EDITORIAL Mediocrity need not be the universal common denominator The antidegradation clause promulgated by Interior says that states should preserve some water systems in an extra fine condition
A
storm has been raised by the recent ruling of the U.S. Department of Interior that “Waters whose existing quality is better than established standards . . . will be maintained at their existing high quality.” Usually referred to as the antidegradation clause, this provision has been attacked by some who claim it is unrealistic, supported by others who call it imaginative. It has been damned by those who see in it excessive federal interference in states rights, praised by those who feel that the states have had enough timebut have failed-to act on their own. It has been deplored by those who see it as a threat to free enterprise land the economic opportunity of underdeveloped areas, boosted by those who see it as a rein on the reckless, destructive tendencies of some people to usurp public property for private gain. There are those who declare that it is improper for the Federal Government first to accept some state water quality standards and then, apparently, to reject them under pressure; but there are also those who feel that it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to adopt a conservative yet flexible approach to the nation’s water pollution problems-if, indeed, not to all her problems. The fact is that law usually starts as a simple thing. Then, as it is tested and found wanting in some way or wlays, it is strengthened or corrected. Few of us are sufficiently gifted, either separately or in groups, to prepare for all eventualities. Thus, it is hardly to be expected that imperfect men in imperfect union will achieve perfection in their early attempts to develop water quality standards.
After several states’ water quality standards were accepted, and only then, did the question arise: “Are the standards now to serve not only as the minimum acceptable levels to which polluted waters must be raised, but also as levels to which higher quality water may be reduced?” The question has been answered by Interior, which says that no degradation will be permitted unless Interior is satisfied that such a change is “justifiable as a result of necessary economic or social development . . . .” What Interior has said, in effect, is that the worst must be improved, the mediocre can remain that way, and the best is to be preserved. What are the definitions of “justifiable,” “economic,” and “social?” Does it really matter? Hardly! The courts are always available to provide relief from unreasonable restraint and unfairly applied laws. And Congress, if it is so moved, can alter the laws itself. When men make laws they are seeking, usually, a better, more nearly perfect world in which to live. If men have erred-or in this case, if Interior has erred-in the promulgation of water quality goals, it will be better for them to have erred on the conservativeconservation side. Resurrection of a dead or dying lake, stream, or river is a monumental, if not impossible, task. Can anyone put an economic, social, justifiable price tag on Lake Erie? Or on Lake Michigan, which is on the way to join her in depravity? Anyone who has waded into a clean stream, sailed on a clear lake before a fresh wind, or slaked his thirst at a sparkling spring, surely must often want to make the would-be despoilers drink their words,
Voluine 2, Number 7, July 1968 485
