President Richard Nixon and the founding of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970

(1)

Master Thesis

Universiteit van Amsterdam

History - American Studies

President Richard Nixon and the founding

of the Environmental Protection Agency

in 1970

Student: Ben van Ooijen Studentnr: 0342777 Thesis Coordinator: Prof. Dr. R.V.A. Janssens Master American Studies (History) - Universiteit van Amsterdam

(2)

(3)

3

First, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Professor R.V.A. Janssens, for sharing his knowledge and enthusiasm for the project, together with his support, encouragement and patience. The meetings and conversations, in-person and via Zoom were vital for me to form a comprehensive and objective critique and complete my research.

Next, I want to thank my fiancée, Loes Groenendijk, who motivated me get back to completing my master's degree, who has unconditionally supported me throughout this process and helped me with my planning. I am forever grateful, because she had to put up with my stresses and moans for many more months than originally expected.

Finally, I would like to thank my parents for supporting me financially and emotionally when I decided to complete my master's program at the University of Amsterdam after an extended hiatus.

(5)

5 Introduction

Since the end of World War II right up until today, there has been concern regarding pollution and changing climate from industrial output. Many scientists agree that the earth is warming up due to human influence.1_{Today, environmental groups such as Friends of the Earth view}

the changing climate as a danger to the human race and many other species on earth.2 Some go even further and have labeled climate change as an existential threat, like Senators Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris.3 On the other side of the aisle, some Republican elected officials, such as Senator Jim Inhofe argue that climate change is a hoax, or that greenhouse gases we put out are insignificant and that the earth can absorb these increased levels.4_Other

conservatives have started to change their position and can see now that climate change is happening.5 The debate surrounding this topic and what has to be done about it can get heated. A fact that is irrefutable is that global temperatures are rising.6 But what to do about it, remains an unanswered issue for now.

Both major political parties have a history of incorporating the environment in their party's platform. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) have a devoted a section on their official website to the environment, where they state that the Democratic Party is "committed

1_{“Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate Is Warming.” NASA, 18 Dec. 2019,}_{https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/}_. 2_{“Climate Justice and Energy.” Friends of the Earth International, 13 Dec. 2019,}

www.foei.org/what-we-do/climate-justice-and-energy.

3_{Kelsey Piper, “Is Climate Change an ‘Existential Threat’ - or Just a Catastrophic One?” Vox.com, 28 June 2019,}

www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/6/13/18660548/climate-change-human-civilization-existential-risk.

4_{Brendan DeMelle, “Top 10 Climate Deniers.” Before the Flood, 21 Oct. 2016,}

www.beforetheflood.com/explore/the-deniers/top-10-climate-deniers/.

5_{Rooney, Francis, et al. “I'm a Conservative Republican. Climate Change Is Real.” The Agenda, 11 Sept. 2019,}

www.politico.com/agenda/story/2019/09/11/climate-change-conservative-republicans-000955/.

6_{Rebecca Lindsey and LuAnn Dahlman, “Climate Change: Global Temperature” NOAA Climate.gov, 16 Jan. 2020,}

(6)

6

to curbing the effects of climate change, protecting America’s natural resources, and ensuring the quality of our air, water, and land for current and future generations."7 The Republican Party's stance is mixed. In 2016, Donald Trump's presidential election campaign called it a hoax and denied climate change whereas in 2008 the campaign of John McCain noted that cutting emissions was of great importance.8 Historically, the conservatives (such as the modern Republican Party) have been interested in environmental causes. Republican Theodore Roosevelt is revered for his efforts on conservation of natural beauty, establishing the United States Forest Service (USFS) and creating the 1906 American Antiquities Act.9_Other

republican presidents, such as Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant have had a lasting impact on conservation and wildlife protection as well, setting a precedent for advancing environmental and conservationist policies for future republican presidents.10 Finally, there is the precedent that President Eisenhower set when Alaska was granted statehood. In 1960, Eisenhower established the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, creating a major conservation area in the newest state of the union, specifically to protect wildlife.11 The efforts of this republican president to protect nature also set a standard for future republican president. Future presidents of the GOP could show their voters that it is not just democrats who are in favor of environmental issues and conserving natural beauty.

In the twenty first century, activism regarding climate change is on the rise. People from all ages and races take part in protests and voice their displeasure at the current state of affairs

7_{“Environment.” The Democratic National Committee,}_{https://www.democrats.org/where-we-stand/the-issues/environment/}_. 8_{Emily Holden, "Republicans Are Making Noises on Climate Action. Some Say It's Just Greenwashing" The Guardian,}

www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/02/greenwashing-house-republicans-climate-legislation. 9_{“Theodore Roosevelt and Conservation.” National Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,}

www.nps.gov/thro/learn/historyculture/theodore-roosevelt-and-conservation.htm

10_{“8 Presidents Who Shaped America's Public Lands.” U.S. Department of the Interior,}

www.doi.gov/blog/8-presidents-who-shaped-americas-public-lands.

(7)

7

surrounding this issue.12_{In the United States, awareness is on the rise too. Americans worry}

about how climate change could affect their own lives and the lives of their children, and what can be done to limit the negative consequences.13 Americans, like other citizens of the globe, are becoming aware of this planet's fragile environment, and that humanity has a responsibility to protect the planet we live on. This movement is called environmentalism. This movement had a beginning.

When did the movement for environmentalism start in the United States? This was in the 1960s. During this decade the American people demanded better protections for the environment. Natural disasters, coupled by increasing levels of pollution in cities caused the American environmentalist movement to form. It became a major grassroots movement and the topic of environmental action received political attention at every level of government.

The academic debate around the topic of environmental action in the United States revolves around a small number of major developments in the twentieth century. On the one hand it focuses on events such as the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, which caught fire several times between 1952 and 1969. Another important influence was biologist Rachel Carson, who showed to the American people that chemicals and industrial waste remain in our environment and became part of our consumption via the natural food chain. And finally, President Nixon became involved with the environmental cause with the St. Barbara oil spill incident. These events, coupled with a major grassroots initiative that created the Earth Day protest march in 1970 led to the eventual creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in December of 1970. Nixon’s decision to get involved and create an agency that is devoted to this cause is

12_{Matthew Taylor, and Jonathan Watts. “Climate Crisis: 6 Million People Join Latest Wave of Global Protests.” The} Guardian, 27 Sept. 2019, www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/27/climate-crisis-6-million-people-join-latest-wave-of-worldwide-protests.

13_{Oliver Milman, “'Americans Are Waking up': Two Thirds Say Climate Crisis Must Be Addressed.” The Guardian, 15} Sept. 2019, www.theguardian.com/science/2019/sep/15/americans-climate-change-crisis-cbs-poll.

(8)

8

remarkable. The stark contrast between his conservative political agenda and his seemingly progressive domestic policy on environmentalism are worthy of investigation.

My aim is to find out why President Nixon adopted an environmentalist position in the early 1970s. My research question will be to find out why President Nixon created the EPA by executive order in 1970 as a Republican President. To answer this, I will need to investigate why the president took this action without coordinating with Congress. Was the adoption of the EPA in any way negotiated between the White House and Congress? Was the majority party, the Democrats in the House and the Senate, involved and did these two branches of government make a deal together in order to get other legislation to move forward? In other words, was there a quid pro quo that was executed here between a Republican president and a Democratic Congress, and if so, what was the quid part of that equation? Or was Richard Nixon on a personal or political level someone who had ecological and environmental principles? Or did Nixon have another motive when he moved to create the EPA by executive order? By answering the questions about Nixon’s motivation, the answer to the main research question will become clear. Richard Nixon’s motivations and ideology can best be described as complex. Some have labeled him liberal, others moderate or conservative. For each avenue some evidence can be found, but none can be seen as conclusive.14

Nixon’s political decisions are related to his motivations, which are mostly tied to him looking out for his own political interest, meaning getting reelected. This meant he needed votes in the next presidential election. Reelection was his main goal. And due to the environmental problems across the nation, Nixon perceived that getting on board with environmentalism might lead to undecided voters voting for him in the next election, rather than the Democratic nominee. That leads me to my hypothesis, which is that Nixon created the

14_{Ken Hughes, Richard Nixon: Impact And Legacy, Miller Center, 2020,}

(9)

9

EPA as a cunning political move to thwart any Democratic presidential nominee that would want to use this issue for their own political benefit.

In his 1970 State of the Union address President Nixon said that the United States "should make peace with nature and make reparations for the damage we have done to our air, to our land, and to our water."15 The president clearly mentions here that the United States government cannot sit idly by anymore and must act in order to reduce pollution and create a healthy living environment. During his campaign for president he did not mention the environment as an issue at all, and the Republican Party platform also does not view this issue as a priority. Better still, the Republican platform was more focused on strengthening the forces of freedom and promoting American values, foreign and domestic, along with their economic system of free market capitalism.16 Nixon and the Republican Party were domestically focused on values, law and order and free market economy where government interference ought to be kept as low as possible. The market would sort itself out, even on issues such as pollution. But Nixon and his administration embraced policies that would benefit the environment and combat pollution. A new governmental agency would be tasked with the creation of rules and regulations and would be charged with enforcing them if companies or people were to break their rules.

In order to find out why Nixon made this temporary ideological shift, I will first investigate which events caused the President of the United States and leader of the Republican party to change his perspective on this topic. There have been many small and local disasters and cases of environmental damage that caused major problems for public health. Federal

15_{“January 22, 1970: State of the Union Address.” Miller Center, 3 May 2017,}

www.millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/january-22-1970-state-union-address.

16_{“Republican Party Platform of 1960.” The American Presidency Project, 25 July 1960,}

(10)

10

action could no longer be delayed when Carson caused a major stir among the public, and when major disasters sparked national outrage in the media and drove citizens to demand action.

Initially, the major political parties at first did not believe that pollution and disaster-prevention were nationwide issues. These were local and state political topics and should not be dealt with on a federal level. This changed in the late 1960s, when major disasters were no longer regional, but covered many states and thus became a federal issue. The newly elected president, Richard Nixon, had no other choice but to adopt some environmentally friendly policies, if not for ideological but more for political reasons. It will become clear that the president was not an environmentalist by nature, but that he was going to face political repercussions in the next presidential election if he did not act on this issue. Research will show that the president was more concerned with the impact environmental policies would have on the economy, but he was aware that pollution was a problem that had to be dealt with. Further investigation into this topic will show that the best political move to make, especially when reelection was one of his main goals, was to act preemptively and without congressional negotiation in order to show the American people that the president and his administration are dealing with the issue of pollution to the best of their abilities. The EPA was created by executive order, because President Nixon wanted the American people to see that he was the person addressing this issue, rather than a Democratic presidential challenger. But after his reelection in 1972, the president was no longer motivated to broaden the case for environmentally friendly policies, and instead he would even take action to weaken the powers of the EPA.

The historiographical context comes from several sources. I shall focus on publications by academic historians and other scholarly works, who have laid the foundation for this historical debate. How can we describe the historiography of the Nixon administration and the creation of the EPA in the United States? Let us first look at academic historians. The book

(11)

11

that comes closest to my topic of research is the book Nixon and the Environment by J. Brooks Flippen, associate professor of history at Southeastern Oklahoma State University. Professor Flippen takes an extensive look into the life of Nixon, especially his environmental actions and policies.17 Flippen claims Nixon only adopted these views and created policies in this area because of opportunism. According to Flippen, Nixon noticed that this movement had political momentum and he acted upon it for political gain. But Flippen creates an image that Nixon was an environmental leader in his early years, who decided that this issue was no longer worth pursuing after he noticed no political gains.18

Other historical scholarly work regarding Nixon’s environmental policies target two specific aspects of his time in office. The first is focused on who ought to be credited for the environmental policies that were passed. The second aspect of research focuses on Nixon’s authenticity, which historians also have investigated. Was he truly engaged with the environment or the politics surrounding this topic? On the one hand, Nixon is given praise for advancing environmental issues during his first term by Charles S. Warren, a former regional administrator of the EPA and environmental lawyer.19 On the other hand, Michael Genovese, an associate professor of political science at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, concluded that Nixon was a right-wing and pro-industry politician and not the president but rather Congress is to be credited for environmental leadership, for passing legislation in the 1970s.20 Next we find the research of Michael Kraft, a professor of political science and public affairs and environmental studies at the University of Wisconsin. He comes to the conclusion certain policy entrepreneurs on Capitol Hill were the ones who were responsible for

17_{J B. Flippen, Nixon and the environment. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2012.} 18_{Flippen, Nixon and the environment. 2012. p. 235.}

19_{Charles S. Warren, The Nixon Environmental Record: A Mixed Picture, in “Richard M. Nixon, Politician, President,} Administrator," ed. Leon Friedman and William Levantrosser, Westport, CT, 1990.

(12)

12

environmental progress in this time period.21_{And finally we find Jacqueline Vaughn, a}

professor of political science at Northern Arizona University, who states that Nixon opposed environmental action at first but was later forced to take a stand on environmentalism because of mounting public pressure. Vaughn states that Nixon instructed his staff that environmental policies needed to be in place sooner rather than later.22

So how did the modern American environmental movement of the twentieth century take off? Let’s first look at earlier historical moments where academics, journalists or average Americans were interested and involved with environmental issues. An early form of environmentalism was the Conservation Movement in the 19th century. It was a reform movement in America that developed during the Progressive Era, 1890 - 1920. The objective of the Conservation Movement was to preserve natural beauty in America and limit waste. The Conservation Movement supported the founding of state and national parks and wildlife preservation and was a lobbying group whose purpose was to convince politicians. During the Progressive Era, Republican President Theodore Roosevelt played a key role in the Conservation Movement. Preservation and conservation were a foundation of his domestic policy during his administration.23

During the Progressive Era in the United States, one of the most well-known actors of the Conservation Movement was the Sierra Club. Founded by John Muir in 1892, the Sierra Club has been an active participant on the political stage to advance the cause of natural protection. But there were more movements who contributed to conservation or environmentalism, such as The Audubon Society. This group had influence at the federal level, but they were not able to set guidelines, create rules and regulations and enforce them.

21_{Michael E. Kraft, Environmental Policy and Politics, New York, 1996.}

22_{Jacqueline Vaughn, Environmental Politics: Domestic and Global Dimensions, New York: 1994.}

23_{Curt Meine, “Roosevelt, Conservation, and the Revival of Democracy.” Conservation Biology, vol. 15, no. 4, 2001, pp.} 829–831. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3061302. pp. 830.

(13)

13

To get an understanding of the environmental movement of the twentieth century, we need to look at economic, social and political changes that have occurred after World War II, especially during the 50s and 60s. It is important to investigate how a drastic change regarding environmental protection was created in the 1960s and 1970s, not via lobbying through various NGOs, such as the Sierra Club, but by a Republican president. Environmental activists and conservationists in the post-war twentieth century demanded that the government would act to keep the environment safe from industrial waste and pollution. They were protesting not just for humans, but for all living creatures. This later evolved into the environmentalist movement we see in the twenty-first century where the focus shifts to encompass the fight against global climate change and its effects on life on earth.

There are plenty of Nixon biographies that deal with the personal and political life of President Nixon. Some of them are massive, such as Conrad Black’s Richard M. Nixon: A Life

in Full. Out of the 1100+ pages the author only devotes a very small section to his

environmental record, mentioning the EPA only 4 times.24 Although we get a good overview of his life, the environmental aspect of his presidency seems underwhelming.

Next is Richard Nixon and His America (1990) by historian Herbert Parmet. This biography focuses on Nixon’s rise in politics but leaves so much out with regards to his downfall, so it feels incomplete.25_{There’s also hardly a mention of his environmental actions}

or achievements, once again. Another, more recent biography comes from Rick Perlstein, published in 2008, it’s called Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of

America. According to the author the EPA was founded by Nixon, because he wanted to

undercut governmental power.26 This is hardly a believable perspective in my opinion. In

24_{Conrad Black, Richard M. Nixon: a life in full. New York, 2008. pp. 681, 684, 891, 951.} 25_{Herbert S Parmet, Richard Nixon and his America. Boston, 1990.}

(14)

14

Nixonland, Perlstein describes that the years of the Nixon administration have completely

reshaped the landscape of American politics, with his political strategy of being the Law and

Order candidate and the Silent Majority tactic. But when Nixon was in office, Nixon chose to

adopt some progressive policies, such as a national health policy and the EPA. According to Perlstein, Nixon did this because he wanted to stay in control of the government power, and have other political entities deal with this problem. This is a hard to believe statement, because research and historical facts do not align with this perspective. Other authors, historians and biographical authors, who have documented Nixon’s personal and his political life have not come to this conclusion.

What these books have in common though is that they all sparingly mention Nixon’s environmental record. Even if it is mentioned, there is hardly anything that will give you a complete overview of his achievements. The same goes for President Nixon: Alone in the White

House by Richard Reeves. He mentions the EPA only once.27_{Finally, there is a three-part}

biography series by Stephen E. Ambrose. Nixon, Vol. 2: The Triumph of a Politician,

1962-1972 is the most relevant volume, because it is about Nixon’s rise as a politician and his first

term in office.28 And once again, there is no section devoted to his environmental policies or achievement. There are fleeting mentions of this part of his political life.

The only book that takes a deeper dive into Nixon’s environmental record is J.B. Flippen’s book Nixon and the Environment.29_{Flippen appears overpowered by the extent of}

the subject. The reader gets a broken composition of different ecological issues. The book is chronologically ordered, rather than by theme, which would make more sense. The author regularly diverges to different topics, such as the Vietnam War and Watergate. He finds it

27_{Richard Reeves, President Nixon: alone in the White House. New York, 2001. pp. 328} 28_{Stephen E. Ambrose, Nixon, Vol. 2: The Triumph of a Politician, 1962-1972. New York, 1987.} 29_{J. Brooks Flippen, Nixon and the Environment. University Of New Mexico Press, 2012.}

(15)

15

difficult to isolate the environmental issue. Flippen suggests Nixon's environmentalism was political and that Nixon worked the immense public support enjoyed by the environmental movement during the late 1960s and early 1970s just for political motives. Yet Flippen does not give many details as to what these political motives are. The research appears to be incomplete.

My research and findings will fill the gap that has been left by other authors, such as historians, journalists, and biographers who do not show clearly enough what Nixon’s motivation was for creating the EPA and how this action played a role in the political landscape of this time in history. Nixon was a Republican, but he got some very liberal and progressive policies enacted during his time in office. Looking at this face value, it does not seem to be logical for a Republican president to push for progressive policies, such as an agency to protect the environment. But Nixon did exactly that. His motives as to why he did this takes center stage in this thesis.

This thesis will be divided into three parts. Part 1 is about environmental damage and the shifting public opinion that caused the environmental movement to come about in the United States in the 1960s. Awareness about pollution and damage to the environment is rising, but there is hardly any political will at the federal level to do something about it. Part 2 is about Nixon’s relationship with the environment. How involved he was, what drove him personally and politically. Finally, part 3 is about the realization of the EPA and why President Nixon decided to create the agency by executive order, rather than through Congress. Together they will answer the question why Nixon decided to create the EPA via executive order.

(16)

16 Chapter 1

The Environmental Movement Awakens

Introduction

The EPA was founded in 1970. A plethora of reasons, big and small, ultimately led to a decision by President Nixon to create this government agency. In order to find out why the president made this decision; we need some historical context. Since World War II, right up to 1970, environmental damage and pollution was starting to become visible to the people of the United States. The events of pollution and environmental damage resulted in the environmental movement to form among the people of the United States in the 1960s. How did this happen, and which events and instances caused the public opinion to change is what will be investigated. Furthermore, we will see that these events did not cause a shift in focus from the political establishment at the federal level.

1.1 Economic Prosperity, Pollution and Public Opinion

When Germany and Japan surrendered in 1945, it was clear that World War II had come to an end. War-torn Europe and Asia had to rebuild their economies and societies, but the United States was not affected in such a devastating matter. Even though the Great Depression was a major economic downturn before the war, the United States after World War II had emerged as the world’s economic superpower and would retain that position for decades. Prosperity was the gospel for the American people, and it shows in the economic figures of the postwar years. The pursuit of economic growth is directly related to the national greatness of the United

(17)

17

States.30_{More and more Americans became part of the middle class with increased economic}

spending power. After the war the idea of free market capitalism, coupled with the quintessential “The American Dream” shaped the American economic identity for the remainder of the century.

And yet, economic progress in the form of increased production by burning fossil fuels to drive machines does not come without consequence. These consequences can be found in the social realm, where we see the need for worker’s rights as a result, as well as the environmental question. This last effect is what this thesis will focus on. At the start of the Industrial Revolution, no one cared about the adverse effects of industrialization, either social or environmental. As soon as coal and other fossil fuels became the main sources for energy and production, it would leave a mark on the environment, whether that be local, regional, national, or global.

Industrial development increased economic wellbeing, boosted the economy and created many jobs after the wars. There were many factors that contributed to this growth. But what truly sparked economic prosperity after the war was the demand by the American consumer for cars, as well as a high demand for consumer electronics, air travel, and housing.31 The demand of consumers coupled with increased spending power resulted in prosperity for those who were able to benefit from favorable economic conditions. However, not everyone had the advantage of being lifted by this rising tide. And it’s not just people, who don’t always reap the benefits. After the war economic growth had many advantages to many people, but there were some downsides to this industrial and economic boom.

30_{Andrew L Yarrow, Measuring America: How Economic Growth Came to Define American Greatness in the Late} Twentieth Century. University of Massachusetts Press, 2010. pp. 2.

31_{Michael Moffatt, U.S. Department of State. “The Cause Behind the Post-War Economic Housing Boom After WWII.”} ThoughtCo, 29 May 2019, www.thoughtco.com/the-post-war-us-economy-1945-to-1960-1148153.

(18)

18

Unmitigated economic and industrial growth can have negative effects on our environment, local, regional and global. Man-made industrial disasters show the general public the consequences of our industrialized world. A good example of this is the phenomenon known as smog. This black and yellow fog is caused by pollutants in the air which mixes with ultra-fine particles and ground-level ozone.32 Major cities like Los Angeles and New York have had serious smog periods, caused by the location of the city, car culture and industrialization.33

Downtown Los Angeles filled with smog, 1968.34

32_{Rinkesh Kukreja, “Causes and Effects of Smog on Our Environment.” Conserve Energy Future, 13 Apr. 2019,}

www.conserve-energy-future.com/smogpollution.php.

33_{Tony Barboza, “Must Reads: The War on Southern California Smog Is Slipping. Fixing It Is a $14-Billion Problem.” LA} Times, 1 July 2019, www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-smog-southern-california-20190701-story.html.

34_{Emily Guerin, “Take A Deep Breath And Read About How Bad LA Smog Really Is.” LAist,}

(19)

19

The downside to industrialization is the harmful impact it has on the environment. Come the 1960s, more attention was given to the impact of industrialization and its environmental effects. This happened due to several small and a few big incidents of pollution that caused significant damage to the environment.

A dramatic and disastrous incident that drove public opinion happened in Cleveland, Ohio. The Cuyahoga river is a body of water that flows through the state of Ohio. Many industrial companies have used this river to dump their toxic chemicals and waste. The river became heavily polluted between 1945 and 1970. The river was so polluted that it literally caught fire, not once but multiple times. In 1952, journalists and residents photographed the incident, but it did not receive much attention. That changed in 1969. In this year, Time magazine published an article about the Cuyahoga river that had caught fire once again. To give the article extra power, the magazine used images from 1952, in order to spark public interest.35_{This event is significant because public outrage followed this ecological disaster.}

Before this event, cities and the country in general didn’t pay too much attention to the pollution of their environment. Data shows that the general public’s perspective regarding pollution was that this is an effect of industrialization and development of the city, to which the citizens of Cleveland were supportive.36 Historians paint this event as one of the important moments that brought about environmental action. Rebekkah Rubin, a public historian in Canton, Ohio has collected oral histories of this time, and posted her interviews online.37 In her interviews the historian asks locals what the fire has meant for the city and the region and if the city’s

35_{Jennifer Latson, “Environmentalism History: The Importance of Cleveland's Cuyahoga River.” Time, Time Magazine, 22} June 2015, www.time.com/3921976/cuyahoga-fire/.

36_{Lorraine Boissoneault, “The Cuyahoga River Caught Fire at Least a Dozen Times, but No One Cared Until 1969.”} Smithsonian Magazine, 19 June 2019, www.smithsonianmag.com/history/cuyahoga-river-caught-fire-least-dozen-times-no-one-cared-until-1969-180972444/.

37_{Rebekkah Rubin, “Oral Histories of the 1969 Cuyahoga River Fire.” Belt Magazine, 2 July 2019,}

(20)

20

reputation has improved since then. The Cuyahoga River fire brought Clevelanders together around issues of public health and helped to shape a sense of cultural identity. The proud people of Cleveland came to defend their city, not in spite of its track record of environmental disasters, but because of it. This disaster created a shared identity because people had to work together to improve public health.38 The Time magazine piece about the incident was a major driving force in raising awareness and showing the American public that pollution was running rampant, and the Cuyahoga River became the ‘shining’ example of how industry and consumption were polluting many areas of the United States.39

1.2 Silent Spring Spurs the Environmental Debate

There was a time in the United States, when environmental issues and human health matters were not a priority for industrial multinational corporations and the federal government. The chemical and agricultural industries were producing and using pesticides at increasing rates without anyone telling them that this might not be a great idea. That was until Rachel Carson wrote a book about the use of chemicals and pesticides and how this had a major impact on nature, and indirectly humanity in its entirety. In her book, Silent Spring, she states that the most alarming of all man's assaults upon the environment is the contamination of air, earth, rivers, and sea with dangerous and even lethal materials.40 Furthermore, the pollution we put into our environment is irrevocable and irreversible. The commercial, industrial, and civilian use of chemicals and pesticides (such as DDT) are the main focus of her book. She makes the case that these chemicals don’t just evaporate and dissolve, but instead they are absorbed by

38_{Rubin, “Oral Histories…," Belt Magazine.}_{http://www.beltmag.com/cuyahoga-river-fire-1969/}

39_{Lorraine Boissoneault, “The Cuyahoga River Caught Fire at Least a Dozen Times, but No One Cared Until 1969.”} Smithsonian.com, 19 June 2019, www.smithsonianmag.com/history/cuyahoga-river-caught-fire-least-dozen-times-no-one-cared-until-1969-180972444/.

(21)

21

water, earth and air and so they will eventually be a part of our food chain. The massive use of chemicals used in the industrialized agricultural sector poison animals and plants, and thus disrupt the delicate balance that exists in nature.41 The extreme use of these products has led her to make the statement that for the first time in the history of the world, every human being is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the moment of conception until death.42

The book aims to show the reader that action must be taken in order to make sure we don’t overuse chemicals and pesticides in the future. She states that she is not an opponent of a complete ban on the use of these materials, but that there ought to be checks and controls regarding the production and the use of these materials. Furthermore, she wants to inform the reader about her scientific research and conclusions, and she urges the public to take action. She states “Why should we tolerate a diet of weak poisons, a home in insipid surroundings, a circle of acquaintances who are not quite our enemies, the noise of motors with just enough relief to prevent insanity? Who would want to live in a world which is just not quite fatal?”43

The threat was real for a large part of the United States and other parts of the world, she writes. Carson doesn’t diminish the impact this has on the geopolitical theater, but her argument is that for the average human being in the developed world, there is a threat closer to home that has more impact on the lives of ordinary people. Carson describes this as man’s assaults upon the environment, where contamination of air, earth, rivers, and sea with dangerous and lethal materials leads to universal contamination, the very nature of life.44 Carson then concludes that we can only hope to achieve a reasonable accommodation between the insect hordes and

41_{Max Roser and Hannah Ritchie. “Fertilizers.” Our World in Data, 26 Oct. 2013,}_{www.ourworldindata.org/fertilizers}_. 42_{Carson, Silent Spring. pp. 31.}

43_{Carson, Silent Spring, pp. 28.} 44_{Ibidem, pp. 23.}

(22)

22

ourselves if we take into account the forces or our destructive powers.45_{She even gives a}

warning for the future: “We stand now where two roads diverge. But unlike the roads in Robert Frost's familiar poem, they are not equally fair. The road we have long been traveling is deceptively easy, a smooth superhighway on which we progress with great speed, but at its end lies disaster. The other fork of the road — the one less traveled by — offers our last, our only chance to reach a destination that assures the preservation of the earth.”46

Journalist Linda J. Lear from the Environmental History Review, who has written a biography of Carson, shows what her impact has been regarding the debate regarding the environment. She writes that Rachel Carson was an improbable revolutionary, even an unlikely reformer, yet she challenged industrial empires, exposed a scientific establishment that cherished its elitism, and accused the government of being irresponsible.47 Carson has had a massive impact on advancing the environmental movement in the post-war twentieth century. Her book presents a perspective on our use of DDT and what it could mean to the world we live in. DDT is sprayed everywhere, from city neighborhoods to children in swimming pools.48 Originally used to stop the spread of polio and to kill mosquitoes, it became heavily used throughout many parts of the United States in the 1940s and 1950s. After Carson’s work, the United States government moved to ban the use of DDT, even if it took until 1972.49

Many historians and environmental journalists have written about Rachel Carson and her impact on environmental policies in the United States. Carson describes the effects

45_{Ibidem, pp. 256.} 46_{Ibidem, pp. 240.}

47_{Lear, Linda J. “Rachel Carson's Silent Spring.” Environmental History Review, vol. 17, no. 2, 1993, doi:10.2307/3984849,} pp. 23–48.

48_{Dianne Apen-Sadler, “Texas Children Sprayed with Dangerous Pesticide DDT in 1940s Clip.” Daily Mail Online, 6 Mar.} 2018, www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5467597/Children-sprayed-dangerous-pesticide-DDT-shocking-clip.html. 49_{“DDT Ban Takes Effect.” Environmental Protection Agency, 5 Aug. 2016,}

(23)

23

pesticides and pollutants have on our local and regional environments, and how these toxins ultimately end up in our bodies, because we are interconnected with the food chain.50 Her work has contributed massively towards the public opinion shifting from unabated industrial growth and consumerism plus economic prosperity without consequence, towards more awareness about the impact (heavy) industry was having on the (local) environment. The sixties were a decade of protests in the United States. They include the Civil Rights Movement, protests against the war in Vietnam, and protests against greed of big corporations by the working class. The environment was one of them as well. The American people demanded change for all these issues. When Silent Spring became a bestseller, it had two social consequences. First, it raised concerns for health and the use of chemicals. Second, it made the American people realize that activism was the only way to speak out and demand environmental protections from the local, state and federal government. The book has been well documented among historians and environmental journalists and continued to influence environmental activism well after her death in 1964. Carson was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1980, by President Jimmy Carter.51

Carson’s work is critical of American businesses and capitalism. Companies which produce chemical products on a large scale are only concerned with their bottom-line, and in this time-period have no concern for public health, whether the pollution can be seen or not.52

Such was the case for Carson too. Business corporations were looking to create an environmental policy which they could write and steer into any direction they wanted. It is not a big leap of faith to conclude that business and major corporations were mostly looking

50_{Carson, Silent Spring, pp. 209.}

51_{Debra Michals, “Rachel Carson.” National Women's History Museum,}

www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/rachel-carson.

52_{Tim Radford, “Silent Spring by Rachel Carson” The Guardian, 30 Sept. 2011,}

(24)

24

forward to an environmental policy which has the smallest amount of encroachment on how they operate and of course at the smallest cost possible.53 Be that as it may, the biggest take on what Carson’s book has meant for American society is that her publication had led to major growth in awareness, discussion and activism about the environment. This did not happen instantaneously, but it was one of the reasons why the environmentalist movement gained traction. Other environmental disasters helped to bring this issue to the forefront. However, Carson's book was certainly a key element of the development of the environmentalist movement. Over the next few years of the 1960s, organizations such as the Audubon Society and the Sierra Club, together with other social movements, created the political framework, language, skills and connections in order to promote their movement to the people and politicians.54 It came to fruition at the end of the decade, when more and more people became a member of environmentalist organizations. The modern environmentalist movement started as a small grassroots organization in the early sixties, became a major movement at the end of that decade. Ultimately, environmentalism was part of the national discussion in the first years of the seventies. Environmental organizations, old and new, shaped the development of dozens of policies for environmental protection at every government level.

Initiatives from the federal government towards environmentalist policies were at first almost non-existent. The only real and tangible aspects of federal policy when it comes to environmentalism in the public sphere were for preservation purposes, such as national parks, forests, and wildlife refuges. These laws and policies were mostly enacted during the Progressive Era of the late 19th and early 20th century. After World War II, not much had changed in this regard at the federal level. There were only a few laws passed that dealt with

53_{Michael E. Kraft and Sheldon Kamieniecki. Business and Environmental Policy: Corporate} Interests in the American Political System, Massachusetts, 2007. pp. 4-5.

(25)

25

environmental protection between 1945 and 1950. In 1948 Congress passed the Water Pollution Control Act, which allowed the federal government to assist local governments in building sewage treatment plants, bringing down some levels of water pollution caused by sewage. Then, in 1955, Congress formed a research committee for air pollution. But air and water pollution were still seen as a local issue.55 It was not a priority at the federal level until 1970. There were some exceptions to this local focus. First, there was the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a stretch of land in the newest state at that time, Alaska, which was designated by President Eisenhower as a federal protected area. And second, there was the Clean Air Act of 1963, that formed out of the initiative for air pollution research of 1955. The federal government checked in with the states to set some air pollution standards. The responsibility was still largely with the states, and the federal government only assisted when necessary.56 This would drastically change in 1969 and 1970, when the modern environmentalist movement would rise and it could no longer be ignored by the newly inaugurated president in 1970, Richard M. Nixon.

1.3 Conclusion

The incidents of environmental disaster such as polluted rivers and cities, have led to a shift in public opinion in the United States in the 1960s. Where before this decade industrial output and its harmful effects on nature were considered to be a normal side-effect of a growing economy, it now started to dawn on citizens that unmitigated growth and unregulated industrial production could lead to harmful and life-threatening situations. These instances of pollution and damage to the environment were at first considered to be local or state issues. Silent Spring

55_{J. Clarence Davies III and Barbara S.Davies, The Politics of Pollution, Indianapolis, 1975. pp. 103.}

56_{Evan J. Ringquist, Environmental Protection at the State Level: Politics and Progress in Controlling Pollution. New} York, 1993. pp 64.

(26)

26

was the catalyst that accelerated the environmental movement towards less pollution and a safer world. The federal government of the United States was not yet involved with policymaking or regulating industries who were responsible for causing pollution. Up until 1968 there was hardly any political will to speak of at the federal level to deal with this issue. That would change with the next president, Richard M. Nixon.

(27)

27

Chapter 2

Legislation in the 1960s and Nixon’s Involvement in Environmentalism

Introduction

After several instances of major environmental damage due to industrial negligence and apathy, a rising number of people in the United States supported the idea of change. At the start there was no real clear path, but most people had the feeling that something had to be done.57_More

and more people were increasingly unhappy about the effects of industrialization in major cities. And yet, at the start of the decade there was hardly any political will to take on this problem. A few local and some state governments had a small amount of policies or regulations in place, and some politicians were lobbying hard for environmental protection and reducing pollution, but there was yet no federal political will to speak of. However, major federal initiatives to combat environmental damage were on the horizon.

2.1 The 1960s - A Decade of Damage

The major cities of the United States are a shining beacon of what industrialization and capitalism are all about. Major urban areas developed over the course of the twentieth century and became residential, economic and industrial powerhouses. The cities became bigger, industrial output grew as more and more people demanded products and services. The effect of these factors in some major cities was that sometimes a cloud of dark yellow fog started to

57_{Boissoneault, Lorraine. “The Cuyahoga River Caught Fire at Least a Dozen Times, but No One Cared Until 1969.”} Smithsonian.com, Smithsonian Institution, 19 June 2019, www.smithsonianmag.com/history/cuyahoga-river-caught-fire-least-dozen-times-no-one-cared-until-1969-180972444/.

(28)

28

engulf these places. Major cities were on the rise, and so was the inevitable side-effect, environmental damage.

New York City suffered from air pollution we now call smog, a dark yellowish fog of polluted air that hung over the city and made breathing much harder for those suffering from respiratory diseases. In the 1960s, New York citizens and air quality researchers did not really know what to call this type of pollution yet, but that did not stop them from giving it a name. First the term “smaze” was tried, a combination of the words smoke and haze, but it would soon be replaced by the much more ominous sounding smog.58_{New York City was not the}

only place to suffer from environmental damage due to continued industrialization. Many urban and rural areas in the United States were witnessing worsening conditions in their regions. Up until the 1960s there was very limited or complete lack of any sort of government or environmental oversight agency that could implement regulations or enforce them. The effect of this combination of unmitigated industrial growth and limited government oversight led to many instances of environmental damage, some due to industrial negligence while others were caused by unexpected disasters. Power plants in New York were fueled by coal and oil, waterways were flooded with untreated sewage and major corporations like General Electric and General Motors leaked chemicals into the Hudson river.

What New York City looked like in the mid-1960s is perfectly described by an eye-witness account from environmental lawyer Mr. Butzel, who said: “I not only saw the pollution, I wiped it off my windowsills. You’d look at the horizon and it would be yellowish. It was business as normal.”59_{This was not the first time New York had to suffer through the}

58_{Kirk Johnson, “You Should Have Seen the Air in '53” The New York Times, 29 Sept. 2002,}

www.nytimes.com/2002/09/29/nyregion/you-should-have-seen-air-53-after-sept-11-considering-history-s-lessons.html . 59_{Jim Dwyer, "Remembering a City Where the Smog Could Kill," The New York Times, 1 Mar. 2017,}

(29)

29

consequences of smog. In 1953, the city suffered from a smog crisis, where around 200 people died due to air pollution.60 Awareness about the living conditions of the citizens of New York, especially regarding the environment, was starting to rise among the people living in the metropolitan area. But New York City was not the only area where environmental damage caused harm to citizens.

The same sort of situation was occurring in Los Angeles. The air around the city and beaches had become a hazy fog that left many eyes in tears. It was unclear what this was or how it came to the city. Some suggested it could be an irregularity of the weather.61_Whatever

it was, it contaminated the air of the city so much that many people were finding it hard to breathe. It was only then that a correlation was made between the number of cars that were in Los Angeles. During the 1940s the amount of personal motor vehicles in L.A. had doubled in a few years to two million. Air quality researchers were just starting to comprehend the effect of industrial growth to the air, and the fog was at first believed to be caused by chemicals. In 1948 a Caltech scientist named Arie Haagen-Smit attributed the weather phenomenon to the exhaust emissions from motor vehicles.62 From this point on, even though his research was questioned by oil-business backed scientists, a new way of looking at the quality of the air was slowly coming to the city of Los Angeles and the state of California. The changes were not implemented overnight. It took years for the local and state government to vote on and implement regulations to curb the amount of emissions from cars in order to reduce smog

60_{Caroline Hallemann, “In Honor of Earth Day, Let's Remember When New York Was Covered in a Deadly Smog.” Town} & Country, 11 Apr. 2018, www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics/a9209960/new-york-city-smog-pollution/. 61_{Fred E. Littman & P. L. Magill, “Some Unique Aspects of Air Pollution in}

Los Angeles," Air Repair, 29-34, DOI: 10.1080/00966665.1953.10467586, pp. 29.

62_{Alfred E Clark, “Arie Haagen‐Smit, 78, a Pollution Foe, Dies”. The New York Times, 19 Mar. 1977,}

(30)

30

levels. It was not until 1966 that California was the first state to introduce car emission standards.63

2.2 United States Environmental Legislation Before Nixon 1955-1968

The establishment of the EPA in 1970 by President Richard Nixon was the culmination of a series of environmental initiatives into one single government body that would oversee environmental protection. Yet, there were many laws at the local and state level that ensured some protection of certain parts of living spaces of the American people well before the EPA came into being. There is even legislation that existed for almost a century before the EPA was established.

The first instances of legislation that were passed to improve the health of the American people and their environment were not necessarily laws that came out of Washington. The environmental laws that were passed came mostly out of municipalities, counties, or states. For instance, there is the 1881 City Smoke Ordinances out of Cincinnati and Chicago. These ordinances were enacted by these cities to combat the environmental damage that was caused by burning coal.64_{These cities were forced to get this done by themselves, because there was}

no law from the federal or state level that they could act upon. Of course, it was more of a local and especially urban issue, so federal legislation was not a necessity at this point in time. That is why the first environmental laws came out of the places where it was needed most, the dirty industrial cities of the United States. The states weren’t asleep at the wheel and noticed that issues like polluted air were of concern and needed attention. In 1947 for example, many urban

63_{"The History Of The California Environmental Protection Agency." Sacramento, California. 2020.}

https://calepa.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2016/10/About-History01-Report.pdf.

64_{David Stradling and Peter Thorsheim. “The Smoke of Great Cities: British and American Efforts to Control Air Pollution,} 1860-1914.” Environmental History, vol. 4, no. 1, 1999, pp. 6–31. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3985326. pp. 6.

(31)

31

areas of California were engulfed in a new weather phenomenon called smog. The state moved to adopt the Air Pollution Control Act, which allowed the state to form air pollution control districts which could monitor the air quality for each district. It quickly became clear that California had to monitor all districts. The Advisory Council in California was charged with giving advice to the State board on issues like policy advice and technical implementations of policies.65_{So where first the major urban areas acted to improve the quality of the surrounding}

areas of the city, the states soon followed and started to enact environmental laws statewide.

Pollution and environmental damage do not stop at the state border. It became clear that illegal dumping in rivers and dirty or contaminated air was an issue that could only be solved by federal laws which can be enforced across state lines. The first major pieces of federal legislation that were meant to improve the environment was the Air Pollution Control Act of 1955 and the Resources & Conservation Act of 1959. The latter was introduced by Senator Murray and it would have established an environmental counsel for the president and required an annual environmental report for review. This seemed like a good idea, yet it did not gain much traction with the general public. So federal environmental legislation was starting to get some traction, but it was a long way from being a true powerhouse in American politics or law enforcement.

The next major piece of legislation was a piece of federal legislation called the Clean Air Act of 1963. This piece of federal legislation allowed the United States government to commit taxpayer money towards studying air pollution. The Clean Air Act was by no means comprehensive, but it was a start to tackle this problem. The main issue with this piece of legislation was that it relied on the individual states to take primary responsibility for regulating air pollution and to report it to a federal committee. But nearly all states failed to address this

65_{“History of the Air District.” Bay Area Air Quality Management District,}

(32)

32

problem with the urgency it deserves and so the deadly smog-filled cities were not yet a thing of the past. The main objective of the Clean Air Act of 1963 was for it to lead to data-collection and analysis regarding air pollution of the environment. The act was not perfect and needed to be amended, which happened in 1970 under President Nixon. After the Clean Air Act of 1963, the Air Quality Act of 1967 was passed.66 This Act stated that individual states are required to set standards for air quality and enforce them. If they do not act, federal action is permitted. However, the laws were confusing, and it was still not as effective and comprehensive.

2.3 Senator Muskie (D-Maine) and the Environment

Certain members of government, even at the federal level, were aware of environmental issues that needed to be addressed. Senator Edmund Muskie (D-Maine) was one of them. Before Senator Muskie national environmental policy did not exist. By the time he retired from the United States Senate in 1980, an America without environmental protections was unthinkable, and Muskie was known as "Mr. Clean".67 This change in the environmental political landscape was not possible without a politician like Muskie.

At the time of the New York smog disaster Muskie was the chairman of the Senate Committee for Public Works, which had a subcommittee for Air and Water Pollution, established in 1963. In 1966, two short documentaries were made about this issue, both commissioned by the subcommittee of Senator Muskie. The documentaries are studies on air and water pollution in the United States.

66_{“The Air Quality Act of 1967.” Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, vol. 18, no. 2, 1968, pp. 62–71.,} doi:10.1080/00022470.1968.10469096.

(33)

33

To see what the people were aware of and how air pollution affected their lives, ordinary New Yorkers were interviewed. One lady said: "My only complaint is the air! It's so dirty. I have to wash my children's clothes so many times a day. They never seem clean".68 Senator Muskie was at this point already aware of environmental damage caused by industrialization and the lack of regulation. One of his first moments of raising concern about pollution was in 1954, when he ran a political campaign in Maine. He quickly became governor of the state. During his second term as governor of Maine, from 1957 to 1958, he fought for the protection of natural resources and environmental protections. Muskie stressed the economic importance of Maine's environment. He was completely convinced that a clean environment and as little pollution as possible would lead to economic growth as well.69 Muskie was elected to the United States Senate in 1958 and there he had to table his ideology regarding pollution and the protection of the environment for several years.70

Also, his committee was responsible, among other initiatives, for creating emissions standards for motor vehicles in 1965. Muskie knew that this problem was not just a health issue, but this could have serious political consequences too. Or it could be perceived that this was an opportunity to not just score political points, but to show the American people that caring for the environment was a core value of the Democratic party. As a native of the state of Maine, Muskie had first-hand knowledge of what pollution could do to the region. The air from nearby paper mill smokestacks and the river that ran through his state were heavily polluted.71 Senator Muskie would take the lead in drafting and approving environmental

68_{Hallemann, “In honor of Earth Day”.}

69_{Robert F. Blomquist, Senator Edmund S. Muskie and the Dawn of Modern American Environmental Law: First Term,} 1959-1964. William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, 2002. pp. 505.

70_{Blomquist, Senator Edmund S. Muskie, 2002. pp. 512.}

71_{James Witherell, "Ed Muskie: Made-in-Maine 192–93" Interview by Henry Srigo}

(34)

34

protection legislation in Congress. But it was President Nixon who would challenge a political rival such as Senator Muskie on environmental protection legislation. Nixon viewed Muskie as a formidable candidate with the electoral power to potentially unseat him at the next election.72 Other Democratic Senators, such as Henry Jackson (D-Washington), were also taking on the environment as a potential weapon against the incumbent president, but Senator Muskie was the one who was best known for his stance on the environment.

2.4 Environmental Awareness of Richard Nixon

In 1969 a major ecological disaster happened in the home-state of President Nixon, California. In St. Barbara, on January 28, 1969, a few miles off the coast, an oil rig started to leak thousands of gallons of crude oil into the sea. Like most catastrophes, there was not one point of failure but many small ones that caused a major disaster. The company that owned the oil drilling platform was allowed to cut corners with the protective casing around the drilling hole, which only worsened the disaster.73 It was estimated that 1000 gallons per hour were flowing out of the well for a month before mitigation efforts could be effective. Disasters, such as these, spark participation by the local community. The St. Barbara oil spill caused so much damage that people of all age groups and political persuasions felt compelled to help in every way they could. They did in various ways, and through this the local population became aware of how much damage oil spills like these can cause. It was not just the local population that became aware of how bad this was for the environment. A St. Barbara news editor summed it up well: “Never in my long lifetime have I ever seen such an aroused populace at the grassroots level.

72_{Cummins, Joseph, et al. “This Is the Dirtiest Presidential Race Since '72.” Politico Magazine, 17 Feb. 2016,}

www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/2016-elections-nastiest-presidential-election-since-1972-213644.

73_{Max Ufberg & Kate Wheeling, “'The Ocean Is Boiling': The Complete Oral History of the 1969 Santa Barbara Oil Spill.”} Pacific Standard, 18 Apr. 2017, www.psmag.com/news/the-ocean-is-boiling-the-complete-oral-history-of-the-1969-santa-barbara-oil-spill.

(35)

35

This oil pollution has done something I have never seen before in Santa Barbara – it has united citizens of all political persuasions in a truly nonpartisan cause.”74_{This event took place in the}

early months of 1969. President Nixon had only been in office for several days when the oil spill started. At first, he ordered the spill to be investigated by a team of scientists and engineers. In March 1969, the president himself visited the affected area to examine the situation.

President Richard Nixon, surrounded by press, visits Ledbetter Park in Santa Barbara, California following the catastrophic oil spill. March 1969.75

Nixon noticed this oil spill was a major cause for concern for many Americans. People railed against oil companies, the lack of adequate regulations and protections and the indifference by oil executives. The outrage following the spill generated attention for

74_{Loomis, Erik. Out of Sight: the Long and Disturbing Story of Corporations Outsourcing Catastrophe. New York, 2015.} pp. 31.

75_{National Archives and Records Administration, Collection RN-WHPO:}

White House Photo Office Collection (Nixon Administration), 1/20/1969 - 8/9/1974, Series: Nixon White House Photographs, 1/20/1969 - 8/9/1974, Item:

President Richard Nixon Visiting Ledbetter Park in Santa Barbara, California following a Catastrophic Oil Spill, 3/21/1969,

(36)

36

environmental grassroots action and it catalyzed support for new laws and regulations. This event sparked outrage among so many Americans, Nixon could not just let this pass without getting personally involved. He was personally involved, as president and as a Californian. So, he did. He went to the affected area and commented on the damage by saying “It is sad that it was necessary that Santa Barbara should be the example that had to bring it to the attention of the American people. What is involved is the use of our resources of the sea and of the land in a more effective way and with more concern for preserving the beauty and the natural resources that are so important to any kind of society that we want for the future. The Santa Barbara incident has frankly touched the conscience of the American people.”76

Nixon knew he had to show up and show concern and tell the American people that he was paying more attention to environmental concerns, such as pollution and industrial waste. He would not just sit by and tell the American people how bad this was. Indeed, he stepped up and motioned for change. Kathryn Phillips, director of Sierra Club California told reporters: “What the oil spill did was show a very compelling picture of why we need these protections.”

For President Nixon, it was his first real encounter with a devastating ecological disaster, which would shape his environmental and political perspective on the environmental issue. However, it was not an ideological shift that would push him to embrace an environmentalist way of thinking. Nixon viewed the issue of the environment more as a crisis. And a crisis like this means that the president ought to step up, demand action and work towards change.

76_{Jim Byron, “RN's Response to the Santa Barbara Oil Spill" Richard Nixon Foundation, 19 Dec. 2019,}

(37)

37

Nixon was not an environmentalist by nature. He was not raised to be someone who ought to be aware of the environmental impact mankind has on its surroundings.77 Nixon hardly said anything about the environment or protecting it during the presidential election campaign of 1968. Combined, it is not a huge leap to establish that Nixon was not an environmentalist by heart.

After the election, Nixon appointed John Erhlichman to be assistant to the president for Domestic Affairs. Ehrlichman was an important influence on Nixon's domestic policy agenda. He coached and educated the president on various issues, including environmental initiatives. He said in an interview with the Center of the American West that Richard Nixon was pretty much what you would call a traditional Republican. He wasn't eager to start out with his constituency knocking him around and getting involved in some environmental battle, so to speak.78 Ehrlichman coached Nixon and therefore has first-hand knowledge of what Nixon thought of this issue. He states that Nixon was not personally motivated to deal with this issue. The only thing that Nixon was passionate about regarding ecology or nature was parks and open spaces. Ehrlichman further says that Nixon was not passionate, or almost bored, by the arcane Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act — and all the science that went with that.79_{It was}

Ehrlichman who persuaded Nixon that fighting pollution was both the right thing to do and politically popular among young voters. Nixon gave Ehrlichman and his staff tremendous freedom to draft environmental policy.80 Even if Nixon was not an ideological environmentalist, his administration did become very productive on this topic, more so than most other American administrations. Nixon himself may even have been opposed to taking

77_{Terry Fitzpatrick, “Richard Nixon: Environmental Hero.” Living on Earth, Boston, 9 Aug. 1996,}

www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=96-P13-00032&segmentID=2.

78_{Charles Wilkinson and Patty Limerick, Inside Interior, Center of the American West, Boulder, Colorado, 2003. pp. 4.} 79_{Wilkerson, Limerick, Inside Interior, pp.5}