Conservation: A New Say in Court

"On behalf of all the people of the U.S.," a militant housewife named Carol Yannacone last week filed a federal court suit against five major manufacturers of DDT. Charging that the pesticide has gravely damaged the nation's natural resources, she claims that the companies have violated both antitrust laws and the citizenry's constitutional rights. Mrs. Yannacone, a Long Island conservationist, proposes a remarkable remedy. She seeks not only an injunction against further advertising of DDT without a warning but also the payment of $30 billion in reparations to local, state and federal governments. Whatever its fate in court, the Yannacone suit exemplifies a new conservationist passion: using the law as a weapon to help save the environment.

Until recently, conservationists generally lacked standing in the courts. Judges leaned toward litigants whose tangible property rights were threatened. But in 1965, an appellate court ordered the Federal Power Commission —for environmental reasons—to reconsider its approval of a power plant at Storm King Mountain on New York's Hudson River. The case stressed that federal regulatory agencies had a duty to seek out public interest in cases before them. It was a major step in opening the courts to conservationists.

Formidable Problems. Now the nation's rising awareness of ecology has moved scores of judges to listen. In the past summer alone, a federal judge delayed Walt Disney Productions' ski-resort scheme in California's Mineral King Valley until conservation groups can have their say in court. A six-lane highway planned to run along the Hudson River was stopped when conservationists cited an obscure law requiring congressional approval of any project involving a dike on an interstate navigable waterway.

Even so, formidable problems remain. For one, existing local laws that protect the environment are often poorly drafted and administered—making it especially important, as Chicago Lawyer Joseph Karaganis puts it, "to light a fire under public law-enforcement officials." Beyond that, conservationists' suits tend to be underfinanced, a handicap in fighting both large industries and the many small ones that contribute to regional air and water pollution. In addition, a court injunction against potential as well as present polluters still requires proof that irreparable damage is likely, a difficult task when it comes to such highly technical puzzles as last January's Santa Barbara oil

spill.