, 2009). Logomasini, A. Competitive Enterprise Institute. ‘‘EPA Uses Superfund Tax to Target the Innocent.’’ 2003. http://cei.org/print/12378 (accessed June 1, 2009). O’Connor, M. ‘‘The Internalization of Environmental Costs: Implementing the Polluter Pays Principle in the European Union.’’ International Journal of Environment and Pollution 7 (4) (1997): 450–482. Sustainable Environment. ‘‘Polluter Pays Principle.’’ http://www.sustainable-environment .org.uk/Principles/Polluter_Pays.php (accessed June 1, 2009).

Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 The Pollution Prevention Act was created and passed in 1990 by Congress. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the act is ‘‘multimedia,’’

620 | Pollution Prevention Act of 1990

meaning that it seeks to reduce pollution in every aspect of the environment, including air, chemical safety, etc. This approach allows the act to work in coordination with other more specific regulations enacted for ‘‘single media’’; the Clean Water Act is one such example. On June 15, 1993, the EPA published a policy statement titled ‘‘New Directions for Environmental Protection.’’ This document, created by Administrator Carol Browner, summarized what had already taken place and created a plan for the EPA’s future action. The Pollution Prevention Act’s findings highlighted the need for ‘‘source reduction’’ of pollution in America, rather than a focus on ‘‘waste management and pollution control’’ (Environment and Public Works, 2002). This main goal highlights the action it sought to take. The EPA was called to assess the current pollution situation and to research places where pollution could be reduced at the beginning of the process rather than the end. To do this, the EPA was formally required to have an office to fulfill the new activities. The act called for the EPA to provide financial assistance, guidelines, and training, among other things, for industry producers and smaller government entities that needed or wanted to learn more about source-reduction opportunities. As stated in the title of the act itself, the goal was to fight to prevent the creation of pollution, rather than spend ‘‘tens of billions of dollars per year controlling this pollution’’ (Environment and Public Works, 2002). Under the act, large producers must report their recycling habits, and the EPA is allowed to track pollution rates of industry. The act formally stated that pollution would need to be prevented whenever it was possible, if it couldn’t be prevented it would need to be recycled, and if it couldn’t be recycled it should be disposed of in an environmentally responsible way (Environment and Public Works, 2002). The Pollution Prevention Act marked the beginning of a new way to think about the environment, the negative consequences of pollution, and how America contributes to the harm it causes in the environment. A preventative policy rather than reactive, it was the first of its kind on the topic of the environment. The act set forth a plan that would save both American industry and government money in the cleanup of pollution. By stopping it at its source, the environmental as well as the economic benefits are enhanced and take place as long as the act is in effect and holds industry responsible for its pollution practices. Pollution prevention is a well-known idea today. Many current national and international discussions on environmental issues revolve around the prevention of harm rather than recovery once the damage is done, and this act is credited with establishing precedent for this positive policy trend. B. J. Finley See also Clean Water Act of 1972; Polluter Pays Principle; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Polychlorinated Biphenyls | 621

References Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate. ‘‘Pollution Prevention Act of 1990.’’ 2002. http://epw.senate.gov/PPA90.pdf (accessed April 5, 2010). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ‘‘Pollution Prevention (P2).’’ 2010. http:// www.epa.gov/p2/ (accessed April 6, 2010). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ‘‘Pollution Prevention (P2) Laws and Policies.’’ 2010. http://www.epa.gov/p2/pubs/laws.htm (accessed April 5, 2010).

Polychlorinated Biphenyls Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are a category of human-made organic chemicals once prevalent in commercial applications due to their attractive chemical properties; they are non-flammable, chemically stable, and insulating. PCB use in electrical capacitors and transformers, hydraulic equipment, paint, plastics, rubber, and office products meant potentially broad human exposure. The Environmental

In this photo taken Wednesday, October 7, 2009, crews dredge a section of the Hudson River in Fort Edward, New York. Dredging began after decades of argument over how to deal with tons of PCBs that flowed down the river after a dam was removed. General Electric plants in Fort Edward and neighboring Hudson Falls discharged wastewater containing PCBs for decades before the popular lubricant was banned in 1977. (AP/Wide World Photos)

622 | Polychlorinated Biphenyls

Protection Agency (EPA) characterizes PCBs as a ‘‘likely human carcinogen’’ that poses human health and the environment risks serious enough to trigger extensive regulation. Human studies demonstrate potentially carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects, including low birth weight, thyroid disease, and learning, memory, and immune system disorders. Animal studies prove that PCBs cause cancer and other negative effects on immune, reproductive, nervous, and endocrine systems. The EPA controls use of PCB-containing materials and equipment and oversees the disposal of PCB wastes. The EPA’s management is authorized under the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which includes PCB-specific regulations. The TSCA banned PCB ‘‘manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce’’ effective in 1979 with few exceptions, but products manufactured before the ban may still be in use. The EPA approves PCB waste handlers and provides guidelines to industry, state, and federal agencies regarding their ‘‘covering/capping PCB-contaminated areas, waste storage, waste container marking, manifesting, and recordkeeping requirements.’’ Companies using transformers containing PCBs must register them with the EPA, and those who undertake PCB disposal or research must notify the EPA. In compliance with the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (1986), a transformer database and quarterly reports of PCB activity are available to the public through the EPA’s Web site. TSCA places a great burden of testing and data provision on the chemical industry and a great burden of data management and scientific-based rule-making on the EPA. The scope of the PCB-management problem has proven much greater than legislators realized, and program implementation in areas including chemical testing and site inspections has been inadequate historically. Under Superfund legislation (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 1980), the EPA is authorized to conduct long-term hazardous waste site cleanups and determine liability of responsible parties. New York’s Hudson River remains one of the most high-profile Superfund sites. General Electric Company’s capacitor manufacturing plants discharged up to 1.3 million pounds of PCBs into the Hudson River after World War II, and PCBs remain in river sediments over a 40-mile stretch of the upper Hudson. This case illustrates the technical and administrative complexities and high costs of hazardous waste risk assessment and cleanup under CERCLA. Thirty years after site identification, remedial dredging is just beginning, and PCBs continue to pose health hazards to those who use the river for drinking water and consume contaminated fish. Gina L. Keel See also Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; Toxic Substances Control Act; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Population Control | 623

References Nakamura, Robert T., and Thomas W. Church. Taming Regulation: Superfund and the Challenge of Regulatory Reform. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2003. Rosenbaum, Walter A. ‘‘A Regulatory Thicket.’’ In Environmental Politics and Policy. Washington DC: CQ Press, 2005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ‘‘Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs).’’ http:// www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/tsd/pcbs/index.htm (accessed May 10, 2009). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2. ‘‘First Phase of Hudson River Dredging Project Complete.’’ http://www.epa.gov/hudson/ (accessed May 10, 2009).

Population Control Population control is the practice of limiting the growth of a human or animal population. The methods of control vary but can include contraception, abortion, and the alteration of the ability of the target group to procreate (Levy et al., 2003; Phillips et al., 1996). Disease, starvation, migration, and war can also limit the expansion of a human or animal population (Ehrlich, 1968). Animal Population Control Animals who become overabundant in the wild are often culled through hunting, neutering, birth control, or euthanasia. Populations of many animals flourish in certain areas, but soon begin to compete for resources and stress local ecosystems. For example, the nutria, a large rodent, was introduced into Louisiana in the early twentieth century and was prized for its luxurious fur. But the nutria population exploded, burrowing into coastal wetlands and destroying miles of the Louisiana coastline. The local government set up hunting incentives to control the population. Newer approaches have focused on developing special wildlife birth control programs to manage particularly prolific species like the whitetailed deer and Canada geese (Boyle, 2009). Programs targeting urban animals like feral cat colonies focus on neutering the animals so that they can’t procreate in the future (Mott, 2004). Human Population Control The idea that humans can and should control their own populations has its roots in ancient times. Ancient philosophers and writers like Confucius, Aristotle, and Tertullian equated excessive population and crowding with lower standards of living and poverty (Neurath, 1994). In the late eighteenth century, British economist Thomas Malthus wrote about the dangers of unchecked population growth in his pamphlet, An Essay on the Principle of Population. Malthus believed that the population had a tendency to increase faster than its ability to find or create

624 | Population Control

food. He believed that meant the poor were destined to always suffer from a lack of food (Malthus, 1798). Malthus’s ideas were a controversial but influential way of thinking about the interplay between poverty and population growth. In the 1960s, modern-day neo-Malthusians like Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich took up the mantle to discuss the coming crisis of overpopulation. In his book, The Population Bomb (1968), he predicted that the world would experience widespread famines in the next decade. His predictions did not come true (increased agricultural productivity staved off the wave of famines), but his ideas influenced family planning advocates in the 1960s and 1970s (Elliott et al., 1970; Berelson, 1969). Family planning advocates had been working in the background for a while. Birth control pioneer Margaret Sanger opened her first birth control clinic in Brooklyn, New York, in 1916 to help women space or avoid pregnancies (‘‘Achievements in Public Health,’’ 1999). But the contraceptive revolution didn’t take off until the 1960s, when more women entered the workplace. Finally, in 1970, the U.S. government started to provide federal funding to provide access to contraception and reproductive health care under the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act. The CDC reports that since the 1970s, the average family size decreased (‘‘Achievements in Public Health,’’ 1999). Across the developing world, the United Nations advocates for a greater access to family planning services and contraception and a decrease in teenage pregnancy in the developing world through its Millennium Development Goals Initiative. India was one of the first countries to adopt a comprehensive family planning policy in the 1950s. Posters promoted the ‘‘small family is a happy family’’ concept, encouraged birth spacing, and promoted contraceptive use and sterilization (Krock, 2004). And although India is still the second most populous nation in the world, fertility rates have declined dramatically over the years. In 1951, an average woman in India would have had six children; in 2010, she is statistically likely to have only about three children (‘‘India Sees Decline in Fertility Rate,’’ 2010; Srinivasan, 2006). Suffering under its large population, China’s one-child policy was established in 1979. In general, Chinese married couples are supposed to confine themselves to one child; those who choose to have an additional child face fines (Krock, 2004; Fitzpatrick, 2009). While countries like China and India try to rein in their runaway populations, other countries are finding that they did too good a job at limiting their population growth. The fertility rate in Japan and most European countries has declined over the past few decades (Bongaarts, 2004). Countries like France and Germany have instituted incentives to get women to have children (Graham, 2007). There are critics of human population control. Matthew Connelly, an associate professor of history at Columbia University, says in his book Fatal Misconception

Population Control | 625

that some population-control programs have their roots in eugenics, the idea that you can improve the race by practicing selective breeding (Connelly, 2008). Margaret Sanger, the birth-control advocate and the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a famous eugenicist and wrote in 1921 ‘‘the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.’’ Family planning programs have often gone too far in places like China and India, where there have been forced sterilizations and abortions (Srinivasan, 2006; Fitzpatrick, 2009). Jori Lewis See also Food and Agriculture Organization; Sustainable Agriculture

References ‘‘Achievements in Public Health, 1900–1999: Family Planning.’’ Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. December 3, 1999. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml /mm4847a1.htm (accessed April 9, 2010). Berelson, Bernard. ‘‘Beyond Family Planning.’’ Studies in Family Planning. 1969. Bongaarts, J. ‘‘The End of the Fertility Transition in the Developed World.’’ Population and Development Review 28 (3) (2004): 419–443. Boyle, Rebecca. ‘‘Birth Control for Animals.’’ Popsci.com. March 3, 2009. http:// www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-03/birth-control-animals. Connelly, Matthew. Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2008. ‘‘India Sees Decline in Fertility Rate.’’ D-sector.org. January 21, 2010. http://www .d-sector.org/article-det.asp?id=880&idFor=880 (accessed April 9, 2010). Ehrlich, Paul. The Population Bomb. New York: Ballantine Books, 1968. Elliot, Robin, et al. ‘‘U.S. Population Growth and Family Planning: A Review of the Literature.’’ Family Planning Perspectives, 1970. Fitzpatrick, Laura. ‘‘A Brief History of China’s One-Child Policy.’’ Time.com, July 27, 2009. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1912861,00.html#ixzz0kerozu6j (accessed April 9, 2010). Graham, Stephen. ‘‘Germans Get Incentives for Having Babies.’’ Associated Press. January 3, 2007. Krock, Lexi. ‘‘World in the Balance: Population Campaigns.’’ PBS NOVA. 2004 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/worldbalance/campaigns.html (accessed April 9, 2010). Levy, J. K., et al. ‘‘Evaluation of the Effect of a Long-Term Trap-Neuter-Return and Adoption Program on a Free-Roaming Cat Population.’’ Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association 222 (1) (2003): 42–46. Malthus T. R. An Essay on the Principle of Population. Oxford: Oxford World’s Classics reprint, 1798. Mott, Maryann. ‘‘U.S. Faces Growing Feral Cat Problem.’’ National Geographic News. September 7, 2004. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0907_040907 _feralcats.html (accessed April 9, 2010).

626 | Powell, John Wesley Neurath, Paul. From Malthus to the Club of Rome and Back. New York: M. E. Sharpe, 1994. Phillips, J. F., et al. ‘‘The Long-Term Demographic Role of Community-Based Family Planning in Rural Bangladesh.’’ Studies in Family Planning 27 (4) (1996): 204–219. Sanger, Margaret. ‘‘The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.’’ Birth Control Review (October 1921). Srinivasan, K. ‘‘Population Policies and Family Planning Programmes in India: A Review and Recommendations.’’ IIPS Newsletter (January 2006).

Powell, John Wesley John Wesley Powell (born March 24, 1834) was a geologist, conservationist, ethnologist, one-armed soldier, and the last explorer of the American western frontier. His most notable contribution to the geology of the United States was his 1869, three-month, 900-mile survey of the Green River in Wyoming through the Grand Canyon, making him and his crew the first Euro-Americans to explore this region. During the Powell Geographic Expedition, as it would later be called, Powell began to notice the importance of wetland preservation. By 1879, he was an advocate for conservation and had written the ‘‘Arid Lands Report’’ (ALR), which assessed conventional systems of agriculture, argued for controlled irrigation, and suggested that the farm acreage provided by the Homestead Act be increased by more than 37 percent (from 1,600 to 2,560 acres) due to insufficient land for grazing. The report further noted that the western territories could not sustain unlimited development. Eventually, the ALR led to the first assessment of available water supplies in the United States, in addition to the consolidation of government surveys and policies under one administration. Less than two years after the report was published, Powell became the director of the U.S. Geological Survey. He remained in that position for 13 years before voluntarily retiring and focused his energy on being the director of the Bureau of Ethnology at the Smithsonian Institute. This gave Powell an opportunity to focus on further developing a bibliographic and linguistic compilation of the Shoshone American Indians until his death on September 23, 1902, of a cerebral hemorrhage. Imanni Sheppard See also Conservation; Grand Canyon; Homestead Act of 1862; U.S. Geological Survey

References Murphy, D. John Wesley Powell: Voyage of Discovery. Las Vegas: K. C. Publications, Inc., 1991. Powell, Wesley J. Canyons of the Colorado. New York: Cosimo Classics, 2008.

Presidential Task Force on Regulatory Relief | 627 Stegnar, W. The Arid Lands. Lincoln, NE: Bison Books, 2004. Worster, D. A River Running West: The Life of John Wesley Powell. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Presidential Task Force on Regulatory Relief Improving the effectiveness of government regulations and accountability were goals of the Presidential Task Force on Regulatory Relief. President Reagan believed that by loosening bureaucratic restrictions, prosperity and motivation among businesses in the United States would increase; consequently, the state of the economy would improve. Such efforts and accomplishments mend shortcomings in our government system while strengthening business-government relations. Between the years 1981 and 1989, members of the Presidential Task Force on Regulatory Relief reviewed past and pending federal regulations while making recommendations for improvement, eventually leading to legislative solutions and more efficiency between businesses and government. President Ronald Reagan (1981–1989) established the task force and appointed Vice President George Bush as its chairman on January 22, 1981. President Reagan signed Executive Orders 12291 and 12498 on February 17, 1981 and January 4, 1985, respectively, enacting the task force. Members of the task force amended rules and regulations in order to decrease the amount of time, money, and paperwork imposed by the federal government on businesses and consumers. In addition to being burdensome, unnecessary paperwork decreased productivity. Selected regulatory programs targeted by the task force included finance, natural gas, pharmaceuticals, and transportation, among others. Each program increased the number of regulations in place since its establishment, creating a substantial amount of paperwork for both the people and the government. Coordination among governmental agencies played a role in the success of the task force. Task force members directed officials within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to review analyses; OMB members relayed information to the government agency undergoing review. Members on the task force included the vice president, attorney general, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Labor, Secretary of the Treasury, director of the Office of Management and Budget, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, and the assistant to the president for policy development. Other individuals attended as necessary. At the start, members of the task force targeted and amended more than 100 rules and regulations imposed by the federal government. Measureable (quantifiable) results of outcomes were specified as requirements when the task force was

628 | Presidential Task Force on Regulatory Relief

established. Each year between 1980 and 1986, the task force reduced more than 600 million hours of paperwork imposed on the public. The Presidential Task Force on Regulatory Relief ended with the Reagan administration in 1989. However, political achievements have continued since its creation. President George H. W. Bush (1989–1993) built upon the foundation laid by the Reagan administration and furthered the function of the task force with the creation of the Council of Competitiveness. President Bush established the council on March 31, 1989, and granted its authority on June 15, 1990. Michele Lockhart See also Bush, George H. W.; Reagan, Ronald Wilson

References Carroll, James D., A. Lee Fritschler, and Bruce L. R. Smith. ‘‘Supply-Side Management in the Reagan Administration.’’ Public Administration Review 45 (6) (1985): 805–814. Kagan, Elena. ‘‘Presidential Administration.’’ Harvard Law Review 114 (8) (June 2001): 2,245–2,385. Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, National Archives and Records. ‘‘Presidential Task Force on Regulatory Relief.’’ http://www.reagan.utexas.edu (accessed January 5, 2008). Williamson, Richard S. ‘‘A New Federalism: Proposals and Achievements of President Reagan’s First Three Years.’’ Publius 16 (1) (Winter 1986): 11–28.

R Radioactive Waste In the United States, 161 million people live within 75 miles of a temporary radioactive waste site. These aboveground sites are not intended to survive for the thousands of years that the waste will be dangerous. Most sites are near large bodies of water, but they can be urban, suburban, or rural. There are 121 sites in 39 states. Radioactive waste has been collecting since the 1940s. It comes from mining, power generation, defense, scientific research, medicine, and industry. Waste can be solid, gas, or liquid, and the level of radioactivity varies, as does the time that the material remains radioactive. Radioactive low-level waste includes items such as protective clothing, filters, tools, rags, and medical water. High-level waste is used as nuclear reactor fuel and uranium mill tailings, the debris generated by the processing of uranium and thorium ore. Uranium pellets are small, about the size of the tip of a person’s little finger, and they wear out after three or four years of producing electricity in a reactor. When removed from a reactor, the fuel is cooled in a special pool of water and then placed in a dry storage container on a concrete pad or in a cement bunker. The amount of spent fuel in the United States would cover a football field to a depth of five yards. Spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste contain highly radioactive cesium, strontium, technetium, and neptunium that can remain radioactive for a few years to several million years. Per scientific consensus, this sort of material must be stored deep underground in a geologic repository. Into the 1970s, the United States reprocessed spent nuclear fuel into weapons. Weapons-grade materials are high-level radioactive waste. The removal of uranium and plutonium from spent fuel created a highly radioactive sludge. The Department of Energy requires that this sludge be solidified and placed in a sealed stainless steel container before transport to a government-owned repository. Disposal is complicated by cumbersome rules as well as by the multiple agencies overseeing it. In the federal government, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Department of Transportation (DOT) all have roles. Also involved are states and Native American tribes. 629

630 | Radioactive Waste

Warning signs hang on fencing surrounding hazardous waste waiting to be tested at the Envirocare facility Wednesday, February 2, 2005, in Clive, Utah. The new owners of Envirocare asked the state to rescind its conditional license to accept and dispose of hotter nuclear waste—capping a sharp turnaround in the battle over the handling of radioactive material in Utah. (AP/Wide World Photos)

The EPA regulates air and water emissions for radioisotopes. The Food and Drug Administration and the states regulate radioisotopes used in nuclear medicine. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulates some sources of radioactivity, but not all. It covers about a fourth of the 20,000 sources in the United States. The NRC regulates uranium and thorium (source material), enriched uranium and plutonium (special nuclear material), and material that becomes radioactive in the reactor as well as milling residues (byproduct material). The NRC sets rules for disposal of both low-level and high-level waste, storage of spent nuclear fuel, and transportation of spent fuel. Both the nuclear materials and nuclear reactors regulatory programs deal with wastes. The Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards establishes and carries out NRC policy regarding regulation, management, and disposal of waste and fuel. The Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Programs deals with environmental compliance and decommissioning, cleanup of contaminated sites, management and disposal of low-level waste (LLW), and recovery of uranium. The NRC has regional offices to assist the states within their geographical areas. Both the NRC and states that meet NRC standards (agreement states, currently

Reagan, Ronald Wilson | 631

numbering 35) regulate LLW disposal, and the Radioactive Waste Safety Research Program assists the NRC’s waste regulation. The past two decades have seen changes in disposal practices as environmental concerns have led to improved technologies and the cleanup of unused facilities. New disposal facilities and methods face more stringent standards of pollution prevention and environmental protection. Permanent disposal options include leaving it where it is, burying it under the oceans, placing it in polar ice, sending it to outer space, or putting it into a geologic repository. Theoretically, as long as it is in solid form and shielded, it will not harm the environment. Deep burial will keep it dry and isolated. The DOE proposes to put solid, not liquid, waste in Yucca Mountain. This waste is not explosive, nor is it flammable. Critics note the risk to groundwater. John H. Barnhill See also Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1985; Nuclear Regulatory Commission

References Johnson, Jeff. ‘‘Radioactive Waste to Be Left in Tanks.’’ Chemical & Engineering News 82 (42) (2004): 12. http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/8242/8242notw6.html Saling, James. Radioactive Waste Management, 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2001. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Yucca Mountain Project. ‘‘What Are Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste?’’ http://www.energy.gov/environment/ocrwm.htm U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ‘‘Radioactive Disposal: An Environmental Perspective.’’ http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/docs/radwaste/index.html (accessed April 2009). U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ‘‘Radioactive Waste.’’ http://www.nrc.gov/ waste.html.

Reagan, Ronald Wilson Ronald Reagan was the fortieth president of the United States and thirty-third governor of California. Before entering politics, he was a well-known movie and television actor, Screen Actors Guild president, and spokesman for General Electric. While working for the company, his political philosophy shifted dramatically rightward, and he entered Republican Party politics nationally in 1964 with his strong endorsement of presidential candidate Barry Goldwater. Reagan ran for and won the governorship of California in 1966, winning reelection in 1970. In 1968, he lost a late bid for the Republican presidential nomination. In 1976, he tried again, narrowly losing the nomination to President Gerald Ford. Reagan earned his party’s

632 | Reagan, Ronald Wilson

nomination in 1980, going on to defeat President Jimmy Carter in the general election. He served two terms as president and has become a conservative icon. Ronald Wilson Reagan was born on February 6, 1911, in Tampico, Illinois. His family moved often. During high school in Dixon, Illinois, he developed interests in drama, sports, and politics. He grew up in a racially segregated society and had no black friends. His formative years were neither the ideal that is often portrayed, nor particularly worse than those of his peers. He worked hard and attended Eureka College. After college, he entered broadcasting with an eye toward acting. He became well known as a broadcaster and public speaker in the midwest, working out of Des Moines, Iowa, but he left for Hollywood in 1937. Reagan entered the movie business and married fellow actor Jane Wyman in 1940. After a moderately successful career in motion pictures, a divorce from Wyman, a remarriage to Nancy Davis, and a stint as president of the Screen Actors Guild, Reagan moved into television. He hosted General Electric Theatre for eight years during the late 1950s and into the 1960s. During these years, Reagan traveled extensively, giving patriotic, anti-communist speeches to General Electric employees. It was during this period that Reagan radically altered his political philosophy and honed what would become known as ‘‘The Speech.’’ In this speech, Reagan, who had once attacked ‘‘greedy corporations,’’ began to describe the income tax as a ‘‘Marxist tool’’ and Social Security as unfair to big business. In 1964, he debuted on the national political stage with his televised address, ‘‘A Time for Choosing,’’ supporting Barry Goldwater for the presidency (Cannon, 1991). Reagan’s popularity among conservatives grew as he continued speaking out publicly. He had an eye towards national politics, but at the urging of advisors, he decided to challenge California Governor Edmund ‘‘Pat’’ Brown in 1966. Reagan’s eight years as governor brought mixed results. He found that implementing policy change was difficult. He accomplished a portion of his conservative agenda, but often compromised with the state’s Democratic legislature. Most liberals viewed his governorship as a blip in the state’s progressive march, while conservatives saw the state turning in a much more conservative direction. Reagan was most proud of his accomplishments on welfare reform and played down the fact that taxes and state spending had risen dramatically under his leadership. Surprisingly for a conservative, he signed bills easing abortion restrictions and cracking down on air pollution (Cannon, 2003). After two previous attempts, Reagan gained the Republican Party presidential nomination in 1980. He and running mate, George H. W. Bush, received 50.7 percent of the popular vote and on January 20, 1981, Reagan was sworn in as the nation’s fortieth president. A few months into his first term he would be the target of a failed assassination attempt. He handled the incident with his trademark wit and good humor. Though the president survived, he came much closer to death than was publicly revealed at the time.

Reagan, Ronald Wilson | 633

Reagan came to Washington with a decidedly conservative agenda and what he saw as a mandate to implement it. His domestic agenda, known as ‘‘Reaganomics,’’ included budget reductions, huge tax cuts, and a reduction in regulatory oversight. The new administration’s economic team immediately set about implementing their plan of ‘‘supply-side economics.’’ In passing their budget, the Reagan administration predicted that they were on target to cut $750 billion within five years. In actuality they succeeded in tripling the national debt in eight years, from $914 billion to $2.7 trillion. In addition to angering many liberals and minorities with his economic policies, Reagan earned the enmity of labor by firing 11,000 striking air traffic controllers after they refused his demand to return to work (Wilentz, 2008). Reagan’s conservative philosophy extended to both the Justice Department and into his judicial appointments. Besides his opposition to ‘‘special rights’’ for any group, hostility to school busing, and reactionary appointments at the Justice Department, Reagan opposed a holiday to honor Martin Luther King Jr. and supported a weakened version of the 1965 Voting Rights Act in 1982 (Schaller, 2007). Reagan showed he was a pragmatic politician, however, eventually signing tax increases and negotiating with the Soviet Union. The Reagan agenda for regulatory reform extended to environmental policy. As a candidate, Reagan stressed the fact that the needs of humans would have priority over the environment. Ignoring his own transition team’s reform suggestions, he allowed environmental policy to be shaped largely by James G. Watt, a foe of the environmental movement, and the conservative Heritage Foundation. Despite remaining strong public support for protection of the nation’s environment, there was to be a shift away from the conservationism of the 1970s. Rather than professionals and environmental groups participating in the decision-making process, it would be left to ideologically driven individuals, many of whom had little or no experience in environmental issues. Reagan viewed the election results as a mandate for change and he was largely successful in implementing radical policy changes (Kraft and Vig, 1984). As Reagan’s Secretary of the Interior, Watt moved quickly to implement the new president’s policies. He spent much of his first year installing administrative rules that were designed to open more public lands to development. He urged an easing of regulation on coal companies including allowing strip mining in national parks. He also initiated a program to sell off millions of acres of federal lands and opened new areas for offshore oil and gas drilling. Watt became a lightning rod for the administration’s opponents and after a series of controversial public comments resigned in October 1983. He had largely succeeded in moving the Department of the Interior from a preservationist perspective to more of a development orientation (Short, 1989). The Reagan administration used changes in administrative rules rather than congressional action to effect change. This ‘‘administrative strategy’’ incorporated

634 | Reagan, Ronald Wilson

four parts, most notably changes in personnel. Among these were Rita Lavelle, a former industry public relations officer; Kathleen Bennett, a paper company lobbyist; and Anne Gorsuch Burford, a Watt protege as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Employment at the EPA dropped from 14,269 to 11,474 and new hires were judged on ideological purity rather than experience or education. Most new employees in both the EPA and Interior Department were recruited from the industries they would now be charged with regulating. The second administration tactic was reorganization, essentially downgrading offices that might challenge Reagan’s policy agenda. Gorsuch, for example, eliminated the EPA’s Office of Enforcement, replacing it with a much smaller and weaker division. The federal budget was a third tool, with total spending on natural resources and the environment declining from a $16.2 billion proposal under President Carter for 1984 to $8.9 billion proposed by Reagan. Lastly, the administration focused on reducing regulatory oversight. This was mostly aimed at reducing costs for business and included reviews of air emission standards and the amount of lead allowed in gasoline (Kraft and Vig, 1984). Reagan, though still a controversial figure, accomplished much of what he set out to do. He was central in moving the nation onto a much more conservative path. His massive military buildup helped spend the Soviet Union into bankruptcy and end the Cold War. He shifted America’s judiciary rightward, won an overwhelming reelection victory and was personally popular. He succeeded in reducing regulation on business and in lessening government oversight of the environment. He is often cited by conservatives and Republicans as the symbol of their movement and an ideal to live up to. There were, however, gigantic deficits, numerous scandals such as the Iran-Contra affair, and what most conservationists consider a less than stellar record of safeguarding the nation’s natural resources. Reagan left office in 1989 and moved to the Los Angeles area, where he maintained a mostly private lifestyle. Several years after leaving office he was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease and died at home on June 5, 2004. After a state funeral in Washington, D.C., he was buried at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California. Richard S. Primuth See also The Heritage Foundation; U.S. Department of the Interior; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

References Cannon, Lou. Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power. New York: Public Affairs, 2003. Cannon, Lou. President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1991. Kraft, Michael E., and Norman J. Vig. ‘‘Environmental Policy in the Reagan Presidency.’’ Political Science Quarterly 99 (3) (1984): 415–439.

Reclamation Act of 1902 | 635 Schaller, Michael. Right Turn: American Life in the Reagan-Bush Era, 1980–1992. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Short, C. Brant. Ronald Reagan and the Public Lands: America’s Conservation Debate, 1979–1984. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1989. Vig, Norman J., and Michael E. Kraft. Environmental Policy in the 1980s: Reagan’s New Agenda. Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1984. Wilentz, Sean. The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974–2008. New York: Harper, 2008.

Reclamation Act of 1902 In January 1902, the Senate and the House passed a national reclamation bill authorizing the federal government to construct dams, canals, and other irrigation facilities in the western states that President Theodore Roosevelt signed into law on June 17. Known as the Newlands Act after the Republican Wyoming senator, the Reclamation Act authorized the Secretary of the Interior to establish the U.S. Reclamation Service (USRS; after 1923, the Bureau of Reclamation) and to create a reclamation fund using receipts from the sale and disposal of public lands. It gave the U.S. government wide authority in the development of water resources in the west, although the government was required to comply with various state and territorial water laws. West of the 100th meridian, nineteenth-century agriculture existed on a small scale and today still is generally not possible without irrigation. Although the federal government built roads, canals, dikes, and other internal improvements, it did not seriously consider irrigation projects in the west until the late nineteenth century. John Wesley Powell of the U.S Geological Survey is often credited with first proposing revising land and water laws in the arid region—with possible implications for national irrigation—but he did not enthusiastically support national reclamation. Yet the politicians, government bureaucrats, and writers joined in a growing movement to enact national reclamation to accelerate the west’s settlement and provide a food base for the nation’s economy. The act passed in 1902 at the height of the reclamation movement. The design of national reclamation was grandiose, rooted in the Progressive notions of social good, efficiency, scientific management, and responsive government. The purpose was to ‘‘reclaim’’ the arid west, or in religious imagery, to make ‘‘the desert blossom as a rose.’’ Government-constructed water projects would settle the west with family farms and create an agricultural base. Architects and proponents of national reclamation considered themselves conservationists in the tradition of marshalling the nation’s water resources for their best and highest use. At the time of passage of the reclamation act, no one could have fully anticipated environmental criticism of reclamation and the affects of dams

636 | Reclamation Reform Act of 1982

and irrigation systems on riparian zones, free-flowing rivers, sedimentation, and salinity. Rather, critics at the turn of the century argued that the legislation did not anticipate the challenges of western irrigation or just how much the United States would shift from a rural, agrarian society to an urban, industrial one in the twentieth century. Nevertheless, the Reclamation Act of 1902 was a far-reaching piece of legislation that, for good and ill, reshaped the western landscape. In the first three years after passage of the act, Congress authorized 25 water projects in the western states; today, the number of projects is more than 180, ranging from the mammoth Boulder Canyon Project and the Central Valley Project in California, to smaller projects that serve farmers and municipalities throughout the west. Jedediah S. Rogers See also Bureau of Reclamation; U.S. Department of the Interior

References Pisani, Donald J. To Reclaim a Divided West: Water, Law, and Public Policy, 1848– 1902. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1992. Reisner, Marc. Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water. New York: Viking, 1986. Rowley, William D. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. The Bureau of Reclamation: Origins and Growth to 1945. Vol. 1. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, 2006.

Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 The Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (RRA) was authorized by Title II of Public Law 97-293 and signed into law by Ronald Reagan on October 12, 1982. Designed to limit subsidies to large landholders and distribute them evenly to water users, the RRA set acreage limitations and water rates depending on landowner status under federal reclamation law. The RRA limits a qualified recipient to no more than 960 acres of Class I lands. Under the Reclamation Act of 1902, the U.S. Reclamation Service (in 1923, the Bureau of Reclamation) was given authority to open lands for settlement under provisions of homestead laws and limit acreage per entry ‘‘reasonably required for the support of a family upon the lands.’’ The acreage limitation reflected the original purpose of the act—to support the American farmer and limit speculation on land that would benefit from irrigation—but in application it was not strictly followed or enforced. One reason it was not followed or enforced was because Reclamation, at least tacitly, recognized that it often took more than 160 acres, or 320 acres for a family, to make a living irrigating in the West.

Refuse Act of 1899 | 637

Another reason was because big agricultural operations were better able to make payments than the small landowners. Moreover, the bureau preferred engineering and building dams over worrying about details of excess land or speculation on its water projects. Despite the realities of making a living in the arid west, abuses of the acreage limitation provision prompted legislative change. The problem was most pressing in California’s Central Valley, where the Bureau of Reclamation subsidized the operation of large, corporate farms, some as large as 300,000 acres. These farms had a bigger impact on the environment than small farms in terms of herbicide and insecticide runoff and depletion of groundwater supply. In some cases, water used by farmers meant less water flowing to ecologically rich places like the Sacramento Delta. A major criticism of not enforcing the acreage limitation was that subsidized water encouraged inefficiency and the wasteful use of water. In the mid-1970s, the National Land for People filed suit in a Fresno, California, court claiming that Reclamation did not have the regulations to implement acreage limitation. After much debate, Congress finally acted in 1982. The legislation still made concessions because it increased the limitation to 960 acres and eliminated the residency requirement for farmers, but its intended purpose was to spread the federal subsidies evenly among landowners. The law is unpopular among landowners facing added fees and paperwork and a burden to the Bureau of Reclamation responsible for implementing the regulations. Nevertheless, the act signaled a further shift moving the bureau from the role of dam builder to the regulatory role of water manager. Jedediah S. Rogers See also Bureau of Reclamation; U.S. Department of the Interior

References Keys, John W. III. Oral History Interview. Transcript of tape-recorded Bureau of Reclamation Oral History Interviews conducted by Brit Allan Story, Senior Historian, Bureau of Reclamation, from 1994 to 2006, in Denver, Colorado; Boise, Idaho; Washington DC; and Moab, Utah. Ed. Brit Allan Storey. Repository for the record copy of the interview transcript is the National Archives and Records Administration in College Park, Maryland. Pitt, Leonard, ed. California Controversies: Major Issues in the History of the States. 2d ed. Arlington Heights, IL: Harlan Davidson, 1987. Reisner, Marc. Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water. New York: Viking, 1986.

Refuse Act of 1899 The Refuse Act of 1899 (33 USC 407), section 13 of the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act, bans discharge of industrial waste into water. Initially, the goal was to

638 | Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

clear obstructions from navigable waters, but in the 1960s public and governmental concern about water pollution led to the use of the act for pollution control. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 provided only limited enforcement powers. The Justice Department uses the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or state procedures for pollution control with the Refuse Act as a supplement. The act applies to vessels and buildings on or near coastal and inland waters, including navigable rivers, lakes, streams, and their tributaries, as well as to all other navigable waters defined as sufficient to float a log or boat at high water. It applies to waters that cross into Mexico or Canada. Storm and municipal sewer runoff are exempt, but it is a violation to place material in a location where it might be washed away by storms or high water. Dumping without a permit carries a fine of $500 to $2,500 for each day of violation and potential prison time of 30 days to one year. Those who inform on convicted violators receive half the fine. Absent government action, a citizen can bring his own suit, known as qui tam, against a violator. Amendments to the FWPCA in 1972 replaced Refuse Act permitting with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, and implementation of NPDES moved from the Interior Department to the newly established Environmental Protection Agency. The Corps of Engineers used the Refuse Act to clear obstructions; in some cases, the act still serves as a supplement to FWPCA enforcement. John H. Barnhill See also Clean Water Act of 1972; Federal Water Pollution Control Law of 1948; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

References Allexperts.com. ‘‘Refuse Act.’’ http://en.allexperts.com/e/r/re/refuse_act.htm (accessed April 2010). Mayerson, Hy. ‘‘The 1899 Refuse Act.’’ Mother Earth News. November 1, 1970. http://www.motherearthnews.com/Nature-Community/1970-11-01/The-1899-RefuseAct.aspx. Wikipedia.com. ‘‘Refuse Act.’’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refuse_Act (accessed April 2010).

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Congress passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in 1976 as an amendment to the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA). The act provided

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act | 639

new federal guidelines for waste disposal and landfills to states challenged by growing industrial solid waste and municipal waste. The goals of RCRA are to ensure waste management that protects public and environmental health; encourages source reduction, including hazardous waste reduction; and energy and resource conservation through recycling and recovery. The act greatly expanded Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority in waste management, historically a municipal and state matter. The EPA first established guidelines for sanitary municipal landfills and prohibited open dumping of solid waste. Hazardous waste was identified as a problem in the late 1960s and early 1970s as chemical manufacturing and the use of chemicals in industrial production increased and environmental disasters such as Love Canal captured national media attention. Poor waste management of hazardous substances, including common solvents, acids, and other manufacturing byproducts, spoiled the environment and threatened the public health through water contamination and direct contact. As popular pressure for a federal response increased, the EPA worked with states and industries to examine hazardous substance types, volumes, and practices. RCRA inaugurated federal programs to regulate the generation, transportation, treatment, and disposal of hazardous wastes. Individuals or organizations that create hazardous waste must track and report progress of the waste throughout its life cycle and dispose of hazardous wastes at a licensed facility with a disposal permit. This is called ‘‘from cradle to grave’’ control, and applies to states overseeing the reporting and permitting processes. RCRA also includes an underground storage tank program to ensure safety of tanks containing hazardous substances and petroleum products. The EPA requires states to develop waste-management programs that meet or exceed federal standards. State environmental protection agencies regulate diverse waste producers—industry, small business, hospitals, universities, and government facilities. The EPA also regulates hazardous-waste combustion, including boilers and industrial furnaces that burn hazardous waste. The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to RCRA aimed to further prevent groundwater and soil contamination by establishing a Land Disposal Restriction program (LDR) and corrective-action requirements for treatment, storage, or disposal facilities to clean up contamination. The new provisions created permitting deadlines for hazardous-waste facilities and expanded the type of businesses subject to regulation. The EPA now requires hazardous waste be treated before land disposal to reduce its toxicity or mobility. The stringent LDR and corrective-action requirements have significantly reduced the number of hazardous-waste generators, volume of hazardous waste, and the use of landfills for hazardous-waste disposal. The EPA’s 1994 Waste Minimization Program shifted emphasis from treatment and disposal controls to cooperative efforts to reduce waste through source

640 | Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (1976) 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq. [excerpt] SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 6901. Congressional findings (a) Solid waste. The Congress finds with respect to solid waste— (1) that the continuing technological progress and improvement in methods of manufacture, packaging, and marketing of consumer products has resulted in an ever-mounting increase, and in a change in the characteristics, of the mass material discarded by the purchaser of such products; (2) that the economic and population growth of our Nation, and the improvements in the standard of living enjoyed by our population, have required increased industrial production to meet our needs, and have made necessary the demolition of old buildings, the construction of new buildings, and the provision of highways and other avenues of transportation, which, together with related industrial, commercial, and agricultural operations, have resulted in a rising tide of scrap, discarded, and waste materials; (3) that the continuing concentration of our population in expanding metropolitan and other urban areas has presented these communities with serious financial, management, intergovernmental, and technical problems in the disposal of solid wastes resulting from the industrial, commercial, domestic, and other activities carried on in such areas; (4) that while the collection and disposal of solid wastes should continue to be primarily the function of State, regional, and local agencies, the problems of waste disposal as set forth above have become a matter national in scope and in concern and necessitate Federal action through financial and technical assistance and leadership in the development, demonstration, and application of new and improved methods and processes to reduce the amount of waste and unsalvageable materials and to provide for proper and economical solid waste disposal practices. (b) Environment and health. The Congress finds with respect to the environment and health, that— (1) although land is too valuable a national resource to be needlessly polluted by discarded materials, most solid waste is disposed of on land in open dumps and sanitary landfills; (2) disposal of solid waste and hazardous waste in or on the land without careful planning and management can present a danger to human health and the environment; (3) as a result of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), the Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and other Federal and State laws respecting public health and the environment, greater amounts of solid waste (in the form of sludge and other pollution treatment residues) have been created. Similarly, inadequate and environmentally unsound practices for the disposal or use of solid waste have created greater amounts of air and water pollution and other problems for the environment and for health;

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act | 641 (4) open dumping is particularly harmful to health, contaminates drinking water from underground and surface supplies, and pollutes the air and the land; (5) the placement of inadequate controls on hazardous waste management will result in substantial risks to human health and the environment; (6) if hazardous waste management is improperly performed in the first instance, corrective action is likely to be expensive, complex, and time consuming; (7) certain classes of land disposal facilities are not capable of assuring long-term containment of certain hazardous wastes, and to avoid substantial risk to human health and the environment, reliance on land disposal should be minimized or eliminated, and land disposal, particularly landfill and surface impoundment, should be the least favored method for managing hazardous wastes; and (8) alternatives to existing methods of land disposal must be developed since many of the cities in the United States will be running out of suitable solid waste disposal sites within five years unless immediate action is taken. (c) Materials. The Congress finds with respect to materials, that— (1) millions of tons of recoverable material which could be used are needlessly buried each year; (2) methods are available to separate usable materials from solid waste; and (3) the recovery and conservation of such materials can reduce the dependence of the United States on foreign resources and reduce the deficit in its balance of payments. (d) Energy. The Congress finds with respect to energy, that— (1) solid waste represents a potential source of solid fuel, oil, or gas that can be converted into energy; (2) the need exists to develop alternative energy sources for public and private consumption in order to reduce our dependence on such sources as petroleum products, natural gas, nuclear and hydroelectric generation; and (3) technology exists to produce usable energy from solid waste. Sec. 6901a. Congressional findings: used oil recycling The Congress finds and declares that— (1) used oil is a valuable source of increasingly scarce energy and materials; (2) technology exists to re-refine, reprocess, reclaim, and otherwise recycle used oil; (3) used oil constitutes a threat to public health and the environment when reused or disposed of improperly; and that, therefore, it is in the national interest to recycle used oil in a manner which does not constitute a threat to public health and the environment and which conserves energy and materials. Sec. 6902. Objectives and national policy (a) Objectives. The objectives of this chapter are to promote the protection of health and the environment and to conserve valuable material and energy resources by— (1) providing technical and financial assistance to State and local governments and interstate agencies for the development of solid waste management plans (including resource recovery and resource conservation systems) which will promote improved solid waste management techniques (including more effective organizational arrangements), new and improved methods of collection,

642 | Resource Conservation and Recovery Act separation, and recovery of solid waste, and the environmentally safe disposal of nonrecoverable residues; (2) providing training grants in occupations involving the design, operation, and maintenance of solid waste disposal systems; (3) prohibiting future open dumping on the land and requiring the conversion of existing open dumps to facilities which do not pose a danger to the environment or to health; (4) assuring that hazardous waste management practices are conducted in a manner which protects human health and the environment; (5) requiring that hazardous waste be properly managed in the first instance thereby reducing the need for corrective action at a future date; (6) minimizing the generation of hazardous waste and the land disposal of hazardous waste by encouraging process substitution, materials recovery, properly conducted recycling and reuse, and treatment; (7) establishing a viable Federal-State partnership to carry out the purposes of this chapter and insuring that the Administrator will, in carrying out the provisions of subchapter III of this chapter, give a high priority to assisting and cooperating with States in obtaining full authorization of State programs under subchapter III of this chapter; (8) providing for the promulgation of guidelines for solid waste collection, transport, separation, recovery, and disposal practices and systems; (9) promoting a national research and development program for improved solid waste management and resource conservation techniques, more effective organizational arrangements, and new and improved methods of collection, separation, and recovery, and recycling of solid wastes and environmentally safe disposal of nonrecoverable residues; (10) promoting the demonstration, construction, and application of solid waste management, resource recovery, and resource conservation systems which preserve and enhance the quality of air, water, and land resources; and (11) establishing a cooperative effort among the Federal, State, and local governments and private enterprise in order to recover valuable materials and energy from solid waste. (b) National policy. The Congress hereby declares it to be the national policy of the United States that, wherever feasible, the generation of hazardous waste is to be reduced or eliminated as expeditiously as possible. Waste that is nevertheless generated should be treated, stored, or disposed of so as to minimize the present and future threat to human health and the environment. Sec. 6903. Definitions As used in this chapter: (1) The term ‘‘Administrator’’ means the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. (2) The term ‘‘construction,’’ with respect to any project of construction under this chapter, means (A) the erection or building of new structures and acquisition of lands or interests therein, or the acquisition, replacement, expansion, remodeling, alteration, modernization, or extension of existing structures, and (B) the acquisition

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act | 643 and installation of initial equipment of, or required in connection with, new or newly acquired structures or the expanded, remodeled, altered, modernized or extended part of existing structures (including trucks and other motor vehicles, and tractors, cranes, and other machinery) necessary for the proper utilization and operation of the facility after completion of the project; and includes preliminary planning to determine the economic and engineering feasibility and the public health and safety aspects of the project, the engineering, architectural, legal, fiscal, and economic investigations and studies, and any surveys, designs, plans, working drawings, specifications, and other action necessary for the carrying out of the project, and (C) the inspection and supervision of the process of carrying out the project to completion. (2A) The term ‘‘demonstration’’ means the initial exhibition of a new technology process or practice or a significantly new combination or use of technologies, processes or practices, subsequent to the development stage, for the purpose of proving technological feasibility and cost effectiveness. (3) The term ‘‘disposal’’ means the discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, spilling, leaking, or placing of any solid waste or hazardous waste into or on any land or water so that such solid waste or hazardous waste or any constituent thereof may enter the environment or be emitted into the air or discharged into any waters, including ground waters. (4) The term ‘‘Federal agency’’ means any department, agency, or other instrumentality of the Federal Government, any independent agency or establishment of the Federal Government including any Government corporation, and the Government Printing Office. (5) The term ‘‘hazardous waste’’ means a solid waste, or combination of solid wastes, which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics may— (A) cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or (B) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed. (6) The term ‘‘hazardous waste generation’’ means the act or process of producing hazardous waste. (7) The term ‘‘hazardous waste management’’ means the systematic control of the collection, source separation, storage, transportation, processing, treatment, recovery, and disposal of hazardous wastes. (8) For purposes of Federal financial assistance (other than rural communities assistance), the term ‘‘implementation’’ does not include the acquisition, leasing, construction, or modification of facilities or equipment or the acquisition, leasing, or improvement of land. (9) The term ‘‘intermunicipal agency’’ means an agency established by two or more municipalities with responsibility for planning or administration of solid waste. (10) The term ‘‘interstate agency’’ means an agency of two or more municipalities in different States, or an agency established by two or more States, with authority to provide for the management of solid wastes and serving two or more municipalities located in different States.

644 | Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (11) The term ‘‘long-term contract’’ means, when used in relation to solid waste supply, a contract of sufficient duration to assure the viability of a resource recovery facility (to the extent that such viability depends upon solid waste supply). (12) The term ‘‘manifest’’ means the form used for identifying the quantity, composition, and the origin, routing, and destination of hazardous waste during its transportation from the point of generation to the point of disposal, treatment, or storage. (13) The term ‘‘municipality’’ (A) means a city, town, borough, county, parish, district, or other public body created by or pursuant to State law, with responsibility for the planning or administration of solid waste management, or an Indian tribe or authorized tribal organization or Alaska Native village or organization, and (B) includes any rural community or unincorporated town or village or any other public entity for which an application for assistance is made by a State or political subdivision thereof. (14) The term ‘‘open dump’’ means any facility or site where solid waste is disposed of which is not a sanitary landfill which meets the criteria promulgated under section 6944 of this title and which is not a facility for disposal of hazardous waste. (15) The term ‘‘person’’ means an individual, trust, firm, joint stock company, corporation (including a government corporation), partnership, association, State, municipality, commission, political subdivision of a State, or any interstate body and shall include each department, agency, and instrumentality of the United States. (16) The term ‘‘procurement item’’ means any device, good, substance, material, product, or other item whether real or personal property which is the subject of any purchase, barter, or other exchange made to procure such item. (17) The term ‘‘procuring agency’’ means any Federal agency, or any State agency or agency of a political subdivision of a State which is using appropriated Federal funds for such procurement, or any person contracting with any such agency with respect to work performed under such contract. (18) The term ‘‘recoverable’’ refers to the capability and likelihood of being recovered from solid waste for a commercial or industrial use. (19) The term ‘‘recovered material’’ means waste material and byproducts which have been recovered or diverted from solid waste, but such term does not include those materials and byproducts generated from, and commonly reused within, an original manufacturing process. (20) The term ‘‘recovered resources’’ means material or energy recovered from solid waste. (21) The term ‘‘resource conservation’’ means reduction of the amounts of solid waste that are generated, reduction of overall resource consumption, and utilization of recovered resources. (22) The term ‘‘resource recovery’’ means the recovery of material or energy from solid waste. (23) The term ‘‘resource recovery system’’ means a solid waste management system which provides for collection, separation, recycling, and recovery of solid wastes, including disposal of nonrecoverable waste residues. (24) The term ‘‘resource recovery facility’’ means any facility at which solid waste is processed for the purpose of extracting, converting to energy, or otherwise separating and preparing solid waste for reuse.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act | 645 (25) The term ‘‘regional authority’’ means the authority established or designated under section 6946 of this title. (26) The term ‘‘sanitary landfill’’ means a facility for the disposal of solid waste which meets the criteria published under section 6944 of this title. (26A) The term ‘‘sludge’’ means any solid, semisolid or liquid waste generated from a municipal, commercial, or industrial wastewater treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility or any other such waste having similar characteristics and effects. (27) The term ‘‘solid waste’’ means any garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community activities, but does not include solid or dissolved material in domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved materials in irrigation return flows or industrial discharges which are point sources subject to permits under section 1342 of title 33, or source, special nuclear, or byproduct material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (68 Stat. 923) (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.). (28) The term ‘‘solid waste management’’ means the systematic administration of activities which provide for the collection, source separation, storage, transportation, transfer, processing, treatment, and disposal of solid waste. (29) The term ‘‘solid waste management facility’’ includes— (A) any resource recovery system or component thereof, (B) any system, program, or facility for resource conservation, and (C) any facility for the collection, source separation, storage, transportation, transfer, processing, treatment or disposal of solid wastes, including hazardous wastes, whether such facility is associated with facilities generating such wastes or otherwise. (30) The terms ‘‘solid waste planning’’, ’’solid waste management’’, and ‘‘comprehensive planning’’ include planning or management respecting resource recovery and resource conservation. (31) The term ‘‘State’’ means any of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. (32) The term ‘‘State authority’’ means the agency established or designated under section 6947 of this title. (33) The term ‘‘storage’’, when used in connection with hazardous waste, means the containment of hazardous waste, either on a temporary basis or for a period of years, in such a manner as not to constitute disposal of such hazardous waste. (34) The term ‘‘treatment’’, when used in connection with hazardous waste, means any method, technique, or process, including neutralization, designed to change the physical, chemical, or biological character or composition of any hazardous waste so as to neutralize such waste or so as to render such waste nonhazardous, safer for transport, amenable for recovery, amenable for storage, or reduced in volume. Such term includes any activity or processing designed to change the physical form or chemical composition of hazardous waste so as to render it nonhazardous.

646 | Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (35) The term ‘‘virgin material’’ means a raw material, including previously unused copper, aluminum, lead, zinc, iron, or other metal or metal ore, any undeveloped resource that is, or with new technology will become, a source of raw materials. (36) The term ‘‘used oil’’ means any oil which has been— (A) refined from crude oil, (B) used, and (C) as a result of such use, contaminated by physical or chemical impurities. (37) The term ‘‘recycled oil’’ means any used oil which is reused, following its original use, for any purpose (including the purpose for which the oil was originally used). Such term includes oil which is re-refined, reclaimed, burned, or reprocessed. (38) The term ‘‘lubricating oil’’ means the fraction of crude oil which is sold for purposes of reducing friction in any industrial or mechanical device. Such term includes re-refined oil. (39) The term ‘‘re-refined oil’’ means used oil from which the physical and chemical contaminants acquired through previous use have been removed through a refining process. (40) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the term ‘‘medical waste’’ means any solid waste which is generated in the diagnosis, treatment, or immunization of human beings or animals, in research pertaining thereto, or in the production or testing of biologicals. Such term does not include any hazardous waste identified or listed under subchapter III of this chapter or any household waste as defined in regulations under subchapter III of this chapter. (41) The term ‘‘mixed waste’’ means waste that contains both hazardous waste and source, special nuclear, or by-product material subject to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.).

Sec. 6904. Governmental cooperation (a) Interstate cooperation. The provisions of this chapter to be carried out by States may be carried out by interstate agencies and provisions applicable to States may apply to interstate regions where such agencies and regions have been established by the respective States and approved by the Administrator. In any such case, action required to be taken by the Governor of a State, respecting regional designation shall be required to be taken by the Governor of each of the respective States with respect to so much of the interstate region as is within the jurisdiction of that State. (b) Consent of Congress to compacts. The consent of the Congress is hereby given to two or more States to negotiate and enter into agreements or compacts, not in conflict with any law or treaty of the United States, for— (1) cooperative effort and mutual assistance for the management of solid waste or hazardous waste (or both) and the enforcement of their respective laws relating thereto, and (2) the establishment of such agencies, joint or otherwise, as they may deem desirable for making effective such agreements or compacts. No such agreement or compact shall be binding or obligatory upon any State a party thereto unless it is agreed upon by all parties to the agreement and until it has been approved by the Administrator and the Congress. . . .

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act | 647 SUBCHAPTER II—OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE; AUTHORITIES OF THE ADMINISTRATOR Sec. 6911. Office of Solid Waste and Interagency Coordinating Committee (a) Office of Solid Waste. The Administrator shall establish within the Environmental Protection Agency an Office of Solid Waste (hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Office’’) to be headed by an Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. The duties and responsibilities (other than duties and responsibilities relating to research and development) of the Administrator under this chapter (as modified by applicable reorganization plans) shall be carried out through the Office. (b) Interagency Coordinating Committee. (1) There is hereby established an Interagency Coordinating Committee on Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Activities which shall have the responsibility for coordinating all activities dealing with resource conservation and recovery from solid waste carried out by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, and all other Federal agencies which conduct such activities pursuant to this chapter or any other Act. For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘‘resource conservation and recovery activities’’ shall include, but not be limited to, all research, development and demonstration projects on resource conservation or energy, or material, recovery from solid waste, and all technical or financial assistance for State or local planning for, or implementation of, projects related to resource conservation or energy or material, recovery from solid waste. The Committee shall be chaired by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency or such person as the Administrator may designate. Members of the Committee shall include representatives of the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, the Department of the Treasury, and each other Federal agency which the Administrator determines to have programs or responsibilities affecting resource conservation or recovery. (2) The Interagency Coordinating Committee shall include oversight of the implementation of (A) the May 1979 Memorandum of Understanding on Energy Recovery from Municipal Solid Waste between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy; (B) the May 30, 1978, Interagency Agreement between the Department of Commerce and the Environmental Protection Agency on the Implementation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.); and (C) any subsequent agreements between these agencies or other Federal agencies which address Federal resource recovery or conservation activities. (3) The Interagency Coordinating Committee shall submit to the Congress by March 1, 1981, and on March 1 each year thereafter, a five-year action plan for Federal resource conservation or recovery activities which shall identify means and propose programs to encourage resource conservation or material and energy recovery and increase private and municipal investment in resource conservation or recovery systems, especially those which provide for material conservation or recovery as well as energy conservation or recovery. Such plan shall describe, at a minimum, a coordinated and nonduplicatory plan for

648 | Resource Conservation and Recovery Act resource recovery and conservation activities for the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, and all other Federal agencies which conduct such activities. Sec. 6911a. Assistant Administrator of Environmental Protection Agency; appointment, etc. The Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency appointed to head the Office of Solid Waste shall be in addition to the five Assistant Administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency provided for in section 1(d) of Reorganization Plan Numbered 3 of 1970 and the additional Assistant Administrator provided by the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.), shall be appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Sec. 6912. Authorities of Administrator (a) Authorities. In carrying out this chapter, the Administrator is authorized to— (1) prescribe, in consultation with Federal, State, and regional authorities, such regulations as are necessary to carry out his functions under this chapter; (2) consult with or exchange information with other Federal agencies undertaking research, development, demonstration projects, studies, or investigations relating to solid waste; (3) provide technical and financial assistance to States or regional agencies in the development and implementation of solid waste plans and hazardous waste management programs; (4) consult with representatives of science, industry, agriculture, labor, environmental protection and consumer organizations, and other groups, as he deems advisable; (5) utilize the information, facilities, personnel and other resources of Federal agencies, including the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the National Bureau of the Census, on a reimbursable basis, to perform research and analyses and conduct studies and investigations related to resource recovery and conservation and to otherwise carry out the Administrator’s functions under this chapter; and (6) to delegate to the Secretary of Transportation the performance of any inspection or enforcement function under this chapter relating to the transportation of hazardous waste where such delegation would avoid unnecessary duplication of activity and would carry out the objectives of this chapter and of chapter 51 of title 49. (b) Revision of regulations. Each regulation promulgated under this chapter shall be reviewed and, where necessary, revised not less frequently than every three years. (c) Criminal investigations. In carrying out the provisions of this chapter, the Administrator, and duly-designated agents and employees of the Environmental Protection Agency, are authorized to initiate and conduct investigations under the criminal provisions of this chapter, and to refer the results of these investigations to the Attorney General for prosecution in appropriate cases. . . . Sec. 6915. Annual report The Administrator shall transmit to the Congress and the President, not later than ninety days after the end of each fiscal year, a comprehensive and detailed report on

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act | 649 all activities of the Office during the preceding fiscal year. Each such report shall include— (1) a statement of specific and detailed objectives for the activities and programs conducted and assisted under this chapter; (2) statements of the Administrator’s conclusions as to the effectiveness of such activities and programs in meeting the stated objectives and the purposes of this chapter, measured through the end of such fiscal year; (3) a summary of outstanding solid waste problems confronting the Administrator, in order of priority; (4) recommendations with respect to such legislation which the Administrator deems necessary or desirable to assist in solving problems respecting solid waste; (5) all other information required to be submitted to the Congress pursuant to any other provision of this chapter; and (6) the Administrator’s plans for activities and programs respecting solid waste during the next fiscal year. Sec. 6917. Office of Ombudsman (a) Establishment; functions. The Administrator shall establish an Office of Ombudsman, to be directed by an Ombudsman. It shall be the function of the Office of Ombudsman to receive individual complaints, grievances, requests for information submitted by any person with respect to any program or requirement under this chapter. (b) Authority to render assistance. The Ombudsman shall render assistance with respect to the complaints, grievances, and requests submitted to the Office of Ombudsman, and shall make appropriate recommendations to the Administrator. (c) Effect on procedures for grievances, appeals, or administrative matters. The establishment of the Office of Ombudsman shall not affect any procedures for grievances, appeals, or administrative matters in any other provision of this chapter, any other provision of law, or any Federal regulation. (d) Termination. The Office of the Ombudsman shall cease to exist 4 years after November 8, 1984. SUBCHAPTER III—HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT Sec. 6921. Identification and listing of hazardous waste (a) Criteria for identification or listing. Not later than eighteen months after October 21, 1976, the Administrator shall, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, and after consultation with appropriate Federal and State agencies, develop and promulgate criteria for identifying the characteristics of hazardous waste, and for listing hazardous waste, which should be subject to the provisions of this subchapter, taking into account toxicity, persistence, and degradability in nature, potential for accumulation in tissue, and other related factors such as flammability, corrosiveness, and other hazardous characteristics. Such criteria shall be revised from time to time as may be appropriate. (b) Identification and listing. (1) Not later than eighteen months after October 21, 1976, and after notice and opportunity for public hearing, the Administrator shall promulgate regulations identifying the characteristics of hazardous waste, and listing particular

650 | Resource Conservation and Recovery Act hazardous wastes (within the meaning of section 6903(5) of this title), which shall be subject to the provisions of this subchapter. Such regulations shall be based on the criteria promulgated under subsection (a) of this section and shall be revised from time to time thereafter as may be appropriate. The Administrator, in cooperation with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the National Toxicology Program, shall also identify or list those hazardous wastes which shall be subject to the provisions of this subchapter solely because of the presence in such wastes of certain constituents (such as identified carcinogens, mutagens, or teratagens) at levels in excess of levels which endanger human health. (2) (A) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection, drilling fluids, produced waters, and other wastes associated with the exploration, development, or production of crude oil or natural gas or geothermal energy shall be subject only to existing State or Federal regulatory programs in lieu of this subchapter until at least 24 months after October 21, 1980, and after promulgation of the regulations in accordance with subparagraphs (B) and (C) of this paragraph. It is the sense of the Congress that such State or Federal programs should include, for waste disposal sites which are to be closed, provisions requiring at least the following: (i) The identification through surveying, platting, or other measures, together with recordation of such information on the public record, so as to assure that the location where such wastes are disposed of can be located in the future; except however, that no such surveying, platting, or other measure identifying the location of a disposal site for drilling fluids and associated wastes shall be required if the distance from the disposal site to the surveyed or platted location to the associated well is less than two hundred lineal feet; and (ii) A chemical and physical analysis of a produced water and a composition of a drilling fluid suspected to contain a hazardous material, with such information to be acquired prior to closure and to be placed on the public record. (B) Not later than six months after completion and submission of the study required by section 6982(m) of this title, the Administrator shall, after public hearings and opportunity for comment, determine either to promulgate regulations under this subchapter for drilling fluids, produced waters, and other wastes associated with the exploration, development, or production of crude oil or natural gas or geothermal energy or that such regulations are unwarranted. The Administrator shall publish his decision in the Federal Register accompanied by an explanation and justification of the reasons for it. In making the decision under this paragraph, the Administrator shall utilize the information developed or accumulated pursuant to the study required under section 6982(m) of this title. (C) The Administrator shall transmit his decision, along with any regulations, if necessary, to both Houses of Congress. Such regulations shall take effect only when authorized by Act of Congress. (3) (A) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection, each waste listed below shall, except as provided in subparagraph (B) of this

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act | 651 paragraph, be subject only to regulation under other applicable provisions of Federal or State law in lieu of this subchapter until at least six months after the date of submission of the applicable study required to be conducted under subsection (f), (n), (o), or (p) of section 6982 of this title and after promulgation of regulations in accordance with subparagraph (C) of this paragraph: (i) Fly ash waste, bottom ash waste, slag waste, and flue gas emission control waste generated primarily from the combustion of coal or other fossil fuels. (ii) Solid waste from the extraction, beneficiation, and processing of ores and minerals, including phosphate rock and overburden from the mining of uranium ore. (iii) Cement kiln dust waste. (B) (i) Owners and operators of disposal sites for wastes listed in subparagraph (A) may be required by the Administrator, through regulations prescribed under authority of section 6912 of this title— (I) as to disposal sites for such wastes which are to be closed, to identify the locations of such sites through surveying, platting, or other measures, together with recordation of such information on the public record, to assure that the locations where such wastes are disposed of are known and can be located in the future, and (II) to provide chemical and physical analysis and composition of such wastes, based on available information, to be placed on the public record. (ii) (I) In conducting any study under subsection (f), (n), (o), or (p), of section 6982 of this title, any officer, employee, or authorized representative of the Environmental Protection Agency, duly designated by the Administrator, is authorized, at reasonable times and as reasonably necessary for the purposes of such study, to enter any establishment where any waste subject to such study is generated, stored, treated, disposed of, or transported from; to inspect, take samples, and conduct monitoring and testing; and to have access to and copy records relating to such waste. Each such inspection shall be commenced and completed with reasonable promptness. If the officer, employee, or authorized representative obtains any samples prior to leaving the premises, he shall give to the owner, operator, or agent in charge a receipt describing the sample obtained and if requested a portion of each such sample equal in volume or weight to the portion retained. If any analysis is made of such samples, or monitoring and testing performed, a copy of the results shall be furnished promptly to the owner, operator, or agent in charge. (II) Any records, reports, or information obtained from any person under subclause (I) shall be available to the public, except that upon a showing satisfactory to the Administrator by any person that records, reports, or information, or particular part thereof, to which the Administrator has access under this subparagraph is made public, would divulge information entitled to protection

652 | Resource Conservation and Recovery Act under section 1905 of title 18, the Administrator shall consider such information or particular portion thereof confidential in accordance with the purposes of that section, except that such record, report, document, or information may be disclosed to other officers, employees, or authorized representatives of the United States concerned with carrying out this chapter. Any person not subject to the provisions of section 1905 of title 18 who knowingly and willfully divulges or discloses any information entitled to protection under this subparagraph shall, upon conviction, be subject to a fine of not more than $5,000 or to imprisonment not to exceed one year, or both. (iii) The Administrator may prescribe regulations, under the authority of this chapter, to prevent radiation exposure which presents an unreasonable risk to human health from the use in construction or land reclamation (with or without revegetation) of (I) solid waste from the extraction, beneficiation, and processing of phosphate rock or (II) overburden from the mining of uranium ore. (iv) Whenever on the basis of any information the Administrator determines that any person is in violation of any requirement of this subparagraph, the Administrator shall give notice to the violator of his failure to comply with such requirement. If such violation extends beyond the thirtieth day after the Administrator’s notification, the Administrator may issue an order requiring compliance within a specified time period or the Administrator may commence a civil action in the United States district court in the district in which the violation occurred for appropriate relief, including a temporary or permanent injunction. (f) Delisting procedures. (1) When evaluating a petition to exclude a waste generated at a particular facility from listing under this section, the Administrator shall consider factors (including additional constituents) other than those for which the waste was listed if the Administrator has a reasonable basis to believe that such additional factors could cause the waste to be a hazardous waste. The Administrator shall provide notice and opportunity for comment on these additional factors before granting or denying such petition. (2) (A) To the maximum extent practicable the Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register a proposal to grant or deny a petition referred to in paragraph (1) within twelve months after receiving a complete application to exclude a waste generated at a particular facility from being regulated as a hazardous waste and shall grant or deny such a petition within twenty-four months after receiving a complete application. (B) The temporary granting of such a petition prior to November 8, 1984, without the opportunity for public comment and the full consideration of such comments shall not continue for more than twenty-four months after November 8, 1984. If a final decision to grant or deny such a petition has not been promulgated after notice and opportunity for public comment within the time limit prescribed by the preceding sentence, any such temporary granting of such petition shall cease to be in effect.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act | 653

(g) EP toxicity. Not later than twenty-eight months after November 8, 1984, the Administrator shall examine the deficiencies of the extraction procedure toxicity characteristic as a predictor of the leaching potential of wastes and make changes in the extraction procedure toxicity characteristic, including changes in the leaching media, as are necessary to insure that it accurately predicts the leaching potential of wastes which pose a threat to human health and the environment when mismanaged. (h) Additional characteristics. Not later than two years after November 8, 1984, the Administrator shall promulgate regulations under this section identifying additional characteristics of hazardous waste, including measures or indicators of toxicity. (i) Clarification of household waste exclusion. A resource recovery facility recovering energy from the mass burning of municipal solid waste shall not be deemed to be treating, storing, disposing of, or otherwise managing hazardous wastes for the purposes of regulation under this subchapter, if— (1) such facility— (A) receives and burns only— (i) household waste (from single and multiple dwellings, hotels, motels, and other residential sources), and (ii) solid waste from commercial or industrial sources that does not contain hazardous waste identified or listed under this section, and (B) does not accept hazardous wastes identified or listed under this section, and (2) the owner or operator of such facility has established contractual requirements or other appropriate notification or inspection procedures to assure that hazardous wastes are not received at or burned in such facility. . . . Sec. 6928. Federal enforcement (a) Compliance orders. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), whenever on the basis of any information the Administrator determines that any person has violated or is in violation of any requirement of this subchapter, the Administrator may issue an order assessing a civil penalty for any past or current violation, requiring compliance immediately or within a specified time period, or both, or the Administrator may commence a civil action in the United States district court in the district in which the violation occurred for appropriate relief, including a temporary or permanent injunction. (2) In the case of a violation of any requirement of this subchapter where such violation occurs in a State which is authorized to carry out a hazardous waste program under section 6926 of this title, the Administrator shall give notice to the State in which such violation has occurred prior to issuing an order or commencing a civil action under this section. (3) Any order issued pursuant to this subsection may include a suspension or revocation of any permit issued by the Administrator or a State under this subchapter and shall state with reasonable specificity the nature of the violation. Any penalty assessed in the order shall not exceed $25,000 per day of noncompliance for each violation of a requirement of this subchapter. In assessing such a penalty, the Administrator shall take into account the seriousness of the violation and any good faith efforts to comply with applicable requirements.

654 | Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(b) Public hearing. Any order issued under this section shall become final unless, no later than thirty days after the order is served, the person or persons named therein request a public hearing. Upon such request the Administrator shall promptly conduct a public hearing. In connection with any proceeding under this section the Administrator may issue subpenas for the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of relevant papers, books, and documents, and may promulgate rules for discovery procedures. (c) Violation of compliance orders. If a violator fails to take corrective action within the time specified in a compliance order, the Administrator may assess a civil penalty of not more than $25,000 for each day of continued noncompliance with the order and the Administrator may suspend or revoke any permit issued to the violator (whether issued by the Administrator or the State). (d) Criminal penalties. Any person who— (1) knowingly transports or causes to be transported any hazardous waste identified or listed under this subchapter to a facility which does not have a permit under this subchapter, or pursuant to title I of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (86 Stat. 1052) (33 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.), (2) knowingly treats, stores, or disposes of any hazardous waste identified or listed under this subchapter— (A) without a permit under this subchapter or pursuant to title I of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (86 Stat. 1052) (33 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.); or (B) in knowing violation of any material condition or requirement of such permit; or (C) in knowing violation of any material condition or requirement of any applicable interim status regulations or standards; (3) knowingly omits material information or makes any false material statement or representation in any application, label, manifest, record, report, permit, or other document filed, maintained, or used for purposes of compliance with regulations promulgated by the Administrator (or by a State in the case of an authorized State program) under this subchapter; (4) knowingly generates, stores, treats, transports, disposes of, exports, or otherwise handles any hazardous waste or any used oil not identified or listed as a hazardous waste under this subchapter (whether such activity took place before or takes place after November 8, 1984) and who knowingly destroys, alters, conceals, or fails to file any record, application, manifest, report, or other document required to be maintained or filed for purposes of compliance with regulations promulgated by the Administrator (or by a State in the case of an authorized State program) under this subchapter; (5) knowingly transports without a manifest, or causes to be transported without a manifest, any hazardous waste or any used oil not identified or listed as a hazardous waste under this subchapter required by regulations promulgated under this subchapter (or by a State in the case of a State program authorized under this subchapter) to be accompanied by a manifest; (6) knowingly exports a hazardous waste identified or listed under this subchapter (A) without the consent of the receiving country or, (B) where there exists an international agreement between the United States and the government of the

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act | 655 receiving country establishing notice, export, and enforcement procedures for the transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes, in a manner which is not in conformance with such agreement; or (7) knowingly stores, treats, transports, or causes to be transported, disposes of, or otherwise handles any used oil not identified or listed as a hazardous waste under this subchapter— (A) in knowing violation of any material condition or requirement of a permit under this subchapter; or (B) in knowing violation of any material condition or requirement of any applicable regulations or standards under this chapter; shall, upon conviction, be subject to a fine of not more than $50,000 for each day of violation, or imprisonment not to exceed two years (five years in the case of a violation of paragraph (1) or (2)), or both. If the conviction is for a violation committed after a first conviction of such person under this paragraph, the maximum punishment under the respective paragraph shall be doubled with respect to both fine and imprisonment. (e) Knowing endangerment. Any person who knowingly transports, treats, stores, disposes of, or exports any hazardous waste identified or listed under this subchapter or used oil not identified or listed as a hazardous waste under this subchapter in violation of paragraph (1), (2), knows at that time that he thereby places another person in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, shall, upon conviction, be subject to a fine of not more than $250,000 or imprisonment for not more than fifteen years, or both. A defendant that is an organization shall, upon conviction of violating this subsection, be subject to a fine of not more than $1,000,000. Sec. 6929. Retention of State authority Upon the effective date of regulations under this subchapter no State or political subdivision may impose any requirements less stringent than those authorized under this subchapter respecting the same matter as governed by such regulations, except that if application of a regulation with respect to any matter under this subchapter is postponed or enjoined by the action of any court, no State or political subdivision shall be prohibited from acting with respect to the same aspect of such matter until such time as such regulation takes effect. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit any State or political subdivision thereof from imposing any requirements, including those for site selection, which are more stringent than those imposed by such regulations. Nothing in this chapter (or in any regulation adopted under this chapter) shall be construed to prohibit any State from requiring that the State be provided with a copy of each manifest used in connection with hazardous waste which is generated within that State or transported to a treatment, storage, or disposal facility within that State. Sec. 6930. Effective date (a) Preliminary notification. Not later than ninety days after promulgation of regulations under section 6921 of this title identifying by its characteristics or listing any substance as hazardous waste subject to this subchapter, any person generating or transporting such substance or owning or operating a facility for treatment, storage, or disposal of such substance shall file with the Administrator (or with States having authorized hazardous waste permit programs under section 6926 of this title) a notification stating the location and general description of such activity and the

656 | Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

identified or listed hazardous wastes handled by such person. Not later than fifteen months after November 8, 1984— (1) the owner or operator of any facility which produces a fuel (A) from any hazardous waste identified or listed under section 6921 of this title, (B) from such hazardous waste identified or listed under section 6921 of this title and any other material, (C) from used oil, or (D) from used oil and any other material; (2) the owner or operator of any facility (other than a single- or two-family residence) which burns for purposes of energy recovery any fuel produced as provided in paragraph (1) or any fuel which otherwise contains used oil or any hazardous waste identified or listed under section 6921 of this title; and (3) any person who distributes or markets any fuel which is produced as provided in paragraph (1) or any fuel which otherwise contains used oil or any hazardous waste identified or listed under section 6921 of this title. (b) Effective date of regulation. The regulations under this subchapter respecting requirements applicable to the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste (including requirements respecting permits for such treatment, storage, or disposal) shall take effect on the date six months after the date of promulgation thereof (or six months after the date of revision in the case of any regulation which is revised after the date required for promulgation thereof). At the time a regulation is promulgated, the Administrator may provide for a shorter period prior to the effective date, or an immediate effective date for: (1) a regulation with which the Administrator finds the regulated community does not need six months to come into compliance; (2) a regulation which responds to an emergency situation; or (3) other good cause found and published with the regulation. SUBCHAPTER V—DUTIES OF SECRETARY OF COMMERCE IN RESOURCE AND RECOVERY Sec. 6951. Functions The Secretary of Commerce shall encourage greater commercialization of proven resource recovery technology by providing— (1) (2) (3) (4)

accurate specifications for recovered materials; stimulation of development of markets for recovered materials; promotion of proven technology; and a forum for the exchange of technical and economic data relating to resource recovery facilities.

Sec. 6952. Development of specifications for secondary materials The Secretary of Commerce, acting through the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and in conjunction with national standards-setting organizations in resource recovery, shall, after public hearings, and not later than two years after September 1, 1979, publish guidelines for the development of specifications for the classification of materials recovered from waste which were destined for disposal. The specifications shall pertain to the physical and chemical properties and characteristics of such

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act | 657 materials with regard to their use in replacing virgin materials in various industrial, commercial, and governmental uses. In establishing such guidelines the Secretary shall also, to the extent feasible, provide such information as may be necessary to assist Federal agencies with procurement of items containing recovered materials. The Secretary shall continue to cooperate with national standards-setting organizations, as may be necessary, to encourage the publication, promulgation and updating of standards for recovered materials and for the use of recovered materials in various industrial, commercial, and governmental uses. Sec. 6953. Development of markets for recovered materials The Secretary of Commerce shall within two years after September 1, 1979, take such actions as may be necessary to— (1) identify the geographical location of existing or potential markets for recovered materials; (2) identify the economic and technical barriers to the use of recovered materials; and (3) encourage the development of new uses for recovered materials. Sec. 6954. Technology promotion The Secretary of Commerce is authorized to evaluate the commercial feasibility of resource recovery facilities and to publish the results of such evaluation, and to develop a data base for purposes of assisting persons in choosing such a system. Sec. 6955. Marketing policies, establishment; nondiscrimination requirement In establishing any policies which may affect the development of new markets for recovered materials and in making any determination concerning whether or not to impose monitoring or other controls on any marketing or transfer of recovered materials, the Secretary of Commerce may consider whether to establish the same or similar policies or impose the same or similar monitoring or other controls on virgin materials. Sec. 6956. Authorization of appropriations There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1980, 1981, and 1982 and $1,500,000 for each of the fiscal years 1985 through 1988 to carry out the purposes of this subchapter. SUBCHAPTER VI—FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITIES Sec. 6961. Application of Federal, State, and local law to Federal facilities (a) In general. Each department, agency, and instrumentality of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government (1) having jurisdiction over any solid waste management facility or disposal site, or (2) engaged in any activity resulting, or which may result, in the disposal or management of solid waste or hazardous waste shall be subject to, and comply with, all Federal, State, interstate, and local requirements, both substantive and procedural (including any requirement for permits or reporting or any provisions for injunctive relief and such sanctions as may be imposed by a court to enforce such relief), respecting control and abatement of solid waste or hazardous waste disposal and management in the same manner, and to the same extent, as any person is subject to such requirements, including the payment of reasonable service charges. The Federal, State, interstate, and local substantive and procedural requirements referred to in this subsection include, but are not limited to, all administrative orders and all civil and administrative penalties and fines,

658 | Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

regardless of whether such penalties or fines are punitive or coercive in nature or are imposed for isolated, intermittent, or continuing violations. The United States hereby expressly waives any immunity otherwise applicable to the United States with respect to any such substantive or procedural requirement (including, but not limited to, any injunctive relief, administrative order or civil or administrative penalty or fine referred to in the preceding sentence, or reasonable service charge). The reasonable service charges referred to in this subsection include, but are not limited to, fees or charges assessed in connection with the processing and issuance of permits, renewal of permits, amendments to permits, review of plans, studies, and other documents, and inspection and monitoring of facilities, as well as any other nondiscriminatory charges that are assessed in connection with a Federal, State, interstate, or local solid waste or hazardous waste regulatory program. Neither the United States, nor any agent, employee, or officer thereof, shall be immune or exempt from any process or sanction of any State or Federal Court with respect to the enforcement of any such injunctive relief. No agent, employee, or officer of the United States shall be personally liable for any civil penalty under any Federal, State, interstate, or local solid or hazardous waste law with respect to any act or omission within the scope of the official duties of the agent, employee, or officer. An agent, employee, or officer of the United States shall be subject to any criminal sanction (including, but not limited to, any fine or imprisonment) under any Federal or State solid or hazardous waste law, but no department, agency, or instrumentality of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Federal Government shall be subject to any such sanction. The President may exempt any solid waste management facility of any department, agency, or instrumentality in the executive branch from compliance with such a requirement if he determines it to be in the paramount interest of the United States to do so. No such exemption shall be granted due to lack of appropriation unless the President shall have specifically requested such appropriation as a part of the budgetary process and the Congress shall have failed to make available such requested appropriation. Any exemption shall be for a period not in excess of one year, but additional exemptions may be granted for periods not to exceed one year upon the President’s making a new determination. The President shall report each January to the Congress all exemptions from the requirements of this section granted during the preceding calendar year, together with his reason for granting each such exemption. (b) Administrative enforcement actions. (1) The Administrator may commence an administrative enforcement action against any department, agency, or instrumentality of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Federal Government pursuant to the enforcement authorities contained in this chapter. The Administrator shall initiate an administrative enforcement action against such a department, agency, or instrumentality in the same manner and under the same circumstances as an action would be initiated against another person. Any voluntary resolution or settlement of such an action shall be set forth in a consent order. (2) No administrative order issued to such a department, agency, or instrumentality shall become final until such department, agency, or instrumentality has had the opportunity to confer with the Administrator. (c) Limitation on State use of funds collected from Federal Government. Unless a State law in effect on October 6, 1992, or a State constitution requires the funds to be

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act | 659

used in a different manner, all funds collected by a State from the Federal Government from penalties and fines imposed for violation of any substantive or procedural requirement referred to in subsection (a) of this section shall be used by the State only for projects designed to improve or protect the environment or to defray the costs of environmental protection or enforcement. Sec. 6962. Federal procurement (a) Application of section. Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a procuring agency shall comply with the requirements set forth in this section and any regulations issued under this section, with respect to any purchase or acquisition of a procurement item where the purchase price of the item exceeds $10,000 or where the quantity of such items or of functionally equivalent items purchased or acquired in the course of the preceding fiscal year was $10,000 or more. (b) Procurement subject to other law. Any procurement, by any procuring agency, which is subject to regulations of the Administrator under section 6964 of this title (as promulgated before October 21, 1976, under comparable provisions of prior law) shall not be subject to the requirements of this section to the extent that such requirements are inconsistent with such regulations. (c) Requirements. (1) After the date specified in applicable guidelines prepared pursuant to subsection (e) of this section, each procuring agency which procures any items designated in such guidelines shall procure such items composed of the highest percentage of recovered materials practicable (and in the case of paper, the highest percentage of the postconsumer recovered materials referred to in subsection (h)(1) of this section practicable), consistent with maintaining a satisfactory level of competition, considering such guidelines. The decision not to procure such items shall be based on a determination that such procurement items— (A) are not reasonably available within a reasonable period of time; (B) fail to meet the performance standards set forth in the applicable specifications or fail to meet the reasonable performance standards of the procuring agencies; or (C) are only available at an unreasonable price. Any determination under subparagraph (B) shall be made on the basis of the guidelines of the National Institute of Standards and Technology in any case in which such material is covered by such guidelines. (2) Agencies that generate heat, mechanical, or electrical energy from fossil fuel in systems that have the technical capability of using energy or fuels derived from solid waste as a primary or supplementary fuel shall use such capability to the maximum extent practicable. (3) (A) After the date specified in any applicable guidelines prepared pursuant to subsection (e) of this section, contracting officers shall require that vendors: (i) certify that the percentage of recovered materials to be used in the performance of the contract will be at least the amount required by applicable specifications or other contractual requirements and (ii) estimate the percentage of the total material utilized for the performance of the contract which is recovered materials. (B) Clause (ii) of subparagraph (A) applies only to a contract in an amount greater than $100,000.

660 | Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(d) Specifications. All Federal agencies that have the responsibility for drafting or reviewing specifications for procurement items procured by Federal agencies shall— (1) as expeditiously as possible but in any event no later than eighteen months after November 8, 1984, eliminate from such specifications— (A) any exclusion of recovered materials and (B) any requirement that items be manufactured from virgin materials; and (2) within one year after the date of publication of applicable guidelines under subsection (e) of this section, or as otherwise specified in such guidelines, assure that such specifications require the use of recovered materials to the maximum extent possible without jeopardizing the intended end use of the item. (e) Guidelines. The Administrator, after consultation with the Administrator of General Services, the Secretary of Commerce (acting through the National Institute of Standards and Technology), and the Public Printer, shall prepare, and from time to time revise, guidelines for the use of procuring agencies in complying with the requirements of this section. Such guidelines shall— (1) designate those items which are or can be produced with recovered materials and whose procurement by procuring agencies will carry out the objectives of this section, and in the case of paper, provide for maximizing the use of postconsumer recovered materials referred to in subsection (h)(1) of this section; and (2) set forth recommended practices with respect to the procurement of recovered materials and items containing such materials and with respect to certification by vendors of the percentage of recovered materials used, and shall provide information as to the availability, relative price, and performance of such materials and items and where appropriate shall recommend the level of recovered material to be contained in the procured product. The Administrator shall prepare final guidelines for paper within one hundred and eighty days after November 8, 1984, and for three additional product categories (including tires) by October 1, 1985. In making the designation under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall consider, but is not limited in his considerations, to— (A) the availability of such items; (B) the impact of the procurement of such items by procuring agencies on the volume of solid waste which must be treated, stored or disposed of; (C) the economic and technological feasibility of producing and using such items; and (D) other uses for such recovered materials. (f) Procurement of services. A procuring agency shall, to the maximum extent practicable, manage or arrange for the procurement of solid waste management services in a manner which maximizes energy and resource recovery. (g) Executive Office. The Office of Procurement Policy in the Executive Office of the President, in cooperation with the Administrator, shall implement the requirements of this section. It shall be the responsibility of the Office of Procurement Policy to coordinate this policy with other policies for Federal procurement, in such a way as to maximize the use of recovered resources, and to, every two years beginning in 1984, report to the Congress on actions taken by Federal agencies and the progress made in the implementation of this section, including agency compliance with subsection (d) of this section.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act | 661

(h) ‘‘Recovered materials’’ defined. As used in this section, in the case of paper products, the term ‘‘recovered materials’’ includes— (1) postconsumer materials such as— (A) paper, paperboard, and fibrous wastes from retail stores, office buildings, homes, and so forth, after they have passed through their end-usage as a consumer item, including: used corrugated boxes; old newspapers; old magazines; mixed waste paper; tabulating cards; and used cordage; and (B) all paper, paperboard, and fibrous wastes that enter and are collected from municipal solid waste, and (2) manufacturing, forest residues, and other wastes such as— (A) dry paper and paperboard waste generated after completion of the papermaking process (that is, those manufacturing operations up to and including the cutting and trimming of the paper machine reel into smaller rolls or rough sheets) including: envelope cuttings, bindery trimmings, and other paper and paperboard waste, resulting from printing, cutting, forming, and other converting operations; bag, box, and carton manufacturing wastes; and butt rolls, mill wrappers, and rejected unused stock; and (B) finished paper and paperboard from obsolete inventories of paper and paperboard manufacturers, merchants, wholesalers, dealers, printers, converters, or others; (C) fibrous byproducts of harvesting, manufacturing, extractive, or woodcutting processes, flax, straw, linters, bagasse, slash, and other forest residues; (D) wastes generated by the conversion of goods made from fibrous material (that is, waste rope from cordage manufacture, textile mill waste, and cuttings); and (E) fibers recovered from waste water which otherwise would enter the waste stream. (i) Procurement program. (1) Within one year after the date of publication of applicable guidelines under subsection (e) of this section, each procuring agency shall develop an affirmative procurement program which will assure that items composed of recovered materials will be purchased to the maximum extent practicable and which is consistent with applicable provisions of Federal procurement law. (2) Each affirmative procurement program required under this subsection shall, at a minimum, contain— (A) a recovered materials preference program; (B) an agency promotion program to promote the preference program adopted under subparagraph (A); (C) a program for requiring estimates of the total percentage of recovered material utilized in the performance of a contract; certification of minimum recovered material content actually utilized, where appropriate; and reasonable verification procedures for estimates and certifications; and (D) annual review and monitoring of the effectiveness of an agency’s affirmative procurement program. In the case of paper, the recovered materials preference program required under subparagraph (A) shall provide for the maximum use of the post-consumer recovered materials referred to in subsection (h)(1) of this section.

662 | Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (3) In developing the preference program, the following options shall be considered for adoption: (A) Case-by-Case Policy Development: Subject to the limitations of subsection (c)(1)(A) through (C) of this section, a policy of awarding contracts to the vendor offering an item composed of the highest percentage of recovered materials practicable (and in the case of paper, the highest percentage of the postconsumer recovered materials referred to in subsection (h)(1) of this section). Subject to such limitations, agencies may make an award to a vendor offering items with less than the maximum recovered materials content. (B) Minimum Content Standards: Minimum recovered materials content specifications which are set in such a way as to assure that the recovered materials content (and in the case of paper, the content of postconsumer materials referred to in subsection (h)(1) of this section) required is the maximum available without jeopardizing the intended end use of the item, or violating the limitations of subsection (c)(1)(A) through (C) of this section. Procuring agencies shall adopt one of the options set forth in subparagraphs (A) and (B) or a substantially equivalent alternative, for inclusion in the affirmative procurement program. Sec. 6963. Cooperation with Environmental Protection Agency (a) General rule. All Federal agencies shall assist the Administrator in carrying out his functions under this chapter and shall promptly make available all requested information concerning past or present Agency waste management practices and past or present Agency owned, leased, or operated solid or hazardous waste facilities. This information shall be provided in such format as may be determined by the Administrator. (b) Information relating to energy and materials conservation and recovery. The Administrator shall collect, maintain, and disseminate information concerning the market potential of energy and materials recovered from solid waste, including materials obtained through source separation, and information concerning the savings potential of conserving resources contributing to the waste stream. The Administrator shall identify the regions in which the increased substitution of such energy for energy derived from fossil fuels and other sources is most likely to be feasible, and provide information on the technical and economic aspects of developing integrated resource conservation or recovery systems which provide for the recovery of source-separated materials to be recycled or the conservation of resources. The Administrator shall utilize the authorities of subsection (a) of this section in carrying out this subsection. Sec. 6964. Applicability of solid waste disposal guidelines to Executive agencies (a) Compliance. (1) If— (A) an Executive agency (as defined in section 105 of title 5) or any unit of the legislative branch of the Federal Government has jurisdiction over any real property or facility the operation or administration of which involves such agency in solid waste management activities, or (B) such an agency enters into a contract with any person for the operation by such person of any Federal property or facility, and the performance of

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act | 663 such contract involves such person in solid waste management activities, then such agency shall insure compliance with the guidelines recommended under section 6907 of this title and the purposes of this chapter in the operation or administration of such property or facility, or the performance of such contract, as the case may be. (2) Each Executive agency or any unit of the legislative branch of the Federal Government which conducts any activity— (A) which generates solid waste, and (B) which, if conducted by a person other than such agency, would require a permit or license from such agency in order to dispose of such solid waste, shall insure compliance with such guidelines and the purposes of this chapter in conducting such activity. (3) Each Executive agency which permits the use of Federal property for purposes of disposal of solid waste shall insure compliance with such guidelines and the purposes of this chapter in the disposal of such waste. (4) The President or the Committee on House Oversight of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate with regard to any unit of the legislative branch of the Federal Government shall prescribe regulations to carry out this subsection. (b) Licenses and permits. Each Executive agency which issues any license or permit for disposal of solid waste shall, prior to the issuance of such license or permit, consult with the Administrator to insure compliance with guidelines recommended under section 6907 of this title and the purposes of this chapter. Sec. 6965. Chief Financial Officer report The Chief Financial Officer of each affected agency shall submit to Congress an annual report containing, to the extent practicable, a detailed description of the compliance activities undertaken by the agency for mixed waste streams, and an accounting of the fines and penalties imposed on the agency for violations involving mixed waste. . . .

reduction and recycling. In recent years, the EPA has launched brownfields prevention and integrated waste-management initiatives under RCRA. Gina L. Keel See also Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

References Landy, Marc, Marc Roberts, and Stephen Thomas. The Environmental Protection Agency, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. ‘‘25 Years of RCRA.’’ http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/inforesources/pubs/ k02027.pdf (accessed April 6, 2009).

664 | Right-to-Know Legislation

Right-to-Know Legislation Right-to-Know legislation serves the purpose of informing the public of potential safety hazards that result from the growing use of commercial and industrial chemicals. The original aim and scope of such laws is to provide the public with greater access to information regarding the presence of health-threatening substances. Prior to the enactment of such laws, right to know became descriptive of the 1980s labor movement over the issue of workers’ needs for essential access to information regarding toxic materials in the workplace. This early movement prevailed, with the federal government passing protective legislation on Hazard Communication Standards (Deshler, 1990). With respect to the research of Fitzpatrick and LaGory (2000), the steadily emerging value of environmental concerns has directed the connotation of rightto-know legislation toward entailing protecting residents from prospectively dangerous contaminants emitted into the atmosphere, soil, or water supply through prompt notification. Philadelphia and Cincinnati were the first two cities to enact right-to-know laws that included workers and residents within the affected vicinities. By the mid-1980s, New Jersey and Massachusetts were the first to become inclusive of communities on the state level. The local success and momentum of such laws culminated with the U.S. Congress passing the landmark Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986, also called the Superfund Amendments and Restoration Act (SARA) Title III, which includes a comprehensive plan for emergency response when chemical hazards arise (Deshler, 1990). Although community safety became the foundation in which such legislation stands, there remained a set of assumptions that needed addressing: adequate means of making the public announcement; the subjectivity involved in determining the standards for municipal, state, or federal approval levels of toxicity; and an assurance that the companies that use or produce such chemicals refrain from withholding valuable information for self-interested purposes at the public’s expense. In light of the promotion of right-to-know legislation as a major political issue, the original act of 1986 now functions as a living document (see EPCRA), as evidenced with the more recent Illinois Environmental Protection Act, which derived from a collaboration between citizens and input, which led to the establishment of additional protective laws. Among the significant changes are the availability of information regarding released chemicals such as petroleum, fertilizers, pesticides, and industrial solvents into the soil or groundwater within a specified distance, including its cleanup costs to be posted on the Internet (Public Act 0314, 94th General Assembly). The Illinois Environmental Protection Act includes increased guarantees for public notification on behalf of the responsible agency. The legislation remains subject to a series of further revisions and

Roadless Area Conservation Policy | 665

amendments due to society’s increasing chemical dependency, the discovery of the effects and boundaries of contaminated groundwater evaporation, and the further consideration of a greater variety of sites. Michael D. Royster See also U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

References Deshler, David J. ‘‘Community Risks: Extension’s Future Role.’’ Journal of Extension 28 (2) (1990). Fitzpatrick, Kevin, and Mark LaGory. Unhealthy Places: The Ecology of Risk in the Urban Landscape. New York: Routledge, 2000. Public Act 094-0314, 94th General Assembly. http://ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/ 94/094-0314.htm (accessed April 9, 2010). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ‘‘Emergency Planning and Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).’’ http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/lcra.html (accessed April 9, 2010).

Roadless Area Conservation Policy The roadless area conservation rule promulgated by the U.S. Forest Service in 2001 sought to protect nearly 58.5 million acres of wild forest from exploitation by the timber and mining industries and preserve them for endangered species and low-impact recreational users. Instead, it generated a decade of litigation. By the 1990s, science had showed that forest with no roads was valuable as a preserve for endangered species and old growth. Foresters regarded roadless areas as integral to sound and sustainable forest management and important for research into natural processes. Logging on roaded land impacted the environment, and roadless areas were a barrier to preserving native flora and fauna. They also provided low impact recreation such as hiking, kayaking, and fishing. Small businesses also flourish in roadless areas. Only half of the federal roadless forests were covered by wilderness protections. Environmentalists recognized that while wilderness laws adding other forests crept through Congress, the timber industry was bulldozing roads through these areas. An alternative was to have the Forest Service enact an administrative rule, which is harder to overturn than an executive order. By 1997, President Bill Clinton was looking for a roadless policy, the Pew Charitable Trusts began the Heritage Forests Campaign, and other environmental groups came on board. For three years, the administration worked on the rule while the environmentalist coalition spent millions in the most extensive campaign ever. The effort included grassroots organizing at the state level, collecting money from philanthropists, and securing backing from hunters, scientists, the

666 | Roadless Area Conservation Policy

As Republican protesters surround them, Erika Paradiso, far left, and other members of Environment Colorado wield chainsaws in protest of an appearance by U.S. Secretary Gale Norton before a luncheon sponsored by the Denver Chamber of Commerce, Friday, July 23, 2004, at a downtown Denver hotel. Environment Colorado protesters were on hand to call attention to the Bush administration’s proposal to relax the Roadless Area Conservation Rule while Republican protesters surrounded the seven people with the saws. (AP/Wide World Photos)

outdoor recreation industry, and religious leaders, and using it all to lobby Congress and the presidency to fight in court. The rule-making process took more than 18 months of public hearings and meetings. It generated 1.6 million public comments, most overwhelmingly favorable. Proponents such as the Forest Guild argued that logging of the wild forests is not economically feasible and that the U.S. Forest Service lost millions each year and was overtaxed by 386,000 miles of road that cost $440 million a year to maintain and have a maintenance backlog of $8.4 billion as of 2003. Rather than opening new areas, responsible forestry required taking care of what was already open to commercial harvests. The rules were enacted just before the Bush administration took office. They banned new road construction in the still-undeveloped forestlands, primarily in Alaska and the west. In response, industry filed nine lawsuits. The lawsuits were spread through the country in what were hoped to be friendly courts—two apiece

Roadless Area Conservation Policy | 667

in Idaho, Utah, and Washington, D.C., and one apiece in Utah, Wyoming, and Alaska. The incoming administration was opposed to the rule. John Ashcroft’s Justice Department declined to defend the rule or support the suits. Rather than attacking a popular rule preserving wild areas, the administration preferred that the rule be overturned by the series of lawsuits by oil and gas, mining, and logging interests and politicians allied with them. That way the administration could rewrite the rule under judicial mandate rather than under industry auspices. If successful, the administration would give industry the unfettered access it wanted and the courts would take the blame. But the courts were divided, and the result was a decade of stalemate, with injunctions against both implementing the Roadless Rule and finding alternatives. In January 2001, the Clinton-era rule was published in the Federal Register, and less than a month later, Bush Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman suspended implementation until May, allowing Idaho’s federal district court to issue a preliminary injunction. Environmentalists appealed. The appeals court upheld the rule in December 2002. Meanwhile, an administration request for comment on the Roadless Rule generated over 800,000 comments. In June 2002, the House enacted a Roadless Rule and the Senate introduced a companion rule. Between the two acts, the administration indicated it would exempt Alaska’s national forests and waive it elsewhere on request of the state governor. In Alaska, the U.S. Forest Service, anticipating repeal of the rule, was planning massive timber sales in the Tongass roadless areas. Alaska had 15 million acres of coastal rain forest at stake in the Tongass and Chugach national forests. The environmentalists’ villain was 87-year-old Clarence ‘‘Bud’’ Brimmer, senior status federal judge in Wyoming. His career included rulings blocking environmentalist causes such as reintroduction of wolves, snowmobile and grazing limits, and so on. He ruled in July that the Roadless Rule violated NEPA and the Wilderness Act and enjoined enforcement, leading to environmental appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. On December 23, the U.S. Forest Service exempted the Tongass National Forest from the Roadless Rule despite 1.7 million comments in opposition. In 2004, Secretary Veneman said the administration would replace the Roadless Rule with the gubernatorial petition process, which she did in May 2005, making the Wyoming case moot. The Ninth Circuit Court blocked logging in the roadless Tongass until the Forest Service produced a satisfactory plan. Three weeks later, California, Oregon, and New Mexico sued to halt replacement of the Roadless Rule by state petition. Washington later joined the suit and Montana and Maine filed amicus briefs. A similar suit was brought by 20 environmental groups. In December 2005, Virginia became the first state to petition the Forest Service, asking for protection for all of its 380,000 acres of roadless area. North Carolina, South Carolina, New Mexico, and California also sought

668 | Roadless Area Conservation Policy

protection of their roadless areas. In September 2006, a northern California court ruled that the repeal was illegal and reinstated the Roadless Rule, except in Tongass. In 2008, Brimmer issued a nationwide injunction blocking implementation of the 2001 rule, contravening the California ruling. Meanwhile, the suits continue. On September 20, 2006, Idaho petitioned for road building and logging in its 9.3 million acres of roadless area. Wyoming also sought an injunction. The Forest Service ended activities in roadless areas other than in Tongass, and the administration modified regulations to allow the Roadless Area Conservation National Advisory Committee to review state petitions for waivers. The northern California court enjoined all road construction under leases sold since January 2001, and in December 2006, modified it to apply to leases since May 2005. The final injunction covering drilling and logging since May 2005 came in 2007. The Forest Service appealed, but a global settlement protected roadless areas pending settlement of the Tongass. State governors continued to seek exemptions of such things as grazing lands, ski areas, and mines. In January 2008, the final Tongass plan was issued, and states continued to seek court redress—some sought protection of roadless areas, while others wanted access for exploitation. The final Ninth Circuit hearing occurred in October, Obama was elected in November, and in December, the outgoing administration agreed to defer to the new administration after requesting that both pro- and anti-roadless injunctions be lifted. Meanwhile, in the courts the battle continued through 2009, with the new administration in August 2009 appealing a federal court injunction blocking the Roadless Rule in all areas. Of 4 million forest service comments by 2010, 95 percent supported the rule. John H. Barnhill See also National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; Wilderness Act of 1964

References Forest Guild. ‘‘Position Statement: Roadless Area Conservation Rule for National Forests.’’ October 2003. http://www.forestguild.org/publications/policy/Position_Roadless.pdf. Heritage Forests Campaign. ‘‘Our Roadless Areas. Once They’re Gone, They’re Gone Forever.’’ http://www.ourforests.org/roadless/. Parker, Buck. ‘‘The Roadless Area Conservation Rule.’’ October 15, 2003. http:// www.earthjustice.org/our_work/buck_in_brief/the_roadless_area_conservation_rule.html. Ring, Ray. ‘‘Roadless-less. The Campaign to Protect Unroaded Forests Gets Torn Apart by a Wyoming Judge in ‘Half-Assed Retirement’.’’ High Country News, November 9, 2009. http://www.hcn.org/issues/41.19/roadless-less. Turner, Tom. Roadless Rules: The Struggle for the Last Wild Forests. Washington DC: Island Press, 2009. Wilderness Society. ‘‘2001–2009 Roadless Area Conservation Policy Timeline.’’ http://wilderness.org/campaigns/roadless-forests/roadless-area-conservation-timeline

Roosevelt, Theodore | 669

Rockwell International Corp. v. U.S. Rockwell International Corp. v. U.S. is a 1997 writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court reversing a 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling in a whistleblower case filed by a former nuclear weapons facility engineer. The high court’s decision centered on whether the former employee, James Stone, was the ‘‘original source’’ of claims he brought against his former employer. The Court determined he was not. While working for the weapons manufacturer, Stone had discouraged a proposal to dispose of the facility’s manufacturing byproducts via mixing the toxic waste with concrete. In Stone’s view, the mixture would disintegrate and leak (which eventually happened) (Lund, 2008). Stone sued Rockwell under the federal False Claims Act, accusing the company of misrepresenting its compliance with environmental regulations in order to get U.S. government funding. The U.S. government later intervened. The court interpreted the law strictly, finding that Stone’s accusations contained information that was publicly available and that therefore he did not have a valid, private cause of action. In order for him to have a valid claim, it said, he had to be an independent, sole source of the allegations. The decision has been cited as a blow to future potential whistleblowers as it narrows the channels through which they may air their grievances and seek justice for alleged wrongdoing. Prior to Stone’s suit, Rockwell had been subject to a highly publicized government raid, based on Stone’s tip-offs, which led to the company’s payment of $18.5 million in fines for its environmental violations. Jessica Chapman See also Toxic Substances Control Act

References ‘‘Employee Whistleblowers Face Harder Time Bringing False Claims Act Cases,’’ http:// www.jacksonlewis.com/legalupdates/article.cfm?aidþ1095 (accessed February 7, 2009). Lund, Matthew. ‘‘Rockwell International, Pondcrete, and an A La Carte Three-Step Test for Determining an ‘Original Source’ in Qui Tam Lawsuits.’’ Brigham Young University Law Review (4) (2008). Rockwell International v. United States ex rel. Stone. http://www.law.duke.edu/ publiclaw/supremecourtonline/certgrants/2006/rocvuni (accessed February 7, 2009). Supreme Court opinion, http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1272.pdf (accessed February 7, 2009).

Roosevelt, Theodore Theodore Roosevelt (1858–1919) was the twenty-sixth president of the United States, noted for his commitment to ‘‘trustbusting’’ and progressive stance on

670 | Roosevelt, Theodore

conservation issues. A leader of the Republican Party, Roosevelt also founded the short-lived Progressive (or ‘‘Bull Moose’’) Party during the presidential election of 1912. He was an amateur historian who wrote several military histories as well as books about his experiences in the outdoors. Roosevelt was born on October 27, 1858, in New York City to a wealthy family of merchants and philanthropists. His childhood was marred by his struggles with asthma and chronic illness. Roosevelt concentrated on his studies to compensate for his physical infirmities, discovering a passion for natural history. He threw himself into physical activity in order to overcome his weaknesses, an approach he would later call the pursuit of the ‘‘strenuous life.’’ Theodore Roosevelt at Roosevelt, Arizona. Roosevelt was a Harvard graduate (Library of Congress) who attended Columbia Law School but didn’t finish. His original career goal was to become a zoologist and he published two ornithology books in college but changed his ambitions to politics during his later years at Harvard. In 1887, Roosevelt became the co-founder of the Boone and Crockett Club, a hunters’ club that advocated for the preservation of large game animals in the Plains. The club also worked towards preservation of Yellowstone National Park, later supporting the passage of the 1891 Forest Reserve Act. Roosevelt’s political career began in 1889 when he took a position with the United States Civil Service Commission. This was followed by his appointment as the assistant secretary of the United States Navy as tensions between America and Spain had begun to escalate. When the Spanish-American War broke out, Roosevelt resigned and formed the first United States Volunteer Cavalry regiment, better known as the Rough Riders. After a series of victories in Cuba, Roosevelt returned home and was elected the governor of New York. During his tenure as governor, Roosevelt earned a reputation for rooting out corruption in state politics. This led to his election as vice president of the United States in 1900. On September 6, 1901, President

Roosevelt, Theodore | 671

William McKinley was shot at the Pan-American Exposition. His subsequent death on September 14 elevated Roosevelt to the position of president. Roosevelt used his new stature to change the public’s perceptions of conservation issues and the environment. As an outdoorsman, Roosevelt had an investment in protecting public land. Prior to his presidency, he had begun to question policies that allowed hunting on such lands, favoring limitations on these activities. Roosevelt was concerned that the rich would monopolize land areas, turning them into private grounds and devastating the ecosystems within. He believed strongly that the natural resources of the United States belonged to all Americans and went to great lengths to preserve this area for future generations. Roosevelt also expanded the definition of conservation itself during this period, including not only forests and wildlife but also looking strategically at the nation’s mineral and oil resources. He promoted irrigation projects as well as national parks and wildlife refuges. As president, he frequently called on citizens to support politics that gave the federal government increasing authority over land use and environmental protections. To oversee this expansion of national forests, Roosevelt created the National Forest Service in 1905, placing his friend Gifford Pinchot at its head. During his two terms as president, Roosevelt proved willing to use his executive powers to create national reserves. This brought him into conflict with private interests due to the perception that the purchase of land for these reserves interfered with the free market. In 1907, Congress succumbed to corporate pressure and attached a rider onto a spending bill to take away a president’s power to create national forests. Roosevelt was unable to veto the legislation because of the threat of political enmity. With only 10 days before the bill had to be signed, Roosevelt spent the time deciding on national forest reserve areas with U.S. Forest Service head Gifford Pinchot. He designated 16 million acres of national forests just minutes before the powers to do so were stripped away. These lands became known as the ‘‘Midnight Forests’’ because of the last-minute designation. During these years, due to his interest in writing, Roosevelt became embroiled in literary controversy. The president began publishing criticisms of naturalistic animal stories, popularizing the term ‘‘nature faker’’ to describe such writers. He wroe several books himself during this period, many of them focusing on his connection to the wilderness. He continued this work long after the conclusion of his second term in office, further establishing his reputation as a rugged man of the frontier. After leaving the presidency, Roosevelt supported then-presidential hopeful William Howard Taft, because he believed that Taft supported the same brand of Progressivism that Roosevelt himself practiced. This miscalculation of Taft’s policies eventually resulted in a rift between himself and the new president, after which Roosevelt formed the ill-fated Progressive Party. Roosevelt ran for a third

672 | Ruckelshaus, William

term against Taft and Democrat Woodrow Wilson in the 1912 presidential election but ultimately came in second to Wilson. He continued his work as a naturalist and conservationist, however, mounting expeditions in South America and encouraging youth through the growing Boy Scouts of America organization. Theodore Roosevelt died in his sleep at his home in Oyster Bay, New York, on January 6, 1919, of a coronary embolism (blood clot in the artery) at the age of 60. His legacy to American conservation is perhaps stronger than that of any other American president. During his terms in office, Roosevelt was responsible for the designation of 150 national forests, 51 natural bird reservations, 21 reclamation projects, 18 national monuments, 5 national parks, and 4 national game preserves. In just seven and a half years, Roosevelt ensured federal protection for approximately 230 million acres of American land. More important, he increased American understanding of the value of public land, shifting the perception of forests and wilderness areas from being merely resources for exploitation to being considered valuable in its natural state. Roosevelt set a precedent for environmental consciousness to which American presidents still aspire. Gwen Perkins See also Pinchot, Gifford; U.S. Forest Service

References Cutright, Paul Russell. Theodore Roosevelt: The Making of a Conservationist. Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 1985. Egan, Timothy. The Big Burn: Teddy Roosevelt and the Fire that Saved America. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2009. Miller, Nathan. Theodore Roosevelt: A Life. New York: Quill/William Morrow Books, 1994. Morris, Edmund. The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt. New York: Modern Library, 2001. Roosevelt, Theodore. The Essential Theodore Roosevelt. John Gabriel Hunt, ed. New York: Gramercy Books, 1994. Roosevelt, Theodore. Wilderness Writing. Layton, UT: Peregrine Smith Books, 1986.

Ruckelshaus, William William Ruckelshaus served in a number of governmental capacities but is best known as the first administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He was appointed to the position by President Richard Nixon in December of 1970 and served until 1973. After a stint in the private sector (1973– 1983), he was called back to duty by President Ronald Reagan to try and rescue the fledgling EPA, thus becoming the only person to have been in charge of the agency on more than one occasion.

Ruckelshaus, William | 673

William D. Ruckelshaus, the first administrator of the EPA. (AP/Wide World Photos)

William Doyle Ruckelshaus was born in Indianapolis, Indiana, on July 24, 1932. Ruckelshaus received his undergraduate degree from Princeton (cum laude) in 1957 and a law degree from Harvard in 1960 (EPA, 2009). An attorney by trade, Ruckelshaus had no experience in environmental matters prior to assuming the position of EPA administrator. He had, however, worked in the Civil Division of the Justice Department under the eye of Attorney General John Mitchell, who recommended him for the job (Switzer, 2004, 74). Ruckelshaus pushed a ‘‘command and control’’ approach to environmental protection. Setting high standards and aggressively enforcing them seemed to be the right approach for mitigating years of environmental degradation. Among the most celebrated successes of the young agency was the ban on the pesticide DDT (EPA, 2009). During his first term with the EPA, the agency established credibility and employee morale was high. During his second term, Ruckelshaus introduced the concept of risk management, which has been a driving force within the agency ever since (Andrews, 2006, 215). In addition to his role with the EPA, Ruckelshaus served with the Justice Department twice (the second time as Deputy Attorney General, becoming a part of the famous ‘‘Saturday Night Massacre’’ when he refused to comply with Richard Nixon’s order to fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox) and even headed the Federal Bureau of Investigation. After leaving public office, Ruckelshaus went

674 | Ruckelshaus, William

back into private law in Seattle, Washington. He maintains an active agenda and continues work on environmental issues having been appointed to special projects by Presidents William Clinton and George W. Bush and Washington governors Gary Locke and Christine Gregoire (EPA, 2009). Jeffrey Ashley and Aaron Hacker See also DDT; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

References Andrews, Richard N. L. ‘‘Risk-Based Decision Making: Policy, Science, and Politics.’’ In Environmental Policy: New Directions for the Twenty-First Century, Norman J. Vig and Michael E. Kraft, eds. Washington DC: CQ Press, 2006. Switzer, Jacqueline Vaughn. Environmental Politics: Domestic and Global Dimensions. Belmont, CA: Thomson, 2004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ‘‘Agency Administrators.’’ http://www.epa.gov/ history/admin/agency (accessed May 26, 2009).

S Safe Drinking Water Act The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is a 1974 federal law ensuring the quality of America’s drinking water and its water sources. It set a series of water standards to ensure public health based upon the type and size of the water system. These standards guard against threats to drinking water from improperly disposed of chemicals, animal and human waste, pesticides, and naturally occurring substances, which are regularly tested for in water systems. The standards are broken down into these categories: community; non-community; non-transient non-community; and transient non-community water systems. The act also set up multiple barriers against pollution, which are source-water protection, treatment distribution, system integrity, and public information. The SDWA delegates most of the power to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which in turn sets the national rules for states and private companies to follow. The EPA forms its rules based on health risks that are determined on how much of certain contaminants could affect the entire population and how frequent they occur in the waterways. The health risks that certain levels of contaminants pose are calculated and a legal limit is set. The legal limit falls well below the amount shown to be hazardous. This provides a margin of safety in case of water system neglect causing a rise in the containment (Water Encyclopedia). A state can apply for ‘‘primacy,’’ which enables it to implement the SDWA within its own jurisdiction as long as it has proof that it will maintain the same, if not stricter, standards than the EPA. All states except Wyoming and the District of Columbia have primacy. Having primacy means that the states act as the primary agent for water delivery and must maintain those systems and take action to make sure they are adhering to SWDA (Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water). Public water systems are responsible for ensuring that contaminants not exceed the standards. Water systems are the ones who must treat the water and frequently test for contaminants that they must then report to the state. If the water system is not meeting these standards, then it falls on them to notify customers. An integral part of maintaining the water systems is the citizen-advisory committees, rate boards, volunteers, and civic leaders who actively provide information and help protect water sources. 675

676 | Sagebrush Rebellion

An amendment to the SDWA in 1996 requires states to have annual Consumer Confidence Reports, Source Water Assessment Programs, and Operator Certifications. This amendment also provided for a revolving Drinking Water State Fund, Cost-Benefit Analysis, and Public Information and Consultation, along with setting up the Microbial Contaminants and Disaffection Byproducts Board and a special fund for small water systems. The national standards for drinking water are legally enforceable, which allows the EPA and the states to take action against careless water systems. This enforcement can range from administrative orders to fines and legal repercussions. Arthur Holst See also U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

References U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. ‘‘Understanding the Safe Drinking Water Act.’’ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Safe Drinking Water Act. ‘‘Basic Information.’’ http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/sdwa/basicinformation.html. Water Encyclopedia. Safe Drinking Water Act. http://www.waterencyclopedia.com /Re-St/Safe-Drinking-Water-Act.html.

Sagebrush Rebellion The Sagebrush Rebellion (1979–1981) was a political and legal movement originating in the western United States that aimed to transfer or ‘‘return’’ public lands from federal control to the states. Many westerners spoke of the west being on ‘‘unequal footing’’ with the east since only in the west did the federal government own and manage large sections of public lands. Critics argued that the rebellion was concocted by greedy westerners who were tied to big money and who were intent on privatizing the public domain. The idea to transfer the public lands from governmental to private or state control has been an ongoing issue in the west even before ‘‘sagebrush rebels’’ came onto the scene. Westerners have often displayed streaks of anti-authoritarianism and a sense of entitlement fueled by the myth of the self-reliant westerner. In the 1940s, western congressmen backed by cattlemen pushed for a large-scale transfer of the public domain to the western states, but their efforts failed—due, in part, to the columnist and historian Bernard DeVoto’s scathing criticisms in articles published in Harper’s magazine. Later, western anti-government sentiment festered in the wake of passage of environmental regulations governing the use of the nation’s public lands and resources, particularly the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, which virtually reversed the long-standing

Sagebrush Rebellion | 677

policy of disposal and stated that the public domain would remain public in perpetuity. The first salvo in the Sagebrush Rebellion came in 1979, when the Nevada legislature passed Assembly Bill 413 and laid claim to Nevada’s right to own and manage 49 million acres of the public lands. It was a meaningless act since the federal government had no intention of ceding ownership of the land and Nevada had no authority to seize it, but it symbolized the anger many westerners felt toward a perceived overbearing federal presence. Elsewhere in the west, the movement spread like brushfire among congressional delegates, state legislatures, and county governments. During that same two-year period, western politicians attempted to push through several pieces of legislation on the national and state level to transfer federal lands to western states. Congressional delegates from all 11 western states in the United States actively promoted themselves as sagebrush rebels. In 1979 and again in 1981, Utah senator Orrin Hatch introduced a major piece of legislation that called for the ‘‘return’’ and ‘‘rightful title’’ of public western lands to the states. If it was clear where the west’s congressional delegates stood on the issue, less clear was the response of western governors who were considerably more cautious in supporting sagebrush legislation. Some, like Utah’s Scott Matheson, signed a sagebrush bill passed by the state legislature. However, Matheson understood it would be a non-issue until the courts ruled in favor of the states. Other governors, notably Richard Lamm of Colorado and Bruce Babbitt of Arizona, adamantly opposed the idea of a transfer and refused to sign supportive legislation. The hesitancy of the governors to support a transfer reflected a division among their constituency; polls taken in the Rocky Mountain States showed that in 1979 one-third of those surveyed supported a transfer of land to the states and in 1981 a slight majority supported it. Some rebels spoke of a ‘‘second American Revolution.’’ The term ‘‘rebellion’’ was a misnomer because the movement operated within legal and constitutional bounds, although there were exceptions. For instance, on July 4, 1980, county commissioners in Grand County, Utah, organized a protest centered around the illegal bulldozing of a road on federal land earmarked for wilderness study. In some rural areas, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) personnel and environmentalists faced threats of violence. For their part, opponents of the movement, determined to tarnish the image of the rebellion and its proponents, launched an aggressive offensive of their own. Organizations like the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, and other groups prepared calling lists, established anti-rebellion committees, and labeled the movement a ‘‘land grab’’ and ‘‘sagebrush ripoff.’’ Two events marked the height of the rebellion in late 1980 and early 1981: the conference of the League for the Advancement of States’ Equal Rights (LASER) held in Salt Lake City and attended by about 500 ‘‘rebels,’’ and the election of Ronald Reagan as U.S. president and the nomination of James Watt as Secretary

678 | Sagebrush Rebellion

of the Interior. For a time, sagebrush rebels had great designs for a revolution in the west, never more so than when the president-elect declared, ‘‘I am a sagebrush rebel.’’ Yet, despite the media attention and support among some members of the national Republican Party, the movement didn’t stand much of a chance. Rebels never agreed on a coherent strategy, or even whether the movement was about a land transfer or simply a desire for a more responsive government to western concerns. Although several western states passed ‘‘sagebrush’’ legislation, these had no bite, and Congress never seriously considered passing national legislation transferring ownership of the public lands to the states. In the end, the new Secretary of the Interior pulled the plug on a transfer when he announced that the Sagebrush Rebellion had been won. Many sagebrush rebels, like James Watt, no longer saw the urgency in wresting the public lands from the federal government now that rebels ran the show. The rebellion effectively ended in 1981, but the discontent underlying the movement continues to be felt in the rural west where public land issues are particularly acute. No doubt the grievances were real, but the way each side addressed those grievances did not even begin to bring about a lasting and common solution. Each side postured, protested, and spewed out offensive rhetoric that only heightened the tension over the nation’s public lands. One problem was that the rhetoric on both sides was contradictory and inconsistent. For instance, opponents argued that the federal government safeguarded the land from ruin, yet during the same period, the government pushed for large-scale, potentially environmentally devastating federal projects—ranging from MX missiles to toxic waste repositories. On the other hand, rebels resisted the federal government ‘‘locking up’’ the land and its resources to the public, yet that is likely what would have happened with state land ownership if put into private hands. In the end, the rhetoric, protests, and contradictions did not solve the problem of ownership and management of public lands. The rebellion may have thrust public lands issues to the fore and prompted land managers to be more responsive to local concerns, but its primary legacy served to polarize, not bring together. Jedediah S. Rogers See also Bureau of Land Management; Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

References Cawley, R. McGreggor. Federal Land, Western Anger: The Sagebrush Rebellion and Environmental Politics. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1993. Graf, William L. Wilderness Preservation and the Sagebrush Rebellions. Savage, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1990. Lamm, Richard D., and Michael McCarthy. The Angry West: A Vulnerable Land and Its Future. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1982. Shanks, Bernard. This Land Is Your Land: The Struggle to Save America’s Public Lands. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1984.

Santa Barbara Oil Spill, 1969 | 679

Santa Barbara Oil Spill, 1969 On January 28, 1969, oil spewed into the Santa Barbara Channel from underneath Union Oil Company’s Platform A. Over several weeks, a 200,000-barrel slick polluted 40 miles of coastline. The black tide killed 3,600 seabirds, destroyed $17.3 million in property, and ruined beaches from Santa Barbara to Port Hueneme. It also tarred several Channel Islands. Though comparatively small, the 1969 spill was noteworthy for its timing. It occurred just as the environmental movement was gaining traction in the United States. Over the next few years, government reformers invoked the Santa Barbara Oil Spill as a reason for increased environmental protection, a policy shift that earned the 1970s the nickname ‘‘the Environmental Decade.’’ The Santa Barbara coast has long been an oily place. Before Spanish colonization, Indians used tar from the channel’s natural oil seeps to seal their boats. But the 1969 oil spill was no natural seep. It was a blowout caused by inadequate protective casing in the fifth well drilled from Union Oil’s Platform A. The

Workmen using pitchforks, rakes, and shovels attempt to clean up oil-soaked straw from the beach at Santa Barbara Harbor, California, February 7, 1969. The oil, leaking from an off-shore well for over a week, covered local beaches and threatened many southern California shoreline areas. (AP/Wide World Photos)

680 | Santa Barbara Oil Spill, 1969

platform itself was only a few months old when the blowout started. Twelve days after the blowout, workers managed to cap the well, but it was too late to stop the spill. Five long ruptures had opened on the ocean floor, allowing more crude to seep out. In addition, a second well blew out on February 24. Local reaction to the oil spill was intense. Residents cherished the Santa Barbara coastline for its scenic beauty, and they had opposed offshore oil drilling for decades. In addition to organizing the cleanup throughout 1969, activists staged protests. Exasperated by the spill, some called their organization Get Oil Out (GOO). Sitting-in, protesters blocked platform resupply trucks from using Stearns Wharf. They angrily presented government officials with oiled pelican corpses. And when a new rig was installed in 1972, they organized a ‘‘fish-in,’’ a small flotilla of private boats that pestered the installation crews. Santa Barbarans’ wealth and political connections elevated the spill to a national event. President Richard Nixon toured the spoiled beaches, then on New Year’s Day 1970, signed the National Environmental Policy Act. A one-year anniversary conference in 1970 attracted national television coverage and published a declaration of environmental rights. Nevertheless, the protests and reforms of the early 1970s did not get oil out of the Santa Barbara Channel. Fourteen offshore platforms continue to drill. The peak year for channel oil came in 1995, after which annual production slowed but did not cease. Crude oil no longer lay close to the surface, so extraction became more costly. In addition, Alaskan crude oil flooded the West Coast refinery market. This dropped the price of crude oil in California and made drilling in the channel less profitable. In January 2009, the Santa Barbara press marked the fortieth anniversary by noting soberly that no repeat disasters have occurred since 1969. The idealistic goals of the post-spill environmentalists, including getting oil out of the channel and freeing the nation from dependence on imported oil, have also not occurred. Josh Ashenmiller See also Exxon Valdez Spill

References Easton, Robert. Black Tide: The Santa Barbara Oil Spill and Its Consequences. New York: Delacorte Press, 1972. Rothman, Hal K. Saving the Planet: The American Response to the Environment in the Twentieth Century. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2000. Sollen, Robert. An Ocean of Oil: A Century of Political Struggle Over Petroleum Off the California Coast. Juneau, AK: The Denali Press, 1998. Steinhart, Carol, and John Steinhart. Blowout: A Case Study of the Santa Barbara Oil Spill. North Scituate, MA: Duxbury Press, 1972.

Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission (1972) | 681

Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission (1972) Considered one of the primary landmark cases in environmental law, Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission involved a proposal in 1962 by Consolidated Edison to build a hydroelectric plant along the Hudson River and embedded into the side of Storm King Mountain in Westchester County, New York. The Storm King Project drew the attention of local residents who were concerned about the damage to the scenic beauty as well as to the land and water habitat, especially for commercial fisheries in the Hudson River. After an extensive battle (1962–1981) involving a series of court cases in federal and state courts and numerous administrative decisions by the Federal Power Commission (renamed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission), Consolidated Edison’s settlement with the Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference was accepted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 1981 and required Consolidated Edison stop the Storm King plant construction and make other changes to reduce environmental impacts from their other Hudson River power plants. After the Federal Power Commission initially granted a permit to build the power plant, Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference and neighboring towns filed suit in 1965 with the Federal Court of Appeals arguing that environmental factors were not sufficiently considered by the Federal Power Commission in its decision to grant the permit. The court’s decision was a major breakthrough for environmental law because the court granted legal standing to the conservation group based on broad public rights concerning environmental impacts thus going beyond the traditional threshold requiring a litigant to demonstrate standing based on individual economic consequences. The court ordered the Federal Power Commission to revisit its finding and consider the proposed nuclear plant’s impact on the Hudson River natural landscape and historic sites as well as its negative impact on Hudson River fisheries. The Court of Appeals voted two to one to uphold the Federal Power Commission but the court later split four to four with the Supreme Court denying a writ of certiorari in 1972. After more state and federal court decisions requiring further study of environmental impacts, Consolidated Edison eventually settled the case with the conservation groups and agreed not to build the power plant. This case law created a window of opportunity for the birth of environmental law and legal activism, as federal and state court systems became a venue for natural resource protection and debate regarding how environmental impacts should be considered in federal and state permitting and rule-making. The attention created by this decision created great momentum for the burgeoning environmental movement of the 1960s and 1970s. In addition, the

682 | Science Advisory Board

cases influenced not only the growth of environmental law firms such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, but also the development of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 which specifically requires an environmental impact analysis when federal actions such as permitting involve significant ecological impacts. Matthew Lindstrom See also Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; Natural Resources Defense Council

References Marist Environmental History Project. ‘‘The Scenic Hudson Decision.’’ http://library.marist.edu/archives/mehp/scenicdecision.html (accessed April 17, 2010). Natural Resources Defense Council. ‘‘E-law: What Started It All?’’ http://www.nrdc.org /legislation/helaw.asp (accessed April 17, 2010). Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission, 453 F. 2d 463 (2d Cir. 1971), cert. denied 407 U.S. 926 (1972). http://supreme.justia.com/us/407 /926/case.html (accessed April 17, 2010). Scheffer, Victor B. The Shaping of Environmentalism in America. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1991.

Science Advisory Board The Science Advisory Board is an online panel of physicians and life scientists who meet electronically to discuss their views and concerns regarding emerging technologies. The mission of the Science Advisory Board is ‘‘to improve communication between medical and life science professionals and the companies who provide this community with products and services.’’ They do this by providing a forum for more than 44,000 experts to come together to discuss biomedical news, new publications, areas of new research, protocols, products, techniques, and many other areas of interest to scientists and medical experts. The board’s Web site (http://www.scienceboard.net) provides a space for several interactive forums. Blogs include topics such as the human side of doing science, global issues in science, and science news. They provide an uncensored and unbiased view from the perspectives of professional scientists. A monthly newsletter informs members of conferences and meetings, and spotlights the work of a few members. And more structured forums provide book reviews, articles about scientific research, and perspectives on emerging technologies. Recent environmental topics addressed by the Science Advisory Board in its forums, and blogs include Federal Biodefense Research Priorities, International Biotechnology Perspectives in Taiwan, Environmental Genomics Studies in

Sequoia National Park | 683

Mexico, Neurophysiology Studies of Marine Life, Biotechnological Advances to Aerospace Medicine, and Bioremediation of Xenobiotics. Robert C. Robinson See also National Research Council

Sequoia National Park Sequoia National Park is in east-central California, approximately 100 miles east of Fresno. The park covers 404,051 acres and is jointly administered with King’s Canyon National Park, which borders it to the north. Sequoia National Park’s most notable features include the General Sherman tree, the world’s largest tree (when measured by volume), and Mt. Whitney, which, at 14,494 feet above sea level, is the highest mountain in the contiguous United States. The park contains the southern end of the Sierra Nevada mountain range, as well as canyons, caves, meadows, marshes, foothills, waterfalls, rivers, and lakes. These varied ecosystems provide homes for bobcats, rattlesnakes, squirrels and other small mammals, foxes, mule deer, mountain lions, black bears, and other wildlife (Orsi et al., 1993). Archeological evidence suggests that humans have probably lived in the region for about 6,500 years. Native American populations began to decline, however, in the late eighteenth century as a result of smallpox infection. At the same time, the Sierra Nevada range and the region’s distance from the coastline discouraged European and American settlement. This began to change after 1849, as the discovery of gold at Sutter’s Mill brought settlers to California (Orsi et al., 1993). By the early 1850s, the region had developed mining and trading settlements. Within a few decades, logging industries, mining, and cattlemen populated the mountains, while the valleys and foothills supported farmers, small cities, and towns. As the demands of these various groups began to tax the limits of the region’s resources, residents turned to the government to resolve conflicts over issues such as water supplies and the protection of natural resources (Eldredge, 2008). Beginning in 1878, organized groups had begun advocating for state laws that would prohibit the logging of giant sequoias. Over the course of the next two decades, these advocates would lobby local and national government bodies for laws that would protect the region’s natural resources. Finally, on September 25, 1890, 76 square miles of land were designated as Sequoia National Park, making Sequoia America’s second-oldest national park, preceded only by Yellowstone National Park. One week later, another bill added Yosemite National Park, expanded Sequoia National Park, and established the neighboring General Grant National Park, which would later become King’s Canyon National Park. Sequoia National Park would expand again, in 1926, when the size of the park grew by 140 percent (Eldredge, 2008; Orsi et al., 1993).

684 | Sequoia National Park

Early supporters and administrators of Sequoia National Park faced many challenges. This included fighting legal battles to uphold park protections against business and residential interests who opposed the park’s establishment and policing the park against illegal logging and other violations. Additionally, the government had not yet developed a coherent plan for the administration of the nation’s new system of national parks. The policies and objectives of Sequoia National Park’s management had yet to be defined, and few government resources were allocated to the site. Park services were limited to the protection of the park’s natural resources from illegal use, rather than the development of the park as a site for tourism and recreation (Orsi et al., 1993). This began to change in the early twentieth century, as management of Sequoia National Park came to place an emphasis on the site as a recreational space for tourists. The establishment of the National Park Service in 1916 also contributed greatly toward organizing the park’s management and available resources. These new park administrators would introduce a number of construction projects to encourage and accommodate visitors, including roads, dams, campgrounds, buildings, trails, the Mt. Whitney Power Company, and other visitor amenities. While this new emphasis on tourism would become very successful, it would have significant environmental consequences (Hydrick, 1984). Beginning in the late 1920s, park officials became increasingly concerned about the impact of this development on the park’s ecosystems (Hydrick, 1984). However, America’s entry into World War II necessitated cuts in the budget of the National Park Service that would last into the 1940s. These cuts kept Sequoia National Park and others from significantly revising their resource management goals, and infrastructural development continued. By the 1950s, however, support from environmental interest groups enabled Sequoia National Park and others to begin conducting research to better assess and revise their management policies (Eldredge, 2008). In the 1960s, Sequoia National Park and others were able to begin putting the results of this research into action. Through the introduction of scientifically trained environmental specialists, new management policies were developed and enacted that continued to value tourism, but also emphasized the importance of maintaining the park’s ecological health and introduced the importance of undeveloped wilderness areas. This approach to national park management has provided the basis for modern-day management of Sequoia National Park and others. Debate and controversy regarding the management and the proper use of the park has also continued, particularly over issues such as wildlife management, ecological restoration, fire prevention, and continued development (Eldredge, 2008; Orsi et al., 1993). Skylar Harris See also National Park Service; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Sierra Club v. Morton (1972) | 685

References Eldredge, Ward. Sequoia National Park. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2008. Hydrick, Rick. ‘‘The Genesis of National Park Management: John Roberts White and Sequoia National Park, 1920–1947.’’ Journal of Forest History 28 (1984): 68–81. Orsi, Richard J., et al., eds. Yosemite and Sequoia: A Century of California National Parks. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993.

Sierra Club v. Morton (1972) Sierra Club v. Morton is the pioneering Supreme Court case that gave conservation organizations the right to sue to enforce federal statutes and regulations. The plaintiff Sierra Club dates back to 1892, when 182 members founded it and elected John Muir as its first president. The organization exists to enjoy, explore, and protect wild places. It promotes responsible use of Earth’s resources and educates and enlists people to protect and restore the environment. The Sierra Club lawsuit named Rogers Morton, Secretary of the Interior, and others as defendants. The case concerned the development of the Mineral King Valley, which is located in the Sierra Nevadas in Tulare, California, adjacent to the Sequoia National Park. The lands are part of the Sequoia National Forest. Congress dedicated the Mineral King Valley as a special game refuge in 1926. In January 1969, the U.S. Forest Service approved the Disney Company’s plan to construct a $35 million complex that included motels, restaurants, swimming pools, parking lots, and more. The complex was designed to accommodate 14,000 visitors per day. The Sierra Club’s suit alleged that the development would negatively affect the aesthetics and ecology of the area. The case hinged on whether the plaintiff had standing to sue. The plaintiff relied on Section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act, which permits judicial review if a person suffered a legal wrong or is adversely affected or aggrieved because of an administrative action. The lower court granted the plaintiff a preliminary injunction to stop the construction, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision. Subsequently, the Supreme Court agreed to review the case. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote the opinion for the majority. Stewart wrote that the plaintiff failed to assert that the organization or any of its member’s activities or pastimes would be affected by Disney’s development. The Sierra Club had asserted in the pleadings that it was a representative of the public with longstanding concern and expertise in matters involving natural resources. The case is known for Justice William O. Douglas’ dissenting opinion. Douglas wrote that ‘‘The critical question of ‘standing’ would be simplified and also put neatly in focus if we fashioned a federal rule that allowed environmental issues to

686 | Sierra Club v. Morton (1972)

be litigated before federal agencies or federal courts in the name of the inanimate object about to be despoiled, defaced, or invaded by roads and bulldozers and where injury is the subject of public outrage. Contemporary public concern for protecting nature’s ecological equilibrium should lead to the conferral of standing upon environmental objects to sue for their own preservation. Inanimate objects are sometimes parties in litigation. A ship has a legal personality, a fiction found useful for maritime purposes. The corporation sole—a creature of ecclesiastical law—is an acceptable adversary, and large fortunes ride on its cases. The ordinary corporation is a ‘person’ for purposes of the adjudicatory processes, whether it represents proprietary, spiritual, aesthetic, or charitable causes. So it should be as respects valleys, alpine meadows, rivers, lakes, estuaries, beaches, ridges, groves of trees, swampland, or even air that feels the destructive pressures of modern technology and modern life’’ (opinion, 405). The ruling affirmed the appellate court’s decision that the Sierra Club lacked standing to maintain the action but it did not rule on the merits of the complaint. The Court held that to have standing, the group bringing the action must plead that one of its members had suffered an injury in fact. Second, the Court held that a mere interest in a problem is not sufficient itself to render the organization adversely affected or aggrieved. No matter how longstanding or well qualified the organization was to judge the problem, that in itself did not entitle it to legal standing in the absence of a legal wrong. An important footnote in the case did not bar the Sierra Club from amending its complaint in district court. When the case was returned to district court, the judge allowed the Sierra Club to amend its complaint to attempt to show it had standing. By the time the case made its way back to the lower court, Congress had passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which required that proposed actions must consider the environmental impacts. The lower court also allowed the Sierra Club to plead violations of NEPA. During the time the case worked its way through the courts, public opinion had changed concerning the best use of Mineral King Valley. It was clear that no one had an interest in seeing the area developed. The case was dismissed for lack of prosecution in 1977, and in 1978 Congress made Mineral Valley part of the Sequoia National Park. The most important result of the decision was that the Court did not bar environmental groups from bringing actions to seek remedies for environmental damages. Sierra Club v. Morton’s legal impact was to give citizens the standing to sue to enforce environmental laws but the case also had other important effects. The decision showed the importance of litigation in protecting and preserving public lands. Litigation blocked the process, which allowed time for alternative proposals to be formulated and offered and for the public to get its voice heard in the political process. Timothy O’Brien

Silent Spring | 687 See also Friends of the Earth v. Mosbacher (2005); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

References Hoberg, George. Pluralism By Design: Environmental Policy and the American Regulatory State. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1992. Knight, Richard L., and Bates, Sarah F. A New Century for Natural Resources Management. Washington DC: Island Press, 1995. Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 1972.

Silent Spring Rachel Carson is credited with starting the environmental movement that we know today. It was her cautionary tale about the pesticide dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT), Silent Spring, which helped create environmental awareness. Carson and her book received a lot of publicity for the harm she predicted would occur to the environment and humans as a result of using DDT. Her book came out at a time when pesticides were recognized as reason for the progress that America saw after World War II. Criticizing DDT was a very controversial act, and Carson had much opposition. Swiss chemist Paul Hermann M€ uller discovered DDT in 1939. Experiments showed it to be very effective against insects, and therefore vector-borne diseases. DDT became very popular after protecting soldiers’ health during World War II. The FDA established that 7 ppm of DDT on food was safe for humans, and the UN supported large-scale spraying of the pesticide to lower incidences of malaria and increase food production in developing nations (Lytle 2007; Davis, 1971). Rachel Carson was not convinced by the FDA and did not believe that a chemical that had such an effective impact on insects was safe. She approached publications such as Reader’s Digest about letting her research the negative side of DDT but was turned down because of the chemical’s popularity. Determined to show the dark underbelly of pesticide use, she decided to write a book on the subject. The book reported on the negative effects of pesticide use, particularly DDT, on humans and other species. Its conclusion warned of a day when all life was silenced by the toxic effects of pesticide use (The Story of Silent Spring). Her book was initially rejected, but after revisions, eventually caught the interest of The New Yorker. The magazine offered to condense and publish some chapters from Silent Spring. These chapters were released as a three part series on June 2, 1962 (Milne and Milne, 1962). Carson’s work ignited editorial commentary throughout the country. Her book opened people up to the idea that this ‘‘miracle chemical’’ might actually be harmful. This was the first time anyone

688 | Silent Spring

had publicly presented the idea that there were drawbacks to chemical agriculture. Despite its success, Carson’s book encountered much opposition. She was criticized for using scare tactics to drive home her message, such as exaggerating the truth without providing context. Silent Spring was interpreted as completely anti-pesticide, which angered food growers and distributors, along with others in the agricultural industry. Despite opposition, Silent Spring had a tremendous impact on society and the government. The book led to a push in all levels of government for regulation of pesticide use. There were more than 40 bills passed in different state legislatures on this issue following the release of Silent Spring, and in 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created to handle environmental issues (Beyl, 1991; Bailey, 2002). To this day, Rachel Carson and her book remain controversial (Tierney, 2007). Since the ban on DDT, there has been a significant rise in malaria cases in poorer countries, which has caused many anti-DDT activists to concede that there are benefits to the use of pesticides. Long after the release of Silent Spring the question remains: Is the disruption of nature beneficial to man, or will it come back to haunt him? This question truly is the legacy of Rachel Carson. Arthur Holst See also Carson, Rachel; DDT

References Bailey, Ronald. ‘‘Silent Spring at 40.’’ Reason Online. June 12, 2002. http://www.reason .com/news/show/34823.html. Beyl, Caula. ‘‘History of the Organic Movement: Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, and the Environmental Movement.’’ 1991. http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/history/lecture31 /r_31-3.html. Carson, Rachel. Silent Spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1962. Davis, Kenneth. ‘‘The Deadly Dust: The Unhappy History of DDT.’’ American Heritage Vol. 22.2 (1971). http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1971/2/1971_2_44 .shtml. Lytle, Mark Hamilton. ‘‘The Gentle Subversive: Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, and the Rise of the Environmental Movement.’’ New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Milne, Lorus, and Margaret Milne. ‘‘There’s Poison All Around Us Now.’’ New York Times. September 23, 1962. http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/10/05/reviews/carson-spring .html. ‘‘The Story of Silent Spring.’’ Natural Resources Defense Council. http://www .nrdc.org/health/pesticides/hcarson.asp. Tierney, John. ‘‘Fateful Voice of a Generation Still Drowns Out Real Science.’’ New York Times, June 5, 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/science/earth/05tier.html ?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/T/Tierney,%20John.

Smart Growth | 689

Smart Growth Suburban sprawl is the product of federal planning and financial incentives after World War II. Triggers include the low-cost FHA and VA mortgages that promoted the cheap and quickly built suburbs, the highway systems that made the suburbs accessible, and the general attractiveness of the American dream of a house on a piece of land of one’s own. Sprawling suburbs arose hastily and often without incentives for developers to include such things as local stores and parks and museums—and jobs. The amenities stayed in the cities, linked by the new highways, while the jobs moved to the new industrial parks an expressway away, across the cities. In the 1960s, environmentalists became aware that sprawl produced blight, both in the deserted cities and in the dismal split-level suburbs, all the same and all dependent on the automobile instead of the neighborhood sidewalk or bike path. Suburbs lacked any sense of community, any feel of home. Smart growth is a countermovement to urban sprawl. Environmentalists and many city planners regard current growth patterns as detrimental to the long-term health of cities, suburbs, towns, and wilderness areas. Factors driving smart growth are demographic changes, fiscal concerns, a more subtle definition of growth, and environmentalism.

A commuter train passes next to the Franklin Street Apartments in Redwood City, California, Monday, February 3, 2003. Franklin Street Apartments earned Redwood City $700,000 from a first-of-its-kind state incentive that hands out transportation funds for apartment projects. The project requires at least 40 apartments per acre within onethird mile of a transit station. (AP/Wide World Photos)

690 | Smart Growth

Smart growth varies widely in practice, but smart growth communities as a generality are devoted to restoration of a sense of community and revitalizing the city centers and older suburbs. Growth is not necessarily bad, but there seems to be little economic rationality in deserting close infrastructure simply to build new infrastructure farther out. The emphasis is on town, mass transit, pedestrian friendly, and a mix of housing, retail, commercial, and open space, perhaps even environmental features. Smart growth develops and conserves to safeguard the natural environment while at the same time improving the attractiveness, economic viability, and social diversity of a community. Smart growth is also known as new community design, and it features policies that encourage integrated growth. It supports compact, mixed-use urban development and discourages dispersed development on the fringe where automobiles are necessary and reduce or eliminate walkability. Accessibility, livability, lower public-service expense, and mixed land use are the smart growth counter to sprawl. The emphasis is on living in a human-scale environment. Services are local rather than regional and are within walking distance. Transport includes walking and cycling and buses rather than automobiles. And the systems are interconnected for continuous travel rather than roads with loops and dead ends, barriers, and sidewalks to nowhere. Planning is vital. The public realm is more important than the private world of gates, malls, and private clubs. To an extent smart growth is the master planned (private development) community writ large in that it includes efficiencies and amenities, provides for incremental growth to keep infrastructure costs down, and coordinates differing land uses to maximize access. The process works equally for existing and new communities. The Environmental Protection Agency has a smart-growth program that partners with state, local, and national experts to find and promote strategies for environmentally sensitive development. EPA conducts or sponsors research and publishes results and smart-growth success stories while providing technical support and grants and serving to bring together the diverse interests of the community. Smart growth is not directly regulated by federal law, but there are federal policies as well as state and community regulations that affect transportation, housing, and other smart-growth elements. Development is primarily a state or local function. Smart-planning states manage growth from the top down by emphasizing rural conservation and urban redevelopment and combine regional and transportation planning. The state weapon to coerce compliance is, of course, financing. Maryland, Florida, and New Jersey were the leaders in top-down growth control. Other states with smart growth emphases in 2000 included Georgia, Maine, Vermont, and Oregon. Smart growth was a stimulus for Atlanta’s light rail expansion, but another trigger was violation of the Clean Air Act and potential million-dollar fines. Smart growth has its critics. The numbers show that almost 92 percent of transportation is still by automobile in Portland, Oregon, one of the earlier smart

Smart Growth | 691

cities and now an example that critics point to. Smart growth, according to its opponents, has no true benefits. They note that it increases congestion, is unpopular, and makes residents worse off. Advocates counter with examples of successful New Urbanism developments and surveys showing preference for living in communities with good planning and at least some smart growth features. In at least some areas, population and employment patterns are shifting toward urban from suburban. Advocates say that the critics generally focus on a single factor rather than the overall synergy of a successful smart growth program. They note that density-related conditions such as higher congestion are more than compensated for by improved access and choice of travel mode. A more aggressive objection comes from proponents of sprawl. Advocates note that cities cover only 5 percent of the United States and that smart laws are unduly restrictive, threaten property rights and American values, and are an attempt by environmentalist extremists to force the rest of the world to adopt their ways. City and state governments are strongly against sprawl. A critic on the left notes that even sustained or responsible or green development is still development, and smart growth still takes out irreplaceable deserts and forests. The Smart Growth Manual is a how-to work by two of the leading smartgrowth proponents. Andres Duany and Jeff Speck defined good town planning in Suburban Nation, and the Smart Growth Manual details the nuts and bolts of green design, healthy community construction and maintenance, and New Urbanism. Smart growth is taken to the street and building level as well as neighborhood and region. Duany is a leader of New Urbanism, and his company has designed over 300 new towns and revitalizations using smart growth. Speck is director of planning at Duany’s firm. For the guide, the two brought on an urban planner and founder of the Street Plans Collaborative, which specializes in alternative transportation systems. John H. Barnhill See also Green Cities; Suburban Sprawl; Urban Planning

References Duany, Andres, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, and Jeff Speck. Suburban Nation. New York: North Point Press, 2000. Duany, Andres, Mike Lydon, and Jeff Speck. The Smart Growth Manual. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional, 2009. O’Toole, Randal. The Folly of ‘Smart Growth.’’’ Regulation 24e (3) (Fall 2001). http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv24n3/otoole.pdf. Schipper, Janine. Disappearing Desert. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2008. Smartgrowth.org. ‘‘About Smart Growth.’’ http://www.smartgrowth.org/about/default.asp. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ‘‘Basic Information.’’ http://www.epa.gov /dced/basic_info.htm (accessed April 2010).

692 | Soil Conservation Service Victoria Transport Policy Institute. ‘‘Smart Growth, More Efficient Land Use Management.’’ TDM Encyclopedia. http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm38.htm.

Soil Conservation Service In 1933, in the midst of the Great Depression, the U.S. Congress established a new federal agency, the Soil Erosion Service, to address the chronic environmental issues occurring throughout the American continent; primarily those issues associated with destructive farming practices and a critical lack of care afforded working agricultural lands. In 1935, this agency was renamed the Soil Conservation Service, which began to carry out large-scale soil conservation efforts throughout the United States. The establishment of this agency was the first major foray by the federal government into the agricultural sector, and into regulating agricultural land use. In this respect, the Soil Conservation Service is significant because the establishment of this agency marked the beginning of a fundamental reordering of the relationship of farmers to the government, as well as farmers to the environment. Prior to 1933, the federal government had little involvement within the realm of compulsory agricultural policy, as most programming, up to that time, had either been of a voluntary or state-driven nature. By 1933, however, the environmental problems associated with the operating agricultural row-crop production paradigm were readily apparent—chiefly soil erosion associated with the lack of contour plowing and terracing on highly erodible farm ground throughout the midwest and western United States. The erosion associated with the legendary Dust Bowl conditions in these areas was, in fact, so severe that dust clouds reached even the cities of the Mid-Atlantic states—including Washington. Recognizing the severity of the problem was Hugh Hammond Bennett, a dedicated advocate for the nation’s soil, who began to urge the creation of a federal agency equipped to deal with the erosion problem. In 1933, this effort bore fruit as Congress authorized the creation of the Soil Erosion Service (within the Department of the Interior), which in 1935 was reconstituted as the Soil Conservation Service and transferred to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The primary role of the Soil Conservation Service was to promote and to carry out agronomic solutions to the nation’s soil erosion problem. This role meant that the Soil Conservation Service would develop soil conservation districts to address the problems on a localized watershed or countywide basis, carry out demonstration projects to make clear to farmers the benefits of terracing and other progressive agricultural practices, and also to provide specialized expertise and focused planning and attention to the cropping methods utilized throughout the American continent. Even today, the Soil Conservation Service, in the form

Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. (2001) | 693

of its successor agency, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, continues to monitor farming activities and to provide technical assistance to farmers in association with their conservation efforts. In sum, the creation of the Soil Conservation Service was the first step by the federal government into the regulation of agricultural lands and practices. This was also the first tacit recognition that agriculture, as an economic sector, has a fundamental role in the protection of the nation’s natural resources—including one of its most important—the nation’s soil. Jess Phelps See also Conservation; U.S. Department of the Interior

References Helms, Douglas. ‘‘Hugh Hammond Bennett and the Creation of the Soil Erosion Service.’’ Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 6 (2009). Kirkendall, Richard S. Social Scientists and Farm Politics in the Age of Roosevelt. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1966. Simms, D. Harper. The Soil Conservation Service. New York: Praeger Press, 1970.

Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. (2001) Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. is a U.S. Supreme Court writ of certiorari which ruled 5–4 that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers did not have jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act over a sand and gravel pit frequented by migratory birds. The agency, composed of a group of cities and villages in the greater Chicago area, had sought to turn a water-filled pit into a dump. When the Corps determined the pit to qualify as a wetlands area and refused to grant the agency a permit to convert the site, it sued (Halvarson, 2002). Both the district court and the court of appeals agreed with the Corps, ruling against issuance of a permit. However, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, reversed. Even though the Corps documented many species at the site, the majority ruled that the Corps overstated its reach in asserting authority over it because the body of water was not protected by the act (Hall, 2005, 297). The Clean Water Act authorizes oversight of ‘‘navigable waters’’ only, the Court pointed out (Hall, 2005, 297). The pit’s isolation and distance from open water exempted it from protection. The minority, led by Justice John Paul Stevens, wrote an indignant dissent, calling the ruling an unnecessary and nonsensical weakening of public protections from polluted waters. Environmentalists believe the ruling significantly weakens the legal protections for migratory birds as well as essentially endorses water pollution (Halvarson, 2002).

694 | Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. (2001)

SOLID WASTE AGENCY OF NORTHERN COOK CTY V. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (99–1178) 531 U.S. 159 (2001) 191 F.3d 845, reversed. The Supreme Court tested the scope of the commerce clause in Solid Waste Agency v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2000) after the Corps denied a consortium of Illinois municipalities a permit to create a landfill where migratory birds nested. The Corps had interpreted the migratory bird rule of the Clean Water Act to include intrastate waters, in this case several seasonal ponds, used as habitats for migratory birds. The Supreme Court disagreed, however, voting five to four that the presence of migratory birds does not give the federal government jurisdiction over land use, in effect granting more power to state and local governments in determining how to use their land. CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court. Section 404(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA or Act), 86 Stat. 884, as amended, 33 U. S. C. §1344(a), regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into ‘ navigable waters.’’ The United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), has interpreted §404(a) to confer federal authority over an abandoned sand and gravel pit in northern Illinois which provides habitat for migratory birds. We are asked to decide whether the provisions of §404(a) may be fairly extended to these waters, and, if so, whether Congress could exercise such authority consistent with the Commerce Clause, U.S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3. We answer the first question in the negative and therefore do not reach the second. Petitioner, the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC), is a consortium of 23 suburban Chicago cities and villages that united in an effort to locate and develop a disposal site for baled nonhazardous solid waste. The Chicago Gravel Company informed the municipalities of the availability of a 533-acre parcel, bestriding the Illinois counties Cook and Kane, which had been the site of a sand and gravel pit mining operation for three decades up until about 1960. Long since abandoned, the old mining site eventually gave way to a successional stage forest, with its remnant excavation trenches evolving into a scattering of permanent and seasonal ponds of varying size (from under one-tenth of an acre to several acres) and depth (from several inches to several feet). The municipalities decided to purchase the site for disposal of their baled nonhazardous solid waste. By law, SWANCC was required to file for various permits from Cook County and the State of Illinois before it could begin operation of its balefill project. In addition, because the operation called for the filling of some of the permanent and seasonal ponds, SWANCC contacted federal respondents (hereinafter respondents), including the Corps, to determine if a federal landfill permit was required under §404(a) of the CWA, 33 U. S. C. §1344(a). Section 404(a) grants the Corps authority to issue permits ‘‘for the discharge of dredged or fill material into the navigable waters at specified disposal sites.’’ The term ‘‘navigable waters’’ is defined under the Act as ‘ the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.’’ §1362(7). The Corps has issued regulations defining the term ‘‘waters of the United States’’ to include ‘ waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce. . . .’’ 33 CFR §328.3(a)(3) (1999).

Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. (2001) | 695 In 1986, in an attempt to ‘ clarify’’ the reach of its jurisdiction, the Corps stated that §404(a) extends to instrastate waters: a. Which are or would be used as habitat by birds protected by Migratory Bird Treaties; or b. Which are or would be used as habitat by other migratory birds which cross state lines; or c. Which are or would be used as habitat for endangered species; or d. Used to irrigate crops sold in interstate commerce. This last promulgation has been dubbed the ‘ Migratory Bird Rule.’’ The Corps initially concluded that it had no jurisdiction over the site because it contained no ‘ wetlands,’’ or areas which support ‘ vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions,’’ 33 CFR §328.3(b) (1999). However, after the Illinois Nature Preserves Commission informed the Corps that a number of migratory bird species had been observed at the site, the Corps reconsidered and ultimately asserted jurisdiction over the balefill site pursuant to subpart (b) of the ‘ Migratory Bird Rule.’’ The Corps found that approximately 121 bird species had been observed at the site, including several known to depend upon aquatic environments for a significant portion of their life requirements. Thus, on November 16, 1987, the Corps formally ‘ determined that the seasonally ponded, abandoned gravel mining depressions located on the project site, while not wetlands, did qualify as ‘waters of the United States’ . . . based upon the following criteria: (1) the proposed site had been abandoned as a gravel mining operation; (2) the water areas and spoil piles had developed a natural character; and (3) the water areas are used as habitat by migratory bird [sic] which cross state lines.’’ U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago District, Dept. of Army Permit Evaluation and Decision Document, Lodging of Petitioner. During the application process, SWANCC made several proposals to mitigate the likely displacement of the migratory birds and to preserve a great blue heron rookery located on the site. Its balefill project ultimately received the necessary local and state approval. By 1993, SWANCC had received a special use planned development permit from the Cook County Board of Appeals, a landfill development permit from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, and approval from the Illinois Department of Conservation. Despite SWANCC’s securing the required water quality certification from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, the Corps refused to issue a §404(a) permit. The Corps found that SWANCC had not established that its proposal was the ‘ least environmentally damaging, most practicable alternative’’ for disposal of nonhazardous solid waste; that SWANCC’s failure to set aside sufficient funds to remediate leaks posed an ‘ unacceptable risk to the public’s drinking water supply’’; and that the impact of the project upon area-sensitive species was ‘ unmitigatable since a landfill surface cannot be redeveloped into a forested habitat.’’ Petitioner filed suit under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. §701 et seq., in the Northern District of Illinois challenging both the Corps’ jurisdiction over the site and the merits of its denial of the §404(a) permit. The District Court granted summary judgment to respondents on the jurisdictional issue, and petitioner abandoned its challenge to the Corps’ permit decision. On appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, petitioner renewed its attack on respondents’ use of the ‘ Migratory Bird Rule’’ to assert jurisdiction over the site. Petitioner argued that respondents had exceeded

696 | Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. (2001) their statutory authority in interpreting the CWA to cover nonnavigable, isolated, intrastate waters based upon the presence of migratory birds and, in the alternative, that Congress lacked the power under the Commerce Clause to grant such regulatory jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals began its analysis with the constitutional question, holding that Congress has the authority to regulate such waters based upon ‘ the cumulative impact doctrine, under which a single activity that itself has no discernible effect on interstate commerce may still be regulated if the aggregate effect of that class of activity has a substantial impact on interstate commerce.’’ The aggregate effect of the ‘ destruction of the natural habitat of migratory birds’’ on interstate commerce, the court held, was substantial because each year millions of Americans cross state lines and spend over a billion dollars to hunt and observe migratory birds. The Court of Appeals then turned to the regulatory question. The court held that the CWA reaches as many waters as the Commerce Clause allows and, given its earlier Commerce Clause ruling, it therefore followed that respondents’ ‘ Migratory Bird Rule’’ was a reasonable interpretation of the Act. We granted certiorari, and now reverse. Congress passed the CWA for the stated purpose of ‘restor[ing] and maintain[ing] the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.’’ In so doing, Congress chose to ‘recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution, to plan the development and use (including restoration, preservation, and enhancement) of land and water resources, and to consult with the Administrator in the exercise of his authority under this chapter.’’ Relevant here, §404(a) authorizes respondents to regulate the discharge of fill material into ‘navigable waters,’’ 33 U. S. C. §1344(a), which the statute defines as ‘ the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas,’’ §1362(7). Respondents have interpreted these words to cover the abandoned gravel pit at issue here because it is used as habitat for migratory birds. We conclude that the ‘ Migratory Bird Rule’’ is not fairly supported by the CWA. This is not the first time we have been called upon to evaluate the meaning of §404(a). In United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc. (1985), we held that the Corps had §404(a) jurisdiction over wetlands that actually abutted on a navigable waterway. In so doing, we noted that the term ‘ navigable’’ is of ‘ limited import’’ and that Congress evidenced its intent to ‘ regulate at least some waters that would not be deemed ‘navigable’ under the classical understanding of that term.’’ But our holding was based in large measure upon Congress’ unequivocal acquiescence to, and approval of, the Corps’ regulations interpreting the CWA to cover wetlands adjacent to navigable waters. We found that Congress’ concern for the protection of water quality and aquatic ecosystems indicated its intent to regulate wetlands ‘ inseparably bound up with the ‘waters’ of the United States.’’ It was the significant nexus between the wetlands and ‘ navigable waters’’ that informed our reading of the CWA in Riverside Bayview Homes. Indeed, we did not ‘ express any opinion’’ on the ‘ question of the authority of the Corps to regulate discharges of fill material into wetlands that are not adjacent to bodies of open water. . . .’’ In order to rule for respondents here, we would have to hold that the jurisdiction of the Corps extends to ponds that are not adjacent to open water. But we conclude that the text of the statute will not allow this.

Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. (2001) | 697 Indeed, the Corps’ original interpretation of the CWA, promulgated two years after its enactment, is inconsistent with that which it espouses here. Its 1974 regulations defined §404(a)’s ‘ navigable waters’’ to mean ‘ those waters of the United States which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, and/or are presently, or have been in the past, or may be in the future susceptible for use for purposes of interstate or foreign commerce.’’ The Corps emphasized that ‘ [i]t is the water body’s capability of use by the public for purposes of transportation or commerce which is the determinative factor.’’ Respondents put forward no persuasive evidence that the Corps mistook Congress’ intent in 1974. Respondents next contend that whatever its original aim in 1972, Congress charted a new course five years later when it approved the more expansive definition of ‘ navigable waters’’ found in the Corps’ 1977 regulations. In July 1977, the Corps formally adopted 33 CFR §323.2(a)(5) (1978), which defined ‘ waters of the United States’’ to include ‘ isolated wetlands and lakes, intermittent streams, prairie potholes, and other waters that are not part of a tributary system to interstate waters or to navigable waters of the United States, the degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate commerce.’’ Respondents argue that Congress was aware of this more expansive interpretation during its 1977 amendments to the CWA. Specifically, respondents point to a failed House bill, H. R. 3199, that would have defined ‘ navigable waters’’ as ‘ all waters which are presently used, or are susceptible to use in their natural condition or by reasonable improvement as a means to transport interstate or foreign commerce.’’ They also point to the passage in §404(g)(1) that authorizes a State to apply to the Environmental Protection Agency for permission ‘ to administer its own individual and general permit program for the discharge of dredged or fill material into the navigable waters (other than those waters which are presently used, or are susceptible to use in their natural condition or by reasonable improvement as a means to transport interstate or foreign commerce . . . including wetlands adjacent thereto) within its jurisdiction. . . .’’ The failure to pass legislation that would have overturned the Corps’ 1977 regulations and the extension of jurisdiction in §404(g) to waters ‘ other than’’ traditional ‘ navigable waters,’’ respondents submit, indicate that Congress recognized and accepted a broad definition of ‘ navigable waters’’ that includes nonnavigable, isolated, intrastate waters. Although we have recognized congressional acquiescence to administrative interpretations of a statute in some situations, we have done so with extreme care. ‘ [F]ailed legislative proposals are ‘a particularly dangerous ground on which to rest an interpretation of a prior statute.’’’ Central Bank of Denver, N. A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N. A. (1994) (quoting Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. LTV Corp. (1990)). A bill can be proposed for any number of reasons, and it can be rejected for just as many others. The relationship between the actions and inactions of the 95th Congress and the intent of the 92d Congress in passing §404(a) is also considerably attenuated. Because ‘ subsequent history is less illuminating than the contemporaneous evidence,’’ Hagen v. Utah (1994), respondents face a difficult task in overcoming the plain text and import of §404(a). We conclude that respondents have failed to make the necessary showing that the failure of the 1977 House bill demonstrates Congress’ acquiescence to the Corps’ regulations or the ‘ Migratory Bird Rule,’’ which, of course, did not first appear until 1986. Although respondents cite some legislative history showing Congress’ recognition of

698 | Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. (2001) the Corps’ assertion of jurisdiction over ‘ isolated waters,’’ as we explained in Riverside Bayview Homes, ‘ [i]n both Chambers, debate on the proposals to narrow the definition of navigable waters centered largely on the issue of wetlands preservation.’’ Beyond Congress’ desire to regulate wetlands adjacent to ‘ navigable waters,’’ respondents point us to no persuasive evidence that the House bill was proposed in response to the Corps’ claim of jurisdiction over nonnavigable, isolated, intrastate waters or that its failure indicated congressional acquiescence to such jurisdiction. Section 404(g) is equally unenlightening. In Riverside Bayview Homes we recognized that Congress intended the phrase ‘ navigable waters’’ to include ‘ at least some waters that would not be deemed ‘navigable’ under the classical understanding of that term.’’ But §404(g) gives no intimation of what those waters might be; it simply refers to them as ‘ other . . . waters.’’ Respondents conjecture that ‘ other . . . waters’’ must incorporate the Corps’ 1977 regulations, but it is also plausible, as petitioner contends, that Congress simply wanted to include all waters adjacent to ‘ navigable waters,’’ such as nonnavigable tributaries and streams. The exact meaning of §404(g) is not before us and we express no opinion on it, but for present purposes it is sufficient to say, as we did in Riverside Bayview Homes, that ‘ §404(g)(1) does not conclusively determine the construction to be placed on the use of the term ‘waters’ elsewhere in the Act (particularly in §502(7), which contains the relevant definition of ‘navigable waters’). . . .’’ We thus decline respondents’ invitation to take what they see as the next ineluctable step after Riverside Bayview Homes: holding that isolated ponds, some only seasonal, wholly located within two Illinois counties, fall under §404(a)’s definition of ‘ navigable waters’’ because they serve as habitat for migratory birds. As counsel for respondents conceded at oral argument, such a ruling would assume that ‘ the use of the word navigable in the statute . . . does not have any independent significance.’’ We cannot agree that Congress’ separate definitional use of the phrase ‘ waters of the United States’’ constitutes a basis for reading the term ‘ navigable waters’’ out of the statute. We said in Riverside Bayview Homes that the word ‘ navigable’’ in the statute was of ‘ limited effect’’ and went on to hold that §404(a) extended to nonnavigable wetlands adjacent to open waters. But it is one thing to give a word limited effect and quite another to give it no effect whatever. The term ‘ navigable’’ has at least the import of showing us what Congress had in mind as its authority for enacting the CWA: its traditional jurisdiction over waters that were or had been navigable in fact or which could reasonably be so made. See, e.g., United States v. Appalachian Elec. Power Co. (1940). Respondents—relying upon all of the arguments addressed above—contend that, at the very least, it must be said that Congress did not address the precise question of §404(a)’s scope with regard to nonnavigable, isolated, intrastate waters, and that, therefore, we should give deference to the ‘ Migratory Bird Rule.’’ See, e.g., Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984). We find §404(a) to be clear, but even were we to agree with respondents, we would not extend Chevron deference here. Where an administrative interpretation of a statute invokes the outer limits of Congress’ power, we expect a clear indication that Congress intended that result. See Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Constr. Trades Council (1988). This requirement stems from our prudential desire not to needlessly reach constitutional issues and our assumption that Congress does not casually authorize administrative agencies to interpret a statute to push the limit of congressional authority. This concern is heightened where the administrative interpretation alters the federal-state framework

Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. (2001) | 699 by permitting federal encroachment upon a traditional state power. See United States v. Bass (1971) (‘‘[U]nless Congress conveys its purpose clearly, it will not be deemed to have significantly changed the federal-state balance’’). Thus, ‘ where an otherwise acceptable construction of a statute would raise serious constitutional problems, the Court will construe the statute to avoid such problems unless such construction is plainly contrary to the intent of Congress.’’ DeBartolo, supra. Twice in the past six years we have reaffirmed the proposition that the grant of authority to Congress under the Commerce Clause, though broad, is not unlimited. See United States v. Morrison (2000); United States v. Lopez (1995). Respondents argue that the ‘ Migratory Bird Rule’’ falls within Congress’ power to regulate intrastate activities that ‘ substantially affect’’ interstate commerce. They note that the protection of migratory birds is a ‘ national interest of very nearly the first magnitude,’’ Missouri v. Holland (1920), and that, as the Court of Appeals found, millions of people spend over a billion dollars annually on recreational pursuits relating to migratory birds. These arguments raise significant constitutional questions. For example, we would have to evaluate the precise object or activity that, in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce. This is not clear, for although the Corps has claimed jurisdiction over petitioner’s land because it contains water areas used as habitat by migratory birds, respondents now, post litem motam, focus upon the fact that the regulated activity is petitioner’s municipal landfill, which is ‘ plainly of a commercial nature.’’ But this is a far cry, indeed, from the ‘ navigable waters’’ and ‘ waters of the United States’’ to which the statute by its terms extends. These are significant constitutional questions raised by respondents’ application of their regulations, and yet we find nothing approaching a clear statement from Congress that it intended §404(a) to reach an abandoned sand and gravel pit such as we have here. Permitting respondents to claim federal jurisdiction over ponds and mudflats falling within the ‘ Migratory Bird Rule’’ would result in a significant impingement of the States’ traditional and primary power over land and water use. See, e.g., Hess v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation (1994) (‘‘[R]egulation of land use [is] a function traditionally performed by local governments’’). Rather than expressing a desire to readjust the federal-state balance in this manner, Congress chose to ‘ recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States . . . to plan the development and use . . . of land and water resources. . . .’’ We thus read the statute as written to avoid the significant constitutional and federalism questions raised by respondents’ interpretation, and therefore reject the request for administrative deference. We hold that 33 CFR §328.3(a)(3) (1999), as clarified and applied to petitioner’s balefill site pursuant to the ‘ Migratory Bird Rule,’’ 51 Fed. Reg. 41217 (1986), exceeds the authority granted to respondents under §404(a) of the CWA. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is therefore Reversed.

Jessica Chapman See also Clean Water Act of 1972

700 | Stream Corridor Restoration Program

References Hall, Kermit L., ed. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, 2nd ed. New York: University of Oxford Press, 2005. Halvarson, Tobias. ‘‘Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers: The Failure of ‘Navigability’’ as a Proxy in Demarcating Federal Jurisdiction for Environmental Protection.’’ Ecology Law Quarterly 29 (2) (2002). Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Endangered Environmental Laws. http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/ 2000_99_1178. Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, et al. U.S. 99–1178 (2001). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court =us&vol=000&invol=99-1178.

Stream Corridor Restoration Program The Stream Corridor Restoration Program was mentioned in testimony given by Benjamin H. Grumbles, the assistant administrator for water, to Congress on March 8, 2006. Mr. Grumbles was making a budget request for the year and mentioned the program. Subsequently, a 15-agency task force was formed and produced a document on streams and how to restore them. It is used by local agencies wishing to restore streams. The following agencies were involved in the development of this manual entitled Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices: U.S. Department of Agriculture: • Agriculture Research Service • Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service • U.S. Forest Service • Natural Resources Conservation Service U.S. Department of Commerce: • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration • National Marine Fisheries Service U.S. Department of Defense: • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Department of the Interior: • Bureau of Land Management • Bureau of Reclamation

Suburban Sprawl | 701

• Fish and Wildlife Service • National Biological Service • National Park Service • U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources Discipline s

s

Water Resources Division

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Emergency Management Agency Tennessee Valley Authority Stream Corridor Restoration covers hydraulics, how to find funding, the mechanics of designing a stream restoration project, and the actual mechanics of doing the restoration. It is a massive book that is available for free by download or can be ordered in a print version. The book is also available on CD-ROM. The Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District mentioned in its June 2000, newsletter that it was overseeing stream restoration projects while working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This is the type of local/federal cooperation the book urges. Stephanie Suesan Smith References Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District. ‘‘Update: News about Activities and Development at MDS.’’ Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District, KY. June 28, 2000. The Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group. ‘‘Stream Corridor Restoration—Principles, Processes and Practices.’’ Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington DC. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ stream_restoration/. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ‘‘Testimony of Benjamin H. Grumbles, Assistant Administrator for Water U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Before the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives.’’ http://epa.gov/ow/speeches/030806bg.html (accessed April 10, 2010).

Suburban Sprawl Suburban sprawl is a distinctive form of low-density development characterized by construction on previously undeveloped land, large spatial separations between land uses, and the prevalence of highly similar shopping and residential amenities. Suburbs of this kind tend to result not from planned regional growth, but from decisions on the part of private entities, often with the assistance of local municipalities, to extend development into previously undeveloped areas. This result is

702 | Suburban Sprawl

ever-expanding (or sprawling) communities that appear to bound (or ‘‘leap frog’’) across the landscape, producing myriad environmental, economic, and social impacts (Galster et al., 2001). Almost as a rule, sprawling suburbs are distinguished by physical separation of land uses and poor accessibility (Ewing, 1994). Large block sizes, a dearth of sidewalks, and configurations such as cul-de-sacs discourage residents from setting out on foot or by bicycle, making car ownership and use a necessity. Communities of this sort typically lack a true downtown, which might attract people interested in socializing, shopping, or strolling, and instead feature one or more shopping centers or strip malls (Burchell et al., 1998; Ewing, 1994), which offer residents bountiful parking and chain store discounts. Individual residential developers are often responsible for large construction projects and rely on the replication of one or a few single family housing styles on similar lots (Ewing, 1994) as a way of standardizing the construction process and reducing costs. The end of World War II marked a fundamental turning point in American history, and it was then that a variety of factors aligned to support the creation of

Panoramic aerial view of Corona and Chino, two Los Angeles, California, suburbs. The Riverside Freeway cuts between mountains with Corona on the left and Chino on the right. Many industrial parks are scattered along the highway. (iStockPhoto)

Suburban Sprawl | 703

what we now recognize as suburban sprawl. When war-time manufacturing ceased, the industrial economies of cities like Philadelphia, Detroit, and New York began to collapse, and a variety of policies were put in place that facilitated the outmigration of massive numbers of (predominantly white) people to pursue ‘‘the American Dream’’ of owning a single-family home outside the city (Beauregard, 2003). The federal government, through a combination of mortgage offerings tailored for new single-family homes with yards and the dedication of considerable transportation dollars to the road construction (Ewing, 1994), did much to encourage those who could to leave the city in favor of suburban life. Some characteristics unique to the suburbs also enhanced their growth. Local tax rates were, and often still are, lower in the suburbs because their property values are higher, and because costs associated with infrastructure maintenance and social services are typically less. Municipal governments’ zoning decisions, as well as the pervasive ‘‘home rule’’ mentality, exacerbate the process of sprawling development, as they allow for the codification of associated land-use patterns and permit the kind of myopic decision-making where local (typically tax-related) benefits are considered while larger scale implications of developers’ proposals are not (Burchell et al., 1998; Ewing, 1994; Soule and Peirce, 2007). Government subsidies to developers may further encourage this pattern of growth as they relieve these entities from bearing the full cost of infrastructure provision, tax burdens, and other related expenses (Ewing, 1994). Preferences also drive sprawl. Unlike building in urban areas where site contamination, irregular lot size or shape, zoning restrictions, and other obstacles may be encountered, construction on former green space is a relatively straightforward process, and therefore preferred by many developers. Consumer choice also explains the prevalence of suburban sprawl. Critics may dismiss it, among other things, for its lack of appeal, but clearly there is demand among residents and businesses alike for this type of development (Gordon and Richardson, 2000). The consequences of suburban sprawl are many. Among the most concerning impacts are a loss of open space and habitat fragmentation as a result of ‘‘leap frogging’’ and road construction; heat islands, flooding, reduced groundwater recharge, and the degradation of surface water bodies, all of which result from the prevalence of paved surfaces. Increased air pollution from automobile emissions is another major concern (Ewing, 1994; Soule and Peirce, 2007). Anthropocentric consequences of this developmental pattern abound as well. Sprawl has also been linked to obesity, hypertension, and other health and psychological disorders (Gordon and Richardson, 2000; Sturm and Cohen, 2004) and social isolation among suburbanites (Putnam, 1995). Similarly, the out-migration

704 | Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977

of many high-earning, able-bodied people from cities to suburbs can result in urban decline, a condition wherein reductions in cities’ tax dollars diminish their capacity to maintain critical infrastructure or provide the social services upon which many of their residents rely. Urban (particularly minority) residents may be further worsened as available jobs are located far from their homes and require private transportation to reach, a condition called ‘‘spatial mismatch’’ (Ewing, 1994; Galster et al., 2001; Gordon and Richardson, 2000; Holzer, 1991). Josephine Faass See also Environmental Sustainability; Green Cities; Smart Growth; Urban Planning

References Beauregard, R. A. Voices of Decline: The Postwar Fate of U.S. Cities, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2003. Burchell, Robert, Naveed Shad, David Listokin, Hillary Phillips, Anthony Downs, Samuel Siskin, Judy Davis, et al. Costs of Sprawl Revisited. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1998. Ewing, Reid. ‘‘Characteristics, Causes and Consequences of Sprawl: A Literature Review.’’ Environmental and Urban Studies 21 (2) (1994). Galster, George, Royce Hanson, Michael Ratcliffe, Harold Wolman, Stephen Coleman, and Jason Freihage. ‘‘Wrestling Sprawl to the Ground: Defining and Measuring an Elusive Concept.’’ Housing Policy Debate 12 (4) (2001): 681–717. Gordon, Peter, and Harry Richardson. ‘‘Critiquing Sprawl’s Critics.’’ Policy Analysis 365 (2000). Holzer, Harry J. ‘‘The Spatial Mismatch Hypothesis: What Has the Evidence Shown?’’ Urban Studies 28 (1) (1991): 105–122. Putnam, Robert. ‘‘Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital.’’ Journal of Democracy 6 (1) (1995). Soule, David C., and Neal Peirce. Remaking American Communities: A Reference Guide To Urban Sprawl. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2007. Sturm, R., and D. A. Cohen. ‘‘Suburban Sprawl and Physical and Mental Health.’’ Public Health 118 (7) (2004): 488–496.

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 After decades of failure and two vetoes by Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter signed HR 2, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA), into law on August 3, 1977. The first-ever national strip-mining law, SMCRA set standards for water quality, blasting, and particularly, reclamation. It addressed permitting, performance bonds, inspection, and enforcement. It defined areas where mining

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 | 705

should not occur. It mandated public hearings before permitting and allowed citizen lawsuits against companies violating environmental standards. The Interior Department’s Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) has a database of land and water qualified for reclamation. It also helps states and tribes that have no program of their own, but mostly OSMRE oversees state offices that enforce reclamation efforts. The best state standards mandate restoration to the highest prior level of use and compatibility with surrounding vegetation, topography, and wildlife. The SMCRA Abandoned Mine Land program abates hazards, reduces subsidence and mine fires, replaces polluted public water supplies while restoring land and water, creating construction jobs, and stimulating the economy of areas needing it. More than a million abandoned mines by 1977 caused acid runoff and sedimentation, contaminating thousands of stream miles. City water supplies, both urban and rural, required expensive treatment for the pollution. Acid drainage also corroded culverts and sedimentation clogged drainage systems and streams. Abandoned mines were sometimes fatal hazards to curious children unaware of the threat of high walls, dilapidated structures, open shafts, and water-filled pits. The dying mining communities near the abandoned mines lack the population and economic resources to clean up the sites, which make the towns unattractive for tourism and industry. The abandoned sites also are often used as garbage dumps. SMCRA requires reclamation and taxes coal at 35 cents a ton for surface mined coal and 15 cents for deep mined coal. The tax money goes to the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund and is allocated 50 percent for the state where collected and 50 percent to the federal government. In 2006, Congress extended the AML tax for 14 years, directing hundreds of millions of dollars to cleanup and closing many loopholes that allowed states to use abandoned mine cleanup money for other projects. Federal funds to the states between 1997 and 2007 ranged from $50.5 to $56.8 million. Thirty years after SMCRA, Appalachian residents still complained about blasts that rattled windows and cracked foundations, about chemicals and mud in their streams, and about waste piles and flooding and dead streams. Something wasn’t right if most mountaintop removal came with an exemption from the requirement to reclaim as the mine grew. Mountaintop mines were massive, and reclamation lagged. SMCRA was a compromise to counter a public campaign to ban strip mining. Critics say it doesn’t protect people, jobs, or the environment. All it does is produce record amounts of coal because, unlike mine safety laws of 1969 and 1977, it puts enforcement in state rather than federal hands. OSMRE and other regulatory agencies have been watered down since Ronald Reagan and James Watt. Effectiveness depends on which party has power, but even Bill Clinton was little better than his predecessors, cutting the OSM’s

706 | Sustainable Agriculture

budget and enforcement staff. The Bush administration, said critics, was even worse. Obama refocused federal regulators, and the hope was that SMCRA would be effective again. John H. Barnhill See also Bush, George W.; Clinton, William Jefferson; Coal Mining; Watt, James G.

References Abandoned Mine Reclamation Clearinghouse. Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 and the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. http://www.amrclearinghouse .org/Sub/LEGAL/SMCRA.htm. National Governors Association. ‘‘Policy Position: NR-23, Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation.’’ February 25, 2009. http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.8358 ec82f5b198d18a278110501010a0/?vgnextoid=280b9e2f1b091010VgnVCM1000001a01 010aRCRD. OSMRE. Public Law 95-87. Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. http://www.osmre.gov/topic/SMCRA/publiclaw95-87.shtm. Schladweiler, Brenda K. ‘‘Comparison of Reclamation of Coal Mines Under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 and Oil and Gas Sites in Wyoming.’’ National Meeting of the American Society of Mining and Reclamation, Billings, MT, May 30–June 5, 2009. Ward, Ken Jr. ‘‘30 Years Later, Mine Law’s Success Debated.’’ Charleston (WV) Gazette. July 22, 2007. http://wvgazette.com/News/MiningtheMountains/200707220003?page =2&build=cache.

Sustainable Agriculture The concept of sustainable agriculture emerged during the 1960s from grassroots movements throughout the United States as a reaction to the harm that was being done to the environment by large-scale corporate agricultural operations. As the respective movements coalesced and began to organize at the national level during the 1980s, it became apparent that sustainable agriculture was an amorphous concept that was difficult to define. Critics of sustainable agriculture seized upon the definition issue by questioning what factors determined which agricultural methods were sustainable in the first place. The U.S. Congress stepped into the breach with the passage of the Farm Bill of 1990 and provided the definition that would be utilized by federal agencies. ‘‘The term sustainable agriculture means an integrated system of plant and animal production practices having a site-specific application that will, over the long term: • satisfy human food and fiber needs • enhance environmental quality and the natural resource base upon which the agricultural economy depends

Sustainable Agriculture | 707

Michael Yang, left, helps Thomas Ly pick fruit from a tree Tuesday, October 21, 2003, at a ranch in Fresno, California. Yang, a research assistant for the University of California Cooperative Extension, helps Hmong farmers like Ly to develop sustainable farming methods to reduce the use of heavy pesticides in their fields. (AP/Wide World Photos)

• make the most efficient use of nonrenewable resources and on-farm resources and integrate, where appropriate, natural biological cycles and controls • sustain the economic viability of farm operations • enhance the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole (U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture). The Farm Bill of 1990 also created and funded programs to support sustainable agriculture initiatives, which are administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Many of the concepts associated today with sustainable agriculture have their roots in the subsistence agricultural practices that were common throughout the United States until the New Deal era. In rural areas, where subsistence farming was prevalent, most farms were small and labor intensive. Since the primary purpose of each farm was to support the sustenance needs of the family or the local community, farmers grew a variety of crops. They also raised various animals that were used to obtain milk or meat. If the farm produced a surplus, the farmer would use the extra goods to either barter for needed materials or to sell at local markets. Since the goal of subsistence farming was to produce enough goods to

708 | Sustainable Agriculture

provide for the annual needs of a family or community, there was little incentive to overproduce in order to obtain money. Farmers thus practiced good stewardship to ensure that they did not deplete the nutrients in the soil. The passage of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 marked the beginning of the demise of subsistence farming in the United States. The legislation created the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA), which endeavored to bring scientific methodology into traditional agriculture. In areas such as Appalachia, the AAA negotiated purchasing contracts for specific agricultural commodities. In order to participate in the AAA’s programs, farmers could only grow the crops or raise the animals that the federal agency wanted. Instead of providing for their families as they traditionally had, farmers were suddenly at the mercy of market forces. In eastern Kentucky, this meant that most farmers were suddenly raising tobacco. Many of the mandatory crops were grown in rows, which subsequently led to heavy erosion. Fertilizers were introduced in order to encourage the growth of crops. Although fertilizer helped grow more crops, it also depleted the soil because it did not replace organic materials. The fertilizers also contaminated local water supplies. The AAA ultimately destroyed the independence enjoyed by subsistence farmers and replaced it with dependency on distant markets and government welfare programs. The beneficiaries of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 were actually large-scale corporate agricultural operations. The AAA intentionally required large quotas in order for farmers to participate in many of its programs. Subsistence farmers usually did not have the ability to grow enough to take advantage of the federal government’s largesse. Small farms thus disappeared as large-scale agricultural endeavors flourished. Practitioners of corporate agriculture were not interested in the long-term consequences of their agricultural methods. They could always ensure that crops could grow by using fertilizers. If bugs invaded their crops, they could always be eradicated through the use of pesticides. If one was not satisfied with the appearance, size, or taste of a particular agricultural commodity, it could always be genetically engineered or modified using steroids. After several decades of disregard, the damage to the environment was palpable and upsetting to the populace at large. Reformers thus began demanding a return to traditional farming practices through sustainable agriculture. Although practitioners of sustainable agriculture are proving to be better stewards of the land than their corporate counterparts, questions abound whether they can be economically competitive in the marketplace. Corporate farms are able to grow far more crops and raise bigger animals because they are using chemicals to alter the natural cycle to their advantage. There is hope that people practicing sustainable agriculture will be able to prove that their model is economically viable, since there is presently a growing demand for organically grown foods. John R. Burch Jr.

Sustainable Development | 709 See also Alternative Energy; Alternative Farming Systems Information Center, USDA; Food and Agriculture Organization; Organic Food and Farming

References Burch, John R. Jr. Owsley County, Kentucky, and the Perpetuation of Poverty. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2008. Hinrichs, C. Clare, and Thomas A. Lyon, eds. Remaking the North American Food System: Strategies for Sustainability. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2008. Holthaus, Gary H. From the Farm to the Table: What All Americans Need to Know About Agriculture. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2006. United States Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture. ‘‘Sustainable Agriculture.’’ http://www.nifa.usda.gov/nea/ag_systems/in_focus/sustain_ag _if_legal.html (accessed April 12, 2010). Wood, Richard E. Survival of Rural America: Small Victories and Bitter Harvests. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2008.

Sustainable Development The term ‘‘sustainability’’ originally belongs to ecology, and refers to the potential of an ecosystem to subsist over time. There are three dimensions of sustainable development: the ecological, the economic, and the social. The social dimension of sustainable development relates to human customs and values, relationships, and institutions. The economic dimension of sustainable development considers the allocation and distribution of scarce resources. The ecological dimension of sustainable development involves the contribution of both the economic and the social and their effects on the environment and its resources. In the context of economics, the environment is defined as a form of capital. A definition of sustainable income by the famous economist John Richard Hicks (1904–1989) from the early 1940s comes in handy here: He suggests that the only ‘‘true income’’ is only such an amount of goods and services that, when consumed, does not eliminate our ability to maintain such a level of consumption in the future. So a sustainable way to live would be to ‘‘live off the interests’’ of natural capital without depleting its capital stock. Economic perspectives have become increasingly popular throughout the world as governments reduce costs and prune programs. The migration of dirty industries to less developed countries give the host governments more taxes for financing public goods and programs but also create conditions for expansion of specific diseases and new social issues in lowest wage countries. Such exchange

710 | Sustainable Development

Society

Economy

Sustainable development

Ecology

Figure 1. Sustainable Development: Linking Society, Ecology, and Economy

does not imply that each party would benefit from transactional relationships to the same degree. Economics rationality occupies many government agendas. Costbenefit models have been applied to encourage the governments to accept investment offers. However, the issue of dirty industries control meets with a challenge in the decision-making by integrating short-term and long-term horizons. In 1972, the recently established Club of Rome published its significant report, The Limits to Growth. The report was authored by a group of 70 scientists led by Donella H. Meadows, Dennis I. Meadows, and Jorgen Randers of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It discussed that within a closed system, no growth can continue indefinitely and such efforts could lead to the failure of the system. The main provisions of sustainable development were articulated at the World Summit meeting in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Sustainable development was endorsed as the main long-term ideology of society. The main sustainable-development principles were identified in the approved Declaration. According to the principles covered, the concept of sustainable development is based upon three pillars of equal importance—environmental protection, economic development, and social development. An action program for the implementation of sustainable development called Agenda 21 was adopted during the meeting in Rio de Janeiro. Agenda 21 has become the most influential—but non-binding—tool in the environment and development field and is a guiding document for sustainable development in most regions of the world. However, 10 years later, at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002, it was stated that, despite the significant efforts of governments, international organizations, business, and civil society groups to achieve sustainable development, the progress toward the aims established at Rio de Janeiro had been much lower than it was anticipated.

Sustainable Development | 711

What do we mean by sustainable development? Sustainable development is a dynamic concept. Theoretically and conceptually speaking, all notions are usually quite limited. Some G8 governments began to use ‘‘sustainable development’’ in the early 1980s. The Brundtland report, also known as Our Common Future, defines sustainable development as ‘‘development, that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’’ and containing ‘‘two key concepts: the concept of ‘needs,’ in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs.’’ According to Baker (2006), the industrialized world consumes in excess of these basic needs because it understands development primarily in terms of ever-increasing material consumption. The Bruntland report was made by the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987. Its name derived from the chairperson of the commission, the Prime Minister of Norway, Gro Harlem Bruntland. In fact, the Bruntland report has popularized and politicized the term of sustainable development. In the words of Bruntland, one of its aims was: ‘‘to help define shared perceptions of long-term environmental issues and the appropriate efforts needed to deal successfully with the problems of protecting and enhancing the environment, a long-term agenda for action during the coming decades, and aspirational goals of the world community’’ (Bruntland, 1987, ix). The Bruntland report has often been subject to criticism for its pro-growth approach. At the same time, the definition of sustainable development provided by the report is the subject of criticism mainly for its vagueness; although it ‘‘may bring people together . . . it does not necessarily help them to agree on goals.’’ One of the fundamental prerequisites for the achievement of sustainable development is broad public participation in decision-making. Citizens’ mistrust in the public governance must encourage participation in decision-making about reducing consumption levels, or introducing taxes on goods that have a negative environmental impact, or prohibiting or placing restrictions on certain forms of behavior, such as on the ways of disposing of household waste. If the public does not have confidence in the government, citizens exert more efforts to control how officials perform their duties. The principal agent theory postulates that transaction and monitoring costs will be very high. How then can government be controlled? In such circumstances, citizens may use either state or nongovernment institutional mechanisms to ensure accountability and transparency in governance. According to the Brundtland report, ‘‘Making the difficult choices

712 | Sustainable Forestry

involved in achieving sustainable development will depend on the widespread support and involvement of informed public and nongovernmental organizations, the scientific community, and industry.’’ Jaroslav Dvorak See also Conservation; Suburban Sprawl; Urban Planning

References Baker, Susan. Sustainable Development. London and New York: Routledge, 2006. Bruntland, G., ed. Our Common Future: The World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.

Sustainable Forestry Sustainable forestry is not an easily defined idea. Like ideas that govern forestry practices, such as multiple use, interest groups on different sides of the issue hold different perceptions of what sustainable forestry, and what a sustainable forest, is. In broad terms, sustainable forestry is the management of a forest to meet present environmental, economic, and social needs without compromising the needs of the future. Sustainable forestry is both an end and a means to the end, the end being a healthy, sustainable forest ecosystem and the means being the forest management process that yields such a forest. This process integrates soil, air, and water quality, wildlife habitat and aesthetics with the traditional process of forestry that focuses on growing, nurturing, reforesting, and harvesting trees for products. Sustainable forestry encompasses the relatively new perception that forests offer services and value beyond their ability to supply wood and paper products. These are referred to as ecological services, and include water and air purification, biodiversity retention, and carbon sequestration (Jenkins et al., 1998). The process of sustainable forestry seeks to ensure that these services, along with the myriad products a forest offers—wood, paper, food, medicines, minerals, and energy—will benefit both current and future generations. Although no single, concrete definition of sustainable forestry exists, most definitions agree that there are three elements to the process: ecological sustainability, economic sustainability, and social sustainability (Floyd, 2002). If a plan of forest management fails to address any of these three issues, it won’t succeed. Ecological sustainability refers to the conservation of biodiversity within a forest, maintenance of forest productivity and ecosystem health, maintenance of carbon sequestration ability, and conservation of water and soil resources. Economic sustainability refers to preserving the families, communities, and firms that rely on forests for their livelihoods. Social sustainability refers to preserving forests

Sustainable Forestry | 713

for future generations, public participation in the decision-making process, and protecting cultures that live within forests (Floyd, 2002). This process of forest management requires consideration of the many values a forest provides to disparate groups, and therefore sustainable forestry management can only be accomplished through the collaboration of diverse groups—environmentalists, policymakers, landowners and managers, and representatives from the forestry industry. The idea of sustainable forestry was born in the 1970s with the advent of widespread environmental awareness in the United States (Aplet et al., 1993). Public response to many environmental problems spurred the passing of environmental legislation and the creation of environmental interest groups. Loss of biodiversity, an increasing number of endangered species, destruction of many oldgrowth forests, poor water and air quality, and the declining productivity of fisheries due to humanity’s impact on the environment brought the stark realization that human depletion of natural resources couldn’t continue at the same rate or in the same mode. Although legislation specifically addressing forest sustainability wasn’t passed until the late 1980s and early 1990s, this early legislation and increased public interest set in motion forces that would drive the idea of sustainability to the forefront of environmentalism. This would eventually manifest itself in the forestry industry as sustainable forestry. At the same time as this rise in environmental awareness during the 1970s and 1980s came the development of conservation and ecological biology (Jenkins et al., 1998). New scientific research introduced the value and complexity of ecosystems, and connected the loss of biodiversity with the loss of forest habitat. Gradually, the public became aware that forests were not only valuable for paper and wood products, but also for the ecological services they perform. This new knowledge drove the movement to preserve our forests while continuing to reap the products of the forestry industry. Accomplishing both of these goals meant designing and implementing new forest management practices. The need for sustainable forestry didn’t exist until the twentieth century. Prior to that, human population and industrial practices didn’t place sufficient stress on forests to necessitate sustainable management practices. People could essentially clear as much forest as they needed and harvest enough timber without significantly damaging forests and ecosystems. Population and human needs were such that forests could be sustained along with development and resource harvesting. Even as practices became unsustainable, forests were so vast that it took years for the public to realize that resources were disappearing faster than they could be replaced. When the world population began to grow exponentially in the beginning of the twentieth century, significantly greater stress was placed on natural resources. By the 1970s, quickly disappearing forests made clear the need for more sustainable management practices.

714 | Sustainable Forestry

In the early 1900s, forest managers adopted the practice of sustained yield, which involves cutting timber at the same rate that it can be reproduced by the forest (Floyd, 2002). This process, however, was strictly product-oriented and failed to consider the complexity of ecosystems, but it provided groundwork for sustainable forestry. In 1987, the UN World Commission on Environment and Development published ‘‘Our Common Future,’’ which focused on sustainable development. This laid the groundwork for subsequent international and national policy addressing forest sustainability. In June of 1992, several nations convened in Rio de Janiero for the Earth Summit (Floyd, 2002). At the summit, Forest Principles and Agenda 21 were adopted, which required nations to manage their forests sustainably for products, services, and values. In response to these agreements, the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management adopted ecosystem management approaches for the management of more than 200 million acres of federal lands in June of 1992 (Aplet et al., 1993). Today, forest certification drives sustainable forestry. Forest certification involves non governmental organizations certifying forestry firms as sustainable, allowing these firms to place a sustainable certification logo on their products. Environmentally responsible consumers pay a higher price for sustainably produced products, and firms have an incentive to become certified so they can differentiate their product from others. Certain large retailers, such as Lowe’s and Home Depot, have agreed to sell only sustainably produced forest products, which has driven up demand for these products. Sustainable forestry has made significant progress since the 1970s, but problems persist. Although most interest groups agree that forests must be sustained, they disagree about the definition of sustainability and about which kinds of forests should be sustained. Sustainability must be practiced on different scales for different goals, and often legal land boundaries do not coincide with ecological boundaries (Foster, 2003). Despite these problems, sustainable forestry plays an important role in the conservation of the valuable resources that our forests produce. Grant Cook See also Clean Air Act of 1970; Old-Growth Forests; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

References Aplet, Gregory H., et al., eds. Defining Sustainable Forestry. Washington DC: Island Press, 1993. Floyd, Donald W. Forest Sustainability: The History, the Challenge, the Promise. Durham, NC: The Forest History Society, 2002.

Sustainable Forestry | 715 Forest Stewardship Council. ‘‘The FSC Principles and Criteria for Responsible Forest Management.’’ http://www.fsc.org (accessed April 10, 2010). Foster, Bryan C. Wild Logging: A Guide to Environmentally and Economically Sustainable Forestry. Missoula, MT: Mountain Press, 2003. Jenkins, Michael B., et al., eds. The Business of Sustainable Forestry. Chicago: The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, 1998. Sustainable Forestry Initiative. ‘‘Requirements for the SFI 2010–2014 Program.’’ http://www.sfiprogram.org (accessed April 10, 2010). U.S. Forest Service, Sustainable Operations. ‘‘Sustainable Operations Summit 2009.’’ http://www.fs.fed.us (accessed April 9, 2010).

T Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2002) Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency is a case dealing with constitutional interpretations of what makes up a lawful ‘‘taking’’ under the Fifth and Fourteen Amendments. The suit deals with the question of whether the moratorium, delay, or suspension of activity on land use, stemming from the authority of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency falls under the ‘‘takings clause’’ of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. If so, the landowners must receive just compensation for economic losses as a result of limiting lakeshore development. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) is a unique interstate planning agency created to protect Lake Tahoe’s ecological and aesthetic values in face of the common battle between development and conservation in a location of pristine environment and scenic beauty. Over the past 50 years, increasing commercial and domestic development in the area has led to depletion of Lake Tahoe’s water quality. The TRPA began trying to identify land most likely contributing to the problem and to develop a regional plan to deal with the issue. During this time, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency put in place two moratoria (totaling 32 months: one from August 24, 1981, to August 26, 1983; the other from August 27, 1983, to April 25, 1984) on development in the Lake Tahoe Basin while planning a wide-ranging land-use arrangement for the area. Some real estate owners of the land as well as the Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, an association representing such owners, filed suit, making claims that the TRPA’s actions amounted to a taking of their property without compensation. The Federal District Court found that the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency had performed a categorical taking under the rule determined by Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council because TRPA had effectively deprived real estate owners of all economical use of their land. On appeal, the court then overturned the lower district’s decision in emphasizing that because the moratoria had only temporary impact, a categorical per se taking had not occurred. This argument was made on the basis that the Lucas case applies to the fairly rare instance in which a regulation permanently denies all productive use of an entire property, whereas in this instance, the moratoria involved only a temporary economic loss.

717

718 | Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc.

In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court found that, for various reasons, the moratoria ordered by TRPA did not fall under the terms of a per se taking and therefore did not require compensation. This case serves to draw a defining line between temporary regulatory takings (this case) and permanent regulatory takings (as in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council). Discovering what constitutes a taking has been a long and complicated process that began with Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York in 1978. This case arrived at a conclusion stating fundamentally that if the public interest outweighs the private, no taking is found. However, a taking may be found if the private interest outweighs the public. This standard is often difficult to translate into real scenarios because it involves a weighted measure of abstract values. In turn, the Court then took the initiative to define instances that qualify as ‘‘per se’’ takings, or circumstances that serve as ‘‘automatic’’ takings. A new category of a per se taking was established in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, where ‘‘rare’’ regulations that deny a landowner of ‘‘all economically beneficial or productive use of land’’ constitute a per se taking. Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency challenged what is meant by ‘‘all,’’ described by the Lucas case as their losses were only temporary. Here, the court rejected the implementation of Lucas’s per se rule to provisional land-use restrictions. In making this ruling, the Court also clarified differences between physical and regulatory takings, as well as partial and total takings. This case posed two major challenges for the Court: deciding whether to define ‘‘temporary takings’’ as a branch of land-use restriction, as well as determining which takings test applies to this type of restriction. In its overarching analysis of the case, the Court needed to determine whether establishing a per se rule for temporary takings, including moratoria, is necessary for ‘‘fairness and justice’’ (as stated in Armstrong v. United States). The Court rejected this establishment of a categorical rule for moratoria as it could not distinguish this from regular temporary land restrictions. ‘‘The adoption of a categorical rule that any deprivation of all economic use, no matter how brief, constituted a compensable taking would impose unreasonable financial obligations upon governments for the normal delays involved in processing land use applications’’ (OYEZ). Putting specific limits on temporary land restrictions proved far too broad to be determined here and would instead be left to state-based legislation. Kersten A. Welch See also Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)

References OYEZ. Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. http://www.oyez.org/cases/ (accessed April 7, 2010). Schmitz, Angela. ‘‘Taking Shape: Temporary Takings and the Lucas Per Se Rule in Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Coucil, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Authority.’’

Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 | 719 University of Oregon. http://www.law.uoregon.edu/org/olr/archives (accessed April 7, 2010). ‘‘Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (00–1167) 535 U.S. 302 (2002).’’ Supreme Court. Cornell University Law School. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1167.ZS.html (accessed April 7, 2010).

Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 to halt damage to public lands, excluding Alaska, from overgrazing and soil deterioration. The act mandated orderly use, development, and improvement, and it sought to stabilize the public range livestock business. The act remained in effect until it was replaced by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. The expansion of railroads into the west after the Civil War made raising livestock on unfenced and free public lands economically attractive. It attracted sheep and cattle ranchers as well as homesteading farmers, and soon the overcrowded arid rangelands were short of grass and unsuitable for use. By 1870, 4.1 million cattle and 4.8 million sheep grazed the 17 western states, and the numbers rose to 19.6 million cattle and 25.1 million sheep in 1900. Ranchers were hamstrung by assorted federal land laws that restricted them to a maximum of 1,120 acres, inadequate for even a small ranch much less a massive spread, so many resorted to fencing hundreds of thousands of acres with inexpensive barbed wire or having ranch hands fraudulently claim land with water under the Desert Land, Preemption, Homestead, and other laws. Before the collapse, in 1928, Montana stockmen worked together on a plan to merge public and private lands with railway and state grant lands to establish a range improvement area. Congress authorized a ban on additional settlement on public lands and mandated that the Interior Department lease tracts to stock raisers who owned adjacent lands and agreed to maintain their leases according to a prescribed standard. The experiment improved the land, and other experiments had similar success. The drought worsened, and Representative Edward T. Taylor of Colorado managed a proposal to apply the program to all public lands. In the early years of the Great Depression, livestock prices fell and free grazing land became more critical to survival. But drought came at the same time, and water sources, already scarce, dried up. Vegetation died, and the soil became airborne and headed east. On June 28, 1934, Roosevelt signed the Taylor Grazing Act. The act placed nearly 80 million acres of grazing and forage lands into grazing districts administered by DOI’s Division of Grazing. Taylor effectively ended free homesteading under the 1862 act. The 80 million acres initially covered later became 142 million. It excluded these lands, which were suitable mostly for grazing and forage crops. It

720 | Taylor Grazing Act of 1934

also specified reservation of land needed for adjacent owners to move their stock to other lands or to market, land within a watershed that was part of a national forest, and lands within a grazing district that had greater value for agricultural purposes than for foraging. Homestead entries fell from 7,741 in 1934 to 609 in 1937, with no year in the subsequent decade seeing over 500. The first leader of the division was Farrington Carpenter, a Colorado rancher who met with state officials and ranchers to define grazing district boundaries. The first district was Rawlins in Wyoming, established on March 20, 1935. By June of that year, the grazing division had 65 million acres in districts that remain in effect to the present day. Richard Rutledge replaced Carpenter in 1939, and the Division of Grazing became the U.S. Grazing Service. Under Rutledge, conservation became primary. He established the rules of conduct that define the BLM mission. The Grazing Service and the General Land Office merged on July 16, 1946, to become the Bureau of Land Management. Fees were lower than those for private property and in public forests. Congress underfunded administration and improvement. The CCC in the 1930s enhanced some water facilities, and in 1940 the department began using crested wheatgrass. Under Section 3 of the Taylor Grazing Act, landowners and homesteaders in or adjacent to the grazing district had preference for permits, which were to remain in effect no longer than 10 years. To qualify for a Section 3 permit, an applicant must have had land capable of producing adequate crops or forage to feed livestock for a set period of time. The land did not have to be contiguous to the public grazing land. Section 5 allows free subsistence grazing permits. Funds generated by Section 3 are distributed 50 percent for range improvement, 37.5 to the federal government, and 12.5 percent to the states, which establish grazing boards themselves. Section 15 allows grazing leases outside the grazing districts at the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior. The lands must be vacant and unreserved or unappropriated. Applicants must have base property adjacent to the land to be leased unless the adjacent land is unowned. Base property for Sections 15 and 3 is land that is capable of supporting livestock for a set period of time. Applicants with base property adjacent to or cornering public lands have preference right to lease entire tracts if the size is 760 acres or less. The preference is in effect for 90 days after the offering. Section 15 has no free subsistence or domestic use provision. Half the receipts go for range betterment and half goes to the states. Section 15 lands under 10-year leases amounted to 16 million acres between 1934 and 1968, and lessees had to pay the lease whether they used it or not; there was no refund for fire, drought, or other circumstance precluding grazing. In 1962, the secretary reported that based on the previous seven years, only 1.6 percent of range rated excellent and 15 percent good, while 53.1 percent was fair, 25.8 percent poor, and 4.5 percent bad.

Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill | 721

Until the mid-1960s, the act applied to conservation for grazing, but environmental interests beginning in that decade brought about laws to protect water and endangered species, and to reduce the use of pesticides. Changes in August 1968 provided for multiple use management. Two or more lessees could share a lease, lessees could not lock gates or otherwise restrict public access for lawful activities, the BLM would work with lessees to develop management plans to improve the land, fences and other construction had to meet a BLM standard that promoted multiple use, and grazing fees were based on consumption and measured in animal unit months, rather than mere acreage. Compatible uses include logging, mining, and recreation. The new environmentalism brought increased criticism of the livestock grazers and the number of head the BLM permitted. And increasing population brought new competition from those wanting recreation, wildlife preserves, protection of water and endangered species, cultural resources, and hunting or mining. The combination of new demands and new administrative requirements meant that the stock raisers lost their flexibility and had to invest more in grazing management. Operating costs rose. The mandate for environmental impact statements brought about increased administration and higher fees. The higher fees led to lawsuits from unhappy stock raisers, but the Supreme Court generally backed the government. By 2000, environmentalists were demanding an end to public grazing. John H. Barnhill See also Bureau of Land Management; Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

References Armijo, Angelique M. ‘‘Taylor Grazing Act of 1934.’’ October 23, 2007. http:// www.aces.nmsu.edu/academics/axed/documents/aarmijo_taylorgrazingact.ppt. Bureau of Land Management. ‘‘History of Public Land Livestock Grazing.’’ July 17, 2009. http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/prog/grazing/history_of_public.html. Bureau of Land Management Wyoming. ‘‘Taylor Grazing Act.’’ May 29, 2008. http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_offices/Casper/range/taylor.1.html. Calef, Wesley Carr. Private Grazing and Public Lands. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960. Hargreaves, Mary W. M. ‘‘Taylor Grazing Act.’’ http://www.novelguide.com/a/ discover/egd_02/egd_02_00509.html.

Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill What ESA-imposed obligation, if any, is violated when a nearly complete, multimillion dollar public works project will imperil a small population of three-inch, snail-eating fish? Answering that question would take five contentious years, and involve the Congress of the United States, the Department of the Interior, the

722 | Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), environmentalists, and, finally, the Supreme Court. The Jeopardy Duty and the Snail Darter The fish that ignited the controversy is one of about 130 species in the perch family commonly known as ‘‘darters,’’ so-called from their habit of streaking through the water after prey in short bursts. This famous species is Percina tanasi, named the ‘‘snail darter’’ by its discoverer, University of Tennessee ichthyologist David Etnier. In August 1973, four months before the ESA was enacted, Dr. Etnier was exploring the waters of the Little Tennessee River several miles upstream from where it empties into the Tennessee River, about an hour’s drive southwest of Knoxville. There he came upon a previously undescribed fish living in shallow, clear water, eating snails out of the gravel riverbed. After due study and confirmation of its uniqueness, in January 1975, Etnier and several others petitioned the Secretary of the Interior, as provided by the new federal law, requesting that the snail darter be listed as an endangered species. The secretary determined that the fish was very likely worthy of ESA protection, and published the proposal for listing in the Federal Register. Numerous reactions to the proposal came from various quarters, including the TVA, and in October 1975, the snail darter was officially listed as endangered. Meanwhile, TVA’s construction of the Tellico Dam and Reservoir Project entered its final stages. The dam portion of the plan was located near the confluence of the Little Tennessee and Tennessee rivers, and although building had begun shortly after Congress appropriated funds for the project in 1967, and by 1975 it was virtually completed, the Tellico Dam had never been put into operation. Environmental organizations and local citizens had opposed the project from the start, not out of concern for the snail darter, which was still unknown then, but to save the farmland and natural areas that would be drowned by the 17,000-acre, 30-mile-long reservoir that would be created when Tellico’s gates were closed. Led by the Environmental Defense Fund, the opposition banded together and convinced the federal courts that the TVA’s environmental impact statement for the project did not comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. An injunction was issued in 1972 ordering a halt to the construction (Environmental Defense Fund v. TVA). Nearly two years elapsed before the courts found that the TVA was in compliance, and the building began again, just about the same time that President Nixon signed the ESA. By then, the snail darter had been discovered less than 10 miles upstream from Tellico Dam. When the snail darter was listed, its critical habitat was determined to be along the Little Tennessee River precisely where the Tellico Reservoir would fill once

Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill | 723

the dam became operational—and the fish was found nowhere else. Secretary Kleppe’s pronouncement on the emergent conflict was unequivocal and preemptory: ‘‘The impoundment of water behind Tellico Dam would result in the total destruction of the snail darter’s habitat. . . . All federal agencies must take such action as is necessary to insure that actions, authorized, funded, or carried out by them do not result in the destruction or modification of this critical habitat area.’’ Even so, the TVA had steadfastly maintained that the ESA did not prohibit completion of an approved project, paid for and nearly finished before the law was signed, arguing that the term ‘‘action’’ in Section 7 did not encompass the final phases of ongoing projects. For its part, Congress had continued to appropriate money to finish the job, with the approval of President Gerald Ford. It seemed that Tellico would not be stopped, and the fish were doomed. In February 1976, the Association of Southern Biologists, the Audubon Council of Tennessee, and three concerned citizens and residents of the Little Tennessee Valley, one of whom was named Hiram Hill, filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for eastern Tennessee. They alleged that, if the dam was put into service, the TVA would violate the ESA-imposed duty not to jeopardize the existence of an endangered species. The plaintiffs requested a permanent injunction against its completion. TVA v. Hill: The Dam Versus the Darter The district court agreed that the Tellico Dam would very likely extinguish the snail darter. Nonetheless, the suit of Hill and the other plaintiffs was dismissed and their request denied. Their complaint would lead to an absurd result, the court reasoned, one that Congress could not possibly have intended—that is, that an injunction must be issued to halt an impoundment of water if an endangered species is discovered the day before the gates are scheduled to close. Impressed that $53 million would be lost if the dam were scrapped, the court concluded that ‘‘[a]t some point in time a federal project becomes so near completion and so incapable of modification that a court of equity should not apply a statute enacted long after inception of the project to produce an unreasonable result.’’ That time had arrived (Hill v. TVA). Bolstered by this decision, in June 1976 Congress appropriated more money for Tellico. Yet the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals had an entirely different opinion. In January 1977, that court handed down the permanent injunction sought by the plaintiffs, with instructions that the order remain in effect until either Congress legislatively exempted Tellico from the restrictions of the ESA or the snail darter was removed from the endangered list. Rejecting the TVA’s understanding of the limited range of application for the word ‘‘actions’’ in Section 7, the appellate court also could not accept the proposition that the ESA requires judges to weigh

724 | Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill

the value of an endangered species against the cost of a public works project in progress. Further, the fact that Congress had continued to allocate funds for the dam was irrelevant. Lawmakers responded to this decision that summer by earmarking more money for Tellico. Persuaded by the TVA, this apportionment included $2 million to facilitate the relocation of the snail darter to another waterway. The Supreme Court agreed to review the case shortly thereafter. The chief justice himself, Warren Burger, wrote the six-to-three majority opinion, holding that the TVA would indeed violate the ESA by completing and operating the dam, and that a permanent injunction was the appropriate judicial response to the prospect of this violation. Quoting the Section 7 duty that federal agencies avoid jeopardizing endangered species or destroying their habitat, Burger wrote that, ‘‘one would be hard pressed to find a statutory provision whose terms were any plainer. . . . This language admits of no exceptions.’’ The meaning of this plain language is solidly supported by a study of the legislative history of the ESA. There one finds, again and again, reports from both houses of Congress that the descent of species into extinction must be reversed, that, no matter the effort and resources required, the ‘‘genetic heritage’’ of life on Earth must be preserved. As one House report put it, ‘‘The value of this genetic heritage is, quite literally, incalculable.’’ The commentaries Burger cited indicated that species have this enormous worth because they are valuable to human beings, a view that nature is a vast, largely untapped medicine chest, an apothecary with many presently unknown remedies, a bounty that we risk at our own peril. Moreover, Burger pointed out that drafts of ESA bills contained phrases qualifying the duty of federal agencies to preserve endangered species only ‘‘insofar as is practicable and consistent with [their] primary purposes.’’ Yet, sensitive to concerns that such qualifications would be read as permissions to prioritize agency purposes whenever they conflicted with the well-being of endangered species, Congress deleted these reservations in the final versions of the bills that would become the ESA. The general obligation of federal agencies is clearly stated in Section 2, demanding that each of them ‘‘seek to conserve endangered species,’’ where ‘‘conserve’’ means ‘‘the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species . . . to the point at which [ESA protections] are no longer necessary.’’ The operation of the Tellico Dam is incompatible with this obligation, the duty imposed by Section 7, and the intention of Congress in writing the ESA. Finally, the chief justice addressed the TVA’s contention that the repeated allocations of money made by Congress for the dam, even after being fully apprised of the situation involving the snail darter, amounted to an ‘‘implied repeal’’ of the ESA. He conceded that reports from the House and Senate Appropriations Committees did suggest that the legislators either believed the ESA did not apply to Tellico or that it should be completed despite the law. Whatever the

Thoreau, Henry David | 725

committees’ attitude, Burger pointed to several high court precedents establishing that repeals by implication are deeply suspect and that a legislative intention to repeal must be ‘‘clear and manifest.’’ These features are entirely absent from the records of the congressional committees. Jordon Curnutt References Environmental Defense Fund v. TVA, 339 F. Supp. 806 (E.D. Tenn. 1971), affirmed, 468 F.2d 1164 (6th Cir. 1972). TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978).

Thoreau, Henry David Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862), a nineteenth-century author whose works have influenced a diverse audience, including poets, philosophers, ecologists, and political dissidents, is one of America’s most famous naturalist writers. Despite his short life, Thoreau’s publications are extensive and vary from selfmeditative prose to essays and poems. However, Thoreau is best known for two works: the nonfiction book Walden; or, Life in the Woods, and his essay ‘‘Civil Disobedience,’’ originally published in Aesthetic Papers. While interpretations of Thoreau’s writing have emphasized him in polarizing roles such as recluse, anarchist, or proto-ecologist, interest in his work and character remains high. Thoreau was born in the rural, agrarian town of Concord, Massachusetts, on July 12, 1817, to a middle-class family. Although given the name David Henry at birth for his deceased paternal uncle, Thoreau would invert the name upon adulthood. After an uneventful childhood and grammar school education, Thoreau followed his father’s footsteps and enrolled in Harvard College with narrowly passing entrance exam scores. At Harvard, Thoreau’s classmates noted that his demeanor was aloof and indifferent while the president of Harvard remarked his conduct was ‘‘satisfactory’’ and attributed any neglect in his scholarship to sickness (Harding, 1992). Primarily studying classics and theology, Thoreau completed his bachelor’s degree in the summer of 1837. During his final year at Harvard and after graduation, Thoreau became close friends with Ralph Waldo Emerson, the prominent writer and transcendentalist, who would influence Thoreau throughout his life. After numerous stints as a schoolteacher, Thoreau moved into the house he built by hand in 1845 at Walden Pond only two miles south of Concord on Emerson’s property. During the twoyear period in which he stayed at Walden Pond, Thoreau kept a journal that he would later edit and revise into his famous book, Walden. In 1846, on one of his trips to Concord, Thoreau was briefly jailed for refusal to pay a head tax on adult

726 | Thoreau, Henry David

males in the city. His explanation for this act of defiance, motivated by his support for abolition among other issues, would be the basis for his essay ‘‘Resistance to Civil Government’’ which was retitled ‘‘Civil Disobedience’’ after his death. In his later years, Thoreau worked as a land surveyor and made numerous trips to Maine and Cape Cod and traveled to Quebec. His writing from this period reflects his interest in natural history, and Thoreau made numerous observations in the fields of biology, botany, and zoology. Although Walden received critical praise, Thoreau published only one other book during his lifetime (A Week on the Concord and Merimack Rivers in 1849, which sold poorly) and gave lectures in the Concord Henry David Thoreau. (Library of Congress) area. While living in his family’s house and caring for his parents over the final decade of his life, Thoreau’s long struggle with tuberculosis ended when he died on May 6, 1862, at the age of 44. Posthumously, his writings have been widely reprinted and integrated into the literary cannon. However, his impact on concepts of civil liberty and environmentalism was particularly influential through the twentieth century and provides the basis for his legacy. Elijah Mendoza References Buell, L. The Environmental Imagination: Thoreau, Nature Writing, and the Formation of American Culture. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1995. Harding, W. The Days of Henry Thoreau. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992. Robinson, D. M. Natural Life: Thoreau’s Worldly Transcendentalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2004. Schneider, R. J. Thoreau’s Sense of Place: Essays in American Environmental Writing. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 2000.

Three Mile Island | 727

Three Mile Island For more than two decades, the U.S. government promoted the safe use of atomic energy for commercial purposes. All but a few Americans believed this, though, by the 1970s the U.S. anti-nuclear movement had grown in numbers. America’s faith was shaken forever by the events of an early morning in eastern Pennsylvania in March of 1979. The Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Facility was built on an island in the Susquehanna River close to Middletown, Pennsylvania, just outside of Harrisburg. General Public Utilities (GPU) owned the power facility consisting of two units known as TMI-1 and TMI-2. The night before the accident, Three Mile Island (TMI) operated near full power. In the early morning hours of March 28, 1979, minor problems evolved into a near-catastrophic event in the TMI-2 unit. At 4:00 A.M., a cooling valve failed, forcing plant workers to shut down the cooling system. Without coolant, the core began to superheat. By 7:30 A.M., TMI officials had declared a general emergency. Ultimately, the accident caused part of the core to melt down. Radiated steam escaped into the atmosphere. Residents surrounding the facility were evacuated from the area. Plant technicians and engineers attempted to stabilize the problems. By day four, the crisis at Three Mile Island was over—there had been a safe shutdown. The next step at TMI was cleanup and assessment.

Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Facility. (iStockPhoto)

728 | Tongass National Forest

The Three Mile Island accident was investigated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the state of Pennsylvania, Congress, and environmental groups. In April of 1979, Jimmy Carter established a presidential commission to examine the atomic accident. Carter tapped John Kemeny, president of Dartmouth College, to head an independent investigation of the incident. The Kemeny Report was critical of the General Public Utilities management of TMI and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s oversight of nuclear energy plants throughout the United States. The results of the Three Mile Island accident left Americans fearful. Americans lost their faith in the use of nuclear energy. In addition, Three Mile Island eroded Americans’ belief in the U.S. government’s ability to protect them from danger—an emblematic theme of the 1970s. Erik D. Carlson See also Nuclear Regulatory Commission

References Osif, Bonnie A., Anthony Baratta, and Thomas W. Conkling. TMI 25 Years Later. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2004. Walker, Samuel J. Three Mile Island. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004.

Tongass National Forest The Tongass National Forest (also Tongass/Stikine National Forest) is a temperate rain forest located in southeastern Alaska. At 17 million square acres, it is the largest national forest in the United States, bounded in the east by British Columbia and westward by the Pacific Ocean. It features 19 different wilderness areas, more than any other unit administered by the U.S. Forest Service. The Tongass includes such diverse landmarks as Alaska’s capital, Juneau; the Mendenhall Glacier; Misty Fjords National Monument; and the Alexander Archipelago, a 500-mile chain of islands forming the border between the Alaskan Panhandle and the Pacific. Ecologically, the Tongass is classified by environmental groups (most notably Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the Audubon Society) as being part of a larger area known as the Great Bear Rainforest. This area is home to a unique subset of plants, animals, fish, and birds. Bears, whether grizzly, black, or polar, are dominant in Tongass National Forest. According to the U.S. Forest Service, the kind of bear a person will encounter typically depends on the terrain: black bears are usually found in the main forest, grizzly bears on the islands, and polar bears on the eastern pack ice and tundra.

Tongass National Forest | 729

Mendenhall Glacier in Juneau, Alaska. (iStockPhoto)

The Tongass National Forest features a diversity of tree, fish, and bird life unparalleled in the Pacific Northwest. The two most common trees, the Western hemlock and the Sitka spruce, respectively compose 70 and 20 percent of the Tongass. These trees can grow to between 100 and 225 feet in height and live an average of 500 years. The remaining species, the Western red cedar, yellow cedar, mountain hemlock, and the shore pine are distinctly smaller (between 20 and 100 feet in height), but live up to 1,000 years. The area is also home to many fish, including five species of salmon, four species of trout, dogfish, Pacific halibut and cod, rockfish, and the vividly colored Dolly Varden trout. Finally, the Tongass National Forest features more than 300 different species of birds, including some of the deepest diving birds in the world (the common murre, long-tailed duck, and pelagic cormorant) and around 15,000 bald eagles. Today’s Tongass National Forest is the result of two land reserves created by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1902 and 1907: the Alexander Archipelago Forest Reserve and the Tongass National Forest. These two areas were joined together on July 1, 1908, and then expanded by subsequent presidential proclamations in 1909 and 1925. Admiralty Island National Monument was attached to the Forest Service in 1909, and Sitka National Historical Park was created and given to the National Park Service in 1910, both by Roosevelt. Another national monument, Misty Fjords, was added by President Jimmy Carter in 1978. A separate area, Glacier Bay, just north and west of the Tongass, was

730 | Tongass National Forest

created as a U.S. national monument in 1925 and subsequently became a national park and preserve in 1980. The forest is currently home to about 75,000 people, 31,000 in the city of Juneau and several Alaska native tribes, including the Haida, Tsimshian, and the Tlingit, who originally named the area. Of the many political controversies pertaining to Tongass National Forest since its creation, the most common have involved the ownership and harvesting of its natural resources, most significantly its ample supply of timber. Of the 17 million acres within the forest, about 41 percent of it (seven million acres) is government controlled and thus off-limits to public use. Of the remaining 10 million acres, about a half a million acres (5 percent) has been logged. However, considering that one-third of the region is not forested and that the density of the different forests vary, disputes have arisen ranging from the specific places and degree of logging to a federal government program started shortly after World War II that guaranteed a 50-year supply of lumber from the Tongass to investors at low, fixed prices (Chadwick, 2007, 2). More recently, such controversies have resulted in a number of laws regulating the use of land and extraction of resources in the area, most notably the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, the 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), and the 1990 Tongass Timber Reform Act, the latter of which reversed the aforementioned federal guarantee (Chadwick, 2007, 3). Even so, with the Forest Service releasing a revised Land Management Plan for the Tongass in 2008 and with the Obama administration’s approval of the first logging contract in its roadless areas in 2009 (Goldstein, 2009), disputes between big business, conservationists, and the U.S. government continue in the region. Michael Bruce Chornesky See also Obama, Barack; Roosevelt, Theodore; U.S. Forest Service

References Alaska Travel Industry Association. ‘‘Parks and Public Lands: Tongass National Forest.’’ http://www.travelalaska.com/Regions/ParksDetail.aspx?ParkID=55 (accessed April 27, 2010). Chadwick, Douglas. ‘‘The Truth About Tongass.’’ National Geographic Magazine. July 2007. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0707/feature4/index.html (accessed April 28, 2010). Goldstein, Katherine. ‘‘Obama Administration Approves First Roadless Logging Contract in Alaska’s Tongass National Forest.’’ Huffington Post, July 16, 2009. http:// www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/16/obama-administration-appr_n_235311.html (accessed April 29, 2010). National Audubon Society Alaska. ‘‘Issues and Action: Tongass National Forest.’’ http://ak.audubon.org/issues-action/tongass-national-forest (accessed April 29, 2010). United States Forest Service. ‘‘Tongass National Forest: About the Tongass.’’ http:// www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass/ (accessed April 26, 2010).

Toxic Substances Control Act | 731

Toxic Substances Control Act The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is a pivotal piece of American law in regulating the testing and use of toxic chemicals. The bill was signed on October 11, 1976, by President Gerald Ford. It has amendments related to three major topics: asbestos, radon, and lead-based paints. Proposals to regulate toxic substances were first heard in 1971, but disputes over the scope and relationship to other laws kept such bills from being passed. Later contamination incidents and new research presenting the dangers of toxic substances helped pass the TSCA (The Encyclopedia of Earth). The TSCA lays out responsibilities for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to monitor the testing and control of potentially toxic substances. The EPA is required to maintain a publicly available list of chemicals outlining their manufacturing and disposal procedures as well as health and environmental effects (ChemAlliance.org). Any previously unlisted chemicals must be tested and reviewed before their manufacture or importation. Based on this information, the EPA has authority to regulate how such chemicals are produced, distributed, utilized, and disposed of (Summaries of Environmental Laws Administered by the EPA). Later amendments were directed toward specific, pervasive hazards around the United States. Enacted in 1986, Title II of TSCA enacted strict requirements on the use of asbestos, a dangerous substance known to cause illness and sometimes lung cancer, particularly in schools. Title III was enacted in 1988 in response to a growing concern for radon contamination, which can cause lung cancer. The amendment provides support for states that wish to monitor and control radon levels. In 1992, Title IV was enacted to control lead exposure, known to cause various diseases and learning disabilities particularly in children. The amendment aims to encourage lead inspection and preventative tactics that reduce risk (The Encyclopedia of Earth). Arthur Holst See also U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

References ChemAlliance.org. ‘‘Background: The Toxic Sucstance Control Act (TSCA), as Amended.’’ http://www.chemalliance.org/Tools/background/back-tsca.asp. The Encyclopedia of Earth. ‘‘Toxic Substances Control Act, United States.’’ http:// www.eoearth.org/article/Toxic_Substances_Control_Act,_United_States. Summaries of Environmental Laws Administered by the EPA. ‘‘Toxic Substances Control Act.’’ CRS Report RL30022. http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/Briefing Books/Laws/k.cfm.

732 | Toxics Release Inventory

Toxics Release Inventory The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is a compilation of annual, self-reported data on environmental releases and transfers of particular chemicals from industrial facilities in the United States. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was authorized to create the TRI program by the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986. Congress’s intention was to put information into the hands of citizens that would enable them to evaluate chemical risks and hazards in their communities and hold businesses accountable. The recent memory of the 1984 Bhopal disaster, in which an accidental chemical release killed thousands in India, provided impetus for the legislation. Adjustments are made to the program from year to year. In 1990, Congress added new reporting requirements in the Pollution Prevention Act. Significant milestones during the Clinton administration included nearly doubling the TRI list with 286 new chemicals and chemical categories in 1994, and adding seven new industries in 1997. Under President George W. Bush, funding was reduced and the EPA’s focus shifted to streamlining the reporting process. Priorities of President Barack Obama’s EPA (TRI Program Web site, 2010) include listing additional chemicals and making data available to the public more quickly. Thanks to the Internet, today’s citizen-activists, students, reporters, investors, and other users have instant access to decades’ worth of TRI data via EPA tools (TRI Explorer, TRI.NET, Envirofacts) and independent compilations (e.g., RTKNET, Scorecard). However, TRI data should be interpreted with caution. Small facilities are not required to report releases, and facilities required to report do not always comply—in the early years, participation may have been lower than 75 percent (Hamilton, 2005). Self-reported figures vary in accuracy and precision, and only a small fraction of reports are audited by the EPA. Trends over time are obscured by changes in reporting thresholds. Despite such limitations, the TRI is widely credited with spurring improved environmental performance in American industry. Data on chemicals and industries monitored from 1988 to 2001, for example, show a 54.5 percent drop in releases and transfers (Hamilton, 2005). The TRI’s success has inspired similar ‘‘right-to-know’’ programs abroad. Brent Ranalli See also Pollution Prevention Act of 1990; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Trust for Public Land | 733

References Hamilton, James T. Regulation through Revelation: The Origin, Politics, and Impacts of the Toxics Release Inventory Program. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Toxics Release Inventory Program Web site. http://www.epa.gov/TRI/ (accessed April 8, 2010). TRI Explorer. http://www.epa.gov/triexplorer/ (accessed April 8, 2010).

Trust for Public Land The Trust for Public Land (TPL) is a nonprofit land conservation organization dedicated to ensuring livable communities for future generations by helping to conserve land for gardens, parks, historic and rural sites, and other natural places. TPL focuses on five major conservation initiatives. First, Parks for People works to ensure that everyone, and in particular children, has access to parks, playground, or open green space close to home. Second, the Working Lands Initiative supports rural and land-based livelihoods by protecting farms, ranches, forests, and other places where people make their living from the land. Third, the Natural Lands Initiative works to preserve natural lands as parks, wildlife refuges, and conservation forests. Fourth, the Heritage Lands Initiative works with agencies and communities to aid in preserving historical and cultural landscapes and buildings. Finally, and possibly most importantly, the Land and Water Initiative helps to identify and protect watersheds, as well as water treatment plants, to ensure access to clean and safe lakes, rivers, streams, and coastal waters. Since its inception in 1972, TPL has worked to complete more than 3,500 land conservation projects in 47 states, protecting 2.5 million acres. TPL has also helped by writing and working to pass more than 330 ballot measures and has generated almost $25 billion in conservation-related funding. Robert C. Robinson See also Old-Growth Forests; Sustainable Forestry; Wise-Use Movement

U Union Carbide Company A chemical company that uses some of the most advanced technologies available, Union Carbide is known for innovation dating back to the 1920s (Union Carbide, ‘‘About Us,’’ 2010). However, the company’s name also stirs up tragic memories of Bhopal, India, in 1984. Incorporated in 1917 as Union Carbide & Carbon Corporation, the company was created by merging four separate companies with competing interests. Deeply engaged in the push to win World War I, new inventions came at a steady pace, resulting in groundbreaking products. These included heat-resistant materials that strengthened steel, improving skyscrapers, bridges, and automobiles. The government’s needs during wartime also resulted in work on hydrocarbon byproducts, which created raw materials used to make explosives, plastics, and industrial chemicals (Funding Universe, 2010). Union Carbide then built the first commercial ethylene plant in 1920, giving birth to the vitally important petrochemical industry (Union Carbide, ‘‘History,’’ 2010). For the next 60 years, Union Carbide grew into a global presence. Then, in 1984, tragedy struck. At a Union Carbide pesticides plant in Bhopal, India, methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas leaked from a tank, kill- Relatives and friends carry a body for cremaing approximately 3,800 people and tion, December 5, 1984, in the central Indian causing serious disabilities in several city of Bhopal where more than 1,000 people thousand others (Union Carbide, died when poisonous gas leaked from a Union Carbide pesticide factory. The factory, which ‘‘History,’’ 2010). Other sources put caused the world’s worst poisonous gas disasthe death toll as high as 15,000 ter, is in the background. (AP/Wide World (Hindustan Times, 2010). Photos) 735

736 | United Mine Workers of America

Investigations by Union Carbide and independent sources discovered that a large volume of water introduced into the MIC tank triggered the reaction that resulted in the fatal gas release. In 1988, an additional investigation concluded that the gas leak could only have been caused by sabotage. However, others dispute that in continuing litigation, and severe contamination persists to this day (Hindustan Times, 2010). In 2001, Union Carbide Corporation became a wholly owned subsidiary of the Dow Chemical Company, and it sells most of its products directly to Dow (Union Carbide, ‘‘About Us,’’ 2010). Grenatta Thomassey See also Carson, Rachel; Pesticides; Sustainable Farming

References Funding Universe. ‘‘Union Carbide Corporation.’’ http://www.fundinguniverse.com/ company-histories/Union-Carbide-Corporation-Company-History.html (accessed April 20, 2010). Hindustan Times. ‘‘Water, Soil Still a Killer at Bhopal’s Ground Zero.’’ Chetan Chauhan http://www.hindustantimes.com/25-years-on-Bhopal-plant-still-a-killer/H1-Article1 -506175.aspx (accessed April 20, 2010). Union Carbide Corporation. ‘‘About Us.’’ http://www.unioncarbide.com/about/ index.htm (accessed April 20, 2010). Union Carbide Corporation. ‘‘Bhopal Information Center.’’ http://www.bhopal.com/ (accessed April 19, 2010). Union Carbide Corporation. ‘‘History.’’ http://www.unioncarbide.com/history/ index.htm (accessed April 20, 2010).

United Mine Workers of America United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) is a leading international union whose primary role is speaking out on behalf of American coal workers. Founded in 1890 in Ohio when the Knights of Labor Trade Assembly Number 135 merged with the National Progressive Union of Miners and Mine Laborers, the UMWA was a pioneer in its willingness to represent workers without regard to race, ethnicity, or national origin. The UMWA led the fight for collective bargaining rights in the 1930s, health and retirement benefits in the 1940s, and health and safety protections in the 1960s, including the enactment of the landmark Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act in 1969 that provided compensation for miners suffering from black lung disease. Its most influential leader was its president John L. Lewis, who served from 1920 to 1960. Lewis spearheaded the passage of the UMWA’s Welfare and Retirement Fund, and he helped to create other powerful labor unions. Another UMWA leader

United Mine Workers of America | 737

John L. Lewis, influential leader and president of the United Mine Workers of America. (Library of Congress)

was the legendary Mother Jones, who advocated for striking miners from the killings in Pennsylvania in 1897 at Lattimer to the massacre in Colorado at Ludlow in 1913. Despite gains in safety measures, coal mining is dangerous work. In 2006, 12 miners were killed in an explosion caused by a buildup of methane gas in Sago, West Virginia. The UMWA conducted an investigation and Federal regulations were subsequently passed to increase the monitoring of air quality. In 2010, 29 miners were killed after an explosion in a non-union mine also in West Virginia. The UMAW sent representatives to assist with rescue and recovery efforts and with grieving family members maintaining its commitment to the well-being of workers and their relatives. The UMWA remains dedicated to its early tenets of fairness and equality, and it continues to give a voice to workers throughout the world. Theresa C. Lynch See also Coal Mining; National Mining Association; U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration

References Dublin, Thomas, and Walter Licht. The Face of Decline: The Pennsylvania Anthracite Region in the Twentieth Century. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005.

738 | United States v. Atlantic Research Corp. (2007) Finley, Joseph E. The Corrupt Kingdom: The Rise and Fall of the United Mine Workers. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1972. Munsell, F. Darrell. From Redstone to Ludlow. Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 2009. Rottenberg, Dan. In the Kingdom of Coal: An American Family and the Rock That Changed the World. New York: Routledge, 2004. Urbina, Ian. ‘‘No Survivors Found After West Virginia Mining Disaster,’’ New York Times, April 9, 2010.

United States v. Atlantic Research Corp. (2007) Between 1981 and 1986, the Atlantic Research Corporation retrofitted rocket motors under contract with the U.S. Department of Defense. After voluntarily cleaning up contaminated soil and groundwater at the Shumaker Naval Ammunition Depot in Camden, Arkansas, Atlantic Research sought to recoup some of the cleanup expenses by suing the U.S. government. In its lawsuit, Atlantic Research cited Sections 107(a) and 113(f) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), which allow private parties to recover environmental cleanup expenses from another liable party. The U.S. government, however, claimed that these sections of CERCLA do not allow potentially responsible parties (PRPs), such as Atlantic Research, to sue for expenses. According to Justice Clarence Thomas, the question before the Supreme Court was whether CERCLA provided PRPs with a ‘‘cause of action to recover costs from other PRPs.’’ Affirming the Eighth Circuit Court’s decision, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Section 107(a) of CERCLA allowed Atlantic Research to recover cleanup costs from the government. In doing so, the Court clarified its previous ruling in Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc., which left open the issue of whether PRPs could sue other liable parties under section 107(a). Although the Atlantic Research case marks a rare victory for both environmental groups and large companies, it also leaves potentially liable corporations vulnerable to lawsuits associated with environmental cleanup costs. Dennis Urban See also Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

References DeMars, Laura. ‘‘A Toxic Mess.’’ CFO, July 27, 2007. http://www.cfo.com/ article.cfm/9395339?f=search (accessed on February 19, 2009). United States v. Atlantic Research Corp. No. 06-562, 127 S.Ct. 2331 (2007).

United States v. Navajo Nation (2003) | 739

United States v. Greenpeace (2004) In United States v. Greenpeace, the George W. Bush administration invoked an obscure 1872 law against ‘‘sailor-mongering’’ in order to indict the environmental organization. The prosecution marked the first of its kind against the activities of an activist group (Lobe, 2004), which was ultimately acquitted of the charges. The action stemmed from a 2002 incident off the Port of Miami, when two Greenpeace activists boarded an incoming vessel to peacefully protest the cargo of Amazonian mahogany it was carrying. The two were arrested, and subsequently, the U.S. Department of Justice—under then-Attorney General John Ashcroft—charged Greenpeace itself, not just the two individuals, with conspiracy to board the vessel. Though the case never made it to a jury and was ultimately thrown out by a federal judge, it is significant in that not only was it the first time the government had gone after an activist organization instead of limiting charges to individuals, but it marked only the third time that the 1872 law had ever been used. Many believe the administration’s actions served as a not-so-subtle threat to activist groups against exercising free speech (Lobe, 2004). The case was also notable for the attention it received not only from the press, but also from prominent politicians, including former Vice President Al Gore, and national organizations, including the NAACP and the ACLU. Most condemned the government’s action. Some went so far as to call the government’s pursuit ‘‘selective prosecution.’’ The court agreed with Greenpeace that the government’s contentions were insubstantial. Jessica Chapman See also Greenpeace

References Common Dreams. ‘‘Ashcroft vs. Greenpeace.’’ http://www.commondreams.org /headlines03/1127-06.htm (accessed February 10, 2009). Greenpeace. ‘‘Bush vs. Greenpeace.’’ http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/bush -vs-greenpeace (accessed February 10, 2009). Lobe, Jim. ‘‘Politics—U.S.: Court Acquits Greenpeace in Blow to Justice Dept.’’ Global Information Network, May 20, 2004. Prugh, Tom. ‘‘Ashcroft Goes After Greenpeace.’’ World Watch, January/February 2004.

United States v. Navajo Nation (2003) In 1993, the Navajo Nation filed suit against the United States for damages relating to the Secretary of the Interior’s breach of trust while negotiating with

740 | United States v. Navajo Nation (2003)

Peabody Coal on the tribe’s behalf. They argued that in 1984, while the tribe was legally renegotiating for coal royalties, Secretary Hodel violated his duties by acting in the best interest of the corporation and not the tribe. Under the Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1939 (IMLA), tribes were given federal authority to negotiate with corporations regarding development on tribal lands. The purpose of the IMLA was to foster tribal self-determination, and it replaced former acts that gave the tribes no authority to negotiate contracts regarding their lands. In 1964, the tribe had negotiated Lease 8580, which allowed Peabody Coal to develop coal on the Navajo Nation at the rate of $0.375 per ton of coal, which represented 2 percent of the total gross proceeds. On the twentieth anniversary of Lease 8580, the tribe entered into negotiations with Peabody to increase the royalty amount to 20 percent of gross proceeds. Several independent market studies concluded that the coal on the Navajo Nation was very valuable, and estimated its worth from 15 percent and 24.44 percent. Peabody Coal recommended a rate of only 5.57 percent to 7.17 percent. Beginning in 1984, the tribe attempted to renegotiate Lease 8580 to accurately reflect the minimal federal standards of royalties and the market value of coal found on the Navajo Nation. However, during the negotiation process, Secretary Hodel met privately with representatives of Peabody, and then reversed the pending approval and demanded that negotiations resume. On September 23, 1985, the parties reached agreement that the royalty rate would increase to 12 percent of monthly gross proceeds, retroactive to February 1, 1984. The opinion of the Court stated that while the flagrant violations of the Secretary of Interior to best represent the interests of the tribe over Peabody were obvious, the tribe had failed to provide statutes which linked the breach of obligation to an obligation for fiduciary compensation. In other words, the Court admitted that the behavior of the government official to act in the best interest of the tribe was not the issue; the issue was to create an argument that upheld the government’s responsibility to pay for damages and lost royalties due to the actions of the secretary. The Supreme Court ruled that the Indian General Allotment Act of 1887 (GAA) did not create enforceable rights for money damages, and therefore, the Navajo Nation was not deserving of damages. The dissenting opinion of the Court argued in favor of the Federal Circuit Court. They interpreted the role of the secretary as having both the powers of approval and a fiduciary role. Since the secretary had breached this obligation, the tribe was in fact due damages and the Court determined that the facts supported the tribe’s claim that the secretary failed in his responsibility to represent the interests of the tribe, which potentially resulted in a lower royalty rate than they deserved. Rachel A. Steagall See also Bureau of Indian Affairs; Coal Mining; Mineral Leasing Act; National Mining Association

Urban Planning | 741

Urban Planning Urban planning involves goal setting, plan development, public policy creation, and implementation within an urban area. Typical urban planning issues relate to economic development and land-use decisions using planning tools such as zoning, funding, comprehensive long-term planning, and transportation systems analysis. Today, many issues facing metropolitan areas are correctly understood as interrelated, whether the issues are housing, transportation, waste management, or economic development. In addition, the term ‘‘urban planning’’ refers to suburban planning as well due to the fact that metropolitan regions are increasingly recognizing the importance of regional cooperation and governance for region-wide public services. As a profession, the field has existed since the early twentieth century with the creation of the American City Planning Institute, later renamed in 1978 as the American Planning Association, after a merging of two organizations, the American Institute of Planners and the American Society of Planning Officials (American Planning Association). Besides professionally trained urban planners usually with advanced degrees, the field also involves professionals from architecture, engineering, and finance. The majority of urban planners are employed by local and regional governments through the civil service, although there are also urban planners working for the U.S. Department of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development in addition to other federal and state departments. In addition, elected officials, as well as business and civic organizations, play important roles in urban planning. In essence, urban planning is the set of tools and processes that guide citizens, private businesses, and public officials in shaping future streets, landscapes, parks, sewer systems, housing, and transportation options. Environmental issues can be properly understood as not only encompassing the natural environment, but also the built environment. Since urban dwellers have historically been ignored by the environmental community, this shift toward a more inclusive definition of what ‘‘counts’’ as environmental is creating new coalitions of stakeholders and increased cooperation among all levels of government over common goals related to the maintenance and development of economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable metropolitan regions. One of the first efforts at coordinated, rational urban planning was led by James Oglethorpe, who founded Savannah, Georgia, in 1733. Following a street grid form found in other cities, Oglethorpe also added town squares or green areas in each of the town’s wards. While today they are celebrated as a means of

742 | Urban Planning

creating open space for farmers’ markets and social activity, Oglethorpe also had in mind the security of Savannah in that forts and soldiers’ quarters could be constructed on these sites. Oglethorpe’s notion of neighborhood open spaces influenced other early landuse planners, such as Frederick Law Olmsted and his business partner Calvert Vaux. Olmsted and Vaux’s most famously designed New York City’s Central Park after winning a public competition in 1857. Urban planners and city leaders across the United States adopted public parks as areas of recreation and relief from the congestion, pollution, and noise of growing urbanization. Today, it is common for suburban planners to require a public park near a larger area of newly constructed housing developments. One of the most common planning tools is through local town or city ordinances and zoning codes. In 1916, New York City adopted a comprehensive zoning map regulating housing and commercial uses to specific locations with another map overlaying height requirements and further regulations on space around buildings. Zoning and land-use rules are important for public safety and health as well as for protecting property values. In fact, New York’s early zoning was motivated by luxury stores feeling threatened by manufacturing companies moving into the neighborhood. While the bulk of work takes place within local, regional, and state governments, the federal government is both a reactionary and proactive participant in urban planning across the United States. Local governments are not discussed in the U.S. Constitution and acquire their powers through state constitutions and public-policy decisions. The federal government affects urban planning in several ways, including federal court decisions, funding of state and local programs, and federal legislative and executive mandates, especially those related to transportation, housing, and education. In the U.S. Supreme Court case Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., the Court set the legal stage for urban planning by supporting the use of zoning restrictions on private property without compensation for the landowner. As a protection from governmental tyranny, the country’s founders adopted the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which states ‘‘. . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.’’ However, the Supreme Court decided that although local governments do ‘‘take’’ some land-use decisions away from the owner, this ‘‘taking’’ is usually not compensated in the way a property owner would be compensated if the local government took their land or house for some public use, such as a road or school. In 2005, the Supreme Court extended the meaning of ‘‘public use’’ in Kelo v. City of New London, a very controversial case with a 5–4 majority wherein the improvement of the city’s tax base and increased economic development were considered within the discretion of local ‘‘public use,’’ thus allowing New London, Connecticut, to acquire Suzanne Kelo’s property through the use of eminent domain and ‘‘just compensation.’’ This

Urban Planning | 743

decision was supported by the American Planning Organization but also condemned by ideologically left and right groups. For example, advocates for the poor and working class argued that all property of less value is without protection from wealthier interests and organizations. Conservatives argued that this was a fundamental violation of individual property rights by governments growing too powerful. Besides the federal courts, the federal presence in urban planning is felt especially through the funding of local government services. Whether it is fire, police, roads, transit, water, or air quality, there are usually federal dollars and often federal requirements involved. Many federal environmental laws affect urban planning but especially the legislation and administrative regulations stemming from the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Superfund acts, flood laws, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. Other federal laws, regulations, and money related to low-income housing, education, civil rights, and transportation policies affect urban planning through programs such as the Community Development Block Grant Program, the interstate highway system, and other activities, especially in the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (Daniels and Daniels, 2003). In 2009, President Obama consolidated federal urban decision-making in the Office of Urban Policy, whose director reports to the president. As the world continues to see migration to urban areas and a loss of rural communities, it is clear that urban planning will continue to grow in importance. Metropolitan areas will see competition over economic development as well as scarce natural resources such as clean water. The role of the federal government will be shaped by partisan majorities, but the entangled relationship between the federal government and urban planners will remain. Matthew Lindstrom See also Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; Coastal Zone Management Act; Endangered Species Act of 1973; Kelo v. City of New London (2005); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; Safe Drinking Water Act; Suburban Sprawl; Urban Renewal; Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926)

References American Planning Organization. http://www.planning.org/apaataglance/history.htm (accessed on April 7, 2010). Cullingworth, J. Barry, and Roger W. Caves. Planning in the USA: Policies, Issues, and Processes. New York: Routledge, 2003. Daniels, Tom, and Katherine Daniels. The Environmental Planning Handbook: For Sustainable Communities and Regions. Chicago: American Planning Association, 2003.

744 | Urban Renewal Levy, John M. Contemporary Urban Planning, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2000. Stevenson, Elizabeth. Park Maker: A Life of Frederick Law Olmsted. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1999.

Urban Renewal Urban renewal, also known as urban regeneration or urban redevelopment, was intended to improve life in cities by renovating slums. The U.S. government originally put forward this program in the 1950s as a way to improve quality of life in low-income areas; however, it often led to gentrification. As the number of city dwellers increased in the first half of the twentieth century, many complex problems arose, including environmental issues such as the need for sanitation improvements, the cleanup of toxic industrial waste, and the spread of disease due to overcrowding. After World War II, many middle-class families moved from the cities to the suburbs, reducing tax revenue and increasing the number of run-down urban areas. The federal government tried to improve the situation by clearing out or renovating slums, hoping that it would lead to revitalized neighborhoods that were more financially viable. The first

Youths fly a kite in a street bordered with firegutted buildings in the South Bronx section of New York City in June 1977. The Carter administration had agreed to revive urban renewal projects in an effort to revive the neighborhood. (AP/Wide World Photos)

Urban Renewal | 745

major effort to do so was the Housing Act of 1949, which provided categorical grants to cities with urban renewal projects in mind. Through the Housing Act of 1949, the U.S. government aimed to remove dilapidated buildings and build public housing. While low-income neighborhoods should have benefited from such legislation, this was not generally the case. The local government could exercise their rights to eminent domain and discount land in order to lure developers. Rather than building affordable housing for lowincome residents, these developers usually opted to revitalize the business districts or to build upscale housing. Large numbers of minorities, chiefly African Americans, were removed from their downtown homes and moved to inconveniently located public housing developments (Frieden, 1989). Communities were torn apart and racial tension ensued. Middle-class residents resisted attempts to build public housing projects in their areas, and thus most new public housing construction occurred within minority communities. The effect went against the government’s stated objectives. Low-income residents were forced to move away from their places of employment and had even fewer affordable housing options (Bellush and Hausknecht, 1967). The redeveloped area was often populated by wealthier individuals and businesses, which revived downtown areas and increased tax revenues but which also led to further overcrowding and more slums. Urban renewal projects quickly became controversial but public protests were usually unsuccessful in preventing land clearance. Building projects took years to accomplish or did not happen at all, despite the clearance of blighted areas. In response to these ghettos—and the Great Society programs that President Lyndon Johnson began in the mid-1960s—the government changed the structure of its financial assistance. Under the Community Development Act of 1974, the government awarded grants for locally run redevelopment plans. This program was not any more successful than its predecessor, and when Ronald Reagan became president in 1981, the federal government stopped funding urban development, and cities and states took on the problems alone (‘‘Urban Renewal,’’ 2000). Although the government had good intentions when developing urban renewal programs, implementing them often caused more problems than it solved. Sandra Gall Urban See also Johnson, Lyndon

References Anderson, Martin. The Federal Bulldozer; A Critical Analysis of Urban Renewal, 1949–1962. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1964. Bellush, Jewel, and Murray Hausknecht. Urban Renewal: People, Politics, and Planning. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1967.

746 | U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Frieden, Bernard J. Downtown, Inc.: How America Rebuilds Cities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1989. Greenberg, Michael R., and Dona Schneider. Environmentally Devastated Neighborhoods: Perceptions, Policies, and Realities. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1996. ‘‘Urban Renewal.’’ Gale Encyclopedia of U.S. Economic History, 2000 ed.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE or Corps) provides comprehensive engineering services to the Armed Forces and the public that helps safeguard the United States in times of peace and war. It contributes to bolstering national security, supporting the economy, and maintaining the integrity of the public infrastructure. A division of the U.S. Army, the Corps has approximately 36,000 civilian and 600 military employees who are involved in the management, research, planning, and construction of military and civil engineering projects throughout the world (USACE, 2010). This federal agency also plays a leading role in the preservation and restoration of the environment. The Corps reports directly to the Secretary of the Army. It receives its authority, as well as its financing, to conduct new and modified studies and projects through federal legislation. The history of the USACE began in 1775, when General George Washington appointed engineers to serve in the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War. Under the direction of Colonel Richard Gridley, the first chief engineer, the engineering officers constructed field fortifications and other defensive works. In 1779, the Continental Congress passed a resolution to form a Corps of Engineers, but the Corps was disbanded in 1783 when the Continental Congress decided not to approve a peacetime army. For the following 19 years, temporary appointments of engineers were authorized as work was needed to upgrade coastal fortifications or construct new ones and to build forts along the nation’s western frontier (Office of History, 2007). When war with Britain appeared probable in 1794, the Continental Congress formed a Corps of Artillerists and Engineers, consisting of only one company. A second company was added in 1798 when there was a danger that the country might go to war against France (Office of History, 2007). In 1802, the U.S. Congress separated the artillerists and engineers, and, on March 16, established the Corps of Engineers as a permanent and separate division of the U.S. Army. The USACE was stationed at West Point in New York and authorized by Congress to create and organize an engineering school known as the U.S. Military Academy, which stayed under its supervision until 1866.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers | 747

In 1824, under the General Survey Act, the USACE was given the authority to conduct civil work projects of commercial or military importance that involved the improvement of waterways and construction of transportation systems. Since then, Corps engineers played a strong role in the construction and maintenance of the nation’s public infrastructure, including roads, railroads, canals, bridges, aqueducts, dams, lighthouses, and buildings. The construction of the Ohio Canal, the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Washington Monument, the Panama Canal, the Pentagon, and the Manhattan Project are a few of the significant projects of which the USACE was part. From its beginnings, the Corps was involved in the protection of natural resources. For example, Corps engineers were active in the creation and development as well as the operation and protection of Yellowstone, the first national park that was established in 1874 (Office of History, 2007). By the end of the nineteenth century, the Corps also had the authority to regulate various types of obstructions to navigable waterways, such as regulating the dumping of debris into rivers. In the twentieth century, Congress continued to expand the Corps’ authority to develop studies and projects addressing such issues as flood control, water supply, irrigation, recreation, hydroelectric power production, water quality, and fish and wildlife conservation (Office of History, 2007). Under the Flood Control Act of 1936, the Corps was authorized to conduct flood control studies and projects, such as levees, dikes, dams, and floodways. The Clean Water Act of 1972 permitted the Corps to protect all navigable waters of the United States and to grant permits to organizations that plan to complete such projects as stabilizing shorelines, building boat ramps, developing commercial property, installing gas wells, or dredging streams in wetlands or other navigable waters. The enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 gave the Corps the authority to determine if existing water resources projects needed to be modified to ensure environmental quality. Today, the Corps continues to operate a civil works program throughout the United States. It conducts studies and projects that provide for the maintenance and improvement of navigable waterways, flood damage reduction, environmental restoration, provision of water supplies, generation of hydroelectric power, recreational opportunities, and wildlife protection (USACE, 2010). The Corps’ military program includes the building, management, and maintenance of living, working, and training facilities on Army and Air Force installations around the world. The Corps works at the frontlines to help with engineering problems. As part of its military program, the Corps may be assigned to offer support to government agencies and foreign governments. For example, the Corps has helped Iraq with its reconstruction program (USACE, 2010) The USACE is also involved with emergency responses, providing assistance after natural and human-made disasters, such as the 9/11 attacks, Hurricane Katrina, and the Haiti earthquake. Corps

748 | U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

engineers might perform such activities as clearing out debris, building temporary access routes, or restoring utilities. In 1990, Congress mandated that the Corps make environmental protection one of its primary missions. Today, it oversees one of the largest federal environmental missions (USACE, 2010), which addresses climate change, renewable energy, green jobs, green remediation, energy reduction, and other environmental issues (Van Antwerp, 2010). The Corps follows all Environmental Operating Principles that focus on the conservation, preservation, and restoration of the environment (USACE, 2010). Its environmental mission includes executing ecosystem restoration projects, such as the Louisiana coastal area and the Everglades, constructing sustainable facilities, managing natural resources, and regulating wetlands and all other waterways in the United States. The Corps also directs the cleanup of contaminated military and public sites and makes sure that military and civil facilities comply with local, state, and federal environmental laws. In 2010, the U.S. Army Chief of Engineers and USACE Commanding General was Lieutenant General Robert L. Van Antwerp. He oversees all civilian and military Corps employees. The USACE Headquarters is located in Washington, D.C., while field offices and laboratories are located throughout the world. The Corps’ Web site is http://usace.army.mil/. Susan Echaore-McDavid See also Clean Water Act of 1972; Climate Change; Wetlands; Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968

References Office of History. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: A History (Publication Number: EP 870-1-68). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2007. http://140.194.76.129/ publications/eng-pamphlets/ep870-1-68/toc.htm (accessed April 21, 2010). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Web site. http://usace.army.mil/ (accessed April 22–25, 2010). Van Antwerp, Lieutenant General Robert. ‘‘The Nation’s Environmental Engineer.’’ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Blog. http://usace.armylive.dodlive.mil/2010/04/21/ the-nations-environmental-engineer/ (accessed April 22, 2010).

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development This government agency was created in 1965 to provide safe, affordable housing for Americans. As early as 1934, Congress addressed the issue of housing in the United States by passing the National Housing Act and establishing the Federal Housing Administration. Three years later, the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 created the U.S. Housing Authority to build low-income rental housing and to coordinate the clearing of slums. Under President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society, a series

U.S. Department of the Interior | 749

of programs to eliminate poverty, Congress established the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in 1965 as a cabinet-level agency. For three years, promises for improved housing and government assistance were not fulfilled, and Congress attempted to resolve the problem by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1968, which outlawed housing discrimination. HUD was the agency responsible for enforcing this act and for implementing the Housing Act of 1968, which established the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae)—legislation that provides federally backed mortgage loans for moderate- and low-income families. Beginning in the 1970s, HUD focused on community development by establishing low-income housing and educating the public about the nation’s housing laws through advertising and a mail campaign. With the assistance of HUD and private incentives (for example, tax benefits for housing contractors that develop affordable homes in the city), the number of Americans who own homes reached a record level of 71.6 million households in 2000. Cynthia Clark Northrup References Lapidus, Nancy. HUD House. Bloomington, IN: First Books Library, 2002. McFarland, M. Carter. Federal Government and Urban Problems: HUD: Successes, Failures, and the Fate of Our Cities. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1978.

U.S. Department of the Interior The U.S. Department of the Interior, a federal executive department of the U.S. government, is responsible for the management and the conservation of federal land and for the administration of programs relating to Native Americans, Alaska natives, native Hawaiians, and to insular areas of the United States. The U.S. Secretary of the Interior, a cabinet member of the president, administers the department, assisted by the deputy secretary. The Department of the Interior operates from more than 2,400 locations with its main office in Washington, D.C. With 70,000 employees in eight bureaus, along with more than 280,000 volunteers, the scope of the department is vast. Although the first U.S. Congress in 1789 considered a separate department, originally the functions of the Department of the Interior became part of the Department of State. Presidents from James Madison to James Polk supported a separate department. It was not until after the Mexican-American War, though, when the responsibilities of the federal government grew so much that the idea of a separate department began to become a reality. Robert J. Walker, Secretary of the Treasury under President James Polk, worked vigorously in his support for creating a separate department.

750 | U.S. Department of the Interior

At the time, the General Land Office was in the Treasury. The Indian Affairs Office was in the Department of War. The Patent Office was in the Department of State. The Military Pension Offices were in the War and Navy Departments. Walker proposed that these four offices, together with other bureaus, unite as a new Department of the Interior. It took until the eve of President Zachary Taylor’s inauguration, March 3, 1849, for the bill to pass to create the separate Department of the Interior that exists today. Originally called the Home Department, the Department of the Interior’s responsibilities grew to U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar include other areas such as the censpeaks at a federal sale of offshore oil and sus, territorial government regulation, gas tracts, Wednesday, March 18, 2009, in exploring the wilderness in the west, New Orleans. (AP/Wide World Photos) and managing the Washington, D.C., jail and water system. Through the end of the 1800s, in a country that was still expanding westward, the Department of the Interior established the Mexican boundary, improved the western roads, and, with the Hayden expedition, began a geological survey of the western territories. Congress established the first national park in 1872 with Yellowstone and in 1873 transferred from the Secretary of State to the Secretary of the Interior territorial responsibilities. The Department of the Interior continued to grow with the creation of the U.S. Geological Survey, the establishment of the Bureau of Labor in 1884, and the Interstate Commerce Commission from 1887 to 1889. Growth of the Department of the Interior coincided with the rapid growth of the United States in the 1900s. In 1902, this included the establishment of the Bureau of Reclamation to construct dams and aqueducts in the west, its most significant accomplishment the completion of construction of the Hoover Dam in 1935. After the addition of the Bureau of Mines in 1910, and the creation of the National Park Service in 1916, some internal restructuring occurred in the Department of the Interior with the transfer of the Patent Office to the Department of Commerce in 1925, and the Bureau of Pensions to the Veterans Administration in 1930. In 1940, the Bureau of Fisheries and the Bureau of Biological Survey merged into the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The new Bureau of Land

U.S. Department of the Interior | 751

Management in 1946 was the merger of the General Land Office and Grazing Service. In the early 1950s, jurisdiction over Guam, American Samoa, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands was added to the Department of the Interior. Two more additions to the departments in the Department of the Interior were in 1977, with the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement to oversee state regulation of strip coal mining and repair of environmental dams and in 1982, with the Minerals Management Service to facilitate mineral revenue collection and to manage the Outer Continental Shelf offshore lands. In 1996, science and technology functions were consolidated into the U.S. Geological Survey (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2010). The eight bureaus of the U.S. Department of the Interior consist of the Bureau of Indian Affairs; the Bureau of Land Management; the Bureau of Reclamation; the Minerals Management Service; the National Park Service; the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and the U.S. Geological Survey. In addition to the eight bureaus, there are three offices that fall under the Office of the Secretary; twenty-one offices that are under the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management, and Budget; and even more offices included under the Solicitor’s Office and the Office of the Inspector General. The Bureau of Indian Affairs, the oldest bureau, administers and manages the 55 million surface acres and 57 million acres of subsurface minerals estates that the United States holds in trust for the 564 federally recognized tribal governments of the American Indians and Alaska Natives. It develops forests, leases assets, directs agricultural programs, protects water and land rights, develops and maintains infrastructure, and provides educational services to Indian students. Larry Echo Hawk, a Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma member, became the current assistant secretary of Indian Affairs on May 22, 2009. The Bureau of Land Management manages 253 million surface acres and 700 million acres of subsurface mineral estate of public land, mainly located in the 12 western states, including Alaska. Bob Abbey became the current director of the Bureau of Land Management on August 7, 2009. The Bureau of Reclamation manages, develops, and protects water and related resources. The Bureau of Reclamation is the largest wholesale water supplier, manages 457 dams and 348 reservoirs, and is the United States’ second largest producer of hydropower and tenth largest electric utility with 58 power plants. Michael L. Connor became the current commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation on May 21, 2009. The Mineral Management Service regulates and manages the development of energy and mineral resources in the federal waters off America’s shores. Its additional responsibility is to collect, audit, and distribute revenues for energy and minerals from these waters, as well as from resources on both federal and Indian

752 | U.S. Department of the Interior

lands. S. Elizabeth Birnbaum became the current director of the Minerals Management Service on July 15, 2009. The National Park Service preserves America’s park system of 392 areas, called units. Located in 49 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, Saipan, and the Virgin Islands, these units consist of more than 84 million acres and include 122 historical parks or sites, 74 monuments, 58 national parks, 24 battlefields or military parks, 18 preserves, 18 recreation areas, 10 seashores, 4 parkways, 4 lakeshores, and 2 reserves. Jonathan B. Jarvis became the current director of the National Park Service on October 2, 2009. The Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement carries out the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to oversee the safe operation of mines, to assure the restoring of land to beneficial use after mining, and to mitigate effects of past mining. Joseph Pizarchik became the current director of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement on November 6, 2009. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s main responsibility is fish, wildlife, and plant conservation. Of major concern are migratory birds, endangered species, certain marine mammals, and freshwater and anadromous fish. It has the responsibility to implement and enforce U.S. environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and Marine Mammal Protection. Sam D. Hamilton became the director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on September 1, 2009, until his death on February 20, 2010. Rowan Gould, Deputy Director for Operations, is the current acting director for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The U.S. Geological Survey is an independent agency that collects, monitors, analyzes, and provides scientific understanding about natural resource conditions, issues, and problems. The national scale studies the U.S. Geological Survey conducts allows long-term monitoring and assessment of natural resources in America. Its history of public service and scientific advances additionally includes the geology training of the astronauts who landed on the moon in 1969. Marcia K. McNutt became the current director of the U.S. Geological Survey on October 21, 2009. She is the first woman director of the U.S. Geological Survey (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2010). From the first Secretary of the Interior in 1849, Thomas Ewing, to the fiftieth and current Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, the intended mission has been the same. With such a vast government operation and the huge amount of people involved, the implementation of this mission has varied. The Department of the Interior has positively affected many areas by its mission and over the years has had many good people hold the position of Secretary of the Interior. However, the Department of the Interior has had its share of scandals.

U.S. Department of the Interior | 753

The most known is the Teapot Dome scandal of 1921. Then-Secretary of the Interior Albert B. Fall served one year in prison for a bribery conviction in 1929, the first time a cabinet officer went to jail for crimes committed in office (Evans, 1998). Paul Johnson (1997), in A History of the American People, tells of President Warren Harding’s error in judgment appointing the popular Albert B. Fall to be Secretary of the Interior. After Fall’s resignation on March 4, 1923, the facts came out of payments he received for granting leases of the government oilfields at Elk Hills, California, and at Salt Creek (Teapot Dome), Wyoming. A U.S. Senate investigation, led by Senator Thomas Walsh of Montana, led to the conviction of Fall. During the investigation, Walsh’s office was ransacked, his phone tapped, and his daughter warned that Walsh should stop the investigation, but this only strengthened Walsh’s conviction to complete the investigation that went on for years. The court acquitted the two men involved in the bribes of conspiracy and instead of receiving time in jail, both made a huge profit. Edward Doheny of Los Angeles, who acquired the reserves at Elk Hill, paid Fall $105,000 to make $100 million. Harry Sinclair of New York, who acquired the oil under Teapot Dome, paid Fall $304,000 to make $25 million. After Albert Fall served his time in jail, he lived in poverty. Until his death in 1944, he maintained he accepted no bribes and that the oil storage tanks built from the leases helped America survive Pearl Harbor, but Teapot Dome, since then, has still come to mean graft in the government. In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan remained loyal to his Secretary of the Interior, James G. Watt, despite his wild remarks that stirred controversy, one of which was to call environmentalists Nazis. Yet there was no way to defend Watt after his September 21, 1983, speech at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. James Watt, in describing membership on one of his commissions, illustrated the commission as having a black, a woman, two Jews, and a cripple. Watt abruptly resigned after the public uproar. Gale Norton, the first woman Secretary of the Interior, served under President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2006. She resigned after her connection to the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, as did Julie A. MacDonald, the deputy assistant secretary. The Office of Inspector General’s mission is to promote excellence, integrity, and accountability in the programs, operations, and management of the Department of the Interior. On March 3, 2009, Mary L. Kendall, acting inspector general, told a congressional committee how over the past few years her office investigated a series of cases stemming from a breakdown in the integrity and ethical conduct of members of the Department of the Interior. She emphasized that the majority act ethically, but stressed penalties for those who had betrayed the public trust. The

754 | U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

current Secretary of the Interior told her this was a priority for him (U.S. Department of the Interior Office of Inspector General, 2010). Salazar, Interior Secretary since January 20, 2009, spoke at an All-Employee Town Hall meeting on January 14, 2010. He outlined a first-year report showing change in doing business, a strengthening of ethics standards, and improvement in service to the American people (U.S. Department of the Interior 2010). Angie Mangino See also Bureau of Indian Affairs; Bureau of Land Management; Bureau of Reclamation; National Park Service; Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S. Geological Survey

References Evans, H. The American Century. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1998. Johnson, P. A History of the American People. New York: HarperCollins, 1997. U.S. Department of the Interior. http://www.doi.gov/. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General. http://www.doioig.gov/.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Congress officially brought the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) into existence in 1970, but its roots go back as far as 1962. The impetus for the EPA was a best-selling book by Rachel Carson, a bird watcher, titled Silent Spring. The carefully researched and wonderfully written work focused on the indiscriminate use of pesticides. Her book was to the environmental movement what Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin was to the abolitionist movement and brought together more than 14,000 people, who formed a grassroots effort to protect the environment. From 1962 to 1970, the environmental movement gained strength and support. In a nation disillusioned by the war in Vietnam and civil rights struggles, the environmental movement was something positive for people to concentrate on. Further, the environmental movement has had staying power in the politics and culture of the United States. In May 1969, President Richard Nixon called for the establishment of a cabinetlevel Environmental Quality Council and a Citizens’ Advisory Committee on the environment. But he was criticized for the weakness of these agencies, and so that December he appointed a White House committee to investigate whether there was a need for a separate environmental agency. In the meantime, Congress had developed a bill called the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) sponsored by Senator Gaylord Nelson, Democrat from Wisconsin. Nixon signed the act on New Year’s Day 1970, establishing the EPA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service | 755

The popularity and support for EPA and the success of the first Earth Day celebration in April 1970 (when Americans of all backgrounds took part in activities that improved the environment) helped to strengthen a recommendation from Roy L. Ash, director of the Office of Management and Budget, who argued that the environmental agency must operate independently. Originally reluctant, Nixon eventually accepted the two arguments that if the environmental agency operated under another agency it would remain biased toward that agency and that such a situation would affect objectivity. Satisfied, Nixon called for ‘‘a strong, independent agency.’’ The mission of the EPA included establishing and enforcing environmental protection standards, conducting research, providing assistance to other environmental groups, and helping to develop and recommend new policies. One of the most important charges of the new EPA involved becoming the enforcement arm for federal environmental legislation. Component parts of the EPA originated in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; the Food and Drug Administration; the Atomic Energy Commission; and various other agencies and departments. Nixon named William D. Ruckleshaus as the EPA’s first administrator. Ruckleshaus immediately began gaining headlines and publicity for the fledging agency. Only nine days after opening its new offices, the EPA gave the mayors of three cities six months to bring their water supplies into compliance with government standards or come to court. By the end of its first year, the EPA had tackled other problems large and small. It ended the year with the Clean Air Act of 1970, an effort to reduce polluting emissions from American automobiles, among other things. The EPA’s mission and its focus of protecting human health and the environment have remained stable and constant throughout its 39-year history. In 2010, the EPA employed about 18,000 people and has an annual budget of more than $10 billion. As such, it ranks as one of the largest federal agencies, and its regulatory functions are emulated by similar agencies at the state level. Lisa A. Ennis References ‘‘EPA Timeline.’’ January 10, 2003. http://www.epa.gov/ (accessed February 2, 2003). Lewis, Jack. ‘‘The Birth of EPA.’’ November 1985. http://www.epa.gov/ (accessed September 17, 2001).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The citizens of the United States own the nation’s wildlife resources, which are held in trust by the government for the benefit of all the people. The creation of federal agencies to regulate interstate and foreign commerce fulfills the government’s constitutional duty to administrate the United State’s fish and wildlife.

756 | U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The Fish and Wildlife Service, a branch of the U.S. Department of the Interior, can trace its origins back 125 years to the U.S. Commission on Fish and Fisheries in the Department of Commerce and Division of Economic Ornithology and Mammalogy during the last quarter of the nineteenth century (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2009). The necessity for creating wildlife management departments became obvious with the dramatic decline of the nation’s fish and game resources. American bison were virtually extirpated from the prairies (Hornaday, 2006); bird plume market hunting had decimated wading bird populations along the southern coast (Price, 2004); and catastrophic declines in commercial fish stocks were occurring, especially along the Atlantic seaboard (Roberts, 2008). With the birth of the Commission on Fish and Fisheries in 1871, the department’s mission was to study and find solutions for the decline in commercial fish populations and to promote the idea of fish culture. The Division of Economic Ornithology and Mammalogy was created 14 years later and was charged with studying the effects of birds on agriculture and creating a map of geographical distribution of the country’s plants and animals. This organization later was renamed the Bureau of Biological Survey. At the turn of the century, Congress enacted a set of laws that had far-reaching implications to the Fish and Wildlife Service’s future success. The Lacey Act of 1900 was the first federal law to prohibit the interstate trade of illegally taken wildlife and importation of species. The 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act implemented the Convention between the United States and Great Britain (for Canada) on the Protection of Migratory Birds; this landmark agreement created the regulation of migratory bird hunting. The Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act, or ‘‘Duck Stamp Act,’’ was passed by Congress in 1934. Through the sale of duck stamps to waterfowl hunters, revenue was raised to purchase important waterfowl habitat. Since its inception, duck stamp revenue has provided for the protection of more than 4.5 million acres of wetlands. The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, commonly known as the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937, established a 10 percent tax on all revenues generated from the sale of ammunition and firearms to be returned to the states to provide for wildlife restoration. The Pittman-Robertson Act has provided more than $2 billion in federal excise taxes, which have been matched by more than $500 million in state funds for wildlife restoration. This was mostly raised from hunting license fees (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010). The Federal Aid to Sport Fisheries in 1950, aka the Dingle-Johnson Act, provided for fishing license sales revenues for fishery habitat protection similar to the Pittman-Robertson Act. These four pieces of legislation formed the framework that allowed what we now know as the Fish and Wildlife Service to not only provide for the legal protection of wildlife and its habitat, but also to generate funding based upon the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service | 757

very groups who utilized the resources the most and therefore had the greatest investment in their continued abundance and availability; hunters and fishermen. In 1939, the Bureau of Fisheries and Biological Survey moved into the Department of the Interior. The two were merged together the following year to become the Fish and Wildlife Service. The 1956 Fish and Wildlife Act created two new agencies; the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, and the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries was eventually transferred to the Department of Commerce to become the National Marine Fisheries Service. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 gave the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service responsibility for administering the act. Wildlife Refuges are the responsibility of the Fish and Wildlife Service. President Ulysses S. Grant may have been the first president to create a wildlife refuge with the protection of the Pribilof Islands in Alaska in 1868 as a reserve for the depleted northern fur seal. This marked the first formal federal government action to protect valuable wildlife resources. President Harrison in 1881 created by executive order the first fishery protection by creating the Afognak Island Forest and Fish Culture Reserve in Alaska. The National Wildlife Refuge System Administrative Act of 1966 provided needed guidance to refuge administration and proposed uses, stating that they must be ‘‘compatible’’ with refuge purposes. Nineteen seventy-nine and 1980 saw the passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, respectively. These two acts addressed the needs of the Alaska native people, but also served to almost triple the size of the refuge system by adding 9 new refuges, expanded 7 existing refuges, and added over 53.7 million acres of refuge land, thereby ensuring that vast tracts of Alaskan wilderness and its invaluable pristine habitat remain protected. In 1934, President Franklin D. Roosevelt created a special ‘‘Blue Ribbon’’ committee to help him understand waterfowl needs. The committee consisted of Jay Norwood ‘‘Ding’’ Darling, Thomas Beck, and Aldo Leopold (known as the ‘‘father of wildlife management’’). These three dynamic personalities were absolutely dedicated to their purpose of protecting waterfowl habitat, which at the time was severely threatened due to habitat loss, drought, and overharvest. In 1935, Darling was promoted to head the Bureau of Biological Diversity, which eventually became the National Wildlife Refuge System. Darling brought with him Jay Clark Salyer II, who eventually became the head of the bureau. For 31 years, Salyer was the driving force behind the success of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Nineteen thirty-four was also the year that Congress implemented the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. With several amendments added over the next few years, the act provided for the acquisition of land associated with water resources by federal agencies. It also provided for the management of those lands by either the appropriate state agency or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Katherine McLaughlin

758 | U.S. Forest Service See also A Sand County Almanac; Leopold, Aldo; National Audubon Society; National Park Service; National Wildlife Refuge System; U.S. Department of the Interior

Resources Hornaday, William. The Extermination of the American Buffalo. 2006. ftp://indian .cse.msu.edu/pub/mirrors/Gutenberg/1/7/7/4/17748/17748-h/17748-h.htm (accessed April 5, 2010). Price, Jennifer. ‘‘Hats off to Audubon.’’ National Audubon Society. 2004. http:// audubonmagazine.org/features0412/hats.html (accessed April 5, 2010). Roberts, Callum. ‘‘A Short History of Fishing.’’ World Wildlife Fund. 2008. http:// www.worldwildlife.org/waveforward/spotlight_2.pdf (accessed April 1, 2010). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Aid Division. ‘‘The Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act.’’ 2010. http://www.fws.gov/southeast/federalaid/pittmanrobertson.html (accessed April 3, 2010) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. ‘‘History of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge System.’’ In Encyclopedia of Earth, Cutler J. Cleveland, ed. Washington DC: Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment, 2006. http://www.eoearth.org/article/History_of_the_U.S._Fish_and_Wildlife_Service _National_Wildlife_Refuge_System. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Conservation Training Center. ‘‘Origins of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.’’ 2009. http://training.fws.gov/History/TimelinesOrigins .html (accessed March 31, 2010).

U.S. Forest Service The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) is an organization managed by the federal government of the United States and falls under the supervision of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The USFS identifies its mission as being dedicated to the ‘‘health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.’’ In carrying out this mission, the USFS has implemented a conservation ethic that aims to address not only ecological health, but social and economic needs as well. For this reason, the agency promotes the multiple-use management concept (United States Department of Agriculture, 2010). This approach to resource management encourages the pursuit of multiple objectives, which, in the case of the USFS, can include timber harvesting, wildlife conservation, watershed protection, recreation, scientific research, and the prevention of deforestation. In addition to providing these services on federally managed properties, the USFS also offers programs to encourage and enable environmentally responsible multiple-use management on locally and privately owned lands nationwide and internationally (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2010).

U.S. Forest Service | 759

The USFS had its origins in a small department. In 1876, Franklin B. Hough, a physician and scientist, was appointed to lead the new Office of Special Agent in the Department of Agriculture. Hough was tasked with conducting an appraisal of America’s forests, and reporting on their condition and characteristics. Hough’s conclusions, presented in his 1877 Report on Forestry, argued that these resources were at risk of deforestation, and recommended that legislation be passed to protect the forests. In 1881, the Office of Special Agent was expanded and renamed and became the Division of Forestry (Steen, 2004). Upon its formation, the Division of Forestry began to lobby for legislation based on Hough’s report. In 1898, the famed forester and conservationist Gifford Pinchot was appointed chief of the Division of Forestry. In 1891, the Forest Reserve Act of 1891 was enacted into law. This act made it possible for the federal government to withdraw land from eligibility for public ownership or sale, and to then place that land under the responsibility of the Department of the Interior. In 1905, new legislation altered this process. The Transfer Act of 1905 reassigned responsibility for these reserves from the Department of the Interior to the Bureau of Forestry, as the Division of Forestry had been renamed in 1901. Following the Transfer Act of 1905, the Bureau of Forestry became the U.S. Forest Service (Steen, 2004). One of the first major challenges to face the USFS came in the form of severe wildfires in Idaho and Montana in 1910. In response to these fires, the USFS developed the Weeks Law in 1911, which allowed the federal government to acquire forests damaged by repeated wildfires, as well as those affected by agricultural development or logging. This law enabled the USFS to acquire much of its eastern national forests, and established a policy for working with states to manage areas considered to be at risk for wildfires. The Weeks Law was expanded upon by the Clarke-McNary Act of 1924, which, in addition to encouraging state efforts at reforestation, established agreements with state governments to share the costs of protecting private and state-owned forests against wildfire (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2004). Through the following decades, the USFS would continue to effect and be affected by massive amounts of legislation designed to address social, economic, and environmental issues. For example, in 1930, the Knutson-Vandenberg Act established over 1,300 Civilian Conservation Corps camps and created more than 2 million jobs in USFS lands nationwide. These jobs served to address economic needs created by the Great Depression as well as problems associated with deforestation, watershed restoration, and land erosion. Other significant legislation includes the Cooperative Forest Management Act of 1950, which created a policy for enabling partnerships between the Department of Agriculture, state forestry agencies, and private landholders (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2004). With the second half of the twentieth century came the Wilderness Act of 1964, which established the goal of reserving wilderness areas in national parks

760 | U.S. Forest Service

and forests, ultimately establishing 9 million acres of land as designated and protected wilderness areas. In the following decade, the National Forest Management Act of 1976 helped to redefine the USFS’s policy on timber harvesting by calling for a new management program based on assessment, multiple-use policies, renewable resources, and sustainable use. This act was shortly followed by the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978, which authorized the USFS to engage with state and private agencies to prevent wildfires, assist in forest management, encourage reforestation in deforested areas, and other essential duties (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2004). Over time, these legislative acts and many others have contributed to shape the policies and structures of the modern USFS, the largest agency in the United States Department of Agriculture, responsible for the stewardship of 193 million acres of USFS land located in 44 American states, as well as Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Within the USFS, there are five major subagencies: an administrative department, the National Forest System, State and Private Forestry, International Forestry, and Forest Service Research (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2010). The National Forest System is divided into nine geographical regions. The majority of the national forests and grasslands are located in the western states. Each region is placed under the supervision of a regional forester, who is responsible for the management of the national forests and grasslands within that region, and who reports to the chief forester of the USFS. In addition to its responsibilities to the natural resources of national forest and grasslands areas, the National Forest System is also responsible for the administration of a number of monuments and historic sites that are located within these areas. These include the Giant Sequoia National Monument, the Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument, and the historic home of Gifford Pinchot, the Grey Towers National Historic Site (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2010). A large portion of the budget and staffing for the management of these regions is occupied by protecting federal lands and nearby residents from forest fires. This work entails not only the physical practices of preventing, suppressing, and extinguishing fires, but also educational and promotional efforts. The most well known of these outreach efforts was launched in 1944, through collaboration with the Wartime Advertising Council. This campaign introduced the character that, in 1952, would come to be named Smokey Bear, also popularly known as Smokey the Bear, whose many appearances on posters, television commercials, and other media formats over the ensuing decades served to remind the American public of their responsibility for the prevention of forest fires (Morrison, 1995). The USFS also contains the Department of State and Private Forestry, which serves as a source of financial and informational assistance to states, community groups, and private landowners. This assistance is meant to help these smaller groups and individuals manage and protect local natural environments that do

U.S. Forest Service | 761

not fall under the Forest Service’s direct supervision, particularly through the prevention of wildfires, insect and disease control, and the control and elimination of invasive species (LaBau, 2007). Similarly, the USFS’s Department of International Forestry provides research and recommendations to other government agencies in order to create federal policies that promote the conservation of forests worldwide. The agency also works with nongovernmental advocacy groups, scientists, and other organizations to promote international efforts to foster sustainable land use and cooperative efforts toward natural resource conservation (LaBau, 2007). All of these departments are supported by the agency of Forest Service Research. This branch of the USFS is the world’s largest forestry research agency and serves to provide the scientific and technical knowledge needed to develop USFS policies and management plans. The department of Forest Service Research operates a large network of experimental forest and grassland properties and stations nationwide, and is headquartered in the Forest Products Laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin (LaBau, 2007). Throughout its history, the U.S. Forest Service’s goal of resource conservation has pitted it against groups whose livelihoods rely on these resources, and has generated intense disagreement over the value and proper use of these lands and materials. Since its inception, the USFS has come into conflict with groups whose interests include grazing, mining, timber, recreation, and other commercial and industrial pursuits. There has also been conflict, however, with other scientific and advocacy groups whose strategies and principles regarding the promotion and management of wildlife and wilderness areas differ from those of the USFS. Fire control, for example, has been a matter of debate, as decades of U.S. Forest Service policies promoting fire prevention have come under scrutiny from groups which have argued that some ecosystems have historically relied on occasional, naturally occurring forest fires. Through many years of pursuing the goal of complete fire prevention in these areas, these groups argue, the USFS inadvertently created an unnatural excess of materials that would have otherwise fed smaller, slow-burning, naturally occurring fires, thereby enabling the occurrence of large, fast-burning, and more difficult to control fires. The USFS has since reconsidered its fire-management policies. In 2001, the National Fire Plan was developed to address this issue, as well as to respond to fire risks associated with climate change and forest-adjacent development. As a result of this plan, many national forests now rely on a system of thinning and prescribed and controlled burns to manage these fire-adapted ecosystems (LaBau, 2007; Huggard, 2001). Road building has also been a frequent issue of debate. This debate came to a critical point in 2001, when a moratorium was passed to prevent new road construction in national forests, pending a thorough examination of further road development on the often-contradictory needs of the forests’ ecological health,

762 | U.S. Forest Service

public interest and use, and their economic value as sites of development and natural resources. While no consensus was reached regarding ideal options for the status of new road construction, new legislation was introduced in 2005 that allowed states to petition the Forest Service for exemptions to this moratorium. In 2009, however, the majority of the conditions of the original moratorium were reinstated, with the intention to revisit the ban after one year (Dean, 2009). Other controversies have dealt not with the management of natural resources, but the management of government resources. In 1990, the USFS was accused of scandalous activity when it was revealed that it had been engaged in a scheme known as the Historical Aircraft Exchange Program. The Forest Service had historically engaged with private companies to secure air tankers, usually retired military aircraft from World War II and the Korean War, to transport and deliver fire retardant to wildfire areas. However, the safety of these aging aircraft led to a decrease in their availability in the late 1980s. Afterward, the USFS began acquiring newer military aircraft, which it claimed was to replace the air tankers that had been lost with the grounding of older aircraft. In reality, the agency was illegally transferring the ownership of these planes to private companies, often for purposes unrelated to wildfire control, and occasionally to the personal profit of USFS staff (McLean, 1994). In 2008, the Government Accountability Office began evaluating the benefits of moving the Forest Service from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of the Interior. While the Forest Service’s early responsibilities of overseeing the harvesting of timber from national reserves justified its placement in the Department of Agriculture, the decreasing role that harvesting has played, combined with the USFS’s increasing emphasis on preservation, has led many to argue that the agency would be more appropriately housed in the Department of the Interior, which contains the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. Like the USFS, the missions and responsibilities of these agencies include the management of federally reserved lands, recreation and education, fire prevention and control, conservation of natural resources, and the regulation of commercial activity on parks and reserves (Lee, 2008). Skylar Harris See also Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team; U.S. Department of the Interior

References Dean, Cornelia. ‘‘Directive Limits Activity in Roadless Areas of Forests.’’ New York Times, May 29, 2009. Huggard, Christopher J., and Arthur R. G omez. Forests Under Fire: A Century of Ecosystem Mismanagement in the Southwest. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2001.

U.S. Geological Survey | 763 LaBau, Vernon J. A History of the Forest Survey in the United States: 1830–2004. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2007. Lee, Christopher. ‘‘Forest Service May Move to Interior: Some See Agency as Out of Place Under the USDA.’’ Washington Post, March 25, 2008. McLean, Herbert E. ‘‘The Great Airtanker Debacle.’’ American Forests (May 1, 1994). Morrison, Ellen Earnhardt. Guardian of the Forest: A History of Smokey Bear and the Cooperative Forest Fire Prevention Program. Alexandria, VA: Morielle Press, 1995. Steen, Harold K. The U.S. Forest Service: A History. Durham, NC: Forest History Society in association with University of Washington Press, 2004. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. ‘‘About Us—Meet the Forest Service.’’ http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/meetfs.shtml (accessed April 7, 2010). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Amie M. Brown. ‘‘Selected Laws Affecting Forest Service Activities.’’ Forest Service Publication, 2004.

U.S. Geological Survey The United States Geological Survey (USGS) serves the nation by providing reliable scientific information to describe and understand the Earth; minimizes loss of life and property from natural disasters; manages water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; and enhances and protects our quality of life. The United States Geological Survey is the nation’s largest water, earth, biological science, and civilian mapping federal agency. The USGS provides much more than mapping products; it also employs a broad range of scientists and technicians who collectively gather, monitor, and analyze data to improve the understanding of current natural resource issues (USGS, ‘‘U.S. Geological Survey’’).

Members of the United States Geological Survey measuring a baseline near Fort Wingate, New Mexico, 1883. (Library of Congress)

764 | U.S. Geological Survey

The USGS was established in 1937 under President Rutherford Hayes. Much of the work done by the USGS has provided a strong foundation for scientific research and resource management practices that are still used today. The agency currently has over 30 separate programs that approach scientific issues from numerous disciplines: biological, geographical, geological, and water-related (USGS, ‘‘About USGS’’). Water: The USGS collects information that allows us to understand the state of our nation’s water resources. This topic also includes tools and information pertaining to floods and droughts, quality of water resources, contamination/pollution, surface and groundwater sources, water use, both current and historic, and international water projects (USGS, ‘‘Water Resources of the United States’’). Geology: Efforts within the geology discipline focus on the research and monitoring of geologic hazards and disasters like earthquakes or volcanoes. There are also some research efforts centered on climate issues, mineral and energy resources, ecosystem and human health, and the availability of groundwater. The geophysical and geochemical data provided by this branch of the USGS are a necessity for addressing these significant issues in the future (USGS, ‘‘Geology Research and Information’’). Geography: The geography discipline of the USGS uses remote sensing satellites to track changes of land, study the patterns and importance of these changes, and analyze human-environment relationships to further understand the degree to which humans impact their surrounding environment (USGS, ‘‘Geography’’). Biology: Within the USGS, the BRD (Biological Resources Department) works to conserve, manage, and enhance our nation’s biological resources. There are numerous research programs within the BRD, ranging from invasive species to contaminant biology to endangered species, among others (USGS, ‘‘Biology’’). Another important part of the USGS is the National Geospatial Program, which provides maps, base data, and other geospatial information (USGS, ‘‘National Geospatial Program’’). Of the services and products provided by the USGS, topographic and other map types are some of the most frequently used products, both within the private sector, and the public sector by other federal agencies. These maps are used for many purposes, including land management and planning, environmental and natural resource monitoring and planning, national defense, outdoor recreation, and law enforcement (PNW Ecosystem Research Consortium, ‘‘USGS Topographic Maps’’). Because of the wide scientific scope and diverse scientist team employed by the USGS, the agency covers a variety of issues from endangered species, to physical geography, and from environmental degradation to earthquake monitoring. The large range of issues the USGS confronts is clearly seen in the various services, products, and research topics the agency pursues. The four most recent news releases of 2010 explicitly show this diversity; they covered satellite tracking and the spread of the avian flu, natural gas potential in the Mediterranean, information

U.S. Geological Survey | 765

on high river flows in the northeastern United States, and elk brucellosis infection in Yellowstone (USGS, ‘‘U.S. Geological Survey’’). This broad extent of scientific issues often overlaps with responsibilities and roles of other federal agencies; consequently, this overlap must be addressed either through collaboration efforts, or other methods of avoiding redundant research efforts. USGS research is often centered on natural resources and the impact of consuming these resources. Consequently, research findings produced by the USGS can be powerful political tools. For example, USGS research from 2002 found that water in the Klamath River basin was more valuable when kept within its rivers for recreational purposes than if the water was diverted for agricultural purposes. These findings were initially suppressed by the Interior Department because of the political implications of releasing this information, in part because the Bureau of Reclamation had decided the previous year to give priority to irrigation for agricultural interests over maintaining healthy fish populations in the river (‘‘Klamath Water Worth More in River’’). Regardless of the politics circling scientific research, the USGS continues to lead the nation in producing precise geospatial information, offering other important products and services, and aggressively researching some of our nation’s most pressing natural resource issues. Shannon Conk See also Federal Water Pollution Control Law of 1948

References ‘‘Klamath Water Worth More in River.’’ High Country News. http://www.hcn.org/ issues/240/13584 (accessed April 14, 2010). PNW Ecosystem Research Consortium. ‘‘USGS Topographic Maps.’’ http://www.fsl .orst.edu/pnwerc/wrb/Atlas_web_compressed/Appendices/b.USGStopo_web.pdf (accessed April 14, 2010). U.S. Geological Survey. ‘‘About USGS.’’ http://www.usgs.gov/aboutusgs/who_we_are/ history.asp (accessed April 14, 2010). U.S. Geological Survey. ‘‘Biology.’’ http://biology.usgs.gov/ (accessed April 14, 2010). U.S. Geological Survey. ‘‘Geography.’’ http://geography.usgs.gov/ (accessed April 14, 2010). U.S. Geological Survey. ‘‘Geology Research and Information.’’ http://geology.usgs.gov/ (accessed April 14, 2010). U.S. Geological Survey. ‘‘National Geospatial Program.’’ http://www.usgs.gov/ngpo/ (accessed April 14, 2010). U.S. Geological Survey. ‘‘U.S. Geological Survey.’’ http://www.usgs.gov/ (accessed April 14, 2010). U.S. Geological Survey. ‘‘Water Resources of the United States.’’ http://water.usgs .gov/ (accessed April 14, 2010).

766 | U.S. National Wildlife Refuge System

U.S. National Wildlife Refuge System The U.S. National Wildlife Refuge System, which is managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service, is a national system of wildlife reservations. The mission of the refuge system is ‘‘to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans’’ (NWRS, ‘‘Mission Statement,’’ 2010). The National Wildlife Refuge System was created through an executive order in 1903 when President Theodore Roosevelt demanded that the first refuge be created on Pelican Island, Florida. After the creation of the first refuge, Roosevelt created 50 more through executive orders by 1909. Congress created more refuges, including the National Bison Range in 1908 and the National Elk Refuge in 1912 (Robbins, 2007). In 1940, the Bureau of Biological Survey and the Bureau of Fisheries were transferred to the Department of the Interior and were merged to form the Fish and Wildlife Service. The responsibility for managing the National Wildlife Refuge System then fell into the hands of this new agency with the passage of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (Robbins, 2007). Ten years later, in 1966, Congress passed the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, which authorized public use of refuges for activities such as fishing, hunting, and other recreation as long as these uses did not interfere with the reason for which the refuge was established (Robbins, 2007). In 1997, Congress passed the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, which ‘‘directed that the Refuge System be managed as a national system of lands and waters devoted to conserving wildlife and maintaining biological integrity of ecosystems’’ (NWRS, ‘‘History of the National Wildlife Refuge System,’’ 2010). Today, the National Wildlife Refuge System includes 551 units in all 50 states along with American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Johnson Atoll, Midway Atoll, and other Pacific Islands. Refuges include more than 150 million acres of wildlife habitats (NWRS, ‘‘History of the National Wildlife Refuge System,’’ 2010). Kelsey Thorkelson See also U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

References National Wildlife Refuge System. ‘‘History of the National Wildlife Refuge System.’’ http://www.fws.gov/refuges/history/ (accessed April 10, 2010). National Wildlife Refuge System. ‘‘Mission Statement.’’ http://www.fws.gov/refuges/ about/mission.html. (accessed April 10, 2010).

U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration | 767 Robbins, P., ed. 2007. ‘‘Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S.).’’ Encyclopedia of Environment and Society, Vol. 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 675–677.

U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was created because of public outcry against rising injury and death rates on the job. Through the years, the agency has focused its resources where they can have the greatest impact in reducing injuries, illnesses, and deaths in the workplace. Since the 1970s, the agency has responded to tragic workplace events with new strategies and regulations. Examples include OSHA’s standard to prevent grain elevator explosions and its process safety management standard to forestall chemical catastrophes caused by inadequate planning and safety systems. OSHA has also focused on emerging health issues such as bloodborne pathogens and musculoskeletal disorders. Its enforcement strategy has evolved from initially targeting a

Cindy Coe, Regional Administrator for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, outlines proposed penalties against the Imperial Sugar company plant during a news conference, Friday, July 25, 2008, in Savannah, Georgia. The safety regulators released their findings after investigating a dust explosion that killed 13 workers at a company’s sugar refinery in Port Wentworth, Georgia. (AP/Wide World Photos)

768 | U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration

few problem industries to zeroing in on high-hazard industries and, more recently, pinpointing specific sites with high injury rates. Education and outreach have played important roles in dealing with virtually every safety or health issue. OSHA published its first consensus standards on May 29, 1971. Some of those standards, including permissible exposure limits for more than 400 toxic substances, remain in effect today. Others have been updated or expanded, dropped as unnecessary or overly specific, or amended. OSHA’s original standard limited worker exposure to asbestos, a proven carcinogen. Standards for a group of carcinogens, vinyl chloride, coke oven emissions, cotton dust, lead, benzene, dibromochloropropane, arsenic, acrylonitrile, and hearing conservation followed. Early standards responded to health issues well known to the occupational safety and health community. Initially, the agency emphasized voluntary compliance, with inspections dedicated to catastrophic accidents and the most dangerous and unhealthful workplaces. Later, the agency adopted a ‘‘get tough’’ stance that evolved to a more targeted approach based on significant hazards. OSHA further refined its inspection targeting system in the late 1970s to focus 95 percent of health inspections on industries with the most serious problems. In the 1980s, OSHA focused on minimizing regulatory burdens. The agency relied more on self-reporting and employer involvement. Its goal was to provide a balanced mix of enforcement, education and training, standardsetting, and consultation activities. OSHA introduced major new health standards during this decade that included requirements to provide employees access to medical and exposure records maintained by their employers; hazard communication; and more stringent requirements for asbestos, ethylene oxide, formaldehyde, and benzene. Safety standards covered a wide range of issues, such as updated fire protection and electrical safety, field sanitation in agriculture, grain handling, hazardous waste operations and emergency response, and lockout/tagout of hazardous energy sources. During the 1990s, OSHA reexamined its goals as part of the Clinton administration’s Reinventing Government Initiative, looking for ways to leverage its resources and increase its impact in reducing workplace injuries, illnesses, and deaths. The agency reorganized its area offices to provide rapid response to worker complaints and workplace tragedies, as well as to focus on long-term strategies to lower job-related fatalities, injuries, and illnesses. OSHA instituted a phone-fax policy to speed the resolution of complaints and focus investigation resources on the most serious problems. In 1991, OSHA introduced a bloodborne pathogens standard to address biological hazards. During the 1990s, the agency also updated its asbestos, formaldehyde, methylene chloride, personal protective equipment, and respiratory protection standards; developed a standard covering lead exposure in construction; and issued rules to protect laboratory workers exposed to toxic chemicals.

U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration | 769

The agency modified its inspection-targeting system to focus on serious violators, proposing sizable penalties when inspectors found sites where safety and health problems were most serious. In 1990, Congress increased maximum penalties for OSHA violations from $1,000 to $7,000 for serious violations and from $10,000 to $70,000 for willful and repeat violations. During the mid-1990s, OSHA began collecting data annually from about 80,000 employers in high-hazard industries to identify sites with high injury and illness rates. In 1999, the agency adopted the ‘‘site-specific targeting program,’’ which for the first time directed inspections to individual workplaces with the worst safety and health records. Injury and illness rates and fatalities declined significantly during this decade. Emphasis on partnerships increased dramatically in the 1990s, and participation in the agency’s premier effort, the Voluntary Protection Program, increased eightfold. OSHA also formed partnerships with companies that wanted to improve their safety and health records, beginning with the Maine 200 program, which encouraged employers with many injuries at their sites to find and fix hazards and establish safety and health programs. As the new century began, OSHA expanded its outreach program with new compliance assistance specialists slated to join every area office to provide safety seminars, training, and guidance to employers and employees upon request. More and more, the agency used its Web site to provide information to its customers. The agency recently added a small-business page, a partnership page, and a workers’ page to its Web site to make its information more readily available and easily accessible. The workers’ page enables concerned employees to file complaints online. Along with its counterparts in the European Union, OSHA set up a joint Web site on job safety and health issues of concern to many countries. OSHA and Political Controversy Political pressure and controversy have flared frequently around OSHA and state safety actions and how workplace safety concerns should be addressed. OSHA has been criticized on the one side by unions, progressives, and advocates for working too closely with business and failing to pass tougher standards; this side argues that without the threat of inspections and enforcement, too many employers will skirt the law. Small businesses and their advocates, as well as larger employers, have criticized OSHA for excessive regulations and excessive enforcement. A major battleground of debate during the 1980s and 1990s was ergonomics. Workplace safety specialists and scientists had identified a national concern in the number of workplace injuries associated with poor workplace and production design (ergonomics) and believed that employers needed to install systematic programs to reduce injuries caused by repetitive motion, excessive force, awkward postures, and heavy lifting.

770 | U.S. Public Health Service

Throughout the 1990s, a multifaceted, controversial legislative debate over the ergonomics legislation was waged by organized labor, safety advocates, medical experts, business groups, and members of Congress. Both sides believed passionately in their view of the issue. The business and safety coalitions worked intensely to lobby public opinion and members of Congress. Bills proposing and opposing the standard were passed, scratched, vetoed, and sunk. Businesses argued they would do a better job of maintaining workplace safety without regulation; worker advocates insisted that history taught that enforcement was needed to prevent some employers from taking worker safety lightly and that the regulations would in fact save employers money in the long run. OSHA proposed an ergonomics program in November 1999 that was designed to prevent 300,000 work-related injuries and save $10 billion annually in medical and workers’ compensation costs. The standard gave employers many ways to achieve compliance, including quick-fix options for jobs that can be fixed right away, a grandfather clause to recognize programs already in place, and the option to discontinue programs when they were no longer needed. Still, employers were fiercely opposed. And when George W. Bush became president, reversing the ergonomics standard was one of his first executive orders. The fight over the ergonomics standard in Washington, D.C., illustrates quite powerfully the political stakes involved in the debate over workplace health and safety. Carl E. Van Horn and Herbert A. Schaffner References Fleming, Susan. ‘‘OSHA at 30: Three Decades of Progress in Occupational Safety and Health.’’ Job Safety and Health Quarterly (Spring 2001): 23–33. Morgensen, Vernon. Office Politics. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1996. Rappaport, Edward. OSHA Reform: ‘‘Partnership’’ with Employers. Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, 2000. U.S. Department of Labor. ‘‘Occupational Safety and Health.’’ In Small Business Handbook. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Labor, 2001.

U.S. Public Health Service The U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) is part of the federal government and employs health and other professionals for the purpose of delivering public health promotion and quality health services. It is within the Department of Health and Human Services. Its agencies also provide disease prevention programs and conduct public health science. The PHS works toward the eradication of disease and poor health conditions in the United States.

U.S. Public Health Service | 771

Agencies within the PHS include the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), the Administration on Aging (AoA), the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), the Indian Health Service (IHS), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). The multidisciplinary PHS is led by the surgeon general, who is the nation’s leading health educator. The PHS mission of rapid and effective response to public health needs, leadership and excellence in health practices, and advancement of health science has been in place since 1912. Currently, the PHS agencies continue to conduct biomedical research, regulate the food and drug supply, provide healthcare to underserved groups, respond to national disasters, and advance the health and safety of the nation. An important area of contribution of the PHS is the formation of clinical guidelines for treatment of disease for healthcare providers, such as smoking cessation (Knudsen and Studts, 2010). The United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps employs more than 6,000 public health professionals for the purpose of health promotion and disease prevention programs. The Commissioned Corps addresses public health emergencies such as the outbreak of disease and disaster-related health issues (Shepherd, 2010). As one of the United States seven uniformed services, the PHS Commissioned Corps includes officers drawn from many professions, including environmental and occupational health, medicine, nursing, dentistry, pharmacy, psychology, social work, hospital administration, health record administration, nutrition, engineering, science, veterinary, health information technology, and other health-related occupations. Jessica Ziembroski References Knudsen, H. K., and J. L. Studts. ‘‘The Implementation of Tobacco-Related Brief Interventions in Substance Abuse Treatment: A National Study of Counselors.’’ Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 38 (3) (2010): 212–219. Shepherd, C. A. ‘‘You Too, Can Have a Great Career in the U.S. Public Health Service.’’ Journal of Environmental Health 72 (6) (2010): 59–61.

V Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer was adopted in 1985 as an international framework for study and action on stratospheric ozone depletion. In 1987, members of the convention reached an agreement to phase out ozone-destroying chemicals, known as the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Taken together, the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol are widely recognized as a model of multilateral diplomacy successfully tackling a global environmental issue. The health of the stratospheric ozone layer, which blocks harmful ultraviolet rays from reaching Earth’s surface, became an issue of scientific concern in the 1970s. In discussions sponsored by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), a first-draft ozone convention was proposed to the international community by Finland in 1981. In March 1985, diplomats who met in Vienna to discuss the fifth draft of the agreement signed it and sent it home for ratification. The Vienna Convention did not include specific control measures, but provided for the establishment of supplementary protocols to accomplish that task. The convention also included provisions for administration, amendment, dispute resolution, and the systematic gathering and sharing of scientific and technical information. Initially signed by 21 parties, today the convention has been ratified by more than 190. While the Montreal Protocol has become the focal point of attention and activity concerning ozone protection, the Vienna Convention remains an important vehicle for gathering, discussing, and disseminating scientific information. As the world’s leading producer and consumer of ozone-depleting chemicals and the nation with the most advanced stratospheric research program, the United States played a key role in the international negotiations. The United States pioneered domestic regulation of ozone-damaging chemicals and at the same time strongly supported a global convention.

773

774 | Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer

Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer (1985) TIAS No. 11,097; 1513 UNTS 323; 26 ILM 1529 (1987) Preamble The Parties to this Convention, Aware of the potentially harmful impact on human health and the environment through modification of the ozone layer, Recalling the pertinent provisions of the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, and in particular principle 21, which provides that ‘‘States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction’’, Taking into account the circumstances and particular requirements of developing countries, Mindful of the work and studies proceeding within both international and national organizations and, in particular, of the World Plan of Action on the Ozone Layer of the United Nations Environment Programme, Mindful also of the precautionary measures for the protection of the ozone layer which have already been taken at the national and international levels, Aware that measures to protect the ozone layer from modifications due to human activities require international co-operation and action, and should be based on relevant scientific and technical considerations, Aware also of the need for further research and systematic observations to further develop scientific knowledge of the ozone layer and possible adverse effects resulting from its modification, Determined to protect human health and the environment against adverse effects resulting from modifications of the ozone layer, HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS: Article 1: Definitions For the purposes of this Convention: 1. ‘‘The ozone layer’’ means the layer of atmospheric ozone above the planetary boundary layer. 2. ‘‘Adverse effects’’ means changes in the physical environment or biota, including changes in climate, which have significant deleterious effects on human health or on the composition, resilience and productivity of natural and managed ecosystems, or on materials useful to mankind. 3. ‘‘Alternative technologies or equipment’’ means technologies or equipment the use of which makes it possible to reduce or effectively eliminate emissions of substances which have or are likely to have adverse effects on the ozone layer. 4. ‘‘Alternative substances’’ means substances which reduce, eliminate or avoid adverse effects on the ozone layer. 5. ‘‘Parties’’ means, unless the text otherwise indicates, Parties to this Convention.

Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer | 775

6. ‘‘Regional economic integration organization’’ means an organization constituted by sovereign States of a given region which has competence in respect of matters governed by this Convention or its protocols and has been duly authorized, in accordance with its internal procedures, to sign, ratify, accept, approve or accede to the instruments concerned. 7. ‘‘Protocols’’ means protocols to this Convention. Article 2: General obligations 1. The Parties shall take appropriate measures in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and of those protocols in force to which they are party to protect human health and the environment against adverse effects resulting or likely to result from human activities which modify or are likely to modify the ozone layer. 2. To this end the Parties shall, in accordance with the means at their disposal and their capabilities: (a) Co-operate by means of systematic observations, research and information exchange in order to better understand and assess the effects on human health and the environment from modification of the ozone layer; (b) Adopt appropriate legislative or administrative measures and co-operate in harmonizing appropriate policies to control, limit, reduce or prevent human activities under their jurisdiction or control should it be found that these activities have or are likely to have adverse effects resulting from modification or likely modification of the ozone layer; (c) Co-operate in the formulation of agreed measures, procedures and standards for the implementation of this Convention, with a view to the adoption of protocols and annexes; (d) Co-operate with competent international bodies to implement effectively this Convention and protocols to which they are party. 3. The provisions of this Convention shall in no way affect the right of Parties to adopt, in accordance with international law, domestic measures additional to those referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, nor shall they affect additional domestic measures already taken by a Party, provided that these measures are not incompatible with their obligations under this Convention. 4. The application of this article shall be based on relevant scientific and technical considerations. Article 3: Research and systematic observations 1. The Parties undertake, as appropriate, to initiate and co-operate in, directly or through competent international bodies, the conduct of research and scientific assessments on: (a) The physical and chemical processes that may affect the ozone layer; (b) The human health and other biological effects deriving from any modifications of the ozone layer, particularly those resulting from changes in ultra-violet solar radiation having biological effects (UV-B); (c) Climatic effects deriving from any modifications of the ozone layer; (d) Effects deriving from any modifications of the ozone layer and any consequent change in UV-B radiation on natural and synthetic materials useful to mankind;

776 | Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer (h) Substances, practices, processes and activities that may affect the ozone layer, and their cumulative effects; (i) Alternative substances and technologies; (j) Related socio-economic matters; and as further elaborated in annexes I and II. 2. The Parties undertake to promote or establish, as appropriate, directly or through competent international bodies and taking fully into account national legislation and relevant ongoing activities at both the national and international levels, joint or complementary programmes for systematic observation of the state of the ozone layer and other relevant parameters, as elaborated in annex I. 3. The Parties undertake to co-operate, directly or through competent international bodies, in ensuring the collection, validation and transmission of research and observational data through appropriate world data centers in a regular and timely fashion. Article 4: Co-operation in the legal, scientific and technical fields 1. The Parties shall facilitate and encourage the exchange of scientific, technical, socio-economic, commercial and legal information relevant to this Convention as further elaborated in annex II. Such information shall be supplied to bodies agreed upon by the Parties. Any such body receiving information regarded as confidential by the supplying Party shall ensure that such information is not disclosed and shall aggregate it to protect its confidentiality before it is made available to all Parties. 2. The Parties shall co-operate, consistent with their national laws, regulations and practices and taking into account in particular the needs of the developing countries, in promoting, directly or through competent international bodies, the development and transfer of technology and knowledge. Such co-operation shall be carried out particularly through: (a) Facilitation of the acquisition of alternative technologies by other Parties; (b) Provision of information on alternative technologies and equipment, and supply of special manuals or guides to them; (c) The supply of necessary equipment and facilities for research and systematic observations; (d) Appropriate training of scientific and technical personnel. Article 5: Transmission of information The Parties shall transmit, through the secretariat, to the Conference of the Parties established under article 6 information on the measures adopted by them in implementation of this Convention and of protocols to which they are party in such form and at such intervals as the meetings of the parties to the relevant instruments may determine. Article 6: Conference of the Parties (1) A Conference of the Parties is hereby established. The first meeting of the Conference of the Parties shall be convened by the secretariat designated on an interim basis under article 7 not later than one year after entry into force of this Convention. Thereafter, ordinary meetings of the Conference of the Parties shall be held at regular intervals to be determined by the Conference at its first meeting.

Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer | 777

(2) Extraordinary meetings of the Conference of the Parties shall be held at such other times as may be deemed necessary by the Conference, or at the written request of any Party, provided that, within six months of the request being communicated to them by the secretariat, it is supported by at least one third of the Parties. (3) The Conference of the Parties shall by consensus agree upon and adopt rules of procedure and financial rules for itself and for any subsidiary bodies it may establish, as well as financial provisions governing the functioning of the secretariat. (4) The Conference of the Parties shall keep under continuous review the implementation of this Convention, and, in addition, shall: (a) Establish the form and the intervals for transmitting the information to be submitted in accordance with article 5 and consider such information as well as reports submitted by any subsidiary body; (b) Review the scientific information on the ozone layer, on its possible modification and on possible effects of any such modification; (c) Promote, in accordance with article 2, the harmonization of appropriate policies, strategies and measures for minimizing the release of substances causing or likely to cause modification of the ozone layer, and make recommendations on any other measures relating to this Convention; (d) Adopt, in accordance with articles 3 and 4, programmes for research, systematic observations, scientific and technological co-operation, the exchange of information and the transfer of technology and knowledge; (e) Consider and adopt, as required, in accordance with articles 9 and 10, amendments to this Convention and its annexes; (f) Consider amendments to any protocol, as well as to any annexes thereto, and, if so decided, recommend their adoption to the parties to the protocol concerned; (g) Consider and adopt, as required, in accordance with article 10, additional annexes to this Convention; (h) Consider and adopt, as required, protocols in accordance with article 8; (i) Establish such subsidiary bodies as are deemed necessary for the implementation of this Convention; (j) Seek, where appropriate, the services of competent international bodies and scientific committees, in particular the World Meteorological Organization and the World Health Organization as well as the Co-ordinating Committee on the Ozone Layer, in scientific research, systematic observations and other activities pertinent to the objectives of this Convention, and make use as appropriate of information from these bodies and committees; (k) Consider and undertake any additional action that may be required for the achievement of the purposes of this Convention. (5) The United Nations, its specialized agencies and the International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as any State not partyto this Convention, may be represented at meetings of the Conference of the Parties by observers. Any body or agency, whether national or international, governmental or non-governmental, qualified in fields relating to the protection of theozone layer which has informed the secretariat of its wish to be represented at a meeting of the Conference of the Parties as an observer may be admitted unless at least one-third of the Parties present object. The admission and participation of observers shall be subject to the rules of procedure adopted by the Conference of the Parties.

778 | Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer

Article 7: Secretariat 1. The functions of the secretariat shall be: (a) To arrange for and service meetings provided for in articles 6, 8, 9 and 10; (b) To prepare and transmit reports based upon information received in accordance with articles 4 and 5, as well as upon information derived from meetings of subsidiary bodies established under article 6; (c) To perform the functions assigned to it by any protocol; (d) To prepare reports on its activities carried out in implementation of its functions under this Convention and present them to the Conference of the Parties; (e) To ensure the necessary co-ordination with other relevant international bodies, and in particular to enter into such administrative and contractual arrangements as may be required for the effective discharge of its functions; (f) To perform such other functions as may be determined by the Conference of the Parties. 2. The secretariat functions will be carried out on an interim basis by the United Nations Environment Programme until the completion of the first ordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties held pursuant to article 6. At its first ordinary meeting, the Conference of the Parties shall designate the secretariat from amongst those existing competent international organizations that have signified their willingness to carry out the secretariat functions under this Convention. Article 8: Adoption of protocols 1. The Conference of the Parties may at a meeting adopt protocols pursuant to Article 2. 2. The text of any proposed protocol shall be communicated to the parties by the secretariat at least six months before such a meeting. Article 9: Amendments of the Convention or protocols 1. Any Party may propose amendments to this Convention or to any protocol. Such amendments shall take due account, inter alia, of relevant scientific and technical considerations. 2. Amendments to this Convention shall be adopted at a meeting of the Conference of the Parties. Amendments to any protocol shall be adopted at a meeting of the Parties to the protocol in question. The text of any proposed amendment to this Convention or to any protocol, except as may otherwise be provided in such protocol, shall be communicated to the Parties by the secretariat at least six months before the meeting at which it is proposed for adoption. The secretariat shall also communicate proposed amendments to the signatories to this Convention for information. 3. The Parties shall make every effort to reach agreement on any proposed amendment to this Convention by consensus. If all efforts at consensus have been exhausted, and no agreement reached, the amendment shall as a last resort be adopted by a three-fourths majority vote of the Parties present and voting at the

Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer | 779

meeting, and shall be submitted by the Depositary to all Parties for ratification, approval or acceptance. 4. The procedure mentioned in paragraph 3 above shall apply to amendments to any protocol, except that a two-thirds majority of the parties to that protocol present and voting at the meeting shall suffice for their adoption. 5. Ratification, approval or acceptance of amendments shall be notified to the Depositary in writing. Amendments adopted in accordance with paragraphs 3 or 4 above shall enter into force between parties having accepted them on the ninetieth day after the receipt by the Depositary of notification of their ratification, approval or acceptance by at least three-fourths of the Parties to this Convention or by at least two-thirds of the parties to the protocol concerned, except as may otherwise be provided in such protocol. Thereafter the amendments shall enter into force for any other Party on the ninetieth day after that Party deposits its instrument of ratification, approval or acceptance of the amendments. 6. For the purposes of this article, ‘‘Parties present and voting’’ means Parties present and casting an affirmative or negative vote. Article 10: Adoption and amendment of annexes 1. The annexes to this Convention or to any protocol shall form an integral part of this Convention or of such protocol, as the case may be, and, unless expressly provided otherwise, a reference to this Convention or its protocols constitutes at the same time a reference to any annexes thereto. Such annexes shall be restricted to scientific, technical and administrative matters. 2. Except as may be otherwise provided in any protocol with respect to its annexes, the following procedure shall apply to the proposal, adoption and entry into force of additional annexes to this Convention or of annexes to protocol: (a) Annexes to this Convention shall be proposed and adopted according to the procedure laid down in article 9, paragraphs 2 and 3, while annexes to any protocol shall be proposed and adopted according to the procedure laid down in article 9, paragraphs 2 and 4; (b) Any party that is unable to approve an additional annex to this Convention or annex to any protocol to which it is party shall so notify the Depositary, in writing, within six months from the date of the communication of the adoption by the Depositary. The Depositary shall without delay notify all Parties of any such notification received. A Party may at any time substitute an acceptance for a previous declaration of objection and the annexes shall thereupon enter into force for that Party; (c) On the expiry of six months from the date of the circulation of the communication by the Depositary, the annex shall become effective for all Parties to this Convention or to any protocol concerned which have not submitted a notification in accordance with the provision of subparagraph (b) above. 3. The proposal, adoption and entry into force of amendments to annexes to this Convention or to any protocol shall be subject to the same procedure as for the proposal, adoption and entry into force of annexes to the Convention or annexes to a protocol. Annexes and amendments thereto shall take due account, inter alia, of relevant scientific and technical considerations.

780 | Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer

4. If an additional annex or an amendment to an annex involves an amendment to this Convention or to any protocol, the additional annex or amendment annex shall not enter into force until such time as the amendment to this Convention or to the protocol concerned enters into force. Article 11: Settlement of disputes 1. In the event of a dispute between Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention, the parties concerned shall seek solution by negotiation. 2. If the parties concerned cannot reach agreement by negotiation, they may jointly seek the good officers of, or request mediation by, a third party. 3. When ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to this Convention, or at any time thereafter, a State or regional economic integration organization may declare in writing to the Depositary that for a dispute not resolved in accordance with paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 above, it accepts one or both of the following means of dispute settlement as compulsory: (a) Arbitration in accordance with procedures to be adopted by the Conference of the Parties at its first ordinary meeting; (b) Submission of the dispute to the International Court of Justice. 4. If the parties have not, in accordance with paragraph 3 above, accepted the same or any procedure, the dispute shall be submitted to conciliation in accordance with paragraph 5 below unless the parties otherwise agree. 5. A conciliation commission shall be created upon the request of one of the parties to the dispute. The commission shall be composed of an equal number of members appointed by each party concerned and a chairman chosen jointly by the members appointed by each party. The commission shall render a final and recommendatory award, which the parties shall consider in good faith. 6. The provisions of this Article shall apply with respect to any protocol except as provided in the protocol concerned. Article 12: Signature This Convention shall be open for signature by States and by regional economic integration organizations at the Federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Austria in Vienna from 22 March 1985 to 21 September 1985, and at United Nations Headquarters in New York from 22 September 1985 to 21 March 1986. Article 13: Ratification, acceptance, or approval 1. This Convention and any protocol shall be subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by States and by regional economic integration organizations. Instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval shall be deposited with the Depositary. 2. Any organization referred to in paragraph 1 above which becomes a Party to this Convention or any protocol without any of its member States being a Party shall be bound by all the obligations under the Convention or the protocol, as the case may be. In the case of such organizations, one or more of whose member States is a Party to the Convention or relevant protocol, the organization and its member States shall decide on their respective responsibilities for the performance of their obligation under the Convention or protocol, as the case may be. In such cases,

Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer | 781

the organization and the member States shall not be entitled to exercise rights under the Convention or relevant protocol concurrently. 3. In their instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval, the organizations referred to in paragraph 1 above shall declare the extent of their competence with respect to the matters governed by the Convention or the relevant protocol. These organizations shall also inform the Depositary of any substantial modification in the extent of their competence. Article 14: Accession 1. This Convention and any protocol shall be open for accession by States and by regional economic integration organizations from the date on which the Convention or the protocol concerned is closed for signature. The instruments of accession shall be deposited with the Depositary. 2. In their instruments of accession, the organizations referred to in paragraph 1 above shall declare the extent of their competence with respect to the matters governed by the Convention or the relevant protocol. These organizations shall also inform the Depositary of any substantial modification in the extent of their competence. 3. The provisions of article 13, paragraph 2, shall apply to regional economic integration organizations which accede to this Convention or any protocol. Article 15: Right to vote 1. Each Party to this Convention or to any protocol shall have one vote. 2. Except as provided for in paragraph 1 above, regional economic integration organizations, in matters within their competence, shall exercise their right to vote with a number of votes equal to the number of their member States which are Parties to the Convention or the relevant protocol. Such organizations shall not exercise their right to vote if their member States exercise theirs, and vice versa. Article 16: Relationship between the Convention and its protocols 1. A State or a regional economic integration organization may not become a party to a protocol unless it is, or becomes at the same time, a Party to the Convention. 2. Decisions concerning any protocol shall be taken only by the parties to the protocol concerned. Article 17: Entry into force 1. This Convention shall enter into force on the ninetieth day after the date of deposit of the twentieth instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession. 2. Any protocol, except as otherwise provided in such protocol, shall enter into force on the ninetieth day after the date of deposit of the eleventh instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval of such protocol or accession thereto. 3. For each Party which ratifies, accepts or approves this Convention or accedes thereto after the deposit of the twentieth instrument of ratification, acceptance,

782 | Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer

approval or accession, it shall enter into force on the ninetieth day after the date of deposit by such Party of its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession. 4. Any protocol, except as otherwise provided in such protocol, shall enter into force for a party that ratifies, accepts or approves that protocol or accedes thereto after its entry into force pursuant to paragraph 2 above, on the ninetieth day after the date on which that party deposits its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, or on the date which the Convention enters into force for that Party, whichever shall be the later. 5. For the purposes of paragraphs 1 and 2 above, any instrument deposited by a regional economic integration organization shall not be counted as additional to those deposited by member States of such organization. Article 18: Reservations No reservations may be made to this Convention. Article 19: Withdrawal 1. At any time after four years from the date on which this Convention has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from the Convention by giving written notification to the Depositary. 2. Except as may be provided in any protocol, at any time after four years from the date on which such protocol has entered into force for a party, that party may withdraw from the protocol by giving written notification to the Depositary. 3. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year after the date of its receipt by the Depositary, or on such later date as may be specified in the notification of the withdrawal. 4. Any Party which withdraws from this Convention shall be considered as also having withdrawn from any protocol to which it is party. Article 20: Depositary 1. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall assume the functions of depositary of this Convention and any protocols. 2. The Depositary shall inform the Parties, in particular, of: (a) The signature of this Convention and of any protocol, and the deposit of instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession in accordance with articles 13 and 14; (b) The date on which the Convention and any protocol will come into force in accordance with article 17; (c) Notifications of withdrawal made in accordance with article 19; (d) Amendments adopted with respect to the Convention and any protocol, their acceptance by the parties and their date of entry into force in accordance with article 9; (e) All communications relating to the adoption and approval of annexes and to the amendment of annexes in accordance with article 10; (f) Notifications by regional economic integration organizations of the extent of their competence with respect to matters governed by this Convention and any protocols, and of any modifications thereof. (g) Declarations made in accordance with article 11, paragraph 3.

Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer | 783 Article 21: Authentic texts The original of this Convention, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned, being duly authorized to that effect, have signed this Convention. DONE AT VIENNA ON THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 1985 Annex I: Research and systematic observations 1. The Parties to the Convention recognize that the major scientific issues are: (a) Modification of the ozone layer which would result in a change in the amount of solar ultra-violet radiation having biological effects (UV-B) that reaches the Earth’s surface and the potential consequences for human health, for organisms, ecosystems and materials useful to mankind; (b) Modification of the vertical distribution of ozone, which could change the temperature structure of the atmosphere and the potential consequences for weather and climate. 2. The Parties to the Convention, in accordance with article 3, shall co-operate in conducting research and systematic observations and in formulating recommendations for future research and observation in such areas as: (c) Research into the physics and chemistry of the atmosphere (i) Comprehensive theoretical models: further development of models which consider the interaction between radiative, dynamic and chemical processes; studies of the simultaneous effects of various man-made and naturally occurring species upon atmospheric ozone; interpretation of satellite and non-satellite measurement data sets; evaluation of trends in atmospheric and geophysical parameters, and the development of methods for attributing changes in these parameters to specific causes; (ii) Laboratory studies of: rate coefficients, absorption cross-sections and mechanisms of tropospheric and stratospheric chemical and photochemical processes; spectroscopic data to support field measurements in all relevant spectral regions; (iii) Field measurements: the concentration and fluxes of key source gases of both natural and anthropogenic origin; atmospheric dynamics studies; simultaneous measurements of photochemically-related species down to the planetary boundary layer, using in situ and remote sensing instruments; intercomparison of different sensors, including co-ordinated correlative measures for satellite instrumentation; three-dimensional fields of key atmospheric trace constituents, solar spectral flux and meteorological parameters; (iv) Instrument development, including satellite and non-satellite sensors for atmospheric trace constituents, solar flux and meteorological parameters; (d) Research into health, biological and photodegradation effects (v) The relationship between human exposure to visible and ultra-violet solar radiation and (a) the development of both non-melanoma and melanoma skin cancer and (b) the effects on the immunological system; (vi) Effects of UV-B radiation, including the wavelength dependence, upon (a) agricultural crops, forests and other terrestrial ecosystems and (b) the

784 | Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer aquatic food web and fisheries, as well as possible inhibition of oxygen production by marine phytoplankton; (vii) The mechanisms by which UV-B radiation acts on biological materials, species and ecosystems, including: the relationship between dose, dose rate, and response; photorepair, adaptation, and protection; (viii) Studies of biological action spectra and the spectral response using polychromatic radiation in order to include possible interactions of the various wavelength regions; (ix) The influence of UV-B radiation on: the sensitivities and activities of biological species important to the biospheric balance; primary processes such as photosynthesis and biosynthesis; (x) The influence of UV-B radiation on the photodegradation of pollutants, agricultural chemicals and other materials; (e) Research on effects on climate (xi) Theoretical and observational studies of the radiative effects of ozone and other trace species and the impact on climate parameters, such as land and ocean surface temperatures, precipitation patterns, the exchange between the troposphere and stratosphere; (xii) The investigation of the effects of such climate impacts on various aspects of human activity; (f) Systematic observation on: (xiii) The status of the ozone layer (i.e. the spatial and temporal variability of the total column content and vertical distribution) by making the Global Ozone Observing System, based on the integration of satellite and ground-based systems, fully operational; (xiv) The tropospheric and stratospheric concentrations of source gases for the HOx, HOx, CIOx and carbon families; (xv) The temperature from the ground to the mesosphere, utilizing both ground-based and satellite systems; (xvi) Wavelength-resolved solar flux reaching, and thermal radiation leaving, the Earth’s atmosphere, utilizing satellite measurements; (xvii) Wavelength-resolved solar flux reaching the Earth’s surface in the ultraviolet range having biological effects (UV-B); (xviii) Aerosol properties and distribution from the ground to the mesosphere, utilizing ground-based, airborne and satellite systems; (xix) Climatically important variables by the maintenance of programmes of high-quality meteorological surface measurements; (xx) Trace species, temperatures, solar flux and aerosols utilizing improved methods for analyzing global data. 3. The Parties to the Convention shall co-operate, taking into account the particular needs of the developing countries, in promoting the appropriate scientific and technical training required to participate in the research and systematic observations outlined in this annex. Particular emphasis should be given to the intercalibration of observational instrumentation and methods with a view to generating comparable or standardized scientific data sets. 4. The following chemical substances of natural and anthropogenic origin, not listed in order of priority, are thought to have the potential to modify the chemical and physical properties of the ozone layer.

Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer | 785 (g) Carbon substances (xxi) Carbon monoxide (CO). Carbon monoxide has significant natural and anthropogenic sources, and is thought to play a major direct role in tropospheric photochemistry, and an indirect role in stratospheric photochemistry. (xxii) Carbon dioxide (CO2). Carbon dioxide has significant natural and anthropogenic sources, and affects stratospheric ozone by influencing the thermal structure of the atmosphere. (xxiii) Methane (CH4). Methane has both natural and anthropogenic sources, and affects both tropospheric and stratospheric ozone. (xxiv) Non-methane hydrocarbon species. Non-methane hydrocarbon species, which consist of a large number of chemical substances, have both natural and anthropogenic sources, and play a direct role in tropospheric photochemistry and an indirect role in stratospheric photochemistry. (h) Nitrogen substances (xxv) Nitrous oxide (N2O). The dominant sources of N2O are natural, but anthropogenic contributions are becoming increasingly important. Nitrous oxide is the primary source of stratospheric NOx, which play a vital role in controlling the abundance of stratospheric ozone. (xxvi) Nitrogen oxides (NOx). Ground-level sources of NOx play a major direct role only in tropospheric photochemical processes and an indirect role in stratosphere photochemistry, whereas injection of NOx close to the tropopause may lead directly to a change in upper tropospheric and stratospheric ozone. (i) Chlorine substances (xxvii) Fully halogenated alkanes, e.g. CC14, CFC13 (CFC11), CF2C12 (CFC12), C2F3C13 (CFC113), C2F4C12 (CFC114). Fully halogenated alkanes are anthropogenic and act as a source of C10x which plays a vital role in ozone photochemistry, especially in the 3050 km altitude region. (xxviii) Partially halogenated alkanes, e.g. CH3C1, CHF2C1 (CFC22), CH3CC13, CHFC12 (CFC21). The sources of CH3C1 are natural, whereas the other partially halogenated alkanes mentioned above are anthropogenic in origin. These gases also act as a source of stratospheric C10x. (j) Bromine substances. Fully halogenated alkanes, e.g. CF3Br. These gases are anthropogenic and act as a source of BrOx, which behaves in a manner similar to ClOx. (k) Hydrogen substances (xxix) Hydrogen (H2). Hydrogen, the source of which is natural and anthropogenic, plays a minor role in stratospheric photochemistry. (xxx) Water (H2O). Water, the source of which is natural, plays a vital role in both tropospheric and stratospheric photochemistry.5 Local sources of water vapor in the stratosphere include the oxidation of methane and, to a lesser extent, of hydrogen. Annex II: Information exchange 1. The Parties to the Convention recognize that the collection and sharing of information is an important means of implementing the objectives of this Convention

786 | Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

and of assuring that any actions that may be taken are appropriate and equitable. Therefore, Parties shall exchange scientific, technical, socio-economic, business, commercial and legal information. The Parties to the Convention, in deciding what information is to be collected and exchanged, should take into account the usefulness of the information and the costs of obtaining it. The Parties further recognize that co-operation under this annex has to be consistent with national laws, regulations and practices regarding patents, trade secrets, and protection of confidential and proprietary information. Scientific information. This includes information on: (a) Planned and ongoing research, both governmental and private, to facilitate the co-ordination of research programmes so as to make the most effective use of available national and international resources; (b) The emission data needed for research; (c) Scientific results published in peer-reviewed literature on the understanding of the physics and chemistry of the Earth’s atmosphere and of its susceptibility to change, in particular on the state of the ozone layer and effects on human health, environment and climate which would result from changes on all timescales in either the total column content or the vertical distribution of ozone; (d) The assessment of research results and the recommendation for future research. Technical information. This includes information on: (e) The availability and cost of chemical substitutes and of alternative technologies to reduce the emissions of ozone-modifying substances and related planned and ongoing research; (f) The limitations and any risks involved in using chemical or other substitutes and alternative technologies. Socio-economic and commercial information on the substances referred to in annex I. This includes information on: (g) Production and production capacity; (h) Use and use patterns; (i) Imports/exports; (j) The costs, risks and benefits of human activities which may indirectly modify the ozone layer and of the impacts of regulatory actions taken or being considered to control these activities. Legal information. This includes information on: (k) National laws, administrative measures and legal research relevant to the protection of the ozone layer; (l) International agreements, including bilateral agreements, relevant to the protection of the ozone layer; (m) Methods and terms of licensing and availability of patents relevant to the protection of the ozone layer.

Brent Ranalli See also Montreal Protocol; Ozone Layer Depletion

References Andersen, Stephen O., and K. Madhava Sarma. Protecting the Ozone Layer: The United Nations History. Lani Sinclair, ed. Sterling, VA: Earthscan Publications, 2002.

Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926) | 787 Benedick, Richard Eliot. Ozone Diplomacy: New Directions in Safeguarding the Planet. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Ozone Secretariat Web site. http:// www.unep.ch/ozone/index.shtml (accessed March 31, 2010).

Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926) In November 1926, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its landmark decision in the case of Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926), which provided the legal basis for the development of zoning as an extension of the municipal police power. Overall, this decision, which was somewhat narrow in scope, led to the wide-scale adoption and development of zoning by cities throughout the United States, which allowed land-use planners to control urban development, to separate inconsistent land uses, and to preserve the character of targeted areas within overall planning schemes. This decision has also allowed planners to provide environmental benefits through innovative land-use planning tools—tools that continue to evolve. Beyond even zoning, however, the Ambler Realty decision also provided the legal basis for a myriad of other local, state, and federal regulations that generally involve a balancing of individual property rights against governmental interests in aesthetic, environmental, or safety considerations. Overall, Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co. involved a dispute between a small suburb of Cleveland, Ohio, and a development company relating to a zoning scheme adopted by the village. The village of Euclid, in a concerted effort to prevent or limit industrial development, had initiated a zoning ordinance that classified the city into classes of use and also limited the width and height of buildings located within its municipal boundaries. Ambler Realty, a development company, was impacted by this zoning ordinance as it had hoped to develop a 68-acre parcel for industrial use, but this plan was frustrated under the village’s zoning scheme. In response to the enactment of this zoning ordinance, Ambler Realty filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of this ordinance—and in fact to challenge the principle of zoning in general. In the 1920s, the very concept of zoning was still relatively new. The U.S. Supreme Court had never addressed whether such restrictions on land use were constitutional as a restriction on individual property rights, and in the various state courts that had addressed the issue, proponents of zoning had faced mixed results. In a six to three decision, however, the Supreme Court rejected Ambler Realty’s arguments against the city’s zoning scheme and ruled in favor of the constitutionality of zoning. In making this decision, the Court applied a rational basis analysis to Ambler Realty’s challenge—holding that as long as a legislative action had a rational relationship to the city’s authority to regulate for the health and safety of its citizens, the Court would not substitute its judgment for that of the local legislative body. Thus, this decision indicated that the Court would

788 | Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926)

Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926) Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. (No. 31) 297 Fed. 307, reversed. The decision reached by the Supreme Court in Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co. proved to be a particularly important one by its result of legitimating zoning ordinances. Euclid, Ohio, established zoning rules that made some of Ambler Realty’s property worth less than it would be without the zoning restrictions. Ambler Realty claimed these zoning restrictions violated due process, equal protection, and the prohibition against takings. The Court disagreed, however, arguing that the Euclid zoning ordinance was a justified use of the police power to promote public welfare, including the health, safety, and general well being of Euclid’s citizens. The Court did note that not all zoning ordinances would meet constitutional standards. MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court. The village of Euclid is an Ohio municipal corporation. It adjoins and practically is a suburb of the city of Cleveland. Its estimated population is between 5,000 and 10,000, and its area from 12 to 14 square miles, the greater part of which is farmlands or unimproved acreage. It lies, roughly, in the form of a parallelogram measuring approximately 3 1/2 miles each way. East and west it is traversed by three principal highways: Euclid avenue, through the southerly border, St. Clair avenue, through the central portion, and Lake Shore boulevard, through the northerly border, in close proximity to the shore of Lake Erie. The Nickel Plate Railroad lies from 1,500 to 1,800 feet north of Euclid Avenue, and the Lake Shore Railroad 1,600 feet farther to the north. The three highways and the two railroads are substantially parallel. Appellee is the owner of a tract of land containing 68 acres, situated in the westerly end of the village, abutting on Euclid Avenue to the south and the Nickel Plate Railroad to the north. Adjoining this tract, both on the east and on the west, there have been laid out restricted residential plats upon which residences have been erected. On November 13, 1922, an ordinance was adopted by the village council, establishing a comprehensive zoning plan for regulating and restricting the location of trades, industries, apartment houses, two-family houses, single family houses, etc., the lot area to be built upon, the size and height of buildings, etc. The entire area of the village is divided by the ordinance into six classes of use districts, denominated U-1 to U-6, inclusive; three classes of height districts, denominated H-1 to H-3, inclusive; and four classes of area districts, denominated A-1 to A-4, inclusive. The use districts are classified in respect of the buildings which may be erected within their respective limits, as follows: U-1 is restricted to single family dwellings, public parks, water towers and reservoirs, suburban and interurban electric railway passenger stations and rights of way, and farming, non-commercial greenhouse nurseries, and truck gardening; U-2 is extended to include two-family dwellings; U-3 is further extended to include apartment houses, hotels, churches, schools, public libraries, museums, private clubs, community center buildings, hospitals, sanitariums, public playgrounds, and recreation buildings, and a city hall and courthouse; U-4 is further extended to include banks, offices, studios, telephone exchanges, fire and police stations, restaurants, theaters and moving picture shows, retail stores and shops, sales offices, sample rooms, wholesale stores for hardware, drugs, and groceries, stations for gasoline and oil (not exceeding 1,000 gallons storage) and for ice delivery, skating rinks and dance halls, electric substations, job and newspaper printing, public garages for

Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926) | 789 motor vehicles, stables and wagon sheds (not exceeding five horses, wagons or motor trucks), and distributing stations for central store and commercial enterprises; U-5 is further extended to include billboards and advertising signs (if permitted), warehouses, ice and ice cream manufacturing and cold storage plants, bottling works milk bottling and central distribution stations, laundries, carpet cleaning, dry cleaning, and dyeing establishments, blacksmith, horseshoeing, wagon and motor vehicle repair shops, freight stations, street car barns, stables and wagon sheds (for more than five horses, wagons or motor trucks), and wholesale produce markets and salesroom; U-6 is further extended to include plants for sewage disposal and for producing gas, garbage and refuse incineration, scrap iron, junk, scrap paper, and rag storage, aviation fields, cemeteries, crematories, penal and correctional institutions, insane and feeble-minded institutions, storage of oil and gasoline (not to exceed 25,000 gallons), and manufacturing and industrial operations of any kind other than, and any public utility not included in, a class U-1, U-2, U-3, U-4, or U-5 use. There is a seventh class of uses which is prohibited altogether. Class U-1 is the only district in which buildings are restricted to those enumerated. In the other classes the uses are cumulative-that is to say, uses in class U-2 include those enumerated in the preceding class U-1; class U-3 includes uses enumerated in the preceding classes, U-2, and U-1; and so on. In addition to the enumerated uses, the ordinance provides for accessory uses; that is, for uses customarily incident to the principal use, such as private garages. Many regulations are provided in respect of such accessory uses. The height districts are classified as follows: In class H-1, buildings are limited to a height of 2 1/2 stories, or 35 feet; in class H- 2, to 4 stories, or 50 feet; in class H-3, to 80 feet. To all of these, certain exceptions are made, as in the case of church spires, water tanks, etc. The classification of area districts is: In A-1 districts, dwellings or apartment houses to accommodate more than one family must have at least 5,000 square feet for interior lots and at least 4,000 square feet for corner lots; in A-2 districts, the area must be at least 2,500 square feet for interior lots, and 2,000 square feet for corner lots; in A-3 districts, the limites are 1,250 and 1,000 square feet, respectively; in A- 4 districts, the limits are 900 and 700 square feet, respectively. The ordinance contains, in great variety and detail, provisions in respect of width of lots, front, side, and rear yards, and other matters, including restrictions and regulations as to the use of billboards, signboards, and advertising signs. A single family dwelling consists of a basement and not less than three rooms and a bathroom. A two-family dwelling consists of a basement and not less than four living rooms and a bathroom for each family, and is further described as a detached dwelling for the occupation of two families, one having its principal living rooms on the first floor and the other on the second floor. Appellee’s tract of land comes under U-2, U-3 and U-6. The first strip of 620 feet immediately north of Euclid Avenue falls in class U-2, the next 130 feet to the north, in U-3, and the remainder in U-6. The uses of the first 620 feet, therefore, do not include apartment houses, hotels, churches, schools, or other public and semipublic buildings, or other uses enumerated in respect of U-3 to U-6, inclusive. The uses of the next 130 feet include all of these, but exclude industries, theaters, banks, shops, and the various other uses set forth in respect of U-4 to U-6, inclusive. Annexed to the ordinance, and made a part of it, is a zone map, showing the location and limits of the various use,

790 | Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926) height, and area districts, from which it appears that the three classes overlap one another; that is to say, for example, both U-5 and U-6 use districts are in A-4 area district, but the former is in H-2 and the latter in H-3 height districts. The plan is a complicated one, and can be better understood by an inspection of the map, though it does not seem necessary to reproduce it for present purposes. The lands lying between the two railroads for the entire length of the village area and extending some distance on either side to the north and south, having an average width of about 1,600 feet, are left open, with slight exceptions, for industrial and all other uses. This includes the larger part of appellee’s tract. Approximately one-sixth of the area of the entire village is included in U-5 and U-6 use districts. That part of the village lying south of Euclid avenue is principally in U-1 districts. The lands lying north of Euclid avenue and bordering on the long strip just described are included in U-1, U-2, U-3, and U-4 districts, principally in U-2. The enforcement of the ordinance is intrusted to the inspector of buildings, under rules and regulations of the board of zoning appeals. Meetings of the board are public, and minutes of its proceedings are kept. It is authorized to adopt rules and regulations to carry into effect provisions of the ordinance. Decisions of the inspector of buildings may be appealed to the board by any person claiming to be adversely affected by any such decision. The board is given power in specific cases of practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship to interpret the ordinance in harmony with its general purpose and intent, so that the public health, safety and general welfare may be secure and substantial justice done. Penalties are prescribed for violations, and it is provided that the various provisions are to be regarded as independent and the holding of any provision to be unconstitutional, void or ineffective shall not affect any of the others. The ordinance is assailed on the grounds that it is in derogation of section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution in that it deprives appellee of liberty and property without due process of law and denies it the equal protection of the law, and that it offends against certain provisions of the Constitution of the state of Ohio. The prayer of the bill is for an injunction restraining the enforcement of the ordinance and all attempts to impose or maintain as to appellee’s property any of the restrictions, limitations or conditions. The court below held the ordinance to be unconstitutional and void, and enjoined its enforcement. Before proceeding to a consideration of the case, it is necessary to determine the scope of the inquiry. The bill alleges that the tract of land in question is vacant and has been held for years for the purpose of selling and developing it for industrial uses, for which it is especially adapted, being immediately in the path or progressive industrial development; that for such uses it has a market value of about $10,000 per acre, but if the use be limited to residential purposes the market value is not in excess of $2,500 per acre; that the first 200 feet of the parcel back from Euclid avenue, if unrestricted in respect of use, has a value of $150 per front foot, but if limited to residential uses, and ordinary mercantile business be excluded therefrom, its value is not in excess of $50 per front foot. It is specifically averred that the ordinanceattempts to restrict and control the lawful uses of appellee’s land, so as to confiscate and destroy a great part of its value; that it is being enforced in accordance with its terms; that propective buyers of land for industrial, commercial, and residential uses in the metropolitan district of Cleveland are deterred from buying any part of this land because of the existence of the ordinance and the necessity thereby entailed of conducting burdensome and expensive litigation in

Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926) | 791 order to vindicate the right to use the land for lawful and legitimate purposes; that the ordinance constitutes a cloud upon the land, reduces and destroys its value, and has the effect of diverting the normal industrial, commercial, and residential development thereof to other and less favorable locations. The record goes no farther than to show, as the lower court found, that the normal and reasonably to be expected use and development of that part of appellee’s land adjoining Euclid avenue is for general trade and commercial purposes, particularly retail stores and like establishments, and that the normal and reasonably to be expected use and development of the residue of the land is for industrial and trade purposes. Whatever injury is inflicted by the mere existence and threatened enforcement of the ordinance is due to restrictions in respect of these and similar uses, to which perhaps should be added-if not included in the foregoing- restrictions in respect of apartment houses. Specifically there is nothing in the record to suggest that any damage results from the presence in the ordinance of those restrictions relating to churches, schools, libraries, and other public and semipublic buildings. It is neither alleged nor proved that there is or may be a demand for any part of appellee’s land for any of the last-named uses, and we cannot assume the existence of facts which would justify an injunction upon this record in respect to this class of restrictions. For present purposes the provisions of the ordinance in respect of these uses may therefore be put aside as unnecessary to be considered. It is also unnecessary to consider the effect of the restrictions in respect of U-1 districts, since none of appellee’s land falls within that class. We proceed, then, to a consideration of those provisions of the ordinance to which the case as it is made relates, first disposing of a preliminary matter. A motion was made in the court below to dismiss the bill on the ground that, because complainant (appellee) had made no effort to obtain a building permit or apply to the zoning board of appeals for relief, as it might have done under the terms of the ordinance, the suit was premature. The motion was properly overruled, the effect of the allegations of the bill is that the ordinance of its own force operates greatly to reduce the value of appellee’s lands and destroy their marketability for industrial, commercial and residential uses, and the attack is directed, not against any specific provision or provisions, but against the ordinance as an entirety. Assuming the premises, the existence and maintenance of the ordinance in effect constitutes a present invasion of appellee’s property rights and a threat to continue it. Under these circumstances, the equitable jurisdiction is clear. See Terrace v. Thompson; Pierce v. Society of Sisters. It is not necessary to set forth the provisions of the Ohio Constitution which are thought to be infringed. The question is the same under both Constitutions, namely, as stated by appellee: Is the ordinance invalid, in that it violates the constitutional protection ‘‘to the right of property in the appellee by attempted regulations under the guise of the police power, which are unreasonable and confiscatory’’? Building zone laws are of modern origin. They began in this country about 25 years ago. Until recent years, urban life was comparatively simple; but, with the great increase and concentration of population, problems have developed, and constantly are developing, which require, and will continue to require, additional restrictions in respect of the use and occupation of private lands in urban communities. Regulations, the wisdom, necessity, and validity of which, as applied to existing conditions, are so apparent that they are now uniformly sustained, a century ago, or even half a century ago, probably would have been rejected as arbitrary and oppressive. Such regulations are sustained, under the complex conditions of our day, for reasons analogous to those which justify

792 | Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926) traffic regulations, which, before the advent of automobiles and rapid transit street railways, would have been condemned as fatally arbitrary and unreasonable. And in this there is no inconsistency, for, while the meaning of constitutional guaranties never varies, the scope of their application must expand or contract to meet the new and different conditions which are constantly coming within the field of their operation. In a changing world it is impossible that it should be otherwise. But although a degree of elasticity is thus imparted, not to the meaning, but to the application of constitutional principles, statutes and ordinances, which, after giving due weight to the new conditions, are found clearly not to conform to the Constitution, of course, must fall. The ordinance now under review, and all similar laws and regulations, must find their justification in some aspect of the police power, asserted for the public welfare. The line which in this field separates the legitimate from the illegitimate assumption of power is not capable of precise delimitation. It varies with circumstances and conditions. A regulatory zoning ordinance, which would be clearly valid as applied to the great cities, might be clearly invalid as applied to rural communities. In solving doubts, the maxim ‘‘sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas,’’ which lies at the foundation of so much of the common low of nuisances, ordinarily will furnish a fairly helpful clew. And the law of nuisances, likewise, may be consulted, not for the purpose of controlling, but for the helpful aid of its analogies in the process of ascertaining the scope of, the power. Thus the question whether the power exists to forbid the erection of a building of a particular kind or for a particular use, like the question whether a particular thing is a nuisance, is to be determined, not by an abstract consideration of the building or of the thing considered apart, but by considering it in connection with the circumstances and the locality. Sturgis v. Bridgeman. A nuisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place, like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard. If the validity of the legislative classification for zoning purposes be fairly debatable, the legislative judgment must be allowed to control. Radice v. New York. There is no serious difference of opinion in respect of the validity of laws and regulations fixing the height of buildings within reasonable limits, the character of materials and methods of construction, and the adjoining area which must be left open, in order to minimize the danger of fire or collapse, the evils of overcrowding and the like, and excluding from residential sections offensive trades, industries and structures likely to create nuisances. See Welch v. Swasey; Hadacheck v. Los Angeles; Reinman v. Little Rock; Cusack Co. v. City of Chicago. Here, however, the exclusion is in general terms of all industrial establishments, and it may thereby happen that not only offensive or dangerous industries will be excluded, but those which are neither offensive nor dangerous will share the same fate. But this is no more than happens in respect of many practice-forbidding laws which this court has upheld, although drawn in general terms so as to include individual cases that may turn out to be innocuous in themselves. Hebe Co. v. Shaw; Pierce Oil Corp. v. City of Hope. The inclusion of a reasonable margin, to insure effective enforcement, will not put upon a law, otherwise valid, the stamp of invalidity. Such laws may also find their justification in the fact that, in some fields, the bad fades into the good by such insensible degrees that the two are not capable of being readily distinguished and separated in terms of legislation. In the light of these considerations, we are not prepared to say that the end in view was not sufficient to justify the general rule of the ordinance, although some industries of an innocent character might fall within the proscribed class. It cannot be said that the ordinance in this respect ‘‘passes the bounds of reason and assumes the

Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926) | 793 character of a merely arbitrary fiat.’’ Purity Extract Co. v. Lynch. Moreover, the restrictive provisions of the ordinance in this particular may be sustained upon the principles applicable to the broader exclusion from residential districts of all business and trade structures, presently to be discussed. It is said that the village of Euclid is a mere suburb of the city of Cleveland; that the industrial development of that city has now reached and in some degree extended into the village, and in the obvious course of things will soon absorb the entire area for industrial enterprises; that the effect of the ordinance is to divert this natural development elsewhere, with the consequent loss of increased values to the owners of the lands within the village borders. But the village, though physically a suburb of Cleveland, is politically a separate municipality, with powers of its own and authority to govern itself as it sees fit, within the limits of the organic law of its creation and the state and federal Constitutions. Its governing authorities, presumably representing a majority of its inhabitants and voicing their will, have determined, not that industrial development shall cease at its boundaries, but that the course of such development shall proceed within definitely fixed lines. If it be a proper exercise of the police power to relegate industrial establishments to localities separated from residential sections, it is not easy to find a sufficient reason for denying the power because the effect of its exercise is to divert an industrial flow from the course which it would follow, to the injury of the residential public, if left alone, to another course where such injury will be obviated. It is not meant by this, however, to exclude the possibility of cases where the general public interest would so far outweigh the interest of the municipality that the municipality would not be allowed to stand in the way. We find no difficulty in sustaining restrictions of the kind thus far reviewed. The serious question in the case arises over the provisions of the ordinance excluding from residential districts apartment houses, business houses, retail stores and shops, and other like establishments. This question involves the validity of what is really the crux of the more recent zoning legislation, namely, the creation and maintenance of residential districts, from which business and trade of every sort, including hotels and apartment houses, are excluded. Upon that question this court has not thus far spoken. The decisions of the state courts are numerous and conflicting; but those which broadly sustain the power greatly outnumber those which deny it altogether or narrowly limit it, and it is very apparent that there is a constantly increasing tendency in the direction of the broader view. We shall not attempt to review these decisions at length, but content ourselves with citing a few as illustrative of all. . . . As evidence of the decided trend toward the broader view, it is significant that in sime instances the state courts in later decisions have reversed their former decisions holding the other way. For example, compare State ex rel. v. Houghton, supra, sustaining the power, with State ex rel. Lachtman v. Houghton, State ex rel. Roerig v. City of Minneapolis, and Vorlander v. Hokenson, denying it, all of which are disapproved in the Houghton Case last decided. The decisions enumerated in the first group cited above agree that the exclusion of buildings devoted to business, trade, etc., from residential districts, bears a rational relation to the health and safety of the community. Some of the grounds for this conclusion are promotion of the health and security from injury of children and others by separating dwelling houses from territory devoted to trade and industry; suppression and prevention of disorder; facilitating the extinguishment of fires, and the enforcement of street traffic regulations and other general welfare ordinances; aiding the health and

794 | Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926) safety of the community, by excluding from residential areas the confusion and danger of fire, contagion, and disorder, which in greater or less degree attach to the location of stores, shops, and factories. Another ground is that the construction and repair of streets may be rendered easier and less expensive, by confining the greater part of the heavy traffic to the streets where business is carried on. The Supreme Court of Illinois, in City of Aurora v. Burns, supra, in sustaining a comprehensive building zone ordinance dividing the city into eight districts, including exclusive residential districts for one and two family dwellings, churches, educational institutions, and schools, said: The constantly increasing density of our urban populations, the multiplying forms of industry and the growing complexity of our civilization make it necessary for the state, either directly or through some public agency by its sanction, to limit individual activities to a greater extent than formerly. With the growth and development of the state the police power necessarily develops, within reasonable bounds, to meet the changing conditions. . . . . . . The harmless may sometimes be brought within the regulation or prohibition in order to abate or destroy the harmful. The segregation of industries, commercial pursuits, and dwellings to particular districts in a city, when exercised reasonably, may bear a rational relation to the health, morals, safety, and general welfare of the community. The establishment of such districts or zones may, among other things, prevent congestion of population, secure quiet residence districts, expedite local transportation, and facilitate the suppression of disorder, the extinguishment of fires, and the enforcement of traffic and sanitary regulations. The danger of fire and the of contagion are often lessened by the exclusion of stores and factories from areas devoted to residences, and, in consequence, the safety and health of the community may be promoted. . . . . . . The exclusion of places of business from residential districts is not a declaration that such places are nuisances or that they are to be suppressed as such, but it is a part of the general plan by which the city’s territory is allotted to different uses, in order to prevent, or at least to reduce, the congestion, disorder, and dangers which often inhere in unregulated municipal development. The Supreme Court of Louisiana, in State v. City of New Orleans, supra, said: In the first place, the exclusion of business establishments from residence districts might enable the municipal government to give better police protection. Patrolmen’s beats are larger, and therefore fewer, in residence neighborhoods than in business neighborhoods. A place of business in a residence neighborhood furnishes an excuse for any criminal to go into the neighborhood, where, otherwise, a stranger would be under the ban of suspicion. Besides, open shops invite loiterers and idlers to congregate; and the places of such congregations need police protection. In the second place, the zoning of a city into residence districts and commercial districts is a matter of economy is street paving. Heavy trucks, hauling freight to and from places of business in residence districts, require the city to maintain the same costly pavement in such districts that is required for business districts; whereas, in the residence districts, where business establishments are excluded, a cheaper pavement serves the purpose. . . .

Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926) | 795 Aside from considerations of economic administration, in the matter of police and fire protection, street paving, etc., any business establishment is likely to be a genuine nuisance in a neighborhood of residences. Places of business are noisy; they are apt to be disturbing at night; some of them are malodorous; some are unsightly; some are apt to breed rats, mice, roaches, flies, ants, etc. . . . If the municipal council deemed any of the reasons which have been suggested, or any other substantial reason, a sufficient reason for adopting the ordinance in question, it is not the province of the courts to take issue with the council. We have nothing to do with the question of the wisdom or good policy of municipal ordinances. If they are not satisfying to a majority of the citizens, their recourse is to the ballot-not the courts. The matter of zoning has received much attention at the hands of commissions and experts, and the results of their investigations have been set forth in comprehensive reports. These reports which bear every evidence of painstaking consideration, concur in the view that the segregation of residential, business and industrial buildings will make it easier to provide fire apparatus suitable for the character and intensity of the development in each section; that it will increase the safety and security of home life, greatly tend to prevent street accidents, especially to children, by reducing the traffic and resulting confusion in residential sections, decrease noise and other conditions which produce or intensify nervous disorders, preserve a more favorable environment in which to rear children, etc. With particular reference to apartment houses, it is pointed out that the development of detached house sections is greatly retarded by the coming of apartment houses, which has sometimes resulted in destroying the entire section for private house purposes; that in such sections very often the apartment house is a mere parasite, constructed in order to take advantage of the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by the residential character of the district. Moreover, the coming of one apartment house is followed by others, interfering by their height and bulk with the free circulation of air and monopolizing the rays of the sun which otherwise would fall upon the smaller homes, and bringing, as their necessary accompaniments, the disturbing noises incident to increased traffic and business, and the occupation, by means of moving and parked automobiles, of larger portions of the streets, thus detracting from their safety and depriving children of the privilege of quiet and open spaces for play, enjoyed by those in more favored localities-until, finally, the residential character of the neighborhood and its desirability as a place of detached residences are utterly destroyed. Under these circumstances, apartment houses, which in a different environment would be not only entirely unobjectionable but highly desirable, come very near to being nuisances. If these reasons, thus summarized, do not demonstrate the wisdom or sound policy in all respects of those restrictions which we have indicated as pertinent to the inquiry, at least, the reasons are sufficiently cogent to preclude us from saying, as it must be said before the ordinance can be declared unconstitutional, that such provisions are clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. Cusack Co. v. City of Chicago, supra; Jacobson v. Massachusetts. It is true that when, if ever, the provisions set forth in the ordinance in tedious and minute detail, come to be concretely applied to particular premises, including those of the appellee, or to particular conditions, or to be considered in connection with specific complaints, some of them, or even many of them, may be found to be clearly

796 | Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926) arbitrary and unreasonable. But where the equitable remedy of injunction is sought, as it is here, not upon the ground of a present infringement or denial of a specific right, or of a particular injury in process of actual execution, but upon the broad ground that the mere existence and threatened enforcement of the ordinance, by materially and adversely affecting values and curtailing the opportunities of the market, constitute a present and irreparable injury, the court will not scrutinize its provisions, sentence by sentence, to ascertain by a process of piecemeal dissection whether there may be, here and there, provisions of a minor character, or relating to matters of administration, or not shown to contribute to the injury complained of, which, if attacked separately, might not withstand the test of constitutionality. In respect of such provisions, of which specific complaint is not made, it cannot be said that the landowner has suffered or is threatened with an injury which entitles him to challenge their constitutionality. Turpin v. Lemon. In Railroad Commission Cases, this court dealt with an analogous situation. There an act of the Mississippi Legislature, regulating freight and passenger rates on intrastate railroads and creating a supervisory commission, was attacked as unconstitutional. The suit was brought to enjoin the commission from enforcing against the plaintiff railroad company any of its provisions. In an opinion delivered by Chief Justice Waite, this court held that the chief purpose of the statute was to fix a maximum of charges and to regulate in some matters of a police nature the use of railroads in the state. After sustaining the constitutionality of the statute ‘in its general scope’ this court said: Whether in some of its details the statute may be defective or invalid we do not deem it necessary to inquire, for this suit is brought to prevent the commissioners from giving it any effect whatever as against this company. Quoting with approval from the opinion of the Supreme Court of Mississppi, it was further said: Many questions may arise under it not necessary to be disposed of now, and we leave them for consideration when presented. And finally: When the commission has acted and proceedings are had to enforce what it has done, questions may arise as to the validity of some of the various provisions which will be worthy of consideration, but we are unable to say that, as a whole, the statute is invalid. The relief sought here is of the same character, namely, an injunction against the enforcement of any of the restrictions, limitations, or conditions of the ordinance. And the gravamen of the complaint is that a portion of the land of the appellee cannot be sold for certain enumerated uses because of the general and broad restraints of the ordinance. What would be the effect of a restraint imposed by one or more or the innumerable provisions of the ordinance, considered apart, upon the value or marketability of the lands, is neither disclosed by the bill nor by the evidence, and we are afforded no basis, apart from mere speculation, upon which to rest a conclusion that it or they would have any appreciable effect upon those matters. Under these circumstances,

Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926) | 797 therefore, it is enough for us to determine, as we do, that the ordinance in its general scope and dominant features, so far as its provisions are here involved, is a valid exercise of authority, leaving other provisions to be dealt with as cases arise directly involving them. And this is in accordance with the traditional policy of this court. In the realm of constitutional law, especially, this court has perceived the embarrassment which is likely to result from an attempt to formulate rules or decide questions beyond the necessities of the immediate issue. It has preferred to follow the method of a gradual approach to the general by a systematically guarded application and extension of constitutional principles to particular cases as they arise, rather than by out of hand attempts to establish general rules to which future cases must be fitted. This process applies with peculiar force to the solution of questions arising under the due process clause of the Constitution as applied to the exercise of the flexible powers of police, with which we are here concerned. Decree reversed.

defer to legislative judgments on zoning regulations, which encouraged widespread adoption of such zoning ordinances throughout the twentieth century. In sum, the Court’s decision in Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co. provided a constitutional basis for the concept of zoning and is also significant as an initial step toward the development of modern environmental and land-use regulations. Jess Phelps See also Defenders of Property Rights; Urban Planning

References Hall, Kermit J. Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Juergensmeyer, Julian J., and Thomas E. Roberts. Land Use Planning and Development Regulation Law. Eagan, MN: West Group, 2007. Wolf, Michael A. The Zoning of America. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 2008.

W Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 The Water Pollution Control Act of 1948, also known as the Clean Water Act, Public Law 80-845, 62 Stat. 1155, was the first comprehensive federal law addressing pollution of ‘‘waters of the United States,’’ generally described as navigable interstate waterways. While this law provided the foundation for later legislation, particularly the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Public Law 92-500, 86 Stat. 816, 33 U.S.C. 1251–1387), the 1948 law was much more limited in scope. Almost 50 years earlier, Congress had passed the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, which defined as an unlawful act throwing ‘‘any refuse matter of any kind or description whatsoever, other than that flowing from the streets and sewers and passing there from in a liquid state, into any navigable water of the United States.’’ The point at the close of the nineteenth century was to prevent activities that might obstruct navigation, threaten damage to harbor or river improvements, get in the way of excavation, or interfere with flood-control measures. Accordingly, the law became known as the Refuse Act. Elements of what became the Water Pollution Control Act had been proposed in Congress as early as 1936 but were never passed into law. One water pollution control law, sponsored by Senator Alben W. Barkeley and Representative Fred M. Vinson, was passed by Congress in 1938, but vetoed by President Roosevelt due to budgetary concerns. Cleveland’s Cuyahoga River, so overloaded with pollutants that it often caught fire, has been a case in point for pollution control efforts for many decades. Although a 1969 fire received the most nationwide attention, 1948 was another year of fire on the Cuyahoga, which previously caught fire in 1868, 1883, 1887, 1912, 1922, 1936, and 1941. The most extensive fire, resulting in more than $1.5 million in damages to surrounding property, was four years later, in 1952. The Great Lakes, fed by many heavily industrialized rivers such as the Cuyahoga, were a major cause of concern to Congress, and to adjoining states, none of which could clean up the lakes alone. In 1948, for the first time, Congress declared that it was in the national interest to obtain and maintain high water quality throughout the United States. A Senate report on the proposed legislation observed that, ‘‘The pollution of our water resources by domestic and industrial wastes has become an increasingly serious problem due to the rapid growth of our cities and industries . . . Polluted waters menace the public health through the contamination of water and food 799

800 | Water Pollution Control Act of 1948

supplies, destroy fish and game life, and rob us of other benefits of our natural resources.’’ The pollution-control act which was passed into law set forth that ‘‘it is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress to recognize, preserve and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of the States in controlling water pollution,’’ providing financial aid to states and municipalities in formulating and executing pollution control-programs. The U.S. Public Health Service was designated and directed to work with states and local governments to develop programs that would reduce pollution in interstate waters while improving sanitary conditions in surface and subsurface waters. Enactment of uniform state laws to prevent and reduce water pollution was encouraged, and the Surgeon General of the United States was directed to work with states to achieve this purpose (Stoddard et al., 2002, 28–30). The original Clean Water Act authorized no direct federal regulation, as the later 1972 amendments did. No federal guidelines, or goals to be met, were provided for in this act. Mandates for states to adopt ambient water quality standard, and federal supervision of implementation plan, were not adopted until 1965, while direct federal enforcement of water pollution standards was authorized only with the 1972 amendments. The Act gave limited authority to the Surgeon General of the United States to institute an abatement action in the limited case that pollution of interstate waters ‘‘endangers the health or welfare of persons in a state other than that in which the discharge originates.’’ The federal government was authorized to loan money to cities and other local governments to construct municipal sewage treatment plants—still far from universal at the time. No funds were appropriated—it was left to each session of Congress to budget money, and each president to request money, to fulfill this program. The first federal funding to provide technical assistance to state water pollution-control programs was authorized, which were increased by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956 (Public Law 84-660, 70 Stat. 498). Amendments in 1956 explicitly authorized $3 million per year for federal support of state agencies empowered to control water pollution, as well as $50 million for grants to pay 30 percent of the costs of municipal wastewater treatment plants (Andrews 2006, 205). In 1961, this funding was increased to $100 million per year. Adoption of legal standards, regulation, enforcement, and legal penalties for violations were left entirely up to individual state governments. The 1948 law contemplated that states would determine which lakes and streams had been polluted beyond tolerable levels, then identify the polluters responsible, and order discharges which caused pollution in excess of the allowed level to cease. Although as much as $20 billion may have been spent on such efforts, it proved totally impractical to specify which polluter caused what level of pollution. Enforcement was totally ineffectual, and pollution in major river systems, as well as the Great Lakes, only got worse (Dzurik and Theriaque 1996, 51). By contrast, the 1972 amendments provided that all pollution of waterways

Water Quality Act of 1987 | 801

was prohibited, unless a specific permit was issued by the newly formed Environmental Protection Agency. (A tremendous amount of pollution was permitted, but the permitting process allowed for steady curtailment and enforced use of the best available technology to control or purify discharges). A report issued in 1955 by the U.S. Senate found that the Clean Water Act inspired more than half of all states to improve their pollution-control laws. Some states were in the process of implementing water quality standards that made it unavoidable for municipal water systems to construct and operate secondary treatment plants. Clean Water Act amendments have been passed by Congress and signed by the president in 1956, 1961, 1965, 1966, 1970, 1972, 1977, 1981, and 1987. While each new act or amendment is contained in a distinct Public Law, and entered in the United States Statutes at Large, the law cumulatively in effect as a result of this series of acts has for the most part been codified in Title 33 of the U.S. Code, starting at Section 1251. Charles Rosenberg See also Clean Water Act of 1972; Cuyahoga River Fires; Federal Water Pollution Control Law of 1948; Water Pollution Control Act of 1948

References Andrews, Richard N. L. Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves: A History of American Environmental Policy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006. Dzurik, Andrew Albert, and David A. Theriaque. Water Resources Planning. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1996. Silyok, V. A. Environmental Laws: Summaries of Statutes Administered by the Environmental Protection Agency. Huntington, NY: Nova Science Publishers, 2001. Stoddard, Andrew, et al. Municipal Wastewater Treatment: Evaluating Improvements in National Water Quality. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2002.

Water Quality Act of 1987 Enacted on April 2, 1987, the Water Quality Act is the third amendment of the Clean Water Act of 1972 that significantly broadened its scope and reach. Recognizing the urgency and relevance of this amendment, the 100th Congress introduced the 1987 Water Quality Act as its first piece of legislation. The Clean Water Act marked an important departure from previous legislation as it placed more responsibility on the federal government to enforce strict pollution-control laws prohibiting the unregulated dumping of pollutants in water. The Clean Water Act was amended in 1977, 1981, and 1987, and increasingly emphasized the need for local and state governments to collaborate with the federal government and enact clean water legislation. Administered by the Environmental

802 | Water Quality Act of 1987

Protection Agency, the 1987 Water Quality Act enforced a high level of pollution control and eliminated the discharge of pollutants from ‘‘point sources’’ (municipal and industrial discharge targets). In addition, the 1987 amendment included Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and introduced regulation of pollutants from ‘‘nonpoint sources’’ like stormwater runoffs in urban, suburban, and rural areas. Also enforced were new protections for national estuaries and water landmarks like the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay. The relationship between the federal and state governments in enforcing regulations and control over water pollution was also clarified in the 1987 Water Quality Act. While the federal government retained oversight privileges over assessing water quality and pollution control, the states were given more flexibility in devising means to meet those requirements. The 1987 Water Quality Act empowered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers to impose penalties and increase significantly civil and criminal penalties for any agencies violating the provisions of the Clean Water Act. Whenever warranted, the act provided regulated industries limited negotiating privileges and more guidance regarding the requirements. Evidence from extensive water research during the late 1970s and the 1980s attributed stormwater runoff as a significant cause for the deterioration of water quality throughout the United States. As a result, the EPA conducted a Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) and developed regulations for stormwater permit coverage. Congress supported the initiative and required state and local municipal bodies to obtain permits from the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) formed by the EPA in collaboration with state EPAs. The 1987 Water Quality Act has six titles: Title 1 Research and Related Programs: The Declaration of Goals and Policy manual and a variety of grant authorizations for water research and pollutioncontrol programs. Title II Grants for Construction of Treatment Works: Created the Clean Water State Revolving Fund to replace the previous system of construction grants for assisting municipalities in creating or expanding sewage treatment plans known as Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW). Title III Standards and Enforcement: Discharge permits were required of all discharges to water. Under a Technology-Based Standards Program, municipal sewage treatment plants are required to meet secondary treatment standards; Effluent Guidelines were established for existing sources and New Source Performance Standards for industrial facilities that discharge water directly to surface waters; Categorical Pretreatment Standards were issued to industrial users contributing wastes. Water quality standards (WQS), also known as risk or hazard-based requirements, determine allowable site-specific pollutant levels for rivers, lakes, streams, and wetlands. Overall, about 60,000 TMDLs are proposed or under assessment for U.S. waters in the next 15 years. The EPA and the states

Water Resources Development Act of 2007 | 803

are required to complete a biennial report to Congress on the nation’s water quality. The EPA has authority to issue orders against violations and seek civil or criminal or civil penalties as necessary. Federal facilities also come under the provisions of this act. Nonpoint Source Management Program, created under the Clean Water Act, provides grants to states, territories, and Indian tribes to design projects to promote education, training, technology transfer, technical assistance, and any other activities designed to reduce pollution from nonpoint sources. Title IV Permits and Licenses: Compliance certifications requiring states to authorize that federal permits do not violate state standards, and regulations placed on municipalities to use best management practices to reduce pollutants to the maximum extent possible. Discharge Monitoring Reports are required to be submitted periodically reporting analysis of wastewater samples. Limitations are also placed on agricultural exemptions provided in the Clean Water Act. Title V: Covered general provisions, citizen suits, and employee protection. Title VI: Clean Water State Revolving Funds (CWSRF) program provided financial assistance to local governments for wastewater treatment, pollution control, and protection of estuaries. Kokila Ravi See also Clean Water Act of 1972; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

References Copeland, C. Water Quality: Implementing the Clean Water Act. Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, 2000. Houck, Oliver A. The Clean Water Act TMDL Program: Law, Policy, and Implementation. Washington DC: Environmental Law Institute, 2000. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Wastewater Primer. Washington DC: Office of Water, 1998.

Water Resources Development Act of 2007 The Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (WRDA 2007), also known as Public Law 110-114, provides for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to perform ongoing development, construction, and maintenance of public dams, ports, waterways, and similar infrastructure projects throughout the United States. This legislation authorizes the Corps to conduct specific studies and projects for navigation, flood control, hurricane and storm damage reduction, environmental restoration, recreation, and other purposes. The WRDA 2007 was enacted on November 8, 2007, by the 110th Congress when it overrode the veto of President Bush.

804 | Waterton-Glacier Peace Park

The WRDA 2007 was the ninth reauthorization of the original law signed in 1974. Congress usually introduces a new WRDA bill every two years to authorize new water projects and studies, but not every bill becomes a law. Prior to 2007, the last WRDA bill was enacted in 2000. The WRDA 2007 permits the Corps to implement more than 900 projects for an estimated cost of $23 billion. The president had vetoed the bill because he believed it lacked fiscal discipline (Marine Log, 2007). The bill’s success was due to bipartisan efforts in both the House and Senate. The WRDA 2007 authorizes such projects as the environmental restoration of the Florida Everglades and the Louisiana Coastal Area, a safety program to inspect the levees in the United States and make improvements to the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Waterway system. The WRDA 2007 also mandates the Corps to make program policy changes to improve the transparency and accountability of its work. Susan Echaore-McDavid References 110th U. S. Congress. Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Public Law 110-114. U.S. Government Printing Office, 2007. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc .cgi?dbname=110_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ114.110 (accessed April 5, 2010). Carter, Nicole T., and H. Steven Hughes. Army Corps of Engineers Water Resources Projects: Authorization and Appropriations. CRS Report for Congress RL 32064. Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, November 26, 2008. Environment News Service. ‘‘Congress Overrides Bush Veto of Water Resources Development Act.’’ November 8, 2007. http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2007/ 2007-11-08-02.asp (accessed April 5, 2010). House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Staff. ‘‘The Water Resources Development Act of 2007: A Review of Implementation in Its Third Year.’’ 111th Congress, 2nd session, March 2, 2010. http://transportation.house.gov/hearings/hearingDetail.aspx ?NewsID=1107 (accessed April 5, 2010). Marine Log. ‘‘Bush Vetos WRDA.’’ Marine Log. November 4, 2007. http://www .marinelog.com/DOCS/NEWSMMVII/2007nov00042.html (accessed April 6, 2010).

Waterton-Glacier Peace Park The Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park is the combination of Glacier National Park in the United States and Waterton Lakes National Park in Canada. In 1931, members of Rotary International in the state of Montana and the province of Alberta met and agreed to endorse the union of the two parks. In 1932, the legislatures in both Canada and the United States designated the parks as part of the world’s first international peace park. The park is a symbol of peace and goodwill between the two countries. Furthermore, in the 1970s, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) designated each of

Waterton-Glacier Peace Park | 805

American and Canadian flags flying at the top of Logan’s Pass at Glacier National Park. (iStockPhoto)

the national parks as Biosphere Reserves. Such protected reserves are intended to promote sustainable development. In 1995, UNESCO also designated the peace park as a World Heritage Site, identifying it as a site of outstanding value to humanity and calling for the preservation and protection of the park. The Canadian government established Waterton Lakes National Park in 1895 in southwestern Alberta, bordering the United States to the south and the province of British Columbia to the west. The park is named after the Waterton Lakes chain found in the area. It encompasses nearly 125,000 acres. Due to the fact that the park is located where the Rocky Mountains meet the Canadian prairie, there is an unusual combination of mountain and prairie plants. Many of the nearly 1,000 plant species are rare or endangered. Waterton Lakes contains a number of different habitats, including alpine meadows, grasslands, shrublands, wetlands, and forests. These varying habitats are home to more than 60 kinds of mammals, such as black and grizzly bears, cougars, coyotes, deer, elk, and wolves. The park also contains many types of fish, amphibians, and reptiles, as well as more than 250 kinds of birds. Glacier National Park in northwestern Montana along the border with Canada was established in 1910. The park covers more than one million acres. The name of the park is due to the presence of many large glaciers in the region and the

806 | Waterton-Glacier Peace Park

historical role that glaciers played in forming the region’s geographic features. The number of glaciers, however, has been decreasing. In 1850, there were some 150 glaciers in the area, but by 2006, park officials reported that the number had declined to less than 30. The park is also known for its picturesque mountains, some of which surpass 10,000 feet. Mt. Cleveland is the highest peak in the park at 10,466 feet. There are also some 250 lakes in the park. Animal life within the park is protected by law and no hunting is allowed. Among the animals found in the park are Rocky Mountain goat and sheep, bear, moose, elk, deer, coyote, wolves, and lynx. Birds such as geese and ducks nest in the park. There is also abundant fish life in the park’s streams. True to the idea behind the creation of the park, those associated with Waterton-Glacier played an instrumental role in establishing the United States-Canada Days of Peace and Friendship in the late 1980s. The national governments of both countries, along with state, provincial, and local governments, promoted the concept of celebrating peace between Canada and the United States in early July, between Canada Day on July 1 and Independence Day in the United States on July 4. Established in 1987, the celebration included everything from visiting the peace park to creating international exchange programs. By the twenty-first century, conservationists had grown increasingly concerned about negative changes to the park. In 2006, 12 conservation organizations from the United States and Canada petitioned UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee to add Waterton-Glacier to the list of World Heritage Sites in Danger. Climate change has led to a rapid decline of the park’s glaciers and changes in vegetation and wildlife. Some conservationists predict that the remaining glaciers in the park could disappear by 2030. In 2008, conservation groups again petitioned the United Nations, this time to investigate proposed mining and drilling in the Flathead River Basin, an area adjacent to the park in the Canadian province of British Columbia. In June 2009, UNESCO announced that it would send a fact-finding mission to the region to evaluate the potential environmental effects of mining near the park. In early 2010, UNESCO issued a report to the governments of Canada and the United States in which it recommended a ban on mining and the development of a wildlife management plan for Waterton-Glacier. In response to these recommendations, the government of British Columbia announced in its February 2010 session legislation that bans mining and drilling in the region. Ronald E. Young See also Climate Change; National Park Service

References Ali, Saleem H. Peace Parks: Conservation and Conflict Resolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007.

Watt, James G. | 807 Boyer, David. ‘‘Pride of Two Nations.’’ National Geographic (June 1987). Chadwick, Douglas H. ‘‘Crown of the Continent.’’ National Geographic (September 2007). Jackson, Matt. ‘‘Peace Park Plus.’’ Canadian Wildlife (Spring 2003). Waldt, Ralph. Crown of the Continent: The Last Great Wilderness of the Rocky Mountains. Helena, MT: Riverbend Publishing, 2004.

Watt, James G. In January of 1981, newly elected president Ronald W. Reagan tapped James Gaius Watt as his Secretary of the Interior. James G. Watt entered his cabinetlevel position with an American economy plagued by serious energy problems, high levels of inflation, and thick layers of federal bureaucracy. Watts shared Ronald Reagan’s disdain for regulation and large government. Watt was determined to apply Reagan’s ‘‘government is the problem’’ political philosophy on America’s management of natural resources and wildlife areas. From the beginning, environmental groups feared placing a man supported by the Sagebrush Rebellion in the west in charge of environmental policy and America’s sensitive natural resources. Watt an advocate of timber, oil companies, and cattle ranching interests before his cabinet-level appointment, proved to be the most controversial and despised Secretary of the Interior since Albert B. Fall in the 1920s. Watt entered his post with a clear agenda—he wanted to change the course of environmental policy set during the past three decades by both Democratic and Republican administrations. Watt advocated the deregulation of federal control over public lands and natural resources. He opened government land to drilling for mineral resources and the logging of forests. In the National Park System, he shifted money from protecting the actual parks to maintenance Interior Secretary-designate James G. Watt, a of the human-made facilities. In Reagan nominee on Monday, December 23, 1982, the Department of the Interior 1980, in Washington, D.C., for the announceestablished the Mineral Management ment of selections. (AP/Wide World Photos)

808 | Wetlands

Service to collect revenue and administer the resources in the continental shelf of the United States. Watt’s controversial environmental policies put him on the cover of Time on August 23, 1982. Environmental groups began a ‘‘Dump Watt’’ campaign on Capitol Hill. Eventually, a coalition of environmentalists and proenvironmental politicians from both political parties called for his resignation. In addition to his problems with environmental groups, Watt was ‘‘prone to gaffs,’’ as historian Patrick Diggins chronicled in his biography of Ronald Reagan. In preparation for the 1983 Fourth of July celebrations on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., Watt banned all rock and roll groups, including the Beach Boys, from the festivities. Watt’s decision to make sure that the ‘‘right kind of people’’ attended the concerts alienated many Americans, including First Lady Nancy Reagan, who was a fan of the California-based rock group. During a speech to a U.S. Chamber of Commerce gathering in Washington D.C., Watt joked about diversity in the Department of the Interior. Watt’s attempt at humor, however, backfired when his joke disparaged several minority groups, adding fuel to the ‘‘Dump Watt’’ movement. In the end, Watt’s shift in federal environmental policy, his ability to make political enemies, and unwise gaffs converged to seal his fate. James G. Watt resigned on November 8, 1983. His successor, William Clark, quietly continued some of Watt’s ideas, especially regarding the National Park System. He served for 2 years, 9 months, and 16 days, but it took a decade to recover from Watt’s environmental policies. Watt’s tenure remains controversial to this day. Erik D. Carlson See also National Park Service; Reagan, Ronald Wilson; Sagebrush Rebellion; U.S. Department of the Interior

References Diggins, John Patrick. Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom, and the Making of History. New York: W.W. Norton, 2007. Hays, Samuel P. A History of Environmental Politics Since 1945. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2000. Kline, Benjamin. First Along the River: A Brief History of the U.S. Environmental Movement. San Francisco: Acada Books, 1997. Reeves, Richard. The Triumph of Imagination. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006. U.S. Department of the Interior. ‘‘History of Interior.’’ http://www.doi.gov/whoweare/ history.cfm.

Wetlands Swamps, bogs, and marshes are common wetlands. However, wetlands differ by region, and the definition is subject to multiple interpretations and a natural target for political disputes.

Wetlands | 809

Swampland Acts of 1849, 1850, and 1860 gave states tens of millions of acres to be drained and used for agriculture. Other anti-wetlands efforts include flood control and channelization projects, mosquito-control initiatives, and disaster insurance. By one estimate, the federal government destroyed 30 percent of the forested wetlands in the lower Mississippi Valley. But the disappearance of wetlands coincided with the rise of environmental awareness, and what were once noisome swamps and bogs were now water filters, buffer zones, and breeding grounds. The first state wetland protection law was enacted in 1963 in Massachusetts, and other states soon followed. The first federal regulation was issued in 1975 after the Natural Resources Defense Council sued the Corps for not enforcing section 404 of the 1972 Clean Water Act, which until then was not considered a mandate for regulating wetlands. Congress formalized the court’s action in 1977. Estimates are, that in the 1600s, the lower 48 states had about 220 million acres of wetlands. In 1997, the wetlands area was about 105.5 million acres. After major losses from the mid-1950s to the mid-1970s, between 1986 and 1987 about 58,500 acres disappeared each year. Contributing to the slowed loss rate were the beginnings of protection measures and the ending of some drainage incentives. Education of the public, initiatives with landowners, restoration and creation, and monitoring have all helped reduce losses. Conflicts remain between the interests of the affected landowners and the general public, developers and conservationists. Federal, state, and local guidelines can conflict, and federal programs are inconsistent, with some encouraging the conversion of wetlands, while others discouraging that conversion. George H. W. Bush in 1988 and again in 1990 proposed ‘‘no net loss.’’ Destruction of an acre of wetland required replacement by another 1.8 acres. In August 1993, Bill Clinton defined no net loss to mean no loss of acreage but not necessarily of wetland functions. The proposal increased federal authority to regulate draining as well as dredging and filling, relaxed enforcement for small areas, speeded permitting and appeals, and required wetland protection in watershed-management plans. It also required greater use of mitigation banks to compensate for lost development and grandfathered 53 million acres of cropland. As the courts began restricting federal interpretations of wetlands during the Clinton administration, environmentalists and government worried about the impact to the wetlands and the environment in general. They feared a ‘‘race to the bottom’’ because state safeguards were inadequate. History indicated, however, that the states were often out front in wetlands regulation and remained more creative. When the district attorney in 1995 prosecuted James J. Wilson, a Maryland developer, for damaging wetlands, critics of the federal government contended

810 | Wetlands

that the Corps of Engineers was attempting to define wetlands as virtually every wet spot in the country. The conviction was overturned on appeal. The National Mining Association succeeded in 1998 in overturning a rule that banned dredging of wetlands, the ‘‘Tulloch Rule,’’ promulgated by the Corps in 1993. And the Supreme Court in 2001’s Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC) rejected a Corps claim that an abandoned quarry was wetlands because migratory birds rested there, reducing Corps authority. Takings cases involving wetlands were increasingly going the owners’ way as those whose lands were labeled as wetlands lost their right to develop them and received compensation under the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in 2001 reported that no net loss was failing due to insufficient manpower, funding, and enforcement. The NAS also noted that the new wetlands were not nearly as good as natural ones at flood and pollution control and were not natural habitat for the displaced wildlife. Under George W. Bush, when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reported that administration policies were environmentally damaging, the Interior Secretary blocked release of the report, and the Corps of Engineers promulgated rules harmful to wetlands. As of 2009, wetlands rules were confusing. Court rulings made ambiguous which wetlands were covered by the Clean Water Act and which were exempt. Mostly the courts allowed the Corps to determine case-by-case which were covered. When the Corps ruled the law applied, developers sued; when the wetlands were exempt, environmentalists sued. John H. Barnhill See also Bush, George W.; Clean Water Act of 1972; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

References Adler, Jonathan H. ‘‘Should Federal Wetlands Regulation Give Way to State and Private Initiatives?’’ Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group Newsletter 3 (2) (Summer 1999). http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1464/pub_detail.asp. Lewis, William M. Wetlands Explained: Wetland Science, Policy, and Politics in America. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Southern Environmental Law Center. ‘‘Wetlands Protection at Stake in Challenge to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.’’ March 24, 2009. http://www.southernenvironment.org/ newsroom/press_releases/spectre_filing_pr_3_24_09/. Stover, Richard, ‘‘The Environmental LIES of George W. Bush: Suppressed or Falsified Science Documented by Waxman Report and New York Times.’’ http://ventana.sierraclub .org/back_issues/0306/bush_lies.shtml. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ‘‘Wetlands Definitions.’’ http://epa.gov/owow/ wetlands/what/definitions.html.

Whaling | 811 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ‘‘Wetlands Status and Trends.’’ http://www .epa.gov/OWOW/wetlands/vital/status.html. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. ‘‘Legal Analysis of New Supreme Court Case on Wetlands, Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. US Army Corps of Engineers, No. 99-1178.’’ February 8, 2001. http://www .fhwa.dot.gov/environment/wetland/swancclg.htm. ‘‘Vanishing Wetlands: Bush, Sr.’s Environmental Plan All Wet.’’ Michigan Daily, July 1, 2001. http://www.michigandaily.com/content/vanishing-wetlands-bush-srs-environmental-plan-all-wet. Votteler, Todd H., and Thomas A. Muir ‘‘Wetland Management and Research. Wetland Protection Legislation.’’ National Water Summary on Wetland Resources/U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2425. http://water.usgs.gov/nwsum/WSP2425/legislation.html.

Whaling For countless millennia, whales swam the world’s oceans unmolested. Their existence was well known at least as early as biblical times (the Book of Genesis specifically notes their creation by God), and in the fourth century BCE, Aristotle wrote in the History of Animals that they were air-breathing fish, but it was not until the third or fourth centuries CE that the Japanese began actively pursuing

Victims of the whale hunt, c.1900. (Library of Congress)

812 | Whaling

whales on the open sea. In the eleventh century, Basques venturing out of the Bay of Biscay and Norwegians from the Scandinavian Peninsula began hunting large cetaceans in the North Atlantic Ocean. By 1650, the Dutch, English, and Americans had joined them, plying the warm waters of the Gulf Stream under sail power, hurling iron harpoons when they chanced to get close enough to the beasts that the strength of an arm might prove sufficient to doom some of the biggest living things on Earth. These early whalers mainly targeted the slower and more tractable right whale (Balaena glacialis), so named because it was the ‘‘right whale’’ to hunt. Nonetheless, success in this sort of hunt was not common. In the nineteenth century, everything changed. Ships equipped with steampowered engines and guns firing grenade-tipped harpoons efficiently destroyed tens of thousands of whales, feeding an enormous demand for whale oil and baleen. It is said that these ships, sailing under the flags of many countries (including the United States), killed more whales between 1870 and 1910 than Homo sapiens had managed to slay in all of human history prior to that four-decade period. After that, whales became increasingly difficult to find. First Attempts at Whale Protection By 1925, concern that whales were disappearing led the League of Nations to recommend international control of the whaling industry with regulations designed to halt excessive exploitation of cetaceans. Toward this end, the Bureau of International Whaling Statistics was formed in 1930 with a mission to provide the world community with accurate numbers on whale populations and how many were being taken. The next year, the Convention for the Regulation of Whaling was signed by 22 nations, the first multinational agreement to curb whale killing. Unfortunately, the 1931 convention did not provide effective protections, largely because the two dominant whaling nations—Japan and the Soviet Union—refused to sign it. Also, the stipulations of the convention were rather weak, confined to such items as sparing calves and nursing mothers, and avoiding the waste of whale carcasses. In 1932, at least 43,000 whales were killed. Little was accomplished to rectify the situation until after World War II, although the war itself considerably slowed commercial whaling. Finally, in December 1946, a new and improved agreement was ratified that substantially governs whaling to this day: the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. Fewer nations signed this compact than had done so in 1931, but Japan and the Soviet Union were two that did, holding out promise that the tide could be turned in favor of the whales. The convention created the International Whaling Commission (IWC), an administrative and regulative body charged with overseeing whale conservation around the world, wherever the leviathan is found. The IWC consists of one representative from each signatory nation and has the authority to designate protected whale species, declare open and closed

Whaling | 813

seasons and ocean regions, specify whaling methods, and determine size and take limits. As the nation had done in 1931, the United States signed the 1946 agreement. It remained then for Congress to write a statute that would provide the legal framework for implementing American obligations under the convention. The Whaling Convention Act of 1949 (WCA) is founded on the judgment that whales have enormous scientific and aesthetic value, and are essential components of the marine ecosystem. The act authorizes the president to appoint a commissioner to the IWC and the secretary of state to register objections to IWC regulations. American citizens and persons sailing in U.S. waters are prohibited from killing or wounding whales, transporting, purchasing, selling, or offering to sell whales or whale products in violation of IWC regulations or regulations issued by the Secretary of Commerce. The United States has not issued a license for taking whales since shortly before its self-imposed moratorium on whaling in 1972, but the WCA does authorize the secretary to issue such licenses. Applicants must prove that the whale-catching vessel is appropriately equipped and staffed to pursue whales in a manner consistent with the convention, and with regulations issued by the IWC and the federal government. Further, compensation for the crew of the whaling vessel cannot be a function of the number of animals caught. Licenses may also be granted, under similar constraints, to ocean-going vessels capable of processing whale carcasses at sea (‘‘factory ships’’) and to factories that process whale remains into various products (‘‘land stations’’). Finally, the WCA empowers Coast Guard or U.S. Customs officers or U.S. marshals to conduct warrantless searches on any vessel in U.S. waters that an officer has reasonable cause to believe is engaged in illegal whaling. Individuals committing acts in violation of the WCA, the convention, or relevant regulations who are observed by law enforcement officers may be immediately arrested. Convictions are punishable by up to one year in prison and a $10,000 fine or both. Whales Continue to Decline From within a decade of its inception in 1946 to this day, the IWC has been subjected to much criticism from conservationists and whale advocates generally. Particularly impressive and depressing to these critics has been the fact that a number of cetacean species continued to decline for years after the IWC was in place. For example, after two decades of ‘‘regulating’’ the whaling industry, the IWC was compelled to issue a ban in 1966 on all taking of blue (Balaenoptera musculus) and humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae) whales for fear the two species would fade into extinction. Such failures led some to derisively label the commission ‘‘the whalers’ club.’’ Part of the problem has always been that the IWC was given an arguably incompatible set of convention objectives, calling for both increased whale populations

814 | Whaling

and the expansion of the whaling industry. Moreover, the regulatory structure with which the IWC must work is hardly conducive to conservation: any IWC proposal can be defeated if more than one-quarter of the representatives reject it, and a nation can safely ignore any approved directive simply by registering an objection to it within 90 days. This escape clause has been exploited many times. Especially outrageous for many was the IWC’s refusal to endorse a moratorium on whaling, beginning in 1972. During the late 1960s, with a heightening environmental awareness and the much-publicized plight of such species as the blue and the humpback, whales captivated Americans in a manner unprecedented for any wild animal before or since. ‘‘Save the Whales’’ T-shirts and bumper stickers appeared everywhere. ‘‘Whale watching’’ became a favorite pastime off both coasts (and indeed today is a multimillion dollar business, a dimension of ‘‘ecotourism’’). Hordes of naturalists and photographers, led by Jacques Cousteau, took to the seas with cameras and sound equipment to record the creatures’ amicable disposition and eerie yet alluring ‘‘songs.’’ With public opinion overwhelmingly sympathetic and its commercial whaling industry extinct, America became the foremost defender of big cetaceans on the planet. The United States enacted the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, outlawing virtually all taking of any type of whale by American citizens or in territorial waters. And so it was that U.S. insistence that year led the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, held in Stockholm, to forcefully recommend that the IWC impose a 10-year moratorium on all commercial whaling. The IWC stubbornly resisted the Stockholm Declaration, as it was called, for 10 years. Meanwhile, determined to exert an influence that would lead to a total ban on whaling, the United States turned to the only practical mechanism available on the international level, short of war: trade sanctions. The Pelly Amendment to the Fishermen’s Protective Act of 1967 empowered the president to severely limit imports of fish products from nations ‘‘certified’’ by the Secretary of Commerce to have ‘‘diminished the effectiveness’’ of conservation measures aimed at ‘‘any living resource of the sea,’’ including, of course, whales. Although nations were certified on two occasions during the 1970s, no trade sanctions were ever imposed, so in 1979 Congress decided to add some muscle to the law with the ‘‘PackwoodMagnuson Amendment’’ to the Fishery Conservation and Management Act. This revision made sanctions mandatory: when a nation was certified as setting back whale conservation, the president was required to cut their fishery allocation in half throughout the 200-mile wide U.S. conservation zone along both coasts. The Moratorium and Its Aftermath The IWC met in Brighton, England, in 1982 and finally obtained the threefourths majority needed to approve the indefinite cessation of commercial whaling anywhere in the world, effective in 1986. There was much jubilation from all

Whaling | 815

those concerned with cetacean welfare, but their joy quickly dampened when the Soviet Union, Norway, and Japan all filed objections to the moratorium, stating that they had no intention of halting whaling at any time. Even so, in 1985 the Soviet Union announced that it would end commercial operations within two years; however, the Soviets then promptly exceeded their allocation of minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata). In accordance with the Pelly and Packwood-Magnuson Amendments, the Secretary of Commerce immediately certified the Soviet Union, costing them millions of dollars in lost revenue from fish that would have been taken in the U.S. conservation zone. The certification was revoked in 1987 when the Soviets did as they said they would and stopped whaling. Norway too was certified under similar circumstances, and when they also agreed to cease whaling in 1987, the sanction was withdrawn. For its part, Japan rejected an IWC directive reducing the sperm whale (Physter macrocephalus) quota to zero in 1984. When the United States threatened trade sanctions, the Japanese succeeded in negotiating an agreement with the Americans in which they pledged to reduce their sperm whale kill and, beginning April 1, 1988, abide by the moratorium. In exchange, the United States would not certify Japan and no penalties would be levied. The deal was contested by whale advocates, who claimed that the law clearly demanded that Japan be certified; the Supreme Court disagreed and allowed the negotiated arrangement (Japan Whaling Association v. American Cetacean Society). Nonetheless, the future looked bright for the whales: the three remaining whaling nations had all agreed to the moratorium. Yet a loophole existed in the convention, and Japan exploited it to the fullest. Article VIII stipulates that any signatory nation may issue permits that authorize killing whales for scientific research, known as ‘‘research whaling.’’ Moreover, the remains of whales taken for research purposes may by processed and sold in whatever manner the nation prescribes. Instead of observing the moratorium as promised, in 1988, Japan proceeded to award its fleets permits for research whaling, and have done so every year since that time. Up to the close of the 1999 season, Japan has killed 4,554 whales, mostly Antarctic minkes in the IWCdesignated Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. Incredibly, although Japan has been certified by the United States on several occasions since 1988, no significant trade sanctions have ever been imposed. Likewise for Norway. Following Japan’s lead, Norway began issuing scientific permits for whaling in 1988. Then in 1993, despite having committed to the moratorium, Norway changed its mind and, eschewing the ‘‘research whaling’’ maneuver, began a blatantly commercial harvest of minke whales in the northeast Atlantic Ocean. Each year since then, Norway has set rapidly escalating quotas for its minke take, numbers that stand in 1999 at 750 whales annually. Like Japan, Norway has been certified more than once, but without having suffered any trade sanctions, perhaps because it could easily retaliate by

816 | Whaling

withdrawing exploration licenses to U.S. oil companies. In March 1999, Iceland’s Parliament passed a resolution to resume commercial whaling within its territorial waters. Iceland is not a member of the IWC. In 1992, the IWC began to pave the way for a resumption of commercial whaling for its membership by developing ‘‘revised management procedures.’’ By 1994, a plan was in place whereby large-scale whaling could begin when a given whale stock increased to at least 54 percent of its population total in the ‘‘preexploitation’’ days before overhunting decimated the cetaceans. The United States has opposed the plan and, indeed, the Marine Mammal Commission has issued a report, approved by Congress, emphasizing that the value of whales goes beyond their use as natural resources, that moral considerations speak against a return to commercial whaling at any time. In any case, the ‘‘revised management procedures’’ have to this date never been implemented, but they may not be long in coming. At the July 1999 meeting of the IWC, it was noted that before the scheme could be executed ‘‘work on a number of issues, including specification of an inspection and observer system must be completed.’’ One year later, however, Japan and Norway exerted sufficient pressure at the July 2000 meeting to persuade the IWC to accelerate the drafting of a new whale management plan. The two nations and a number of other countries interested in pursuing commercial whaling met at the IWC meetings in 2010 where the IWC refused to allow commercial whaling but disappointed whaling critics by maintaining the status quo. Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling The moratorium adopted by the IWC admits of only two exceptions. One of these—scientific research—has been used by Japan and Norway to continue hunting, violating the spirit if not the letter of the whaling suspension, as we have seen. The other exception has been nearly as controversial. It allows taking whales ‘‘when the meat and products of such whales are to be used exclusively for local consumption by the aborigines’’ and when a continuing subsistence need has been proved. ‘‘Aboriginal subsistence whaling’’ is defined as ‘‘whaling . . . carried out by or on behalf of aboriginal, indigenous or native peoples who share strong community, familial, social, and cultural ties relating to a continuing dependence on whaling and on the use of whales.’’ The controversy started mildly enough in Alaska, where Inuit whaling communities on the north slope had been engaged in unregulated and unrestricted hunting of bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) for many centuries. The IWC determined in 1977 that bowhead numbers in the Arctic Ocean could be as low as 600 individuals, and quickly asserted a complete prohibition on all bowhead hunting. With support from the federal government, the newly formed Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission managed to prevail upon the IWC to lift the ban in 1978 and allow the Inuit to take 12 whales each year as permissible aboriginal

Whaling | 817

subsistence whaling. Since then, bowhead numbers have increased, and the annual quota is now 54. Contention over the aboriginal subsistence exception began to build in 1994. Inspired by both the success of the Inuit in managing whales while maintaining a key cultural element, and by the signal event of the removal of the gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) from the Endangered Species list, the Makah Indians of Washington’s Olympic Peninsula decided to take up whaling again. For nearly 70 years, the Makah had abandoned whaling following the severe depletion of gray whales by commercial whalers and increased pressure by the Bureau of Indian Affairs to pursue farming. Now, the tribe needed the approval of the IWC and the bestowal of the aboriginal subsistence exception before they could legally return to this hunting tradition. Several tribal members accompanied the U.S. delegation to the 1996 IWC meetings in Aberdeen, Scotland, seeking the subsistence exception. To almost everyone’s surprise, the U.S. delegates withdrew their proposal to permit whaling by the Makah, citing concerns about the training of the Indian whalers and their methods of hunting. However, the Americans pledged their support of the Makah and their willingness to press the matter the following year at the meetings in Monaco. After the IWC adjourned in October 1997, it was widely reported that the commission had granted the Makah a subsistence exception to hunt four gray whales each year. In fact, no such proposal was ever presented, let alone approved. A clear majority in the IWC did not believe the Makah had ‘‘strong community, familial, social, and cultural ties relating to a continuing dependence on whaling and on the use of whales.’’ Instead, the Clinton administration cut a deal with the Russian Federation, exchanging four gray whales from the allotment slated to go to the Chukotka of eastern Siberia for an equal number of bowhead whales allotted to the Inuit of Alaska. Thus the IWC quota of 124 gray whales for aboriginal populations in the Pacific remained unchanged, and the Makah could go whaling again. By spring 1998, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) had issued the Makah a license for aboriginal subsistence whaling, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) had published regulations for subsistence whaling that included the Makah. Nonsubsistence Aboriginal Whaling Anticipating this outcome, Representative Jack Metcalf of Washington, some concerned citizens, and several animal protection organizations had already filed suit against NMFS, NOAA, and the Commerce Department, asking for an injunction to halt the Indian whale hunt. Metcalf argued that the federal defendants had failed to adequately assess the environmental impact of the planned hunt on the gray whale population, and was therefore in violation of the Whaling Convention Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). A number

818 | Whaling

of Makah elders, one of whom was a plaintiff in the lawsuit, also opposed the hunt on different grounds. They pointed out that traditionally whale hunting was preceded by months of various ritual activities, including regular fasting and sexual abstinence, rites that would not be observed by the modern whalers. For these elders, the profound religious and cultural significance of the whale hunt was irretrievably lost. The Commerce Department, NOAA, and the NMFS emphasized that an environmental assessment of Makah whaling had been prepared, as required by NEPA, a determination made that the hunt would not significantly affect the environment, and a ‘‘Finding of No Significant Impact’’ (FONSI) issued. In September 1998, the federal district court for western Washington accepted this and allowed the hunt to proceed. Intending to set out after the whales in October, the Indians soon realized that none of their number had hunted cetaceans before, indeed, no living Makah ever had, so more preparation was necessary. In May 1999, Makah hunters struck and killed a 30-ton gray whale with harpoons and 0.50 caliber machine-gun bullets. As it turned out, this may be the only whale the Indians will be allowed to take. Meanwhile, Metcalf appealed the lower court decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and in June 2000, the plaintiffs finally received the injunction they had sought for nearly three years. Judge Stephen Trott ruled that although NOAA did produce an environmental assessment, NEPA was violated nonetheless. The assessment was prepared a year and a half after the agency had formally agreed to support the Makah’s endeavor to resume whaling. Specifically, NOAA contracted with the Indians in March 1996 to present their case for whaling to the IWC, to assist them in collecting information and specimens from killed whales, to monitor the hunt, and to promulgate the appropriate regulations authorizing it. The agreement was renewed in October 1997 and four days later the FONSI was issued. But NEPA regulations and the relevant case law clearly demand that environmental assessments be done ‘‘at the earliest possible time’’ and ‘‘before any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources’’ have been made. According to Judge Trott, this is exactly what the federal defendants did not do. ‘‘It is highly likely’’ he wrote, ‘‘that because of the federal defendants’ prior written commitment to the Makah . . . the environmental assessment was slanted in favor of finding that the Makah whaling proposal would not significantly affect the environment.’’ Trott quashed the FONSI and suspended the agreement with the Makah, which removes regulations authorizing the whaling. He ordered the preparation of a new environmental assessment (Metcalf v. Daley). As of 2010 the Makah are hoping to renew their harvesting of gray whales but their waiver request has not yet been issued by the Marine Mammal Commission. Jordon Curnutt

Whitman, Christie | 819

References Dolin, Eric Jay. Leviathan: The History of Whaling in America. New York: W.W. Norton, 2007. Eichstaedt, Richard Kirk. ‘‘‘Save the Whales’ v. ‘Save the Makah’: The Makah and the Struggle for Native Whaling.’’ Animal Law 4 (1998): 145–172. Estes, J. A., et al. Whales, Whaling, and Ocean Ecosystems. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006. Japan Whaling Association v. American Cetacean Society, 478 U.S. 221 (1986). Metcalf v. Daley, 214 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 2000). Roberts, Callum. The Unnatural History of the Sea. Washington DC: Island Press/ Shearwater Books, 2007. Stevens, Christine. ‘‘Marine Mammals.’’ In Animals and Their Legal Rights, 4th ed. Washington DC: Animal Welfare Institute, 1990.

Whitman, Christie As the first women elected governor of New Jersey, Christie Whitman served two terms from 1993 to 2000. From 2001 to 2003, Whitman served as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) chief administrator. Born Christine

Christie Whitman, former administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under President Bush from 2001–2003. (AP/Wide World Photos)

820 | Whitman, Christie

Temple Todd on September 26, 1946, in rural Hunterdon County, New Jersey, Whitman was the youngest child of Webster and Eleanor Schley Todd (Aron, 1994). Whitman graduated from high school in 1964. Four years later, Whitman graduated from Wheaton College in Massachusetts—then a women’s college— with a bachelor’s degree in government. Upon graduating, she worked on behalf of Nelson Rockefeller’s unsuccessful 1968 presidential campaign. Shortly thereafter, Whitman went to work for the Republican National Committee (RNC), the party’s governing body (Beard, 1996) In 1982, Whitman assumed a seat on the Somerset County Board of Chosen Freeholders, the governing body of the county. In addition to holding leadership positions on this board, the majority of Whitman’s efforts concerned waste management and the establishment of the county’s open space program. After serving five years, Whitman was appointed in 1988 by Governor Thomas H. Kean to serve as president of the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (McClure, 1996). In 1990, Whitman left this cabinet post to run for the U.S. Senate, challenging Democrat incumbent Bill Bradley. Losing by two percentage points, equaling less than 60,000 votes, Whitman was energized by nearly beating the former professional basketball star (Weissman, 1996). Three years later, she redirected her public service sights by winning the governor’s mansion, becoming the state’s fiftieth governor. As a moderate Republican governor, Whitman, to the chagrin of the state’s right wing, became known for her pro-choice stance on abortion and moderate views on social issues. She also gained a reputation for taking an interest in environmental matters by working closely with the state’s Department of Environmental Protection. Throughout her tenure, New Jersey received wide acclaim from bodies of oversight like the Natural Resources Defense Council for its efforts to foster and maintain a first-rate beach monitoring system. Equally important, Whitman helped preserve one million acres of space and farmland (Mandel, 1999). Not just concerned with safeguarding New Jersey’s forests, fish, and wildlife, Whitman was a strong advocate for President Clinton’s Roadless Area Initiative, which sought to permanently protect the best remaining federal forest wildlands. Whitman attempted to balance environmental and economic objectives. After two terms, Whitman was named to lead the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Although committed to forging strong partnerships among communities and government and business entities to generate cleaner air, water, and land, Whitman was plagued by defending policies she had characterized as harmful to the environment when she was New Jersey’s governor (Whitman, 2005). While she was administrator, the agency was criticized for declining to fully regulate gases that cause global warming, relaxing air-pollution regulations for power companies, and letting up on protecting streams and wetlands. Whitman’s tenure garnered little applause from the business world, while environmentalists were pleased to see her resign. In 2007, Whitman was criticized during

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 | 821

congressional hearings concerning alleged EPA assurances that it was safe to breathe the air around the ruined World Trade Center after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Whitman vehemently denied issuing any statements or suggestions that would give people a false sense of safety. Rather, Whitman insisted that the federal government effectively warned those working on or near the debris to use respirators, while citizens reasonably away from toxic zones were safe to breathe the air unshielded (Whitman, 2005). During her years in public service, Whitman served on a number of boards, commissions, and various volunteer bodies. Today, Whitman continues to promote her message of reestablishing the Republican Party to its centrist heritage (Whitman, 2005). Whitman, moreover, continues to inform and guide environmental issues through the auspice of her consulting firm, the Whitman Strategy Group. Based in New Jersey with an international reach, the firm seeks to advise corporations and countries with technical problems such as emissions, chemical production, and overall pollution prevention. Whether on advisory boards or as a policymaker, Whitman’s distinguished career in public service has demonstrated her dedication to improved air and water quality as well as land preservation. Darius V. Echeverrıa See also Bush, George W.; Roadless Area Conservation Policy

References Aron, Michael. Governor’s Race: A TV Reporter’s Chronicles of the 1993 Florio/ Whitman Campaign. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1994. Beard, Patricia. Growing Up Republican: Christie Whitman: The Politics of Character. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1996. Mandel, Ruth B. ‘‘Christine Todd Whitman: In Conversation with Ruth B. Mandel and Mary S. Hartman.’’ In Talking Leadership: Conversations with Powerful Women, Mary S. Hartman, ed., 257–278. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1999. McClure, Sandy. Christie Whitman for the People: A Political Biography. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1996. Weissman, Art. Christine Todd Whitman: The Making of a National Political Player. New York: Carol Publishing Group, 1996. Whitman, Christine Todd. It’s My Party Too: The Battle for the Heart of the GOP and the Future of America. New York: Penguin Press, 2005.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 The United States has rivers that are remarkably scenic and have value for recreation (fishing, canoeing, kayaking, and rafting), fish and wildlife well-being, and historical or cultural significance. Senator Frank Church of Idaho fought for and

822 | Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968

Rafters paddle down the middle fork of the Salmon River in the Frank Church Wilderness Area, Idaho, June 6, 1999. This officially designated ‘‘wilderness area,’’ which has different, more stringent restrictions than a national park, was set aside through the efforts of Frank Church, the late U.S. senator from Idaho, who saw the peril in developing this land. (AP/Wide World Photos)

Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act on October 2, 1968. The law preserves free-flowing waters of America’s spectacular rivers, protecting their wild character while making them available for suitable development and use. The intent is to allow current use while preserving the environmental resources for generations to come. The law was a complement to other legislation that provided for damming and otherwise modifying other rivers. Scenic rivers were to remain free flowing while protecting the interests of landowners and the community. Rivers are classified at three levels—wild, scenic, and recreational. Wild rivers have no dams, no roads, are accessible by trail only, and reflect primitive America. Scenic rivers have no dams, largely primitive shorelines and watersheds, but there is access in places by road. Recreational rivers are accessible by road or railroad and may have some shoreline development. Recreational rivers may in the past have been dammed. A river under the act does not have to qualify or come under coverage in its entirety. Sections can be designated while normal activities continue upstream.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 | 823

After World War II, the Corps of Engineers, feeling the attitude of a victorious warrior and the push of pent up demand for economic growth, developed plans for damming hundreds of rivers. Two whitewater rafters, John and Frank Craighead, took on the dams one by one before deciding that there had to be an easier way of keeping the rivers free for rafting. A film of rafting the Salmon River, articles in National Geographic and elsewhere, and the Wilderness Act of 1964’s promotion of environmentalism were their tools. Frank Church was the decisive factor. In 1968, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act culminated their efforts. In the 1960s, awareness grew that river development needed balancing by some sort of preservation of outstanding undeveloped rivers for future generations. The tool for making this happen was the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 Congress may designate protected rivers, and sometimes a governor can suggest a river to the Secretary of Interior. Taking of water rights will be after just compensation. States retain jurisdiction to the extent that the exercise of that jurisdiction does not interfere with the act. The act does not modify interstate compacts, but the extent of federal power to reserve water is contingent on this requirement. One of the best wild and scenic rivers is Idaho’s Middle Fork of the Salmon, surrounded by the 2.3 million acre Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness. Forty years after enactment, the act covered 165 rivers, including Alaskan glacier-fed streams, portions of the Rio Grande, streams in New England, and a black water bayou in Louisiana. Each river is unique. The initial effort saved eight rivers: the Middle Fork of the Salmon, Idaho’s Middle Fork of the Clearwater, Oregon’s Rogue, the St. Croix in Minnesota and Wisconsin, Missouri’s Eleven Point, California’s Middle Fork of the Feather, Wisconsin’s Wolf, and the Rio Grande in New Mexico. A 1993 report indicated that the act was not totally adequate. Although rivers that would have formerly been dammed were still free and available for citizens, the runs of salmon and steelhead were dwindling and the press of users was crushing. The act set aside visual assets but did little to keep the rivers healthy. American Rivers wanted watershed protection as well. American Rivers is the leading river conservation organization, with over 65,000 members. It was established in 1973. But by 1993, the act covered only 10,000 miles, less than 1 percent of the river miles in the U.S. The act covered portions of rivers while allowing development elsewhere—housing and dams and pollution and declining salmon runs. Forty years after enactment, the system included 11,500 miles of river in 38 states. Oregon had 48 rivers, followed by Alaska with 25, Michigan with 16, and California with 14. Wild and scenic rivers provide sanctuary for biological diversity, protected habitat for fish and wildlife, and recreation for whitewater and fishing fans.

824 | Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968

Many of the species protected are so at risk that they would probably have been extinct without the designation. In 2009, a new wild and scenic rivers package provided protection for more than 1,000 miles of river in states from Oregon and Utah to Vermont and Massachusetts, the second largest package and the doubling of the target set in 2006 by American Rivers of having 40 new covered rivers by the fortieth anniversary. The designation helped to safeguard clean water and promote recreation as well as economic growth. The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 also protected 270,000 acres of land along 82 additional wild and scenic rivers as well as wilderness designation of 2 million acres of public land. In 2010, wild and scenic rivers include over 2,050 river miles and 1.002 million acres under the management of the Bureau of Land Management. In 2000, the national policy and management came under the BLM’s National Landscape Conservation System. Overseeing the effort is the Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council. Not all candidates turned into protected rivers. In the southeast, the grassroots support was missing. After 40 years the region had only seven protected rivers. The national total was 252. The Nationwide Rivers Inventory listed 3,400 river segments that qualified, including dozens in the southeast. All the people had to do was ask Congress to designate a river or portion thereof. Some states such as Maryland had wild and scenic rivers programs, but Maryland had only one designated stretch after 30 years. Mostly the idea of protecting a river met with opposition from landowners who feared infringement on their property rights. There was also the traditional distrust of the feds. The same attitude prevailed in the west, as in Utah where distrust of the federal government had strong historical roots. John H. Barnhill See also Johnson, Lyndon

References Baldwin, Pamela. ‘‘The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and Federal Water Rights.’’ CRS Report for Congress. January 18, 2001. http://ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/ Public/pub-16.cfm?&CFID=7246664&CFTOKEN=65919120. Barnard, Jeff. ‘‘Wild and Scenic Rivers Act: The Good, the Bad, the Beautiful.’’ Associated Press. November 14, 1993. http://articles.latimes.com/1993-11-14/local/ me-56652_1_wild-and-scenic-scenic-rivers-act. BLM California. ‘‘Wild and Scenic Rivers.’’ January 14, 2010. http://www.blm.gov/ ca/st/en/prog/blm_special_areas/wildrivers.html. Blue Ridge Outdoors. ‘‘River Wild: The Southeast’s Wild and Scenic Rivers.’’ June 1, 2009. http://www.blueridgeoutdoors.com/1107/river-wild-the-southeast%E2%80%99s-wild -and-scenic-rivers/.

Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992 | 825 Desolation Dory Blog. ‘‘Wild and Scenic Rivers.’’ September 25, 2007. http:// desolationdory.blogspot.com/2007/09/wild-scenic-rivers.html. ‘‘President Obama Signs Historic Wild and Scenic River Bill into Law.’’ American Rivers. March 30, 2009. http://www.americanrivers.org/newsroom/press-releases/2009/ president-obama-signs.html. Stuebner, Steve. ‘‘America’s Wild & Scenic Rivers.’’ American Profile. May 15, 2008. http://www.americanprofile.com/article/26678.html. ‘‘Wild & Scenic Green River.’’ Salt Lake Tribune. October 3, 2007. http://166.70.44.68/ multimedia/2007/1003_greenriver/index.html. Wodder, Rebecca. ‘‘U.S. Senate Goes with the Flow: Wild & Scenic Rivers Act Passed.’’ American Rivers. January 16, 2009. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/01/ us-senate-goes-with-the-flow-wild-scenic-rivers-act_passes.php.

Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992 The Wild Bird Conservation Act (106 U.S.C. 2224) is a federal law created by the U.S. Congress. It was signed on October 23, 1992. The purpose of the act is to limit trading and importation of exotic bird species into the United States. It stipulates that birds can only be imported if their population is sustainable in their country of origin. The act also establishes a governing body to mandate what species can be imported and what bird species are prohibited from importation. Before the act was signed into law, many species of exotic birds were being imported into the United States as pets, especially parrots and small finches. Statistics indicate that almost 16 million exotic birds may have been trapped in the wild and shipped to the United States. Not only did the importation further population decline in the countries of origin, the birds were often accidentally killed during transportation. This added many bird species to the endangered list that could have been properly protected in their home countries. The declining populations of these exotic birds spurred Congress to action. Bird species that were listed as endangered were deemed illegal to import. The act also gave the power to designate other bird species, those close to endangerment, as not being legal to import. The Secretary of the Interior was given the authority to create the list of allowable species and to exempt species from prohibition if they are necessary for scientific research or zoo breeding programs. The secretary is also able to decide which breeding facilities could legally send exotics birds to the United States. People and groups that violate the act are subject to a maximum penalty of $25,000. Money collected from these penalties goes to the Exotic Bird Conservation Fund. This fund was also established by the act to conserve and protect exotic birds in their native lands. The Wild Bird Conservation Act has been a success. The amount of exotic bird imported to the United States has been substantially lowered. Millions of

826 | Wilderness Act of 1964

dollars have been given to wild bird conservation projects. Since the act was aimed at importers and breeders of exotic birds, there has been some objection by their community. Those who object to the prohibition of certain species may petition the Secretary of the Interior and have their objections reviewed under the stipulations of the act. It also still has strong legal standing. The act was challenged in court and the judge found in favor of those supporting the act. The Wild Bird Conservation Act still has authority. Chelsea Griffis See also Conservation; National Audubon Society; U.S. Department of the Interior

References Bean, Michael J., and Melanie J. Rowland. The Evolution of National Wildlife Law. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1997. University of New Mexico Center for Wildlife Law. ‘‘Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992.’’ Federal Wildlife and Related Laws Handbook. http://wildlifelaw.unm.edu/ fedbook/wildbird.html.

Wilderness Act of 1964 First authored by activist Howard Zahniser and signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on September 3, 1964, the Wilderness Act became a watershed moment for environmental legislation. Its primary purpose was to prevent the spread of settlement and industry to unoccupied areas of the United States that remained in a ‘‘natural condition . . . in order to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness’’ (Wilderness Act, 1964). Initially proposed by Senator Hubert Humphrey and Representative John Saylor in 1957—on the coattails of the Echo Park Dam controversy—the bill that would later become known as the Wilderness Act was greeted with a whirlwind of opposition. Resistance came from various industry lobbyists and even from the National Park Service, which viewed the designation of distinct wilderness areas under the jurisdiction of the newly formed National Wilderness Preservation System—a key component of the act—as a challenge to its authority. Yet, after a number of revisions, the Wilderness Act eventually passed in 1964. While some activists such as Zahniser viewed the legislation as too compromising, most heralded the act as a decisive victory for environmental preservation. As a way of determining what qualified as wilderness, the act offered a broad and, in some ways, philosophical definition: ‘‘area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain’’ (Wilderness Act, 1964). In order to protect and preserve these wilderness sites, the act prohibited the construction of permanent installations—including

Wilderness Society | 827

roads and buildings—and prevented the use of motorized vehicles (other than for emergency purposes) in any areas officially deemed as wild. Instead, these locations were to remain feral spaces where wildlife could thrive unhampered by the encroachment of human civilization. Since the ratification of the Wilderness Act in 1964, which initially set aside 9.1 million acres as official wilderness area, the U.S. government has continued to add to its list of protected areas. For instance, in 1984, the U.S. Congress passed a number of minor wilderness acts, setting aside wild spaces in states such as California, Washington, Oregon, Utah, and Arizona. Jonathan W. Olson See also Johnson, Lyndon; National Park Service; National Wilderness Preservation System

References Harvey, Mark. Wilderness Forever: Howard Zahniser and the Path to the Wilderness Act. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2005. Nash, Roderick. Wilderness and the American Mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001. Scott, Doug. The Enduring Wilderness: Protecting Our Natural Heritage through the Wilderness Act. Golden, CO: Folcrum, 2004. U.S. Congress. Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136, 78 Stat. 890)—Public Law 88-577, approved September 3, 1964.

Wilderness Society The Wilderness Society is a nonprofit conservation organization that lobbies government and works with communities to enact policies intended to protect American wilderness and ecological diversity. The society is headquartered in Washington, D.C., and maintains branch offices throughout the United States. Members of the society were influential in the passage of the 1964 Wilderness Act, the Alaska National Interest Lands and Conservation Act of 1980, the California Desert Protection Act of 1994, and a large number of public lands bills. Benton MacKaye, the originator of the Appalachian Trail concept; Aldo Leopold, a University of Wisconsin ecologist; Robert Marshall, one-time chief of the Forest Service; and Robert Sterling Yard, the ‘‘father’’ of the National Park Service, founded the Wilderness Society in January 1935. The first decades of the society’s existence were occupied by discussions regarding the definition of, access to, and protection of wilderness (Sutter, 2002). In the prosperous years following World War II, millions of Americans used the new interstate highways and state roads to access national parks. In response to exponential increases in visitation, the National Park Service proposed Mission ’66, a decade-long investment program to improve and expand park infrastructure, which also included extensive

828 | Wind Energy

road building within the parks. The renewed threat to remaining wilderness areas galvanized the society and other Americans to lobby for restraint. Howard Zahniser, society president from 1945 to 1964, drafted this concern for wilderness into proposed legislation that President Lyndon Johnson would sign into law as the Wilderness Act of 1964 (Harvey, 2007). In 2008, the society listed more than 400,000 members. The society’s twentyfirst-century goals include increased funding for federally managed wilderness areas, protection of additional areas, regulation of gas and oil development in Alaska and other fragile ecosystems, closer scrutiny of the logging industry, and limits on the inappropriate use of off-road vehicles. Silas Chamberlin References Harvey, Mark. Wilderness Forever: Howard Zahniser and the Path to the Wilderness Act. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2007. Nash, Roderick. Wilderness and the American Mind, 4th ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001. Sutter, Paul. Driven Wild: How the Fight Against Automobiles Launched the Modern Wilderness Movement. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2002.

Wind Energy Like many of the water energies, wind energy is also formed indirectly from solar energy. Solar radiation causes differential heating and pressure effects to occur in the atmosphere, forming wind currents and weather patterns. The differential heating of landscapes and oceans allows for certain areas in the world to be consistently windy. The kinetic energy of wind can be converted into mechanical power with wind turbines and used to generate electricity. The concept of a wind turbine is the same as that for water or gas turbines, but the design is different in order to exploit the aerodynamic properties of wind. Although there are many different wind turbine designs, two main types are made commercially: horizontal and vertical (whose axis of rotation is vertical). Significant wind power industries are found in California, Denmark, and the United Kingdom. In California, there are over 15,500 operational wind turbines in the state, with a generating capacity of 16,200 MW. In Denmark, there are more than 2,800 operational wind turbines, with a generating capacity of 343 MW. The United Kingdom has been the most recent site for commercial wind energy developments, with over 170 MW of installed wind capacity (Taylor, 1996, 304). In addition to large commercial-scale projects, wind power is significantly used in local communities and for small-scale applications. Jaina Moan and Zachary A. Smith

Winters v. United States (1908) | 829

A wind turbine farm in the California desert. (iStockPhoto)

References American Wind Energy Association. http://www.awea.org. European Wind Energy Association. Wind Energy—The Facts: A Guide to the Technology, Economics, and Future of Wind Power. Sterling, VA: Earthscan, 2009. Ramage, J. Energy: A Guidebook, New Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Ramage, J. ‘‘Hydroelectricity.’’ In Renewable Energy: Power for a Sustainable Future,. G. Boyle, ed., 181–226. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Ramage, J., and J. Scurlock. ‘‘Biomass.’’ In Renewable Energy: Power for a Sustainable Future, G. Boyle, ed., 137–182. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1996. Taylor, D. ‘‘Wind Energy.’’ In Renewable Energy: Power for a Sustainable Future, G. Boyle, ed., 270–320. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Winters v. United States (1908) In Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908), the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed for the first time the federal reserved water rights doctrine that Indians accepted when they agreed to reside on a reservation; water rights were reserved in sufficient quantity to meet the purpose of the reservation. Such rights took precedence over the rights states acquired after a territory became a state.

830 | Wise-Use Movement

The case originated in the treaty of May 1, 1888, when the federal government created the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation for the use of the several Indian tribes before Montana was admitted to the Union in 1889. Thereafter, mining companies began to divert water from the Milk River to build dams and other irrigation projects for the purposes of establishing communities for new settlers. The federal government sued these companies for violating federal law. Associate Justice Joseph McKenna opined that the land had been given to the Indians to change their condition from a nomadic to ‘‘pastoral and civilized people.’’ The Indians received lands that were arid, and if they gave up water rights, the land would be valueless and the Indians would be unable to maintain themselves. The federal reserved rights superseded later neighbors’ claims to the water. The court found that the economic viability of the Indian tribes depended on their ability to have access to the waters. The doctrine was later limited by the McCarren Amendment of 1952, while later cases narrowed the Winters Doctrine, e.g., U.S. v. New Mexico, 438 U.S. 696 (1978), and applied it to other types of federal lands as well. Joel Fishman See also Bureau of Indian Affairs

References Royster, Judith V. ‘‘A Primer on Indian Water Rights: More Questions Than Answers.’’ Tulsa Law Journal 30 (1994): 61–104. Royster, Judith V. ‘‘Winters in the East: Tribal Reserved Rights to Water in Riparian States.’’ William & Mary Environmental Law & Policy Review 25 (2000): 169–201. U.S. Bureau of Land Management. ‘‘Federal Reserved Water Rights.’’ http://www.blm .gov/nstc/waterlaws/fedreservedwater.html (accessed April 10, 2010).

Wise-Use Movement The wise-use movement is a loose coalition of right-wing interest groups tied by their opposition to environmentalists and their advocacy of unrestricted exploitation of natural resources. Founded by Ron Arnold in the late 1980s to support mining and timber matters in the western United States, wise-use advocates the removal of current environmental laws and the prevention of future measures that interfere with exploitation. The movement includes corporations and grassroots groups. The coalition continues to shift and evolve as it splinters. Arnold’s group was the model for other groups that seem to be grassroots organizations but receive their funding and direction from major corporations. The term for this sort of group is astroturf. The first wise-use conference in 1988 was funded by the American Freedom Coalition, associated with the Reverend Sun Myung Moon.

Wise-Use Movement | 831

Ron Arnold was once an employee of the Sierra Club. His colleague, Alan Gottlieb, is a conservative fund-raiser. When Arnold joined with Gottlieb, he got access to Gottlieb’s $5 million a year direct mail and telephone fundraising apparatus. He also got Gottlieb to publish The Wise Use Agenda in 1988. Arnold coauthored a favorable biography of James Watt, Reagan’s Interior Secretary, who was noted for his efforts to remove environmental laws and open federal lands to exploitation. Watt’s excesses led to the revitalization of the environmental movement in the late 1980s. Gifford Pinchot, the first head of the Forest Service, wanted wise use of trees and minerals. He and John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club, feuded because Muir wanted wilderness for its own sake, for its spiritual value. Ron Arnold chose the name, he said in 1991, because it was ambiguous and the right size for newspaper headlines. Wise-use groups throughout the United States engage in disinformation about environmental laws, and they are developing a true grassroots following. Wiseuse groups commonly receive funding from chemical, mining, and timber companies and in return loudly claim that the hole in the ozone layer is a myth, that air and water laden with carcinogens are harmless, and that government subsidized clear-cutting promotes proper growth of trees. Wise-use advocates early on equated environmentalists with pagans and eco-Nazis and advocate using threats against environmentalists. In the Pacific Northwest, where it arose as People for the USA (PFUSA), it used a supposed battle between the spotted owl and the families whose livelihoods depended on exploiting the old-growth habitat. It taught loggers how to speak in sound bites and used slogans such as ‘‘jobs versus owls’’ to create a backlash against other environmental efforts. When George H. W. Bush charged that environmentalists, particularly Al Gore, author of Earth in the Balance, were trying to lock away national resources and destroy the American way of life, it failed to save his candidacy but it did mark the high water mark of the wise-use movement. In the early 1990s, it began developing links with anti-gay and other rightwing groups. One reason wise use declined in the 1990s was its joining with the militias, unpopular after Timothy McVeigh’s bombing of Oklahoma City’s Murrah Building in 1995. When People for the USA failed in 2001, the Sierra Club and others applauded the end of a wise-use group formed in the 1988 battle against the spotted owl. It seemed then that wise use was no longer fashionable, as financing from big business and others dried up. No more were Chevron, DuPont, and Boise Cascade funding wise-use conferences, think tanks, or public relations campaigns. The wise-use proponents were overly aggressive in rhetoric and tactics. But Sierra cautioned that the movement was not dead as the 30,000 PFUSA members

832 | Wise-Use Movement

shifted their allegiances to Frontiers of Freedom, the Blue Ribbon Coalition, and like-minded groups. Besides, the members were never the strength of the wiseuse movement. With the George W. Bush administration, the wise-use movement revived, more subdued than the early days when talk was of war in the woods and threats on rangers were common. Wise users in the Bush administration included Interior Secretary Gale Norton, whose career began at the Mountain States Legal Foundation, known then as the legal arm of wise use and founded by James Watt. Ann Veneman, Agriculture Secretary, also had ties to wise use, as did several of her key staffers. Under Bush, wise-use efforts included the push to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the opening of the Tongass National Forest to wide-scale logging. The ideal was to sell off or fully exploit the natural resources, and Secretary Norton urged maximum exploitation of oil and gas lands. John H. Barnhill See also Arnold, Ronald; Blue Ribbon Coalition

References Burke, William Kevin. ‘‘Right-Wing Anti-Environmentalism.’’ The Public Eye 7 (2) (June 1993). http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v07n2/wiseuse.html. Hattam, Jennifer. ‘‘Wise Use Movement, R.I.P.? Anti-Environmental Movement Promoting Big Business Initiatives.’’ Sierra (May 2001). http://findarticles.com/p/articles/ mi_m1525/is_3_86/ai_74223197/. Helvarg, David. ‘‘‘Wise Use’ in the White House: Yesterday’s Fringe, Today’s Cabinet Official.’’ Sierra (September 2004). http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200409/wiseuse.asp. SourceWatch. ‘‘Wise Use Movement.’’ http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title =Wise_Use_Movement (accessed March 2010).

Y Yosemite National Park Yosemite National Park, established in 1890, is located in the Sierra Nevada Range of east central California. Once a site for the quest of gold in the early 1800s, it is now a popular national park and a vast reserve of wildlife and natural landscape. Accredited as a World Heritage Site in 1984, the National Park Service claims over 95 percent of the property to be preserved wilderness. The Sierra Nevada region was dominated by the native Miwok peoples preceding the nineteenth century, and was later influenced by various explorers and gold miners during the 1830s. As an increasing number of settlers traveled through the land, public interest in preservation efforts of the natural beauty gradually increased. In 1864, private enterprises threatened the area’s beauty and free access, which led John Conness, senator of California, to introduce a bill into Congress that would require the state to preserve Yosemite Valley in a natural and undisturbed condition. The bill stated that the area be for resort and recreation and public use and was signed by President Lincoln in 1864. This bill was the predecessor for what would become the National Park System. In 1890, Congress established Yosemite National Park around the original Yosemite Grant, and in 1906, California ceded its land to the federal government. On August 25, 1916, under Woodrow Wilson, the National Park Service was founded. Stephen T. Mather was put in charge of the direction and unification of the National Park System. Mather believed the parks needed to develop resources for the pleasure of the public to increase tourist and profits. He began to push for amenities in national parks. Yosemite’s included the Ahwahnee Hotel, the Yosemite lodge, a permanent tent camp at Curry, and seasonal camps in the high Sierras. Mather also began a division that was in charge of landscape architecture for parks, which was used to construct buildings, campgrounds, and roads with minimal interference with natural scenery. Tourist visitation at Yosemite was seasonal. Waterfalls were big in the spring, with fewer people in the valley during summer. So the park decided to publicize other attractions, such as boating in the Merced River in the summer. With a new hotel projected for the valley floor, Yosemite would soon become a famous winter resort. The terrain challenged early travelers. Between 1850 and 1860, only 650 people visited Yosemite Valley by horseback or stagecoach. In 1864, President Abraham 833

834 | Yosemite National Park

Lincoln endowed the state of California with Yosemite Valley along with Mariposa Grove. Yosemite officially became a national park in 1890 due to the endeavors of naturalist and explorer John Muir, who had studied this vast land for six years. In 1906, the National Park Service authorized the addition of Yosemite Valley and Mariposa Grove, which were not formerly included. By the following year, the Yosemite Valley Railroad from Merced to El Portal was completed, increasing visitation. In 1917, due to an increase in tourism, national parks were given more revenue to further develop amenities. Yosemite’s money was spent on construction, maintenance, and improvement of the park road and trail systems, both on the valley floor and in outlying areas. The Sundry Civil Act of July 1, 1916, gave $150,000 for the erection of a new power plant in the park to produce revenue from selling the electricity. Yosemite National Park, currently visited by nearly 3.5 million people annually, has continued to add and update amenities and various other research initiatives. However, due to the sudden effects of global warming, Yosemite is listed as one of the 12 western American national parks that are under danger of extreme environmental threat, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. Due to increased glacial melting and precipitation falling as rain rather than snow, California’s drinking water is threatened as over 50 percent comes from the Yosemite area. Mohammad Gharipour and Anitha Deshamudre See also National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; National Park Service; Natural Resources Defense Council

References Greene, Linda Wedel. Yosemite: The Park and Its Resources: A History of the Discovery, Management, and Physical Development of Yosemite National Park, California, Volumes 1 and 2. Washington DC: U.S. Department of the Interior/National Park Service, 1987. National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior, ‘‘Nature and Science.’’ http:// www.nps.gov/yose/naturescience/index.htm (accessed August 23, 2009). National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior, ‘‘Yosemite National Park: History and Culture.’’ http://www.nps.gov/yose/historyculture/index.htm (accessed June 1, 2009). Natural Resources Defense Council, ‘‘Losing Ground.’’ http://www.nrdc.org/land/ parks/gw/contents.asp (accessed August 23, 2009). Scharff, Robert. Yosemite National Park. New York: David McKay Company, 1967.

Chronology: Environmental Policy and Politics Time Line

Five Billion Years Ago

Planet Earth takes shape.

10,000 Years Ago

The most recent Ice Age ends.

Mid-1700s

The Industrial Revolution starts. In the process of industrialization, the economy shifts focus from manual labor to machinery.

1798

English political economist Thomas Malthus predicts that if population growth continues indefinitely, populations will outstrip food supplies. His theory proves to be challenged as human ingenuity and scientific inventions lead to advancements in food production.

1818

Massachusetts bans hunting robins and horned larks as a conservation measure. This could be considered the first statewide conservation measure in the country, besides the 1791 closing of the hunting season on the heath hen. Nonetheless, the species is extinct by the early 1900s.

1819

Ornithologist Thomas Nuttall encourages others to regard wilderness not only for its economic benefit in lumber, iron ore, and farmland, but also as a vast laboratory storing fascinating and important facts awaiting discovery.

1824

French mathematician and physicist Joseph Fourier discovers that atmospheric gases could raise the Earth’s surface temperature. This phenomenon would later be termed ‘‘the greenhouse effect.’’ 835

836 | Chronology: Environmental Policy and Politics Time Line

Solomon and William Downs of Providence, Rhode Island, publishes the first Farmer’s Guide, which discusses causes and remedies for soil erosion. 1832

Congress creates Hot Springs Reservation in Arkansas, the first federal wildlife sanctuary in the country. The designation set precedent that allowed lawmakers to create the National Park System. George Catlin, a U.S. artist and author who chronicled Native Americans and the wild country in which they lived, first proposes the idea of national parks.

1835

Ralph Waldo Emerson penned and published the essay, Nature, which began the American Transcendental movement. In Nature, Emerson wrote that nature never becomes a toy to a wise spirit.

1838

John Muir, one of the founders of the Sierra Club and a popular environmentalist, is born in Dunbar, Scotland.

1840

Nathaniel Parker Willis writes American Scenery, promoting the benefits of living on the urban fringe, thus beginning a literature devoted to explaining and promoting suburban growth.

1847

In a speech, U.S. Congressman George Perkins Marsh calls attention to the destructive impact of human activity on the environment, especially through deforestation. The speech becomes the basis for his book Man and Nature or The Earth as Modified by Human Action (1864).

1849

The U.S. Department of the Interior is established to manage and conserve federally owned land throughout the country associated with natives in Alaska and Hawaii. Today, 28 percent of U.S. energy comes from federal lands.

1850

Citing the observations of Alexander von Humboldt and others, the U.S. Commissioner of Patents Thomas Ewbank warns the nation of the effects of deforestation in his Report of the Commissioner of Patents, for the Year 1849 (House of Representatives Executive Document No. 20).

Chronology: Environmental Policy and Politics Time Line | 837

1854

Henry David Thoreau’s Walden is published. In it, he concludes that a balance between wilderness and civilization is required for a balanced soul. Neither alone is sufficient, he wrote. Together they maximize one’s intellectual and moral growth. It was during this year that Chief Seattle tells the white man that all life is connected.

1857

A commission is granted to landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted to create Central Park in New York City to give people a natural place to rejuvenate.

1859

Publication of the second edition of William Elliott’s Carolina Sports by Land and Water, which first illustrates the hunter-as-conservationist—an important model for conservationism.

1860

Henry David Thoreau delivers an address to the Middlesex (Massachusetts) Agricultural Society, entitled ‘‘The Succession of Forest Trees,’’ in which he refers to what later came to be understood as forest ecology.

1862

The Homestead Act becomes law, enabling applicants to own up to 160 acres of federal land outside of the colonies.

1864

George Perkins Marsh publishes Man and Nature; or, Physical Geography as Modified by Human Action, the first systematic analysis of humanity’s destructive impact on the environment and an inspiration to the conservation movement. Publication of Henry David Thoreau’s The Maine Woods, calling for the establishment of ‘‘national preserves’’ of virgin forest.

1865

Frederick Law Olmsted authors ‘‘Preliminary Report upon the Yosemite and Big Tree Grove,’’ establishing the philosophical justification for public preservation of great natural scenery.

1866

The word ‘‘ecology’’ is coined by the German biologist Ernst Haeckel, thus promoting a multidisciplinary perspective to studying and legislating environmental issues.

838 | Chronology: Environmental Policy and Politics Time Line

1869

John Wesley Powell leads the first expedition through the canyons of Colorado with help from the Smithsonian Institution and other organizations. He publishes his report on this expedition in 1875 as Exploration of the Colorado River of the West and Its Tributaries. A group of citizens—including Frederick Law Olmsted, Frederic Edwin Church, and Henry Hobson Richardson—begins to work toward the restoration and preservation of Niagara Falls. These efforts finally bear fruit in the creation of the reservation in 1885.

1870

Paralleling the increasing number of state-level measures for conserving supplies of fish and game throughout the nation, Congress passes ‘‘An Act to prevent the Extermination of Fur-Bearing Animals in Alaska.’’

1871

The U.S. Congress passes a ‘‘Joint Resolution for the Protection and Preservation of the Food Fishes of the Coast of the United States.’’ This was in response to threatened fisheries in coastal areas. John Burroughs publishes Wake-Robin, beginning a series of essays on environmental themes. Henry George publishes Our Land and Land Policy, National and State, an early call to improve care for public lands and resources.

1872

Yellowstone National Park, the first national park, is established by Congress in Wyoming. Nebraska creates a ‘‘Tree-Planting Day’’ on April 10, starting an annual tradition that becomes known as Arbor Day, recognized across the United States. The General Mining Act is passed. This law was created to further develop public land in the west. The establishment of the bill came at a cost, causing many environmental damages.

1873

Congress passes the Timber Culture Act. This legislation grants people 160 acres if they plant and cut trees on a quarter of their land over 10 years.

Chronology: Environmental Policy and Politics Time Line | 839

Forest and Stream magazine is created and publishes its first edition. This publication turns into the most important sportsmen’s magazine in the country. 1875

The American Forestry Association is founded mainly for the purpose of conservation rather than logging.

1876

The Sacramento Record-Union publishes John Muir’s ‘‘God’s First Temples: How Shall We Preserve Our Forests?’’ The Appalachian Mountain Club begins with a mission to promote the New England mountains.

1877

Congress passes the Desert Land Act, a westwardexpansion law giving people 640 acres at $1.25 an acre as long as the land is irrigated.

1878

The U.S. Geographical and Geological Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region publishes geologist John Wesley Powell’s Report on the Lands of the Arid Region of the United States.

1879

The Anthropological Society of Washington is instituted. Congress establishes the U.S. Geological Survey as an office within the Interior Department. The USGS is granted the duty of classifying federal public lands.

1880

Niagara Falls, New York, becomes focus point of state preservation efforts as the state legislature commissions a report regarding public ownership of the area’s property.

1881

The Division of Forestry is temporarily established in the Department of Agriculture, with Franklin B. Hough as its first chief.

1885

The Adirondack Forest Preserve is established in New York State by constitutional orders. The language creating the park states that the land ‘‘shall be kept forever as wild forest lands.’’ The Adirondack State Park is more than six million acres today.

1886

Conservationist George Grinnell establishes the Audubon Society.

840 | Chronology: Environmental Policy and Politics Time Line

1887

George Bird Grinnell and Theodore Roosevelt establish the Boone and Crockett Club, tying together wildlife sportsmen with the conservation movement.

1890

Congress passes legislation establishing Sequoia National Park in California. In California, the Yosemite and General Grant National Parks are plotted. These parks, once sites of the gold rush, are now extensive preservations of wildlife.

1891

Congress passes the Forest Reserve Act, creating nationally owned forests.

1892

The Sierra Club is established by Muir and others in San Francisco. The group’s aim is to further protect wildlife. The failed human-made canal project named the Love Canal begins. This project is never finished, and instead served as a chemical dump until 1953.

1893

President Benjamin Harrison creates 13 million acres of forest reserves.

1894

Congress passes the National Park Protective Act ‘‘to protect the birds and animals in Yellowstone National Park,’’ thus prohibiting hunting.

1895

In response to the speed at which industrialization was destroying the United States’ wilderness heritage, the American Scenic and Historic Preservation Society is founded by Raymond H. Torrey and others who led the crusade to preserve the Adirondacks.

1897

As part of an appropriations bill, Congress passes what is known as the Forest Management Act, or Organic Act, making explicit the purpose of forest reserves (later national forests) as resources for lumbering, mining, and grazing and providing the blueprint for their management. The Progressive Era brought a rise in what became known in the 1960s as environmentalism. The movement espoused government intervention in the public interest to offset natural resource exploitation by private developers, bringing forward Franklin’s crusade for public rights.

Chronology: Environmental Policy and Politics Time Line | 841

1898

Gifford Pinchot becomes the chief of the Division of Forestry. Housed in the Department of Agriculture, Pinchot adopts a principle of scientific forest management focusing on the greatest good for the greatest number and the efficient use of public forests.

1899

The Rivers and Harbors Act (also called Refuse Act) is passed. This legislation prohibits garbage from being thrown in rivers (except liquid town waste) and insures improved river navigation. Mount Rainier National Park is established in the state of Washington.

1900

The Lacey Act of 1900 is the first comprehensive federal legislation to protect wildlife. William E. Smythe publishes The Conquest of Arid America; this work creates popular support for the Newlands Reclamation Act in 1902.

1901

Conservation becomes a priority in the domestic policy agenda of the newly elected president Theodore Roosevelt. The Right of Way Act permits the use of rights of way through forest reserves and national parks for energy, communication, and water supply systems. The American Scenic and Historic Preservation Society is founded in New York to advocate protection of scenic and historic locations throughout the country. The Water Power Act is passed; it sets standards for regulating and overseeing the evolution of hydropower.

1902

The Reclamation Act allows the federal government to build irrigation services to the dry western territories. The creation of the Bureau of Reclamation, which builds many federal dams. Bernhard E. Fernow publishes The Economics of Forestry: A Reference Book for Students of Political Economy and Professional and Lay Students of Forestry, written at a time when forestry practices were in the front line of conservationism.

842 | Chronology: Environmental Policy and Politics Time Line

1903

President Theodore Roosevelt declares, through an executive order, Pelican Island, Florida, to be a preserve for native birds. This would become the first wildlife refuge in the country. In total, President Roosevelt established 53 wildlife refuges.

1904

Founding of the American Civic Association under the leadership of J. Horace McFarland. Its activities include campaigns for the creation and protection of parks at the national, state, and municipal levels.

1905

Establishment of the U.S. Forest Service by means of the Transfer Act of 1905, underscoring a shift of emphasis from preservation to scientific forestry. Founding of the National Association of Audubon Societies (or, since 1940, the National Audubon Society), establishing a strong national voice for wildlife protection. Nathaniel Southgate Shaler publishes Man and the Earth, raising awareness of problems vis-a-vis ecology, biodiversity loss, and the need for widespread coordination of scenic and wildlife preservation.

1906

Yosemite National Park expands to include Yosemite Valley and Mariposa Grove. The American Antiquities Act is passed, becoming the first federal law to enact national public policy for conservation purposes. Congress requests that the president undertake the necessary treaty negotiations to guarantee the protection of the Niagara Falls. The final treaty limiting the amount of water diverted from the falls is signed in 1909 and remains in effect until 1950.

1907

John Muir publishes ‘‘The Tuolumne Yosemite in Danger’’ in Outlook magazine, giving the campaign national recognition and indicating an ideological divide in the conservation movement between preservationists and utilitarians. Congress renames forest reserves ‘‘national forests,’’ and forbids (except by congressional mandate) their further creation or expansion in six western states.

Chronology: Environmental Policy and Politics Time Line | 843

The Inland Waterways Commission, appointed by President Roosevelt, develops a report to Congress recommending measures to revive the nation’s declining river navigation 1908

The Governors’ Conference on the Conservation of Natural Resources held at the White House boosts public interest for conservation issues, spurring a large number of private and state-level conservation initiatives. Publication of Rudolf Cronau’s Our Wasteful Nation: The Story of American Prodigality and the Abuse of Our National Resources.

1909

Conservation gains greater national attention as conservationists appointed by Roosevelt turn to the general public for support of their policies due to resistance from Congress and other members of government. Minidoka Dam located on the Snake River in Idaho becomes the first federal dam to be built.

1910

Lakeview Gusher in San Joaquin Valley, California, is the largest recorded oil well gusher. The Withdrawal Act is passed, authorizing the president to withdraw and reserve public lands for hydroelectric projects or other public purposes. Publication of Charles Richard Van Hise’s authoritative Conservation of Natural Resources in the United States. Publication of John Burroughs’s In the Catskills: Selections from the Writings of John Burroughs, which influences the work of many other nature essayists.

1911

Publication of Mary Huston Gregory’s Checking the Waste: A Study in Conservation, Thomas Herbert Russell’s Natural Resources and National Wealth, and Ellen H. Richards’s Conservation by Sanitation: Air and Water Supply; Disposal of Waste—these pieces reflect the increasing concern for the impact of environmental factors on human health and wellbeing. The Weeks Act is passed, authorizing, for the first time, federal acquisition of 6 million acres of land in

844 | Chronology: Environmental Policy and Politics Time Line

eastern states for the purpose of establishing national forests and protecting watersheds. The first National Parks Conference convenes at Yellowstone National Park to explore the need for a National Park Service. The three other National Park Conferences are held in 1912, 1915, and 1917. 1912

The Withdrawal Act amendments are enacted, permitting the use of withdrawn lands for mining of ‘‘metalliferous minerals’’ and adding California to the list of states where only Congress can approve the creation or expansion of national forests. Publication of Samuel B. Flagg’s findings in City Smoke Ordinances and Smoke Abatement by the U.S. Bureau of Mines reflects early attempts by American cities to tackle urban air pollution. Public interest in conservation issues is reflected in the publication of the Library of Congress’s Select List of References on the Conservation of Natural Resources in the United States and the Department of the Interior’s List of National Park Publications.

1913

Congress authorizes the dam at Hetch Hetchy Valley in Yosemite National Park, a controversial issue between John Muir, a firm preservationist, and conservationists like Gifford Pinchot, who advocate the scientific management of public lands.

1914

Under the oversight of the U.S. Public Health Service, federal water regulations are enacted for the first time.

1915

Founding of the Ecological Society of America to promote ecological research.

1916

The National Park Service is created through the Organic Act of the National Park Service. The National Park Service’s job is to govern the national parks.

1917

The last of the National Parks Conferences is held to explore the role of national parks, as well as the new National Park Service.

1918

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act is passed. This act protects many bird species across both state and national lines.

Chronology: Environmental Policy and Politics Time Line | 845

1919

Publication of Stephen A. Forbes’s and Robert Earle Richardson’s Some Recent Changes in Illinois River Biology, a study addressing the impact of reclamation engineering projects and sewage disposal on river biology. This work precedes the kinds of environmental issues on the agenda of conservationists later in the century. Founding of the National Parks Association (renamed the National Parks and Conservation Association in 1970) in Washington, D.C., to create awareness of the national parks and garner support for the parks’ growth and protection.

1920

The Federal Water Power Act is passed, creating a Federal Power Commission with extensive authority over waterways and the coordination of hydroelectric projects. Initial publication of the Ecological Society of America’s quarterly journal Ecology.

1922

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon: the U.S. Supreme Court overrules a Pennsylvania statute prohibiting mining a piece of land if it would disturb a residence on it.

1923

Founding of Izaak Walton League, one of the nation’s oldest conservation organizations.

1927

Edward Abbey is born in Indiana, Pennsylvania. Abbey writes 21 books advocating activism to stop environmentally damaging actions.

1929

The Migratory Bird Conservation Act builds upon the Lacey Act and authorizes the purchase of critical habitats for the protection of migratory birds.

1933

The Agricultural Adjustment Act restricts agricultural production during the New Deal by paying farmers to reduce crop areas. The creation of the Civilian Conservation Corps, employing several million people across the country to build state park and transportation infrastructure and maintain the health of public lands.

846 | Chronology: Environmental Policy and Politics Time Line

1934

Taylor Grazing Act is passed, intended to prevent overgrazing and soil deterioration in public grazing lands (excluding Alaska). This act is replaced by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.

1935

The Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act establishes the Soil Conservation Service to help prevent soil erosion. Aldo Leopold, known as the father of environmental ethics and game management, founds the Wilderness Society in partnership with other environmentalists.

1937

The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, also known as the Pittman-Robertson Act, creates an excise tax on firearms and ammunition to fund the purchase of land for wildlife restoration. In 1972, the act is amended to include archery equipment in the tax’s jurisdiction.

1936

The Omnibus Flood Control Act authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to find solutions to local and regional flooding.

1938

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) restricts residues of pesticides on food in interstate commerce.

1940

The creation of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats. The Bald Eagle Protection Act prohibits any sort of damage to bald eagles, their eggs, and nests.

1946

Establishment of the Bureau of Land Management to administer America’s 253 million acres of public lands, constituting one-eighth of the landmass of the country. The Atomic Energy Act establishes the Atomic Energy Commission and regulates the production of nuclear power for civilian use. The Manhattan Project successfully creates a sustained nuclear reaction.

1947

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act allows for the federal control of pesticide distribution, sale, and use.

Chronology: Environmental Policy and Politics Time Line | 847

1948

The towns of Donora and Webster, Pennsylvania, are blanketed by a cloud of gas resulting from industrial production. Half of the two communities’ 14,000 residents become ill, and 20 die. Public outcry compels the federal government to begin studying air pollution. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 is the first comprehensive federal law addressing pollution of navigable interstate waterways. Prior to this act, water quality had been considered only a local concern. The act is amended in 1956, 1961, 1965, and 1972—when it becomes the Clean Water Act.

1949

Publication of Aldo Leopold’s Sand County Almanac, a landmark book in the conservation movement. The Housing Act of 1949 removes dilapidated buildings to build public housing in pursuit of the urban renewal of American cities.

1951

The director of the U.S. National Park Service introduces Mission 66, a plan to expand park facilities and increase the number of park visitors by the fiftieth anniversary of the park system in 1966.

1952

David Brower becomes the first Executive Director of the Sierra Club. Under his leadership, the club becomes America’s foremost environmental protection organization. The worst of the 10 fires in the polluted Cuyahoga River, Ohio. This event draws national attention to environmental problems.

1954

Berman v. Parker: The U.S. Supreme Court rules that land can be taken by eminent domain for ‘‘urban renewal’’ and other public purposes.

1955

The federal government becomes involved in air pollution policy with the passage of the Air Pollution Control Act, which funds research into the health effects of air pollution and monitoring and control techniques. The federal government drops plans for a dam in Dinosaur National Monument as a result of public pressure.

848 | Chronology: Environmental Policy and Politics Time Line

1956

Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 give federal authority over water quality in streams flowing across multiple states (interstate waters).

1957

The Price-Anderson Act makes the government liable for the major costs of a nuclear accident.

1959

The Antarctic Treaty is signed by 12 nations actively exploring Antarctica to, among other provisions, conserve and protect Antarctic flora and fauna.

1960

Creation of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for the preservation of wildlife and their habitats. The Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act is passed, adding recreation, wildlife, hunting, fishing, and soil concerns to the mission of the national forests. Founding of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in Baghdad, Iraq, as a coordinated method of controlling global oil prices.

1961

The first signs of what is later called New Urbanism appears in Janet Jacob’s The Death and Life of American Cities, in which the author condemns the modernist planning theories and design of great cities in the United States.

1962

Publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, the first attack on the widespread use of pesticides. This book arouses public opinion on environmental issues.

1963

First Clean Air Act provides permanent funding for research into pollution and pollution reduction and directs the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to establish emissions standards for motor vehicles. Publication of the Leopold Report and a report by the National Academy of Sciences calling for changes in National Park Service management policies, putting more emphasis on ecological systems and use of scientific information.

1964

The Wilderness Act establishes a process for permanently protecting some lands from development. It designates 9.1 million acres as wilderness and prohibits the development of park facilities in wilderness areas.

Chronology: Environmental Policy and Politics Time Line | 849

The United States starts spraying Agent Orange in South Vietnam to defoliate jungle areas and destroy crops. Supreme Court Justice William Orville Douglas writes an article in Ladies Home Journal entitled ‘‘America’s Vanishing Wilderness,’’ bringing environmental awareness to a larger audience. 1965

The Sierra Club brings a suit to protect New York’s Storm King Mountain from a power project. The case establishes a precedent, allowing the club legal standing for a non-economic interest in the case. The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act creates a trust fund to collect royalties from offshore oil drilling to purchase park and refuge lands. The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration is created to administer the Water Quality Act. The Solid Waste Disposal Act embodies the first movement in federal solid waste law in the United States. The Beautification Act of 1965 passes. It is also known as ‘‘Lady Bird’s bill’’ because President Lyndon Johnson’s wife was the principal force behind this legislation and the movement to protect the American landscape from industrial eyesores and litter.

1966

The Clean Water Restoration Act designates $3.55 billion over six years for waste-treatment projects. The Endangered Species Preservation Act is signed into law. A precursor to the 1973 Endangered Species Act, this law authorizes the Department of the Interior to list endangered domestic fish and wildlife and provides funds to buy habitat for listed species. The Sierra Club publishes full-page newspaper ads in the New York Times and the Washington Post against building a dam that would flood the Grand Canyon. This action increases the club’s power and membership and helps in the battle to prevent the flooding of the canyon. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 covers preservation of historic properties, including some mines and mining structures.

850 | Chronology: Environmental Policy and Politics Time Line

1967

The founding of the Environmental Defense Fund, a nonprofit environmental law firm. The Air Quality Act of 1967 passes, the first attempt at protecting the quality of the nation’s air. Udall v. Federal Power Commission: Secretary of the Interior Udall wants to prevent the Federal Power Commission from building a dam on the Snake River until they have more knowledge of the impact that the dam would have on recreational fishing. The decision mandates that all federal regulatory agencies thoroughly investigate the impacts of future decisions.

1968

The National Trails System Act creates the National Trails System, a network of hiking and multiple-use trails protected and administered according to jurisdiction by either the National Park Service or the National Forest Service. National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act passes. President Lyndon Johnson signs the National Trails System Act into law. The Grand Canyon dam plan is killed. Redwoods National Park in California and North Cascades National Park in Washington State are established. The National Wild & Scenic Rivers and National Trails System Acts are signed into law. Congress designates nearly 800,000 acres of wilderness in California, New Jersey, Oregon, and Washington State. Paul Ehrlich publishes The Population Bomb, prophesying mass starvation.

1969

Santa Barbara Oil Spill: Oil from Union Oil’s offshore wells contaminates beaches in southern California, bringing awareness of the environment to the forefront of public opinion. Cuyahoga River (Ohio) bursts into flames from a train spark.

Chronology: Environmental Policy and Politics Time Line | 851

Congress designates 161,500 acres of wilderness in California. Establishment of the U.S. chapter of Friends of the Earth, a multi-issue group that fights for environmental sustainability. 1970

The Nixon administration releases a 37-point environmental program that emphasizes stronger federal action on water and air pollution and also includes controls over strip mining. Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin proposes Earth Day, a national teach-in on the environment that draws 20 million Americans (or 10 percent of the U.S. population in 1970) to participate in activities across the country. The 1970 Earth Day observances stand out as a shining moment in the development of American environmental consciousness and environmental legislation. The National Environmental Policy Act is signed by President Nixon on January 1, 1970, thus setting off what Nixon calls the ‘‘environmental decade.’’ NEPA represents the first coordinated federal effort to employ a strategy for recognizing and preemptively responding to the potential environmental impacts of federal projects. NEPA creates the Environmental Protection Agency and the Council on Environmental Quality, which advises and assists the president on environmental policies and oversees federal agencies on the implementation of the environmental impact assessment process. The Clean Air Act greatly expands the protection begun by the Air Pollution Control Act of 1955 and the first Clean Air Act of 1963. It authorizes, among other things, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set ‘‘national ambient air quality standards’’ (NAAQS). On April 22, an estimated 20 million people participate in Earth Day demonstrations and activities across the country. Nearly 200,000 acres of wilderness (in Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan,

852 | Chronology: Environmental Policy and Politics Time Line

New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin) are designated by Congress, including the nation’s smallest wilderness area, five-acre Pelican Island in Florida. Establishment of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Water Quality Improvement Act is passed. It is a federal law that requires boat owners to clean up, or pay for the cleanup, of waters polluted by their ships. The Resources Recovery Act focuses on the improvement of landfill facilities and the way in which people remove their resources. The Environmental Education Act establishes the Office of Environmental Education (OEE), which later becomes an office of the Department of Education. This program awards grants to create environmental educational curricula for teachers. President Richard Nixon ends the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam. The Geothermal Steam Act gives the Secretary of the Interior the power to lease public lands for geothermal exploration and development. The Resource Recovery Act of 1970 marks the second movement in federal solid waste law in the United States. It changes the tone of legislation from solid waste disposal efficiency to harnessing energy and materials from solid waste. The Occupational Safety and Health Act dictates that employers must maintain a workplace free of preventable hazards that could cause injury or death. 1971

Nixon proclaims the first official Earth Week, April 1971. The creation of Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Twelve Canadian activists create Greenpeace. The creation of the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund. In Sierra Club v. Morton, the Sierra Club opposes Disney’s plans to build a ski resort in the Mineral King Valley of the Sierra Nevadas in California. Although

Chronology: Environmental Policy and Politics Time Line | 853

the Sierra Club loses the case, they win the publicity battle, and as a result, Mineral King Valley is spared. 1972

The Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act passes; it is an overhaul of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1947. Sierra Club v. Morton is the pioneering Supreme Court case that gives conservation organizations the right to sue to enforce federal statutes and regulations. The federal government takes over the principal role in water pollution control with the 1972 Clean Water Act, passed over President Nixon’s veto. It establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulates quality standards for surface waters. The basis of the CWA was enacted in 1948 and was called the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, but the act is significantly reorganized and expanded in 1972. ‘‘Clean Water Act’’ becomes the act’s common name. The act is to be amended in 1977 and 1987. The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, also known as the Ocean Dumping Act, prohibits the dumping of material into the ocean that would unreasonably degrade or endanger human health or the marine environment. The Environmental Protection Agency bans most uses of the carcinogenic pesticide DDT. Greenpeace officially takes the name the Greenpeace Foundation. Congress designates nearly 1 million acres of wilderness in Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Wyoming. The Coastal Zone Management Act is passed to control pollution sources that affect coastal water quality. The founding of the Trust for Public Land (TPL), a nonprofit land conservation organization dedicated to ensuring livable communities for future generations.

1973

The Endangered Species Act, administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic

854 | Chronology: Environmental Policy and Politics Time Line

and Atmospheric Administration, seeks conservation of threatened and endangered plants and animals and their habitats. OPEC stages an oil embargo causing dramatic escalations in oil prices. In response, the U.S. government establishes the Federal Energy Office and the Federal Energy Management Program. The Alaska Oil Pipeline: an oil company’s proposal to build an 800-mile pipeline in Alaska ignites one of the largest environmental controversies in the United States during the 1970s. 1974

The Safe Drinking Water Act is established to protect the quality of drinking water in the United States. It sets national standards for maximum levels of toxins in drinking water. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water is established to implement the provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act.

1975

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act extends oil price controls, mandates automobile fuel economy standards, and authorizes a strategic petroleum reserve. Zygmunt Plater and Hiram Hill file a petition under the Endangered Species Act to stop the construction of the Tellico Dam. They ask the Department of the Interior to list the snail darter, a small fish, as an endangered species. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc. v. Callaway: This U.S. District Court case for the District of Columbia rules that the Clean Water Act of 1972 extended federal jurisdiction over navigable waters.

1976

The U.S. Forest Service is required by the National Forest Management Act to accommodate economic, wildlife habitat, wilderness, and recreational uses in planning. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act virtually reverses the long-standing policy of disposal and

Chronology: Environmental Policy and Politics Time Line | 855

states that the public domain would remain public in perpetuity. The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 passes, a pivotal piece of American law in regulating the testing and use of toxic chemicals. A lawsuit is filed to stop construction of the Tellico Dam due to the discovery of the snail darter. An early court ruled in favor of the dam, but in the case of Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill et al., the Supreme Court rules to suspend construction. Chief Justice Warren Burger writes in his opinion, ‘‘It is clear that Congress intended to halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, whatever the cost.’’ Instigated by the Love Canal disaster, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, the basic federal solid waste law. It focuses on managing hazardous substance use and disposal practices. Amending the Solid Waste Disposal Act, Congress takes a more active regulatory role in solid waste disposal with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, marking the third phase of federal solid waste law in the United States. In Natural Resources Defense Council v. Train, the federal courts rule that the EPA has a duty to list pollutants once their danger to public health and prevalence is established. This litigation forces EPA to list lead as an air pollutant. Channel Islands National Park, comprised of five of the eight islands located off the coast of southern California, is designated as a world biosphere preserve by the United Nations. 1977

Originally vetoed when sent to President Ford in 1974 and 1975, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act becomes the first national surface mining law. It regulates coal mining to keep groundwater clean and provides other environmental safeguards needed by hardrock mines.

856 | Chronology: Environmental Policy and Politics Time Line

The Soil and Water Conservation Act passes. The plaintiffs appeal a judge’s decision to allow the construction of the Tellico Dam to continue, and in Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill et al., the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the 1973 Endangered Species Act and stops construction of the dam. Since then, the act has become one of the most powerful tools in the continuing effort to protect the environment in the United States. The Department of Energy is established, bringing together dozens of offices and agencies to coordinate the nation’s energy production and research. The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is created by Paul Watson, a former Greenpeace member who wants to create a more radical conservation organization to stop crimes against marine life. Sea Shepherd’s purpose is to intervene and uphold international conservation regulations to protect marine wildlife. The founding of the Cato Institute, through which the third-largest political party in the country—the Libertarian Party—seeks to influence U.S. decision-makers on many concerns, including the environment. Clean Air Act amendments authorize a review of NAAQS every five years and revisions to protect public health. The Department of Energy is created through the Department of Energy Organization Act. The Clean Water Act of 1977 amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. It gives more authority and responsibilities to the states, particularly in terms of the grant programs, provides deadline extensions, and requires the EPA to expand the number of pollutants that it regulates. 1978

The National Parks and Recreation Act, Phillip Burton’s most significant environmental legislation, includes $1.8 billion in spending for 150 park-related projects in more than 200 congressional districts and 44 states.

Chronology: Environmental Policy and Politics Time Line | 857

Congress makes Mineral Valley part of Sequoia National Park. The Omnibus Parks Act adds the Santa Monica Mountains, the Golden Gateway, and the Golden Gate National Recreation Areas to the National Park System. More than 5.5 million acres of wilderness is designated by Congress in Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act establishes 13 new national parks, 16 new national wildlife refuges, and 2 new national forests, adding 56 million acres to the National Wilderness Preservation System. Lois Gibbs organizes the Love Canal Homeowners Association when she discovers her child is attending an elementary school atop a 20,000-ton toxic chemical dump in the Love Canal neighborhood of Niagara Falls, New York. President Carter declares an emergency at Love Canal and authorizes evacuation. The Love Canal scandal alerts the country to the public health problems caused by toxic industrial waste pollution and the inadequacy of hazardous waste regulation. In the midst of the energy crisis caused by the OPEC oil embargo of 1973, President Carter becomes the first president to attempt to create a comprehensive national energy plan through the National Energy Act of 1978, which establishes the first electricity feed in law in the world through the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA), the first piece of significant legislation pertaining to renewable energy. This Energy Tax Act includes a tax credit for individuals investing in home solar or wind technology. 1979–1981

The Sagebrush Rebellion, a political and legal movement originating in the western United States, aims to transfer or ‘‘return’’ public lands from federal control to the states.

858 | Chronology: Environmental Policy and Politics Time Line

1979

Three Mile Island nuclear power plant almost has a meltdown, which severely damages confidence in nuclear power and results in a drastic reduction in nuclear power development.

1980

The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) is passed. Partly instigated by the Love Canal disaster, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, also known as CERCLA or Superfund, provides a federal ‘‘Superfund’’ for emergency and remedial response to hazardous substance releases, identifying hazardous waste sites, determining liability, and providing processes for cleanup. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) designates more than 100 million acres of parks, wildlife refuges, and wilderness areas. President Jimmy Carter signs Public Law 96-199, creating Channel Islands National Park. The Environmental Protection Agency issues rules and regulations to carry out the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) programs of the Clean Air Act. The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act enables financial and technical assistance for the states vis-a-vis conservation plans and programs for nongame fish and wildlife. The Crude Oil Windfalls Profits Tax Act increases tax credits for businesses using renewable energy to increase the shares of renewable energy on the energy market. The founding of the American Farmland Trust (AFT), a nonprofit organization dedicated to the protection of farmland and agricultural resources in the United States. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (Superfund) gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to

Chronology: Environmental Policy and Politics Time Line | 859

require polluters to conduct hazardous waste site cleanups and determine the liability of the responsible parties. In Lead Industries Association v. EPA, the District of Columbia Circuit Court affirms the EPA’s authority to set standards without scientific certainty on the extent of risk reduction gained by an air quality standard. 1981

Ronald Reagan is sworn in as America’s fortieth president and launches a politically conservative era that denounces the environmental movement and resists federal environmental agencies and regulations. The founding of the Citizens Clearinghouse on Hazardous Waste (since 1998, the Center for Health, Environment, and Justice). It is initially positioned as a lobbying organization focused on hazardous waste disposal and cleanup. Environmental health threats to children and righting environmental injustice top its agenda today.

1982

The Reclamation Reform Act is designed to limit subsidies to large landholders and distribute them evenly to water users. Congress designates more than 20,000 acres of wilderness in Florida, Georgia, and Indiana. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act supports the use of deep geologic repositories for the safe storage and/or disposal of radioactive waste. The act establishes procedures to evaluate and select sites for geologic repositories and for the interaction of state and federal governments.

1983

More than 500,000 acres of wilderness is designated in Alabama, Missouri, Montana, and West Virginia.

1984

New wilderness areas totaling 8.6 million acres are established in 21 states: Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

860 | Chronology: Environmental Policy and Politics Time Line

In Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that land taken by eminent domain for public purposes does not necessarily have to be in dire need of attention, but could also be taken if ownership is concentrated in too few hands. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments, considered the most significant amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, are embodied in the fourth movement in federal solid waste law in the United States. Yosemite National Park is accredited as a World Heritage Site. 1985

The 1985 Farm Bill (officially the Food Security Act of 1985) is one of the periodic acts passed by the U.S. Congress since the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 to deal with issues of farm income, farm productivity, food safety and security, rural life, and resource use. The Kentucky Wilderness Act adds 11,662 acres of designated wilderness in national forests in the state. The World Congress of Architects signs the Declaration of Interdependence for a Sustainable Future. The U.S. Green Building Council is formed and begins a national standard for environmentally sensitive building standards called LEED, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design.

1986

Wilderness bills pass, protecting 41,818 acres in Georgia; 7,794 acres in Nebraska; 32,473 acres in Tennessee; and 2,374 acres in Texas—all on national forest lands. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) adds funds to speed cleanups and mandates identification of hazardous waste sites on federal lands, which has a significant effect on military and nuclear sites. The Emergency Planning and Community Right-toKnow Act, also known as Title III of the Superfund

Chronology: Environmental Policy and Politics Time Line | 861

Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), is enacted by Congress as the national legislation on community safety. It creates the Toxic Release Inventory. Joe Biden introduces the first bill in the Senate that would slow global warming pollution. Title II of the Toxic Substances Control Act enacts strict requirements on the use of asbestos, particularly in schools. 1987

Some 91,891 acres of national forest wildlands in Michigan get the protection of the National Wilderness Preservation System. In New Mexico, 102,500 acres of BLM wildlands get wilderness protection. The Water Quality Act of 1987 amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. It extends the permitting system to include non-point sources of pollution. It also attempts to extend the number of toxins regulated by the EPA. The Global Climate Protection Act is passed.

1988

Senator Tim Wirth (D-CO) convenes congressional hearings on global warming. NASA climatologist James Hansen testifies about mankind’s role in raising temperatures. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is chartered in Geneva, Switzerland, to provide global policymakers with analysis of the latest information related to human-induced climate change. The Ocean Dumping Act prohibits the use of the oceans as a substitute for landfills.

1989

Nevada wilderness, 721,403 acres of national forest and 6,458 acres of BLM wildlands, are designated. The oil tanker Exxon Valdez runs aground on Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound, Alaska, spilling 257,000 barrels of oil into the ecologically rich marine environment. By volume, at the time it was the largest

862 | Chronology: Environmental Policy and Politics Time Line

spill in U.S. history. The 2010 British Petroleum Gulf of Mexico oil spill is now the largest. The North American Wetlands Conservation Act provides federal funds to wetlands conservation projects in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The act is reauthorized in 1994, 1998, 2002, and 2006. 1990

Earth Day becomes a day of international importance. Nearly 200 million people participate in Earth Day events in more than 140 countries. According to New York Times journalist Robert D. McFadden, Earth Day 1990 is ‘‘the largest grassroots demonstration in history.’’ The creation of the Organic Food Production Act. Wilderness is designated in: Alaska, 299,531 acres of national forest lands; Arizona, 1,343,444 acres of National Wildlife Refuge Wilderness and 1,133,660 acres of BLM lands; Illinois, 25,549 acres of national forest lands; and Maine, 12,000 acres of national forest lands. The Oil Pollution Act streamlines and strengthens the EPA’s ability to prevent and respond to catastrophic oil spills. The Federal Oil Pollution Control Act fundamentally alters the way in which industry and government prevent, prepare for, respond to, and mitigate the effects of oil spills. Clean Air Act Amendments strengthen existing regulations and bring into compliance previously unregulated areas. Al Gore and other U.S. senators organize the first Interparliamentary Conference on the Global Environment. Representatives of 42 nations attend, identifying as a group threats to the global environment.

1991

A Georgia wilderness bill adds 24,200 acres of national forest lands to the National Wilderness Preservation System. President George H. W. Bush redesignates the U.S. Department of Energy’s Solar Energy Research Institution

Chronology: Environmental Policy and Politics Time Line | 863

and it becomes the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). 1992

California wilderness bill adds 400,450 acres of national forest lands to the National Wilderness Preservation System. President George H. W. Bush signs into law the Energy Policy Act to increase clean energy use and promote energy conservation. The landmark case Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council suggests that South Carolina’s restrictions on coastal land are ruining the property’s value. This paves the way for landowners around the country to challenge land and water use restrictions. The founding of the Quincy Library Group, an environmental group dedicated to addressing both logging and environmental interests in northern California. Al Gore publishes his first book, Earth in the Balance. The Wild Bird Conservation Act limits trading and importation of exotic bird species into the United States. It stipulates that birds can be imported only if their population is sustainable in their country of origin. Title IV of the Toxic Substances Control Act is enacted to control lead exposure.

1993

The pioneering architects and town planners of the New Urbanism movement found Congress for the New Urbanism to develop their ideas and promote new solutions. Colorado wilderness bill adds 609,206 acres of national forest lands and 16,989 acres of BLM lands to the National Wilderness Preservation System. President Clinton launches Climate Change Action Plan, a collection of efforts that includes investments in energy-saving technologies, tree-planting programs, and incentives designed to get car drivers onto public transit. The plan is intended to meet the terms of the Rio treaty.

864 | Chronology: Environmental Policy and Politics Time Line

1994

The California Desert Protection Act brings the National Wilderness Preservation System up to 104.7 million acres and establishes the Mojave National Preserve. Designated U.S. wilderness now amounts to a little more than 4 percent of the total U.S. land base. The bald eagle is downgraded to a ‘‘threatened’’ species on the Endangered Species List (it was originally listed as ‘‘endangered,’’ the more critical status). In the Mono Lake case, a California court decides that minimum stream flows must be maintained. An 8.5 million gallon spill of diluent is discovered at Unocal’s Guadalupe oil field. This is the second largest known spill in California history—so far.

1995

Senator Gaylord Nelson, founder of Earth Day, is awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Mojave National Park is established in California.

1996

Amendments are made to the Safe Drinking Water Act: The most significant water pollution legislation approved by Congress during the two terms of the Clinton administration, this statute authorizes the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF) to provide financing for public water systems to complete projects improving compliance with safe drinking water rules. President Clinton establishes Grand Escalante National Monument in Utah.

Staircase-

The Omnibus Parks Act establishes the Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve in Kansas and the Opal Creek Wilderness in Oregon (although Opal Creek will not meet standards for wilderness designation until 1998). Nearly 6 million acres of wilderness are designated, mostly in Alaska (Noatak Wilderness Area). The Food Quality Protection Act provides the most significant amendments to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, establishing federal regulation for pesticide distribution, sale, and use.

Chronology: Environmental Policy and Politics Time Line | 865

1997

Robert Stanton becomes the first African American to serve as director of the National Park Service. In Rockwell International Corp. v. U.S., a writ of certiorari ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court reverses a 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling in a whistleblower case filed by a former nuclear weapons facility engineer for Rockwell. The Toyota Prius, one of the first mass-produced hybrid electric cars, goes on sale in Japan. Industrialized nations negotiate the world’s first treaty to cut greenhouse gas emissions at the the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Kyoto, Japan. The United States signs off on the treaty. The National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act establishes setting wildlife conservation as the top priority in the refuge system and provides for more sciencebased management and long-term planning. A once-in-a-century flood devastates Yosemite Valley in January, causing physical and economic damage. The flood also prompts the federal government to move ahead with a 1980 plan to decommercialize Yosemite Valley. The Million Solar Roofs Initiative sets a goal to have one million homes and buildings using solar power by 2010. The EPA revises the ozone and particulate matter standards in 1997 to reduce respiratory and cardiovascular illness, health costs, and premature deaths, and to improve visibility in national parks and wilderness areas. Resistance from interest groups delays the final rule-making to 2004.

1998

The Opal Creek Wilderness Area in Oregon, at 20,724 acres, is designated by Congress. President Clinton issues his directive to the USFS to conduct an EIS leading to possible long-term protection of 50–60 million acres of roadless lands.

866 | Chronology: Environmental Policy and Politics Time Line

Otay Mountain Wilderness, east of San Diego, adds 15,000 acres to the National Wilderness Preservation System. 1999

Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument, Colorado, is made a national park. Redesignation adds 22,000 acres of park wilderness and 4,700 acres of BLM wilderness to the National Wilderness Preservation System. President Clinton issues his directive to the USFS to conduct an EIS leading to possible long-term protection of 50–60 million acres of Rodale’s lands. The Dugger Mountain Wilderness Act designates 9,200 acres in the Talladega National Forest, 70 miles east of Birmingham, Alabama. The Wind Powering America Initiative sets a goal to meet 5 percent of the nation’s energy needs with wind energy by 2020 and to triple the amount of wind energy generated in states with a high wind capacity, more than 20 megawatts. The Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act establishes a five-year program to test how best to protect a forest and its habitat from fires and destructive logging.

2000

Earth Day, throughout its history, exceeds one billion participants in events across 183 nations. Earth Day is the most attended event in the world. President Clinton designates three new national monuments—Grand Canyon-Parashant (Arizona), Agua Fria (Arizona), and California Coastal Rocks and Islands, and expands a fourth (Pinnacles). The Cato Institute announces fear of environmental problems being ‘‘militarized.’’ The Commonwealth of Massachusetts sues the EPA in a bid to force the agency to regulate greenhouse pollutants. Nine states—Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and California—support the Massachusetts lawsuit.

Chronology: Environmental Policy and Politics Time Line | 867

2001

The National Park Service has its first female director, Fran Mainella. In the case Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S., the Supreme Court makes a ruling dealing with a particular gravel pit that was a favorite of migratory birds. The decision states that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers did not have jurisdiction of the pit in question. Within the USA Patriot Act, contaminated environmental sites are tagged as a security threat. The presidential administration abandons the perceivedas-flawed Kyoto Protocol. Instead, the Bush administration proposes voluntary actions of polluters as a better way to address global warming.

2002

Section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act authorizes the EPA to set tolerances, or maximum residue limits, for pesticide residues on foods. National standards are established for organic production, handling, and labeling. This is done through the newly created National Organic Program, a section of the Department of Agriculture. In a report to the United Nations, the United States officially recognizes human activities causing an increase in greenhouse gas, leading to an increase in temperature.

2003

U.S. Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma first claims global warming is a hoax.

2004

In an attempt to limit activism, the government files a lawsuit and goes to court against an organization in the case of United States v. Greenpeace. In Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the EPA can keep the state of Alaska’s Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) from allowing construction of a zinc-mining facility. The ruling’s privileging of federal over state government is viewed as a harbinger of the

868 | Chronology: Environmental Policy and Politics Time Line

liberalization of the Court under then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist. 2005

Friends of the Earth v. Mosbacher is a federal lawsuit challenging the actions of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the Export-Import Bank. The plaintiffs in the case claim that the defendants aid global warming by providing financial assistance to overseas fossil fuel projects that emit greenhouse gases. The Energy Policy Act is signed by President Bush. This legislation addressed the need for an all-inclusive energy policy by addressing issues such as renewable energy and production tax credits. The Kyoto Protocol comes into effect. Almost all countries in the world are now pledged to reduce the emission of gases that contribute to global warming. The U.S. Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement is created in response to the Bush administration’s refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol. Participating cities agree to meet or beat the United States’ suggested Kyoto target of reducing emissions by 7 percent of 1990 levels by 2012. Hurricane Katrina ravages the U.S. Gulf Coast, causing more than $100 million in damage in Louisiana alone. Scientists suggest that both the depletion of coastal wetlands and warmer ocean temperatures contributed to an increase in the storm’s intensity and impact. The United States defends its actions of seizing public lands for private interest in the case Kelo v. City of New London.

2006

In California, Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signs landmark anti-warming legislation capping carbon dioxide pollution at 1990 levels by 2020. President George W. Bush, in his State of the Union address, says America must break its addiction to foreign oil. This is a significant rhetorical shift, especially coming from someone from an oil industry background.

Chronology: Environmental Policy and Politics Time Line | 869

Clean energy technology funding is increased 22 percent. In addition, the Advanced Energy Initiative helps solar technology become a competitive energy source. An Inconvenient Truth, an Al Gore documentary on the current global warming, makes its debut in movie theaters across the country. 2007

In Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corporation, the U.S. Supreme Court rules against Duke Energy Corporation for modifying coal-fired electric generators without first obtaining permits to increase air-polluting emissions. Environmental groups hail the decision as a victory for air quality and a signal that power plants will begin to modernize pollution controls. An Inconvenient Truth wins the Academy Award for best documentary. Al Gore and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change win the Nobel Peace Prize. The U.S. Supreme Court rules in the case Massachusetts v. EPA that the EPA must be in charge of the regulation and monitoring of greenhouse gas emissions. The Clean Energy Act of 2007 is created to reduce dependency on foreign oil through the promotion of clean, renewable, and alternative energy resources. The Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard Act of 2007 strengthens renewable portfolio standards by implementing a marked-based credit-trading system. This spurs the development of renewable technologies by requiring electricity retailers to use a minimum amount of electricity from renewable sources. Biofuels become the focus of renewable energy programs under the Energy Independence and Security Act.

2008

Organic agriculture gains support after the passage of the Farm Act of 2008. The ongoing debate over the disposal of waste is reignited after the TVA’s Kingston fossil plant spills billions of gallons of toxic waste.

870 | Chronology: Environmental Policy and Politics Time Line

2009

The National Trails System expands to more than 1,000 National Recreation Trails. In an increased effort to invest more in renewable energy, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is passed. Mountaintop mining is halted when the EPA states that no more permits will be available. Valentin Sierra, Alex Ricci, and Matthew Lindstrom

References Avoice. ‘‘Environmental Justice Timeline.’’ http://www.avoiceonline.org/environmental/ timeline.html. Kovarik, William. ‘‘Environmental History Timeline.’’ http://www.radford.edu/wkovarik/ envhist/timeline.text.html. Lee, Paul. EcoTopia. ‘‘Timeline.’’ http://ecotopia.org/category/timeline/. Leggett, Jane A. ‘‘A U.S.-centric Chronology of the International Climate Change Negotiations.’’ Congressional Research Institute, 2008. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/ R40001.pdf. The Library of Congress. ‘‘Chronology of Selected Events in the Development of the American Conservation Movement, c.1850–1920.’’ http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/ amrvhtml/conshome.html. Nelson, Lynn, Serge Noiret, and Inaki Lopez Martin. ‘‘Documentary Chronology of Selected Events in the Development of the American Conservation Movement, 1847– 1920.’’ 1993. http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amrvhtml/cnchron1.html. Roberts, Geoffrey K. ‘‘Environmental Politics in the United States.’’ Environmental Politics 14 (3) (2005). Switzer, Jacqueline V. Environmental Politics: Domestic and Global Dimensions. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994. Thompson, A. C. Timeline: The Science and Politics of Global Warming. Frontline. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/etc/cron.html. U.S. Department of the Interior. ‘‘The Taylor Grazing Act.’’ http://www.blm.gov/wy/ st/en/field_offices/Casper/range/taylor.1.html. Vig, Norman J., and Michael E. Kraft, eds. Environmental Policy: New Directions for the Twenty-First Century, 7th ed, Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 2009. Water Encyclopedia. ‘‘Legislation, Federal Water.’’ http://www.waterencyclopedia .com/La-Mi/Legislation-Federal-Water.html#ixzz0krDhbBZR. The Wilderness Society. ‘‘Environmental Timeline.’’ http://earthday.wilderness.org/ history/timeline_list.pdf.

Contributor List

Kenna Lang Archer, Texas Tech University

Michael Bruce Chornesky, independent writer/scholar

Josh Ashenmiller, Fullerton College

Shannon Conk, College of Saint Benedict/Saint John’s University

Jeffrey Ashley, Eastern Illinois University

Grant Cook, College of Saint Benedict/Saint John’s University

John H. Barnhill, independent writer/ scholar

Maude Cooper, College of Saint Benedict/Saint John’s University

Jonathan Bergman, Texas A & M University

Jordon Curnutt, St. Cloud State University

Richard D. Besel, California Polytechnic State University

L. E. Davis, College of Saint Benedict/Saint John’s University

Marta Bladek, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, CUNY

Anitha Deshamudre, independent writer/scholar

John R. Burch Jr., Campbellsville University Guy Burgess, University of Colorado

Madeline A. Dragich, College of Saint Benedict/Saint John’s University

Heidi Burgess, University of Colorado

Trevor L. Drake, College of Saint Benedict/Saint John’s University

Brigette Bush-Gibson, Northern Arizona University

Jaroslav Dvorak, Vytautas Magnus University

Erik D. Carlson, Florida Gulf Coast University

Susan Echaore-McDavid, independent writer/scholar

Silas Chamberlin, Lehigh University

Darius V. Echeverrıa, Rutgers University, New Brunswick

Jessica Chapman, freelance writer

Lisa A. Ennis, Georgia College and State University 871

872 | Contributor List

Josephine Faass, Drexel University Heather M. Farley, Northern Arizona University Giuseppe Fazari, independent writer/ scholar B. J. Finley, College of Saint Benedict/Saint John’s University Joel Fishman, Duquesne University Joshua Fleer, The Florida State University Brooks Flippen, Southeastern Oklahoma State University

Laurie Hillstrom, Northern Lights Writers Group Dana L. Hoag, Colorado State University Amy B. Hoeschen, College of Saint Benedict/Saint John’s University Arthur Holst, independent writer/ scholar Jason Hostutler, Crichton College Joe Kane, College of Saint Benedict/ Saint John’s University Johan Katz, Drake University

Nathan Garrett, Eastern Illinois University

Gina L. Keel, State University of New York at Oneonta

Mohammad Gharipour, independent writer/scholar

Chavawn Kelley, University of Wyoming

Karen Goodwin, independent writer/ scholar

William M. Knoblauch, Ohio University

Chelsea Griffis, The University of Toledo

Simone Kovago, independent writer/ scholar

Sue Guyer, independent writer/ scholar

Rick Kurtz, Central Michigan University

Aaron Hacker, Eastern Illinois University

Jori Lewis, independent writer/ scholar

Claire Haeg, College of Saint Benedict/Saint John’s University

Fred Lindsey, Howard University

Amy Halloran, independent writer/ scholar Rachael Hanel, Minnesota State University, Mankato Todd A. Hanson, Los Alamos National Laboratory

Amy Lively, Arizona State University Michele Lockhart, Texas Woman’s University Theresa C. Lynch, independent writer/scholar

Scott D. Hardy, McDaniel College

Anne Maclachlan, independent writer/scholar

Skylar Harris, University at BuffaloCUNY

Matt Magnan, College of Saint Benedict/Saint John’s University

Kevin Hillstrom, Northern Lights Writers Group

Lee Ann Malfar, independent writer/ scholar

Contributor List | 873

Angie Mangino, independent writer/ scholar Sandra Marcus, Queensborough Community College, CUNY Katherine McLaughlin, independent writer/scholar Elijah Mendoza, independent writer/ scholar Christina Miller, York College, CUNY Julia R. Miller, Michigan State University Trish Miller, Eastern Illinois University Jaina Moan, Northern Arizona University

Christopher A. Preable, Cato Institute Richard S. Primuth, University of West Georgia Brent Ranalli, independent writer/ scholar Kokila Ravi, Atlanta Metropolitan College James H. Read, College of Saint Benedict/Saint John’s University Alex Ricci, College of Saint Benedict/Saint John’s University Robert C. Robinson, University of Georgia Cindy Rodriguez, CUNY School of Law

Erica A. Morin, Purdue University

Jedediah S. Rogers, Arizona State University, Tempe

Evelyn Krache Morris, Georgetown University

Charles Rosenberg, independent writer/scholar

Melinda Mueller, Eastern Illinois University

Kenneth A. Rosenberg, independent writer/scholar

Denese M. Neu, independent writer/ scholar

Michael D. Royster, Texas A & M University

Cynthia Clark Northrup, University of Texas at Arlington

Herbert A. Schaffner, Rutgers University

Timothy O’Brien, University of Houston

Anna Schumacher, College of Saint Benedict/Saint John’s University

Jonathan W. Olson, Florida State University

Debra A. Schwartz, independent writer/scholar

Rita Ormsby, Baruch College, CUNY Gwen Perkins, independent writer/ scholar

Simone Selva, Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies, Harvard University

Jess Phelps, independent writer/ scholar

Fran Severn, independent writer/ scholar

Mark Anthony Phelps, independent writer/scholar

Matthew K. Shannon, University of North Carolina at Wilmington

874 | Contributor List

Scott Sheidlower, York College, CUNY

Rita Truschel, independent writer/ scholar

Imanni Sheppard, University of Houston

Dennis Urban, Columbia University

Valentin Sierra, College of Saint Benedict/Saint John’s University

Sandra Gall Urban, York College, CUNY

Stephanie Suesan Smith, independent writer/scholar

Carl E. Van Horn, Rutgers University

Zachary A. Smith, Northern Arizona University Adam M. Sowards, University of Idaho Teresa Spezio, University of California Davis Rachel A. Steagall, Northern Arizona University

Yasmeen Waheed, independent writer/scholar Dan Wakelee, California State University, Channel Islands Andrew J. Waskey, Dalton State College Kersten A. Welch, College of Saint Benedict/Saint John’s University

Philip Swan, Hunter College

Brittany Werner, College of Saint Benedict/Saint John’s University

Jacqueline Vaughn Switzer, Northern Arizona University

Parker Wheatley, College of Saint Benedict/Saint John’s University

Katrina Darleen Taylor, Northern Arizona University

D. K. Wolgamott, College of Saint Benedict/Saint John’s University

Grenatta Thomassey, PhD, Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council

Ronald E. Young, Canterbury School

Kelsey Thorkelson, College of Saint Benedict/Saint John’s University

Fiona Young-Brown, independent writer/scholar

Index

*Items marked in bold represent the primary entry listing. Abbey, Edward, 58–59, 845 Accounting Act, 592 acid deposition, 59–61 acid rain, 35, 46–49, 59–61, 101, 103, 154–155, 161, 189, 316, 411, 518 ACLU, 765 activism, environmental, 97, 134, 136, 138 Adams, Ansel, 140 Adaptive Management Program (AMP), 235, 237–238, 390 Adirondack Forest Preserve, 839 Adirondack State Park, 7–8, 839 Adirondacks, 6, 8, 840 Administration for Children and Families (ACF), 763 Administration of Commission, 492 Administration on Aging (AoA), 763 Administrative Procedure Act, 185, 685, 695 Administrator Carol Browner, 620 Administrator of Environmental Protection Agency, 193 Administrator of General Services, 292, 493, 660 Admiralty Island National Monument, 729

Advanced Energy Initiative, 75–76, 162, 869 Advanced Stair and Rail, 135 Advancement of States, 677 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 534–535 Aerosol properties, 784 Afghanistan, 39 Afognak Island Forest, 757 Africa, 53, 335, 383 African Americans, 32, 186, 770 Age of Enlightenment, 10 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), 763 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 650, 763 Agent Orange, 61–64, 349 Agnew, Spiro T., 511, 561 Agrawala, Shardul, 420 Agricultural Adjustment Act, 378, 708, 845, 860 Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA), 708 Agricultural Conservation Easement, 84 Agricultural Marketing Service, 343, 602 I-1

I-2 | Index

Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act, 296 Agriculture, organic, 601–602, 869 Agua Fria, 866 air pollution, 13, 16, 23, 25, 65–67, 155, 161–162, 187–189, 370, 411, 418, 429, 497, 500, 559–560, 612, 632; and energy, 162 Air Pollution Control Act of 1955, 16, 28, 65, 187, 189, 319–320, 847, 851 Air Pollution Regulation, 501 Air Quality Act of 1967, 23, 25, 66, 187, 189, 319, 434, 850 Aitcheson, Elizabeth, 391 Akins, 498 Alabama, 32, 58, 134, 155, 448, 529, 859, 866 Alan, Richard, 585 Alar, 66–67 Alaska, 10, 36, 68–70, 96, 115–116, 118–119, 154–155, 197, 336–338, 374, 400–401, 478, 607–608, 666–667, 728–730, 861–862 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, 867 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. Environmental Protection Agency, 67–68 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), 33, 68–69, 95, 545–546, 730, 757, 827, 857–858 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 68, 608, 730, 757, 852 Alaska Oil Pipeline, 69–71, 411, 562, 854 Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), 848 Alaska’s Prince William Sound, 594 Albemarle-Pamlico Sound, 529

Albert, Andrew, 801 Alberta, 804; Lorne Taylor, 444–445 Aldo Leopold Foundation, 57–58, 455–456 Alexander Archipelago Forest Reserve, 729 Alito, Justice Samuel, 519 Allagash River, 261 All-American Canal, 136, 149 Allegheny Mountains, 4 Allen, Bruce, 261 Allen, David, 116 Allen, Morris, 129 Allen, Thad, 580 Alta, Claudia, 431 alternative energy, 71–76, 131, 306, 587, 709 Alternative Farming Systems Information Center (AFSIC), 77–78, 342, 709 Alternative Motor Fuels Act, 34 alternative substances, 774, 776 alternative technology, 774, 776, 786 Amazon rain forest, 50 Ambler Realty Co., 787–797 AMC Plans Merger, 538 Amchitka Island, 400 Amendments and Reauthorization Act, 861 American Academy for the Advancement of Science, 63 American Antiquities Act of 1906, 78, 842 American Bar Association, 250, 351, 519 American Chemical Society (ACS), 13, 83–84, 616 American City Planning Institute, 741 American Civic Association, 842

Index | I-3

American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES), xxxv, 205, 314–315 American Coal Foundation, 215 American Conservation Movement, 141, 870 American conservationism, 616 American Dream, 556, 579, 582, 689, 703 American Enterprise Institute (AEI), 174, 181, 424 American Farmland Trust (AFT), 84, 858 American Fish Culturists’ Association, 85 American Fisheries Society (AFS), 85, 605 American Forestry Association, 839 American Indians, 69, 144, 503; and Bald Eagle Protection Act (BEPA), 119–121 American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS), 85 American Lung Association (ALA), 86–87, 103, 518; anti-smoking campaigns, 87 American Mining Congress (AMC), 87–88, 538 American Motors, 560 American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 584 American Nuclear Energy Council, 571 American Nuclear Society (ANS), 88–89, 571, 575 American Ornithologists Union, 447 American Petroleum Institute (API), 89–90, 163 American Planning Association, 343, 741 American Planning Organization, 743

American Political Science Association, 165 American Power Act, 205 American Presidency Project, 76, 154, 159, 206, 209–210, 212 American Psychological Association, 502 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, xxxv American Revolution, 141 American Samoa, 217, 221, 282, 344, 475, 545, 645, 751–752, 766 American Society for Public Administration, 165 American Society of Mining and Reclamation, 741 American Society of Planning Officials, 767 American Steel and Wire Plant, 16 American Suzuki Motor Corporation, 135 American Textile Manufacturers, 584 American Transcendental movement, 1, 836 American Trucking Association, 518 American Veterinary Medicine Association, 625 American wilderness, 4, 827 American Wind Energy Association, 829 Amsterdam Treaty, 51 An Inconvenient Truth, 91 Anderson, Terry L., 381 Anderson v. Evans, 92–93 Andrews Air Force Base, 211 ANEP (Association of National Estuary Programs), 529 Anglo-Americans, 147 Anglo-Saxon common law, 257 ANILCA. See Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act

I-4 | Index

Animal Law, 473, 493, 819 Animal Population Control, 623 Animal Welfare Institute, 450, 493, 505, 819 Ann, Valerie, 339 annual fuel utilization efficiency (AFUE), 303 ANSI (American National Standards Institute), 584 Antarctic Treaty, 94, 848 Antarctic Treaty Consultative meetings (ATCMs), 94 Antarctic Treaty Database, 94 Antarctica, 47, 94–95, 425–426, 506, 848 Anti-Environmental Movement Promoting Big Business Initiatives, 832 Antiquities Act (1906), 9, 38, 79–83, 135–136, 508, 542, 545 Anton, Gaylord, 552 ANWR (Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge), 848 AoA (Administration on Aging), 771 API (American Petroleum Institute), 584 Appalachia, 214, 581, 708 Appalachian Mountain Club, 839 Appalachian Trail, 13, 549, 552, 827 appliance standards, 301–302 aquaculture, 240–241, 602–603 Aquila chrysaetos, 118 Arbor Day, 838 Archaeological Resources Protection Act, 83 Arches National Park, 58 Archipelago, Alexander, 728, 729 Archmere Academy in Claymont, 129 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), 76, 95–97, 130, 305, 411, 418

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 521, 550, 832, 848 Arizona Association of 4-WD Clubs, 134 Arizona, 16, 58, 136–137, 148, 233–235, 258, 357, 388–389, 394, 454, 519, 596, 670, 677, 827, 866 Army Corps of Engineers, 148, 190, 420, 441, 638, 693–695, 700, 746–748, 802–803, 810, 846, 867 Arnold, Henri, 97 Arnold, Ronald, 97–98, 830–831 Arrowrock Dam, 149 asbestos, 593, 731, 768, 861 Ash, Roy L., 558, 747 Ashcroft, John, 667 Ashenmiller, Josh, 70, 680 Ashley, Jeffrey, 586, 674 Asia, 240, 335, 383, 424 Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, 170 Aswan High Dam in Egypt, 469 Association of National Estuary Programs (ANEP), 529 Athabascan tribe traditions, 96 Atlanta, 559 Atlantic Research Corp., 763–764 Atoll, Johnson, 758 atom bomb, 577 Atomic Energy Act, 72, 572, 645–646, 846 Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), 72–73, 168–169, 559, 561, 572–574 ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry), 650, 771 Audubon, John James, 5, 98–100 Australia, 94, 170, 268, 422, 440

Index | I-5

Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 52 automobile emissions, 100–103, 171, 425, 703 Babbitt, Bruce, 105, 107, 114, 145, 207, 211, 452, 677 Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, 105–114 Bachman, John, 100 Bahamas, 440 Baker, Susan, 711, 712 Balaena glacialis, 812 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, 116, 118 bald eagle, 115–116; legal protections for, 117 Bald Eagle Protection Act (BEPA), 116–121, 846; amendments, 117–119; and American Indians, 119–121 Balfour, Lady Eve, 600 Bali, 421, 425 Ballinger, Richard A., 10, 617 Barataria-Terrebonne Complex, 529 Baratta, Anthony, 728 Barnegat Bay, 529 Barnhill, John H., 66, 88, 167, 178, 215, 257–258, 349, 351, 386, 418, 508, 562, 597, 605, 611 barrier islands, 216, 219, 221, 460 Bates, et al. v. Dow AgroSciences LLC, 121–122 Beachfront Management Act, 459–462, 464, 467 Beans, 114–116, 121, 300 Beck, Thomas, 757 Beier, Ann E., 216 Benedict, Richard, 507 benefit-cost analysis (BCAs), 592

Bennett, Hugh Hammond, 692 Bennett, Kathleen, 634 Benson, Thomas Hart, 412 Bergman, Jonathan, 242, 419, 575 Berman v. Parker, 123–127 Berry, Wendell, 128–129 Besel, Richard, 91, 266 best available control technology (BACT), 188 Bhopal disaster, 31, 270, 309, 732, 735 Biden, Joseph R., Jr., xxxv, 129–131, 861 Billings, Leon, 511–512 biodiversity, 28, 132–134, 250, 268, 333, 380, 529, 597, 601–602, 712–713 biofuels, 49–50, 75, 869 Biosafety Protocol, 44 birds, 5, 15, 25, 98–99, 105, 115–119, 274–275, 279, 447–450, 471–472, 502–505, 521, 566–567, 728–729, 805–806, 825 Birnbaum, Elizabeth, 744 Bissell, Emily, 87 Black Canyon, 136, 235, 866 Blackmun, Justice, 470 Bladek, Marta, 59 Blue Ribbon Coalition (BRC), 134–136, 832 Blue Ribbon committee, 757 Blueprint, David W., 335 Boeing, 97 Boffey, Philip, 547 Boggs, Caleb, 129 Bohlen, Jim, 401 Boise Cascade Corporation, 135 Boren, David, 417 Boulder Canyon Project (Hoover Dam), xxx, 72, 136–138, 149, 235 Bradley, Bill, 820

I-6 | Index

Bradley, Richard, 236 Braun, Carole Mosley, 579 Bravender, Robin, 593 Brazil, 157, 421–422, 442 Braziller, George, 600 Breckinridge, John C., 413 Brennan, Justice, 463, 502 Breyer, Justice, 520 British Columbia, 596, 728, 805–806 British Petroleum, 54 Brookhaven Town Natural Resources Coalition (BTNRC), 323 Brower, David, 17, 22, 138–140, 236, 847 Brown, Edmund ‘‘Pat,’’ 632 Brownell, Nora, 347 Browner, Carol M., xxxiv, xxxv, 206 Browning, Judge James, 121 Brozek, 314 Brumbaugh, Daniel R., 340 Brundtland, Gro Harlem, 35, 711 Brundtland Commission, 334 Bruntland report, 711 Buchanan, James, 413 Buchanan, Patrick, 158 Budget and Accounting Act, 592 Buoyed, 515 Burch, John R., Jr, 87, 138, 183, 516, 535, 582, 708 Bureau of Biological Diversity, 757 Bureau of Biological Survey, 15, 750, 756, 757, 766, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, 539, 757 Bureau of Ethnology, 626 Bureau of Fisheries, 750, 757, 766 Bureau of Forestry, 751 Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), 93, 141–143, 547, 559, 751 817, 830

Bureau of International Whaling Statistics, 812 Bureau of Labor, 750 Bureau of Labor Statistics, 585 Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 15, 68–69, 144–146, 258–259, 351–354, 357, 362–363, 373–376, 380, 451, 542–543, 570, 677–678, 720–721, 751, 824 Bureau of Land Management Organic Act, 351 Bureau of Land Management Public Lands, 146 Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study, 371 Bureau of Livestock and Mining, 145 Bureau of Mines, 750, 844 Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, 550 Bureau of Pensions, 750 Bureau of Public Roads, 345 Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), 12, 16, 138, 146–150, 177–178, 194–195, 233–235, 237, 384, 389–390, 543, 635–637, 700, 750, 751, 765 Bureau of the Budget (BOB), 592 Burford, Anne Gorsuch, 150–152, 508, 634 Burger, Justice Warren, 724, 855 Burroughs, John, 838, 843 Burton, John Lowell, 152 Burton, Phillip, 152, 545–546, 856 Burton, Theodore, 419 Bush, George H. W., 36–38, 44, 62, 75, 153–158, 181, 305, 410; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 155–156; earth summit and election campaign, 157–158; Exxon Valdez oil spill, 154–155; northern spotted owl, 156–157

Index | I-7

Bush, George W., xxxiv, 38, 40, 45, 75, 91, 155, 159–164, 182, 394, 442, 444, 495, 508, 520, 533, 545, 569–570, 581, 592, 628, 666, 674, 803, 810–81; air pollution, 161–162; Clear Skies, 160–161; enforcement, lack of, 163–164; global warming, 163; Healthy Forests Restoration Act, 160–161; Kyoto Protocol, 163 Bush, Jeb, 211 Byrd, Robert, 182 Cabral, Michael, 40 Cadillac Desert, 138, 636–637 Cadillac Winter Warriors of Michigan, 134 Cahn, Robert, 251 Caldwell, Lynton, xxxii, 165, 169 Calhoun, War John C., 141 California, Quincy Library Group in, 166 California Air Resources Board, 102–103 California Desert Conservation Area, 365–366, 370–371 California Desert Protection Act, 827, 864 California v. General Motors Corp., 167 Callicott, Baird, 58 Calthorpe, Peter, 555 Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Committee v. Atomic Energy Commission, 168–169 Campbell, Susan, 553 Canada, 35, 49, 53, 69, 96, 154, 170, 241, 253, 280, 309, 401, 443–445, 503, 563, 804–806 Canadian Convention, 503–504 Canyon, Glen, 17, 140 Canyons, Wesley J., 626

cap-and-trade programs, 189, 311–312, 314–315, 317 carbon footprint, 103, 169–171, 246, 425, 551 Carey Act of 1894, 147, 171–172 Carlson, Erik D., 65, 728, 808 Carpenter, Farrington, 720 Carper, Thomas, 161, 163 Carr, Wesley, 544, 546, 721 Carson, Rachel, xxxi, 24, 66, 172–173, 252, 256, 257, 260, 264, 391, 458, 556, 557, 615, 616, 687–688, 736, 754, 848 Carter, James Earl, 457, 494, 512, 545, 588, 634, 704, 728, 729, 804, 857 Carter, Jimmy, 29–31, 33–34, 68, 73, 74, 178, 179, 209–210, 212, 309, 321, 346, 384, 387 Catlin, George, xx, xxiii, 5, 836 Cato Institute, 173–174, 856, 866 CBRA (Coastal Barrier Resources Act), 541 CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps), 454–455, 544, 720, 759, 845 CEA (Clean Energy America), 571 Center for Agriculture in the Environment (CAE), 84 Center for American Progress Action Fund, 174 Center for Biological Diversity, 134, 175–176 Center for Health, 184, 386, 859 Central Valley, 637 Central Valley Project (CVP), 149, 176–178, 235 Central Valley Project Improvement Act, 177 CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality), 473, 490, 492, 522–526, 528, 557–559, 590, 851

I-8 | Index

CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons), 506–507, 606, 785 CFR, 584, 694–695, 697, 699 Chaco Canyon, 542 Chamber, Denver, 666 Channel Islands National Park, 178–179, 546, 855, 858 Chapman, Jessica, 68, 127, 407, 501, 613, 669, 699, 739 Charleston, 460–461 Chattanooga, 575 Chelsea Green Publishing Company, 609 Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act, United States, 179–180 Chenery Corp., 499 Cheney, Dick, 162, 181–183, 581, 582 Cheney, Richard Bruce, xxxiv, 181 Chernobyl explosion, 31, 405 Cherokee, 142 Chevron, 109, 112–113, 698, 831 Cheyenne Bottoms, 14 Chickasaw, 142 Chile, 94, 249 Chiles, Lawton, 207 China, 41, 47, 52–53, 60, 162–163, 170, 240–241, 422, 442–443, 499, 501, 548, 574, 581, 609–610, 624– 625 Chino, 702 Chittenden, General G. H., 148 chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), 14 Chretien, Jean, 444 Christianity, 93 Chrysler, 560 Chugach, 667 Church, Frank, xxxii, 821–823 Church-River, Frank, 823 Cicero, 511

Cincinnati, 13, 152, 664 Cinergy Corporation, 246 Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 122 Citizens Clearinghouse, 183–184 Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 184–185 City, Johnson, 461 Civil Rights Act, 239, 330, 741 Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), xxx, 14, 186 Clark, William, 808 Clarke-McNary Act, 759 Claudia Alta Taylor, 432 Clawson, Marion, 145 Clean Air Act (CAA), xxxii, 25–26, 28–29, 35–36, 65–68, 87, 101–103, 158–159, 161, 186–190, 205–206, 316–321, 324–325, 429, 516–518, 560–562, 612–613 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 49, 155–156, 159, 312, 516, 862 Clean Air Act of 1970, 186–189 Clean Air Trust Leon, 510 clean development mechanism, 44, 313 Clean Energy Act, 103, 869 Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA), 2, 25–26, 28, 37–38, 190–202, 259–260, 318–319, 337–338, 519–520, 620, 693–694, 696–699, 747, 800–803, 810, 853–854; with amendments, 35, 192–202 Clean Waters Restoration Act, 23, 849 Clear Air Act, 382 Clear Skies Bill, 189 Clear Water Act, 519 Cleveland, 559, 787–788, 790, 793, 806 Cleveland, Grover, 252–253, 264, 275

Index | I-9

Clifford, Ruth, 87 Clifton Cay, 440 Climate Change Law, 441 climate, 540–541 climate change, 36, 41, 43, 49, 51–54, 76, 130–131, 203–205, 420–421, 423–425, 441, 497–498, 500–501, 540–541, 748, 806 climate protection, 443 Clinton, William Jefferson (Bill), xxxiii, 37–38, 49, 51, 74, 83, 102, 135, 157, 179–180, 182, 206–212, 330, 379, 390, 393, 545, 552, 563, 568, 579, 589–590, 592, 665, 809, 863–866; climate change, 210; Everglades restoration, 211–212; executive orders, 208–209; safe water and toxic sites, 209–210; spotted owl controversy, 207–208 Clive, Utah, 630 coal mining, 29, 212–215, 321, 385–386, 538, 582, 706, 737, 751, 855 Coase, Ronald, 381 Coast Guard, 196, 199, 297–298, 594–595, 813 Coastal Barrier Resources Act, 216 Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments, 223, 226 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), xxxii, 28, 217–232, 337, 460, 468, 541, 743, 853 Cochran, Thad, 410 Coe, Cindy, 767 Cole, Thomas, xxiii Colorado River, 17, 22, 47, 137–138, 149, 232–237, 388–390, 396–397, 838; history, 233–237 Colorado wilderness bill, 863 Columbia Redevelopment Act, 123

Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency, 124 Columbia, 105, 108, 123–125, 242, 282, 296, 318, 476, 482, 645, 675, 693 Commerce Clause, 238–239, 447–448, 694, 696, 699 commercial fishing, 85, 200, 239–241, 426, 488, 537, 541, 605 Committee of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals, 475–476, 492 Committee on Environment and Public Works, 187, 202, 288, 579 Committee on Environmental Protection (CEP), 94 Common Varieties Act, 385 Commoner, Barry, 242 Community Supported Agriculture (CSA), 77 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 30, 35, 42–43, 184, 243–245, 270, 309–310, 321, 388, 405, 619, 622, 663, 738, 858 Congress, Dennis W., 326 Congressional Research Service, 590, 803–804 Conk, Shannon, 134 Connecticut v. American Electric Power Company, 246 Connelly, Matthew, 624 Conness, John, 833 Connor, Michael L., 751 conservation, 246–247 Conservation and Protection of Marine Mammals, 476 Conservation and Recovery Act, 855 Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), 379

I-10 | Index

conservationists, 9, 12, 23, 57, 68, 84, 92, 98, 128, 139, 455, 558, 561, 672, 806, 843–845 Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, 491, 812 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), 26, 134, 248–250, 277, 280–281, 449 Cooper, Maude, 594 Cooperative Forest Management Act, 759 Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act, 760 Coors, Joseph, 507 Copenhagen, 52, 421, 506, 581, 597 Cornyn, John, 437 Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE), xxxvi, 101 Corporate Environmental Crimes and Social Inequality, 332 Cosmetic Act, 846 cost-benefit analysis, xxxiii, 589 Cote, Paul, 401 Council for Economic Quality, 154 Council for Energy Awareness, 571 Council for Environmental Education, 326 Council of Competitiveness, 628 Council of Economic Advisers, 291, 627 Council of Environmental Quality, 27, 522 Council on Competiveness and Congress, 36 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 34, 39, 250–252, 296, 326–329 Council on Sustainable Development, 51 Crane, Edward H., 174 Crapo, Mike, 410

crude oil, 13, 69, 154, 337–338, 592, 646, 680 Crude Oil Windfalls Profits Tax Act, 74, 858 Cryptosporidium, 209 Cuomo, Mario, 439 Curnutt, Jordon, 114, 121, 300 Curtin v. Benson, 466 Cusack Co., 792, 795 Cuyahoga, 799 Cuyahoga River fire, 190, 252–254, 801 CVP (Central Valley Project), 636 CWSRF (Control Revolving Funds), 803 Dakota, Yanktonai, 120 dams, 12, 17–18, 136–138, 140, 148–150, 233–235, 260–261, 388–390, 432–433, 635, 723–724, 822–823, 849–850, 855–856 Darling, Jay Norwood ‘‘Ding,’’ 255–256 Darling Foundation, 255–256, 551 David, Laurie, 394 David McKay Company Inc, 834 Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, 580 Davis, Nancy, 632 DDT. See dichloro-diphenyltrichloroethane de Tocqueville, Alexis, 4 DEC (Department of Environmental Conservation), 867 Declaration of National Environmental Policy, 524 Deepwater Port Act, 221 Defenders of Property Rights (DPR), 257

Index | I-11

Defenders of Wildlife, 96, 468–470, 498, 519–520 deforestation, 6, 530, 597, 603, 608, 750–751, 836 DEIS, 328 Delaware, 129, 131, 163, 529 Denmark, 51, 314, 426, 581, 597, 828 Denver, 267 Department of Agriculture, 115, 144, 341, 350, 410, 504, 543, 616, 700, 707, 758–760, 762, 839, 841, 867 Department of Commerce, 217, 277, 473, 536, 538, 647–648, 700, 742, 750, 817–818 Department of Energy (DOE), 72–74, 301, 303, 307, 346, 348, 404–405, 408–409 Department of Environmental Protection, 67, 154, 439, 820 Department of Housing and Urban Development, 701, 741, 769 Department of Labor, 583–584 Department of State, 39, 741–742 Department of the Interior (DOI), xxii, 76, 98, 117, 144–146, 150, 216, 354, 389–390, 504–505, 543, 700, 749–754, 756–758, 807–808 Department of Transportation (DOT), 185, 428, 500, 629 Desert Land Act of 1877, xxiv, 171–172, 258, 839 Deshamudre, Anitha, 403 developing nations, 442–443, 497, 499–500, 574, 606, 687 DeVercelly, Richard, 575 DeVoto, Bernard, 15 dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT), xxxi, 25, 29, 32, 115–117, 119, 172–173, 256–257, 260–261, 264, 266, 521, 615, 674, 687–688

Dietz, Thomas, 158 Ding, David L., 256 Dingell, John D. Jr., 259–260 Dingle-Johnson Act, 756 Dinosaur National Monument, 16, 140, 847 Dion, Dwight, 120 dioxin, 63–64, 309, 387, 456–457, 618 Dippon, Duane, 380 Division of Forestry, 616, 759, 839, 841 DOE (Department of Energy), 573–574, 578, 586–587, 629, 631, 647–648, 856, 862 Doheny, Edward, 753 Domenici, Peter, 160 Domestic Allotment Act, 846 Domingo, Santo, 98 Donora Smog Museum, 16 Douglas, Justice William O., 123, 260–261, 685, 849 Dow, 62, 121–122, 502, 736 Downey, Tom, 392 Downs, William, 836 DPR (Defenders of Property Rights), 508, 797 Dragich, Madeline, 390, 397 Drake, Trevor L., 58, 77 drinking water, 2, 9, 28, 148, 151, 320, 377, 423, 439, 585–586, 610, 615, 622, 675–676, 854 Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF), 209, 676, 864 Duany, Andres, 555–556, 691 Duck Stamp Act, 756 Dugger Mountain Wilderness Act, 866 Duke Energy Corporation, 324–325, 869 Dump Watt movement, 808

I-12 | Index

dumping, 3, 28, 244, 429, 493–494, 638, 643, 853 Dunham, Shirley Ann, 579 DuPont, 443, 831 Dust Bowl, 14, 247 DWSRF (Drinking Water State Revolving Fund), 864 Dwyer, Judge William, 156, 208 Earth Day, 66, 254, 263–266, 319, 321, 548, 559, 562, 851, 862, 866 Earth Summit, 36, 39, 43, 45, 157, 266, 714 Earthjustice, 266–267 Earthwatch Institute, 268–269 ecological footprint, 170–171 Economic Stability Act, 166 ECOS, 318 Eddy, Marion, 452 EDF (Environmental Defense Fund), 722, 725, 850 Edison Electric Institute, 571 Edmund S. Muskie Foundation, 512 EERE (Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy), 586–587 Ehrlich, Paul, 264, 624, 850 Ehrlichman, John, 558 EIS (Environmental Impact Statement), 441, 522, 528, 721–722, 865–866 Eisenhower, Dwight D., 65, 89, 428, 434 Elliott, William, 837 Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986, 269–273, 309–310, 345–346, 644 Emeritus, Arthur F., 165 Emerson, John, 600 Emerson, Ralph Waldo, xx, xxiv, 4, 5, 510, 600, 725, 836

emissions, 43–44, 52, 101, 103, 130, 154–156, 182, 187, 192, 203–205, 210, 212, 310–315, 441–444, 496–497, 499–501 Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, xxxii, 26–28, 38–39, 85, 105–114, 116, 119–120, 156–157, 208, 266–267, 274–300, 319–321, 403; amendments, 290, 292; attempts to preserve wildlife, 275–276; federal protection, for endangered species, 276–278; prohibition on harming endangered species, 278–279 Endangered Species Committee, 156, 291, 293, 296 Endangered Species Conservation Act, 249, 276, 472, 475, 478–479, 491 Endangered Species Preservation Act, 275, 472, 849 Energy Act (1992), 75 energy conservation, 259, 304–305, 647, 863 Energy Independence and Security Act, 50, 75, 103, 869 Energy Information Administration, 349 energy markets, 74–76, 348, 858 energy policy, 30, 71, 76, 182–183, 306, 308, 327, 346, 348 Energy Policy Act of 1992, 304–305 Energy Policy Act of 2005, 306 Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), 30, 101, 301, 854 Energy Reorganization Act, 73, 573–574 Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA), 573 ENERGY STAR program, 303–304, 306–307

Index | I-13

Energy Star, 301, 303–304, 306–308 Energy Tax Act of 1978, 73, 308, 857 energy-efficient labeling, 300–304; appliance standards, 301–302; ENERGY STAR labeling program, 303–304; EnergyGuide label, 302–303; equipment energy standards, 301–302; Model Energy Code (MEC), 302 Enfield, 610 Enforcement, Joel A., 152 Ennis, Lisa A., 402 Envirofacts, 732 environment assessment (EA), 328 Environment News Service, 133–134, 205–206, 541, 804 environment reporting, 309–310 environmental activism, 97, 134, 136, 138, 558–559 Environmental cap and trade, 183, 310–316 environmental compliance program, 176, 183, 317, 382 Environmental Council of the States, 318–319 Environmental Decade, 21, 25, 40, 168, 319–321, 329, 851 Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), xxxii, 22, 28, 132, 134, 146, 155, 241, 320, 322–324, 402, 453, 722, 869 Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corporation, 324 Environmental Education Act of 1970, 325–326, 852 environmental equity, 329–330 environmental ethics, 6, 18, 44, 48, 57, 169, 846 environmental impact statements (EIS), 27, 70, 165, 168, 237,

250–251, 295, 326–329, 382, 405, 429, 441, 528, 722 environmental justice, 329–332; definition of, 329–330; within human ecological framework, 330–332 Environmental Pesticide Control Act, 173 environmental policy, xvii–xxxvi Environmental Presidency, 36, 39–40, 76, 322 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), xxi, 63–68, 151–155, 188–191, 204–207, 243–245, 306–309, 349–351 Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC), 333 Environmental Quality Education Act, 325 environmental quality, 243, 250–252, 309, 318, 371 environmental racism, 32, 329–330 Environmental Response Compensation, 243–245 environmental restoration, 803–804 Environmental Species Act, 469 Environmental Species Conservation Act, 280 Environmental sustainability (ES), 51, 77, 158, 176, 334–335, 379, 383, 423, 605, 703–704, 851 Environmental Working Group, 177–178 environmentalism, 29, 33, 88, 455, 513, 516, 522, 557–559, 561–562, 682, 689, 713, 726, 823, 840 environmentalists, 16, 24, 34, 36–37, 69, 72, 74, 88, 536–537, 560–562, 582, 667, 689, 721–722, 808–810, 830–831

I-14 | Index

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), 494–501, 516–520, 559–562, 585–586, 619–623, 647–648, 672–676, 731–732, 754–755 EPAct (Energy Policy Act), 74, 160, 164, 167, 304–308, 348, 868 EPCA (Energy Policy and Conservation Act), 854 EPCRA (Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act), 664, 732 equipment energy standards, 301–302 ERDA (Energy Research and Development Administration), 573 Erie Canal, xxi Erlich, Paul, 23 ESA (Endangered Species Act), 468–470, 519–520, 564–567, 722–724 Etnier, David, 722 European Union Allowances (EUAs), 313–314 Evans, George Henry, 412 Ewbank, Thomas, 836 Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), 218–219, 240, 335–336, 535–536, 540 exotic birds, 825–826 extinction, 110, 132–134, 248–249, 274, 276–277, 280, 284, 295, 344, 567, 609, 724, 813 Exxon Shipping Co., 71, 336–337, 339 Exxon Shipping Company v. Baker, 336–337 Exxon Valdez Spill, 154–155, 337–339 ExxonMobil Corp., 71, 167, 440–441, 507

Faass, Josephine, 339 Fall, Albert, 753, 807 Fallon, James O., 261 Family Planning Services and Population Research Act, 624 Farm Act, 601, 869 Farm Bill, 38, 84, 378–379, 706–707, 860 farmers’ markets, 341–342 Fazari, Giuseppe, 171 FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 500 Federal Advisory Committee Act, 288, 366 Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, 343–344 Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937, 14, 344, 563–564, 846 Federal Aid Road Act, 427 Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act, 736 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 232, 345–346 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), 346–348 Federal Environmental Executive, 590–591 Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act (FEPCA) of 1972, xxxii, 349, 853 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 350–351 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 428–429 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1947, 29, 122, 350–351, 615 Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, 19, 29, 320, 351–376, 676, 678, 719, 721, 846, 854

Index | I-15

federal laws, 148, 269, 273, 277, 359, 364–365, 448–449, 471, 503, 530, 566, 675, 690, 825, 830 Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 5 Federal Oil Pollution Control Act, 70, 862 Federal Power Act (FPA), 346–347 Federal Power Commission (FPC), 260, 346–348, 681–682, 845, 850 Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, 357 Federal Register, 82, 278, 284–287, 293, 295–296, 328, 479, 481–483, 517, 589–590, 602, 650, 652, 667, 722 Federal Trade Commission, 70 Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948, 35, 190, 192, 202, 229–231, 376–377, 560, 638, 800, 847–848, 853 Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, 190, 202, 849 Federal Water Pollution Control Law, 376, 638, 801 Federal Water Power Act, 71, 845 Federal-Aid Highway Act, xxxi, 427 federalism, xviii Fein, Albert, 600 Feingold, Russell, 202 FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission), 587, 681–682 Fernow, Bernhard E., 841 Ferry, Lees, 234 FFDCA (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act), 846, 867 FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act), 521, 615, 853, 864 Fifth Amendment, xx, 123, 125, 127, 257, 406–407, 437, 459–460, 462–463, 466, 467, 508, 717, 768, 810 Finland, 773

First Amendment, 120 fish, 107–108, 112, 115, 176–177, 190–191, 218–219, 239–241, 254, 280–282, 297–298, 355–357, 477, 479, 602, 722–723, 728–729 Fish & Wildlife Service, 519 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 33, 288, 858 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 523, 749 Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), 69, 96–97, 105, 115–117, 119, 277–279, 380, 403, 473, 496, 504, 542–544, 566–567, 742–744, 750–752, 755–758 Fisher, Linda J., 163 fisheries, 15, 47, 51, 116, 134, 241, 288, 336, 378, 418, 479–480, 495, 523, 537, 539–541 Fisherman’s Protective Act of 1967, 814 Flader, Susan, 248 Flagg, Samuel B., 844 Fleer, Joshua, 93 Flippen, Brooks, 247 Flood Control Act, 739 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 241, 377–378, 625, 709 Food Quality Protection Act, 38, 350, 864 Food Security Act of 1985, 84, 378–379, 860 Forbes, Stephen A., 845 Ford Motor Company, 269 Ford, Gerald R., 29, 181, 320–321, 631, 704, 723, 731, 855 Ford, Henry, 13 Ford-Martin, Paula, 189 Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT), 208, 379–380, 410

I-16 | Index

Forest Land Policy Management Act of 1976, xxxii Forest Management Act, 608, 840 Forest Reserve Act, 608, 670, 759, 840 Fort Frederica National Monument, 81 Foster, Shirley, 85 Fourteenth Amendment, 460, 504, 790 Fourth Amendment, 584 France, 8, 94, 98, 383, 574, 616, 624, 738 Franklin, Benjamin, 2–3, 116 free market environmental policy, 381–382 Freedom-CAR program, 162 Freeman, Dan, 413 Fresno, 637, 683, 707 Friends of the Earth International, 69, 140, 382–383 Friends of the Earth v. Mosbacher, 384 fuel, 13, 50, 59, 101–102, 180, 303, 313, 405, 555, 578, 629–630, 656, 659, 808 Fugate, Craig, 345 Fur Seal Act, 491 Fur Seal Treaty, 502 FWPCA, 638 Galvin, Peter, 175 Gandhi, Mahatma, 22 GAO (General Accounting Office), 536–537 Garfield, James R., 9 Garrett, Nathan, 384 Gas Guzzler Tax, 308 General Accounting Office (GAO), 32, 245, 307 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), 44

General Land Reform Act, 352 General Mining Act of 1872, 87, 385–386, 838 General Motors, 168, 560 General Survey Act, 747 General Revision Act of 1891, xxvii geodesy, 540 George, Henry, 838 Georgia, 81, 142–143, 448, 501, 767, 859–860 Geothermal Steam Act, 74, 852 Germany, 60, 422, 624 Gharipour, Mohammad, 400, 403 Giant Sequoia National Monument, 136, 752 Gibbons v. Ogden, xxi Gibbs, Lois, 30, 32, 183–184, 386–388, 456, 857 Gila Cliff Dwellings National Monument, 455 Gila National Forest, 12, 454 Ginnie Mae, 749 Ginsburg, Justice Ruth Bader, 67, 500, 520 Giuliani, Rudolph W., 439 Glacier National Park, 5, 804–805 glaciers, 47, 53, 95, 510, 542, 806 Glen Canyon Dam, 72, 233, 235, 388–390; Adaptive Management Program (AMP), 237 Global Climate Protection Act, 35, 861 Global Footprint Network, 170–171 global warming, 163, 203, 394, 418, 425 Golden Eagle Protection Act, 116, 118 golden eagles, 118–120 Goldwater, Barry, 17, 174, 632

Index | I-17

Goodlatte, Bob, 410 Goodwin, Karen, 410 Gordon, Thomas, 174 Gore, Albert Arnold, Jr., xxxiv, 91, 37, 207, 211, 390–394 Gore, Pauline, 390 Gottlieb, Alan, 831 Gould, Rowan, 752 Government Accountability Office, 244–245, 307, 441, 762 Government Printing Office, 202, 252, 537, 550, 643, 804 GPU (General Public Utilities), 727–728 Graham, Bob, 211 Graham, Frank, 447 Grand Canyon, 12, 22, 72, 147, 149, 232–234, 237–238, 384, 389, 394–397, 432, 542, 626, 849–850 Grand Canyon Protection Act, 237 Grand Coulee Dam, 397, 404 Grand Teton National Park, xxx Grant, Ulysses S., 258, 385, 749 grasslands, 758, 760, 805 gray whales, 93, 817–818 Gray, Barbara, 507 grazing, 7, 14–15, 146, 353, 357, 367–368, 376; fees, 353, 367, 626, 719–721, 759, 840 Grazing Service, 720 Great Depression, xxx, 176, 235 Great Lakes, 198, 217–218, 220–222, 494, 799–800 Great Oregon, 105–114 Greeley, Horace, 412 Greeley, William, 608 green cities, 397–400, 691, 704 greenhouse gases, 43, 45, 47, 50, 77, 162–163, 167, 169–170, 181–182, 210, 246, 307, 313–314, 424, 442–444, 496–501

Greenpeace, 26, 32, 321, 382, 400–402, 728, 739, 852–853, 867 Gregoire, Christine, 674 Gregory, Mary Huston, 843 Gridley, Richard, 738 Griffis, Chelsea, 250, 344 Griles, Steven, 159 Grinnell, George, 520, 839 ground waters, 193, 196, 639, 675–676 Grove, Mill, 99 Grumbles, Benjamin H., 700–701 Guggenheim, Davis, 91 Guyer, Sue, 205, 348 Habitat Conservation Plan, 403 Haeg, Claire, 189, 202, 354 Haggin, James B., 258 Hair, Jay D., 157 Haiti, 98 Halloran, Amy, 378, 406, 411 Hanel, Rachael, 131, 394 Hanford nuclear waste site, 404–406 Hansen, James, 861 Harbor, Charlotte, 529 Hardin, Garrett, 381 Harding, Warren, 592, 753 Hardrock Mining Reform Act, 385 Hardy, Scott D., 305 Harris, 212 Harrisburg, 501, 727 Harrison, Benjamin, 7, 757, 840 Hart, George, 59 Hart, Maureen, 335 Hartzog, George B., 545 Hastings, Donald W., 332 Hatch, Orrin, 677 Hatfield, Mark, 565 Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, 279, 300

I-18 | Index

Hawaii Housing Authority, 406–407, 437–438, 860 Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 406–407 Hayes, Denis, 25, 264–265 Hayes, Rutherford, 764 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), 407–408, 860 Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1975 (HMTA), 408–409 hazardous waste, 32, 36, 151, 183, 214–215, 317, 407; sites, 245, 329–330, 639–646, 648–650, 652–658, 859; sites, 860 Headly, Joel T., 6 headwaters, 53, 333, 385 health, environmental, 6, 10, 24, 26–27, 158, 319, 452, 523, 639 Health and Safety Act, 736 Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), 66, 143, 187, 325, 755, 848 Health, Safety, and Security (HSS), 409 Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003, 161, 409–410, 569 Hearst, George, 258 heating season performance factor (HSPF), 303 Hebe Co., 792 Heckler v. Chaney, 499 Herber, Henry William, xxii Heritage Foundation, 411, 619, 634 Herrera, Carlos, 211 Hibbert, Harold, 13 Hickel, Walter, 558 Hicks, John Richard, 709 High Court Voids Act Curbing Mining, 614 Highway Beautification Act, 428

Hilgartner, Stephen, 547 Hill, Hiram, 723, 854 Hillers, John, 395 Hiroshima, 572 Hitchcock, Ethan Allen, 148 Hoag, Dana L., 67 Hodel, Donald, 567–568 Hohokam, 233 Holmes, Justice Oliver Wendell, 462, 504, 613 Holst, Arthur, 61, 143 Homestead Act of 1862, xxii, xxiii, 144, 147, 171, 258, 412–415, 608, 626, 837 Honda, 167 Hooker Chemical Co., 387 Hoover Dam, 72, 136–137, 149–150, 233, 235, 742. See also Boulder Canyon Project Hoover, Herbert, xxx, 137, 234, 235 Horinko, Marianne Lamont, 163 Hostutler, Jason, 172 Hough, Franklin B., 751, 839 Houghton Mifflin Company, 173, 394, 616, 672, 678, 688 housing, 124–125, 127, 330, 690, 701, 741–742, 823 Housing Act, 745, 770, 847 Howard, Albert, 600 HRSA (Health Resources and Services Administration), 771 HSS (Health, Safety, and Security), 408 HUD (Housing and Urban Development), 749 Hudson River, 6, 232, 621–622, 681 Hughes v. Washington, 466 Hugs, William, 120 Hugses, the, 120–121 Humphrey, Hubert, 826

Index | I-19

Hungary, 314 Hunter, Duncan, 179 Hurricane Andrew, 211 Hurricane Katrina, 747, 868 Ickes, Harold, xxx Illinois, 78, 89, 447, 511, 579, 599, 632, 694, 862, 866 Illinois Environmental Protection Act, 664 Independent Evaluation Group (IEG), 425 Indian Affairs, 750 Indian Child Welfare Act, 143 Indian General Allotment Act, 740 Indian Health Care Improvement Act, 143 Indian Mineral Leasing Act, 740 Indian Oil Corporation, 422 Indians, 82, 120, 141–143, 357, 478, 491, 679, 818, 829–830 industrial development, 200, 217, 219, 787, 793 Industrial Revolution, 4, 13, 611, 618, 835 Inhofe, James, 205, 417–418, 867 Inland Waterways Commission (IWC), 418–419, 425–426 insecticides, 614 Inslee, Jay, 563 Interagency Scientific Committee (ISC), 156 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 36, 91, 204–205, 394, 420–425; assessment reports, standards for, 422–423; and political debate, 423–425; structure and organization of, 421–422 Interior Department, 95–96, 117–118, 159, 275–276, 473, 504, 508, 567, 638, 719, 839

Interior Reclamation Bureau, 389–390 international agreements, 26, 162, 189, 204, 249, 277, 280, 282, 284, 445, 449, 471, 654, 786 International Association of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring, 440 International Code Council (ICC), 302, 347 International Energy Agency, 71, 76 International Peace Memorial, 80–81 International Standards Organization (ISO), 317 International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna, 277, 280–281 International Whaling Commission (IWC), 93, 402, 425–426, 812 Interstate Commerce Act (ICA), 347 Interstate Highway Act, 65, 428 interstate highways, 147, 185, 427–429 interstate waters, 377, 697, 800, 848 Inupiat, 96 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 541, 547 Iran, 13 Iraq, 39, 183, 848 Ireland, 314 irrigation, 147–149, 233, 235, 237, 247, 258, 397, 635–636 Italy, 58, 378, 422 IWC (Inland Waterways Commission), 812–818, 843 Izaak Walton League, xxviii Jackson, Andrew, 142 Jackson, Henry, xxxii, 353, 558 Jackson, Lisa, xxxv Jackson, Wes, 128 Jacob, Janet, 555, 848 James, John, 98–100

I-20 | Index

Japan, 52, 60, 69, 94, 163, 165, 170, 204, 268, 401–402, 422, 426, 503, 812, 815–816, 865 Jarvis, Jonathan B., 744 JCAE (Joint Committee on Atomic Energy), 572 Jefferson, Thomas, xxi, 141 Jefferson Park, 600 Jindal, Bobby, 580 John Muir Center, 510 Johnson, Claudia Alta, 431–432 Johnson, Lyndon B., xxxii, 23, 101, 431, 432–434, 435, 472, 533, 548–549, 822, 826, 828, 850 Johnson, Paul, 745 Johnson, Robert Underwood, 7 Johnson, Stephen L., 163 Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (JCAE), 572 Joyce Livestock Company, 135 Juneau, 728, 730 Justice Department, 633, 673

Kennedy, John F., 23, 25, 62, 264, 432, 438, 451, 582 Kennedy, Justice Anthony, 68, 468 Kennedy, Robert, Jr., 438–440 Kennewick, 405 Kent, William, 8 Kentucky Wilderness Act, 860 Kenya, 248 Kerry, John, 205 Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., 440–441 Kleberg, Richard, 433 Kline, Benjamin, xxiv Knoxville, 722 Knutson-Vandenberg Act, 751 Koch, Charles G., 174 Korean War, 762 Krupp, Frederic, 323 Kuchel, Thomas, 549 Kyoto Protocol, 38, 44–45, 163, 170–171, 182–183, 204–205, 212, 313–314, 316, 394, 402, 411, 421, 441–445, 581–582, 868

Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 466 Kalm, Peter, xx Kansas, 15, 128, 148 Katz, Jonah, 344 Kawasaki Motor Corporation, 135 Kazakhstan, 52 Kean, Thomas H., 820 Keating, Michael, 309 Kelley, Chavawn, 129 Kelliher, Joe, 347 Kelly, Suedeen, 347 Kelo, Susette, 438 Kelo v. City of New London (2005), 437–438 Kendall, Mary L., 753 Kennedy, Edward M., 438

Lacey, John Fletcher, 78, 275 Lacey, John, 449 Lacey Act, 78, 447–450, 748, 841, 845; of 1900, 447–449; amendments of 1981, 449–450 LaGrange, 89 LaHood, Ray, xxxv Lake Powell, 233, 235, 389–390 Lamm, Richard, 677 Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), 24, 159, 276, 354, 451 Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, 451, 849 land disposal, 639, 641–642 Land Ordinance of 1785, xxi, xxii, 144

Index | I-21

land uses, 218, 222, 224, 226, 229, 399, 690, 701–702 lands, agricultural, 48, 692–693 Lavelle, Rita, 151, 634 Lawrence, Mike, 405 Lead Poisoning Reduction Act of 2006, xxxv Lead-Free Toys Act of 2005, xxxv League for the Advancement of States’ Equal Rights (LASER), 677 League of Conservation Voters (LCV), 130–131, 140, 207, 212, 452–453 Leal, Donald R., 381 Leavitt, Mike, 131, 163 LeConte, 60 Lee, Hoesung, 422 Lenin, Vladimir, 553 Leopold, Aldo, xxviii, 57–58, 453–455, 749, 827, 846 Lewis, John L., 736–737 Lewis, Jori, 241, 426 Liability Act, 42, 152, 184, 243–244, 270, 310, 321, 388, 405, 456–457, 619, 622, 858 Lieberman, Joe, 205 Lincoln, Abraham, 413 Lindsey, Fred, 180 Litton, 558 liquid natural gas (LNG), 348 LLRW (low-level radioactive waste), 458–459 LLW (low-level waste), 629–630 Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs), 270–273 Lopez v. United States, 239, 313, 316 Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 463, 465 Louv, Richard, 9 Love, William T., 457

Love Canal, 30–32, 183–184, 243, 245, 309–310, 319, 321, 386–388, 456–457, 639, 855, 857–858 Lovelock, James, 242 Low Level Radioactive Waste Act, 33 low-level radioactive waste (LLRW), 458–459 low-level waste (LLW), 629–630 Lowenstein, Evelyn, 431 Low-Input Sustainable Agriculture (LISA), 77 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1985, 458, 631 Lucas, David, 459 Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 459–468 Lugar, Dick, 130 Lujan, Manuel, 156, 567 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 468–470 Lyon, Thomas A., 709 MacDonald, Julie A., 753 MacKaye, Benton, 827 Maclachlan, Anne, 232 Maclean, Jayne, 77 Madison, James, 454, 509, 553, 741, 753 Magnan, Matt, 239 Magnuson-Stevens Act, 536 Mahaweli Rehabilitation Project in Sri Lanka, 469 Mainella, Fran, 546, 867 Makah Indians, 92–93, 817–818 Malaysia, 422, 610 Maldives, 422 Malfar, Lee Ann, 54 Mali, 422 Malthus, Thomas, 623 Mander, Jerry, 1, 18

I-22 | Index

Manhattan Project, 72, 404, 618, 747, 846 Marcus, Sandra, 237 Marietta, 560 marine environment, 47, 335, 337, 475, 494, 604–605, 853, 861 marine mammals, 290, 471–493, 558, 594, 604, 819 Marine Mammal Commission, 473–477, 480–481, 486, 488, 490, 816, 818 Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972, xxxii, 28, 92–93, 106, 109, 426, 471–493, 495, 536–537, 814 Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, 493–495 Markey, Edward J., 314 Marsh George Perkins, xxiii, xxv, 6, 836, 837 Marshall, Chief Justice John, 142 Marshall, Justice Thurgood, 120, 185 Marshall, Robert, 583–584, 827 Martha, 275 Martin, Harold H., 16 Maryland, 85, 168, 173, 529, 553, 574, 637, 690, 824 Marzulla, Nancy, 257, 508 Mason, David T., 608 Massachusetts v. EPA, 496–501 Massachusetts, 5, 167, 205, 314, 496–501, 529, 616, 619, 725, 795, 809, 837, 851, 869 Mather, Stephen T., 543, 833 Matheson, Scott, 677 Mauna Kea, 279, 300 Maurice, 305 Mauritius, 150 Maxwell, G. H., 148 MBTA (Migratory Bird Treaty Act), 449, 471, 502–504, 564, 752, 748, 844

McCabee, Mike, 265 McCloskey, Paul, 559 McDonald’s, 183 McFadden, Robert D., 862 McHarg, Ian, 398 McKenna, Justice Joseph, 830 McKenney, Thomas, 141 McKinley, William, xxvii, 6, 234, 448, 671 McLaughlin, Katherine, 100, 255, 337 McNutt, Marcia K., 752 McPhee, John, 138 McTaggart, David, 401 McVeigh, Timothy, 831 Mead, Elwood, 138, 149 Meadows, Dennis I., 710 Meadows, Donella H., 710 Meat Inspection Act, xxix Mendenhall Glacier, 728 Mendoza, Elijah, 316 meridional overturning circulation (MOC), 424 Metcalf, Jack, 817 Metcalfe, Dorothy, 401 Metropolitan Edison Co. v. PANE, 501–502 Mexico, 13, 52, 233, 235, 237, 280, 412, 422, 503, 563, 638, 683, 862 Meyer, Alden, 452 Migratory Bird Act of 1913, 502–503 Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 288, 845 Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act, 756 Migratory Bird Rule, 694–699 Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, 502–504 Mikva, Chief Judge, 109 Miller, Christina, 254 Miller, George, 522

Index | I-23

Miller, Julia R., 332 Mineral King Valley, 261, 685–686, 852–853 Mineral Leasing Act, 12, 505, 740 Minerals Policy Act, 356 Minidoka Dam, 72, 843 Mining Act of 1866, xxiv Mining Act of 1872, xxv, xxvi Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, 356 Mining Law, 88, 364, 372–373, 375, 386, 505 Misty Fjords National Monument, 729 Mitchell, John, 673 mitigation, 295–296, 298, 376, 424, 483, 523 Mobile Bay, 529 Model Energy Code (MEC), 302, 304 Mojave National Park, 864 Mojave National Preserve, 864 Moldan, Beldrich, 45 Mondale, Walter, xxxiii Monsanto, 62 Montana, 88, 148, 258, 357, 413 Montezuma, 165 Montreal Protocol, 35, 189, 506–507, 606, 773 Moon, Sun Myung, 830 Moore, Michelle, 590 Moore, Patrick, 401 Morales, Evo, 51 moratorium, 88, 241, 426, 473, 475–476, 478, 480, 577, 717, 814–816 Morin, Erica A., 382 Mormons, 147, 233 Morris, Evelyn Krache, 64, 116 Morris, Philip, 257 Morton, Rogers, 685

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), 135 Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act, 23, 101 Moule, Elizabeth, 555 Mount Katahdin, 13 Mount Marcy, 6 Mount Rainier National Park, 510, 608, 841 Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument, 760 Mount Tamalpais, 12 Mountain States Legal Foundation, 257, 508, 832 Mountain States Legal Fund (MSLF), 88, 507–508 Mueller, Melinda, 166, 384 Muir, John, xxvi–xxvii, 7, 18, 72, 141, 508–510, 831, 836, 839, 842, 844 Muir, Warren, 309 Muir Glacier, 510 Muir Woods, 9, 12 Muller, Paul Hermann, 614, 687 Multiple Use Act, 145 Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act, 17, 24, 848 Mumford, Lewis, 555 Murkowski, Frank, 347 Murkowski, Lisa, 347 Muskie Act, 187 Muskie, Edward, 187, 190, 510–512 NAAQS (National Ambient Air Quality Standards), 516–519, 851 Nader, Ralph, xxxii, 187, 440, 515–516 NAE (National Academy of Engineering), 547 Naess, Arne, 24 Nagasaki, 404, 572

I-24 | Index

Nairobi, 248 Nakahara, Seiei, 401 NAS (National Academy of Sciences), 473, 490, 492, 545–547, 810, 848 Nash, Roderick, xx Nashville, 392 National Academy of Engineering (NAE), 547 National Academy of Sciences (NAS), 63–64, 204, 473, 490, 492, 545–547, 810, 848 National Agricultural Library (NAL), 77 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), 28, 103, 187, 189, 516–518, 851 National Association of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 519–520 National Audubon Society, xviii, 100, 279, 520–521, 826, 842 National Coal Association, 538 National Coastal Monitoring Act, 494 National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry (NCSSF), 596 National Conservation Association, 617, 845 National Emission Standards Act, 65 National Energy Act (NEA), 73, 321, 857 National Energy Policy Act of 1992, 305 National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG), 182 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, xxxii, 25–28, 165, 168–169, 185, 250–252, 254, 319–320, 326, 329, 382–383, 429, 521–528

National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), 558, 668 National Environmental Scorecard, 452 National Estuary Program, 528–529 National Fire Plan, 761 National Forest Commission, 616 National Forest Management Act of 1976, xxxii, 530–533, 759, 854 National Forest Service, 549, 598, 671, 850 National Forest System, 288, 358, 360, 363–364, 530–531 national forests, 1, 17, 24, 153, 333, 357, 366–368, 530, 532, 566, 569, 609, 667–668, 671–672, 860–861 National Geodetic Survey, 540 National Geographic (magazine), 53, 807, 823 National Geospatial Program, 764 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 83, 212, 533–535, 849 National Historic Sites Act, 83 National Inland Waterways Policy, 419 National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 583 National Institute of Standards and Technology, 648, 656, 659–660 National Institutes of Health (NIH), 763 National Interstate and Defense Highway Act, xxxi, 534 National Land for People, 637 National Landscape Conservation System, 824 National Liberation Front (NLF), 63

Index | I-25

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), xxv, 93, 277, 380, 535–537 National Marine Sanctuaries Act, 494–495 National Mining Association (NMA), 88, 215, 386, 537–538, 810 national monuments, 9, 38, 78–79, 81–82, 135, 145, 179, 396, 508, 542, 545–546, 672, 729–730 National Monuments Act of 1906, xxvii National Ocean Service, 539 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 178, 196, 217, 232, 247, 291, 336, 403, 538–541; charting and geodesy, 540; climate, 540–541; coast, 541; fisheries, 540; ocean, 539–540; satellites, 540; weather, 539 National Organic Program, 601–602, 867 National Park Conferences, 844 National Park Protective Act, 840 National Park Service, 12, 69, 80, 82, 144, 152, 156, 179, 247, 267, 380, 396–397, 434–435, 451, 542–546, 684, 750–752, 826–827, 833–834, 844, 847–848 national park system, 68, 82, 159, 179, 363, 431, 434, 509, 543, 807–808, 833, 836, 857 National Parks and Conservation Association, 69, 179, 845 National Parks and Recreation Act, 152, 545, 856 National Parks Association, xxviii, 845 National Petroleum War Service Committee, 90

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), 191, 519, 638, 802 National Priorities List (NPL), 244–245 National Progressive Union of Miners, 736 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), 74, 587, 863 National Research Council, 546–547, 683 National Resources Defense Council, 405–406, 548, 688 National Response Team, 154 National Science Foundation, 473, 490, 492 National Security Strategy, 128 National Spatial Reference System, 540 National System of Wild and Scenic Rivers, 549 National Toxicology Program, 650 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Act, 515 National Trails System Act, 24, 545–546, 548–549, 850 National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), 409 National Water Quality Commission, 192 National Waterways Commission (NWC), 419 National Weather Service, 539 National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 850 National Wilderness Act of 1964, xxxii National Wilderness Preservation System, 68–69, 146, 374, 546, 549, 827, 857, 862–864, 866

I-26 | Index

National Wildlife Federation (NWF), 15, 157, 255, 550, 605 National Wildlife Fund, 136 National Wildlife Refuge System Administrative Act, 757 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, 766 National Wildlife Refuge System, 24, 68–69, 255, 275, 344, 363, 449, 551, 757,766 Nationwide Rivers Inventory, 824 Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP), 802 Natural Gas Act (NGA), 346–347 Natural Lands Initiative, 733 natural resources, protection of, 219, 223, 681, 683 Natural Resources Conservation Service, 693, 700–701 Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), xxxiii, 26, 28, 66, 96, 112, 136, 159, 169, 320, 405, 438, 453, 551, 517, 548, 682, 698, 809, 820, 834, 855 Navajo Nation, 739–740 navigable waters, 191–193, 196, 202, 238, 259, 638, 693–694, 696–699, 799, 854 NCSSF (National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry), 596 Nebraska, 125, 146, 148, 181 Nehasane Park, 8 NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute), 570–571, 575, 578 Neighborhood Conservation Program, 399 Nelson, Gaylord, xxxii, 25, 263, 325, 552–553, 754, 851, 864

NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act), 501–502, 521–528, 686–687, 817–818, 851 NEPs (National Estuary Programs), 528–530 Nevada, 136–137, 148–149, 233–235, 258, 357, 389, 458, 508, 578, 677 New Deal, xxx, 14, 186, 235, 238, 415, 435, 544, 707, 845 New London, 127, 418 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), 28, 188, 324, 802, 858 New Urbanism, 553–556, 691, 848, 863 New York Bird Law, 447 New York State Game Protection Agency, xxii New Zealand, 52, 94, 422 Newell, Frederick Haynes, 148 Newlands Reclamation Act, 841 NFMA. See National Forest Management Act of 1976 NHPA. See National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Niagara, 11, 30, 243, 309, 386–387 Nickel Plate Railroad, 788 nitrogen, 785 Nixon, Richard M., xxi, xxxii, 27, 29, 40, 64, 71, 168–169, 217, 232, 250–252, 266, 320–321, 349–350, 434, 472, 512, 521, 523, 528, 556–562, 672, 680, 722, 754–755, 851–853 NMA (National Mining Association), xi, 537–538, 810 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service), 473, 535–537, 539, 541, 605, 700, 749, 817–818 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), 476,

Index | I-27

488, 490, 494–495, 535–542, 560, 700, 817–818 Nonpoint Source Management Program, 803 North American Free Trade Agreement, 563 North American Waterfowl Management Plan, 563 North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1989, 562–564, 862 North American Wetlands Conservation Council, 563 North Pacific Fur Seal Convention, 486 Northern Mariana Islands, 217, 220–221, 645 Northern Pacific Railroad, 542 northern spotted owl, 105, 108–109, 156, 156–157, 175, 208, 212, 380, 564–567 Northwest Forest Management Plan, 567–570, 597 Northwest Forest Resources Council, 568 Norton, Gale, xxxiv, 159, 410, 508, 666, 753 Norwood, Jay, 255 NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System), 519, 638, 802 NPS (National Parks Service), 534, 542–546 NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission), 458, 501–502, 546–547, 571, 573–575, 578, 629– 631, 728 NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory), 587, 863 NRHP (National Register of Historic Places), 534–535

Nuclear Advocacy Network (NAN), 89 Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), 89, 570–571 Nuclear Energy Policy, 571–574 nuclear energy, 71, 570–572, 574, 728 nuclear fuel, 572, 629–630 nuclear power industry, 72, 572–573 Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 267, 574–575 Nuclear Safety Research, Development, and Demonstration Act, 573 Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, 89, 576–577 Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, 242, 573–574, 578, 859 Nuttall, Thomas, 835 O’Brien, Timothy, 324, 383 O’Connor, Justice Sandra Day, 407 O’Shaughnessy Dam, 72 Obama, Barack, xxxv, 39, 76, 129, 131, 167, 182, 215, 579–582, 593 Oberstar, James, 202 Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 317, 583–585, 852 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), 271, 767–770 Ocean Dumping (Ban) Act, 28, 494, 853, 861 OEE (Office of Environmental Education), 852 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 190 Office of Building Technology, 302, 304 Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 594 Office of Drinking Water, 377, 585–586

I-28 | Index

Office of Economic Opportunity, 181 Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 586–587 Office of Environmental Education, 325–326 Office of Environmental Equity, 330 Office of Indian Affairs, 142 Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 587–589 Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 34, 591–593 Office of Marine and Aviation Operations, 540 Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, 630 Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, 539 Office of Ombudsman, 649 Office of Pesticides Programs, 593 Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, 593 Office of Prevention and Toxics, 593 Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS), 593–594 Office of Procurement Policy, 660 Office of Program Planning and Integration, 539 Office of Science and Policy, 594 Office of Science Coordination and Policy, 593 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), 243, 273, 408 Office of Special Agent, 759 Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement, 213, 751–752 Office of the Federal Environmental Executive, 590–591 Office of Toxic Substances, 593–594

Office of Urban Policy, 743 Oglethorpe, James, 741 OGWDW (Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water), 585–586 Ohio Canal, 739 Ohio, 80, 152, 252–253, 560, 581, 736, 787–797, 847, 850 oil companies, 69–70, 807, 816 Oil Pollution Act of 1990, 71, 158, 176, 273, 338–339, 594–595, 862 OIRA (Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs), 587–590, 592 Oklahoma, 148 old-growth forests, 596–597 Olmsted, Frederick Law, xxix–xxx, 598–600 Olney, Warren, 7 OMB (Office of Management and Budget), 578, 587, 590–593, 627 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, 326 Omnibus Flood Control Act, 14, 846 Omnibus Parks Act, 857, 864 Omnibus Public Land Management Act, 824 OPPTS (Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances), 593–594 Oregon Department of Energy, 405–406 organic act, 353 Organic Food and Farming, 600–601 Organic Food Production Act, 601–602, 862 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Council, 618 Orlando, 135 OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration), 583–585, 588–589, 737, 767–770

Index | I-29

OSMRE (Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement), 705–706 Outdoor Recreation Acquisition Program, 553 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 222 Outer Continental Shelf, 751 overfishing, 85, 133–134, 241, 536, 541, 602–605 Overseas Private Investment Corporation, 868 Owyhee Dam, 149 ozone layer depletion, 605–606 ozone layer, 31, 35, 45, 506, 605–606, 773–786, 831 Ozone Secretariat, 506–507 Pachauri, 422 Pacific Islands, 217, 221, 282, 475–476, 751, 766 Pacific Northwest Rain Forests, 607–609 Pacific Northwest, 108, 156, 197 paint, 28, 99 paint, leaded, 609–611 Palila I, 106, 108, 279 Palila II, 105, 109, 300 palila, 105–106, 108–109, 279, 300 Pan-American Exposition, 671 PANE (People Against Nuclear Energy), 501–502 Paradiso, Erika, 666 parks, 1, 7, 12, 15, 83, 126, 178–179, 210, 275, 542–546, 598–599, 683–685, 733, 804–806, 833–834, 839–840 Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, 25 particulates, 611–613 Pasco, 405 Paul, Francis, 144

Paxton, Joseph, 598 Peace Parks, 805–807 Pearl Harbor, 753 Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 462, 465, 613, 845 People for the USA (PFUSA), 831 Perot, Ross, 157 Perry’s Victory, 80–81 Peru, 422 pesticides, 2, 151, 173, 175, 200, 209, 235, 251, 323, 349–351, 409, 521, 557–558, 614–615, 687–688 Pew Charitable Trust, 665 Pew Oceans Commission, 604 Phelps, Mark Anthony, 429 Phillips, Sarah T., 433 PHS Commissioned Corps, 763 Pinchot, Gifford, xxvii–xxviii, xxix, 8–10, 12, 616–617, 671, 759, 831, 841, 844 Pinchot, James, 616 Pinchot, Mary Eno, 616 pipelines, 69–70, 96, 222, 418, 505 Pittman-Robertson Act, 14, 344, 756, 846 Pizarchik, Joseph, 752 Planning Commission, 124, 126 Polk, James, 749 pollutants, 47, 59, 66, 102, 155, 161, 188–189, 191–192, 195, 197, 201, 259, 310, 496–497, 500, 516–517, 581, 799, 801–803 Polluter Pays Principle, 174, 618–619 pollution: elimination of, 193, 195–199; control, 188, 195, 209, 217, 220, 251, 377 pollution control, 620, 638, 802–803, 810 Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, 242, 310, 619–620, 732

I-30 | Index

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), 32, 621–622 Pombo, Richard, 410 population control, 623–625 populations, sustainable, 474–475, 481, 486 Porter, Eliot, 140 Portney, Paul, 155 potentially responsible parties (PRPs), 738 POTW (Publicly Owned Treatment Works), 802 Powell, John Wesley, xxv, 626, 635, 838 PRA (Paperwork Reduction Act), 587–588, 590 Preable, Christopher A., 346 Presidential Task Force on Regulatory Relief, 627–628 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), 324, 858 Price-Anderson Act, 73, 572–573, 848 Privacy Act, 292 Private Property Act of 2005, 437 PRPs (potentially responsible parties), 738 Prudhoe Bay, 69, 96 PSD (Prevention of Significant Deterioration), 858 Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act, 122 Public Land Law Review Commission (PLLRC), 352 public land laws, 352, 360, 373 Public Purposes Act, 362 Public Rangelands Improvement Act, 353 Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA), 30, 73–74, 321, 857

Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW), 802 Purchase of Development Rights (PDR), 84 Pure Food and Drug Act, xxix Quayle, Dan, xxxiv, 36 Quincy Library Group (QLG), in California, 166, 863 radioactive waste, 629–631 Radioactive Waste Safety Research Program, 631 Ranch Lands Protection Program, 84 RAND Corporation, 63 Randers, Jorgen, 710 Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, 530 Read, James H., 173 Reagan, Ronald, 31, 33–35, 36, 74, 86, 150, 151, 216, 407, 452, 458, 494, 512, 518, 536, 545, 588, 592, 627–628, 631–634, 672, 677, 705, 771, 808, 859 Reclamation Act of 1902, 147–148, 150, 176, 178, 234, 635–636, 841 Reclamation Fund, 214, 635, 705–706 Reclamation Reform Act of 1982, 177–178, 636–637 Reclamation Service, 138, 148–149 Recreation Act of 1978, 152 Recreation and Public Purposes Act, 362 Redford, Robert, 453 Redwoods National Park, 432, 549 Rees, William, 170 Refuge System Administration Act, 96, 275 Refuse Act of 1899, 637–638

Index | I-31

Regional Marine Research programs, 494 Regulation of Whaling, 425 regulatory impact analyses (RIAs), xxxiii, 592 Rehnquist, Chief Justice William, 693 Rehnquist, Justice William, 67, 122 Reilly, William K., 153 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 121 renewable energy, 71, 73–76, 313, 586–587, 829, 857–858, 868, 870 Renewable Energy Network, 302 Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard Act, 869 Renewable Resources Planning Act, 531–532 Reorganization Act of 1945, 352 Republican National Committee (RNC), 820 Republican Party, 632, 670, 821 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), xxxii, 29, 34, 38, 212, 215, 243, 245, 318, 320, 325, 408, 638–663, 855, 860 Resource Recovery Act of 1970, 408, 852 resources, human-made, 334 Revelle, Roger, 391–392 Rey, Mark, 410 RIAs (regulatory impact analyses), 592 Richards, Ellen H., 843 Richardson, Henry Hobson, 838 Richardson, Robert Earle, 845 Right of Way Act, 841 Right-to-Know Legislation, 664–665 Riley, Bob, 580 Rio de Janeiro, 36, 43, 45, 157, 266, 421

risk management program (RMP), 180 Rivers and Harbors Act, 494, 637, 799, 841 Roadless Area Conservation National Advisory Committee, 668 Roadless Area Conservation Policy, 665–668, 821 Roberts, Chief Justice John, 501, 519 Robinson, Robert C., 122, 165 Rockefeller, Nelson, 820 Rockwell International Corp. v. U.S., 669 Rocky Mountains, xxv Rodale, Jerome I., 601 Rodriguez, Cindy, 98 Romantics, 4–5; romantic movement, 1, 4 Rome, Adam, 433 Roosevelt Dam, 148 Roosevelt, Franklin D., xxi, xxx, 178, 186, 235, 247, 592, 719 Roosevelt, Theodore, xxvii, xxviii, 8, 17, 78, 148, 247, 418, 420, 521, 542, 557, 635, 669–672, 729, 840, 842 Root, Linda, 610 Rosenbaum, Walter, 592–593 Rosenberg, Charles, 158, 164, 212, 425 Rothbard, Murray, 174 Rouge, Exxon Baton, 338 Rough Riders, 670 Royster, Michael D., 260 Ruckelshaus, William, 559, 672–674 Rumsfeld, Donald, 181 Rush, Bobby, 579 Russell Car Co., 126 Russell, Thomas Herbert, 843 Russia, 13, 52, 204, 401 Russian Federation, 817

I-32 | Index

Rust Belt, 3, 16 Rutledge, Richard, 720 Sacramento River, 177, 203 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), xxxii, 28, 37–38, 306, 318–321, 325, 515–516, 586, 675–676, 743, 854, 864; amendments, 209 Sagebrush Rebellion, 145, 354, 508, 676–678, 807–808, 857 Salazar, Ken, 750, 744 Salt Lake, 141 Salt River Project (SRP), 148 SAMHSA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration), 771 San Joaquin valley, 176, 258 San Juan, 233 San Miguel Island, 178 Sanctuaries Act, 493–496, 654, 853 Sand County Almanac, A, 16, 57–58 Sanger, Margaret, 624, 625 Santa Barbara Oil Spill, 1969, 23, 250, 252, 264, 679–680, 850 Santa Cruz, 178–179 SARA (Superfund Amendments and Restoration Act), 664, 860–861 Sargent, Aaron, 258 Sarokin, David, 309 satellites, 540 Saturday Night Massacre, 673 Saylor, John, 826 Scalia, Justice, 460, 469 Scandinavia, 48 Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission, 681–682 Scenic Rivers Act, 432, 545, 553, 821–824 Schaeffet, Eric, 162

Schiffer, Lois, 568 Schumacher, Anna, 84, 307 Schumacher, E. F., 26 Schurz, Carl, xxvii Schwartz, Debra A., 17, 42, 54, 174, 184, 310, 408 Schwarzenegger, Arnold, 322, 868 Science Advisory Board, 682–683 Seattle Audubon Society, 566, 568 Seattle, Chief, 2–4, 10, 837 Secretary of Agriculture, 200, 282, 288, 291, 299, 358, 360, 366–368, 448, 530–532, 832 Secretary of Commerce, 217, 223, 282–283, 287, 494, 656–657, 660 Secretary of State, 193, 285, 295, 485–486, 491, 510, 512 Secretary of Transportation, 154, 408–409, 648 Secretary of War, 141–142 Selva, Simone, 90 Seminole, 142 Sentencing Reform Act, 504 Sequoia National Park, 261, 510, 546, 683–684 Serra, Father Junipero, 147 Severn, Fran, 89, 380 sewage, 191, 194, 201–202, 428 Shaler, Nathaniel Southgate, 842 Shannon, Matthew K., 261 Shasta Dam, 176–177, 203 Sheidlower, Scott, 83 Shenandoah National Park, xxx Sierra Club v. Morton, 685–686 Sierra Club, xxvi–xxvii, 7, 17, 22, 26, 96–97, 139–140, 236–237, 261, 390, 458–459, 510, 567–568, 685–687, 831, 849, 852–853 Silent Spring, 557, 615–616, 687–688, 848 Silver, Robin, 175

Index | I-33

Sinclair, Harry, 753 Sinclair, Upton, xxix SIPs (state implementation plans), 188, 518 Skinner, Samuel K., 154 smart growth, 689–691 Smith, Adam, xx Smith, Robert, 211 Smith, Stephanie Suesan, 176 Smokey Bear, 760 Smothers, Tom, 86 Smythe, William E., 841 Snake River, 72, 261 Soil and Water Conservation Act, 856 Soil Conservation Service, 14, 692–693, 846 solid waste, 34, 88, 214–215, 251, 407–408, 428, 639–648, 651–653, 657, 659–660, 662–663, 694–695, 852 Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S., 693–699 Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 (SWDA), 23, 25, 215, 407, 638, 675, 849, 855 solid waste management, 642–646, 657 Solomon, Daniel, 555 Sommeria, Gilles, 422 Souter, Justice David, 324, 520 South Carolina, 142, 458–461, 464–467, 667 South Carolina Act, 460 South Carolina Coastal Council, 459–468, 717–718 South Carolina’s Coastal Zone Management Act, 459 South Korea, 170

Soviet Union, 503, 577, 633–634, 812, 815 Sowards, Adam, 257 Spain, 78, 422 Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES), 423 Spezio, Teresa, 252, 377 spotted owl, 564–570, 597, 609, 831 sprawl, 556, 689–691, 703–704 Springer Mountain, 13 Stanton, Robert, 546, 865 State Emergency Response Commission (SERC), 270, 272–273 state implementation plans (SIPs), 188, 518 Steagall, Rachel A., 306 Stegner, Wallace, 24, 128 Steiger, William A., 181, 583 Stevens, Justice John Paul, 106, 107, 113, 122, 469, 496, 520, 693 Stewart, Justice Potter, 685 Stockholm Convention, 615 Stone, James, 669 Storm King Mountain, 23 Stowe, Irving, 401 stratospheric photochemistry, 785 Stream Corridor Restoration Program, 700–701 Sturgis v. Bridgeman, 792 Submerged Lands Act, 220 suburban sprawl, 701–704 sulfur dioxide, 49, 59, 66, 155, 161–162, 187, 189, 312, 517 Sundry Civil Act, 834 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), 245, 270, 860 surface mining, 213 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) of

I-34 | Index

1977, 29, 159, 213–216, 321, 385– 386, 704–706 Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act, 432 Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE), 77 sustainable agriculture, 77, 129, 172–173, 342, 378, 384, 601, 625, 706–708 sustainable development (SD), 21, 26, 35, 37, 39, 48, 51, 85, 174–175, 334–335, 400, 547, 618, 709–712, 714, 805 Sustainable Fisheries Act, 536–537 sustainable forestry, 166, 172, 384, 410, 533, 712–714, 733 Sutherland, Justice, 788 Swampland Acts, 809 SWANCC (Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County), 693–700, 810–811 Sweden, 26, 45, 249, 383 Swing-Johnson Act, 136 Switzer, Jacqueline Vaughn, 136, 140, 267, 269 Symms National Recreational Trails Act, 135 synthetic pesticides, 172, 614–615 Taft, William Howard, xxviii, 617, 671 Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), 468, 717–719 Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 717–718 Taiwan, 60 Takings Clause, 461–462, 464–466, 717 Tariff Act of 1930, 299 Taylor, Edward T., 719

Taylor, Katrina, 39, 76, 321 Taylor, Zachary, 3, 750 Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, 14, 352, 367, 719–721, 846 TCDD, 63 Teapot Dome scandal, 745 technology, alternative, 774, 776, 786 Tellico Dam, 27, 110, 320, 722–724, 854, 856 Tenneco, 258 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), 14, 27, 110, 112, 186, 246, 320 Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 721–725 Terpstra, Ellen, 563 Test Ban Treaty, 577 Teton Dam, 149 Tevis, Lloyd, 258 Texas, 97, 146–148, 155, 311, 323, 412, 432–434, 529, 613, 857, 859–860 Thomas, Jack Ward, 156, 208 Thomas, Justice Clarence, 764 Thomassey, Grenatta, 409 Thoreau, Henry David, xx, xxiv, 725–726, 837 Three Mile Island (TMI), 26, 30, 73, 319, 501, 573–576, 727–728, 858 Tibet, 53 Timber and Stone Act of 1878, xxiv, 608 Timber Culture Act, xxiv, 171, 608, 838 Todd, Christine Temple, xxxiv, 175, 820 Todd, Eleanor Schley, 820 Tokyo, 268, 401 Tomkin, Shelly Lynne, 591 Tongass National Forest, 608, 667, 728–730, 832 Tongass Timber Reform Act, 730

Index | I-35

Toronto, 425 Torrey, Raymond H., 840 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), 802 toxic metals, 59–61, 88 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), xxxii, 28, 593, 622, 648, 731, 855, 861, 863 toxics release inventory (TRI), 270, 310 Toxics Release Inventory, 732 Toyota, 167 Toyota Prius, 103, 865 TPL (Trust for Public Land), 451, 733, 853 Train, Russell, 250, 251, 558 Transportation Equity Act, 38 Treaty of Neah Bay, 93 Trenchard, John, 174 TRI (toxics release inventory), 732–733 Triana, Alabama, 32 Tri-Party Agreement, 405 Trott, Judge Stephen, 818 Truman, Harry S., 15, 16, 572 Truschel, Rita, 318, 388 Trust for Public Land (TPL), 146, 733 Tulloch Rule, 810 Tunney, 112 Tuolomme River, 17 Turner Foundation, 453 Turner, Frederick Jackson, xxii TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority), 721–725, 855–856 U.S. Air Force (USAF), 62–63 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 694, 700, 746–748 U.S. Civil Service Commission, 670

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 77, 341–343, 350, 379, 504, 543, 601, 616, 700, 707, 750–752, 754, 839, 841, 867 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 701, 743, 748, 748–749 U.S. Department of the Interior, 504–505, 543, 636–637, 749–754, 756, 757, 759, 762, 766, 807–808, 834 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 494–501, 516–520, 559–562, 585–586, 619–623, 647–648, 701, 672–676, 731–732, 754–755 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), xix, xxx, 105, 116, 117, 156, 172, 175, 255, 380, 403, 473, 468, 496, 504, 542–544, 566–567, 701, 742–744, 750–751, 755–758 U.S. Forest Service (USFS), xix, xxvii, xxviii, 9, 15, 24, 57, 88, 156, 166, 247, 380, 533, 566, 730, 758–763, 842, 854, 865–866 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 61, 138, 148, 196, 216, 233–234, 238, 372, 623, 626, 701, 750–752, 763–765, 839 U.S. Grazing Service, 144, 352 U.S. Justice Department, 32, 151 U.S. National Wildlife Refuge System, 449, 749–750, 766–767 U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 583–585, 588–589, 737, 767–770 U.S. Public Health Service, 770–771 U.S. Reclamation Service, 635–636 U.S. War Department, 141–142 Udall, Morris, 68 Udall, Stewart, 434, 545, 549 Ukraine, 31

I-36 | Index

UMWA. See United Mine Workers of America UNAEC. See United Nations Atomic Energy Commission UNEP. See United Nations Environment Programme UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization), 804–806 UNFCCC (UN Framework Convention for Climate Change), 441, 865 Union Carbide Company, 735–736 Union Oil Company, 679, 850 United Fishing Agency, 603 United Kingdom, 576, 828 United Mine Workers of America (UMWA), 736–737 United Nations (UN), 36, 165, 170, 249, 378, 422, 444, 557, 624, 774, 777, 783, 806, 855, 867 United Nations Atomic Energy Commission (UNAEC), 572 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 240, 335 United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 178 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 420, 425, 506, 605, 774, 778 United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, 603 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 36–37, 163, 204, 210, 312–313, 421 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 861

United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, 714 United States: environmental politics and policy in, xvii–xxxvi; colonies, xx United States Army Corps of Engineers, 419 United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), 234–235, 237 United States Code, 285, 291, 293–294, 296, 428, 482, 488, 490–492, 525, 527, 590 United States Reclamation Service (USRS), 136, 234 United States v. Atlantic Research Corp., 738 United States v. Greenpeace, 739 United States v. Lopez, 699 United States v. McCullagh, 503, 505 United States v. Navajo Nation, 739–740 United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, 696, 698 uranium, 385, 629–630 urban planning, 741–744 urban renewal, 406, 535, 744–746, 847 USA Patriot Act, 174, 867 USDA. See U.S. Department of Agriculture USFS. See U.S. Forest Service USRS (United States Reclamation Service), 635 Van Antwerp, Robert L., 748 Van Hise, Charles Richard, 843 Vandenbroucke, Guillaume, xxiii Vanderbilt, George W., 599 Vaux, Calvert, 598, 742

Index | I-37

Veggie Hate-Crime Movement, 67 Veneman, Ann, 410 Victory and International Peace Memorial, 80–81 Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, 506, 773–786 Vietnam, 29, 62–64, 240, 320, 391 Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co., 787–797 Vinson, Fred M., 799 Virginia, 5, 13, 377, 386 Voting Rights Act, 633 Wackernagel, Mathis, 170 Waheed, Yasmeen, 216, 246, 308 Waite, Chief Justice, 796 Wakelee, Dan, 68, 152, 179 Walden Pond, 725 Walker, Robert J., 741 Walsh, Thomas, 753 Wartime Advertising Council, 760 Washington Contract Loggers Association, 566 Waskey, Andrew J., 84–85, 150 Waste Minimization Program, EPA, 639 wastes, 11, 19, 88, 183, 194, 199, 213–215, 313, 458, 578, 629–631, 639, 645–646, 650–653, 661, 843 Water Conservation Act of 1977, 379 Water Conservation Fund Act, 354 water pollution, 25, 190, 192, 250– 251, 377, 433–434, 511, 559–560, 638, 640, 693, 800, 802 Water Pollution Control Act of 1948, 16, 25, 28, 190, 202, 376, 640, 799–801, 856, 861 Water Power Act, 841 Water Quality Act (WQA) of 1987, 23, 25, 190, 201–202, 801–803, 849, 861

Water Quality Improvement Act, 28, 852 water quality standards (WQS), 25, 191, 194, 202, 229, 802 Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2007, 211, 336, 803–804 Waterton-Glacier Peace Park, 804–806 Watson, James, 580 Watson, Paul, 401, 856 Watt, James G., xxxiii, 33–4, 97, 677–678, 705, 753, 807–808, 831–832 Waxman-Markey Climate Bill, 90 WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development), 711–712 Webb, William Seward, 8 wetlands, 808–810 Whaling Convention Act of 1949 (WCA), 491, 813, 817 whaling, 811–818 Wheatley, Parker, 379 Whitaker, John, 558 White, Janet, 563 Whitman Mission National Historic Site, 82 Whitman, Christie, 819–821 Whitman, Christine Todd, xxxiv, 159 Whitman, Marcus, 82 Whitman, Narcissa Prentiss, 82 WHO (World Health Organization), 586, 615–616, 777 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, 24, 821–824 Wild and Scenic Rivers Program, 431 Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992, 825–826, 863

I-38 | Index

wilderness, 1, 3, 5, 7–8, 10–11, 13–14, 18, 371–372, 374, 433–434, 550, 826–828, 850–851, 853–854, 859, 864 Wilderness Act of 1964, 2, 24, 33, 140, 145, 260, 372, 374, 431–432, 544, 546, 550, 553, 667–668, 759, 826–827 Wilderness Society, 827–828 Wildlife Act of 1956, 288 Wildlife Conservation Act, 33 wildlife conservation, 255, 502, 523, 551, 865 William, Prince, 338 Williams, Harrison, 583 Williams, Judge, 106 Willis, Nathaniel Parker, 836 Wilson, Edward, 268 Wilson, James J., 809 Wilson, Woodrow, xxviii, 396, 672, 833 wind energy, 74, 170, 828–829, 866 Wind Powering America Initiative, 866 Winfrey, Oprah, 67 Winters v. United States, 829–830 Wirth, Conrad, 544 Wisconsin, 25, 57, 119, 325 wise-use groups, 831 wise-use movement, 830–832 WMO (World Meteorological Organization), 777 Woozley, Edward, 145 Working Lands Initiative, 733 Works Progress Administration, xxx World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), 35, 334, 711–712

World Congress of Architects, 860 World Food Summit, 378 World Health Organization (WHO), 586, 615–616, 777 World Meteorological Organization (WMO), 420, 777 World Trade Organization (WTO), 44 World Wildlife Fund, xxxii, 22, 154 WQS (water quality standards), 802 WRDA. See Water Resources Development Act of 2007 Wright, Jim, 152 Wright, Judge Skelly, 168–169 Wyden, Ron, 159 Yard, Robert Sterling, 827 Yarnold, David, 322 Yellowstone National Park, xxvi, 449, 542, 670, 683, 838, 840, 844 Yellowstone Valley, xxv Yosemite Glaciers, 510 Yosemite National Park, 7, 11–12, 510, 546, 600, 683, 833–834, 842, 860 Yosemite Valley, 542, 599, 833–834 Young, Ronald, 415 Young-Brown, Fiona, 103, 317 Zahniser, Howard, 826, 827–828 Ziembroski, Jessica, 333, 336 Zilly, Judge Thomas, 567 Zimmerman, Shirley, 330 zoning, 2, 225, 361, 398, 495, 787, 794–795, 797

About the Editor

MATTHEW J. LINDSTROM is the Ed Henry Professor of Political Science and the director of the Eugene J. McCarthy Center for Public Policy and Civic Engagement at Saint John’s University in partnership with the College of St. Benedict in central Minnesota. He co-edited Suburban Sprawl: Culture, Theory, and Politics with Hugh Bartling and co-authored The National Environmental Policy Act: Judicial Misconstruction, Legislative Indifference, and Executive Neglect with Zachary Smith. He has written eight journal articles and book chapters as well as a dozen encyclopedia entries and book reviews. Prior to his 2005 arrival in Minnesota, Lindstrom taught in upstate New York for eight years at Siena College, where he started the Siena College Sustainable Land Use Program and co-founded the Troy (New York) Waterfront Farmers’ Market. He lives in Sartell, Minnesota, with his wife Amy, their children Anna and Isaac, two dogs, three cats, and two fish.