In the first century, the Egyptian astronomer Ptolemy theorized that the earth is the center of the universe and everything revolves around it. Near­ly two thousand years later, Ptolemy is alive and well. Despite the fact that he reportedly died in the second century, despite the fact that his theory supposedly was buried by Copernicus, despite the fact that man has now circled the earth and set foot on the moon, we still believe everything re­volves around us. At least we act that way. We act as if man were supreme over nature instead of a part of nature. We act as if man were the only thing that counts. We act as if our environment held no influence over our life, our mind, or our spirit. Consequently, we hack at the land, rip through natural resources, wipe out animals, dump trash, foul the air, and pollute streams.

Recently, it was determined that every person in the United States produces annually some 1,800 pounds of waste. Even more frightening is the inadequacy of facilities to dispose of these man-made mountains. The Public Health Service reports that 90 per cent of the dumps in the nation are potential sources of disease and pollution. The Hudson River is al­ready so polluted that the U. S. Geological Survey reports serious danger of polluting aquifers (water-bearing strata of permeable rock, sand, or gravel). If such pollution intensifies, it would make the river useless as well as endanger deep-well pumping. Last year, sixty faculty members of the ucla Medical School recommended that anyone not compelled to re­main in Los Angeles leave immediately for the sake of his health.

I do not mean to criticize New York or California. In the last few years, they have been most active states in the fight against pollution. Per­haps that is what is so frightening. There is no assurance that billions spent can ever resurrect a dying resource. Hence, we must not be con­servationists alone — we must become preventionists.

Preventing environmental problems is both cheaper and healthier than attempting to solve them. With that philosophy in mind, my admin­istration is moving on every front to preserve and protect natural re­sources in Minnesota. To protect the land, we have worked to create the Voyageurs National Park, which would maintain the unique natural assets of northern Minnesota. There can be no doubt that the establishment of a national park is a long process. The sustained support of the Minnesota Conservation Federation and all others concerned about protecting natu­ral resources will continue to be most necessary. After meeting in Wash­ington with the Vice President, the director of the Budget Bureau, and the President’s staff, I am encouraged. I believe we are finally seeing light at the end of the tunnel in the struggle to secure support for the park from the Nixon administration.

To prevent loss of lives and land, we have been managing flood­plains. We are reclaiming mines to determine their recreational possibili­ties. We are spending $7.5 million to acquire and develop parks and trails. We are developing a conservation curriculum for the schools, grades 1­12. Thanks to increased license fees, we have been able to spend $1.1 mil­lion to improve deer, waterfowl, and fish habitats.

We need a broadbased land improvement program. We must never forget that the land does not belong to us; rather, we belong to the land.

However, we must go beyond correcting the sins of yesterday. To those who say pollution is the price of progress, I say nonsense. To those who say wait to see what the federal government and other states will do, I say we haven’t got the time. The current example of our dedication to the principle of immediate action is the state’s controversy with the Atomic Energy Commission over water pollution below a nuclear power plant. But that is not the only case where Minnesota wants the right to be more aggressive than the federal government in pollution control. We are one of half a dozen states in the nation to be actively working against in­adequate, ugly, and unsanitary dumps — the federal government has no standards for solid waste management. In the summer of 1969 we went beyond national boundaries to protect Lake Superior by calling an Inter­national Joint Commission — any long-range solution to the preservation of this lake must include Canada. At the same time, we are cooperating fully with the federal government in the recent conference held about the lake; I have instructed the immediate implementation of the interim rec­ommendations made by the conference.

In another instance, Minnesota has protected itself in case the federal government does not act. The state legislature passed my Crystal Waters Program, part of which includes a state incentive for local sewage treat­ment plant construction. The projects are financed by local and federal funds, but the state’s incentive becomes important if the federal govern­ment fails to appropriate the full amount of money authorized. President Nixon has recommended $214 million for this program. The House has passed a bill nearly tripling that figure; the Senate has not yet acted. The Federal Water Pollution Control Agency has notified the Minnesota Pol­lution Control Agency that the state program is approved, which means that a minimum of $4 million was released for the construction of local sewage treatment facilities. When Congress adopts its final appropriations, that sum may be increased. Minnesota communities are waiting to learn the amount of federal funds before drawing on state resources, but if needed, the state stands ready to help.

Again, in 1968 Minnesota adopted air quality standards on ten cate­gories of pollutants. When federal regulations (dealing with only two cate­gories) came out, they permitted a lower minimum than the state stand­ards do.

With that record of action, there should be no doubt that as long as I am Governor, Minnesota will insist on its right to protect the lives and health of its citizens in the best way it knows how. This is part of the pro­gram I had in mind two years ago, when I said, “It is important for the state to take the initiative in pollution control. It would indeed be unwise and unfortunate if the federal government preempted the management of our air and our land and our water. Successful management needs the co­operation of the federal government with the states supplying the leader­ship. The states should, and this state will.”

One request we do make of the federal government: federal-state revenue sharing. We need money to do the kind of job that needs to be done. With the federal government sitting on the most lucrative source of revenue — 93 per cent of ah income taxes paid in the country — it has the capacity to return a share to the states. Minnesota needs this additional resource to pursue the campaign for environmental excellence. We must go beyond correcting past mistakes. Money, action, and some intensive thinking is in order.

We must look at population distribution and be aware of its results. For several years, Minnesota has been trying to reverse the rural-ur­ban migration because small towns cannot afford the loss, cities cannot tolerate further congestion, and our natural resources cannot support higher densities of people. Good results have emerged from a concerted effort to stabilize the population balance.

We must start some long-range planning for environmental manage­ment. The State Planning Agency is cooperating with the University of

Minnesota on an extensive analysis of present environmental problems and potential problems. The scope is broad, covering the topics of air, water, food, chemicals, waste-heat, new species, and so on. This working analysis could be extremely valuable in determining what needs to be done now and how future problems can be avoided.

We must get local officials more involved in conservation programs, as well as keep the general public actively involved in solving conserva­tion problems. In an attempt to do this, I support regionalizing the opera­tions of the conservation department. Regional headquarters could serve as multi-use facilities — being an administrative arm of the department, holding educational programs for the public, and having demonstration projects to acquaint the people with new approaches.

I see three controls available to curb pollution: formal legal controls, economic controls, and informal or attitudinal controls. Thus far, we have put most of our efforts into formal legal controls. Although that is certain­ly necessary and proper, pollution is far too important a threat for us not to use every possible weapon to combat it. Economic controls to protect the environment are pathetically weak — in the sense of dollars alone, it is economically more advantageous to pollute in the short run than not to pollute. But business must be made to see that pollution abatement results in economic advantages in the long run. Some industries already suffer economic losses from pollution, and the agriculture industry loses an es­timated $500 million a year in crop damage. On the other hand, some companies are in a position to make profits from recovered waste. All companies must come to regard pollution control as one of the costs of doing business. In Minnesota, the industrial community has created a pol­lution section in their statewide organization; this section has excellent po­tential to provide education as well as internal enforcement.

Yet, in the final analysis, informal controls are the most effective. Legal controls usually set minimums; by themselves they cannot inspire higher performance. Economic controls can be applied only to one seg­ment of the economy. Informal or attitudinal controls can make things happen. Ultimately and ideally, in a democratic society all restraints should be based on the people’s acceptance of what is permissible. Right now, polluting is socially acceptable. A few government leaders, a few businessmen, a few labor leaders, and a few citizen groups are moving against pollution. But there are 200 million people in this nation, 3 and 3A million people in this state. And generally, Americans still have not matured in their attitude toward pollution. As a people accustomed to un­equalled wealth, unexcelled growth, undefeated ambitions, unlimited hor­izons, we simply have to learn that there is only so much — only so much air, only so much land, only so much water. The pioneer days of ruining, packing up, and moving on are over. There are limits. And we have nearly reached them.

Meanwhile, legislators and planners work on pesticide regulations to prevent poisoning of the planet, and the housewife writes to support the ban on farm applications but not on her garden sprays.

They draft lakeshore regulations to prevent or correct lakeside slums and dying lakes, and homeowners ask them to penalize the big polluters instead of the hundreds of little ones.

The garbage in this nation is accumulating so fast that an entire state could be buried under ten feet of rubbish. But citizens won’t take two min­utes to return bottles to the store — and if the current trend in their tastes continues, they may no longer even be able to purchase any but “dispos­able” containers.

Our problem is eloquently described by Pogo: “We have met the enemy and they are us.” Yes, we are the polluters, and the mess is ours to clean up. Every citizen in this country must join in the effort both to compensate for past errors and to prevent them from recurring. All 200 million should commit themselves to the statement, “I give my pledge as an American to save and faithfully to defend from waste the natural re­sources of my country.”

Harold LeVander
Governor of Minnesota

November 6,1969