The current administration recently announced changes to a 50-year-old environmental law the president calls “broken and outdated.”
The National Environmental Policy Act “ties up and bogs down” infrastructure projects by an “outrageously slow and burdensome federal approval process,” President Trump said.
It has long been a GOP priority to curb “overreach” and “reduce unnecessary regulatory roadblocks.” Sometimes they are correct; all law is based on compromise, and there needs to be a balance. The Obama-era EPA expansions to the definition of wetlands and waterways is a good example—yes, farmers and ranchers need to play their part in reducing pollution runoff from their lands. But no, a blanket increase in the power of the EPA is not the way to accomplish that. Such change needs to come from a coalition of impacted parties—farmers, ranchers, water users, native tribes, environmentalists, fishermen— not solely the EPA. (It’s worth noting that a great deal of conservation and improvements in Wasco and Sherman counties have been undertaken by farmers without any sort of governmental oversight. They like clean water, too.)
But a blanket decrease in the power of the EPA is no solution, either.
As we consider the changes currently proposed by the GOP, it might be helpful to look back at why, 50 years ago, the law was created. And why, in 1970, then-President Richard Nixon proposed creating the Environmental Protection Agency in the first place.
We don’t have to look far to come up with some good examples. Standing on the roof of The Dalles Chronicle office, I can see at least three superfund sites—major areas of contamination that required federal cleanup. Except for the mountain of gravel sealing the former disposal pond west of town at the former aluminum plant site, they are now invisible: the site offshore from riverfront park is sealed and under water, and the associated creosote contamination in the area of the tie plant is underground, accessed by test wells to monitor ground water contamination. There is a third site in Dallesport, east of The Dalles Dam.
The fact that I can stand on the roof and see the site locations is a testimony to the impact the EPA and associated laws have had: You couldn’t have seen so much, back in 1969 because of the smoke emissions from the aluminum plant, judging by images published at the time in The Dalles Chronicle.
Such sites represent the tip of the icebergr. How hazardous chemicals were transported and stored is surprising—prior to the EPA and its “burdensome” regulations, we had some serious problems.
Again, I don’t have to go far to find an example.
MYSTERIOUS DIE-OFF
On May 15, 1969, the front page of the Chronicle featured a photograph of dead and blackened plants killed by a herbicide and announced the chemical applications supervisor from the State Department of Agriculture had arrived in town was investigating.
“The damage, a source on increasing complaint in recent days, presumably has been caused by chemical drift from farm spraying operations,” the paper reported. “The present trouble is believed to have originated in one or more ground-level spray applications rather than from applications by plane.”
The damage was widespread—according to the Wasco County Extension agent, all of The Dalles and an area from Seven Mile Hill to lower Fifteen Mile Creek showed evidence of damage from a herbicide of the 2, 4-D or “hormone type,” the paper reported. The state investigator noted that “the exact way the chemical works has not been determined but that the natural processes within the plant are upset.” The pesticide is volatile and can form a vapor.
Elm, locust, weeping willow and other trees were damaged, as were lilacs and other annuals.
On May 16, 1969, it was reported that the source of the “chemical weed killer that has drifted into The Dalles probably did not come from farm operations.”
The inspector had returned to Salem following a preliminary investigation and “sources close to the problem said the possibility that the chemical is vaporizing from a long stretch of the railroad right-of-way is being considered.”
A staffer in the Portland office said there would be “no immediate comment from the railroad.”
“Fears are rising that unless some way is found to block further emission...the problem may continue for a prolonged time.” Grapes, tomatoes, various other garden plants, and many trees are “hard-hit by the chemical.”
On May 24, the newspaper reported Union Pacific railroad would be applying a slurry-like mixture containing limestone and activated charcoal to a “ribbon of chemical soaked ground” along the tracks from Mosier to a point east of The Dalles, a distance of 30 miles.
An entire tank car of concentrated 2,4-D herbicide was believed to have been leaked along the tracks in December of 1968.
“The Chronicle was informed that if the chemical were converted to solutions of strength for normal application...the amount of weed killer found in the soil would be rated on a tons-per-acre basis. In farm spraying, the amount used is measured in pound per acre.” The herbicide type was described as 2,4-D, in isu-butyl ester tech form, a heavy, oily liquid resembling transmission oil.
The state inspector also noted that “had the department been informed of the spillage last December it probably could have offered suggestions on how to cope with the problem before warm weather caused the chemical to volatile and drift.”
The railroad never did confirm the spill, but covered it “voluntarily.”
It’s no surprise voters demanded, in the 1970s, cleaner air and water, with regulations in place to safeguard their lives and families—not to mention their lilacs and tomatoes—and an independent agency to keep the powers-that-be in compliance.
Going back to the “good old days” of environmentally unregulated industry might generate profit in the short term, but there will be short- and long-term consequences—we haven’t even finished cleaning up the mistakes of the past, and adding to that historic burden would be a tragedy.
Commented
Sorry, there are no recent results for popular commented articles.