Funding for this program was made possible by grants 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. Marshall. 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 known as 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. 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 whose task are two enforceo implement and the will of congress. To those who defend it, 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 air we breathe. A political appointee of the carter white house, hawkins was chosen to regulate our air pollution laws. He will be a key figure in a cleanair 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. The food, drug, and cosmetic act thea response to wars in Food Industry horrors in the Food Industry. 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 people if they are in favor of dirtier air, they will say no. These programs are finally beginning to work. They are actually causing people to have to spend money to clean up what theyve been putting into the air for free all these years. As his day begins at the Environmental Protection agency, so does that of a natural adversary across town. 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 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 the 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, only all the environmental requirements that applied to the last plant they built have likely been changed. In the next two decades, a power demands of the nation will double. As the population grows, so does the 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 energy independence. And in the american west, our possible solutions to Energy Problems for the next 200 years. Coal for electricity and synthetic fuel. Shale to release the u. S. From its crippling dependence on foreign oil. But there is a problem. Facilities to convert these riches will threaten another resource, one serving the human spirit. The National Parks are held as something sacred. I dont remember home, but i dont remember whom, but someone referred to them as islands of hope. In washington, Barbara Brown is concerned. The government will be inundated with some 90 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 i was totally stunned by the beauty of the grand canyon. The grand canyon is there because it is a natural thing of wonder. I have seen it when it is crystalclear and all the colors shimmer, and ive 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 is a problem, and if somethings not done about it, there might 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. Throughout the year i make several trips to bryce canyon to photograph. My favorite time to visit is 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 power plants operating just outside their boundaries. Anderson have been taking pictures of the western parks for years. As time progressed, he felt that his photographs were revealing an increasing amount of air pollution entering from nearby power plants. Could these scenic wonders survive the effects of largescale 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 the 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 1974. We flew over the plant to photograph the plume from the air and smoke was blowing into the grand canyon. Isn this happens, the vista reduced to less than the width of the canyon. When pollution finds its way into this huge basin, and the view becomes something more like this. This is a candlestick peak when it is being impacted by air plants, itrom power 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 future and the remedying of any existing impairment of visibility in National Park areas. This is section 169a. Its final passage is swift. 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 enforce the will of the regulators. 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, it regulates all sections of the clean air law. Our story deals with one small part of the law, the threat of air pollution in 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 was work, and while 100 new sections must be regulated, clean air in the parks is left untouched for 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 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 vaguelyworded 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. It is my job to provide those answers. The approach i took was, we are implementing a Clean Air Act, and when in doubt we should be detecting the environment. Protecting the environment. Dave hawkins power at this moment is a real concern to henry nichols. He knows it could cost his clients 90 million. A stricter implementation could force them to spend as much as 3 billion. Laws, way congress rights they are not models of clarity. There are a spectrum of interpretations. You want to look at the facts and 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 the program then it is 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 rule, he must constantly sift through all available evidence. To the utilities, more regulation could mean delays in constructing new facilities, new 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. If industry does 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. If the courts are going to overturn it, then that is the opportunity to look toward alternative ways for 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 it would be a feat of hercules if a good regulation was written within a year, but 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. I want to just start at the front and work our way through. The 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 becomes evident that every member brings separate marching orders from his agency. The starting place is what is significant. What is worth spending money on. That means 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 group. A tenured bureaucrat with the epa, this is his first chance to head up the writing of a regulation. Its a resource to manage like the other ones. It is not unique or special. It is how much protection that is the issue. 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 and the parks. In denver, the industry voices its opinion. A damn what the visibility is. Congressreport to 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 americas air is now cleaner, but to them, this regulation would only duplicate existing roles and create more paperwork and red tape. Simplyosed controls result in wheelspinning and 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 congress. They are telling us we do not meet the class two regulation. My name is Gordon Anderson. As usual, the regulation industry shows up in force. One of the 2 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 powerplant plumes filling the entire grand canyon with smog . This is one of the most important resources not just in america but in the world. This is no way to treat it. Is do the are saying best job we can right now. We cut back to what we can accomplish, recognizing the limitations. The consideration of these longterm strategies, we will begin to look at. But what are my other problems . As time pressures mount, Johnny Pearson asks the group to limit the effort to industries already polluting the park. He suggests that the group ignore for now future pollution. 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 we can define natural conditions. Than that is meaningless. We are looking for cases where it is 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 cant do that. When you use that source to calculate his impact, what you going to tell him natural conditions are . It is natural conditions, that which occurs naturally. You cant define it as a number. The simple intent of the United States congress to clean the air in a National Parks of begins to appear unsolvable for many reasons. 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 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 holders only. Existing polluters only. A step not popular with Park Service Officials in washington. It was an aggravating process at times, when you sent something over and over, and they said gotcha, and it was really not what you said at all. When you care about what youre doing, you identify very personally with the product you see on paper. It is not just a regulation, it means that will people see the grand canyon 100 years from now. Ive seen this gobbledygook before but im surprised at this stage it is still gobbledygook. It is better than it was. I begin to feel like a manicdepressive on a roller coaster. Across town, 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