1. The Changing Discourse on Water Policy
From Pollution Control to Environmental Quality

2. What’s in a Word? Ecology
the analysis and study of interactions among organisms and their environment;
a human science embracing practical applications of resource management;
the full scale of life, from tiny bacteria to processes that span the entire planet;
not synonym for environmentalism.

3. The Shift in Thinking Old Thinking – pre 1965 New Thinking – post 1965
Developmental goals
Distributive solutions
Incremental change
Pollution control at the local level
Decentralized and multiple agency avenues for funding
Back-end technological strategies to clean up pollution
New Thinking – post 1965
Ecological goals
Regulatory solutions
Comprehensive change
Systems-wide approaches to the “total environment”
Centralized federal policy goals (NEPA)
Front-end regulation to prevent pollution.

4. The Case of Thermal Pollution
Development of a growing number of nuclear power plants and industrial facilities presents a new challenge: How to deal with heated cooling water on aquatic ecosystems?
Pitted the Atomic Energy Commission agains the Fish & Wildlife Service and later engages different subcommittees and members.

5. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant
The most visible thermal pollution controversy. The plant was expected to use 60% of the maximum flow of the Connecticu6t River for cooling with the result of a degree temperature rise.
In 1967, the Atomic Energy Commission resists enforcing state-federal standards and Fish & Wildlife Service.
Pressure is mounting on Muskie’s Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution to move away from its focus on economic growth through water quality; he announces hearings.
Not until the 1968 thermal pollution hearings does the Subcommittee hear from witnesses who take an ecological view incorporating fish and wildlife impacts and overall environmental balance.
Enter John Dingell, chair of the House Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation, who begins to promote the concept of environmental impact studies prior to project permitting or licensing.

6. A New Power Player on the Scene
Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson D-WA
Elected to the House at the age of 28, he served in Congress for more than half of this century;
Ran for President twice, 1972 and 1976 from the conservative wing of the Democratic Party;
Regarded as one of the nation's leading voices on military affairs.
Chair, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

7. The NEPA Paradigm A growing public recognition that:
“no single entity within the federal structure can be counted on to weigh each decision or measure each new program objective against the impact that it will have on the natural environment.”
LBJ’s Citizens Advisory Committee on Recreation & Natural Beauty
Senator Jackson emerges as the major architect of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (S. 1075), the first modern statement of national (not state) environmental goals.
A recognition of the “power of information” and the importance of a holistic view of environmental issues.
Muskie’s competing proposal for an Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1969 (S.2391) tries to maintain the state-centered system and his own jurisdictional dominance.
Despite a compromise between Jackson and Muskie, existing environmental bureaucracies were also made subject to the new law and EPA’s authority.

8. What does NEPA require?
Signed into law on January 1, 1970.  NEPA creates the Environmental Protection Agency and requires federal agencies to assess the environmental effects of their proposed actions from a systematic interdisciplinary approach prior to making decisions.
Section 102 in Title I of the Act requires federal agencies to prepare detailed statements assessing the environmental impact of and alternatives to major federal actions significantly affecting the environment.
These statements are commonly referred to as Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) and Environmental Assessments (EA).
Nixon signed NEPA on January 1, 1970, and ushered in the “environmental decade.”

9. Calvert Cliffs Challenge
A landmark legal case testing NEPA – Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Committee v. Atomic Energy Commission.
AEC rejected more rigorous regulations offered by three environmental groups (Sierra Club, National Wildlife Federation, and CCCC.)
In litigation the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals for DC rejected the AEC’s more limited regulations as a violation of NEPA.
The court’s ruling means administrative discretion by environmental agencies will be highly scrutinized.