source Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Al - though RCRA relates to solid waste generally, its key regulatory provisions are found in Subtitle C, which imposes “cradle to grave” controls on hazardous waste. Strict regulatory controls apply when material falls within the definition of “hazardous waste.” Some wastes are specifically listed as hazardous,whileothers may be determined to be so based on the presence of a hazardous characteristic such as toxicity, reactivity, corrosivity, and ignitability. In general, household waste is excluded from the program. There are also separate provisions regulating underground storage tanks such as those used for gasoline and other haz- ardous liquids. Under Subtitle C, generators of hazardous wastes are subjected tostrict recordkeeping andreporting as well asto specifications for containment and labeling. Transporters are required to comply with a manifest system which identifies the waste and assures that it is taken to a permitted facility for treatment, storage, or disposal (TSD). TSD facilities must comply with elab- orate permitting requirements, usually issued and en- forced by a state agency, including not only technical standards but also financial responsibility and back- ground review. Under the 1984 amendments, land disposal is regarded as the “least favored method for managing hazardous wastes” and is severely re- stricted. Landfills may be permitted, provided they meet strict technical requirements such as double plastic liners and leachate collection systems. Treat- ment systems are preferred; they must meet “best demonstrated available technology” standards. The RCRA regulates hazardous wastes prospec- tively.Although RCRA provides forinjunctive relief to eliminate “imminent and substantial endangerment to the health or environment,” Congress addressed in another program, the Comprehensive Environmen- tal Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the need for cleaning up areas which are already contaminated. Sometimes referred to as “Superfund” because of the trust fund created by the act to fund cleanups, CERCLA is a comprehensive ap- proach to hazardous chemical dump and spill sites. It authorizes the president of the United States, through the EPA, to clean up facilities at which haz- ardous substances have been released. Hazardous substances subject to the act are identified predomi- nantly by cross-reference to listsestablished under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Clean Water Act, and Clean Air Act. Petroleum substances not otherwise contaminated or listed as hazardous are exempted from the purview of the act. CERCLA re- quires persons in charge of certain facilities to report releases of hazardous substances, subject to strict pen- alties for failure to doso. It also created asystem of list- ing hazardous sites, a National Contingency Plan (NCP), setting forth the protocols and standards of remedial investigation, feasibility study, removal and long-term remediation, and a National Priorities List listing the cleanup sites in order of priority. Under CERCLA, hazardous substance removal and site remediation is accomplished in two ways: first, the EPA can issue an order requiring potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to clean up a site; alterna- tively, the EPA can clean up the site itself and bring a cost recovery action against the PRPs for response costs and natural resource damages. Private parties 388 • Environmental law in the United States Global Resources Activists rally in 1985 at the U.S. Capitol for the passage of amend - ments to Superfund legislation, agroupofU.S. laws focusedon haz - ardous waste remediation. (Time & Life Pictures/Getty Im - ages) who have incurred response costs may also seek reim - bursement. CERCLA’s cost recovery provisions im- pose “strict liability”—without any required showing of fault—upon present and past owners and opera- tors of facilities from which there has beenareleaseor threatened release of hazardous substances, upon those who “arranged for disposal,” and upon trans- porters who took part in site selection. Although cost recovery must be consistent with the National Contin- gency Plan, there are only a few very limited defenses to liability, and the act’s provisions tend to encourage voluntary settlements and cleanups.Nevertheless, liti- gation often occurs among PRPs who are jointly and severally liable for the full amount but may apportion their liability in actions for contribution. In 2002, the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revi- talization Act amended CERCLA. Brownfields are derelict commercial or industrial complexes that can be revitalized for new uses. The amendment provides funds for the cleanup of these areas. Endangered Species The Endangered Species Act (1973) was elevated to national debate by a small fish, the snail darter, the threatened demise of which caused the U.S. Supreme Court to cease construction of the Tellico Dam on the Little Tennessee River. In Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill (1978) the Court held that there are no excep- tions to the Endangered Species Act command that all federal agencies ensure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them do not jeopardize the continued existence of an endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or modification of habitat of suchspecies. Congress amended thestatute in 1978 to provide some flexibility, but the prohibi- tions of the Endangered Species Act remain strong. The act prohibits the importation, exportation, and “taking” of endangered species; the Department of the Interior, which administers the Endangered Spe- cies Act, has defined “taking” not only to prohibit such predatory activities as hunting, pursuing, shoot- ing, wounding, killing, trapping, or capturing endan- gered species but also to outlaw harming such species by “significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering.” Anarrow exception is made for “incidental taking” of species in pursuit of otherwise lawful activity. Since its enactment, the En - dangered Species Act has remained a contentious po - litical issue; presidential administrations have often differed substantially on their stances on this issue. The Reagan administration attemptedtolimit protec- tive status for certain species, a policy that hampered the enforcement of the act and caused more than a decade of legal battles that resulted in the expansion of the designation of critical habitat. The Clinton ad- ministration enacted the Safe Harbor agreement that encouraged landowners to make their territories friendlier to endangered species. Nearly fifty species previously considered endangered have been re- moved from the protection of the Endangered Spe- cies Act, an indication that the act has been generally successful. National Environmental Policy Act The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), en- acted in 1970, was designed to force federal decision makers to take a “hard look” at the environmental consequences of their actions. NEPA provides that “all federal agencies shall include in any recommen- dation or report on any proposal for legislation or other major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment a detailed state- ment onenvironmental impact . . . any adverse effects which cannot be avoided . . . alternatives to the proposed action,” and other considerations. Envi- ronmental impact statements (EISs), conforming to regulations promulgated by the Counsel on Environ- mental Quality, may be required for a variety of gov- ernmental activities—including the construction of airports, dams, and highways; the issuance of fed- eral licenses or permits; and decisions regarding the management and use of federal lands and resources. NEPA is regarded as a procedural statute because it imposes no substantive requirements. Despite much debate over its effectiveness as a tool to protect the environment, it has been emulated by some state en- vironmental policy acts and in international law as well. Joshua I. Barrett Further Reading Ashford, Nicholas A., and Charles C. Caldart. Environ- mental Law, Policy, and Economics: Reclaiming the En- vironmental Agenda. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2008. Brooks, Karl Boyd. Before Earth Day: TheOriginsof Amer - ican Environmental Law, 1945-1970. Lawrence: Uni - versity Press of Kansas, 2009. Global Resources Environmental law in the United States • 389 Buck, Susan J. Understanding Environmental Adminis - tration and Law. 3d ed. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2006. Findley, Roger W., and Daniel A. Farber. Environmen- tal Law in a Nutshell. 7th ed. St. Paul, Minn.: Thomson/West, 2008. Kubasek, Nancy K., and Gary S. Silverman. Environ- mental Law. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2008. Manheim, Frank T. The Conflict over Environmental Reg- ulation in the United States: Origins, Outcomes, and Comparisons with the EU and Other Regions. New York: Springer, 2009. Pearson, Eric. Environmental and Natural Resources Law. 3d ed. Newark, N.J.: LexisNexis Matthew Bender, 2008. Schnaiberg, Allan, and Kenneth Alan Gould. Environ- ment and Society: The Enduring Conflict. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994. Reprint. Caldwell, N.J.: Blackburn Press, 2000. Vietzen, Laurel A. Practical Environmental Law. New York: Aspen, 2008. Weinberg, Philip, and Kevin A. Reilly. Understanding Environmental Law. 2d ed. Newark N.J.: LexisNexis Matthew Bender, 2008. Web Site WildLaw: A Nonprofit Environmental Law Firm Statutes, Regulation, and Help http://www.wildlaw.org/Eco-Laws/start.html See also: Clean Air Act; Clean Water Act; Endan- gered Species Act; Environment and Natural Re- sources Division; Environmental impact statement; Environmental Protection Agency; National Environ- mental Policy Act; Superfund legislation and cleanup activities; Takings law and eminent domain. Environmental movement Category: Historical events and movements In the UnitedStates, the environmental movement can be divided a numberof distinct periods ofdevelopment, each of which is noteworthy for the level of activism and the impact the movement has had on natural re - source policy. Background Although a handful of environmental organizations were founded in the late nineteenth and early twenti- eth centuries, they were not influential enough to comprise a social movement. For example, the Sierra Club (founded in 1892), the National Audubon Soci- ety (1905), and the National Parks Association (1919, now the National Parks Conservation Association) had specific political agendas, andtheirmemberships were relatively small. The environmental movement did not begin tocoalesceuntil after World War II, with public concern about the management of resources and growing apprehension about pollution. The Age of Ecology The 1960’s have been called the age of ecology be- cause the decade brought conflict between those who sought to enhance postwar industrial growth and those who sought government regulation over the by- products of growth—smog in cities such as Los An- geles and London, water pollution in virtually every major urban area, and environmental crises such as the oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara, California, which received extensive media coverage in 1969. Public awareness of the magnitude of environmen- tal degradation was magnified by the work of two authors. Rachel Carson’s exposé on the dangers of pesticides, Silent Spring (1962), and Paul Ehrlich’s warnings about population growth in The Population Bomb (1968) lent credence to the groups that were just beginning to have an impact on the policy-making process. During the 1960’s, the environmental movement began to have an impact on the U.S. Congress, which realized that environmental problems were rapidly becoming a salient political issue. Most of the hall- mark pieces of 1960’s legislation, such as the Clean Air Act (1963), Clean Water Act (1965), Endangered Species Conservation Act (1966), and National Envi- ronmental Policy Act (1970), can be traced directly to one or more ofthe environmental groups pushingfor their passage. The decade also marked a tremendous expansion in the number of environmental groups and political strategies. The Environmental Defense Fund (founded in 1967), for example, used litigation as a powerful tool, while the more venerable organizations such as the Sierra Club focused on public education. From 1952 to 1969, the Sierra Club’s membership grew ten - fold, while theWildernessSociety’s membership grew 390 • Environmental movement Global Resources from twelve thousand in 1960 to fifty-fourthousand in 1970. At the same time, new organizations such as the African Wildlife Foundation (1961) and the World Wildlife Fund (1961, now the World Wide Fund for Nature) began to broaden their approach to include environmental issues of global concern. While the majority of groups were dedicated to preserving wild- life and their habitats,therealso began to be aparallel growth of organizations in Europe that were dealing with pollution in their own regions. These groups became the core of what later became an interna- tional environmental movement. Earth Days and Crises If one event could be said to have galvanized the envi- ronmental movement, it would be the observance of Earth Day on April 22, 1970. An estimated twenty mil- lion Americans participated in events ranging from protests and demonstrations to educational seminars to call attention to the declining health of the envi- ronment. That year also was the beginning of an exceptional period of development for new groups, including Friends of the Earth, the League of Conser- vation Voters, the Natural Resources Defense Coun- cil, and the Center for Science in the Public Interest. A year later, the American branch of Greenpeace was founded, along with the environmental watchdog organization Public Citizen. Although public opinion polls showed that Ameri- cans were deeply concerned about the environment during the period immediately before and after Earth Day 1970, that interest was partially replaced over the following fifteen years by the Vietnam War, the 1973 Arab oil embargo, and a declining economy. The environmental move- ment seemed to lose much of its early momentum as both legislators and the public turned to other issues. Although Congress enacted several significant pieces of legislation, such as the Marine Mammal Protection Act (1972) and the Toxic Substances Control Act (1976),by 1980 thepace of legislative activity had slowed con- siderably—and with it the growth of the environmental movement. From 1970 to 1990, the environ - mental movement’s ebband flow seemed tied tocrisis or controversy. When an accidentat the Three Mile Is- land nuclear power plant near Harrisburg, Pennsylva- nia, triggered a meltdown, environmental groups op- posed to nuclear power gained prominence. Groups associated with fighting toxic waste gained new mem- bers in 1978 when themediareported that homes and a school at Love Canal, NewYork, hadbeen built in an area previously used as a toxic dumping ground by a chemical company.A deadly leak ofpoisonousgas at a Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India, in 1984, led to legislative initiatives in the United States, such as the reauthorization of the Comprehensive Environmen- tal Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, better known as Superfund. Pressure by the environmental movement’s leaders led Congress to investigate whether a Bhopal-type incident could occur at a simi- lar Union Carbide facility in Institute, West Virginia. The Reagan and Clinton Eras In one sense, the environmental movement’s lowest ebb may have been during the administration of Pres- ident Ronald Reagan, whose policies of deregulation, budget and personnel cuts, and conservative political appointments scaled back the implementation and enforcement of the prior decades’ environmental laws. However, it alsogalvanized the movement, creat- ing a common enemy for environmentalists to rally against. Through their lobbying efforts, they forced the president to fire his secretary of the interior, Global Resources Environmental movement • 391 Greenpeace activists in France protest to call attention to the danger of radioactive waste. (AFP/Getty Images) James G. Watt, and the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Anne M. Burford. The most noteworthy trend within the environ- mental movement in the early 1990’s was the global- ization of issues and participants. The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro brought together the larg- est group of environmental organizations ever assem- bled and reiterated the need to view issues in global, rather than local, terms. It also forced groups to focus their attention on a wide spectrum of emerging envi- ronmental issues, such as global climate change and transboundary pollution, and highlighted disputes over whether developed nations should help pay for the cleanup of degraded environments (like those of the formerSoviet Union) or for newpollutioncontrol technology in developing countries. The Bush Era: Rollbacks, Repudiation, and Redemption As the twenty-first century commenced, so too did the presidency of George W.Bush.For environmentalists, the eight Bush years were characterized by the “three R’s”: rollbacks, repudiation, and redemption. Envi- ronmentalists witnessed rollback of environmental legislation and regulations of the past, repudiation of scientific findings on global warming in particular, and a final act of redemption—the designation of nearly 520,000 square kilometers of the Pacific Ocean and all of the marine life within as national monu- ments a few days before Bush left office.The rollbacks occurred on several fronts: Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act tampering; the curtailing of funds for clean-up programs at hazardous waste sites; the weak- ening of the Endangered Species Act and removal of animals, such as grizzly bears, from the list of pro- tected species; endorsement of commercial whaling, which causes severe depletion rates because of tech- nologically sophisticated hunting and harvesting ap- paratuses; the opening of protected lands to mining, logging, and oil and gas drilling; and the elimination of obstacles to mountaintop removal mining. Status quo economics, especially in the energy industry, re- ceived preference over support for research and de- velopment for green alternatives to the use of finite fossil fuels. The repudiation of scientific findings on global warming and the reluctance to sponsor studies of its effects on animal species proved demoralizing to sci - ence professionals in several federal agencies. The Bush administration was accused of ignoring or sup - pressing credible scientific studies on numerous envi - ronment issues. Environmental Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) The environmental problems of the Bush era were bal- anced by two counterweights. While the environmen- tal movement in the United States went on the defen- sive during the first decade of the twenty-firstcentury, it also inspired the international upsurge of environ- mental nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The upsurge in NGOs became an international phenome- non, occurring in many countries, both rich and poor, democratic and despotic. Dedicated groups of citizen activists allied with scientific experts emerged to focus attention on local, national, and global envi- ronmental concerns. Impressive NGO fund-raising capabilities, aided by the Internet, meant indepen- dently sponsored scientific research, educational ini- tiatives, the monitoring of hazardous conditions, and remediation of contaminated sites. Such activities of- ten supplemented government projects or acted in place of them in developing nations. Some NGOs, like Greenpeace or the World Wide Fund for Nature, have supranational status, but others, such as China’s Friends of Nature or Brazil’s SOS Mata Atlântica(SOS Atlantic Forest), exist with localized mandates. Over time, countless efforts to amend environmental dam- age caused by humans on both small and grand scales created a climate of awareness that Earth was in trou- ble. In turn, this created aclimateof receptivity for ad- visories issued about global warming and the need for worldwide cooperation to reverse it. Al Gore and the Environmental Movement The power of the individual to make a difference in the world still exists. Before Al Gore was a citizen sol- dier in Vietnam, journalist, businessperson, senator, or U.S. vice president, he was an environmentalist. In 1967, he enrolled in a life-changing course called “cli- mate science” at Harvard University. During that class, he learned about the seriousness of global warming and the need for action to halt it. As a legislator in Congress for many years, he focused on the need for the United States to redirect its dependence on fossil fuels to renewable energy options. The scientific com- munity had convincingly established that fossil fuel emissions from automobiles and factory smokestacks raised carbon dioxide levels with dire planetary con - sequences. 392 • Environmental movement Global Resources As his political career waned, Gore became an in - ternational spokesman for the twin concerns of global warming and the need for green energy relief. Gore used his ability to explain complex scientific issues to the general public in the documentary film An Incon- venient Truth (2006). The film garnered an Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature in 2007. A com- panion book entitled An Inconvenient Truth:The Plane- tary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It (2006) became a best seller. However, the greatest recognition of his efforts came in 2007. Gore, along with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The Kyoto Protocol and Beyond All of these strands of human endeavor—efforts to maintain the status quo and actively stave off chal- lenges to it, or calls for sweeping, planetary change— converge in the Kyoto Protocol. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UN- FCCC) began the process of voluntary emission re- duction in 1992. All of the accords and protocols that succeeded it led to the Kyoto Protocol, calling for a mandatory 55 percent global reduction of carbon di- oxide based on 1990 levels by all signatories. The United States signed the treaty in 1997 but agreed to only a 6 percent reduction at the time; Bush refused to ratify the treaty in 2001. A nineteenth century busi- ness model based on short-term profit margins that once brought the United States unrivaled prosperity and world hegemony bumped up against twenty-first century reality, in whichglobal interdependence holds sway and all life is threatened by self-indulgence. De- spite Bush’s contrarian approach to the environment, several states and cities in the United States have en- acted Kyoto-inspired provisions to circumvent the last stand of the guardians of old energy.Inthe meantime, the Kyoto Protocol took effecton February16,2005. As the Bush administration came to an end and a new Democratic president, Barack Obama, took of- fice in 2009, scientific evidence for human contribu- tions to climate change were mountingand forminga consensus in the minds of many—scientists and the public alike—that international action must be taken to avert (oratleast prepare for) the more catastrophic effects of global warming. However, the contentious- ness surrounding international cooperation was highlighted in December, 2009, as representatives of 193 nations met in Copenhagen, Denmark, to decide whether to extend or replace the Kyoto Protocol, due to expire in 2012. Kyoto had obligated only signatory developed (industrialized) nations to meet carbon emissions standards. Some representatives of devel- oping and poorer nations atCopenhagen strongly ob- jected to the new call for all nations to curb emissions, pointing out that the industrialized nations (particu- larly the United States), with their disproportionately high emissions, were more responsible for climate change andshould bear the brunt of its mitigation. Al Gore urged participants to reach an agreement, and the secretary-general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Anders Fogh Rasmussen, warned that climate change could lead to crop failure and, in turn, “rebellions which eventually could fuel radical movements, extremism and terrorism.” Jacqueline Vaughn Switzer, updated by JoEllen Broome Further Reading Dewey, Scott Hamilton. Don’t Breathe the Air: Air Pollu- tion and U.S. Environmental Politics, 1945-1970. Col- lege Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2000. Dowie, Mark. Losing Ground: American Environmental- ism at the Close of the Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyPress,1995. Dunlap, Riley E., and Angela G. Mertig, eds. American Environmentalism: The U.S. Environmental Movement, 1970-1990. Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis, 1992. Egan, Michael, and Jeff Crane, eds. Natural Protest: Es- says on the History of American Environmentalism. New York: Routledge, 2009. Kline, Benjamin. First Along the River: A Brief History of the U.S. Environmental Movement. 3d ed. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007. Lytle, Mark Hamilton. The Gentle Subversive: Rachel Carson, “Silent Spring,” and the Rise of the Environmen- tal Movement. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Merchant, Carolyn. TheColumbia Guide toAmerican En- vironmental History. New York: Columbia University Press, 2002. Mongillo, John, and Linda Zierdt-Warshaw. Encyclope- dia of Environmental Science. Phoenix, Ariz.: Oryx Press, 2000. Nash, Roderick Frazier, ed. American Environmental- ism: Readings in Conservation History. 3d ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1990. Philippon, Daniel J. Conserving Words: How American Nature Writers Shaped the Environmental Movement. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2004. Rome, Adam. The Bulldozer in the Countryside: Suburban Global Resources Environmental movement • 393 Sprawl and the Rise of American Environmentalism. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Shabecoff, Philip. A Fierce Green Fire: The American En- vironmental Movement. Rev. ed. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2003. Victor, David G. The Collapse of the Kyoto Protocol and the Struggle to Slow Global Warming. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2001. Web Site Ecology Hall of Fame Environmental Movement Timeline http://www.ecotopia.org/ehof/timeline.html See also: Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act; Conservation; ConservationInternational; Earth Summit; Endangered species; Environmental ethics; Friends of the Earth International; Gore, Al; Green- peace; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Kyoto Protocol; Montreal Protocol; National Audu- bon Society; Natural Resources Defense Council; Si- erra Club; United Nations climate change confer- ences; United Nations Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution; World Wide Fund for Nature. Environmental Protection Agency Category: Organizations, agencies, and programs Date: Established 1970 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged with administering various environmental regulatory and distributive programs in the United States as well as conducting environmental research activities. Background From the inception of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970, the organization has been be- set by differing conceptions of its mission as the pri- mary U.S. government environmental regulatory agency. The EPA expanded during the 1970’s but came under severe attack in the 1980’s, particularly during Anne Gorsuch’s tenure as director. The agency was revitalized anditsmission expanded in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, only to suffer setbacks during the second Bush administration in the early twenty-first century. The EPA aims to protect the health of the human population by reducing the pol - lution of the environment. It has attemptedtoachieve this goal primarily through enforcing congressional legislation and issuing regulations. Organization and Mission The EPA is headed by a director appointed by the president and has its central headquarters in Wash- ington, D.C. It also has ten regional offices, each headed by a regional administrator. Although regional offices deal with all manner of environmental issues, national offices, each with a commissioner as head, deal with specific issues. These offices include the Air Pollution Control Office, the Pesticide Office, the Radiation Office, and the Solid Waste Office. In ad- dition, the Council on Environmental Quality coordi- nates federal and international environmental efforts. This group of three is appointed by the president and works closely with, though is independentof,theEPA. In some cases the implementation of the EPA’sregula- tory burden is entrusted to state environmental agen- cies. The major regulatory tasks assigned to the agency include air quality, water quality, disposal of hazardous and radioactive wastes, the regulation of chemicals (including pesticides), and the setting of noise levels for construction equipment, transporta- tion equipment, motors, and electronic equipment. Legislation that the EPA is charged with implement- ing includes the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act(1947), the Clean Air Act (1963), the Clean Water Act (1965), the Endangered Species Act (1973), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (1976), the ToxicSubstancesAct (1976), the Compre- hensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“Superfunds,” 1980), and the Energy Policy Act (2005). The EPA suffers from overload and has found im- plementing its various mandates difficult and in some cases impossible. In part this inability stems from con- gressional action. Congress has often specified unre- alistic deadlines with various statutory penalties at- tached should the EPA not comply and given detailed management instructions for action. In addition, some members of Congress have used environmental legislation (for example, Superfund) as political pork barrels so that the EPA is not always able to allocate its funds in the most efficient fashion. In addition, as Marc Landy, Marc Roberts, and Stephen Thomas point out in The Environmental Protection Agency: Asking the Wrong Questions from Nixon to Clinton (1994), the 394 • Environmental Protection Agency Global Resources Global Resources Environmental Protection Agency • 395 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ADMINISTRATOR DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT EXECUTIVE SERVICE OFFICE OF COOPERATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL APPEALS BOARD SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD OFFICE OF SMALL AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS UTILIZATION OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR CONGRESSIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS PUBLIC AFFAIRS POLICY, ECONOMICS, AND INNOVATION ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR ADMINISTRATION AND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR AIR AND RADIATION ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR PREVENTION, PESTICIDES, AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR WATER ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE INSPECTOR GENERAL GENERAL COUNSEL REGION I BOSTON REGION II NEW YORK REGION III PHILADELPHIA REGION IV ATLANTA REGION V CHICAGO REGION VI DALLAS REGION VII KANSAS CITY REGION VIII DENVER REGION IX SAN FRANCISCO REGION X SEATTLE ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND CHILDREN’S HEALTH PROTECTION THE AGING INITIATIVE HOMELAND SECURITY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER EPA itself has often “asked the wrong questions” con - cerning itsmission.Byconcentrating on enforcement from its inception, the EPA has not always beenableto establish its scientific credentials in order to lend sci- entific credibility to its actions. The EPA has also missed opportunities to educate the public regarding environmental issues, and therefore citizens often have unrealistic expectations regarding the agency’s ability to deal with environmental problems. The leadership of the EPA has not always been attentive to the need to develop a strategic perspective in dealing with environmental issues, a failing that is fostered by leaving conceptual ambiguities unresolved. At times factionalism has also detracted from the accomplish- ment of the EPA’s mission. The Impact of Politics Public support for the EPA’s mission has shifted since its founding in 1970. In the early 1970’s, many Ameri- cans thought that the EPA was not moving fast enough to clean up environmental problems. By 1980, some people had begun to question the cost of environ- mental regulation, saying that the EPA had become too stringent. During the 1990’s public opinion shifted in the direction of a more supportive stance for environmental regulation. This stance continued even during the administration of George W. Bush. One difficultythat continues to besettheEPAis the changing national political climate. Many aspects of the organization’s mission are highly charged politi- cally. Therefore, the agendas of each presidential ad- ministration have affected the ability of the agency to carry out its mission. Until the presidency of Ronald Reagan (1981-1989), presidents and much ofthepub- lic demanded tough enforcement of environmental laws. At times, the EPA had difficulty keeping up with public opinion in trying to clean up various environ- mental problems. During the Reagan administration the approach shifted as Gorsuch and Secretary of the Interior James G. Watt opposed stringent environ- mental regulation, often placing agency staff at odds with its leadership. The presidency of George H. W. Bush turned slightly to tough environmental regula- tion. The Clinton administration (1993-2000) height- ened this tough stance. Carol M. Browner, who headed the EPA during much of the Clinton presidency, was an able administrator with a clear idea of the role of the EPA.Also,sheenjoyedsupport within the agency. The election of George W. Bush in 2000 marked a return to presidential hostility to much of the EPA’s mission. Christine Todd Whitman, the onetime gov - ernor of New Jersey, became the head of the EPA and tried to maintain several initiatives, such as regulating mountaintop removal in the coal fields of West Vir- ginia. Soon after, she was politically marginalized and was forced out in 2003 by opponents of environmen- tal regulation. Vice President Dick Cheney played an important role in trying to base environmental regu- lation in economic reasoning favorable to business rather than in scientific reasoning. With the election of Barack Obama in 2008, the presidential philosophy regarding the EPA moved in the opposite direction of the Bush administration. Lisa P. Jackson, the head of the EPA in the Obama administration, came to the post with a strong envi- ronmental record. The agency shifted back to using scientific reasoning in tandem with economic consid- erations in its decision-making processes. Related to the mission challenges imposed by changing political climates has been a high turnover rate in the leadership of the agency. From its incep- tion to theObama presidency,the EPA has hadeleven different administrators, most of whom have served for short periods of time. Browner served the longest, from1993 to 2001, but several of the other administra- tors served for only twoyears. Thus, maintaining lead- ership continuity has been difficult. Public Health and the EPA Protecting the public’s health is at the core of EPA’s mission. Regulating human contact with and possible ingestion of dangerous pesticides and improving water quality are two obvious examples of this mis- sion. Cancer prevention, while not always a stated goal, has been one of the key concerns of the agency. In the late 1970’s,theEPA,theFoodandDrug Admin- istration, the Occupational Safety and Health Admin- istration, and the Consumer Product Safety Commis- sion worked together through the Interagency Regulatory Liaison Group to formulate standards for dealing with chemicals that might cause cancer. How- ever,the resulting document did not enunciate a clear standard of risk assessment, nor did it establish a sound level of cancer risk. It also failed as an attempt to educate the public concerning cancer risks and sci- entific uncertainty. By contrast, the EPA’s efforts at regulating water and air pollution have led to several successes. Water quality has improved in the United States. Air quality has improved in some areas. In both cases the EPA 396 • Environmental Protection Agency Global Resources had a clear mandate that it was able to implement and, therefore, was more easily able to achieve its goals. The risk of cancer also underlay the public contro- versy concerning the implementation of Superfund legislation. Part of the problem with Superfund was Congress’s inability to set cleanup priorities or cleanup levels for Superfund sites. The EPA was defi- cient in providing Congress with the detailed infor- mation necessary to make these decisions. Because Superfund was conceptually deficient, the EPA often had to react to what the public perceived as crisis situa- tions, such as the Times Beach, Missouri, dioxin cleanup in the early 1980’s. Such actions were not al- ways based on reliable research and often displayed an inability to educate the public regarding environ- mental risk. Impact on Resource Use Although public health concerns have been the stated rationale for much ofthe EPA’s actions, further concerns have been the protection of the environ- ment and resource conservation. Enhancing water quality, for example, has obvious benefits for aquatic life. Controlling the negative impact of pesticides has an impact from the bottom to the top of the food chain. The threat of acid deposition to forest products and water quality in some regions of the country is substantial; the EPA’s efforts to establish air-quality standards under the 1990 revisions of the Clean Air Act attempted to deal with this issue. Indirectly, the EPA’s regulations dealing with improving automobile mileage have decreased the consumption of both steel and oil. The question of mileage requirements remains a hotly debated issue, as the EPA has ex- panded its emphasis to encourage innovative types of automobiles as a means of decreasing pollution. The goal of much of the EPA’s regulatory efforts has been waste reduction. By its very nature, waste reduction lowers the amount of natural resources consumed by the economy. The 1984 revisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) directed the EPA to advo- cate conservation as a means of dealing with hazard- ous materials. RCRA stated that the placement of haz- ardous wastes in landfills was the least favored option in dealing with these materials. The most favored ap- proach was for industry to generate less of the mate - rial, thus practicing resource conservation. In the early 1990’s, many industries continued to generate large amounts of hazardous wastes, although some in - dustries were beginning to find substitutes for hazard- ous materials. In the early twenty-first century, dis- posal of these wastes continued to be a problem that was further complicated by the efforts of some pollut- ers to ship their wastes abroad. In all likelihood the EPA will continue to be beset by political changes. Because its regulatory power touches many aspects ofAmerican life, various groups will continue to try to influence EPA policy directly and indirectly. Many of the EPA’s decisions have eco- nomic impacts, and the agency faces continual chal- lenges from, on one hand, groups and individuals who desire economic growth and, on the other hand, those who see environmental protection as more im- portant than short-term economic gain. In addition to continuing to deal with the environ- mental issues of the past, the EPA will be challenged by evolving issues. One of the concerns has to do with environmental equity: Are environmental hazards being imposed on the less-advantaged in American society? The EPA will need to balance questions of en- vironmental protection and social justice in its deci- sions. Part of the EPA’smissionoverlapswiththat of other agencies in regard to climate change and its impact. EPA regulators have become increasingly concerned with the issue of carbon dioxide and other green- house-gas emissions. These issues are related to sus- tainable development and the use of natural re- sources, an issue that is at the heart of the American environmental movement. The EPA will continue to coordinate with other agencies and cabinet depart- ments that have oversight roles for natural resource management. Because many resource questions, such as global warming, affect more than the United States, the EPA will need to develop better means for coordi- nating its actions with the world community. John M. Theilmann Further Reading Collin, Robert W. The Environmental Protection Agency: Cleaning Up America’s Act. Westport, Conn.: Green- wood Press, 2006. DeLong, James V. Out of Bounds, out of Control: Regula- tory Enforcement at the EPA. Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute, 2002. Jasper, Margaret C. “The Environmental Protection Agency.” In Environmental Law. 2d ed. Dobbs Ferry, N.Y.: Oceana, 2002. Global Resources Environmental Protection Agency • 397 . and regulations of the past, repudiation of scientific findings on global warming in particular, and a final act of redemption—the designation of nearly 520,000 square kilometers of the Pacific. ADMINISTRATOR EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT EXECUTIVE SERVICE OFFICE OF COOPERATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL APPEALS BOARD SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD OFFICE OF SMALL AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS UTILIZATION OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. numberof distinct periods ofdevelopment, each of which is noteworthy for the level of activism and the impact the movement has had on natural re - source policy. Background Although a handful of