EDITORIAL
Multiple standards Natural beauty cannot be kept without cost
S
ecretary of the Interior Stewart L. Udall spoke strongly for upgrading the nation's water conservation resources, as expected, in his address before the recent meeting of the Manufacturing Chemists' Association (page 17). But he was reasonable on some points that could have been trod down in an emotional approach to a more healthful control of our environment. He did not blame industry for all the streamfouling and he did not ignore the matter of costs. He agreed that tax incentives for doing a better job of industrial water conservation are in the public interest. There are some striking industrial waste treatment systems operating. There are also some striking examples of industrial plants dumping foul stuff into streams. The bad ones ought to be cleaned up; the pressure to clean up ought to be firm. At the same time we should not ignore the fact that there are great numbers of people not industrially organized getting by on the cheap by dumping their personal sewage into public waters. Secretary Udall declared that he has argued for some years that waste treatment is a proper business cost and it should be so considered when the price of a product is being figured. This is consummate sense but not consumer pleasure. All too often the voter, volubly calling for rapid and thorough cleanup on one hand, and carping about higher prices, high taxes, and poor returns on his stocks on the other, is the
same one who expects pure drinking water. He doesn't even consider it the same basic product as that into which his personal waste is being spewed. And the Administration wants the water cleaned up and prices held down. After years of living with inadequate and irregular state control, it has become clear that only that ideally undesirable instrument—federal control—offers the best hope for doing the job. Unfortunately, the potential for getting political attention is great at all levels, for the action touches every taxpayer. Technologists can offer direct, prompt help, but will find it hard to push their efforts through the political maze with any speed; they can do their job best if they take that situation into consideration. The Federal Government ought to develop dependable and thorough statistics on the sources of effluent that need to be cleaned up. Industry ought to move effectively with a tax incentive proposal and a strong declaration favoring better environmental control—supported by vigorous, concerted action which shows they mean it. And the public should be prepared to pay for something it has been accustomed to thinking it should get free: protecting from itself a wholesome natural environment.
JUNE 20, 1966 C&EN
