Document M4VeVzKDd9M6gJJ84jqOwL9RL

CHICACO, ILL TIHLEY PARK wf'SUS" economist SEP 1 3 1978 *** Time to clearly establish basic environment rights W77 In suit seeking to halt eontaminaOoh of Lake Michigan, Attorney General William Scott asks the court to uphold the principle that "people have a fundamental right to eat uncontaminated food." In this instance the argu ment applies to action against the Outboard Marine Corp.. over discharge of PCBs from its Waukegan facility into Lake Michigan. _ Scott noted that Lake Michi gan fish, Including trout and salmon, have been found to contain high levels of PCBs, well over five ports per mil lion, an amount considered unsafe for human consump tion by the U. S. Food and Drug Administration. We are glad to toe Attorney General Scott make the argu ment that "people have a fun damental right to eat uncon- tamlnated mod." It is a contention that can be put forward In almost every issue involving the envi ronment. - ' Surely people have the right to breathe clean air (air pollu tion suits), the right to enjoy quiet in their own homes and yards (overpowering noise from airplanes), the right to have their property unmolest ed from damage from man made explosions (shock waves (Tom quarry dynamiting, for example), and, in general, the right to Uve peaceably in their homes without outside, interterence. We say "surely people have these rights," and we believe the vast majority would agree -- perhaps even consider the point so obvious that it hardly needs be raised. Yet that Is not the case. Courts have not always seen the issue so clear cut. If It were Attorney General Scott would not be undertak ing expensive and lengthy liti gation in the case cited here involving contamination of Lake Michigan fish. Airplane noise -- and now the Concord controversy -- would not he a continuing annoyance. Courts would not continue to enter tain the argument that one who owns a quarry may conti nue to exploit the land, re gardless of its effect on ad joining property, because the quarry "was there first." We hope the courts will take note of Scott's "fundamental right" argument and address itself to this question. If so, It might make future cases a lot simpler and avoid many of the complications that now cause environmental Issues to drag on for years to the detri ment of the public. Or do we need another "bill of rights," adopted as a cen- stitutional amendment, to clearly establish these "funda mental rights?" i MOMS 011142