| OCR Text |
Show Page 10 The Utah Independent May 29, 1975 The Paper That Dares To Take WE MUST ABOLISH THE E.P.A. Bowing To The Courts I he E.P.A. oltieials used the Continued from page 7 may be built or improved without E.P.A. permission. No large facility of any kind (airport, sports arena, medical center, educacourt decisions as an dean air excuse to impose controls over major economic activities in the nation. The acting E.P.A. administrator at the time said the Supreme Court decision of June 11, 1973, together with related court decisions involving enforcement of the Clean Air Act. would compel the E.P.A. to exercise specific and concrete control on where growth will be. The E.P.A. explains that it cannot enforce the Clean Air Act of 1970, as interpreted by federal courts, unless it controls all sources direct and indirect. A direct source of pollution is of air pollution an automobile or a factory which makes undesirable emissions into the air. An indirect source is a highway, street, airport, shopping center, sports arena, medical center, recreational facility, or any other building complex which does not directly pollute the atmosphere but attracts people and vehicles which do pollute. In the 80 percent of the nation where air quality is above federal standards, how can E.P.A. prevent deterioration (as mandated in 1973 by federal court interpretations of the 1970 Clean Air Act), unless it controls all economic activity in those areas? The top E.P.A. official at the time suggested the necessity of nationwide land zoning. Each state (under tight E.P.A. control) could then zone itself areas. This would prohibit any building into growth and of any kind except when, where, how, and if permitted by zoning officials. g This E.P.A. suggestion coincided neatly with a planning law. a law contemporaneous push for a national land-us- e which narrowly failed of enactment one year later ( 1974). In the 20 percent of the nation where air pollution is said to exceed federal allowables, how can E.P.A. reduce pollution as required by the Clean Air Act. within time limits allowed by federal courts, unless it forces people to abandon, or drastically alter, the way of life which produced the pollution? - no-grow- th land-zonin- Seeking Total Controls Immediately after the June 11, 1973. Supreme Court clean-ai- r decision, the E.P.A.. assuming authority to do what it claimed it was being forced to do, announced new proposed regulations. An d regulation is eventually enforced as law unless the courts or Congress intervene, or unless E.P.A. officials themselves delay or rescind the proposals (as they have done a few times). On June 15, 1973. E.P.A. issued orders to 22 of the nations urban areas, proposing such measures as restricting motor vehicle travel, rationing gasoline, eliminating or restricting parking facilities, requiring p cars either to be equipped with emission-contrsystems or to be outlawed. The E.P.A. proposals created a furore. In Indianapolis, one of the areas directly affected, the Star commented: EPAs claim that it is issuing the regulations under the gun of a court order cannot he accepted at face value. Whether the court (a Washington. D.C.. appeals court) would require action where no pollution problem exists is questionable." By way of showing that there was "no pollution problem to justify the E.P.A. orders for Indianapolis, the Star said: This move b EPA is . . . not taken on the basis of data indicating it will reduce air pollution by any specified amount. EPA has proposed these rules because it does not accept data gathered by the state in 1972 which showed Indianapolis to be within pollution limits established by law. The state insists that no violation exists, but EPA. having presented its side of the case to itself, has ruled in its own favor and appears local opposi- determined to promulgate the rules over n tion. In Houston, one of the areas most painfully affected by the June 15. 1973, E.P.A. proposals, some citizens expressed their resentment to their man in Congress. Representative Bob Casey, who represents the Houston District in the House, got up on the floor of Congress and said: EPAs power grab could easily spread to other activities: population control, complete regulation of all business activities, designation ot public housing sites, and. yes. even movement of vast segments of our population from one end of our country to another. Likening the E.P.A. to a wild animal that is about to destroy us. C ongressman Casey suggested that: If Congress, in its haste to clean up the environment, created a monster, it is up to Congress to trim its claws and to reduce it to the helpful watchdog whLh we intended." There was widespread opposition to the June. 1973, that ( ongress seemed almost disposed to do something, propolis l or example, on November 26. 93. the House Appropriations Committee recommended a special SI 0.5 million supplemental appropriation tor E.P.V. but told the L.P.A. it ought to sum considering the cost of some ol its proposals. I he Committee Report said: Had the public been inlormed m advance ol the potential economic consequences ol many ot EPAs rules and regulations, many ol these actions would have been considered unwise and too costly in relation to the benetits to he received. That mild rebuke and a few speeches like Congressman Casey's represent all that Congress did about E.P.A. 's proposals of June 1973. But L.P.A. (possibly to allay public anger and forestall congressional action) did suspend the proposals until 1975. Congressman Casey's fear that "EPAs power grab would spread into other areas was justified, however. On January 1. 1975. authorized by its own edicts, based on its own interpretation of federal court interpretations of the Clean Air Act of 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency moved to take control of practically all major construction in the United States. Briefly alarmed by congressional concern, it decided to delay institution of its control until June 30, 1975. But thereafter, unless Congress does something, no street or highway of major consequence E.P.A.-propose- re-19- 68 ol near-univers- al 1 g tional institution, industrial plant, shopping complex, apartment development) may be constructed or significantly expanded without E.P.A. approval. And all of this represents only one part of E.P.A. s jurisdiction under one law: the Clean Air Act. Under this clean air law. E.P.A. has harassed the oil and automobile industries with regulations that have cost the consuming public many billions of dollars and have caused the waste of many millions of barrels of fuel oil. It is possible that the environmental consequences of the regulations may be more harmful than the pollution against which E.P.A. was regulating. Under the Clean Air Act, E.P.A. has forced the utilities industries and other operators of big industrial plants into crash programs to eliminate undesirable emissions from smokestacks programs which have been exceedingly expensive but which may produce as many pollution problems as they solve. Under the Clean Air Act, E.P.A. has also asserted authority to meddle in such critical controversies as strip mining for coal and leasing offshore acreage for oil exploration. In addition to the power it claims under the Clean Air Act, E.P.A has equally broad enforcement powers under the Clean Water Act of 1972, the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972, the Noise Control Act of 1972, the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 - to name .vone of the environmental laws enacted not really to dean up the environment, but to enhance the political prospects of Presidential hopefuls in 1972. anti-polluti- Congress should abolish O.S.H.A. and most other federal regulatory agencies by repealing the specific laws that created them: but, as we have pointed out, E.P.A. was not created by a specific law of Congress. Representative Bob Casey has spoken of trimming the claws of this "wild animal that is about to destroy us, but all he has proposed is H.R. 15858, which would amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit E.P.A. from controlling indirect sources of air pollution, This Casey bill would give considerable relief to municipalities and state highway departments, and to construction and related industries, but that is not nearly enough. Since it cannot abolish E.P.A. by repealing a law. Congress should enact a law affirmatively legislating it out of existence, prohibiting any further appropriations for it. That would leave a welter of environmental laws in which E.P.A. is designated as the enforcement agency. That fact would create confusion in the bureaucracy as to who had jurisdiction over laws once in the domain of E.P.A. This confusion might slow down the environmental juggernaut long enough to save the consuming public billions of dollars, give industry a breathing spell to recover from some of the past harassment, and allow the people time to persuade Congress that it must repeal all the environmental laws which have done nothing for the environment, but have created another layer of oppressive bureaucracy. THE SCOTT REPORT Washington: Senator George McGovern (D.- - S.D.) is wearing some heavy blinders when it comes to Communist Cuba. driving the Senator around the countryside. Castro sold the South Dakota liberal on the idea that the Democratic concessions. On his return to Washington, McGovern responded to Castros hospitality by singing his praise The 1972 standard hearer sees, hears, and reports only what he believes will be helpful to the military dictatorship of Fidel Castro, the Kremlins number one agent in the Western Hemisphere. This hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil approach toward Castro comes through in McGoverns answers to several g basic questions about the gun-totin- of dictator's policies controlling and exploiting people. While McGovern was quick to come out for the immediate lifting of the U.S. economic embargo against Cuba imposed following the 1962 missile crisis, he pleaded cruel to Castros ignorance embargo barring more than 2.000 American citizens now living in Cuba from traveling to the U.S. McGoverns public excuse for not calling on Castro to untie these chains was that in the advance briefing received from the State Department none of the officials got around to telling him about the plight of these American citizens. Not even the Senators most gracious host, Fidel Castro, ever mentioned that these Americans were barred from traveling inside Cuba without government permission and of going to this country. On the other hand, Castro took McGovern for a ride both While literally and in reality. -- should and all make for calling the the Ford Administration to bolster Cubas sagging economy by ending the trade embargo. V H I STL .V ING told DARK When about Castros preparations to use Cuba as a base to launch a drive for the of Puerto Rico". liberation his on blinders McGovern put and replied: dont think I we have to endorse Castros revolutionary ideology more than we endorse Moscows and Pekings. Incffect, Castro told me that he has his own problems in Cuba and there were a few gestures to brother Latins, but the rhetoric is all thats left of the revolution. Castro told me that you cant export a revolution." That is just opposite the finding of veteran government security officials. Their warning is that militant Puerto Rican groups working closely with agents of Castro plan to begin setting off bombs on the strategic island and in major East Coast cities. Government informants report that Castro plans to host a of conference warfare guerrilla experts" and street fighters in September to pro-Mosco- launch the Stand SALTER SAYS by Bob Salter on What Should Be Done U.S. A w Kremlin's Continued on page directed 1 1 SALTER SAYS: bv Boh Salter According to PENTHOUSE Magazine one of the fastest ways to become unpopular in Washington, D.C. nowadays is to suggest playing a game called. What s The Difference . It s sort of like the old game of Knock, Knock, Whos There T , except insteadof Whos There, you ask. Whats The Difference? The difference between what? The difference between a politicized American liberal and a fascist. The one coming up with the most answers wins. A For instance, liberal doesn't wear Jack Boots, he wears Hush Puppies or "Liberals shirts arent brown or black, they are off- white. Its a game of subtleties, But. if you stop to think about it. in these modern times, liberal is just a nicer way of saying fascist. Before you get too excited, better stop and think a little. What did Germany have that we dont? Hitler? Well, thats only a matter of time. Our hero on the white horse just hasn't arrived yet. We for have everything a moment what our fasci or I should say liberals are pushing for at this very moment: strong leadership: management of the economy; wage and price controls; socialized medicine and also of investment: a union between government and business; new government actions to boost purchasing power; restrictions on the use of energy; and above all. don't forget the public work projects; and as Penthouse points out. the ultimate in public works projects is war. Do you honestly think that this government can exfst without war? Not a bit of it! The liberal do- gooders must have a scapegoat. Another Read your history. is be we must that requirement militarily weak. Thats why. as Russia arms to the teeth, we arc cutting our forces. If we were the strongest nation in the world we would have nobody to fight, All this takes place as wc are hypnotized by the news or else--consi- propaganda der media. The Cambodian ship seizure nearly upset the cart, however, because wc struck back and for just a minute or two the nation was 84 united, Couldnt have that, you know, and as you watched the news you were treated to a lot of typical liberal questions such as "What was the ship carrying?; Why was it in those waters? Dont you think wc should have given the Cambodian Communists more time before wc used force? Well, you tell me whats the difference between an American liberal and a fascist? And if you can answer that one honestly, please remember that fascism and communism arc first cousins, both total government and death to those who resist. -- |
