editorial Can degraded air be clean air? Deterioration of air quality to the levels represented by secondary standards won’t be the disaster many fear
A
June 2 decision by the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia has once more brought to the fore an issue of the highest importance to all who grapple with the complexities of environmental protection : whether ‘the government can allow a pristine resource t o deteriorate in quality. Previous attempts t o elucidate this point, in reference to a “nondegradation” clause in water quality standards required by former Secretary of Interior Stewart Udall, never did get resolved. The D.C. decision raises the matter again-this time in connection with air quality. In this recent court ruling, Judge John H. Pratt imposed a preliminary injunction on the administrator of the federal EPA, requiring him to disallow portions of any state implementation plan that would allow existing air quality to deteriorate. (Implementation plans are required under provisions of the 1970 Clean Air Act; in them, states must specify what steps they will take t o achieve certain air quality standards established by EPA within a given time.) There are two types of standards-a primary standard, at which level public health is deemed t o be adequately protected, and a more stringent secondary standard that will prevent damage to plant and animal life. At the time these standards were promulgated, they were widely regarded as being tough, even by EPA, and so close to “background” are the secondary levels that many doubted they could be achieved. It may come as a surprise, therefore, to discover from EPA’S own data that quite a few places in the U.S. actually have air that is of better quality than that called for in secondary air quality standards. The pure regions include much of the nonurban west and sizeable chunks in the rural portions of many eastern states. The court’s decision prohibited EPA from approving implementation plans that do not specifically spell out how a state intends to keep air in the pure regions pure in perpetuity. EPA’S position, rejected by the court, was that it has no statutory authority to d o anything but require states to achieve air quality stan-
dards in those regions where the air is now of a quality worse than in the standards. The arguments presented in court, however, make clear that the intent of Congress in passing the Clean Air Act-to “protect and enhance” air quality in the U.S.-is of paramount importance. The contention, upheld by the court, of the plaintiffs in the suit (spearheaded by the Sierra Club), was in essence that protection and enhancement of air quality cannot possibly be consistent with deterioration of air quality. Notwithstanding a certain logic in the court’s decision, something troubles us about it. It would appear to lock up large areas of the country against any sort of development, since it is difficult to see how any human activity could in practice fail to degrade pristine air quality at least a tiny bit. All development would have to be conducted in those parts of the country where existing air quality is worse than the standards-in other words, in areas where the air is already dirty and where states are now trying manfully to clean up. EPA has already appealed the District Court verdict and, in view of all the contradictions and problems, it seems certain that the Supreme Court will eventually be asked to rule on the matter. The sensible middle ground on the nondegradation issue, it seems to us, is to allow degradation of air quality t o secondary standard levels. Air as clean as secondary standards is something that New Yorkers would dearly like to have. Of course, for Miles City, Mont., air that clean would indeed represent deterioration, but without the option to let its air quality deteriorate a small amount, it is difficult to see how Miles City could do anything but stagnate. The plain fact is that air “degraded” to the secondary standard level is clean air. To call it dirty air, even in good faith, is to obstruct the effort to attain a rational balance between environmental health and economic development.
Volume 6, Number 8, August 1972 673
