These two diseases are major causes of chronic disability, lost workdays, and mortality in industrial nations. Estimates of deaths attributable to bronchitis and emphysema are beset with doubts about cause; nevertheless, physicians have traced 18,000 more deaths in the United States to these two causes in 1966 than 10 years earlier—an increase of two and one-half times. The increase of sulfur oxides, photochemical oxidants, and carbon monoxide in the air is related to hospital admission rates and length of stay for respiratory and circulatory cases. Whether the accumulation of radioactive fallout in body tissues will eventually produce casualties cannot be predicted now, but close surveillance is needed. Nor has a direct correlation between factors in the urban environment and major malignancies of the digestive, respiratory, and urinary tracts been established. But the frequency of these diseases is much higher in cities than in nonurban environments. Esthetics The impact of the destruction of the environment on man's perceptions and aspirations cannot be measured. Yet today citizens are seeking better environments, not only to escape pollution and deterioration but to find their place in the larger community of life. It is clear that few prefer crowding, noise, fumes, and foul water to esthetically pleasing surroundings. Objections today to offensive sights, odors, and sounds are more widespread than ever. And these mounting objections are an important indicator of what Americans are unwilling to let happen to the world about them. Economic Costs The economic costs of pollution are massive-billions of dollars annually. Paint deteriorates faster, cleaning bills are higher, and air filtering systems become necessary. Direct costs to city dwellers can be measured in additional household maintenance, cleaning, and medical bills. Air pollution causes the housewife to do her laundry more often. The farmer's crop yield is reduced or destroyed. Water pollution prevents swimming, boating, fishing, and other recreational and commercial activities highly valued in today's world. Natural Systems Vast natural systems may be severely damaged by the improvident intervention of man. The great Dust Bowl of the 1930's was born in the overuse of land resources. Many estuarine areas have been altered and their ecology permanently changed. On a global scale, air pollution could trigger large-scale climatic changes. Man may also be changing the forces in the atmosphere through deforestation, urban construction, and the spilling of oil on ocean waters. SOLVING PROBLEMS In the short run, much can be done to reverse the deadly downward spiral in environmental quality. Citizens, industries, and all levels of government have already begun to act in ways which will improve environmental quality. The President's February 10 Message on the Environment spelled out some specific steps which can be taken now. It is clear, however, that long-range environmental improvement must take into account the complex interactions of environmental processes. In the future, the effects of man's actions on complete ecosystems must be considered if environmental problems are to be solved. Efforts to solve the problems in the past have merely tried—not very successfully to hold the line against pollution and exploitation. Each environmental problem was treated in an ad hoc fashion, while the strong, lasting interactions between various parts of the problem were neglected. Even today most environmental problems are dealt with temporarily, incompletely, and often only after they have become critical. The isolated response is symptomatic of the environmental crisis. Americans in the past have not adequately used existing institutions to organize knowledge about the environment and to translate it into policy and action. The environment cuts across established institutions and disciplines. Men are beginning to recognize this and to contemplate new institutions. And that is a hopeful sign. Federal Organization for Environmental Quality HE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT's pace in tackling environmental deterioration has greatly accelerated. The problems of pollution, waste, and degradation, haphazardly handled, have pressed in on daily living and forced Washington to become more deeply involved and better organized. This year President Nixon has proposed legislation on a wide range of environmental concerns. The Government has to reorganize for a comprehensive attack. How the Federal Government is organized can strongly influence its strategies, programs, and effectiveness in coping with the environment. In recent years, Federal institutions responsible for environmental quality have been handicapped by a managerial organization poorly suited to the task. The Federal Government has needed improvement in three environmental areas. First, it has needed to sharpen both the development of environmental policy and the analysis of environmental trends and programs. Many problems of the environment cut across several Federal agencies, but no one agency—and until recently no special staff in the Executive Office of the President has had an overview function. Second, environmental concerns are often slighted when agencies pursue their primary missions with inadequate attention to side effects. For example, the agencies which construct or fund the construction of highways, dams, and airports are chiefly concerned with costs and engineering feasibility. Such quantitative factors usually overshadow adequate consideration of a project's environmental impact. Finally, as environmental control programs grow in scope and authority, effective management grows more difficult. Different agencies carrying out like functions, such as standard setting, research, monitoring, and regulation, have operated independently of one another. FEDERAL POLICYMAKING Establishment of the Council on Environmental Quality In May 1969, President Nixon established the first organizational entity charged with taking a broad overview of environmental problems the Cabinet-level Environmental Quality Council, chaired by the President. It was still felt, however, that the Executive Office needed an independent organization concerned exclusively with environmental problems and yet not made up of the many existing agencies. Such an organization would be free to look at environmental problems in new ways and to propose new approaches for dealing with them. With broad bipartisan backing, the Congress enacted two related measures: the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970. The Cabinetlevel Environmental Quality Council was abolished by Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1970, which established a Domestic Council in the Executive Office of the President. On January 1, 1970, President Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act (Public Law 91-190). That act established a national policy on the environment, placed new responsibilities on Federal agencies to take environmental factors into account in their decisionmaking, and created a Council on Environmental Quality in the Executive Office of the President. The President appointed Russell E. Train as chairman of the newly created Council and Robert Cahn and Gordon J. F. MacDonald members. They were confirmed by the Senate on February 6. The act charges the Council with assisting the President in preparing an annual environmental quality report and making recommen dations to him on national policies for improving environmental quality. It empowers the Council to analyze conditions and trends in the quality of the environment and to conduct investigations relating to the environment. It gives the Council responsibility for appraising the effect of Federal programs and activities on environmental quality, and authorizes funds for 1970-1973. The Council's ability to perform its functions was significantly strengthened this year by the Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-224) (see app. F), which was passed as title II of the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970. This act created a new Office of Environmental Quality, which provides staff support to the Council. The Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality serves as its Director and the activities of the Council and Office are meshed into one entity. The Act authorized funds for the Office, bringing the total authorization for the Council and the Office to $800,000 for fiscal year 1970; $1,450,000 for 1971; $2,250,000 for 1972; and $2,500,000 for 1973. The Environmental Quality Improvement Act also added to the responsibilities of the Council and the Office. It specified that they should review monitoring, evaluate the effects of technology, and assist Federal agencies in the development of environmental standards. On March 5, 1970, the President issued Executive Order 11514. Together with the two public laws, it empowers the Council to recommend to the President and to Federal agencies priorities in environmental programs. Under the order and the acts, the Council will also promote the development and use of indices and monitoring systems and advise and assist the President and the agencies in achieving international environmental cooperation-under the foreign policy guidance of the Department of State. Taken together, the legislation and the Executive order provide a broad charter for the Council. They also provide a mandate for reform in the way Federal agencies make environmental decisions from initial planning to implementation. A New Step in Decisionmaking The National Environmental Policy Act requires Federal agencies to take several significant steps. One is to include in every recommendation or report on legislation and on other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment a detailed statement concerning the environmental impact of the action, adverse |