The film details the process of turning general language into a 1977 amendment into specific regulations, revealing behindthescenes negotiations and debates between epa regulators and environmental and industry interests. This is 50 minutes. Funding for this program was made possible by grants from the bendix corporation, and the u. S. Department of 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. Marshal. Thomas jefferson would have little notion of how far the process of 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 littleknown 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 most hotly debated aspects of government. Our story begins in 1980, the last year of the carter administration. In a residential section of the nations capital, David Hawkins begins his daily commute. Hawkins is a federal regulator for the Environmental Protection agency. His job, like the everchanging face of the 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 citys grand avenues are filled with an army of 100,000 federal workers, regulators who sold task is to to enforce the will of congress. To those who defended, regulation is an absolute necessity to 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. I a political appointee of te carter white house, hawkins was chosen to regulate our nations 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 governments obligations. Regulation tends to be developed in response to abuse. Actfood, drug and cosmetic was a response. Securities laws were a response to people losing their shirts in the stock market. It is easy to say youre in favor of less regulation, but if you ask someone if they are in favor of dirtier air, they will usually say no. These programs are finally beginning to work. People have to spend money putting things into the air which they have doing for free for years. As hawkins day begins at the Environmental Protection agency, so does that of a natural adversary across town. One moment, please. Henry nickel is a lawyer for an industry that feels the weight of David Hawkins clean air regulation. He represents a group of Power Producers in the west. To him, 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 use of a lot of fuels, they are number one on the list often times 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 built a plant, all the environmental requirements that applied to the last plant they built have likely been changed. In the next two decades, a logical power demands of a 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 fuel, shale to release the u. S. From its 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 really held as something sacred. I dont remember home, but whom, but someone referred to the National Parks as islands of hope. In washington, Barbara Brown is concerned. The government will soon be inundated with 90 new permits to locate power plants and strip mines in the very shadow of National Parks. This could be the biggest battle of her new career. What brought this job to me was i took a backpacking trip for the first time in my life, and i was totally stunned by the beauty of the grand canyon. The grand canyon is there because it is a natural thing of natural scenic wonder. I have seen it when it is Crystal Clear and all the colors shimmer, and ive seen it when it is hard to see a rock across the gorge. Pollution is probably the number one threat to our National Parks. There is a problem, and if somethings not done about it, there may not be National Parks as we know them today. One of the first to see the problem is a former park ranger and now naturalist photographer, Gordon Anderson. From a remote corner of bryce canyon, utah, his is a remote voice in the wilderness. I make several trips per year to bryce canyon to photograph. My favorite time to visit this spectacular park is the winter. The blanket of snow as a new snow adds 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 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 revealing an increasing amount of air pollution entering from nearby power plants. Could these scenic wonders survive the effects of largescale future Energy Development . Five years before, in the fall of 1975, he began a oneman crusade to save these natural treasures. In our nations 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 citizens lobbying effort, find a key legislator who would help. Congressman paul rogers, author of the monumental 1970 Clean Air Act, was now revising the law. Although a great deal had been accomplished in cleaning up the nations air, the anderson slides were alarming evidence that parks were still unprotected. The navajo power plant in 1970 floor. We flew over the plant to photograph the plume from the air and smoke was blowing into the grand canyon. Non this happens, this is 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 pollution from power plants. It looks 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 nitrates that had nearly obliterated part of the navajo reservation. To the lawmakers, the Nations 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 allnatural. In other words, it could well be manmade, 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 that the prevention of any impairment of visibility within our National Park areas. This is section 169a. Its final passage is swift. It is carried and there is agreement. 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 l of the legislature legislators. Formed in 1970, epa was given the mandate to mount an attack on sources of pollution. 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 the law, the threat of pollution in National Parks. But since the land near the parks are rich in resources needed for an energyhungry america, 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 was work, and while 100 new sections must be regulated, clean air in the parks has been 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 the 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. With his environmentalist sympathies, hawkins will want a strong interpretation of the law, one that will, in his eyes, achieve 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. The approach that i took was, we are implementing a Clean Air Act, when in doubt, we should be protecting the environment. Abe hawkins power at this moment is a concern to Henry Nichols. He knows it could cost his client 90 million for pollution controls. A stricter implementation could cost as much as 3 billion. The way congress rights laws laws, they are not models of clarity. There is a spectrum of interpretations. You want to look at the facts and pick the one that makes the most sense. The sad part about it is that it is easier to identify the needs of our program than it is to figure out how to implement them. In their stand against hawkins, the upcoming months will bring intense work for nichols and his staff. To modify the regulation he will form alliances with sympathetic agencies and members of congress. For the Court Battles he will create to delay or even kill the he must constantly sift through all available evidence. To the utilities, more regulation could mean delays in constructing new facilities, hueg 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. If they do not participate they could face rules that could not be met. At National Park service headquarters, there is worry that future Energy Development will bring more air pollution within the parks. Is the opportunity to look toward alternative ways addressing protection. 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. I knew that it would be a feat of hercules if a of hercules if a good regulation was written within a year, that i think it was a wonderful incentive to get moving. Durham, north carolina. To the epas office of air quality come representatives of the park service, the department of energy, the forest service, and others in the governments first attempt to write the regulation. We want to start at the front and work our way through. The working group is made up of those must live with the rule after it is regulated. They must draft a proposed regulation within six months, but it soon becomes evident that each member brings separate marching orders from his agency. What is worth spending money on . That means that has to be a significant improvement. No, it provides criteria. Not necessarily. It is other things. Epa engineer Johnny Pearson is chairman of the group. A 10 year bureaucrat with the epa, this is his first chance to head up the writing of a regulation. It is not unique or special. Is how much protection that it gets that is the issue. Congress set the value. The working group will be aided by public input. States,three western workshops will be held in three western states on the initial reaction to the problems of eliminating visible pollution and the parks. In denver, the Energy Industry puts in its opinion. Congress never envisioned these kinds of burdens. It is impractical for producers to operate. Report points out the need for substantial they remind the epa that the Clean Air Act was a was one of the most burdensome and costly acts in history. They agree that americas 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 more and more control by inexperienced and unknowledgeable bureaucrats who love to spend money upon the impossible. We have a power plant up for permitting that is 12 times cleaner than what was presented to congress. They are telling us we do not meet the class two regulation. As usual, the regulation industry shows up in force. One of two who speaks for the environment is Gordon Anderson. I stand up here all day hearing people condemn the Environmental Protection agency. Have beens they 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 the navajo power plant plume fills it with smog . This is one of the most important resources not just in america but in the world. It is no way to treat it. We are saying to do the best job we can right now. We cut back to what we can accomplish, recognizing the limitations. That maybe the control of three power plants and one cement plant or something, and the consideration of these longterm strategies which we will begin to look at. As time pressures mount, Johnny Pearson asks the group to limit the discussion to industries already polluting the parks. He suggests they ignore for now future pollution sources. But before rules can be written, definitions must be reached. What is the National Goal . Any perceptible change to the human observer from that which would upset natural conditions. How do we define natural conditions . I dont think you can. But then it is meaningless. Youre looking for instances where it is obviously not natural conditions. If you dont put that in there, you could go to the l. A. Basin and put up a plume there and somebody could say, you cant see it because the l. A. Smog is in your eyes, so why cant i build my source . We are saying you cannot 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 . That which occurs naturally. You cannot define natural conditions as a number. Be simple intent of the United States congress to clear the air within our National Parks begins to appear unsolvable for many reasons. Were looking towards the henry mountains. We have a hypothetical plant existing means of scientific measurements 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 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 an aggravating process at times, when you said something over and over, and they said gotcha, and it was not what you are really saying at all. When you care about what youre doing, you identify very personally with the product you see on paper. It isnt just some regulation, it means what people see the grand canyon 100 years from now. Im surpri