national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] you're watching american history tv, all weekend, every weekend on c-span3. to join the conversation, like us on facebook. announcer: each week, american history tv's "reel america" brings you archival films that provide context for today's issues. up next, a 1982 pbs documentary by wvia public media in pennsylvania about regulation of air pollution in the national parks.

the film details the process of turning general language into a 1977 amendment into specific regulations, revealing behind-the-scenes negotiations and debates between epa regulators and environmental and industry interests. this is 50 minutes. >> funding for this program was made possible by grants from the bendix corporation, and the u.s. department of education. ♪ >> when the cornerstone of this building was still new, thomas jefferson said, the execution of our laws is more important than the making of them. i am e.g. marshal. thomas jefferson would have little notion of how far the process of lawmaking would advance in the century and a half that followed, or how complex it would become. within these walls, congress

still passes our laws, but today this is only the beginning. determining how the laws are made workable is not the job of congress. this task falls to a powerful but little-known group of bureaucrats called regulators. to some, they are more powerful than many of the lawmakers themselves. what they do affects nearly every part of our daily lives and has become one of the most hotly debated aspects of government. our story begins in 1980, the last year of the carter administration. in a residential section of the nation's capital, david hawkins begins his daily commute. ♪ >> hawkins is a federal regulator for the environmental protection agency. his job, like the ever-changing face of the city, is the result of the relentless growth of our government.

a century ago, it was relatively simple. under the great capitol dome, laws were passed and the nation followed. but today, our laws are many and complex. every morning, this city's grand avenues are filled with an army of 100,000 federal workers, regulators who sold task is to to enforce the will of congress. to those who defended, regulation is an absolute necessity to making modern society run. but to its detractors, these agencies represent a bureaucratic monster that generates thousands of unnecessary rules, producing a stranglehold on our economy, our lives, even the very air we breathe. ♪

i >> a political appointee of te carter white house, hawkins was chosen to regulate our nation's air pollution laws. he will be a key figure in a clean air battle to unfold in the months ahead. a lifelong environmentalist, he has strong opinions on our government's obligations. >> regulation tends to be developed in response to abuse. actfood, drug and cosmetic was a response. securities laws were a response to people losing their shirts in the stock market. it is easy to say you're in favor of less regulation, but if you ask someone if they are in favor of dirtier air, they will usually say no. these programs are finally beginning to work. people have to spend money

putting things into the air which they have doing for free for years. >> as hawkins' day begins at the environmental protection agency, so does that of a natural adversary across town. >> one moment, please. >> henry nickel is a lawyer for an industry that feels the weight of david hawkins' clean air regulation. he represents a group of power producers in the west. to him, regulation creates as many problems as it solves. >> because the utility industry is building and operating large industrial facilities which produce a great deal of energy and therefore require use of a lot of fuels, they are number one on the list often times for regulation. ♪ >> the principal problem is the atmosphere of uncertainty that

exists. you are talking about investments of hundreds of millions of dollars, and every time they built a plant, all the environmental requirements that applied to the last plant they built have likely been changed. >> in the next two decades, a logical power demands of a nation will double. as the population grows, so does the real threat of a future energy crisis. >> we need energy to run our economy, and any regulatory action that can affect that must be very carefully considered in light of the key importance of developing an energy independence. >> and in the american west, our possible solutions to our energy problems for the next 200 years. coal, for electricity and synthetic fuel, shale to release the u.s. from its dependence on foreign oil. but there is a problem. facilities to convert these

riches will seriously threaten another resource, one serving the human spirit. ♪ >> the national parks are really held as something sacred. i don't remember home, but whom, but someone referred to the national parks as islands of hope. >> in washington, barbara brown is concerned. the government will soon be inundated with 90 new permits to locate power plants and strip mines in the very shadow of national parks. this could be the biggest battle of her new career. >> what brought this job to me was i took a backpacking trip for the first time in my life, and i was totally stunned by the beauty of the grand canyon. ♪

>> the grand canyon is there because it is a natural thing of -- natural scenic wonder. i have seen it when it is crystal clear and all the colors shimmer, and i've seen it when it is hard to see a rock across the gorge. pollution is probably the number one threat to our national parks. there is a problem, and if something's not done about it, there may not be national parks as we know them today. ♪ >> one of the first to see the problem is a former park ranger and now naturalist photographer, gordon anderson. from a remote corner of bryce canyon, utah, his is a remote voice in the wilderness. >> i make several trips per year to bryce canyon to photograph.

my favorite time to visit this spectacular park is the winter. the blanket of snow as a new -- snow adds a new dimension to the colors in the canyon. when the founding fathers of the national park system back in 1916 set aside parks to be preserved, they could not anticipate 50 years later these parks would be threatened by enormous power plants operating just outside their boundaries. >> anderson had been taking pictures of the western parks for years. as time progressed, he felt that his photographs revealing an increasing amount of air pollution entering from nearby power plants. could these scenic wonders survive the effects of large-scale future energy development? five years before, in the fall of 1975, he began a one-man crusade to save these natural treasures.

in our nation's capital, with the help of a small band of environmentalists, friends of the earth, anderson brought his photographic evidence to petition congress. the goal of this citizen's lobbying effort, find a key legislator who would help. congressman paul rogers, author of the monumental 1970 clean air act, was now revising the law. although a great deal had been accomplished in cleaning up the nation's air, the anderson slides were alarming evidence that parks were still unprotected. >> the navajo power plant in 1970 floor. we flew over the plant to photograph the plume from the air and smoke was blowing into the grand canyon.

non this happens, this is less than the width of the canyon. when pollution finds its way into this huge basin, the view becomes something more like this. this is a candlestick peak when it is being impacted by air pollution from power plants. it looks like this. >> in december of 1976, rogers and his staff went west to see for themselves. here, they experienced the rugged beauty of our national parks and followed a trail of pollution that led from the grand canyon to the massive navajo power plant 50 miles to the north. from the four corners plant, they saw a screen of nitrates that had nearly obliterated part of the navajo reservation. to the lawmakers, the nation's energy needs were clearly conflicting with another

national value -- the preservation of our parks as we know them. >> i am not sure that the monitoring that you did is necessarily all-natural. in other words, it could well be man-made, as well, could it not? >> in the process of amending over 100 new sections of the clean air act, one section would read, congress hereby declares as a national goal that the prevention of any impairment of visibility within our national park areas. this is section 169-a. its final passage is swift. >> it is carried and there is agreement. >> but the process does not end here. congress has neither the technical knowledge nor the staff to turn its desires into reality. this is where the regulators take over. those scores of agencies formed

by congress in the past century to implement and enforce the --l of the legislature legislators. formed in 1970, epa was given the mandate to mount an attack on sources of pollution. one of the newest and largest of regulatory agencies, epa will regulate all sections of the clean air law. our story deals with one small part of the law, the threat of pollution in national parks. but since the land near the parks are rich in resources needed for an energy-hungry america, regulation here sets the stage for a classic struggle between government and free enterprise. ultimate decisions to shape the regulation from this point will be made by david hawkins. as chief of air pollution programs for epa, his task is to implement the intent of

congress, but the clean air law has swamped his office was work, and while 100 new sections must be regulated, clean air in the parks has been untouched for over two years. to get things moving again, gordon anderson and friends of the earth take the matter to federal court. the judge orders the epa to draft a proposed regulation within six months and to complete the job in one year. ordinarily, the task should take twice that long. with his environmentalist sympathies, hawkins will want a strong interpretation of the law, one that will, in his eyes, achieve results. with a vaguely worded statute such as this one, to many he becomes the real lawmaker. >> when a group of people start to think about the actual details of translating a law into specific requirements, questions often come up. and it is my job to provide those answers.

the approach that i took was, we are implementing a clean air act, when in doubt, we should be protecting the environment. >> abe hawkins' power at this moment is a concern to henry nichols. he knows it could cost his client $90 million for pollution controls. a stricter implementation could cost as much as $3 billion. >> the way congress rights laws laws, they are not models of clarity. there is a spectrum of interpretations. you want to look at the facts and pick the one that makes the most sense. >> the sad part about it is that it is easier to identify the needs of our program than it is to figure out how to implement them. >> in their stand against hawkins, the upcoming months will bring intense work for nichols and his staff. to modify the regulation he will

form alliances with sympathetic agencies and members of congress. for the court battles he will create to delay or even kill the he must constantly sift through all available evidence. to the utilities, more regulation could mean delays in constructing new facilities, hueg additional costs, and a climate of uncertainty caused by changing rules. >> the regulations in question would affect the licensing of every new facility in the west. if they do not participate they could face rules that could not be met. >> at national park service headquarters, there is worry that future energy development will bring more air pollution within the parks. is the opportunity

to look toward alternative ways addressing protection. >> barbara brown must map a strategy for the months ahead. her immediate problem is that the national park service is not a regulatory agency. she and her staff will have to fight even to be heard. >> i knew that it would be a feat of hercules if a -- of hercules if a good regulation was written within a year, that i think it was a wonderful incentive to get moving. >> durham, north carolina. to the epa's office of air quality come representatives of the park service, the department of energy, the forest service, and others in the government's first attempt to write the regulation. >> we want to start at the front and work our way through. >> the working group is made up of those must live with the rule after it is regulated. they must draft a proposed regulation within six months,

but it soon becomes evident that each member brings separate marching orders from his agency. >> what is worth spending money on? that means that has to be a significant improvement. >> no, it provides criteria. not necessarily. it is other things. >> epa engineer johnny pearson is chairman of the group. a 10 year bureaucrat with the epa, this is his first chance to head up the writing of a regulation. >> it is not unique or special. >> is how much protection that it gets that is the issue. >> congress set the value. >> the working group will be aided by public input. states,three western workshops will be held in three western states on the initial reaction to the problems of

eliminating visible pollution and the parks. in denver, the energy industry puts in its opinion. >> congress never envisioned these kinds of burdens. >> it is impractical for producers to operate. report points out the need for substantial -- >> they remind the epa that the clean air act was a -- was one of the most burdensome and costly acts in history. they agree that america's air is now cleaner, but to them, this regulation would only duplicate existing roles and create more paperwork and red tape. >> proposed controls simply result in wheel spinning and more and more control by inexperienced and unknowledgeable bureaucrats who love to spend money upon the impossible. >> we have a power plant up for permitting that is 12 times

cleaner than what was presented to congress. they are telling us we do not meet the class two regulation. >> as usual, the regulation industry shows up in force. one of two who speaks for the environment is gordon anderson. >> i stand up here all day hearing people condemn the environmental protection agency. have beens they criticized by industry is because the intent of industry is to weaken and destroy the provisions of this act. what good is a national park if it is full of smog? what good is the grand canyon if you can only see 15 miles because the navajo power plant plume fills it with smog? this is one of the most important resources not just in america but in the world. it is no way to treat it. >> we are saying to do the best job we can right now. we cut back to what we can accomplish, recognizing the limitations. that maybe the control of three power plants and one cement

plant or something, and the consideration of these long-term strategies which we will begin to look at. >> as time pressures mount, johnny pearson asks the group to limit the discussion to industries already polluting the parks. he suggests they ignore for now future pollution sources. but before rules can be written, definitions must be reached. >> what is the national goal? any perceptible change to the human observer from that which would upset natural conditions. >> how do we define natural conditions? >> i don't think you can. >> but then it is meaningless. you're looking for instances where it is obviously not natural conditions. if you don't put that in there, you could go to the l.a. basin and put up a plume there and somebody could say, you can't see it because the l.a. smog is

in your eyes, so why can't i build my source? we are saying you cannot do that. >> when you ask that source to calculate his impact on the existing natural conditions, what are you going to tell him natural conditions are? >> that which occurs naturally. you cannot define natural conditions as a number. >> be simple intent of the united states congress to clear the air within our national parks begins to appear unsolvable for many reasons. >> we're looking towards the henry mountains. we have a hypothetical plant -- >> existing means of scientific measurements are not designed for situations of this complexity. clearly, area power plants are not the only polluters. smelters and other industries add to the picture, as do urban centers as far away as los angeles. wind conditions change hourly, defying accurate monitoring of pollution sources.

finally, one thing overlooked by congress, much of the scenery observed by visitors lies outside park boundaries. should not these integral vistas , as the bureaucrats would call them, also be protected? yet there are hundreds of these views adjacent to the parks. limiting development of these lands would certainly be opposed by industry. with all of these problems, there is still the pressure of the first court deadline in which a proposed regulation must be ready for review by may 15. johnny pearson makes the decision, his first draft will ignore future sources and regulate existing polluters only. a step not popular with park

service officials in washington. >> it was an aggravating process at times, when you said something over and over, and they said gotcha, and it was not what you are really saying at all. when you care about what you're doing, you identify very personally with the product you see on paper. it isn't just some regulation, it means what people see the grand canyon 100 years from now. >> i'm surprised at this stage. >> it is better than it was. there are sentences that are not even sentences. i begin to feel like a manic-depressive on a roller coaster. >> across town, the environmental activist group friends of the earth received copies of the draft leaked to i begin to feel like a manic-depressive on a roller coaster. >>them by our eyes from the park service. >> 80 pages from epa. quite frankly, it is pitiful. it does not mention anything about new sources at all. >> we have to raise the issue, that is our responsibility.

>> you could not intelligently evaluate what the agency was proposing because the agency had not given us all the information we needed to make a judgment. >> and information is the lifeblood to henry nickel in preparing a strong, legal case. he invokes the freedom of information act, preventing -- dispatching a team of attorneys to search park service files. view -- shouldu give you an idea. >> the sort of thing we are looking for, what is known about the air. >> have at it. >> would you clip this up? >> we are doing all of this with an eye ultimately to the courts, because if you don't get what you want, you have to go to court or forever waive any right you have to be heard on the question. of course the history of the last several years is that the ultimate decision upsets everybody.

>> from durham, johnny pearson and his assistant come to washington to present the proposed regulation to top management within epa. the draft must now pass the scrutiny of the committee. the acid test of 16 working group meetings and five months of effort. >> the next major issue -- >> the rule will subsequently be tested. they are charged with keeping the regulation on schedule. with but five weeks before the court ordered deadline, the reaction of the steering committee is critical. >> there are a number of concerns about the quality of the guidelines we have and their linkage to the regulations themselves. >> the regions, the states, the industry, the environmental groups are looking at this set of regulations as providing a new tool. right now the package does not

do that. >> we are not going to go out with scientific data that has not been published or accepted. particularly on modeling and monitoring where i have directors beating on me unmercifully and constantly that i cannot use the tool they are developing in any way until they are peer reviewed. finding in those which were as we want to have changed, and what. >> it is easy to do that when there are minor modifications that are necessary. it is not so easy to do when a major overhaul is necessary. >> we entered this exercise, talked to doug, and agreed with the schedule with the court and environmentalists with the upfront understanding we would do the c+ job first time through. it is all you can do in this timeframe. but if making the transition from c+ to a-, i want to do that in the next three years. >> we're talking about d- or below, i think. of mynswer every damn one

phone calls every day and i don't understand why if we are so deficient that we are at d or quality, i am going to hear about it today. >> we have been raising these major arguments at meetings for the last two to three months. i have got copies of four memos that have commented on the inadequacy of this whole package going back over the last two months. >> we had a working group. the definition starts with w-o-r-k. i need the language. >> i think that possibly involves your folks working with these people. >> there are more people critiquing this rule than there are working on it by a long shot. what i need is the working group to do some work. >> the steering committee sees the first draft as unacceptable.

it does not pass its first critical test from epa leadership. five weeks from the first deadline, johnny pearson is back at square one. upset over the draft's omissions, barbara seizes her moment. >> the first draft of the regulation was missing a critical piece of the puzzle. that was all the future development that can have an impact on visibility. the first draft of the regulations totally ducked the issue. >> this package is one of several tools. >> brown alerts hawkins to the dangers of not regulating future polluters of the parks. to her, this issue should never have been compromised in the first place. >> it was like alice in wonderland. we would be working to clean up the old sources but not catching up because of all the new

pollution from the new sources. we would be on a treadmill. >> the demands of the park service team do not make them of the most popular figures with the epa staff, but controlling future pollution is reinstated within the regulation by a sympathetic hawkins. a major victory for barbara brown. >> time and energy to sit down and put words on a piece of paper. going back to court for a delay is not in the cards. >> in a return to the drawing board, barbara works with the park service representatives in an intensive re-trafficking effort. with less than three weeks before the first proposal deadline, each point is reviewed again. each objection discussed a new. >> the basic instruments are there. nobody thinks there will be a revolutionary invention. >> changes we have talked about

get us along with air. >> by noon on monday. >> two weeks before the first deadline, the regulation approaches another internal checkpoint. red border review. as a measure of its growing complexity, the package now contains 420 pages of regulation to explain five pages of law. >> what i am going to do is put it in today. get this thing going. ok, it is signed. >> that border process is basically the last chance for the assistant administrators to object to the regulation before it goes to the administrators. and of course in government we

do not use a simple word like object. we say non-concur. it is either concur or non-concur rather than agree or object. the young people are freaking out about the numbers. >> on the morning of the first deadline there is proof that the rush to regulate has taken its toll. a phone call brings news that the supporting cost data are filled with errors. there is no way the proposed regulation would be approved with these figures attached. >> they are missing the first part of 3.0. it goes to 3.3. >> i think it is on the dependency. those costs are too high. >> this is a mess. there is no sense getting comment on a set of numbers which are several other offices have severe problems with. this is got to be a record in cutting down on government paperwork. [chuckling] >> hawkins feels the the papers

can be corrected and published within a few weeks. by eliminating the faulty numbers for the moment, epa will meet the first court deadline. the front pages can stay, the back 400 will go. with epa administrator douglas's signature, the midpoint deadline is reached. the regulation reflect hawkins' strong enviromentalist sympathies. future and the existing sources of pollution are to be regulated as our integral beast does lying outside. but the proposal must next to go through the all-important public comment. with signature in hand, phase two begins. in the summer of 1980, the tourist season begins a new in the western parks. as they had done for so many years, some 3 million would return to that great, wondrous chasm called the grand canyon.

return to marvel at the power in and beauty of their land. >> i don't believe this. it is just breathtaking. i wish you could take them home. >> yes. >> the people would return to d-carvedificent win land. unaware of the debate nearby that could define the future of these lands. in salt lake city, a public comment period of 75 days would begin. here, the argument of costs, delays, and the uncertainty would again be emphasized by industry. >> the proposed regulations appear to have been generated only to applied by the court mandate to have regulations in place by november 15. >> i believe congress did not intend for these to be made in a

slipshod manner. >> based upon a hope they would be with it. >> we urge the environmental protection agency to moderate its schedule for promulgating the final regulations until 1985 at the earliest. >> delay, delay, delay. this is a tactic industry is simply using against the epa to delay it indefinitely. skies over the great southwest is not an open sewer. >> as governor of utah i am fully cognizant -- >> the regulators see the view and frustrations of those that would ultimately and forces and a tangle of other rules. >> the proposed regulations we are addressing today sometimes cross the fine line between federal guidance and federal interference. we are directed to protect air quality and visibility, endangered species, reclaim all lands disturbed by mining,

convert utility waters to coal and provide over 200 million barrels of synthetic oil in the early 1990's. trying to balance all of those goals within the limited statutory guidelines and limited resources we have in this country, i say in my testimony it is almost an impossible task. >> in washington, the allies within industry accelerate their campaign. on capitol hill, they urge members of congress to pressure epa for modifications. eventually, even the white house itself is drawn into the debate. >> there are testament that are wide ranging from something on the order from $90 million to $3 billion in capital costs. grapple withing to the issues of how to mold these operations in a way that would minimize the impact on the economy. what that comes down to is how we're going to dilute the

regulations. >> that would be identified in terms of the particular feature that is important to see, and that in effect is limiting. >> the issue here -- >> a white house concerned with belation recommends the rule significantly weakened. a victory for local utilities. >> there are fundamental questions we should be looking at. >> encouraged, henry nickel next -- ned an attack on that epa's move to include non-park land within the regulation is not only unfair but illegal since it was never mentioned why congress. dave hawkins, he feels, is overstepping his authority. the job of the regulators is to implement the laws congress adopts and not create laws. i think the agency created laws. >> this seems to be pretty

straightforward. >> go back to the court. >> visibility? >> yeah. >> three months before the final deadline, the public comment period officially ends. in addition to the massive legal brief are the written comments of 382 others. arguments of regulated industries, the white house, key members of congress, and letter-writing campaigns of opposing environmental groups. by day's end, a stack of paper seven feet high will be under lock and key. with the end of the public comment period, the people have now spoken.

a vaguely worded law and imperfect scientific information. the utilities industry, fearful that regulation will hamper energy development and increase cost, takes advantage of these weak points. henry nickel has mounted an affected battle. his efforts bear fruit. working through a coalition of legislators, sympathetic federal agencies and even a cost-conscious white house, pressure is brought to relax the requirement. epa will exempt existing power plants from adding costly pollution controls. the exemption is worth an estimated $3 billion to industry. at the same time, barbara brown is victorious in her battle to have the regulation applied to future industrial development which might pollute the parks. this is a total turnaround from the one which johnny pearson originally proposed. with the integral vista issue comes perhaps the hardest problem of all.

does the protection of this is just outside the parks rulemaking or is the epa team creating law that congress never intended. as the one your core deadline draws near, a concern johnny pearson heads toward washington and final decision. >> as you all know, we are required to propagate by september 15, looking over 236 comments, virtually every comment that we received mentioned integral vista is in -- vistas in one way or another. in reading over all of the comments, i have some reservations about our ability to support in court the integralist issues as proposed. we thought we can make it in a straight face. we have now seen the comments. there are persuasive arguments

being made that will again be made in court. if dave hawkins wants to go forward, that is a policy decision that has to be made. >> we have got substantial comments on the issue of vistas. quite divided as you might expect. they looked at the comments and they believe there is some risk as far as a court action. of hisite the fear staff, he thinks integral vistas are important. he decides to stand fast. >> if you eliminated altogether you take with the vistas from the process. >> you have to proceed from the act that congress passed. we have to make sure we can defend it when we get to the ultimate lawsuit, which we all

expect there will be a lawsuit. >> the decision on integral theas gives nickel ammunition he needs. there is an added reason for halting. a court delay now would grant time for the election of a new president, one more favorable to his cause. >> page four. >> with two weeks to go, barbara brown makes final recommendations. for her, each turn of phrase has potential for protecting or endangering the parks. >> in integral vista is the view of a scenic landmark. that is too limiting. >> on november 10, the court verdict is due for the vote for delay. he makes contact with his legal counterpart at epa. >> henry nickel. >> henry, how are you?

what is up? what if you heard? >> we have raised the question on whether or not the agency should not be rethinking the entire package. to do that the agency would of had to get an extension of the deadline. >> this issue will give the epa until november 24 to respond to your motion and give -- >> this is not henry nichols' round. the regulation will go forward. but both men know that when the bill is published, henry will return to the courts and another round of legal maneuver. >> thanks a lot. >> we will have our day. bye, bye. >> the regulation is a result of many efforts. barbara brown has fought to

protect the parts from future polluters. henry has gained concessions for existing power plants. even one issue of personal importance to hawkins will not remain unaltered. >> where we compromised on the integral vistas was allowing the states to have the final say for an impact on an integral vista. it requires an open decision-making process. if people care deeply about it they will have an opportunity to influence the decision. 21, 1980, a final trip from durham to washington. johnny pearson has arrived to deliver the completed documents personally. inside the box are 2000 pages telling a nation how to implement a congressional resolve to clean the air in our national parks.

after 48 drafts created with the assistance of congress, the white house, the courts, 15 government agencies, 36 states, and 383 public comments, johnny pearson's job is over. what began as a simple observation of one man through the viewfinder of a camera will shortly become a set of regulations affecting millions. although existing plants will not be required to change, future industries must prove they will not foul the air before they build. but perhaps most importantly, the regulation will establish clean the area in our parks as a national goal. for dave hawkins, a moment to reflect after a year of conflict and compromise. it is impossible even though

we have done it. we are nine days are short of a year. >> impossible. >> yeah. >> it should not be but it is. well, i will see you. thanks a lot. >> in a quiet moment, hardly reflecting on the effort to get there, the final step in creating the regulation arrives. >> this one regulation is not by any means going to do the whole job. it is a place to make a mark and say, you do not have to be able to buy a high quality environment in order to be able to enjoy one in the united states. 21, three on november years after it passes congress, section 169-a of the clean air act will now take effect.

dave hawkins's job is done. >> around the world, this country is known for the vistas in the western united states. if you look at the travel posters that are displayed in foreign capitals you will always see the grand canyon. it is a treasure of the world , and we can afford to protect it. >> the law will bear the imprint of all concerned. by eliminating existing power plants from the full impact of regulation, henry has served his clients well. >> had we not participated in the process, there could have been a set of rules that would of had immediate and disastrous impact on the industry. that did not occur. but environmental requirements can be made much simpler than the are right now because it is costing the public a great deal of money and the public is not getting that many benefits.

out of it. you are going to have to balance what your interests are with the national park versus your interest in the economy and energy development. >> barbara brown's success in controlling future polluters is a significant getting. she has helped to shape the law with concern and dedication. >> you have two great warhorses. you have got the protection of a national parks and you have got the future of our national energy and development at stake. protection thee national parks can coexist. as seen when industry has come in and we have been able to lay out what we want to accomplish. but it does take a certain amount of trust and sometimes that is hard to develop because we're so used to wearing our white hats and our black hats that we forget to talk to one another, but the first step has been taken, and that in itself

has given me a great deal of satisfaction. ♪ >> barbara brown would be the first to admit that in washington, rarely has there been such a thing as a clear victory and almost never is there such a lasting one. the political drama that shapes our laws and lives is a constant struggle. for now, the regulation as written will be in force, but this role and the clean air act itself will be challenged again , as will all of our laws. we have seen a former park ranger that one person can have an effect on national legislation and so to make you may you and i make a difference if we let our voices be heard. i am e.g. marshall. ♪

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] announcer: you're watching american history tv. 48 hours of programming on american history every weekend on c-span3. forow us on twitter information on our schedule and to keep up on the latest history news.