CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE

May 5, 1969

Page 11308

SENATOR MUSKIE WRITES ON AIR AND WATER POLLUTION

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I recently had the opportunity to read a thought provoking article written by the junior Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) in which he dramatically sets forth the threats to human environment caused by ever-increasing air and water pollution and solid waste disposal methods in the United States. While stressing the continuing damage which has been done to our lakes, rivers, and landscapes and the resulting dangers to personal health and comfort, he also points to the positive gains which have been made in the last 5 years and summons the Nation to "renovate, rejuvenate, and recapture our environment."

Senator MUSKIE emphasizes that in the last analysis it is the people, not the Government or industry, who must act if the purity of air, water, and land is to be restored. As he states, the effectiveness and administration of laws made by Congress will depend in large measure on the people themselves. In view of the significance of Senator MUSKIE's analysis and his penetrating comments, I ask unanimous consent that the article, published in the March 1969 issue of the Carpenter, be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

THE AIR WE BREATHE, THE WATER WE DRINK

(By Senator Edmund S. Muskie)

An address by Senator Muskie before the Consumer Assembly 1969, Washington, D.C., January 30, 1969.

Unfit for human consumption! Do not drink this water! No bathing -- beach closed! Are these the signs inevitable of a modern industrial society? Or are they indicators of decay, lack of concern, and disregard for resources?

Today throughout America these signs mark centuries of neglect of our water resources.

Headlines such as "Lake Erie is dying" and "pollution takes toll" appear daily across the nation.

And they apply only to our water supply. Air pollution occurs with increasing frequency. Air pollution alert systems have been established in many of our major cities. Emphysema, bronchitis and other chronic respiratory diseases continue to increase in geometric proportions.

And our landscape is scarred. Land developers, highway builders and strip miners have laid waste to the countryside with little or no regard to erosion or siltation control. We abandon our litter and bury and burn our garbage, with little or no thought to the environmental effects or to the waste of resources.

The environment we live in is more than skies, streams and open spaces. Highways and buildings are part of modern man's habitat. A highway built without regard to the integrity of a community can destroy the vitality and degrade the quality of that community.

With increased leisure, broader education and greater mobility, we are more sensitive to the impact of environmental contamination on our lives.

We demand changes. We react to dirty air, foul odors, vile water, noise and ugliness with disgust. We demand changes.

But as consumers of an ever-increasing supply of goods and services, we contribute to the activities which cause us misery.

It seems, at times, that man expects to use this good earth only for a short time; that, when all our resources are consumed, our water is useless, and our skies are black, we will pack up and resettle on another new frontier.

I do not subscribe to this theory, nor do I support those who would make it fact. We must move now to renovate, rejuvenate and recapture our environment.

We must maintain that which is not defiled, enhance that which is degraded, and restore that which has been destroyed. While we may dream of the frontiers of space, we must act on the frontier of recovery.

None of this can be done if the people of this nation leave the decisions and the efforts to government and industry alone. Government can only make the laws.

It is people, consumers, who will determine the effectiveness of those laws -- how they shall be administered.

This is what participatory politics is all about: People at each level of government actively participating in the decisions made at those levels.

We have laws on the books today to assure public participation in policy decisions which affect our environment.

The first stage of the water quality program has been a good example. During the period when states were required to set water quality standards, they were also required to hold public hearings to ascertain what kind of water quality the public wanted.

The same basic system -- with some modifications -- has been established for air quality standards. But, having environmental quality laws on the books is no guarantee of success.

Those who have profited in the absence of such statutes will always be better prepared, have more information, and spend more time protecting their interests.

Individual citizens tend to join battles on a crisis-to-crisis basis and fight unorganized battles.

This is where public officials can and must perform a key role. State and local environmental control agencies can translate consumer concern into meaningful standards which meet the tests of economic and technical feasibility and enhance environmental quality.

A creative people deserve a creative government.

Unfortunately, government develops vested interests which become more concerned with self-perpetuation than with social values. Sometimes economic interests and government agency interests become so intertwined that the public cannot distinguish between the two. When this continues for a long time, a clash between individual citizens and the combined forces of public agencies and private interests are almost inevitable.

We have seen this develop, for example, in the growing dispute over the location of large nuclear power plants licensed by the Atomic Energy Commission.

During the past five years, the Congress has been engaged in an accelerating effort to overcome the problems created by those who put short-term private gains ahead of long-term public needs.

From recent news accounts, it is apparent that our work is not done.

LAWS CHALLENGED

Those who put the conservation of resources and the enhancement of environmental quality far down the list of priorities are challenging existing laws and resisting our efforts to improve them. They are challenging and resisting even within the Department of Interior, whose principal responsibility is that of conservation.

We intend to overcome the challenges and the resistance, but we can't do the job alone. We need the active support of consumers who care about a better environment. We need their participation in the educational and legislative job to be done.

Unfortunately, too many people, for too long, have assumed that participating in a democracy begins or ends at the ballot box. City, state and federal governments have functioned in the abyss of public neglect. Those who can afford constant representation in the halls of Congress, in legislative lobbies and in the city halls have dominated the decision-making procedures -- often because of their constant presence.

The public -- the consumer -- has abdicated civic responsibility on a "let George do it" basis. The result has been devastating and will worsen. Too frequently that which is destroyed today cannot be recovered tomorrow.

We as a society, as consumers, must develop an ability to become involved. In effect, we must move our criticism from the kitchen to the hearing room, from the living room to the legislature, from the back fence to the ballot box, from in front of the tv set to in front of the tv camera.

All too few of us take an active interest in many, many problems which immediately affect our lives.

We depend on government to make fair and responsible decisions on these matters, yet we complain about the costs required to bring the necessary expertise to government.

We depend on government to find solutions to problems which seem too complex for us as individuals, and yet we make no attempt to provide direction or participate in the decisions.

I recognize that meaningful public participation in environmental policymaking cannot occur in the absence of alternatives. Examples abound where projects designed meet a public need are caught between adamant proponents and opponents, because no alternatives have been offered.

One needs only to look at the federal highway program to see the inherent dangers which exist when people concerned about the environmental quality have no available alternatives.

Government has an obligation to provide and the public has a right to demand built-in safeguards in these programs to assure that this does not happen. These safeguards cannot be limited to public hearings and beautification measures. The public is entitled to and must demand alternative methods for meeting specific goals.

One of the areas where we are most in need of alternative approaches to pollution control is that of handling solid wastes.

We live in a disposable society. Appliances and machines have built-in obsolescence. No deposit, no return bottles and cans are used as a convenience and cast out as a nuisance.

Here, the consumer finds himself in the position of the industrialist or the government agency head. He -- or she -- intent on the enjoyment of technological advances and supported by the availability of the disposal and the trash collection, adds daily to the mountains of solid waste we dump, bury and burn.

RETURN TO NATURE

Some of these wastes gradually return to nature, as is the case with 100 million tons of wood wastes and 7 million tons of newsprint per year. Some kinds of wastes, however, become permanent additions to the landscape, as is the case with 150 million annual tons of steel mill slag and 30 billion glass containers per year.

The materials we waste need not be wasted. They contain resources which are limited and can be reused, if we are willing to find new and better ways to recover them.

From the limited evidence we have gathered in our committee, it is evident that recovery and re-use will have far lower costs than our present program of shifting the waste problem from private homes to public places.

But consumers will have to educate themselves and work for better solutions if public officials and corporate executives are to respond. The power of voices, votes and pocketbooks will have to be combined.

Man is affronted by his environment today because he has ignored his environment in the past.

We can never achieve the environment of our past, but we must recognize, as James Fenimore Cooper said in The Prairie, "The air, the water and the ground are free gifts to man and no one has the power to portion them out in parcels. Man must drink and breathe and walk and therefore each man has a right to his share of each."

Insuring that each of us has an equitable share of these blessings becomes more complex in a complicated world. But, as Cooper wrote, the water, the air and the land are in fixed supply. Each must yield to ever-increasing demands upon it. If we are not careful, God's future children will not have a fair share of any of them.