COLUMN ONE : Does Earth Still Need Protection? : Reformers want to rein in regulation and what they say is bad science. But their targeting of landmark laws may imperil strides made in past quarter-century.

On the eve of Washington festivities honoring the 25th anniversary of Earth Day, Louisiana Congressman Billy Tauzin told a story about dynamiting fish in a lake.

It was a funny story full of the self-deprecating Cajun humor that makes him a beguiling speaker. But when Tauzin, a Democrat who is a leader in the movement to rewrite the nation’s environmental laws, got to the punch line, he wasn’t joking anymore.

“It’s time now to flip that dynamite right into the water,” he told a roomful of shopping center developers who had gathered for a daylong skewering of laws protecting wetlands and endangered species.

Some would say that the fuse has already been lit, and that it’s only a question of how big the explosion will be as Congress--in the name of common sense, cost consciousness and private property rights--moves to overhaul the laws enacted since Earth Day 25 years ago today marked the beginning of the modern era of environmentalism.

Targeting landmark laws on air and water quality as well as the preservation of wilderness and wild animals, the campaign amounts to a counterrevolution against the federal government’s license to regulate in the public interest.

The reformers, mostly Republicans, challenge the very assumptions underlying a generation of environmental policy. They say too many expensive regulations are based on unscientific judgments and that billions of dollars have been spent to regulate activities that pose insignificant threats.

John D. Graham, a professor of public policy at Harvard’s School of Public Health, may have stated the argument as succinctly as anyone when he told Congress recently: “We regulate some nonexistent risks too much and ignore larger, documented risks. We suffer from a syndrome of being paranoid and neglectful at the same time.”

*

A thousand-page law, the 1990 Clean Air Act, requires the expenditure of billions of dollars “to clean up the last 10% or so of pollutants in outdoor air,” Graham has written, while comparatively little attention is directed at improving the quality of air indoors “where people spend more of their time.”

Yet, as the newly proposed reforms make their way through Congress, what remains to be seen is whether this revamping of environmental policy will eliminate the inconsistencies and excesses of the Washington bureaucracy without jeopardizing the great strides made over a quarter-century.

“What I have been seeing over the last 100 days is a frontal assault . . . an attempt to roll back 25 years of public health and environmental protections,” said Carol Browner, the Clinton Administration’s chief of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Since the first Earth Day, air quality in much of the country has improved substantially. Airborne lead has all but disappeared since leaded gasoline was phased out. Smog levels have been cut by close to one-half in the Los Angeles area despite a large increase in automobiles.

Nearly double the number of lakes and rivers are swimmable and fishable since the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972. Untreated sewage is no longer dumped in waterways. Recycling has led to a 20% reduction in municipal waste buried in landfills.

In the same quarter-century, the amount of federal land set aside for wilderness or other conservation purposes has jumped from about 50 million acres to about 280 million. National park land has nearly tripled, to about 80 million acres.

Environmental groups say that the job is far from finished, that the nation needs to continue to fix the damage done by industrialization and careless growth while preserving a natural heritage for future generations.

But driving the reform movement is the belief that many of the old solutions have backfired.

The revisionists argue that pesticide regulations have caused farmers to grow crop strains that are high in naturally occurring poisons, that logging prohibitions have clogged national forests with dead and dying timber, providing the kindling for disastrous fires, and that hunting bans in national parks have upset the predator balance and led to huge herds of elk, deer and bison that spread disease and devastate vegetation.

*

More than anything, the critics say, the way the environment has been protected in the past 25 years has burdened Americans with unnecessary costs, put too much valuable land off limits to commercial development and ordered up remedies that were not based on sound science.

“We can no longer afford poorly targeted, inefficient regulations that achieve only marginal environmental benefits in an inflexible manner and at an excessive cost,” said Jerry Jasinowski, president of the National Assn. of Manufacturers, one of the driving forces behind the movement to change environmental laws.

The Clinton Administration has tried to slow the reform steamroller with concessions, agreeing, as Browner said in a recent interview, that “the process needs to be changed, that we need to develop more innovative, cost-effective solutions to environmental problems.”

The Administration has offered industries more incentives to come up with their own solutions to pollution problems. And it has agreed to exempt owners of small tracts of land from regulations under the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act.

But these gestures have done little to slow the momentum for change. There appear to be enough votes to make substantial revisions this year in the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Superfund law governing cleanups of the nation’s most hazardous toxic waste sites. In most cases, pending legislation would sharply limit the federal government’s enforcement powers.

Even before changing those laws, this Congress has demonstrated an ability to work around environmental restrictions. Determined to allow large increases in logging in national forests, Congress headed off anticipated environmental challenges by declaring in advance that all forest protection laws had been complied with.

Republican leaders of key committees in the House and Senate have also made clear their intentions to reduce by millions of acres the amount of land set aside as wilderness and to turn some of that land over to states or private owners. Senior members have called for opening up Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, paring down the acreage in the national park system and allowing more commercial activity--such as cruise ships and tour buses--in certain parks.

*

Shell-shocked environmentalists say the congressional agenda goes far beyond any public clamor for reform. They point out that few election campaigns last November focused on environmental issues, and they quote opinion polls that indicate continued public support for environmental protection.

“There’s no public mandate for any of this,” said Carl Pope of the Sierra Club. “That’s what is so outrageous about it.”

But others are not so sure. Former Oklahoma Rep. Mike Synar, a Democrat who chaired the Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Committee until his defeat last fall, says Democrats should have seen the storm coming.

“The polls said that the public cared about the environment, but the expressions on people’s faces told you something else,” Synar said. “People were tired of having the government in their face. Tired of gun bans and smoking bans. The American public wants a good letting alone.”

Synar says the momentum for change would not be what it is if Congress under Democratic control had done more to curb examples of what he called regulatory silliness.

“Take the Safe Drinking Water Act,” Synar said. “There was no reason to make some hard-pressed municipality test for 150 different contaminants that hadn’t shown up in a thousand miles of the place. But we held our ground stubbornly. We said you gotta test.”

It is no accident that the forces pushing for an overhaul focus less on the environment than on the issue of government meddling. In his remarks to the developers, Tauzin said the drive to change environmental laws was doomed as long as it was seen as a campaign against spotted owls, timber wolves or sea turtles.

But if it were a movement to save a Northern California sawmill, a Montana rancher or a fourth-generation Louisiana fisherman from the snares of an environmental bureaucracy, Tauzin said, then it might succeed.

And that is the way the campaign is being presented--as a populist movement to vindicate the property rights and financial security of working-class Americans.

Congressional hearing rooms reverberate with stories of excess--of a home condemned because it was built unknowingly on a wetland, of an immigrant farmer threatened with prosecution for mowing a field where an endangered rodent lived, of a fisherman who hung himself because he could not make a living as result of environmental restrictions on the nets he could use.

These stories, however, are not always what they seem.

Tauzin talks about a 14-year-old Boy Scout lost in New Mexico’s Pecos Wilderness and forced to spend an extra 24 hours in the mountains after he was spotted by a helicopter. Tauzin blames the delay on the reluctance of U.S. Forest Service officials to violate a “crazy” federal regulation barring helicopters and other motorized transport from official wilderness areas.

As Tauzin tells it, the moral of the story is that environmental laws place a higher priority on the sanctity of nature than on the well-being of humans.

But the boy’s father, Robert Graham of Lake Bluff, Ill., doesn’t draw quite the same lesson. (His son survived without injury.)

Interviewed recently, Graham pointed out that the wilderness regulation does permit helicopter rescues if someone is in danger. Graham said officials on the scene decided that his son did not need to be airlifted.

“My problem was with that decision,” Graham said. “It was the crazy idea that a 14-year-old boy lost in the mountains wasn’t in danger. But that’s not an argument for letting motorcycles and off-road vehicles run roughshod through the wilderness.”

Yet, many of the stories heard on Capitol Hill contain an important element of truth. They reinforce the fact that as many major sources of pollution have been cleaned up, the burden of regulation is falling more heavily on people unaccustomed to the weight.

Policies that once targeted the paper, petrochemical, auto and public power industries more recently have been making life more difficult for the dry cleaner, bakery, body shop, metal finisher and small manufacturer.

“Laws passed in the 1980s greatly increased the pervasiveness of environmental controls,” Robert Sussman, a Washington lawyer and former EPA deputy administrator, wrote in a recent environmental journal. “As a result of Superfund enforcement, Clean Air Act (rules) and drinking water regulation, small business, cities and towns that are new to the regulatory process now confront complex and costly responsibilities and the threat of fines.”

The unpopularity of these laws, along with mandatory ride-sharing and vehicle inspection rules, Sussman said, “has greatly contributed to the widespread view of EPA as a remote and heavy-handed regulator that micro-manages the daily activities of small business, local governments and individual citizens.”

At the heart of much of the discontent is the belief that many environmental regulations simply are not worth the money they wind up costing industry and society.

Paul Portney, vice president of Resources for the Future, a Washington think tank that analyzes environmental policy, has estimated that urban air pollution regulations under the 1990 Clean Air Act are costing big and small businesses $20 billion annually while saving at most $12 billion in health costs.

A widely quoted critic of regulatory excess, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer--a Democrat appointed by Clinton--has written that the nation is spending more money trying to eradicate the last 10% of pollution than it did on the first 90%.

In his book “Breaking the Vicious Cycle,” a critique of federal regulation, Breyer described a case in which the government sought $9 million in extra cleanup work at a toxic waste dump that already was “clean enough for children playing on the site to eat small amounts of dirt daily for 70 years without significant harm.”

Pending Republican legislation would make the EPA and other agencies show the benefits to society of a particular regulation justify its costs. The congressional reformers argue such a cost-benefit standard is the best way to curb the spiraling price of federal regulations, now estimated by Republicans at nearly $600 billion a year.

So far, Administration officials have balked at the proposal. Typical of the congressional reform package, they say, it goes too far.

“We have no objection to a law that says cost-benefits have to be taken into account,” said EPA’s Browner. “We do it all the time to help determine the best way for local government and industry to solve problems.”

But the proposed law would take cost-benefit to absurd lengths, Browner argued. “We’d be trying to put a dollar value on every asthma attack prevented. Assigning monetary values to lives saved and illnesses avoided is a highly subjective process that would invite endless legal challenges.”

Environmental activists, saying it is impossible to quantify many intangible benefits of regulation, argue that the move is a device to block needed protections.

“How do you calculate the benefits to society of species diversity, the joy of experiencing a wilderness or the satisfaction of knowing that humpback whales still exist out there somewhere in the deep?” said David Vladeck, a lawyer for Public Citizen, a nonprofit consumer advocacy group.

*

For the most part, leaders of the regulatory reform movement in Congress are careful not to present themselves as environmental killjoys. As he discussed the legislative achievements of the first 100 days at a recent news conference, House Speaker Newt Gingrich cuddled a rare Southeast Asian bearcat on loan from an Ohio zoo.

But the congressional critics of federal environmental policy do not have to look any further for ammunition than the EPA itself. Although EPA officials are reluctant to shoulder much blame, they readily concede that regulatory priorities too often have been shaped by political demands and popular fears rather than by scientific analysis.

In a speech last year, William Reilly, EPA administrator from 1987 to 1991, acknowledged that only 30% of the EPA’s budget was devoted to high-risk environmental threats.

Breyer has written extensively about a tendency of the federal government to regulate pollutants before it can fully document the hazards they pose. He has pointed out that of 190 chemicals subject to regulation, the EPA has developed complete test data for only seven. Still, political pressure to regulate the sources of those 190 chemicals has forced the EPA to set tough standards.

The agency has required industry to use “maximum available control technology”--often meaning the most expensive technology--to reduce suspected human health hazards which, in many cases, scientists have not thoroughly evaluated. Compliance with EPA’s standards has led to some costly and questionable investments.

In 1990, under orders from the EPA, officials at an Amoco Corp. oil refinery in Pennsylvania built a $41-million high-tech waste-water treatment system to capture toxic vapor before it escaped into the air. But by the time Amoco was finished with the project, testing revealed that waste water was not the main source of the vapor.

When the source was discovered, Amoco officials found that they could eliminate 90% of the pollution at one-quarter the cost of the waste-water plant.

The episode has become a parable of bureaucratic ineptitude fueling the uprising against federal regulation.

No one quarrels with the idea that regulations should make sense environmentally and economically. But opponents of the pending bills say they call for a level of technical certainty that is rarely achievable. And they argue that the legislation would create a system of appeals and judicial review that will stall regulations for years.

If the proposed legislation had been in effect 20 years ago, Browner said, “we wouldn’t have been able to ban lead in gasoline”--a step widely regarded as a signal achievement of environmental regulation.

“We acted on the basic knowledge of elevated lead levels in children’s blood,” Browner said. “We knew it was affecting children’s intelligence levels. But we couldn’t tell you how many IQ points would be lost or how many children would lose IQ points. And we certainly hadn’t done a cost-benefit analysis.”

The lead analogy has been fiercely debated. But there is little disagreement that under the pending legislation the government would not have the same latitude to err on the side of caution.

A case in point is the EPA’s proposed regulation of municipal water supplies to control disease-causing microbes such as cryptosporidium, a parasite that contaminated Milwaukee’s water supply in 1993, causing 400,000 illnesses and several deaths.

It is uncertain whether the EPA will be able to regulate the parasite under the proposed requirements, says a recent report by the Congressional Research Service. The EPA lacks data showing “that the benefits of cryptosporidium regulation justify the costs,” the memo states.

“Cryptosporidium is a good example,” Browner said. “Does the public want us to require some sort of protection now, given what happened in Milwaukee, or does it want us to wait years and years until we know everything there is to know about the problem?”

* ‘GREENING’ OF CLINTON: Environmentalists see positive signs from the President. A4

* ECONOMIC BENEFITS: California’s environmental industry is a huge business. D1

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

BACKGROUND

Earth Day was the brainchild of former U.S. Sen. Gaylord Nelson, a Wisconsin Democrat, who wanted to rally Americans around environmental causes. About 20 million people took part in demonstrations around the country on April 22, 1970. Although some environmental laws already were on the books, Earth Day marked the emergence of a powerful new constituency that has led to the passage of sweeping legislation.

Environmental Report Card

Since the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970, marking the start of the environmental era, landmark laws and copious federal regulations have guided policies on pollution and natural resources. Here is a rundown of environmental accomplishments, the milestone legislation and some criticisms behind the current movement to rewrite those laws.

AIR QUALITY (Clean Air Act, 1970, and major changes in 1977 and 1990)

* Air pollution down 24%, motor vehicle emissions down 50%, lead emissions down 98%, sulfur emissions down 33%. Metropolitan areas failing to meet air standard declined by almost 90%, though 100 million Americans still breathe unhealthy air.

* Criticisms: Regulations often dictated by politics and public pressure. Costs of compliance excessive and often outweigh the benefits to society.

WATER QUALITY (Clean Water Act, 1972, Safe Drinking Water Act, 1974)

* Direct dumping of raw sewage into rivers, lakes and streams eliminated; ocean dumping of sewage sludge banned. Public health standards for drinking water established.

* Criticisms: One-size-fits-all approach forced industries to install ineffective technology and localities to spends millions to solve problems that do not affect them.

HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS (various acts)

* DDT and other dangerous pesticides banned. U.S. production of ozone-depleting CFCs down 50%. Pesticide residues in dairy and egg products reduced 86%.

* Criticisms: Regulations exaggerate the health risks of residues in food while playing down more serious concerns such as the hazards to farm workers.

TOXIC WASTES (Resources Conservation and Recovery Act, 1976; Superfund, 1980)

* Release of selected toxic chemicals down 46%. Superfund system set up for cleaning up 1,300 highest contamination sites. More than 100,000 leaking underground storage tanks removed.

* Criticisms: Millions of dollars spent cleaning up negligible amounts of waste. Unfairly requires payment by firms that dumped waste before it was illegal. Wastes money on litigation.

LAND AND ANIMALS (Endangered Species Act, 1973)

* Recovered species include bald eagle, peregrine falcon, gray whale. Area of protected land and water increased 300%. Protected rivers increased from 868 to 10,734 miles. Rate of wetlands loss slowed.

* Criticisms: Wetlands regulations and Endangered Species Act imposed unconstitutional restrictions on landowners. Too much valuable land taken out of production and off the tax rolls.

SOURCES: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Los Angeles Times, Sierra Club

Researched by NONA YATES/Los Angeles Times