ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

thing may be cheaper, more efficient, or more convenient must no longer be decisive. The well-being of generations yet to come must first be weighed in the balance.

I'll never forget one of the first things when I first became Secretary that illustrated too dramatically the old attitudes. I had an encounter with one of the top officials of the Tennessee Valley Authority, which, of course was created and established, and has a charter as a great conservation organization. Yet the raids on the hills of eastern Kentucky, which were occurring then and in some areas still are occurring, a devastation of an enormous area being carried out to mine coal, which was then carried out over into the magic circle of the TVA. When the issue was brought up with the TVA officials as to why they didn't do something about it, their answer, their very blunt and direct answer was that their mission was to produce electric power as cheaply as possible, and that since that was their charge, they were duty bound to let contracts for coal to get it as cheaply as possible; and that if this destroyed resources, rivers and hillsides, and ruined parts of the country outside the TVA area for all time, this was none of their business.

Well, I hope we have gone beyond that, but I use this simply as a dramatic way to show the difference in attitude.

We must sharply define our concern for specific resources, making crystal clear that plans to protect air and water, wilderness or wildlife are in fact plans to protect man. Our efforts to enhance these resources must be based on the premise that such action is essential to the self-renewing systems of nature that sustain the earth.

Fourth, we must establish as a principle of national policy that the relationship between our population and our finite resources is a major concern of the Federal Government. No comprehensive policy for our environment can fail to include recognition of the hazards of irresponsible population growth. The Federal Government has for too long resisted involvement in this central issue.

We are accustomed to accept the idea that population in this country is going to double and redouble. I think the time has come that we have to address ourselves to that question, and I would like to suggest to the colloquium itself to direct a discussion in this direction because the truth of the matter is that most of the things that we prize most in this country in terms of the natural environment will be inevitably sacrificed if we go down the road to a doubling and redoubling of the population. The truth of the matter is that population in this country is moving sharply in the direction of leveling off, and yet all of our official predictions are geared to the population statistics of the past decade.

But statements of principle are not enough. By themselves they will not forestall the continuing assault on our environment. They will not stop the inexorable highway construction, the obnoxious boom of supersonic aircraft, the wrongheaded dam building, or the pernicious concept of calculated obsolescence that fouls our countryside. Such statements can only have meaning if Congress and the executive branch have the will to give them life through new laws and new policies that reject the old ways.

For example, we must be willing to require that the nature and potential of new goods and services be examined for their impact

on man and nature before, not after, their first use. And, where necessary, we should be able to ban the use of products which have a damaging effect on our environment.

We must also be prepared to insist that industries whose products foul the landscape from brewers to carmakers-change their approach and concentrate on reuse and retarding obsolescence.

There passed across my desk last week an item indicating that in Sweden or one of the Western European countries, someone had developed a beer-soft drink container that very readily dissolved. I sent it down to my science adviser with a suggestion that he find out whether this was as promising as it sounded. But I'm convinced myself that scientists can produce such a container if we just held their feet to the fire.

Congress must take the lead in enacting laws which establish performance standards for American industry and make sound conservation practices a normal part of the cost of doing business. American consumers will pay for a cleaner technology, but get a cleaner country in the bargain.

With the growth of concern for environmental quality has come a rash of ideas for organizing the Federal Government to deal with environmental problems. Let no one suppose there is any organizational panacea for dealing with environmental problems at the Federal level.

Indeed, as part of the solution in the long run, I see no way to do the job in the most effective way possible unless there is the kind of communication that we have begun to develop in the Federal Establishment where people like Bob Weaver and Orville Freeman and Don Hornig and the rest of us are in the same ring and are communicating effectively backward and forward not only on areas where we happen to bump together, but on issues that we happen to have a common insight. Because almost all Federal agencies are involved in environmental problems, no one organizational device offers a complete solution. There could be, of course, some changes within the executive branch. There have been some in recent years; but to combine all programs affecting the environment in one department would obviously be physically impossible. Ultimately, every Federal agency must become concerned with the environmental impact of its programs. If it does not, we are sure to fail. Each agency should designate responsible officials to establish environmental checkpoints to be sure they have properly assessed this impact.

In the case of established programs with known effect on the environment, special procedures must be adopted to insure that environmental factors are carefully weighed in program decisions.

One hopeful sign has been the recent trend toward greater cooperation among Federal agencies on environmental matters. I would cite in this connection the cooperative arrangements between Interior and the Corps of Engineers for evaluating the effects of dredging practices. There will be need for similar cooperation in many other areas, some of which can be handled informally, some of which may require statutory authorization.

What I have said about the executive agencies applies with equal force to the Executive Office of the President. Whether or not new institutional arrangements are accepted, the Bureau of the Budget and

the Office of Science and Technology must play a central role in collecting facts, anticipating impacts, and providing an early warning system for environmental protection. They should encourage effective interagency cooperation and be prepared to referee the inevitable conflicts between departments concerned primarily with the environment such as Interior, and those whose primary interests lie elsewhere.

More important than any organizational reform is the development of a state of mind-in the Congress, in the executive branch, in the private sector-which gives first priority to the quality of our environment. If we can develop a new sense of responsibility toward the environment, the policy and organizational problems will assume manageable proportions.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Cochairman JACKSON. Thank you, Secretary Udall, for a very fine statement.

(The excerpts from remarks by Secretary Udall follow :)

EXCERPTS FROM REMARKS BY SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL BEFORE THE JOINT HOUSE-SENATE COLLOQUIUM TO DISCUSS NATIONAL POLICY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT The 1960's have been years of extraordinary achievement in developing public policies to preserve and restore the quality of our environment. But despite this progress, can any objective observer assert that we are close to having a liveable environment for this or future generations? To find the answer, one has only to drive through any major American city, scan the horizon or try swimming in the nearest river. We have a long way to go.

Any future catalog of the conservation landmarks of this decade will, I am sure, include this colloquium to discuss national policy for the environment. In this area, both Congress and the Executive Branch-to say nothing of the private sector-have a lot of soul-searching to do.

The concept of a national policy for the environment is intriguing. To some, it suggests that we can solve a broad range of tough policy and organizational issues by putting the stamp of approval on some booming rhetoric. To expect much of any policy statement is unrealistic. But we certainly have reached the point where we can set forth some basic principles to guide the attitude and the conduct of the Federal government towards our environment.

Let me suggest some of these basic principles, as I see them:

1. We must begin to work with, not against, the laws of the planet on which we live, rejecting once and for all the false notion that man can impose his will on nature. This requires that we begin to obey the dictates of ecology, giving this master science a new and central position in the Federal scientific establishment.

2. We must espouse the creation of an order which not only promotes the wellbeing of the living but enhances the total environment-the basic wealth we bequeath to our children and their children. We must reject any approach which inflates the value of today's satisfactions and heavily discounts tomorrow's resources. The fact that something may be cheaper, more efficient or more convenient must no longer be decisive: the well-being of generations yet to come must first be weighed in the balance.

3. We must sharply define our concern for specific resources, making crystal clear that plans to protect air and water, wilderness or wildlife are in fact plans to protect man. Our efforts to enhance these resources must be based on the premise that such action is essential to the self-renewing systems of nature that sustain the earth.

4. We must establish as a principle of national policy that the relationship between our population and our finite resources is a major concern of the Federal government. No comprehensive policy for our environment can fail to include recognition of the hazards of irresponsible population growth. The Federal government has for too long resisted involvement in this central issue.

But statements of principle are not enough. By themselves, they will not forestall the continuing assault on our environment. They will not stop the inexorable highway construction, the obnoxious boom of supersonic aircraft, the dam building, or the pernicious concept of calculated obsolescence that fouls our countryside. Such statements can only have meaning if Congress and the Executive Branch have the will to give them life through new laws and new policies that reject the old ways.

For example, we must be willing to require that the nature and potential of new goods and services be examined for their impact on man and nature before, not after, their first use. And where necessary, we should be able to ban the use of products which have a damaging effect on our environment.

We must also be prepared to insist that industries whose products foul the landscape from brewers to car makers-change their approach and concentrate on reuse and retarding obsolescence.

Congress must take the lead in enacting laws which establish performance standards for American industry and make sound conservation practives a normal part of the cost of doing business. American consumers will pay for a cleaner technology, but get a cleaner country in the bargain.

With the growth of concern for environmental quality has come a rash of ideas for organizing the Federal government to deal with environmental problems. Let no one suppose there is any organizational panacea for dealing with environmental problems at the Federal level. The threat to our environment comes from many sources and is to be found in almost every Federal program. It is worth noting that Interior recently intervened in a proceeding before the Interstate Commerce Commission which involved freight rates on scrap metal. The relationship between these rates and the scrap disposal problem was sufficiently close to justify our intervention.

Because almost all Federal agencies are involved in environmental problems, no one organizational device offers a complete solution. Some consolidation of functions within the Executive Branch would certainly help. But to combine all programs affecting the environment in one Department would be physically impossible. Just because atomic power plants may have certain undesirable characteristics from an environmental viewpoint does not justify moving the AEC to some new superagency. Similarly, the notorious environmental impact of highway construction does not justify the transfer of highway programs from the Department of Transportation.

Ultimately every Federal agency must become concerned with the environmental impact of its programs. Each agency should designate responsible officials and establish environmental checkpoints to be sure it has properly assessed this impact. In the case of established programs with known effect on the environment, special procedures must be adopted to assure that environmental factors are carefully weighed in program decisions.

One hopeful sign has been the recent trend towards greater cooperation among Federal agencies on environmental matters. I would cite in this connection the cooperative arrangements between Interior and the Corps of Engineers for evaluating the effects of dredging practices. There will be need for similar cooperation in other areas, some of which can be handled informally, some of which may require statutory authorization.

What I have said about the Executive agencies applies with equal force to the Executive Office of the President. Whether or not new institutional arrangements are accepted, the Bureau of the Budget and the Office of Science and Technology must play a central role in collecting facts, anticipating impacts and providing an early warning system for environmental protection. They should encourage effective interagency cooperation and be prepared to referee the inevitable conflicts between departments concerned primarily with the environment, such as Interior, and those whose primary interests lie elsewhere.

More important than any organizational reform is the development of a state of mind-in Congress, in the Executive Branch, in the private sector-which gives first priority to the quality of our environment. If we can develop a new sense of responsibility towards the environment, the policy and organizational problems will assume manageable proportions.

Cochairman JACKSON. The Chair wishes to state that Secretary Wilbur J. Cohen is detained. We expect him a little later. We are not following any particular order of seniority. We will go right down

the line. We are delighted to have Secretary Weaver with us this morning.

Mr. Secretary, you have a prepared statement, I believe.

You may proceed in your own way.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT C. WEAVER, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Secretary WEAVER. Senator Jackson, Congressman Miller, and Members of the Senate and House of Representatives and other distinguished participants, obviously, I think this is a most significant occasion and one which should bring some real progress in a very difficult and complicated area.

Obviously the first step is to recognize the problem and start doing something about it.

There is no simplistic formula under which we can insure the development of a viable and valid national environmental policy for urban America, not today and not for a good many days to come. There are too many things we do not know, basic matters such as how we define quality in the urban environment, how we measure it, and how we strike a balance among competing values.

There are large problems of taming our technology so that we are the masters rather than the victims of progress. Too often in our cities we are drowning in our own profligate outpouring of goods. We are beset by the din of traffic noise and the fumes of poisoned air and the stench of polluted streams.

As Winston Churchill said in a speech at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1949, we entered this century with "a sense of moving hopefully forward to brighter, broader, easier days." But, by midcentury we had a new realization; again to quote Churchill:

Our need was to discipline an array of gigantic and turbulent facts. To this task we have certainly so far proved unequal. Science bestowed immense new powers on man, and, at the same time, created conditions which were largely beyond his comprehension and still more beyond his control.

But, Churchill also realized that man does not bow to mindless forces. He realized that we cannot go back to the past, and shouldn't if we could.

Americans by and large realize they cannot. Yet, Americans cling to memories of the past. We do invoke Walden Pond in moments of nostalgia. And, surveys continue to show that a majority of Americans claim a preference for a life on the farm and in small towns. As in all memories, the hardships are submerged-the wood-burning stoves, horseback travel, and death by plague. This romantic nostalgia for the "good old days” is constantly reinforced by the ever-present difficulties and deficiencies of our present urban environment.

Herein lies the problem: How can we preserve the amenities we remember and want-clean air, sparkling brooks, nearby fields and woods, and a sense of identity with a community-against the forces of urbanization. Consider the facts of urban expansion:

That today there are more than 200 million Americans but by 1980 there will be almost 240 million and by the year 2000 about 312 million in the 48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia alone, if

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »