QUOTE . . . COOPERATIVE ATTACK ON POLLUTION I S SOUND S.J. Res. 95, granting consent of Congress t o Mid-Atlantic States Air Pollution Control Compact
and Illinois-Indiana compacts are inadequate. But there are other problems. U n d e r b o t h compacts control action can b e initiated only w h e n air pollution originating in one member state has an adverse affect in the other member state. And here i s another problem. T h e definition of air p o l l u t i o n in these compacts fails o n several counts: T h e definition m a y be construed t o mean that action t o deal with air pollut i o n can be taken only when actual injury t o human, plant, o r animal life, o r t o property, can be shown t o have occurred. T o m a k e control action contingent o n a finding o f actual injury seriously diminishes the effectiveness o f any mechanism f o r dealing w i t h a problem such as air pollution. Furthermore, the Illinois-Indiana compact has n o provision f o r federal representation. “We are pleased that these four states (Ohio, West Virginia, Illinois, and Indiana) have taken the initiative in seeking ways o f engaging in joint action, but i t i s our view that efforts t o deal w i t h interstate air pollution problems affecting these states w o u l d benefit more, in the long run, f r o m the development o f compacts that are consistent w i t h the Air Quality Act, than f r o m any effort t o implement those which are n o w before the Congress,” says Coston.
A whole group of important problems are engendered by the increasing urbanization of our country’s population. They will iequire the best thinking and action not only of business but of all facets of our society. Today in the balance of these remarks we want to report t o you on your Company’s actions i n one of these public problem areas where the urgency of the problem is accentuated by the increasing concentration of our population in cities. We refer to the growing concern about the quality of our water and air resources-the increasing recognition that more must be done to protect these resources for present and future generations. While this is to varying degrees a public issue in all the other countries where we operate, our comments today will be restricted for the most part to the United States. Pollution is, of course, largely a “people problem.” As new millions of people join our population each year and the urban concentration trend continues-with no increase in our water and air resources-it requires immense efforts even to hold pollution at present levels. If the United States is to effect the improvements i n water and air quality that are clearly desirable-and be able to maintain these advances in the face of steady population growth-there will have to be a national commitment to reasonable, achievab!e quality goals and a massive cooperative effort by the private and public sectors of the economy. This cooperative attack on the pollution problem is justifiable and sound because a composite of individuals, governmental units, and business and industry is responsible for the problem and, thus, should share in the search for solutions. As you know, there has been a lot of new local, state, and federal legislation on pollution control during the past several years. We believe that these laws for the most part are fair, realistic, and effective. They evolved from a democratic process of hearings and discussions, and business and industry have been welcome participants. The more stringent water and air quality standards established as a result of the legislation generally take into account the public benefits to be obtained in relation to the costs involved. Our view is that this is the only reasonable way to justify the huge expenditures required for waste treatment-whether they be governmental or private fundsbecause the total costs will be borne by all Americans i n the long-run.
NEIL H. McELROY Chairman of t h e Board Procter 8, G a m b l e Co a t t h e A n n u a l M e d t i n g of Shgreholders, October 10, 1967
Volume 2, Number 5, May 1968
331
