Museado / NARA Collection grf-0039 — Collection grf-0039
Recent Folios
Login Register
English español (Spanish) magyar (Hungarian) हिन्दी (Hindi)

Survos folio page chat

Environment (2)

Ask the Scholar

Page 1 of 1
I can add historical knowledge about this page.

Page image

Page 1

OCR

The original documents are located in Box 14, folder "Environment (2)" of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Copyright Notice The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections. Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Digitized from Box 14 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library Marion Clawson [1975] Ecology; Second Thoughts The environmental revivalism of the land now cultivated, or make some mid-1960s was overdue, but many of other adjustment, or simply accept an the actions it spawned were ill-eon- insufficient food supply? Some alter- ceived, illusorv in their results, or natives are rather evident, others are even M unful. Electric power com- dubious or difficult, and still others panies were encouraged or forced to are nearly or totally impossible. i FORD e shift from coat to oil or gas as a source of energy, only shortly to Le 2. What is the economic efficiency n of each physically and biologically J feasible alternative? Almost anything n GERALD LIBRARY Dr. Clawson is acting president of can be done, If one does not count 0 Resources for the Future, Inc. This ar- cost-bananas can be grown in cold V ticle is adapted from his statement in climates, water brought to deserts, IT the organization's 1974 annual report, metals extracted from seawater or tl from country rock, or even gold made n from lead. These extremes aside, con- at forced to reconvert at considerable ex- siderations of economic efficiency may it pense when supplies of gas and oil be, often should be, dominant The to were inadequate. Legislation re- benefit-cost approach has been wide. quired banning of chemicals which ly abused, even prostituted, and yet it might cause cancer in humans, regard- is basic. Count every cost and every less of how low the probability and re- benefit, not merely those bought and gardless of the adverse consequences sold in the market: count secondary to food supply and thus to health. and tertiary as well as primary ef- One of the most pervasive environ- fects. Yet in the end, both individual mental measures of the past decade and society must decide: are the gains was the National Environmental Pol- worth the costs? icy Act of 1969. It was not the first time that Congress enacted a law 3. But economic efficiency is not which it did not fully understand and sufficient; who gains the benefits and who pays the costs? How does society sia whose meaning is only now slowly be- ing forged in the courts. Environ- or its elected government decide that pl mental impact statements surely im- the gain to one person out-weighs the fu loss to another? pede public action, whether it be well or ill conceived. They are costly to 4. Social acceptability may be as Sc prepare, are an open invitation to important as physical-biological feas- th lengthy court disputes, and may in ibility, economic efficiency, and con- ea time be largely thwarted as public siderations of distribution of costs and agencies learn perfunctory compli- gains. Eating beef is as abhorrent to ec ance. A sharp check rein upon public some Hindus as eating human flesh So agencies was almost surely necess "y, is to Americans Clearcutting as a th but the short-run efficiency of en- forest technique is eulturally unac- ti vironmental impact statements is low ceptable to some people. V) and their long-run effectiveness is, at 5. Lastly, a proposed resource or ti best, unproven. environmental program must be oper- " There is evidence of a serious re- ationally or administratively practical. tj cession in the tide of environmental There is little gained, and much may concern. "Environment" is a serious be lost, by proposing some program p issue with vastly fewer young people which, for one of several reasons, R today. The hard core of dedicated en- cannot or will not be carried out. A $ vironmentalists, young and old, still program of waste collection and re- hold meetings, still circulate petitions, cycling which depends on consumer 0 still write letters to magazines, news- cooperation may fail because too few $ papers, and public officials, and still people cooperate. A land use plan- attend public hearings. But apparently ning process which depends on the they find it harder to command atten- independence of the planning board tion and fresh audiences. from the political pressure of builders At the federal level, both Adminis- may fail because such pressures are tration and Congress have had and are inevitable. And so on. having second thoughts about environ- Utilization of five kinds of consider- mental programs. In the economic ations presents serious analytical prob. and social framework which 1 fear lems. How does one balance off high the United States faces for the next social acceptability against low eco- few years, environmental protection nomic efficiency, for instance? It is is likely to find it increasingly hard possible, however, to establish mini- going. The partial and piecemeal approach to environmental problems has been "The partial and piecemeal particularly strange because its pro- approach to environmental ponents have ignored the maxim of ecology which presumably all would problems ignored the accept: that everything in an ecosys- tem is related to everything else in maxim of ecology: everything that system. Had interrelationships is related to everything among inputs, processes, and outputs been carefully studied, and had more else." distant, as well as primary, consequen- ces been considered, the marching up mum levels or thresholds for each of and down of the past few years could these three factors, below which a pro- have been much reduced, if not posed program will be rejected out of avoided entirely The environmental hand. It is also to decide that in the courts, Environ- the gain to one person out-weighs the fu mental impact statements surely im- loss to another? pede public action. whether it be well or ill conceived. They are costly to 4. Social acceptability may be as Sc important as physical-biological feas- th prepare, are an open invitation to lengthy court disputes, and may in ibility, economic efficiency, and con- ca time be largely thwarted as public siderations of distribution of costs and agencies learn perfunctory compli- gains. Eating beef is as abhorrent to ce some Hindus as eating human flesh St ance. A sharp check rein upon public agencies was almost surely necessary. is to Americans. Clearcutting as a th but the short-run efficiency of en- forest technique is culturally unac- ti vironmental impact statements is low ceptable to some people. V. and their long-run effectiveness is, at 5. Lastly, a proposed resource or ti best, unproven. environmental program must be oper- to There is evidence of a serious re- ationally or administratively practical. ti cession in the tide of environmental There is little gained, and much may concern. "Environment" is a serious be lost, by proposing some program P issue with vastly fewer young people which, for one of several reasons, R today. The hard core of dedicated en- cannot or will not carried out. A S vironmentalists, young and old, still program of waste collection and re- hold meetings, still circulate petitions, eyeling which depends on consumer 0 still write letters to magazines, news- cooperation may fail because too few S papers, and public officials, and still people cooperate. A land use plan- n attend public hearings. But apparently ning process which depends on the a they find it harder to command atten- independence of the planning board a tion and fresh audiences. from the political pressure of builders a & FORD At the federal level, both Adminis- may fail because such pressures are 0 tration and Congress have had and are inevitable. And so on. having second thoughts about environ- Utilization of five kinds of consider- 1 mental programs. In the economic ations presents serious analytical prob- C GERALD LIBRARY and social framework which I fear lems. How does one balance off high the United States faces for the next social acceptability against low eco- few years, environmental protection nomic efficiency, for instance? It is e is likely to find it increasingly hard possible, however, to establish mini- 8 going. The partial and piecemeal approach to environmental problems has been "The partial and piecemeal C particularly strange because its pro- approach to environmental ponents have ignored the maxim of ecology which presumably all would problems ignored the accept: that everything in an ecosys- tem is related to everything else in maxim of ecology: everything that system. Had interrelationships is related to everything among inputs, processes, and outputs been carefully studied, and had more else." distant, as well as primary, consequen- ces been considered. the marching up mum levels or thresholds for each of and down of the past few years could these three factors, below which a pro- have been much reduced, if not posed program will be rejected out of avoided entirely. The environmental hand. It is also possible to measure protagonist simply forgot what the the trade-offs so that more informed environmental scientist had taught- political choices can be made. even when the same person played If one acknowledges that the com- both roles. prehensive and eclectic approach out- The environment economic output lined above has merit, how might population complex of problems is too something like this come into use? serious, especially in the long run, to Public agencies, individuals, firms and be brushed aside or taken lightly. Man interest groups each have their estab- cannot produce indefinitely at a rate lished ways of doing things, which which leads to constantly growing they are reluctant to change. The ap- numbers, any inore than can any other proach proposed here is not required species. wither can our environment by any law; indeed, it is not easy to absoro alimited quantities of strange, see how it could be translated into even exotic, chemicals and other law. wastes. Some basic adjustments in A different danger also exists. A population, consumption and produc- call for more careful and more com- tion are clearly required. But how prehensive planning of resource and much, what kind, when and by whom? environmental problems might well In view of our past failures to deal be used as the excuse for obfuscation with these problems soundly, I have and procrastination. One can almost evolved a five-fold approach: hear some affected group calling for 1. What are the physical-biological more facts, more research, and more alternatives in natural resource use planning as a means of stalling some in any given situation, and what are action which it does not wish to the physical-biological consequences oppose openly. of implementing each alternative? For Given these serious theoretical and instance, faced with the need for more operational problems, why then do I food. does the family or the nation still advocate this approach? The an- seek to bring more land under culti- swer is clear to me: no lesser, simpler vation, or apply more fertilizer to the approach is adequate, GOOD COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY WASHINGTON I CHAIRMAN January 10, 1975 Dear Nelson: The attached is of interest to the Domestic Council, and I therefore thought you would like to have a copy. Sincerely, Russ FORD & LIBRARY GERALD Russell W. Peterson Honorable Nelson A. Rockefeller The Vice President United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Attachment FORD & LIBRARY 037470 EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 722 JACKSON PLACE, N. W. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006 1 0 JAN 1975 MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT SUBJECT: Environmental Message This is to follow up on our conversation last month about the desirability of an Environmental Message. I have discussed it with Rog Morton and Russ Train and they both support the concept. The purpose of this memo is to outline in preliminary fashion CEQ's suggestions for the contents of an Environmental Message and obtain approval for us to work with the Domestic Council, OMB, and the departments and agencies to develop a draft message and specific proposals. A 1975 Environmental Message is desirable for many reasons. Most practically, it would serve to transmit to the Congress a number of important environmental proposals which the Executive Branch has supported for several years, including land use, toxic substances, and hazardous waste disposal legislation. It would provide a vehicle for new initiatives. Most importantly, a message would focus attention on your Administration's position on environmental issues, thereby defining a leader- ship role in an area of policy which has continuing strong support in Congress and the Nation. "The New Conservation" offers a striking theme with broad appeal. -2- Tab A contains a brief preliminary outline of what the Environmental Message might say. Tab B provides brief descriptions of the major proposals we consider appropriate for interagency review. Russell W. Peterson Chairman An Environmental Message should be prepared. Approved Disapproved A 183H X M is FORD, GERALD OUTLINE - 1975 ENVIRONMENTAL MESSAGE 1. Introduction Summarize environmental accomplishments since Earth Day 1970 - new institutions - new legislation - new international priority Stress need for balance, in particular with - energy development - economic growth 2. "The New Conservation" Our new perspective recognizes finite resources, global interdependence, population growth Need for a "New Conservation," stressing - elimination of waste - husbanding of resources - importance of productivity - protection of natural systems - concern for population growth 3. Conservation of our Energy Reference recommendations in the State of the Union and Energy Messages, including the need for amendments to the Clean Air Act 4. Conservation of our Land Reaffirmation of previous proposals - Land use legislation (proposed in 1971, 1972, 1973) - Natural Resources Lands Management Act (proposed in 1972, 1973) - Mining and Mineral Leasing Laws (proposed in 1973) -2- - Environmental Protection Tax Act (proposed in 1972,1973) - Public Wild Lands in Alaska (proposed in 1973) New proposals - Land and Water Conservation Fund - Floodplain Protection - Public Lands Planning - Wetlands Preservation - Agricultural Land Preservation 5. Conservation of our Resources New proposals - Recycling Tax Credit - Freight Rate Equalization for Recycled Materials - Mandatory Deposit for Beverage Containers 6. Conservation of our Environment Reaffirmation of previous proposals - Toxic Substances (proposed in 1971,1972,1973) - Hazardous Waste Disposal (proposed in 1973) New proposals - Water Pollution Amendments - Freon - Ozone - Burden of Proof Regarding Cancer Hazards - Non-Metallic and Metallic Mine Safety - Non-Game Wildlife Program 7. Conservation of the Global Environment Ratification of 5 International Environmental Conventions 10 LAND USE The Problem The proliferation of overlapping and often conflicting controls on land use in some areas, as well as the absence of adequate controls in others, has resulted in recent years in the need for state and local govern- ments to develop more rational land use policies. The key issue is how the state and its localities will split up decision authority over the management of land. There is no need for Federal involvement in the decision-making, but Federal land use legislation is necessary to encour- age the development of state and local programs. Proposal Submit land use legislation along the lines of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (now being implemented through grants to the states by the Commerce Department). Key provisions would provide assistance to states to identify and protect critical areas and adequately site key facilities, including energy facilities, and would require consistency of Federal programs with state planning and regulatory programs. The program would be voluntary for those states wishing to participate. Land use legislation has been passed by the Senate in the last two Congresses, and was narrowly defeated in the House last year. It is likely to be enacted by the new Congress. A discussion of land use was held at the November 29 meeting of the Cabinet. The Department of the Interior has drawn up proposed legislation, which is now under review by other agencies. NATIONAL RESOURCE LANDS MANAGEMENT ACT (BLM ORGANIC ACT) The Problem The Bureau of Land Management of the Department of Interior has exclusive responsibility for 450 million acres or 60 percent of the Federally owned lands. Yet BLM lacks basic organic authority to administer, manage, and protect these lands for the long-term benefit of the nation. Proposal Resubmit the National Resource Lands Management Act. The proposed legislation provides basic authority for multiple use and environmental management of these lands, and repeals many existing laws that are inadequate, out-of-date, or inconsistent. The Administration has strongly supported legislation to clearly define the mission of the Bureau of Land Management. Legislation similar to that proposed by the Department of the Interior passed the Senate last session. The House bill was considerably different than the Administration and Senate proposal. A new effort is required to assure passage of an acceptable bill. MINING AND MINERAL LEASING LAWS The Problem There are numerous outdated and often conflicting laws which govern the development and extraction of minerals from the public lands. The U.S. Mining Laws of 1872 govern the location-patent system for the hard rock minerals (i.e., copper, lead, zinc, gold, silver, and others) Other laws govern the leasable minerals (oil, gas, oil shale, potassium, sodium, asbestos and other bedded minerals). The Mining Laws of 1872 have many shortcomings: Responsible Federal officials cannot determine areas to be developed; miners are free to prospect and develop minerals on all public lands open to entry. Upon discovery of valuable minerals, a claimant may patent his claim. Thus the public loses both public lands and the mineral resource. There is no fee or royalty paid to the United States for the development or extraction of a public resource. Only limited controls to protect the environment are possible. The various laws. governing mineral leasing provide insuf- ficient Federal discretion, insufficient return to the public, inadequate environmental protection, and a con- fusing array of regulations which are difficult and expensive to administer. Proposal Resubmit legislation which would repeal the Mining Act of 1872 and reform the mineral leasing laws. This legislation covers the exploration and development of all minerals on the public lands. Through a leasing -2- system, the legislation would provide Federal discretion in mineral disposal, a fair return to the public for its mineral estate, environmental protection, and conserva- tion of minerals. Uniform standards, regulations, and penalties, wherever possible, would eliminate discrimination against certain industries, thus encouraging mineral recovery with less confusion for industry. Administration of public lands and mining on it would be simplified. In many cases, duplication of administrative structures and personnel. could be avoided. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TAX ACT The Problem Existing provisions of the Federal income tax laws have unintended but adverse effects on environmental quality. In particular: depreciation laws favor the demolition and clearance of older buildings and their replacement by new buildings constructed with quick turnover in mind tax deductions are allowed for the expenses of draining and filling wetlands for devel- opment which could as easily be placed on dry land open space easement donations are discouraged by tax lawyers because of confusion over the interpretation of the tax laws and IRS regu- lations Proposal Resubmit the Environmental Protection Tax Act. It would correct these biases in the tax laws by: treating construction of new buildings and substantial rehabilitation of older structures the same for depreciation purposes providing fast write-offs for rehabilitation of registered historic structures and disallow the cost of their demolition disallowing the cost of draining, dredging and filling coastal wetlands for construction PUBLIC WILD LANDS IN ALASKA The Problem In December 1973, pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, the Secretary of the Interior recommended to the Congress that 83 million acres of Federal land in Alaska be added to the National Park, National Forest, Wildlife Refuge, and Wild and Scenic River Systems. Although final action is not required for four years, prompt consideration by the Congress is desirable. None has taken place to date. Proposal Include in the Environmental Message a request that Congress initiate its review of the "4-systems" proposals. PGERALO FORD LIBRARY LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND The Problem The Land and Water Conservation Fund serves as the primary funding source for purchasing land for open space recrea- tion and wildlife protection, both through direct Federal purchases and through 50 percent grants to states. The fund is presently set at $300 million per year; monies come from a number of sources, with the difference up to $300 million made up from Federal OCS receipts. The funding level for this popular program has remained essentially level for several years. Increasing land costs, a large backlog of proposed purchases, and growing demands for protection of coastal areas from the influx of energy-related development have resulted in demand for funds far exceeding supply. At the same time, a sub- stantial increase in OCS receipts is anticipated by opening up new areas, especially in the Atlantic, for leasing. Proposal Submit legislation to increase the funding level of the Land and Water Conservation Fund to $1. billion annually by authorizing the use of OCS receipts to make up any difference between amounts collected from other sources and the new level. Priority should be given to the pur- chase of recreation and wildlife lands in coastal areas likely to be impacted by OCS-related development. The Department of the Interior has been working on legis- lation to accomplish these changes in the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. 300million to / billion a big like in View of budget FLOODPLAIN PROTECTION The Problem Property damage, loss of life, and disaster relief from floods continue to increase despite massive Federal investment in flood protection works and flood insurance. Losses amount to $1-4 billion annually, most of which falls on the Federal Government. Less costly prevention measures --- such as limiting development in floodplains -- have been largely neglected. Indeed, some Federal pro- grams continue to fund infrastructure investments such as roads, sewers, and housing in the floodplain, thereby fostering development which is likely to be damaged or destroyed by future floods. In 1966, Executive Order 11296 was issued in an effort to make all agencies recognize the need to avoid encourag- ing development in floodplains. Agencies were directed to issue guidelines to assure that Federal programs did not stimulate floodplain development. Yet agencies have never complied with the requirement to develop plans for meeting the requirements of the Executive Order. The Proposal Update Executive Order 11296 to bring it into conformance with post-1966 legislative and executive developments, reaffirm its underlying rationale, and require expeditious agency implementation of its policies. PUBLIC LANDS PLANNING The Problem Public lands (including national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, national resource lands) make up one-third of the nation's land. There is currently no generally accepted framework for land use planning among the major Federal public lands agencies, nor is there adequate coordination between Federal land planning and affected states and communities. Since planning decisions often transcend administrative boundaries, coordination is essential to: guide natural resource protection, management and development programs guide location of investments in transportation and energy facilities protect areas of unique and special value coordinate Federal decisions with other Federal, state and local government programs. Proposal Issue an Executive Order directing public land agencies, primarily the Forest Service, BLM, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service, to cooperate in regional land use planning efforts. Federal public lands agencies would be directed to: -establish public lands planning areas in loca- tions requiring special planning attention (e.g., the Yellowstone National Park region) coordinate their land use planning in other areas where contiguous lands are managed by several Federal agencies cooperate in developing improved land use planning systems work more closely with the states and communities WETLANDS PRESERVATION The Problem Wetlands, both coastal and inland, serve important national purposes. They are a main source of food and protection for two-thirds of marine species and thus are essential for the continued viability of commercial fishing. Wetlands also blunt storms and high tides and act as wildlife and waterfowl habitat, hydrologic recharge areas, and recreation resources. FORD Piecemeal destruction of wetlands through draining, dredging, and filling has caused major losses in many regions of our country. (Up to 2/3 of San Francisco Bay and over 1/2 of Long Island Sound wetlands have been permanently lost.) The Federal Government has extensive and continuing programs that adversely affect wetlands by encouraging construction, development, and other activities in and near wetlands. Proposal Issue an Executive Order establishing a national policy of wetland preservation and requiring Federal agencies to ensure that facilities caused or endorsed by program activities are placed outside of wetlands wherever possible or where they must be located in wetlands, are constructed, operated and maintained to minimize impact. Exemptions would be allowed on a per project basis. AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION The Problem The world food situation and the importance of agri- cultural products as U.S. export commodities suggest a national goal of maximum agricultural productive capacity. Yet nearly a million acres of prime agri- cultural land are being developed each year without regard to their agricultural importance. Proposal Issue an Executive Order establishing a national policy of preservation of prime agricultural land and requir- ing Federal agencies to ensure that their activities do not consume such land. Exemptions would be allowed on a per project basis with approval of the Secretary of Agriculture. V. private land developers RECYCLING TAX CREDIT The Problem Current solid waste management practices are environment- ally damaging, financially burdensome, and wasteful of scarce energy and mineral resources. About 250 million tons of solid wastes are now generated annually in the United States and this amount is growing at an annual rate of around 4 percent. Approximately 90 percent of the solid waste volume is disposed of in landfills, with the remainder incinerated. Of the landfills in operation in the U.S., only 10 percent are managed in an acceptable manner from the standpoint of public health and the envi- ronment; the remainder are simply open dumps. While resource recovery is receiving increased attention as a means of large-scale waste disposal, its growth is hindered by Federal policies (particularly tax policies) that tend to make virgin materials more attractive than reclaimed materials. Various provisions of -the Federal tax code (e.g., percentage depletion allowances, favor- able capital gains treatment) provide substantial benefits to the virgin materials production sectors that are not available to the recycled material sector. Users tend to regard reclaimed materials as marginal supplies to be utilized during periods of high product demand and ignored at other times. This leads to extreme fluctuations in scrap prices and an atmosphere of uncer- tainty which discourages investment in recovery facilities. Within the past year alone, scrap paper prices have dropped from $45 to $7 per ton, and scrap copper prices have fallen to 40 cents from a high of $1.10 a pound. The energy potentially recoverable from post-consumer residential and commercial solid waste could displace from 400,000 to 500,000 barrels of oil per day. Materials recycled could provide 7 percent of the iron, 8 percent of the aluminum, 20 percent of the tin, and 19 percent of the paper consumed annually in the United States. -2- Proposal Amend the Internal Revenue Code to reduce the tax liability of processors of post-consumer waste by 15 percent of income derived from resource recovery. Processors, includ- ing governmental entities, could elect to transfer eligibility for the tax credit to a user of the recovered resources. The tax credit, which would be effective for a period of 10 years, is based upon the value of the recovered resources prior to transportation to the user. It would be appli- cable to post-consumer waste from residential and commercial sources, and would include glass, ferrous metals, and paper products. A tax credit, in conjunction with the continuing develop- ment of more economical resource recovery systems, would permit the formation of a substantial reclaimed materials market. Stimulus of the tax credit would bridge existing economic gaps and accelerate the implementation of resource recovery systems. By the time the tax benefits are elimi- nated, resource recovery could develop into a self-sustaining and economically viable alternative to conventional solid waste disposal. FREIGHT RATE EQUALIZATION FOR RECYCLED MATERIALS The Problem There is evidence to indicate that freight rates deter- mined by the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Federal Maritime Commission discriminate against shipment of secondary materials versus shipment of virgin materials. Rates for several recycled materials exceed actual transportation costs by higher margins than do rates for competing virgin materials. For instance, the ratio of revenue to costs incurred for shipment by railroad of iron and steel scrap exceeds that for shipment of iron ore by as much as 65 percent. Under competitive conditions, these ratios would be equal. While it is difficult to predict the degree to which rate equalization would promote waste recovery, transportation costs represent a significant proportion of the total costs of several recycled materials and thus can be considered important factors in determining demand. For example, freight costs represent 31 percent of the average delivered price of scrap iron but only 17 percent of the delivered price of iron ore. The reason for the existence of rate discrimination lies in the method of rate setting employed by the two regula- tory agencies. While costs are considered in setting rates, discrimination results from additional non-cost considerations which essentially lead to prices set according to "what the traffic will bear. " In practice, this means that rates include a higher profit margin for those commodities for which fewer transportation alterna- tives exist -- the less the competition, the higher the rate of profit. Since there tend to be few alternative transportation modes available to scrap shippers, they are charged higher rates. Proposal It is proposed that the Interstate Commerce Act and the Shipping Act be amended to provide clear direction to the regulatory commissions in their rate setting procedures. -2- This direction would emphasize the importance of basing freight rates on actual costs and not subsidizing more competitive commodities through the rates charged on less competitive commodities. The amendments would particularly emphasize the importance of scrap materials. FORD LIBRARY MANDATORY DEPOSIT FOR BEVERAGE CONTAINERS The Problem Consumption of beer and soft drink containers continues to grow faster than population and faster than con- sumption of the beverages themselves. Per capita beverage container consumption rose by 164 percent between 1959 and 1969; consumption of beer and soft drinks rose by only 29 percent. The relative rise in container consumption is largely explained by the decline in the use of refillable bottles -- the average number of fillings per container dropped from 3.7 to 1.8 from 1959 to 1969. Beer and soft drink containers form a large and highly visible segment of roadside litter. At least 2.2 billion beverage containers became litter in 1969, from 20 to 32 percent of all roadside litter by item count. Refillable bottles are beneficial from other viewpoints. Refillable bottles use from 41 to 74 percent less energy and reduce air and water effluents by 30 to 71 percent. Nonreturnable beverage cans consumed 2 million tons of steel and 0.6 million tons of aluminum. in 1972, representing 2 and 20 percent of industry shipments respectively. Proposal Submit legislation requiring retailers to pay 5 cents for every empty container of beer and carbonated soft drinks. The retailer would be required to accept from the consumer any empty container of the kind, size, and brand sold by that retail outlet. Retailers, in turn, could return empty containers to the distributor who would also be required to pay the 5 cent refund. -2- A mandatory deposit system does not directly prohibit the sale of any container type. However, it forces the consumer to pay a higher price -- equivalent to the deposit -- for the convenience of discarding a container. Implementation of a 5 cent mandatory deposit would result in a reduction in beverage container litter through decreased discards and increased scavenging. Estimates of litter reduction are between 60 and 75 percent. Material and energy use would be reduced, as would water and air pollution and solid waste. Studies in Oregon have shown that while such action would be temporarily disruptive for the beverage container industry, overall employment might increase slightly due to job additions in the distribution sectors. TOXIC SUBSTANCES The Problem In recent years several widely used chemicals (such as PCB's, mercury, asbestos, and vinyl chloride) have been discovered to be causing major damage to human health and the environment. Given the rapid development of the chemical industry, additional toxic substances are likely to be discovered in the future. Controlling a toxic chemical after marketing is extremely difficult and dis- ruptive. Furthermore, in cases such as PCB's, no Federal authority exists to restrict the use of toxic substances to safe and appropriate uses. Proposal Resubmit the Toxic Substances Control Act which provides authority for EPA to (1) require appropriate testing of chemicals to identify potential hazards and (2) permits control of the production, distribution, or use of toxic chemicals. Include an amendment to provide for EPA access to relevant toxicity data already collected by companies on unmarketed chemicals. Such information can lead to a means of classifying and assessing the risks of similar chemical compounds and thereby reduce the need for new tests. HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL The Problem More than 10 million tons of nonradioactive hazardous wastes are produced in the United States each year, and the volume is growing at 5-10 percent annually. Most of these wastes pose present or potential hazards to human health and other living organisms. Existing Federal legislation regulates disposal of these toxic wastes through incineration or through dumping into waterways or the ocean, but disposal on land is not regulated. As a result dangerous disposal practices are occurring, and no incentive exists for improvement in present practice. Proposal Resubmit The Hazardous Waste Management Act. This legislation would give primary responsibility for regu- lating hazardous wastes to the states, with direct Federal regulation for a limited category of the most hazardous wastes. COMPREHENSIVE OIL POLLUTION LIABILITY AND COMPENSATION ACT The Problem Increased waterborne transportation of petroleum and petroleum products and accelerated development of offshore oil resources threaten increased oil damage to shorefront property, fisheries and other natural resources. Even with stringent environmental controls, the risk of oil spills and substantial financial losses is great. Recognizing this threat, Congress and the States have in recent years passed a number of laws establishing more stringent liability for damages and creating a number of funds to compensate for damages. Examples include the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Act, the Deepwater Ports Act, and laws of Florida and Maine. The results are overlapping liability systems, duplicative compen- sation funds, and procedural uncertainties. Moreover, the ability of a party to receive full compensation for oil damages varies from State to State and from Federal fund to Federal fund. Proposal The Council on Environmental Quality and the Interior Department have chaired an interagency working group which over the past four months has drafted a compre- hensive Oil Pollution Liability and Compensation Act. This bill would provide a single nationwide liability system for damages from all oil discharged into the waters of the United States, and from U.S. offshore operations. The bill includes a simplified, no-fault claims mechanism which will facilitate quick payment to damaged parties. It establishes a single nationwide fund adequate to pay all claims. The fund would be based on a fee of approximately one cent per barrel on all oil moved over water and by payments from those responsible for oil discharges. WATER POLLUTION AMENDMENTS The Problem OMB is taking the lead, in conjunction with EPA and other agencies, in developing necessary amendments to the Water Pollution Control Act. These amendments must be transmitted to the Congress. Proposal Propose the amendments in the Environmental Message. FORD LIBRARY FREON - OZONE The Problem Many respected atmospheric scientists are concerned that the use of approximately 4 billion pounds per year of freon gases as aerosol propellants may result in a deple- tion of the protective ozone layer of the stratosphere. A significant depletion could potentially increase the incidence of human skin cancer, alter global climate, and (perhaps most importantly) affect agriculture. A research program is needed to address this potentially important issue. Other human activity which might similarly disturb the stratosphere should also be inves- tigated. Proposal A Presidential directive to the Chairman of CEQ and the Science Advisor to convene an interagency task force on unintended modifications of the stratosphere. A report on the freon situation should be requested by June 1. This report should contain recommendations for an appro- priate Federal response to the problem. The appropriate agencies are prepared to carry out such a directive. BURDEN-OF-PROOF REGARDING CANCER HAZARDS The Problem Diseases with long latency periods, particularly cancers, are caused by small exposures to disease causing chemicals over a long period of time. A dispute exists as to the degree of proof the Government or other plaintiffs must reach in lawsuits to abate environmental pollution which has alleged cancer producing potential. In United States V. Reserve Mining Co. the district court enjoined the discharge of 67,000 tons per day of mine tailings into Lake Superior because asbestos fibers contained therein were entering municipal water supplies. Asbestos is a known human carcinogen. Although it was not possible to show present death or disease, the Court found a substantial health hazard to exist on grounds that there was a probability that some cancers would occur in the population as a result of the pollution at some unknown future date. The Court of Appeals set aside the injunction on preliminary hearing on the ground that no demonstrable health hazard existed, death or injury being beyond proof because of latency period. The Supreme Court declined to review that decision, Justice Douglas dissenting, but ordered the Court of Appeals to have a. final decision by January 31, 1975. Proposal Submit legislation to allow a prima facie case to be made in pollution cases involving carcinogens by showing a serious risk to public health. This would shift the burden of proof to industry to show that the risk from the pollution is slight, or, alternatively, that the cost of abatement outweighs the benefits of abatement. NON-METALLIC AND METALLIC MINE SAFETY The Problem The health and safety problems of the American worker is of increasing public concern. The workplace constitutes by far the most hazardous human environment. Significant improvement in human health and productivity are possible through reasonable improvements in workplace conditions. The American workforce is protected by three major occupa- tional health authorities: the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), the Coal Mine Safety Act (CMSA), and the Non-Metallic and Metallic Mine Safety Act (NMMSA) Although not exactly parallel, OSHA and CMSA provide comparable levels of worker protection. The now anti- quated NMMSA is seriously inadequate and needs revision to afford similar levels of protection. Proposal Sumbit a new Non-Metallic and Metallic Mine Safety Act to give all Americans comparable protection from hazards in the workplace. NON-GAME WILDLIFE PROGRAM The Problem Hunters comprise only 5-10% of the U.S. population, and hunted wildlife is a very small percentage of the 400 species of wild native mammals and 800 species of native birds. However, most wildlife programs are focussed on game species, and most funding of wildlife programs are financed through hunting licenses and taxes. Identified non-consumptive uses of wildlife (wildlife- FORD LIBRART based visits to public lands, wildlife watching, and photography, nature study, etc. ) have increased dra- matically, and there are strong and vocal demands by the American public for improved management of non-hunted wildlife, particularly on public lands and in urban- suburban areas. In 1969 (the last year for which such records are available) only 4% of all funds spent for wildlife management, research and habitat acquisition was expended for clearly non-game purposes. In FY 1975, only an estimated 5.7% of the budget of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service relates directly to non-game wildlife, including endangered species. Hence, there is an urgent need to develop a more balanced national wildlife manage- ment program. Proposal Initiate a non-game wildlife program parallel to and complimentary with the present, largely game-oriented wildlife program. The program would include research, management, and habitat acquisition at Federal and state levels, and research and education at appropriate educa- tional institutions. Estimated initial needs are $12 million for Federal agencies, $11 million for 36 states presently able to undertake such programs, and $4 million for 115 educa- tional institutions. Funding and leadership for the Federal - State program would be through the Fish and Wildlife Service, after the pattern of the long established, -2- successful Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson programs. Federal funding would come from an excise tax on selected items of outdoor recreation equipment (such as that used in photography, bird watching, camping, snowmobiling, etc.), payable to General Funds but earmarked as special funds, authorized to be appropriated for the purposes of enhanc- ing and preserving non-game wildlife and its habitat. Such a tax of 10% (similar to the 10-11% tax on hunting equipment under the Pitman Robertson Act) would yield approximately $130 million annually. RATIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONVENTIONS The Problem Since 1970, the U.S. has taken a leadership position in negotiating international environmental conventions to protect the oceans, wildlife, and other environmental FORD matters of global concern. Legislation to provide for formal U.S. ratification of the following conventions must be forwarded to the Congress: LIBRARY International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage Protocol Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Marine Pollution by Substances Other Than Oil Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals Proposal Include a section in the Environmental Message drawing attention to U.S. leadership in developing international environmental conventions and calling for prompt Congressional action leading to ratification.

Page data

Page
1
Source index
0
Type
document
Media ID
b41d3a3768e1166d
Size
unknown

Document data

ID
16987824
Core
doc
Type
document
DTO data 
{
    "id": "16987824",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16987824",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Environment (2)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16987824",
    "collections": [
        "James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)",
        "James Cannon's Issues Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "President (1974-1977 : Ford). Council on Environmental Quality. (1974 - 1977)",
        "Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Enforcement. (2/1/1975 - 7/1/1981)",
        "Environmental protection",
        "Natural resources",
        "Pollution"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16987824.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16987824.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16987824.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

Context sent to Scholar

Document identity 
{
    "localId": "16987824",
    "label": "Environment (2)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16987824"
}
Document source metadata 
{
    "id": "16987824",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16987824",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Environment (2)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16987824",
    "collections": [
        "James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)",
        "James Cannon's Issues Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "President (1974-1977 : Ford). Council on Environmental Quality. (1974 - 1977)",
        "Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Enforcement. (2/1/1975 - 7/1/1981)",
        "Environmental protection",
        "Natural resources",
        "Pollution"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16987824.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16987824.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16987824.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras 
{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16987824",
    "naId": 16987824,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1976-12-31",
        "month": 12,
        "year": 1976
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1974-11-01",
        "month": 11,
        "year": 1974
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context 
{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16987824.pdf",
    "mediaId": "b41d3a3768e1166d",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 14, folder \"Environment (2)\" of the James M.\nCannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nDigitized from Box 14 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nMarion Clawson\n[1975]\nEcology; Second Thoughts\nThe environmental revivalism of the\nland now cultivated, or make some\nmid-1960s was overdue, but many of\nother adjustment, or simply accept an\nthe actions it spawned were ill-eon-\ninsufficient food supply? Some alter-\nceived, illusorv in their results, or\nnatives are rather evident, others are\neven M unful. Electric power com-\ndubious or difficult, and still others\npanies were encouraged or forced to\nare nearly or totally impossible.\ni\nFORD\ne\nshift from coat to oil or gas as a\nsource of energy, only shortly to Le\n2. What is the economic efficiency\nn\nof each physically and biologically\nJ\nfeasible alternative? Almost anything\nn\nGERALD\nLIBRARY\nDr. Clawson is acting president of\ncan be done, If one does not count\n0\nResources for the Future, Inc. This ar-\ncost-bananas can be grown in cold\nV\nticle is adapted from his statement in\nclimates, water brought to deserts,\nIT\nthe organization's 1974 annual report,\nmetals extracted from seawater or\ntl\nfrom country rock, or even gold made\nn\nfrom lead. These extremes aside, con-\nat\nforced to reconvert at considerable ex-\nsiderations of economic efficiency may\nit\npense when supplies of gas and oil\nbe, often should be, dominant The\nto\nwere inadequate. Legislation re-\nbenefit-cost approach has been wide.\nquired banning of chemicals which\nly abused, even prostituted, and yet it\nmight cause cancer in humans, regard-\nis basic. Count every cost and every\nless of how low the probability and re-\nbenefit, not merely those bought and\ngardless of the adverse consequences\nsold in the market: count secondary\nto food supply and thus to health.\nand tertiary as well as primary ef-\nOne of the most pervasive environ-\nfects. Yet in the end, both individual\nmental measures of the past decade\nand society must decide: are the gains\nwas the National Environmental Pol-\nworth the costs?\nicy Act of 1969. It was not the first\ntime that Congress enacted a law\n3. But economic efficiency is not\nwhich it did not fully understand and\nsufficient; who gains the benefits and\nwho pays the costs? How does society\nsia\nwhose meaning is only now slowly be-\ning forged in the courts. Environ-\nor its elected government decide that\npl\nmental impact statements surely im-\nthe gain to one person out-weighs the\nfu\nloss to another?\npede public action, whether it be well\nor ill conceived. They are costly to\n4. Social acceptability may be as\nSc\nprepare, are an open invitation to\nimportant as physical-biological feas-\nth\nlengthy court disputes, and may in\nibility, economic efficiency, and con-\nea\ntime be largely thwarted as public\nsiderations of distribution of costs and\nagencies learn perfunctory compli-\ngains. Eating beef is as abhorrent to\nec\nance. A sharp check rein upon public\nsome Hindus as eating human flesh\nSo\nagencies was almost surely necess \"y,\nis to Americans Clearcutting as a\nth\nbut the short-run efficiency of en-\nforest technique is eulturally unac-\nti\nvironmental impact statements is low\nceptable to some people.\nV)\nand their long-run effectiveness is, at\n5. Lastly, a proposed resource or\nti\nbest, unproven.\nenvironmental program must be oper-\n\"\nThere is evidence of a serious re-\nationally or administratively practical.\ntj\ncession in the tide of environmental\nThere is little gained, and much may\nconcern. \"Environment\" is a serious\nbe lost, by proposing some program\np\nissue with vastly fewer young people\nwhich, for one of several reasons,\nR\ntoday. The hard core of dedicated en-\ncannot or will not be carried out. A\n$\nvironmentalists, young and old, still\nprogram of waste collection and re-\nhold meetings, still circulate petitions,\ncycling which depends on consumer\n0\nstill write letters to magazines, news-\ncooperation may fail because too few\n$\npapers, and public officials, and still\npeople cooperate. A land use plan-\nattend public hearings. But apparently\nning process which depends on the\nthey find it harder to command atten-\nindependence of the planning board\ntion and fresh audiences.\nfrom the political pressure of builders\nAt the federal level, both Adminis-\nmay fail because such pressures are\ntration and Congress have had and are\ninevitable. And so on.\nhaving second thoughts about environ-\nUtilization of five kinds of consider-\nmental programs. In the economic\nations presents serious analytical prob.\nand social framework which 1 fear\nlems. How does one balance off high\nthe United States faces for the next\nsocial acceptability against low eco-\nfew years, environmental protection\nnomic efficiency, for instance? It is\nis likely to find it increasingly hard\npossible, however, to establish mini-\ngoing.\nThe partial and piecemeal approach\nto environmental problems has been\n\"The partial and piecemeal\nparticularly strange because its pro-\napproach to environmental\nponents have ignored the maxim of\necology which presumably all would\nproblems ignored the\naccept: that everything in an ecosys-\ntem is related to everything else in\nmaxim of ecology: everything\nthat system. Had interrelationships\nis related to everything\namong inputs, processes, and outputs\nbeen carefully studied, and had more\nelse.\"\ndistant, as well as primary, consequen-\nces been considered, the marching up\nmum levels or thresholds for each of\nand down of the past few years could\nthese three factors, below which a pro-\nhave been much reduced, if not\nposed program will be rejected out of\navoided entirely The environmental\nhand.\nIt\nis\nalso\nto\ndecide\nthat\nin the courts, Environ-\nthe gain to one person out-weighs the\nfu\nmental impact statements surely im-\nloss to another?\npede public action. whether it be well\nor ill conceived. They are costly to\n4. Social acceptability may be as\nSc\nimportant as physical-biological feas-\nth\nprepare, are an open invitation to\nlengthy court disputes, and may in\nibility, economic efficiency, and con-\nca\ntime be largely thwarted as public\nsiderations of distribution of costs and\nagencies learn perfunctory compli-\ngains. Eating beef is as abhorrent to\nce\nsome Hindus as eating human flesh\nSt\nance. A sharp check rein upon public\nagencies was almost surely necessary.\nis to Americans. Clearcutting as a\nth\nbut the short-run efficiency of en-\nforest technique is culturally unac-\nti\nvironmental impact statements is low\nceptable to some people.\nV.\nand their long-run effectiveness is, at\n5. Lastly, a proposed resource or\nti\nbest, unproven.\nenvironmental program must be oper-\nto\nThere is evidence of a serious re-\nationally or administratively practical.\nti\ncession in the tide of environmental\nThere is little gained, and much may\nconcern. \"Environment\" is a serious\nbe lost, by proposing some program\nP\nissue with vastly fewer young people\nwhich, for one of several reasons,\nR\ntoday. The hard core of dedicated en-\ncannot or will not carried out. A\nS\nvironmentalists, young and old, still\nprogram of waste collection and re-\nhold meetings, still circulate petitions,\neyeling which depends on consumer\n0\nstill write letters to magazines, news-\ncooperation may fail because too few\nS\npapers, and public officials, and still\npeople cooperate. A land use plan-\nn\nattend public hearings. But apparently\nning process which depends on the\na\nthey find it harder to command atten-\nindependence of the planning board\na\ntion and fresh audiences.\nfrom the political pressure of builders\na\n&\nFORD\nAt the federal level, both Adminis-\nmay fail because such pressures are\n0\ntration and Congress have had and are\ninevitable. And so on.\nhaving second thoughts about environ-\nUtilization of five kinds of consider-\n1\nmental programs. In the economic\nations presents serious analytical prob-\nC\nGERALD\nLIBRARY\nand social framework which I fear\nlems. How does one balance off high\nthe United States faces for the next\nsocial acceptability against low eco-\nfew years, environmental protection\nnomic efficiency, for instance? It is\ne\nis likely to find it increasingly hard\npossible, however, to establish mini-\n8\ngoing.\nThe partial and piecemeal approach\nto environmental problems has been\n\"The partial and piecemeal\nC\nparticularly strange because its pro-\napproach to environmental\nponents have ignored the maxim of\necology which presumably all would\nproblems ignored the\naccept: that everything in an ecosys-\ntem is related to everything else in\nmaxim of ecology: everything\nthat system. Had interrelationships\nis related to everything\namong inputs, processes, and outputs\nbeen carefully studied, and had more\nelse.\"\ndistant, as well as primary, consequen-\nces been considered. the marching up\nmum levels or thresholds for each of\nand down of the past few years could\nthese three factors, below which a pro-\nhave been much reduced, if not\nposed program will be rejected out of\navoided entirely. The environmental\nhand. It is also possible to measure\nprotagonist simply forgot what the\nthe trade-offs so that more informed\nenvironmental scientist had taught-\npolitical choices can be made.\neven when the same person played\nIf one acknowledges that the com-\nboth roles.\nprehensive and eclectic approach out-\nThe environment economic output\nlined above has merit, how might\npopulation complex of problems is too\nsomething like this come into use?\nserious, especially in the long run, to\nPublic agencies, individuals, firms and\nbe brushed aside or taken lightly. Man\ninterest groups each have their estab-\ncannot produce indefinitely at a rate\nlished ways of doing things, which\nwhich leads to constantly growing\nthey are reluctant to change. The ap-\nnumbers, any inore than can any other\nproach proposed here is not required\nspecies. wither can our environment\nby any law; indeed, it is not easy to\nabsoro alimited quantities of strange,\nsee how it could be translated into\neven exotic, chemicals and other\nlaw.\nwastes. Some basic adjustments in\nA different danger also exists. A\npopulation, consumption and produc-\ncall for more careful and more com-\ntion are clearly required. But how\nprehensive planning of resource and\nmuch, what kind, when and by whom?\nenvironmental problems might well\nIn view of our past failures to deal\nbe used as the excuse for obfuscation\nwith these problems soundly, I have\nand procrastination. One can almost\nevolved a five-fold approach:\nhear some affected group calling for\n1. What are the physical-biological\nmore facts, more research, and more\nalternatives in natural resource use\nplanning as a means of stalling some\nin any given situation, and what are\naction which it does not wish to\nthe physical-biological consequences\noppose openly.\nof implementing each alternative? For\nGiven these serious theoretical and\ninstance, faced with the need for more\noperational problems, why then do I\nfood. does the family or the nation\nstill advocate this approach? The an-\nseek to bring more land under culti-\nswer is clear to me: no lesser, simpler\nvation, or apply more fertilizer to the\napproach is adequate,\nGOOD\nCOUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY\nWASHINGTON\nI\nCHAIRMAN\nJanuary 10, 1975\nDear Nelson:\nThe attached is of interest to the Domestic\nCouncil, and I therefore thought you would\nlike to have a copy.\nSincerely,\nRuss\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\nRussell W. Peterson\nHonorable Nelson A. Rockefeller\nThe Vice President\nUnited States Senate\nWashington, D.C. 20510\nAttachment\nFORD & LIBRARY 037470\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nCOUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY\n722 JACKSON PLACE, N. W.\nWASHINGTON, D. C. 20006\n1 0 JAN 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT: Environmental Message\nThis is to follow up on our conversation last month\nabout the desirability of an Environmental Message.\nI have discussed it with Rog Morton and Russ Train\nand they both support the concept. The purpose of\nthis memo is to outline in preliminary fashion CEQ's\nsuggestions for the contents of an Environmental\nMessage and obtain approval for us to work with the\nDomestic Council, OMB, and the departments and\nagencies to develop a draft message and specific\nproposals.\nA 1975 Environmental Message is desirable for many\nreasons. Most practically, it would serve to\ntransmit to the Congress a number of important\nenvironmental proposals which the Executive Branch\nhas supported for several years, including land use,\ntoxic substances, and hazardous waste disposal\nlegislation. It would provide a vehicle for new\ninitiatives. Most importantly, a message would\nfocus attention on your Administration's position\non environmental issues, thereby defining a leader-\nship role in an area of policy which has continuing\nstrong support in Congress and the Nation.\n\"The New Conservation\" offers a striking theme with\nbroad appeal.\n-2-\nTab A contains a brief preliminary outline of what\nthe Environmental Message might say. Tab B provides\nbrief descriptions of the major proposals we consider\nappropriate for interagency review.\nRussell W. Peterson\nChairman\nAn Environmental Message should be prepared.\nApproved\nDisapproved\nA\n183H\nX\nM\nis\nFORD,\nGERALD\nOUTLINE - 1975 ENVIRONMENTAL MESSAGE\n1.\nIntroduction\nSummarize environmental accomplishments since\nEarth Day 1970\n- new institutions\n- new legislation\n- new international priority\nStress need for balance, in particular with\n- energy development\n- economic growth\n2.\n\"The New Conservation\"\nOur new perspective recognizes finite resources,\nglobal interdependence, population growth\nNeed for a \"New Conservation,\" stressing\n- elimination of waste\n- husbanding of resources\n- importance of productivity\n- protection of natural systems\n- concern for population growth\n3.\nConservation of our Energy\nReference recommendations in the State of the\nUnion and Energy Messages, including the need\nfor amendments to the Clean Air Act\n4.\nConservation of our Land\nReaffirmation of previous proposals\n- Land use legislation (proposed in 1971, 1972, 1973)\n- Natural Resources Lands Management Act (proposed\nin 1972, 1973)\n- Mining and Mineral Leasing Laws (proposed in 1973)\n-2-\n- Environmental Protection Tax Act (proposed in\n1972,1973)\n- Public Wild Lands in Alaska (proposed in 1973)\nNew proposals\n- Land and Water Conservation Fund\n- Floodplain Protection\n- Public Lands Planning\n- Wetlands Preservation\n- Agricultural Land Preservation\n5.\nConservation of our Resources\nNew proposals\n- Recycling Tax Credit\n- Freight Rate Equalization for Recycled Materials\n- Mandatory Deposit for Beverage Containers\n6.\nConservation of our Environment\nReaffirmation of previous proposals\n- Toxic Substances (proposed in 1971,1972,1973)\n- Hazardous Waste Disposal (proposed in 1973)\nNew proposals\n- Water Pollution Amendments\n- Freon - Ozone\n- Burden of Proof Regarding Cancer Hazards\n- Non-Metallic and Metallic Mine Safety\n- Non-Game Wildlife Program\n7.\nConservation of the Global Environment\nRatification of 5 International Environmental\nConventions\n10\nLAND USE\nThe Problem\nThe proliferation of overlapping and often conflicting\ncontrols on land use in some areas, as well as the\nabsence of adequate controls in others, has resulted\nin recent years in the need for state and local govern-\nments to develop more rational land use policies. The\nkey issue is how the state and its localities will split\nup decision authority over the management of land. There\nis no need for Federal involvement in the decision-making,\nbut Federal land use legislation is necessary to encour-\nage the development of state and local programs.\nProposal\nSubmit land use legislation along the lines of the\nCoastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (now being implemented\nthrough grants to the states by the Commerce Department).\nKey provisions would provide assistance to states to\nidentify and protect critical areas and adequately site\nkey facilities, including energy facilities, and would\nrequire consistency of Federal programs with state\nplanning and regulatory programs. The program would be\nvoluntary for those states wishing to participate.\nLand use legislation has been passed by the Senate in\nthe last two Congresses, and was narrowly defeated in\nthe House last year. It is likely to be enacted by the\nnew Congress. A discussion of land use was held at the\nNovember 29 meeting of the Cabinet. The Department of\nthe Interior has drawn up proposed legislation, which\nis now under review by other agencies.\nNATIONAL RESOURCE LANDS MANAGEMENT ACT\n(BLM ORGANIC ACT)\nThe Problem\nThe Bureau of Land Management of the Department of Interior\nhas exclusive responsibility for 450 million acres or 60\npercent of the Federally owned lands. Yet BLM lacks basic\norganic authority to administer, manage, and protect these\nlands for the long-term benefit of the nation.\nProposal\nResubmit the National Resource Lands Management Act. The\nproposed legislation provides basic authority for multiple\nuse and environmental management of these lands, and\nrepeals many existing laws that are inadequate, out-of-date,\nor inconsistent.\nThe Administration has strongly supported legislation to\nclearly define the mission of the Bureau of Land Management.\nLegislation similar to that proposed by the Department of\nthe Interior passed the Senate last session. The House\nbill was considerably different than the Administration\nand Senate proposal. A new effort is required to assure\npassage of an acceptable bill.\nMINING AND MINERAL LEASING LAWS\nThe Problem\nThere are numerous outdated and often conflicting laws\nwhich govern the development and extraction of minerals\nfrom the public lands. The U.S. Mining Laws of 1872\ngovern the location-patent system for the hard rock\nminerals (i.e., copper, lead, zinc, gold, silver, and\nothers) Other laws govern the leasable minerals (oil,\ngas, oil shale, potassium, sodium, asbestos and other\nbedded minerals).\nThe Mining Laws of 1872 have many shortcomings:\nResponsible Federal officials cannot determine\nareas to be developed; miners are free to\nprospect and develop minerals on all public\nlands open to entry.\nUpon discovery of valuable minerals, a claimant\nmay patent his claim. Thus the public loses\nboth public lands and the mineral resource.\nThere is no fee or royalty paid to the United\nStates for the development or extraction of a\npublic resource.\nOnly limited controls to protect the environment\nare possible.\nThe various laws. governing mineral leasing provide insuf-\nficient Federal discretion, insufficient return to the\npublic, inadequate environmental protection, and a con-\nfusing array of regulations which are difficult and\nexpensive to administer.\nProposal\nResubmit legislation which would repeal the Mining Act\nof 1872 and reform the mineral leasing laws. This\nlegislation covers the exploration and development of\nall minerals on the public lands. Through a leasing\n-2-\nsystem, the legislation would provide Federal discretion\nin mineral disposal, a fair return to the public for its\nmineral estate, environmental protection, and conserva-\ntion of minerals.\nUniform standards, regulations, and penalties, wherever\npossible, would eliminate discrimination against certain\nindustries, thus encouraging mineral recovery with less\nconfusion for industry. Administration of public lands\nand mining on it would be simplified. In many cases,\nduplication of administrative structures and personnel.\ncould be avoided.\nENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TAX ACT\nThe Problem\nExisting provisions of the Federal income tax laws have\nunintended but adverse effects on environmental quality.\nIn particular:\ndepreciation laws favor the demolition and\nclearance of older buildings and their\nreplacement by new buildings constructed\nwith quick turnover in mind\ntax deductions are allowed for the expenses\nof draining and filling wetlands for devel-\nopment which could as easily be placed on\ndry land\nopen space easement donations are discouraged\nby tax lawyers because of confusion over the\ninterpretation of the tax laws and IRS regu-\nlations\nProposal\nResubmit the Environmental Protection Tax Act. It would\ncorrect these biases in the tax laws by:\ntreating construction of new buildings and\nsubstantial rehabilitation of older structures\nthe same for depreciation purposes\nproviding fast write-offs for rehabilitation\nof registered historic structures and disallow\nthe cost of their demolition\ndisallowing the cost of draining, dredging and\nfilling coastal wetlands for construction\nPUBLIC WILD LANDS IN ALASKA\nThe Problem\nIn December 1973, pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims\nSettlement Act, the Secretary of the Interior recommended\nto the Congress that 83 million acres of Federal land in\nAlaska be added to the National Park, National Forest,\nWildlife Refuge, and Wild and Scenic River Systems.\nAlthough final action is not required for four years,\nprompt consideration by the Congress is desirable. None\nhas taken place to date.\nProposal\nInclude in the Environmental Message a request that Congress\ninitiate its review of the \"4-systems\" proposals.\nPGERALO FORD LIBRARY\nLAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND\nThe Problem\nThe Land and Water Conservation Fund serves as the primary\nfunding source for purchasing land for open space recrea-\ntion and wildlife protection, both through direct Federal\npurchases and through 50 percent grants to states. The\nfund is presently set at $300 million per year; monies\ncome from a number of sources, with the difference up to\n$300 million made up from Federal OCS receipts.\nThe funding level for this popular program has remained\nessentially level for several years. Increasing land\ncosts, a large backlog of proposed purchases, and growing\ndemands for protection of coastal areas from the influx\nof energy-related development have resulted in demand for\nfunds far exceeding supply. At the same time, a sub-\nstantial increase in OCS receipts is anticipated by\nopening up new areas, especially in the Atlantic, for\nleasing.\nProposal\nSubmit legislation to increase the funding level of the\nLand and Water Conservation Fund to $1. billion annually\nby authorizing the use of OCS receipts to make up any\ndifference between amounts collected from other sources\nand the new level. Priority should be given to the pur-\nchase of recreation and wildlife lands in coastal areas\nlikely to be impacted by OCS-related development.\nThe Department of the Interior has been working on legis-\nlation to accomplish these changes in the Land and Water\nConservation Fund Act.\n300million to / billion a big like in View of\nbudget\nFLOODPLAIN PROTECTION\nThe Problem\nProperty damage, loss of life, and disaster relief from\nfloods continue to increase despite massive Federal\ninvestment in flood protection works and flood insurance.\nLosses amount to $1-4 billion annually, most of which\nfalls on the Federal Government. Less costly prevention\nmeasures --- such as limiting development in floodplains --\nhave been largely neglected. Indeed, some Federal pro-\ngrams continue to fund infrastructure investments such\nas roads, sewers, and housing in the floodplain, thereby\nfostering development which is likely to be damaged or\ndestroyed by future floods.\nIn 1966, Executive Order 11296 was issued in an effort\nto make all agencies recognize the need to avoid encourag-\ning development in floodplains. Agencies were directed\nto issue guidelines to assure that Federal programs did\nnot stimulate floodplain development. Yet agencies have\nnever complied with the requirement to develop plans for\nmeeting the requirements of the Executive Order.\nThe Proposal\nUpdate Executive Order 11296 to bring it into conformance\nwith post-1966 legislative and executive developments, reaffirm\nits underlying rationale, and require expeditious agency\nimplementation of its policies.\nPUBLIC LANDS PLANNING\nThe Problem\nPublic lands (including national parks, forests, wildlife\nrefuges, national resource lands) make up one-third of\nthe nation's land. There is currently no generally\naccepted framework for land use planning among the major\nFederal public lands agencies, nor is there adequate\ncoordination between Federal land planning and affected\nstates and communities. Since planning decisions often\ntranscend administrative boundaries, coordination is\nessential to:\nguide natural resource protection, management\nand development programs\nguide location of investments in transportation\nand energy facilities\nprotect areas of unique and special value\ncoordinate Federal decisions with other Federal,\nstate and local government programs.\nProposal\nIssue an Executive Order directing public land agencies,\nprimarily the Forest Service, BLM, Fish and Wildlife\nService, and the National Park Service, to cooperate\nin regional land use planning efforts. Federal public\nlands agencies would be directed to:\n-establish public lands planning areas in loca-\ntions requiring special planning attention (e.g.,\nthe Yellowstone National Park region)\ncoordinate their land use planning in other areas\nwhere contiguous lands are managed by several\nFederal agencies\ncooperate in developing improved land use planning\nsystems\nwork more closely with the states and communities\nWETLANDS PRESERVATION\nThe Problem\nWetlands, both coastal and inland, serve important\nnational purposes. They are a main source of food and\nprotection for two-thirds of marine species and thus\nare essential for the continued viability of commercial\nfishing. Wetlands also blunt storms and high tides and\nact as wildlife and waterfowl habitat, hydrologic\nrecharge areas, and recreation resources.\nFORD\nPiecemeal destruction of wetlands through draining,\ndredging, and filling has caused major losses in many\nregions of our country. (Up to 2/3 of San Francisco\nBay and over 1/2 of Long Island Sound wetlands have\nbeen permanently lost.) The Federal Government has\nextensive and continuing programs that adversely affect\nwetlands by encouraging construction, development, and\nother activities in and near wetlands.\nProposal\nIssue an Executive Order establishing a national policy\nof wetland preservation and requiring Federal agencies\nto ensure that facilities caused or endorsed by program\nactivities are placed outside of wetlands wherever\npossible or where they must be located in wetlands,\nare constructed, operated and maintained to minimize\nimpact. Exemptions would be allowed on a per project\nbasis.\nAGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION\nThe Problem\nThe world food situation and the importance of agri-\ncultural products as U.S. export commodities suggest\na national goal of maximum agricultural productive\ncapacity. Yet nearly a million acres of prime agri-\ncultural land are being developed each year without\nregard to their agricultural importance.\nProposal\nIssue an Executive Order establishing a national policy\nof preservation of prime agricultural land and requir-\ning Federal agencies to ensure that their activities\ndo not consume such land. Exemptions would be allowed\non a per project basis with approval of the Secretary\nof Agriculture.\nV. private land developers\nRECYCLING TAX CREDIT\nThe Problem\nCurrent solid waste management practices are environment-\nally damaging, financially burdensome, and wasteful of\nscarce energy and mineral resources. About 250 million\ntons of solid wastes are now generated annually in the\nUnited States and this amount is growing at an annual\nrate of around 4 percent. Approximately 90 percent of\nthe solid waste volume is disposed of in landfills, with\nthe remainder incinerated. Of the landfills in operation\nin the U.S., only 10 percent are managed in an acceptable\nmanner from the standpoint of public health and the envi-\nronment; the remainder are simply open dumps.\nWhile resource recovery is receiving increased attention\nas a means of large-scale waste disposal, its growth is\nhindered by Federal policies (particularly tax policies)\nthat tend to make virgin materials more attractive than\nreclaimed materials. Various provisions of -the Federal\ntax code (e.g., percentage depletion allowances, favor-\nable capital gains treatment) provide substantial benefits\nto the virgin materials production sectors that are not\navailable to the recycled material sector.\nUsers tend to regard reclaimed materials as marginal\nsupplies to be utilized during periods of high product\ndemand and ignored at other times. This leads to extreme\nfluctuations in scrap prices and an atmosphere of uncer-\ntainty which discourages investment in recovery facilities.\nWithin the past year alone, scrap paper prices have dropped\nfrom $45 to $7 per ton, and scrap copper prices have fallen\nto 40 cents from a high of $1.10 a pound.\nThe energy potentially recoverable from post-consumer\nresidential and commercial solid waste could displace from\n400,000 to 500,000 barrels of oil per day. Materials\nrecycled could provide 7 percent of the iron, 8 percent\nof the aluminum, 20 percent of the tin, and 19 percent\nof the paper consumed annually in the United States.\n-2-\nProposal\nAmend the Internal Revenue Code to reduce the tax liability\nof processors of post-consumer waste by 15 percent of\nincome derived from resource recovery. Processors, includ-\ning governmental entities, could elect to transfer eligibility\nfor the tax credit to a user of the recovered resources.\nThe tax credit, which would be effective for a period of\n10 years, is based upon the value of the recovered resources\nprior to transportation to the user. It would be appli-\ncable to post-consumer waste from residential and commercial\nsources, and would include glass, ferrous metals, and paper\nproducts.\nA tax credit, in conjunction with the continuing develop-\nment of more economical resource recovery systems, would\npermit the formation of a substantial reclaimed materials\nmarket. Stimulus of the tax credit would bridge existing\neconomic gaps and accelerate the implementation of resource\nrecovery systems. By the time the tax benefits are elimi-\nnated, resource recovery could develop into a self-sustaining\nand economically viable alternative to conventional solid\nwaste disposal.\nFREIGHT RATE EQUALIZATION FOR RECYCLED MATERIALS\nThe Problem\nThere is evidence to indicate that freight rates deter-\nmined by the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Federal\nMaritime Commission discriminate against shipment of\nsecondary materials versus shipment of virgin materials.\nRates for several recycled materials exceed actual\ntransportation costs by higher margins than do rates\nfor competing virgin materials. For instance, the\nratio of revenue to costs incurred for shipment by\nrailroad of iron and steel scrap exceeds that for shipment\nof iron ore by as much as 65 percent. Under competitive\nconditions, these ratios would be equal.\nWhile it is difficult to predict the degree to which rate\nequalization would promote waste recovery, transportation\ncosts represent a significant proportion of the total costs\nof several recycled materials and thus can be considered\nimportant factors in determining demand. For example,\nfreight costs represent 31 percent of the average delivered\nprice of scrap iron but only 17 percent of the delivered\nprice of iron ore.\nThe reason for the existence of rate discrimination lies\nin the method of rate setting employed by the two regula-\ntory agencies. While costs are considered in setting\nrates, discrimination results from additional non-cost\nconsiderations which essentially lead to prices set\naccording to \"what the traffic will bear. \" In practice,\nthis means that rates include a higher profit margin for\nthose commodities for which fewer transportation alterna-\ntives exist -- the less the competition, the higher the\nrate of profit. Since there tend to be few alternative\ntransportation modes available to scrap shippers, they\nare charged higher rates.\nProposal\nIt is proposed that the Interstate Commerce Act and the\nShipping Act be amended to provide clear direction to the\nregulatory commissions in their rate setting procedures.\n-2-\nThis direction would emphasize the importance of basing\nfreight rates on actual costs and not subsidizing more\ncompetitive commodities through the rates charged on\nless competitive commodities. The amendments would\nparticularly emphasize the importance of scrap materials.\nFORD LIBRARY\nMANDATORY DEPOSIT FOR BEVERAGE CONTAINERS\nThe Problem\nConsumption of beer and soft drink containers continues\nto grow faster than population and faster than con-\nsumption of the beverages themselves. Per capita\nbeverage container consumption rose by 164 percent\nbetween 1959 and 1969; consumption of beer and soft\ndrinks rose by only 29 percent. The relative rise in\ncontainer consumption is largely explained by the\ndecline in the use of refillable bottles -- the average\nnumber of fillings per container dropped from 3.7 to\n1.8 from 1959 to 1969.\nBeer and soft drink containers form a large and highly\nvisible segment of roadside litter. At least 2.2\nbillion beverage containers became litter in 1969,\nfrom 20 to 32 percent of all roadside litter by item\ncount.\nRefillable bottles are beneficial from other viewpoints.\nRefillable bottles use from 41 to 74 percent less energy\nand reduce air and water effluents by 30 to 71 percent.\nNonreturnable beverage cans consumed 2 million tons of\nsteel and 0.6 million tons of aluminum. in 1972,\nrepresenting 2 and 20 percent of industry shipments\nrespectively.\nProposal\nSubmit legislation requiring retailers to pay 5 cents\nfor every empty container of beer and carbonated soft\ndrinks. The retailer would be required to accept from\nthe consumer any empty container of the kind, size, and\nbrand sold by that retail outlet. Retailers, in turn,\ncould return empty containers to the distributor who\nwould also be required to pay the 5 cent refund.\n-2-\nA mandatory deposit system does not directly prohibit\nthe sale of any container type. However, it forces\nthe consumer to pay a higher price -- equivalent to the\ndeposit -- for the convenience of discarding a container.\nImplementation of a 5 cent mandatory deposit would\nresult in a reduction in beverage container litter through\ndecreased discards and increased scavenging. Estimates\nof litter reduction are between 60 and 75 percent.\nMaterial and energy use would be reduced, as would\nwater and air pollution and solid waste.\nStudies in Oregon have shown that while such action\nwould be temporarily disruptive for the beverage container\nindustry, overall employment might increase slightly\ndue to job additions in the distribution sectors.\nTOXIC SUBSTANCES\nThe Problem\nIn recent years several widely used chemicals (such as\nPCB's, mercury, asbestos, and vinyl chloride) have been\ndiscovered to be causing major damage to human health\nand the environment. Given the rapid development of the\nchemical industry, additional toxic substances are likely\nto be discovered in the future. Controlling a toxic\nchemical after marketing is extremely difficult and dis-\nruptive. Furthermore, in cases such as PCB's, no Federal\nauthority exists to restrict the use of toxic substances\nto safe and appropriate uses.\nProposal\nResubmit the Toxic Substances Control Act which provides\nauthority for EPA to (1) require appropriate testing of\nchemicals to identify potential hazards and (2) permits\ncontrol of the production, distribution, or use of toxic\nchemicals.\nInclude an amendment to provide for EPA access to relevant\ntoxicity data already collected by companies on unmarketed\nchemicals. Such information can lead to a means of\nclassifying and assessing the risks of similar chemical\ncompounds and thereby reduce the need for new tests.\nHAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL\nThe Problem\nMore than 10 million tons of nonradioactive hazardous\nwastes are produced in the United States each year, and\nthe volume is growing at 5-10 percent annually. Most of\nthese wastes pose present or potential hazards to human\nhealth and other living organisms. Existing Federal\nlegislation regulates disposal of these toxic wastes\nthrough incineration or through dumping into waterways\nor the ocean, but disposal on land is not regulated. As\na result dangerous disposal practices are occurring, and\nno incentive exists for improvement in present practice.\nProposal\nResubmit The Hazardous Waste Management Act. This\nlegislation would give primary responsibility for regu-\nlating hazardous wastes to the states, with direct\nFederal regulation for a limited category of the most\nhazardous wastes.\nCOMPREHENSIVE OIL POLLUTION LIABILITY AND\nCOMPENSATION ACT\nThe Problem\nIncreased waterborne transportation of petroleum and\npetroleum products and accelerated development of\noffshore oil resources threaten increased oil damage\nto shorefront property, fisheries and other natural\nresources. Even with stringent environmental controls,\nthe risk of oil spills and substantial financial losses\nis great.\nRecognizing this threat, Congress and the States have\nin recent years passed a number of laws establishing\nmore stringent liability for damages and creating a\nnumber of funds to compensate for damages. Examples\ninclude the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Act, the Deepwater\nPorts Act, and laws of Florida and Maine. The results\nare overlapping liability systems, duplicative compen-\nsation funds, and procedural uncertainties. Moreover,\nthe ability of a party to receive full compensation\nfor oil damages varies from State to State and from\nFederal fund to Federal fund.\nProposal\nThe Council on Environmental Quality and the Interior\nDepartment have chaired an interagency working group\nwhich over the past four months has drafted a compre-\nhensive Oil Pollution Liability and Compensation Act.\nThis bill would provide a single nationwide liability\nsystem for damages from all oil discharged into the\nwaters of the United States, and from U.S. offshore\noperations. The bill includes a simplified, no-fault\nclaims mechanism which will facilitate quick payment\nto damaged parties. It establishes a single nationwide\nfund adequate to pay all claims. The fund would be\nbased on a fee of approximately one cent per barrel on\nall oil moved over water and by payments from those\nresponsible for oil discharges.\nWATER POLLUTION AMENDMENTS\nThe Problem\nOMB is taking the lead, in conjunction with EPA and\nother agencies, in developing necessary amendments to\nthe Water Pollution Control Act. These amendments must\nbe transmitted to the Congress.\nProposal\nPropose the amendments in the Environmental Message.\nFORD LIBRARY\nFREON - OZONE\nThe Problem\nMany respected atmospheric scientists are concerned that\nthe use of approximately 4 billion pounds per year of\nfreon gases as aerosol propellants may result in a deple-\ntion of the protective ozone layer of the stratosphere.\nA significant depletion could potentially increase the\nincidence of human skin cancer, alter global climate,\nand (perhaps most importantly) affect agriculture.\nA research program is needed to address this potentially\nimportant issue. Other human activity which might\nsimilarly disturb the stratosphere should also be inves-\ntigated.\nProposal\nA Presidential directive to the Chairman of CEQ and the\nScience Advisor to convene an interagency task force on\nunintended modifications of the stratosphere. A report\non the freon situation should be requested by June 1.\nThis report should contain recommendations for an appro-\npriate Federal response to the problem. The appropriate\nagencies are prepared to carry out such a directive.\nBURDEN-OF-PROOF REGARDING CANCER HAZARDS\nThe Problem\nDiseases with long latency periods, particularly cancers,\nare caused by small exposures to disease causing chemicals\nover a long period of time. A dispute exists as to the\ndegree of proof the Government or other plaintiffs must\nreach in lawsuits to abate environmental pollution which\nhas alleged cancer producing potential.\nIn United States V. Reserve Mining Co. the district court\nenjoined the discharge of 67,000 tons per day of mine\ntailings into Lake Superior because asbestos fibers\ncontained therein were entering municipal water supplies.\nAsbestos is a known human carcinogen. Although it was not\npossible to show present death or disease, the Court found\na substantial health hazard to exist on grounds that there\nwas a probability that some cancers would occur in the\npopulation as a result of the pollution at some unknown\nfuture date. The Court of Appeals set aside the injunction\non preliminary hearing on the ground that no demonstrable\nhealth hazard existed, death or injury being beyond proof\nbecause of latency period. The Supreme Court declined to\nreview that decision, Justice Douglas dissenting, but\nordered the Court of Appeals to have a. final decision by\nJanuary 31, 1975.\nProposal\nSubmit legislation to allow a prima facie case to be made\nin pollution cases involving carcinogens by showing a\nserious risk to public health. This would shift the\nburden of proof to industry to show that the risk from\nthe pollution is slight, or, alternatively, that the cost\nof abatement outweighs the benefits of abatement.\nNON-METALLIC AND METALLIC MINE SAFETY\nThe Problem\nThe health and safety problems of the American worker is\nof increasing public concern. The workplace constitutes\nby far the most hazardous human environment. Significant\nimprovement in human health and productivity are possible\nthrough reasonable improvements in workplace conditions.\nThe American workforce is protected by three major occupa-\ntional health authorities: the Occupational Safety and\nHealth Act (OSHA), the Coal Mine Safety Act (CMSA), and\nthe Non-Metallic and Metallic Mine Safety Act (NMMSA)\nAlthough not exactly parallel, OSHA and CMSA provide\ncomparable levels of worker protection. The now anti-\nquated NMMSA is seriously inadequate and needs revision\nto afford similar levels of protection.\nProposal\nSumbit a new Non-Metallic and Metallic Mine Safety Act\nto give all Americans comparable protection from hazards\nin the workplace.\nNON-GAME WILDLIFE PROGRAM\nThe Problem\nHunters comprise only 5-10% of the U.S. population, and\nhunted wildlife is a very small percentage of the 400\nspecies of wild native mammals and 800 species of native\nbirds. However, most wildlife programs are focussed on\ngame species, and most funding of wildlife programs are\nfinanced through hunting licenses and taxes.\nIdentified non-consumptive uses of wildlife (wildlife-\nFORD LIBRART\nbased visits to public lands, wildlife watching, and\nphotography, nature study, etc. ) have increased dra-\nmatically, and there are strong and vocal demands by the\nAmerican public for improved management of non-hunted\nwildlife, particularly on public lands and in urban-\nsuburban areas. In 1969 (the last year for which such\nrecords are available) only 4% of all funds spent for\nwildlife management, research and habitat acquisition\nwas expended for clearly non-game purposes. In FY 1975,\nonly an estimated 5.7% of the budget of the U.S. Fish and\nWildlife Service relates directly to non-game wildlife,\nincluding endangered species. Hence, there is an urgent\nneed to develop a more balanced national wildlife manage-\nment program.\nProposal\nInitiate a non-game wildlife program parallel to and\ncomplimentary with the present, largely game-oriented\nwildlife program. The program would include research,\nmanagement, and habitat acquisition at Federal and state\nlevels, and research and education at appropriate educa-\ntional institutions.\nEstimated initial needs are $12 million for Federal\nagencies, $11 million for 36 states presently able to\nundertake such programs, and $4 million for 115 educa-\ntional institutions. Funding and leadership for the\nFederal - State program would be through the Fish and\nWildlife Service, after the pattern of the long established,\n-2-\nsuccessful Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson programs.\nFederal funding would come from an excise tax on selected\nitems of outdoor recreation equipment (such as that used\nin photography, bird watching, camping, snowmobiling, etc.),\npayable to General Funds but earmarked as special funds,\nauthorized to be appropriated for the purposes of enhanc-\ning and preserving non-game wildlife and its habitat.\nSuch a tax of 10% (similar to the 10-11% tax on hunting\nequipment under the Pitman Robertson Act) would yield\napproximately $130 million annually.\nRATIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONVENTIONS\nThe Problem\nSince 1970, the U.S. has taken a leadership position in\nnegotiating international environmental conventions to\nprotect the oceans, wildlife, and other environmental\nFORD\nmatters of global concern. Legislation to provide for\nformal U.S. ratification of the following conventions\nmust be forwarded to the Congress:\nLIBRARY\nInternational Convention for the Prevention of\nPollution from Ships\nInternational Convention on Civil Liability for\nOil Pollution Damage\nInternational Convention on the Establishment\nof an International Fund for Compensation for\nOil Pollution Damage\nProtocol Relating to Intervention on the High\nSeas in Cases of Marine Pollution by Substances\nOther Than Oil\nConvention for the Conservation of Antarctic\nSeals\nProposal\nInclude a section in the Environmental Message drawing\nattention to U.S. leadership in developing international\nenvironmental conventions and calling for prompt\nCongressional action leading to ratification."
}