Who Is to Police Pollution?

There is no longer any argument in the U.S. that air pollution corrodes health and property alike. But the issue is now cloaked in political smog. Who should have the clear, primary responsibility for cleansing the atmosphere?

Last week President Johnson conceded that efforts by all levels of government have so far failed even to check the problem, let alone reduce it (TIME cover, Jan. 27). Outlining an ambitious program that for the first time would give Washington the leading role in policing pollution, he also besought states, municipalities and industry to bring "a new sense of urgency to America's struggle against poisoned air."

The Administration's proposed air-quality act of 1967 would accelerate research and expand matching grants to states; federal spending would increase from $35.5 million this year to $84 million in the fiscal year beginning July 1. But Johnson sees federal regulation as the most effective immediate antidote for pollution. His bill would compel fuel producers to register all additives such as tetraethyllead-- used to boost gasoline octane count-- with the Department of Health, Education and Welfare so that their potentially noxious effects could be studied. HEW would be given authority to designate industries that contribute heavily to pollution, and in each case would determine the maximum tolerable level of deleterious materials that they could generate. The department would also designate "regional airsheds" throughout the country, wherever there was serious pollution whose fallout area superseded state and local jurisdictions. In each such region, a commission consisting of two representatives of each state involved and one from HEW would be responsible for enforcing broad national standards and more detailed local rules.

Conspicuous Failure. Powerful opposition to federal regulation has already begun to take shape. While conceding the need for better pollution control, spokesmen for the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute have all emphasized their preference for local standards and supervision.

Yet it is just such local efforts that have failed most conspicuously in the past. Half the states and many cities now have some kind of air-pollution legislation; about 15 more states are expected to act this year. Some of the states that have such statutes, however, have failed to adopt realistic regulations to implement them. In some cases, regulatory commissions are heavily weighted with representatives of industry. Four of the nine members of the New Jersey commission, for instance, represent companies identified by the U.S. Public Health Service as significant contributors to pollution.

Breezing In. Because standards vary from state to state and city to city, a strong law in one area can be made a mockery by pollutants from a neighboring community. Chicago has been attempting to police pollution caused by steel plants, but 70% of the steel production in the Chicago area is outside city limits. Since 1963, the Federal Government has been offering $3 for every local dollar spent on voluntary regional-control efforts. Yet, said Johnson last week, "there is not a single effective interstate program in the nation."

Every state and city, of course, must compete for industry. Because antipollution equipment and procedures are expensive, a stringent local program inevitably discourages new plants in the area. Other local interests can also come into play. When the Arizona legislature debated a smog-abatement bill last week, one member charged that it was discriminatory. "Under this bill," joked State Representative Lloyd House, a Democrat who is a Navajo Indian, "we would not be permitted to send up smoke signals." His real objection was that it violated tribal land rights. The bill passed anyway.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.