Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
DDT WarsRescuing Our National Bird, Preventing Cancer, and Creating EDF$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Charles F. Wurster

Print publication date: 2015

Print ISBN-13: 9780190219413

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: November 2020

DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190219413.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2021. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use. date: 23 June 2021

Ruckelshaus Decides

Ruckelshaus Decides

11 (p.157) Ruckelshaus Decides
DDT Wars

Charles F. Wurster

Oxford University Press

All parties to the hearings knew that on June 14, 1972, at exactly 10 a.m., the door of the EPA administrator’s office would open and out would come someone to distribute copies of the decision on the future of DDT. Nobody knew what was in it, but all parties figured there would be something they would not like and would therefore want to appeal it to an appeals court. Appeals could be heard by any of several federal appellate courts around the country. More important, the first appeal made to any court would likely determine the location or venue where the appeal would be heard. The DDT proponents knew they had done poorly in the DC Court of Appeals, so they wanted to get their appeal out of DC; surely the cotton belt would be best. So they were waiting for that door to open with an open telephone line to the 5th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in New Orleans, Louisiana. We knew what they were up to, so we were determined to file our appeal very quickly with the US Court of Appeals for DC, where we had done very well. That was not a simple procedure. Cell phones did not exist in those days. The EPA administrator’s door opened, the papers came out, and both appeals were rushed to the respective courts of appeal. Not a second was wasted to see what was in the decision. EDF attorney Bill Butler flashed the appeal on a pay phone, which had an open line to another pay phone in the DC Court of Appeals building near the clerk’s office, where EDF secretary Marie Bauman filed the EDF appeal. Each side claimed it had gotten to its preferred appeals court first. The DDT proponents said the case would move to New Orleans for the appeal. Much controversy and confusion ensued. Finally, it was decided that the clocks were not properly synchronized and that EDF had won the rapid communication derby: The case would stay in Washington, DC.

Keywords:   Cato Institute, Delmarva Peninsula, European Union, Heritage Foundation, Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), acid rain, carbon dioxide emissions, global warming, green peppers, integrated vector management, organophosphates, saccharin

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .