![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Achievements and legacy
Q: What are the lasting achievements of your first three years at EPA?
MR. RUCKELSHAUS: I think we did establish the credibility of the agency along the lines I have suggested. I think we did establish in the public's mind the willingness of this government agency to do what the public wanted; namely, begin to control pollution. By the time I assumed office, the initial drive of the Nixon administration to place every political appointee in some kind of job--to get every precinct committeemen one of these wonderful federal appointments--had faded. This reversal happened because of a man named Fred Malek, who was put in charge of the personnel office in the White House. He was very good and very dedicated to getting first rate people. He has since become quite famous. At the end of Nixon's first term, he was the one who delivered the message about the mass firings in the administration. He also became quite close to George Bush.
Malek, however, encountered charges of anti-semitism when he carried out President Nixon's order to investigate so-called "Jewish influence" in the Labor Department. He claimed he was just doing what the president told him to do, but it damaged his reputation and he was eventually squeezed out of the administration. I've known him since the early 1970s and I don't think he is anti-semitic; as far as I know he is not a bigot.
At any rate, he was very good at his job, particularly in the beginning, because he didn't carry much political baggage. Nixon, who was doing things that subsequently brought down his administration, stayed out of Malek's way. Malek and I were equally dedicated to our jobs. We had the authority to hire 2,000 people for EPA and decided to get the best 2,000 we could find. I was pretty free to do this, he was free to help, and we did get absolutely first-rate people in the early days of the agency. I think it established a very high level of talent and competence in EPA which has endured to this day, through some tough times.
I think that was a very important thing. When I went back to the agency in 1983, I visited all the regions, trying to calm down the staffs as a result of Anne Burford's tenure. I invited all hands--500 to 600 people per region--to attend my talks. I asked each of these large crowds how many had worked for EPA from the beginning. Sometimes as many as two-thirds of the audience stand up. So these people persevered through some very tough periods in the agency's development. I think they stood it in very good stead.
That was an accomplishment. Getting in place an organizational structure that worked--not perfectly, but worked--was an achievement. I was beginning to make progress on some of the larger environmental issues like air pollution and water pollution, and setting in place some permit programs for water and air. I think these were necessary to get people working in the same direction. In my view, if you look at progress we have made as a society, EPA has made some unique contributions. Over the 20 years we've been working on pollution problems, the changes have really been quite remarkable. The progress has been obscured by the "chemical of the week" syndrome, a by-product of ever-changing problems. But I think the EPA has been a major contributor to this progress. Part of the success, at least, was the result of having gotten the right start.
Q: What is the Ruckelshaus legacy for EPA? What can the current leaders of the agency learn from your period? What are the most important lessons?
MR. RUCKELSHAUS: That may be for others to say. But in my view, it's very important to be open about what you're doing. I now think the job of EPA Administrator is much less an advocacy position and much more of an educational one. I think that is what Bill Reilly is trying to do. Today, society is full of environmental advocates; virtually everybody in the country is an advocate for the environment. That whole argument is over. The question is, what is the intelligent thing for society to do about the environment? That takes a level of knowledge about the nature of these problems which is much higher than in 1970. So, you must be open about the nature of these problems, work very hard communicating with the various constituencies I mentioned, and take pains to communicate through the press. Staying both honest and credible with them is important.
Being open inside the agency is also crucial. You have to maintain the support of the people in the agency if you're going to be successful. Therefore, you need to inform them about what you are thinking and doing, or risk losing their support, their help, their enthusiasm, their loyalty, and their willingness to give you the benefit of the doubt. I think that was the big mistake Anne Burford made. She showed she didn't trust the people in the agency, and if you do that, it won't be a week before you're right; because they will return that lack of trust in kind.
I think the administrator must view himself not only as responsible to the president who appointed him; but to the Congress, which confirmed him, and in a broader sense, to the public which he ultimately serves. He must let the public know what he is doing and convince them he is doing the best he can to act in their interest. This is very, very important because in the environmental field, you are dealing with things that are so intimate to people, so important to them in terms of public health, their own health, and the health of the planet we all share. If they do not think you are doing the best you can to act in their interest, and you lose their trust and support, I think you will have real trouble in succeeding. Not just the administrator himself, but the agency itself gets into trouble. It is much tougher for EPA to do the right thing if that bond of trust is ever broken. I think that is what happened during the early Reagan years.
Q: Is there anything you would like to add about your first term as EPA administrator?
MR. RUCKELSHAUS: Yes. The early days were a lot of fun. We really operated effectively and had a good group of people, with whom we worked closely. There were antagonisms and strife like you always have in institutions; but by and large everybody thought they were attached to a cause larger than themselves. We worked very hard, long hours, but had a lot of fun doing it. We made mistakes, but were capable of laughing at them and moving on to the next challenge. I found when I went back to EPA ten years later, the challenge certainly was still there--as well as the interest and excitement--but it was hard to recreate that sense of joy in creating something brand new. When I made the circuit of the regions in 1983 and asked people to tell me their problems, I got questions about pension benefits, employee rights, and all the things bureaucracies focus on. That was not true from 1970 to 1973, when we had the feeling that, "By God, we're going to do something about this terrible problem afflicting society! Isn't it wonderful we're all banded together to do it!" There was a real sense of camaraderie and joy about what we were doing. But I don't think you can recapture it after an institution has been around for a couple of decades. It's very hard to do. The rush of youthful enthusiasm you sense in a brand new institution is really something to experience. It was fun.