tv Reel America Reel America The Regulators - Our Invisible Government -... CSPAN January 3, 2021 2:00pm-2:51pm EST
political, and religious freedom for people across the globe. today, it's our responsibility, but it's also our privilege to e nurture what they started and continue this extraordinary experiment in self-governing, ordered liberty, that is the united states of america. thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] >> you are watching c-span3. the epa was founded in 1970. up next, a pbs documentary about air pollution regulation in the national parks. the processystifies of turning the general language of the clean air act amendment regulations,
revealing negotiation and debate between regulators and environmental and industry interests. hosted by eg marshall, it was produced by ei public media. >> funding for this program was made possible by grants from the and the u.s.ation department of education office of environmental education. >> when the cornerstone of this building was still new, thomas jefferson said "the execution of our laws is more important than the making of them." i am e.g. marshall. thomas jefferson would have little notion of how far the process of american lawmaking would advance in the century and a half that followed, or how complex it would become. within these walls, congress still passes our laws, but today , this is only the beginning. determining how the laws are
made workable is not the job of congress. this task falls to a powerful but little-known group of bureaucrats called regulators. to some, they are more powerful than many of the lawmakers themselves. what they do affects nearly every part of our daily lives and has become one of the hotly -debated aspects of government today. our story begins in 1980, the last year of the carter administration. in a residential section of the nation's capital, david hawkins begins his daily commute. ♪ hawkins is a federal regulator for the environmental protection agency. his job, like the ever-changing face of this city, is the result of the relentless growth of our government. a century ago, it was relatively
simple. under the great capitol dome, laws were passed and the nation followed. but today, our laws are many and complex. every morning, this city's grand avenues are filled with an army of 100,000 federal workers, regulators whose sole task is to implement and enforce the will of congress. to those who defend it, regulation is an absolute necessity in making modern society run. but to its detractors, these agencies represent a bureaucratic monster that generates thousands of unnecessary rules, producing a stranglehold on our economy, our lives, even the very air we breathe. ♪
a political appointee of the carter white house, hawkins was chosen to regulate our nation's air pollution laws. he will be a key figure in a clean-air battle to unfold in the months ahead. a lifelong environmentalist, he has strong opinions on our government's obligations. >> regulation has tended to be developed in response to abuse. the food, drug, and cosmetic act was a response to horrors in the food industry. securities laws were a response to people losing their shirts in the stock market. it is easy to say you're in favor of less regulation, but if you ask somebody argue in favor of dirtier air, they will usually say no, they are not in favor of dirtier air. these programs are finally beginning to work. they are actually causing people to have to spend money to clean up what they've been putting into the air for free all these years.
>> as hawkins day begins at the environmental protection agency, so does that of a natural adversary across town. >> huntington williams. one moment please. >> henry nickel is a lawyer for an industry which feels the weight of david hawkins' regulations. he is the washington representative for a group of electrical power producers located in the west. to nickel, regulation creates as many problems as it solves. >> because the utility industry is building and operating large industrial facilities which produce a great deal of energy and therefore require the use of a great deal of fuels, they are number one on the list, oftentimes, for regulation. ♪ the principal problem is the atmosphere of uncertainty that exists. you are talking about investments of hundreds of millions of dollars, and every
time they build a plant, all the environmental requirements that applied to the last plant they built in all likelihood have been changed. >> in the next two decades, electrical power demands in the nation will double. as the population grows, so does the real threat of a future energy crisis. >> we need energy to run our economy, and any regulatory action that can affect that must be very carefully considered in light of the key importance of developing an energy independence. >> and in the american west, our possible solutions to our energy problems for the next 200 years. coal for electricity and synthetic fuels, shale to release the u.s. from its crippling dependence on foreign oil. but there is a problem. facilities to convert these riches will seriously threaten another resource, one serving
the human spirit. ♪ >> the national parks are held as something sacred. i don't remember whom, but someone referred to the national parks as islands of hope. >> in washington, barbara brown chief of air quality for our national parks, is concerned . the government will be inundated with some 19 new permits to put power plants and strip mines in the shadow of the parks. this could be the biggest battle of her career. >> what really brought me to this job was i took a backpacking trip for the first time in my life, and went out to the canyonlands, bryce canyon, the grand canyon. i was totally stunned by its beauty. ♪
the grand canyon is there because it is a natural scenic wonder. i have seen it when it is crystal-clear and all the colors shimmer, and i've seen it when it is very difficult to even see a rock on the other side of the gorge. air pollution is probably the number one threat to our national parks. there's a problem out there, and if something isn't done about it, there may night -- not be national parks as we know them today. ♪ >> one of the first to see the problem is a former park ranger , now naturalist photographer, borton anderson -- gordon anderson. from a remote corner of bryce canyon, utah, his is a lone voice from the wilderness. >> throughout the year i make several trips to bryce canyon to photograph. my favorite time to visit this
spectacular park is in the winter. the blanket of snow as a new dimension to the colors in the canyon. when the founding fathers of the national park system, back in 1916, set aside parks to be preserved, they could not anticipate, 50 years later, these parks would be threatened by enormous coal burning power plants operating just outside their boundaries. >> anderson had been taking pictures of the western parks for years. as time progressed, he felt that his photographs were revealing an increasing amount of visible air pollution emanating from nearby power plants. could these scenic wonders survive the effects of future large-scale energy development? five years before, in the fall of 1975, he began a one-man crusade to save these natural treasures.
in our nation's capital, with the help of a small band of environmentalists, friends of the earth, anderson brought his photographic evidence to petition congress. the goal of this citizen's lobbying effort -- find a key legislator who would help. congressman paul rogers, an author of the monumental 1970 clean air act, was now revising that law. although a great deal had been accomplished in cleaning up the nation's air, the anderson slides were alarming evidence that the parks were still unprotected. >> the navajo power plant in 1974. we flew over the plant to photograph the plume from the air and smoke was blowing into the grand canyon. when this happens, the vista is now reduced to less than the width of the canyon.
when pollution finds its way into this huge basin, the view becomes something more like this. this is a candlestick peak when it is being impacted by air -- this is candlestick peak. on a day when it is being impacted by air pollution from power plants, it looks more like this. >> in december of 1976, rogers and his staff went west to see for themselves. here they experienced the rugged beauty of our national parks and followed a trail of pollution that led from the grand canyon to the massive navajo power plant 50 miles to the north. from the four corners plant, they saw a screen of sulfates and nitrates that had nearly initerated shiprock monument the navajo reservation. to the lawmakers, the nation's energy needs were clearly conflicting with another national value, the preservation of our parks as we know them. >> i am not sure that the monitoring that you did is
necessarily all-natural. in other words, it could well be man-made, as well, could it not? >> in the process of amending over 100 new sections of the clean air act, one section would read, "congress hereby declares as a national goal the prevention of any future and the remedying of any existing impairment of visibility in -- within our national park areas." this part of the clean air law is section 169-a. its final passage is swift. favor, say aye. the motion is carried. >> but the process does not end here. congress has neither the technical knowledge nor the staff to turn its desires into reality. this is where the regulators take over. those scores of agencies formed by congress in the past century
to implement and enforce the will of the legislators. formed in 1970, epa was given the mandate to mount an attack on the sources of pollution of our nation's air and water. one of the newest and largest of regulatory agencies, epa will regulate all sections of the clean air law. our story deals with one small part of this law, the threat of air pollution in our national parks, but since the lands near the parks are rich in resources, regulation here sets the stage for a classic struggle between government and free enterprise. ultimate decisions to shape the regulation from this point will be made by david hawkins. as chief of air pollution programs for epa, his task is to implement the intent of congress, but the clean air law has swamped his office with work, and while nearly 100 new sections must be regulated, clean air in the parks is left
untouched for over two years. to get things moving again, gordon anderson and friends of the earth take the matter to federal court. the judge orders epa to draft a proposed regulation within six months and to complete the job in one year. ordinarily, the task should take twice that long. >> the next issue is the definition of visibility impairment. >> with his environmentalist sympathies, hawkins will want a strong interpretation of the law, one that will, in his eyes, achieve effective results. with a vaguely-worded statute such as this one, to many he becomes the real lawmaker. >> when a group of people start to think about the actual details of translating a law into specific requirements, questions often come up. and it is my job to provide those answers. and the approach i took was, we are implementing a clean air
act and, when in doubt, we should be protecting the environment. >> dave hawkins' power at this moment is of real concern to henry nickel. he knows one reading of the law could cost his clients $90 million for pollution controls. a stricter implementation could force them to spend as much as $3 billion. >> the way congress writes laws, they are not models of clarity. there are a spectrum of interpretations. so you want to look at the facts and pick one that makes the most sense -- pick the one that makes the most sense. >> what the procedural posture will be in the rebuttal comments? >> the sad part is that it is easier to identify the needs of -- identify the need to start the program than it is to implement it. >> in their stand against hawkins, the upcoming months will bring intense work for nickel and his staff. to modify the regulation, he will form alliances with
sympathetic government agencies and numbers of congress. for the court battles he will create, to delay or even kill the rule, he must constantly sift through all available evidence. to the utilities, more regulation could mean delays in constructing new facilities, huge additional costs, and a climate of uncertainty caused by changing rules. >> the regulations in question would affect the licensing of every new facility in the west, and, if industry doesn't participate, they are going to find themselves facing rules that cannot be met. >> at national park service headquarters, there is worry that future energy development will bring more air pollution within the parks. >> if the courts are going to overturn it, then that is the opportunity to look toward alternative ways of addressing protections, and i would be
interested to hear -- >> barbara brown must map a strategy for the months ahead. her immediate problem is that the national park service is not a regulatory agency. she and her staff will have to fight even to be heard. >> you work very closely -- i knew it would be a feat of hercules if a good regulation was written within a year, but i also think it was a wonderful incentive to get moving. >> durham, north carolina. to the epa's office of air quality come representatives of the park service, the department of energy, the forest service, and others in the government's first attempt to write the regulation. >> i want to try to start at the front and just work our way through. >> the working group is made up of those who must live with the rule after it is regulated. they must draft a proposed regulation within six months, but it assumes becomes evident that each member brings separate
marching orders from his own agency. >> the starting place is what is significant. what is worth spending money on. now, that means that there has to be a significant improvement. >> no, it provides criteria. if we were going to set public -- yeah, it is other things. >> epa engineer johnny pearson is chairman of the working group. bureaucrat with epa, this is his first chance to head up the writing of a regulation. >> it's a resource to manage like the other ones. it is not unique or special. >> it is how much protection it gets that is the issue. >> congress set the value on visibility. >> the working group will be aided by public input. soon, in three western states, workshops will be held to seek initial reaction to eliminating visible pollution within the parks. in denver, the industry voices
its candid opinion -- candid opinion. >> i don't give a damn what the visibility is. >> epa's report to congress points out -- >> they remind the epa that the clean air act was one of the most burdensome and costly public laws in history. they agree that america's air is now cleaner, but, to them, this regulation would only duplicate existing roles and create more paperwork and red tape. >> proposed controls simply result in wheel-spinning and in more and more control by inexperienced and unknowledgeable bureaucrats who love to spend money on the impossible. >> we have a power plant up for permitting that is 12 times cleaner than what was presented to the congress. and they are telling us we do not meet the class two increments.
we need a little bit more. >> my name is gordon anderson. i showed the slides to congress that inspired this legislation -- >> as usual, the regulation industry shows up in force. one of the two who speaks for the environment is gordon anderson. >> i sent here all day listening to people condemn the environmental protection agency. we should be complementing these individuals on their efforts to clean up the environment. the reasons they have been criticized by industry is because the intent of industry is to weaken and destroy the provisions of this act. what good is a national park if it is full of smog? what good is the grand canyon if you can only see 15 miles because of the navajo power plant plume is filling the entire grand canyon with smog? this is one of the most important resources not just in america but in the world. and it is no way to treat it. >> what we are saying is do the best job we can right now. we cut back to what we can accomplish, recognizing the limitations. freemay be the control of
powerplant or something. and the consideration of these long-term strategies, we will begin to look at. but what are my other problems? >> as time pressures mount, johnny pearson asks the working group to limit the effort to industries already polluting the park. he suggests that the group ignore for now future pollution sources, but, before rules can be written, definitions must be reached. >> what must be defined is what is that national goal? any perceptible change to the human observer, from that which would upset natural conditions. >> how do we define natural conditions? >> i don't think we can define natural conditions. >> then that is meaningless. >> second of all, what we are looking for is cases where it is obviously not natural conditions. >> if you don't put that in there, you could go to the l.a. basin and put up a plume there and somebody could say, you can't see it because the l.a. smog is in your eyes, so why can't i build my source? we are saying you can't do that.
>> when you ask that source to calculate his impact on the existing natural conditions, what are you going to tell him natural conditions are? >> it is natural conditions, that which occurs naturally. you can't define natural conditions as a number. >> the simple intent of the united states congress to clean the air within our national parks begins to appear unsolvable for many reasons. >> we are looking towards henry mountain, and we have a hypothetical plant. >> existing means of scientific measurement are not designed for situations of this complexity. clearly, area power plants are not the only polluters. smelters and other industries add to the picture, as do urban centers as far away as los angeles. wind conditions change hourly, defying accurate monitoring of pollution sources.
finally, one thing overlooked by congress, much of the scenery observed by visitors lies outside park boundaries. should not these integral vistas, as the bureaucrats would call them, also be protected? yet, there are hundreds of these magnificent views adjacent to the parks. limiting development of these lands would certainly be opposed by industry. with all of these problems, there is still the pressure of the first court deadline in which a proposed regulation must be ready for review by may 15. johnny pearson makes the decision. his first draft will ignore future sources and regulate existing polluters only. a step not popular with park service officials in washington. >> it was a very aggravating process at times.
when you said something over and over, and they said gotcha, and it was really not what you said at all. when you care about what you're doing, you identify very personally with the product you see on paper. it isn't just a regulation. it means will people see the grand canyon 100 years from now. i've seen this gobbledygook before but i'm surprised at this stage it is still gobbledygook. >> it is better than it was. >> these argument sentences. -- these aren't even sentences. i began to feel like a manic-depressive on a roller coaster. >> across town, the environmental activist group, friends of the earth, received copies of the draft leaked to them by allies within the park service. >> 80 pages from epa. quite frankly, it is pitiful. it does not mention anything about new sources at all. >> we have to raise the issue, that is our responsibility. >> you could not intelligently evaluate what the agency was proposing because the agency had
not given us all the information we needed to make a judgment. >> and information is the lifeblood to henry nickel in preparing a strong legal case. he invokes the freedom of information act, dispatching a team of attorneys to search park service files. >> the sort of thing we are looking for, what is known about the areas. >> for a general first cut. >> probably finish relatively early. >> well, have at it. >> if you do this, we are qualified to work for a travel agency. >> put this up. >> we are doing all of this with an eye ultimately to the courts, because, if you don't get what you want, you have to go to court or forever waive any right you have to be heard on the question. of course, the history of the last several years is that the ultimate decision upsets everybody. >> from durham, johnny pearson
and assistant julie horn come to washington to present the proposed regulation to top management within the epa. the draft must now pass the scrutiny of the agency's steering committee. the acid test of 16 working group meetings and five months of effort. >> the next major issue is that of integral vistas. >> the rule will subsequently be tested. barber, his deputy to dave hawkins, is charged with keeping the regulation on schedule. with about five weeks before the court-ordered deadline, the reaction of the steering committee is critical. >> there were a number of concerns about the quality of the guidelines that we have and their linkage to the regulations themselves. >> the regions, the states, the industry, the environmental groups, are looking at this set guidance -- the and to the guidance as a new tool to assess. right now, the package that does
not do that. -- does not do that. >> we are not going to go out with scientific data that has not been published or accepted. particularly on modeling and monitoring, where i have directors beating on me constantly that i cannot use the tools they are developing in any way until they are peer-reviewed. i need to know which words you want to have changed to what. >> it is easy to do that when there are minor modifications that are necessary. it is not so easy to do when a major overhaul is necessary. >> we entered this exercise, talked to doug, got all of them to agree with the schedule with the court and the environmentalists with the upfront understanding we would do the c+ job first time through. it is all you can do in this timeframe. but if we are making the transition from c+ to a-, i want do that over the next couple years. this is the first step in a long chain of events. >> we're talking about d- or below, i think. >> i answer every damn one of my phone calls every day and i don't understand why if we are
deficient that we are d-or f. i am going to hear about it today. everybody in this room knows damn well the administration has a court order. >> we have been raising these major arguments at meetings for the last 2-3 months. i have copies of four memos that have commented on the inadequacy of this whole package, going back over the last two months. >> and asking again, we had a working group. working group, the definition starts with w-o-r-k. i need the language paired >> -- i need the language. >> i think that possibly involves your folks working with these people. >> there are more people critiquing this rule than there are to work on it, by a long shot. what i need is the working group to do some work. >> holy cow. >> the steering committee sees the first draft as unacceptable. it does not pass its first critical test from epa
leadership. five weeks from the first deadline, johnny pearson is back at square one. upset over the draft submissions, barbara brown seizes the moment. she demands and gets a meeting with hawkins and staff. >> the first draft of the regulation was missing the critical piece in the puzzle, and that was all the future development that can have an impact on visibility. and the first draft of the regulation totally ducked the issue. >> this package is one of several tools -- >> brown alerts hawkins to the dangers of not regulating future polluters of the parks. to her, this issue should never have been compromised in the first place. >> it was like alice in wonderland. we would be working to clean up the old sources but not catching up because of the pollution from the new sources. unless it was addressed, we would be on a treadmill.
many concerns have been articulated during the working group meeting, were not addressed -- >> >> the demands of the park service team do not make them of the most popular figures within the epa staff, but controlling future sources of pollution is reinstated by a sympathetic hawkins, a major victory for barbara brown. energyhave got time and to sit down and put words on a piece of paper. it is welcome. going back to court for a delay is not in the cards. >> in a return to the drawing board, barbara works with the park service representatives in an intensive drafting effort. before the first proposal deadline, each point is reviewed again, each objection discussed anew. >> the basic instruments are there. nobody thinks there will be a revolutionary new invention i >.
changes we talk about making in the regs get us a long way there. >> two weeks before the first deadline, the regulation approaches another internal checkpoint, red border review. as a measure of its growing complexity, the package now contains 420 pages of regulation to explain five pages of law. >> what i am going to do is put it in today. and i will make any suggested changes. get this thing going. ok. it is signed. the red border process is basically the last chance for the assistant administrators to object to the regulation before it goes to the administrators. and of course, in government we don't use a simple word like "object." we say "non-concur." it is either concur or non-concur rather than agreeing
-- agree or object. >> they are freaking out about the numbers. >> on the morning of the first deadline, there is proof that the rush to regulate has taken its toll. a phone call brings news that the supporting cost data are filled with errors. there is no way the proposed regulation would be approved with these figures attached. >> missing the first part of 3.0. it goes to 3.3. >> i think the principal concern is in the appendices. those costs are too high. >> there is no sense getting comment on a set of numbers which several other offices have severe problems with. this is about to be a record in cutting down on government paperwork. >> hawkins feels that the supplementary figures can be corrected and published within a few weeks. by eliminating the faulty numbers for the moment, epa will
meet the first court deadline. the front 20 pages stay, the back 400 go. with epa administrator's -- with the epa administrator's signature, the midpoint deadline is reached. the regulations reflect hawkin'' strong environmentalist sympathies. future and existing sources of pollution are to be regulated as vistas lying outside the park, but the proposal must next to go through the all-important public comment. with signature in hand, phase two begins. in the summer of 1980, tourist season begins anew in the western parks. as they had done for so many years, some 3 million would return to that great, wondrous chasm called the grand canyon, return to marvel at the power and beauty of their land.
>> you wish you could take them home, huh? >> yeah. >> the people would return to the magnificent, when carved monuments -- magnificent, wind-carved monuments of bryce, unaware of the debate nearby that could decide the future of these lands. in salt lake city, a public comment period of 75 days would begin. here, the argument of costs, delay, and in certainty -- uncertainty would again be emphasized by industry. >> the proposed regulations appear to have been generated only to applied by the court mandate to have regulations in place by november 15 -- >> do you believe congress did not intend for important considerations to be made in a slipshod manner. >> we cannot afford the luxury of expensive regulatory
programs. >> we therefore urge the environmental protection agency to moderate its schedule for promulgating the final regulations until 1985 at the earliest. >> delay, delay, delay. this is a tactic industry is simply using against the epa to delay it indefinitely. the skies over the great southwest is not an open sewer. >> is a lifetime resident and now governor of utah, i am fully cognizant -- >> the regulators also hear the views and frustrations of those who would ultimately enforce this and a tangle of other rules. >> the regulations we are addressing today sometimes cross the fine line between federal guidance and federal interference. we are directed to protect air quality and visibility, endangered species, reclaim all lands disturbed by mining, preserve the wilderness, and at -- the wilderness, convert utilities to coal, and come at the same time, provide over 200
million barrels of synthetic oil in the early 1990's. trying to balance all of those goals within the limited statutory guidelines and the limited resources we have in this country -- i say in my testimony a difficult task -- it is almost an impossible task. >> in washington, henry nickel and is allies within industry accelerate their campaign. -- his allies within industry accelerate their campaign. on capitol hill, they urge members of congress to pressure epa for modifications. eventually, even the white house itself is drawn into the debate. >> the cost estimates are rather wide-ranging, from something on the order of $90 million to $3 billion in capital costs. >> they were trying to grapple with the issues of how to mold these regulations in a way that would minimize the impact on industry and on the economy. what that comes down to is how are we going to dilute the regulations. >> that would be identified in terms of the particular feature
that is important to see and that in itself is limiting. >> the issue here -- >> a white house concerned with inflation recommends the rule be significantly weakened. a victory for the electrical utilities. >> there are fundamental questions we should be looking at. nickeluraged, henry .lans they argue that epa's moved to include non-park land within the regulation is not only unfair but illegal since it was never mentioned why congress. >> the job of the regulators is to implement the laws congress adopts and not create laws. i think the agency created laws. what it seems to me is it is fairly straightforward.
>> go back to the court. >> visibility? >> yeah. >> three months before the final deadline, the public comment period officially ends. in addition to the massive legal brief of huntington and williams are the written comments of 382 of -- come arguments others, arguments of regulated industries, the white house, key members of congress, and letter-writing campaigns of opposing environmental groups. by the day's end, a stack of paper seven feet high will be under lock and key. with the end of the public comment period, the people have now spoken. their reactions reflect the problems that epa faced under pressure of a court-ordered deadline, a vaguely-worded law, and imperfect scientific
information. the utilities industry, fearful that regulation will hamper energy development and increase costs, takes advantage of these weak points. henry nickel has mounted an effective battle, and his efforts bear fruit. working through a coalition of legislators, sympathetic federal agencies, and even a cost-conscious white house, pressure is brought to relax the requirements. epa will exempt existing power plants from adding costly pollution controls. the exemption is worth an estimated $3 billion to industry. at the same time, barbara brown is victorious in her battle to have the regulation applied to future industrial development which might pollute the parks. the rule is now a total turnaround from the one which johnny pearson originally proposed. with the integral vista issue comes perhaps the knottiest problem of all -- does the protection of scenic vistas just outside the park constitute
responsible rulemaking, or is the epa team creating law that congress never intended? as the one-year court deadline draws near, a concerned johnny pearson heads toward washington and a final decision. >> as you all are aware, we are required to promulgate by september 15. looking over 236 comments, virtually every comment we received mentioned integral vistas in one way or another. in reading over all of the comments, i have some reservations about our ability to support in court the integral vista issue as proposed. we did make the argument. we talked about the argument, we thought we could make it in court with a straight face, so to speak. we have now seen the comments. there are some very persuasive arguments being made that will -- would again be made in court.
if dave hawkins wants to go forward with the integral vista concept, that is a policy decision that has to be made. >> we have substantial comments on the issue of integral vistas, quite divided, as you might expect. general counsel looked at the comments and they believe there is some risk as far as a court action. >> despite the fears of his staff, hawkins thinks integral an important part of the park experience. he decides to stand fast. >> if you have eliminated it altogether, you have taken away the process. >> you have to proceed from the act that congress passed. but we have to make sure we can defend it when we get to the ultimate lawsuit on this, which we all expect there will be a lawsuit. >> hawkins decision on integral
him the opening he needs. he petitions the court to review the entire regulation. there is an added motive for halting the regulation. a court delay now could even grant time for the election of a new president, one more favorable to his cause. >> page four. >> with two weeks to go, barbara brown makes final recommendations. for her, each turn of phrase has potential for protecting or endangering the parks. >> an integral vista is the view of a scenic landmark. that is too limiting. you should say feature or view. court'svember 10, the verdict is due on henry nickel's verdict for delay. he makes contact with his legal counterpart at epa. >> henry nickel. >> henry, how are you? >> what is up? what have you heard?
>> we have not heard anything, so i thought i would find out from you -- we raised the question of whether or not the agency should not be rethinking the entire package. to do that, there would have to be an extension of the deadline. >> which will give the epa until november 24 to respond to your motion and give counsel two weeks from today. >> this is not henry nickel's round. the regulation will go forward, but both men know that when rule is published, nickel will again return to the courts and another round of washington legal maneuver. >> ok, thanks a lot. >> we will have our day. bye-bye. >> the regulation is the result of many efforts. barbara brown has fought to protect the parts from future polluters. henry nickel has gained concessions for the 21 existing power plants.
even one issue of personal importance to hawkins will not -- would not remain unaltered. >> the government does involve compromise, and where we compromised on integral vistas was allowing the states to in effect have the final say for the impact on an integral vista. it requires an open decision-making process. and, if people care deeply about the impact that is at issue, they will have an opportunity to influence the decision. >> november 21, 1980, a final trip from durham to washington. johnny pearson has arrived to deliver the completed documents personally. inside the box are 2000 pages telling a nation how to implement a congressional resolve to clean the air in our national parks. after 48 drafts created with the assistance of congress, the white house, the courts, 15
government agencies, 36 states, and 383 public comments, johnny pearson's job is over. what began as a simple observation of one man through the viewfinder of a camera will shortly become a set of regulations affecting millions. although existing plants will not be required to change, future industries must prove they will not foul the air before they build. but perhaps most importantly, the regulation will establish clean air in our parks as a national goal. for dave hawkins, a moment to reflect after a year of conflict and compromise. >> even though we have done it, nine days are short of a year.
click seattle. -- >> impossible. yeah. it shouldn't be but it is. >> yeah. >> i will see you. thanks a lot. >> in a quiet moment, reflecting -- hardly reflecting on the effort to get there, the final step in creating the regulation arrives. >> this one regulation is not by any means going to do the whole job. it is a place to make a mark and say you don't have to be able to afford to buy a high-quality environment in order to be able to enjoy one in the united states. >> at 3:00 on november 20 1, 3 on november 21, three years after it passes congress, section 169-a of the clean air act will now take effect. dave hawkins's job is done.
>> around the world, this country is known for the vistas in the western united states. if you look at the travel posters that are displayed in foreign capitals, you will always see the grand canyon. it is a treasure of the world and we can afford to protect it. >> the law will bear the imprint of all concerned. by eliminating existing power plants from the full impact of regulation, henry nickel has served his clients well. >> had we not participated in the process, there could have been a set of rules that would have had immediate and disastrous impact on the industry. that did not occur, but environmental requirements can be made much simpler than they are right now because it is costing the public a great deal of money and the public is not getting that many benefits out of it. you are going to have to balance what your interests are with the
national park versus your interest in the economy and energy development. >> barbara brown's success in controlling future polluters is a significant beginning. she has helped to shape the law with concern and dedication. >> you have got two great warhorses. you have the protection of national parks the future of our energy and industrial development at stake. industry and protecting the national parks can coexist. i have seen it when industry has come in and we have been able to lay out on the table what we want to accomplish, but it does take a certain of trust and -- take a certain amount of trust and sometimes that is hard to develop because we're so used to wearing our white hats and our black hats that we forget to talk to one another, but the first step has been taken and that in itself gives me a great deal of satisfaction.
♪ >> barbara brown would be the first to admit that, in washington, rarely is there such a thing as a clear victory and almost never is there such a -- is there a lasting the one. political drama that shapes our laws and lives is a constant struggle. for now, the regulation as written will be enforced. but this rule and the clean air act itself will be challenged again, as will all our laws. we have seen from a former park ranger that one person can have a definite effect upon national legislation. affect on national legislation. so too may you and i make a difference if we let our voices be heard. i am e.g. marshall. ♪
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN3 Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on