PROF GEGEE

48

Negotiating for the Environment: LBJ’s Contributions to the Environmental Movement

Nancy M. Germano

The history of environmental thought in the United States reveals a constantly evolving debate over the roles of both the federal government and citizens concerning natural resources. Nineteenth-century artists and writers roman-

ticized wild, untouched, and dramatic landscapes far from human settlement

and urban decay. Henry David Thoreau and John Muir brought the drama and

beauty of nature to the forefront for public appreciation, advocating preservation

of nature through their writings and activism. Early 20th-century proponents of

conservation, such as Gifford Pinchot and John Wesley Powell, sought protection

of the land with wise and multiple uses of natural resources for human benefit.

Emergence of the term “environmentalism” in the 1970s reflected recognition of

a degrading environment, limited natural resources, and human failings as stew-

Lady Bird Johnson plants pansies to beautify Washington, DC, as Stewart Udall watches.

Nancy M. Germano is a doctoral candidate at Indiana University. She is completing her dissertation,

tentatively titled “The Urban Midwest’s ‘Dangerous Friends’: Flooding Rivers, a National Insurance

Program, and the Environmental Movement.” She would like to thank Benjamin Guterman, Eric

Sandweiss, and Scott O’Bryan for their helpful comments on earlier versions or portions of this article.

Negotiating for the Environment | 49

ards of the planet. 1 The roots of that new environmental perspective lay in the

Lyndon B. Johnson administration’s program to promote participatory efforts to

beautify, protect, and harness the environment for human welfare. Johnson’s ideas

for remediation of the harmful effects of postwar society foreshadowed the envi-

ronmentalists’ priorities.

Environmental historian Martin V. Melosi refers to the Johnson administration as “a

transitional force in the evolution from old-style conservation to modern environ-

mentalism.” This article presents evidence in support of Melosi’s statement by showing

that the Johnson presidency, typically associated with civil rights, the War on Poverty,

and the Vietnam conflict, also created an environmental legacy. In addition to a record

number of federal laws directed at protection of natural resources, Johnson’s rhetoric

and actions set the stage for American environmentalism. He, along with Lady Bird

Johnson, initiated new conversations and approaches for natural resource protection

and shaped environmental advocacy for the nation. In the process, Johnson generated

an enduring conviction that environmentalism and individualism—the individual’s

claimed freedoms and property rights—could thrive hand-in-hand. 2

This article explores two legislative campaigns during the Johnson administration—

urban beautification and protection of wild and scenic rivers—that exemplified the

president’s stance on natural resource conservation. These campaigns demonstrated

the priorities of environmental “restoration,” cleanup, and stewardship later adopted

by the environmental movement. By generating public participation in environmen-

tal programs and fiercely negotiating the possible outcomes, Johnson’s approach

and recommended strategies prefigured the work of environmental activists.

1 Michael Grossman, The ABC-CLIO Companion to the Environmental Movement (Santa Barbara,

CA: ABC-CLIO, Inc., 1994), 60–63; Steven Stoll, U.S. Environmentalism since 1945: A Brief History

with Documents, The Bedford Series in History and Culture (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007),

1–4; and Thomas R. Wellock, Preserving the Nation: The Conservation and Environmental Movements,

1870-2000, The American History Series, eds. John Hope Franklin and A.S. Eisenstadt (Wheeling, IL:

Harlan Davidson, 2007), 157. 2 Martin V. Melosi, “Lyndon Johnson and Environmental Policy,” in The Johnson Years, Volume Two:

Vietnam, the Environment, and Science, ed. Robert A. Divine (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas,

1987), 117. In addition to those discussed in this article, laws relating to the environment signed by

Johnson include the Clean Air Act (PL 88-206), Pesticide Control Act (PL 88-305), Wilderness Act (PL

88-577), Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (PL 88-578), Fire Island National Seashore (PL 88-

587), Canyonlands National Park Act (PL 88-590), Water Resources Planning Act (PL 89-80), Water

Quality Act (PL 89-234), Solid Waste Disposal Act (PL 89-272), Water Pollution Control Act (PL 89-

753), Guadalupe Mountains National Park Act (PL 89-667), Endangered Species Act (PL 89-669),

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore Act (PL 89-761), San Gabriel Wilderness Act (PL 90-318), and

Great Swamp Wilderness Area Act (PL 90-532).

50 | Federal History 2017

Roots of Lyndon Johnson’s “New Conservation”

Johnson became president before the term “environmentalism” had entered the

common lexicon. He supported the ideas of preservationists and conservationists

who preceded him, he empathized with constituents who sought protection of natu-

ral resources, and he voiced his appreciation for the importance of natural beauty

in the lives of Americans. At the same time, he believed in the traditional American

ethos of individualism that staunchly supported each citizen’s independence and

right to use and develop his or her own property in pursuit of economic prosperity.

Concluding his State of the Union address on January 4, 1965, Johnson inspired his

listeners through poetic imagery. Emphasizing the importance of nature in his agenda,

he proclaimed that “for over three centuries, the beauty of America has sustained our

spirit and enlarged our vision,” and he called for immediate action “to protect this her-

itage.” Simultaneously, Johnson also believed that nature could be a threat to man. He

noted that the floods that plagued the Pedernales River Valley of his childhood were

gone, thanks to the men who “worked and . . . endured and . . . built” in “that once for-

bidding land,” motivated by their “dream of a place where a free man could build for

himself, and raise his children to a better life—a dream of a continent to be conquered,

a world to be won, a nation to be made.” 3 Johnson’s phrases reflected his appreciation

of nature and continued faith in the power of human ingenuity and initiative to create

a more comfortable and less threatening environment.

Johnson admittedly idolized the conservation work of former presidents Theodore

Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt and set a personal goal of accomplishing more

than they had to preserve the nation’s natural beauty. He outlined three changing

forces that he believed brought a “new era to conservation”: growing population,

the triumph of technology, and urbanization. He explained that the new conserva-

tion “is not just the classic conservation of protection and development, but it is

a creative conservation of restoration and innovation.” The concepts of conserva-

tion needed to change, in Johnson’s opinion, from not only protection of “man’s

welfare, but the dignity of his spirit” as well, and “above all, we must maintain the

chance for contact with beauty.” 4

3 Lyndon B. Johnson, “Annual Message to the Congress on the State of the Union,” Jan. 4, 1965, online

by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/

ws/?pid=26907 (accessed Feb. 2, 2013). 4 Lyndon B. Johnson, “Remarks on Conservation at a Breakfast in Portland Saluting the Northwest-

Southwest Power Transmission Intertie,” Sept. 17, 1964, online by Peters and Woolley, The American

Presidency Project, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=26507 (accessed June 24, 2014).

Negotiating for the Environment | 51

This conflation of past ideologies—both conservation and preservation—was

up for discussion at mid-century. Earlier, the two perspectives stood in oppo-

sition: preservationists supported strict protection of natural resources from

humans (as seen in the movement to save wilderness areas), and conservation-

ists believed in the possibility of efficient and multiple uses of natural resources

to the benefit of humans. This divide culminated in a courtroom battle between

two prominent early 20th-century figures: John Muir, cofounder and president

of the Sierra Club from 1892 until his death in 1914, and Gifford Pinchot, the

chief of the U.S. Forest Service from 1905 to 1910. They debated, along with

citizens nationwide, the issue of whether the Hetch-Hetchy Valley in Yosemite

National Park should be flooded in order to provide hydropower to the growing

city of San Francisco. Muir and his followers advocated for the preservation of

wild places—as sanctuaries to be maintained in their own right—and opposed

flooding the valley. Gifford wholeheartedly disagreed with Muir’s position,

instead believing that natural resources should be conserved and maintained

for man’s use. The preservationists lost the case. “By focusing almost entirely on

the benefits of wild places,” environmental historian Philip V. Scarpino explains,

“the preservationists gave away the economic, technical, and utilitarian issues

to their opponents,” and “by emphasizing the depravity of commercialism, they

lost votes of congressmen who did not see the problem in terms of good versus

President Lyndon B. Johnson signs 1967 Clean Air Act.

52 | Federal History 2017

evil.” 5 Conservationists further believed that humans needed protection from

the unpredictable forces of nature, and that through human know-how, the

power of nature could be controlled and used efficiently.

Johnson’s introduction of what he called “new conservation” reflected his support

of continued use of natural resources for a growing society and economy—to build

dams to stockpile excess rain or to apply scientific management to lessen the effects

of pollution—while at the same time preserving designated areas as sources of

inspiration for mankind. By the 1970s, under the term “environmentalism,” activists

criticized conservationists’ ideas, seeking to drastically rein in the human impact

on natural resources. As with conservationists, environmentalists’ proposals for

change included improved technology, science, and legislation. Environmentalists

differed, however, by rejecting the goal of indiscriminate use of natural resources for

economic advancement and focusing instead on educating the public and govern-

ment officials on the failures of humans as stewards of the planet. They sought to

change American values and beliefs concerning natural resources and to clean up

and restore the environment. According to historian Steven Stoll, values “central to

environmentalism” such as “biological diversity, natural beauty, and sustainability

. . . came to represent an alternative vision of economics and the human good.” 6

A Campaign for Beauty

Johnson assumed the presidency in November 1963, bringing with him a unique per-

spective on how to preserve natural resources. He was guided by lessons in local politics

learned from his father, a penchant for negotiating, and an appreciation for nature cul-

tivated by his wife, Lady Bird, and Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall, among others.

Johnson’s Task Force on the Preservation of Natural Beauty was just one of the special

commissions appointed to oversee his plans for a Great Society. As with all of John-

son’s task forces, the group’s appointed members included representatives from the

academic and professional communities and from appropriate government agencies.

Charles Haar, a Harvard Law School professor, known for introducing land-use law to

his students, for his advocacy of government regulation of urban development, and

for his successful court battle to help clean up Boston Harbor, served as chairman. Jane

Jacobs, an urban activist known for her critiques of 20th-century planning and sugges-

tions for more diversity and density, and philanthropist and conservationist Laurance

5 Philip V. Scarpino, Great River: An Environmental History of the Upper Mississippi, 1890–1950

(Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1985), 141–43. 6 Stoll, U.S. Environmentalism since 1945, 4.

Negotiating for the Environment | 53

S. Rockefeller were among its members, with Richard Goodwin serving as the White

House liaison. The task force submitted its written report to Johnson on November

18, 1964, with an explanation that its members had tried to offer recommendations

that could be made “operational” without requiring “any great departures from tradi-

tional bipartisan policies.” 7 The task force’s underlying recommendation was for the

federal government to refocus and readjust existing programs to bring natural beauty

to the foreground. The members promoted beauty not only in the nation’s country-

side and parks but also in city parks, riverfronts, older residential neighborhoods, and

highways. Only government assistance, they believed, could give Americans the means

to overcome blight and restore beauty. They noted that the federal government had

already passed legislation to provide funding, such as federal grant programs and the

Land and Water Conservation Fund, and established agencies, such as the Housing and

Home Finance Agency and the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, designed to effectuate

this goal. Many of the mechanisms needed to achieve the task force recommenda-

tions were in place, yet natural beauty was

not receiving the direct attention needed

where people lived—in the cities. 8

Comparing the beauty of the environ-

ment to the defense of the nation, the

task force noted that the costs of defense

applied to all citizens: “everyone benefits,”

and “services of this sort must be paid

for by government because they cannot

be financed under any system of com-

mercial pricing, but only from general tax

revenues.” Likewise, “the American citizen

cannot remedy pollution by himself. He

may beautify his home, he may tend his

own garden; but he cannot control the

other side of the street.” 9 In arguing for

federal efforts—including laws, agencies,

tax incentives, grants, and education—to

promote natural beauty, the task force members claimed that “beauty contributes to

7 Charles Haar to Lyndon Johnson, Nov. 17, 1964, WHCF Ex Task Force Reports, box 2, 1964 Task

Force on the Preservation of Natural Beauty (hereinafter WHCF-TFR), Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential

Library and Museum (LBJL). 8 “Report of the Task Force on the Preservation of Natural Beauty,” Nov. 18, 1964, WHCF-TFR. 9 Ibid., 37.

The Johnson administration’s glossy 34-page brochure, mailed in August 1965 to local, state, and federal officials, emphasized the need for beautification.

54 | Federal History 2017

the real national income” through “psychic income, even though statisticians do not

know how to quantify it.” They further noted that “beauty fosters safety,” that it “is a

component of mental well-being,” and that it “can be a weapon in the fight against

poverty.” 10

Johnson agreed. In a speech delivered on February 8, 1965, he reminded Con-

gress that “for centuries, Americans have drawn strength and inspiration from the

beauty of our country.” He noted that the majority of Americans now lived in

urban areas and were more and more cut off from nature. In addition to protect-

ing the countryside, he called for action to “salvage the beauty and charm of our

cities” and to protect “the dignity of man’s spirit.” 11

Lady Bird also embraced the cause of

beautification, though she struggled

to adjust to the term itself, which she

feared would signify superficial efforts

to clean up the nation’s countryside,

highways, and cities. She envisioned a

deeper and more meaningful approach

that might bring long-lasting changes

to the hearts and lives of Americans—

an attention to quality of life that

could be passed on to future genera-

tions. She recognized the complexity

of beautification efforts and noted that

the subject was “like picking up a tan-

gled skein of wool—all the threads are

interwoven—recreation and pollution

and mental health, and the crime rate, and rapid transit, and highway beautifica-

tion, and the war on poverty, and parks—national, state, and local.” 12 Lady Bird

and her staff searched for another term to describe their goals, but without the

quick discovery of a better descriptor, the term stuck.

10 Ibid., 37–38. 11 Lyndon B. Johnson, “Special Message to the Congress on Conservation and Restoration of Natural

Beauty,” Feb. 8, 1965, http://www.lbjlibrary.net/collections/selected-speeches/1965/02-08-1965.html

(accessed Jan. 13, 2013). 12 Claudia T. Johnson, Lady Bird Johnson: A White House Diary (New York: Holt, Rinehart and

Winston, 1970), 234; and Mark K. Updegrove, Indomitable Will: LBJ in the Presidency (New York:

Crown Publishers, 2012), 163.

Lady Bird accepts a commemorative pen at the Highway Beautification Act signing.

Negotiating for the Environment | 55

Johnson announced on March 12, 1965, that he would hold a two-day conference

in Washington, DC, in May to discuss “concrete, immediate means for the pres-

ervation of natural beauty through Federal, State, local, and private action.” Such

a conference had been among the task force recommendations. It had received

an additional personal endorsement from conservationist Laurance S. Rockefeller,

who met with Johnson the evening prior to his announcement, and from Secre-

tary of the Interior Stewart Udall, who after reviewing the task force report ranked

the conference as a top priority for the president. This conference would help ful-

fill an important component of the task force recommendations: encouragement

of private efforts and education of the public on the need for natural beauty. 13

Johnson received letters from across the country in support of a beautification

campaign. Indiana Senator Vance Hartke wrote to advise the president of a con-

ference he had organized to boost recreation and tourism. Johnson responded

to Hartke’s letter, commending his actions and noting that the “development of

riches and beauty of America has a priority rating with this Administration,” but

that “to be successful, we must have a working relationship with every community

and state and with every American.” 14

Newspaper editorials praised the president’s and Lady Bird’s efforts. In a picture

editorial published on April 20, 1965, South Carolina’s News and Courier high-

lighted the blight of roadside billboards blocking scenic views from visitors to his-

toric Charleston. Editor T. R. Waring mailed a copy to Johnson and commended

the president on his “interest in promoting beauty and eliminating ugliness.” War-

ing further noted that “we have been making such a campaign for years in one way

or another. Now may be a propitious time, with national attention focused on the

subject by the President, to press forward in Charleston.” 15

An editorial by James M. Perry in The National Observer on March 1, 1965, “Natu-

ral Beauty is a Political Natural,” called the phenomenon “a converging of circum-

stances.” Not only did Johnson have a “deep and genuine concern for the physical

appearance of the nation,” the nation had a problem that needed addressing, and

citizens, as well as lawmakers, were ready to hear the message. Perry noted that the

influence of Lady Bird’s “rebellion against ugliness” should not be underestimated,

and he also complimented Johnson and Udall on their political shrewdness.

13 Lyndon B. Johnson, “Special Message,” Feb. 8, 1965; and Executive Branch Comments on “Report

of the Task Force on the Preservation of Natural Beauty,” Nov. 18, 1964, WHCF-TFR. 14 Johnson to Senator Vance Hartke, Apr. 8, 1965, WHCF Ex NR (11/22/63), box 1, LBJL. 15 T. A. Waring to Johnson, Apr. 20, 1965, in ibid.

56 | Federal History 2017

Although this campaign for beauty felt and looked, to some skeptics, like politi-

cal maneuvering, it also met a growing public concern for the fate of the Ameri-

can landscape. Johnson used the White House Conference on Natural Beauty to

generate and support partnerships among federal, state, and local governments,

public and private organizations, and government officials and citizens. The con-

ference brought representatives from all of these groups to the nation’s capital to

talk about restoring and protecting America’s beauty.

The conference followed the success of the 88th Congress, which had passed an

unprecedented number of laws dealing specifically with beautification and conser-

vation measures, and occurred as more legislation proposed to the 89th Congress

was expected to advance the cause. One bill pending approval sought to establish

the Assateague Island National Seashore in Maryland and Virginia, which would

set aside a recreational retreat close to the nation’s capital and residents of popu-

lous eastern cities. Another sought approval of a Sleeping Bear Dunes National

Lakeshore along the shores of Lake Michigan, which would provide a retreat

“within an easy day’s drive for 50 million Americans.” 16 If passed, the Highway

Beautification Bill, which enjoyed Lady Bird’s personal support, would restrict

the ability of private enterprise to clutter the nation’s landscape with unsightly

billboards. This progress in support of beautification surely bolstered the expecta-

tions of conference attendees that their recommendations could be realized.

After the conference, Johnson requested publication of a brochure summarizing the

recommendations of the various panels. In August 1965, his staff mailed thousands

of these brochures with a cover letter addressed to local, state, and national officials

to remind them of the important work accomplished at the conference and request

their assistance in continuing the progress made in those two days. “The quality of

our Nation’s achievement will depend upon the conscientious action of leaders like

yourself,” Johnson wrote, “in providing for a better and more beautiful America.” 17

The conference brochure prompted responses from local officials, many of whom

proudly described work already accomplished in their cities and states. Gov. Roger D.

Branigan wrote that “Indiana’s representatives to the conference were enthusiastic and

16 Jerome P. Cavanaugh (Mayor of Detroit) to Johnson, Mar. 25, 1964, WHCF Ex LE/PA 3 (11/22/63-

3/31/64), box 146, LBJL. The establishment of Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore was not approved

until 1973 due in part due to controversies over private land acquisition. 17 Letters from Johnson, WHCF Ex NR, boxes 1–4, LBJL.

Negotiating for the Environment | 57

felt they gained many new ideas.” 18 Gov. George Romney represented that “we in Michi-

gan feel the same responsibilities and urgency concerning the protection and preserva-

tion of our heritage of natural beauty which you express,” and noted that he had called

for a Governor’s Conference to be held in October 1965 to bring together government

officials and private individuals to stimulate interest and establish a plan of action. 19

Mayor Frank Somers of Dayton, Ohio, called it “an excellent report,” and reported that “I

am passing this on to the Chairman of our City Beautiful Commission.” 20

Urban beautification was not a new concept, and this new campaign shared some

of the same concerns and ideas introduced during the City Beautiful movement of

the early 20th century. Urban historian William H. Wilson argues that members of

the City Beautiful movement were optimists who looked to transform a city’s aes-

thetic and functional shortcomings by imposing a rational system upon its land-

scape. City planners and architects of the time “linked natural beauty, naturalistic

constructivism, and classicism.” 21

The movement did not reach its lofty goals, and the next generations of city planners

abandoned its agenda. Jane Jacobs, writing in 1961, considered the movement “irrel-

evant to the workings of cities,” and accused its followers of forming “architectural

design cults instead of cults of social reform.” 22 Although monuments of the City

Beautiful movement continued to grace the landscapes of cities around the nation,

its elaborate civic buildings, parks, and parkways had by the 1960s faded into the

background, no longer presenting themselves as the focus of urban improvements.

Instead, the conceived beautification campaign of midcentury reflected the

lessons of intervening years. Two world wars, rapid technological advances,

and radical cultural changes—alongside increasing crime rates, pollution,

juvenile delinquency, poverty, riots, excessive consumption, and trash—all

caught the nation’s attention. With new economic security in the postwar era

came a reassessment of values, and Johnson’s Great Society programs provided

an overarching solution: improving quality of life. For Lyndon and Lady Bird,

enjoyment of natural beauty offered a clear path for improving quality of life.

18 Roger D. Branigan to Johnson, Aug. 13, 1965, WHCF Ex NR 8/13/65, box 2, LBJL. 19 George Romney to Johnson, Aug. 31, 1965, WHCF Ex NR 8/25/65, box 4, LBJL. 20 Frank Somers to Johnson, Aug. 31, 1965, in ibid. 21 William H. Wilson, The City Beautiful Movement (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,

1989), 4, 78–86, and 305. 22 Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961; repr., New York: Modern Library,

1993), 34, 488.

58 | Federal History 2017

The earlier City Beautiful movement attempted to recapture civility and com-

bat urban disorganization attributed to industrialization, immigration, and

rapid growth. The new campaign focused on restoring the beauty of the non-

human environment—not creating a built environment—in order to restore

human quality of life. It would also require a community effort, not just the

collaboration of an elite few. The Johnsons hoped to spread the word and gen-

erate a national move in that direction.

Johnson’s beautification campaign contained a strong element of social reform.

Certainly the language used by the designers of associated legislation and pro-

grams indicated a desire to restore the spirits of the nation. Specifically placing

responsibility for beautification with every level of government and in private

hands also aimed to create a sense of ownership and pride for everyone participat-

ing. Beautification included an added benefit of bolstering the political goals of

elected officials—the time was right to take up a campaign that would address the

concerns of citizens in cities across the country. 23

After much compromise between the House and Senate and persuasion from John-

son, the Highway Beautification Act (PL 89-285) passed with a vote of 245 to 138.

The story of this law’s enactment caught the attention of newspaper reporters and

later Johnson biographers as it represented the epitome of Johnson’s tenacious nego-

tiating skills. He especially wanted the bill to pass to please Lady Bird. With the close

of the 89th Congress drawing near, he called his cabinet members together at 3:30 in

the afternoon of October 7 and announced, “if she wants it, I want it, and by God,

we’re going to pass it!” The Washington Post reported on October 9, 1965, that con-

gressional wives, drivers, and reporters waited at a Salute-to-Congress celebration

and White House reception, scheduled to begin at 7 p.m., while contentious negotia-

tions continued until House and Senate members reached a favorable compromise

at 1 o’clock in the morning of October 8. The approved act placed restrictions on

highway billboard advertising and roadside junkyards to preserve the natural land-

scape. At the signing ceremony on October 22, 1965, Johnson noted, “we have placed

a wall of civilization between us and between the beauty of our land and of our

countryside,” and while “this administration has no desire to punish or to penalize

23 See Frances Fox Piven and Richard A. Cloward, “The Politics of the Great Society,” in The Great

Society and the High Tide of Liberalism, eds. Sidney M. Milkis and Jerome M. Mileur (Amherst: University

of Massachusetts Press, 2005), 253–69. Piven and Cloward argue that whatever their legislative titles

and rhetorical statements of purpose, the Great Society programs were an effort to cope with problems

set off by demographic upheaval by incorporating the black newcomers into urban politics.

Negotiating for the Environment | 59

any private industry, . . . we are not going to allow them to intrude their own special-

ized private objective on the larger public trust.” 24

In June 1966, the Johnsons and Washington, DC, hosted another conference on

the topic of beautification: the National Youth Conference on Natural Beauty and

Conservation. Some 500 delegates attended the conference from national youth

organizations, including the Boy Scouts of America, Girl Scouts of the U.S.A., 4-H

Clubs, Future Farmers of America, Future Homemakers of America, and Young

Men’s and Young Women’s Christian Associations. Reiterating Lady Bird’s open-

ing statements, Johnson reminded the attendees that “you are going to determine

if this is a beautiful land or not,” and “you’re going to translate the dreams and the

talk of today into action of tomorrow.” 25

Johnson recognized that the time was right. Calling for conferences that would

involve officials and youth groups across the nation, requesting publication of a

brochure to reiterate conference discussions, mailing letters from the president,

and pushing for passage of beautification laws were concerted efforts to reach out

and promote this cause important to him and Lady Bird. Not only did the cam-

paign for beauty equate to positive political support for Johnson, it disseminated

much-needed information about the environment to the public and government

officials, provided a show of national support and unity, and spurred conversation

and action at the local level. The beautification campaign provided a model and

instilled an ideology for future grassroots efforts to save the environment.

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

In keeping with his broader Great Society plans, Johnson also supported and

signed into law the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (PL 90-542) on October 2, 1968.

The House of Representatives Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs had pre-

viously considered 16 different bills introduced in either the House or the Senate to

establish a national scenic rivers system. After consideration of the proposals, the

committee published a report on July 3, 1968, summarizing its findings, the com-

ments received, and its recommendation for approval by Congress. It had been a

24 Updegrove, quoting interview with Bob Hardesty, in Indomitable Will, 165–66; Lyndon B.

Johnson, “Remarks at the Signing of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965,” Oct. 22, 1965, online

by Peters and Woolley, The American Presidency Project, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=27325

(accessed July 5, 2016). 25 Lyndon B. Johnson, “Remarks to Delegates to the National Youth Conference on Natural Beauty

and Conservation,” June 27, 1966, online by Peters and Woolley, The American Presidency Project,

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=27676 (accessed July 5, 2016).

60 | Federal History 2017

long road to reach the point when the federal government would formally protect

certain rivers for what the U.S. Department of the Army called their “intangible”

value. The committee noted that the federal government had been involved in all

other aspects of river management, from transportation to flood control to pollu-

tion, and passage of this bill would fill a gap in river programs.

Ideas for such a program began to enter federal political conversations in 1960 when,

for recreational purposes, the National Park Service noted that “natural running

water is now a rarity,” and recommended the preservation of free-flowing streams

because “their natural scenic, scientific, esthetic, and recreational values outweigh

their value for water development and control purposes.” This recommendation

sparked actions at the state level seen in the establishment of the Ozark National

Scenic Riverways in Missouri, designation of the Allagash River in Maine as a “wil-

derness waterway,” and acquisition of land along the banks of Wolf River in Wiscon-

sin for preservation. These “forerunners” to a national scenic river program helped

demonstrate the desirability and benefits of government intervention. 26

The law declared it to be national policy to preserve the free-flowing condition of riv-

ers for the benefit and enjoyment of current and future generations, provided the riv-

ers met specified criteria. The introduction acknowledged the vital purpose for this

act: to complement the established national policy of dam and other construction on

rivers. The final version signed into law designated portions of eight western rivers,

and their adjacent lands, as wild and scenic rivers. 27 The act also listed 27 rivers in 22

states for study and potential addition to the wild and scenic river system, with certain

restrictions applying to those rivers for up to eight years from the date of enactment.

Under the act, a river could become part of the system in one of two ways: by an

act of Congress or by legislation adopted by the state (or states) through which it

flowed. In the latter case, the act required the governor to receive approval from

the secretary of the interior as well as a promise from an agency or political sub-

division within the state to permanently administer the river without cost to the

26 U.S. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 90th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rep. No. 1623,

“Providing for a National Scenic Rivers System and for Other Purposes,” July 3, 1968, 1–3; and National

Park Service, “Water Recreation Needs in the United States, 1960–2000” (Committee Print No. 17,

1960), quoted in Rep. No. 1623, 2. 27 The first rivers designated under the law, in Section 3(a) of PL 90–542, were the Clearwater,

Middle Fork, in Idaho; Eleven Point in Missouri; Feather, Middle Fork, in California; Rio Grande in

New Mexico; Rogue in Oregon; Saint Croix in Wisconsin and Minnesota, subject to a cooperative

agreement specified in the bill between the United States and the Northern States Power Company;

Salmon, Middle Fork, in Idaho; and Wolf in Wisconsin.

Negotiating for the Environment | 61

United States. Regardless of the approach taken, rivers satisfying the criteria for

designation had to be “free-flowing” and to “possess outstandingly remarkable

scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar

values.” Further, a river must be classified, designated, and administered as wild,

scenic, or recreational, with specific meaning attached to each term. 28

The act’s provisions for administration of the designated areas focused primarily

on aesthetic, scenic, historic, archaeological, and scientific features, but permitted

other uses that would not significantly interfere with those characteristics of the

river that had prompted its designation in the first place. Designation by act of

Congress meant that the secretaries of the interior and agriculture, as appropriate,

had powers to acquire fee title to land within the designated area, limited to an

average total of 100 acres per mile on both sides of the river. The Federal Power

Commission could not license any project on the land that would directly affect

the designated river, and other federal agencies could not loan or grant money for

projects that would detract from the river’s scenic values. The act required states

to donate state-owned land, although property owned by a tribal government or

a political subdivision of a state was subject to consent of the governing body—a

privilege that would be revoked if the secretary found that the tribal government

or political subdivision was not “following a plan for management and protection

of the land” that “assures its use for purposes consistent” with the act. 29

The idea of a national system of protected rivers had broad approval, but the

differences in the details of the proposed bills reflected the points of contention.

Each bill contained a different list of rivers to protect, although some rivers were

included in more than one bill. Other differences included the amount of adja-

cent land to include, the procedures to gain protection of rivers in the future,

and methods for administration of protected rivers. In the months leading up

to enactment, the details continued to stall progress. A Washington Post edito-

rial on July 23, 1968, called it the “Scenic Rivers Fiasco.” As explained in the Post,

the Interior Committee “gambled” by utilizing a procedure that bypassed “the

dilatory Rules Committee” and prevented the House from amending the bill.

Without the ability to amend, the House “rejected the bill out of fear that some

possible development on some rivers marked for study might be delayed.” The

House members did not object to the bill in general, only to the provision for

28 PL 90-542, Sections 1(b) and 2. 29 Generally, the act assigned administrative powers to the secretary of the interior, except when a

river flowed wholly or in part through a national forest, in which case the secretary of agriculture had

administrative powers. See Sections 4(a) and 6(a) of PL 90-542.

62 | Federal History 2017

study of the Susquehanna River and a few others, which would have placed a five-

year hold on development. 30

In March 1968, the Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation of the House

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs had held hearings to review the various

bills, during which attendees demonstrated their support for the proposed system.

A number of witnesses appeared and made statements, including the secretary

of the Citizens Committee on Natural Resources, who called support of the leg-

islation logical. Although a difficult task, the secretary believed that reconciling

the different proposals offered an opportunity to evaluate and discuss “the many

values involved in water resources,” apart from uses only for development’s sake. 31

The secretary of the St. Croix River Association represented his association and “like-

minded” organizations, urging “the inclusion of the St. Croix-Namekagon system.”

He expressed their desire to share the river’s beauty “with others before time runs out

and suburban developers, factories, and dam builders, scar the landscape and pollute

its pure, clean waters.” The secretary pointed out that the stream provided “the best

of playgrounds in its very backyard” for the 14th largest metropolitan center in the

United States and within minutes to a few hours’ drive for many midwesterners. The

Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission submitted a statement also urging

inclusion of the St. Croix in this legislation, in part due to a flood control project under

study by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to build a reservoir in the upper, wild sec-

tion of the river. If advocates of this project had their way, the commission explained,

30 Editorial, Washington Post, “Scenic Rivers Fiasco,” July 23, 1968, in ProQuest Historical Newspapers,

http://ezproxy.lib.indiana.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.lib.indiana.edu/docview/

143397442?accountid=11620 (accessed July 19, 2014). 31 National Scenic Rivers System: Hearings before the United States House Committee on Interior and

Insular Affairs, Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation, 90th Cong., 2nd sess., on Mar. 7, 8, 18,

19, 1968 (Wash., DC: GPO, 1968), in ProQuest, http://congressional.proquest.com.ezproxy.lib.indiana.edu/

congressional/docview/t29.d30.hrg-1967-iia-0025?accountid=11620 (accessed July 19, 2014), 220.

Gordon Dam marks the beginning of St. Croix National Scenic Riverway.

Negotiating for the Environment | 63

the reservoir would result in “a minimum of 75,000 acres of natural woodland and val-

ley terrain . . . submerged during some seasons, and left as muddy wastes at others.” 32

The secretary of the Little Miami River Interleague Group, League of Women Voters,

testified at the hearings, representing over 300 members in southwestern Ohio who

“strongly” supported the “scenic rivers concept” for the Little Miami. The secretary

pointed to the river’s scenic attributes, rapid growth in the state, conflicting zoning laws

in the political subdivisions through which the river flowed, and the “need for closer

cooperation and coordination of long range planning between governmental and related

agencies.” The League claimed a sense of urgency to save the river because of “a lot of pro-

posals that could change the entire character of the river.” When asked by Representative

Sam Steiger (R-AZ) if she thought the federal government should decide the river’s status

instead of those with local interests, the secretary noted great pressure in southwestern

Ohio for zoning for “heavy industry on the river in the flood plains.” Not satisfied with

her response, Steiger rephrased the question, asking if she was saying that “even though

apparently a significant segment of the people in your community place the needs of

industry above the needs for recreation, you would have them abandon their position on

the basis of Federal judgment rather than a local judgment?” She responded that she felt

this was “a valid position” to take given the circumstances. 33

Not everyone viewed the proposal favorably. A large contingent either spoke or sub-

mitted statements in opposition to designating the Guadalupe River in Texas, which

had been named in many of the bills. The written statement of the Kerr County, Texas,

Chamber of Commerce noted that it did not oppose the proposed bill’s policy, only the

inclusion of the Guadalupe, reasoning that the “upper reaches of the Guadalupe River

has been developed by private funds in a manner to preserve the natural beauty of the

river and the adjacent hills as we believe the natural beauty of this area is our greatest

asset.” Pointing out the numerous camping facilities, state wildlife areas, the state fish

hatchery, conservation and recreational dams financed with local bonds, and expensive

homes along the river, they argued that if the federal government “were to go in and

destroy these facilities, and turn it back into its natural state,” unnecessary government

funds would be spent. “We do not want that. We want to continue to develop it with our

private funds and make it available to the people of these United States to enjoy.” 34

32 Ibid., 338–39 and 347. 33 Ibid., 368–72. A segment of the main stem of the Little Miami River, exclusive of its tributaries,

from a point at the Warren-Clermont County line at Loveland, Ohio, upstream to the sources of Little

Miami, including North Fork, was included in the act as one of the 27 additional rivers under study for

future inclusion in the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. See Section 5(a)(11) of PL 90-542. 34 Ibid., 282–87. The Guadalupe River was not included in the act, neither as a river included in the

system nor as one for study for later inclusion.

64 | Federal History 2017

Additional opposition came from residents who feared the effects of eminent domain.

A widowed farmer’s wife from Charles Town, West Virginia, attended the hearings to

tell her story. She and her late husband of 23 years had worked his family’s farm on

the Shenandoah River, one of the rivers proposed for study, which he left to his neph-

ews who were also farmers. First describing the hard work of maintaining a farm and

then the moment when she learned “that the Government wants this land for a play-

ground,” she stated that she was “almost made to feel that no longer does the right of

ownership exist.” Another testimony from a resident of Harpers Ferry, West Virginia,

and president of the Jefferson County Planning Commission raised similar concerns.

She noted her disappointment to learn that, after attending earlier hearings and having

the Shenandoah and Cacapon Rivers dropped from one Senate bill, the rivers had been

added to another bill, which required her attendance at these hearings to continue the

battle. She pointed out the “strong, conservative feeling in our community” and that

they believed “very firmly in the preservation of private property” and “in working out

the problems . . . at a local level.” Speaking on behalf of Harpers Ferry residents, she

concluded by stating, “we feel that what is happening here in this maze of bills . . . is a

form of luxury legislation,” and referring to the cost of the Vietnam conflict, noted that

this luxury is one “our country can ill afford at this time.” 35

Apart from these hearings, a number of federal agencies had reviewed the proposed

bills, at the request of Chairman Aspinall, and submitted comments and any desired

amendments. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare endorsed the

establishment of a national scenic river system as it would “enhance the Nation’s

health and welfare through the conservation of resources and the provision of recre-

ational areas in various parts of the country.” Likewise, the Department of Agricul-

ture and Department of the Interior supported the proposed legislation, with some

clarifying amendments. The Bureau of the Budget concurred and recommended

enactment in accord with the program of the President. 36

The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs submitted its report to the House for

a national scenic rivers system after working through the differences in the bills and

generally agreeing on the provisions. Representative Steiger, who had participated in

35 Ibid., 326–27 and 383–84. The Shenandoah and Cacapon Rivers were not included in the act,

neither as rivers included in the system nor as rivers for study for later inclusion. 36 Wilbur J. Cohen, Under Secretary, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, to Wayne N.

Aspinall, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, July 29, 1967, in H. Rep. No. 1623, 28–

29; Wilfred H. Rommel, Assistant Director for Legislative Reference, Bureau of the Budget, to Henry M.

Jackson, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Apr. 13, 1967, in S. Rep. No. 491, 90th

Cong., 1st sess., 17; and James M. Frey, Acting Assistant Director for Legislative Reference, Bureau of

the Budget, Memorandum to the President, Oct. 1, 1968, WHCF Reports on Enrolled Legislation, PL

90-515 to PL 90-543, 9/26/68 to 10/2/68, box 71, LBJL.

Negotiating for the Environment | 65

the hearings in March 1968, and was generally known for speaking his mind, crafted

his opposing view of a national river system for the committee’s report. He focused

on the phrase in the proposed language that would allow a river, “upon restora-

tion” to a free-flowing condition, to be included in the system of protected rivers,

which he perceived to mean that any and all rivers could conceivably be designated

for permanent protection from development. As a representative from a western

state, he believed this provision could prove detrimental to future water needs and

development. Further, he questioned the alleged urgency to protect the nation’s riv-

ers, the “lockup” of rivers during a period of study for inclusion in the system, and

the amount of federal funds authorized for acquisition of lands. In summarizing his

opposition, Steiger claimed that “under the guise of protecting scenic values, this

legislation will stifle progress, inhibit economic development and incur a staggering

expenditure, an expenditure that has been impossible to estimate.” 37

Steiger’s objections to the bill received some support in the comments submitted by

the U.S. Department of the Army. The Army favored the bill, provided that additional

comprehensive studies were conducted. The Army cautioned that if Congress were

to “reach a wise decision” with regard to which rivers to set aside, “it must have a full

report and definite plan” for each river “developed by joint and coordinated action by

all agencies, both Federal and State, concerned with the development, utilization, and

conservation” of the river. This approach, the Army reminded Congress, would com-

ply with the principles of the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 (PL 89-80), which

had declared it to be “the policy of the Congress to encourage conservation, develop-

ment, and utilization of water and related land resources” on a coordinated basis, with

ongoing assessment of the adequacy of the water supply necessary for the nation. 38 In

an effort to reconcile the proposed law with the existing law, the Army recommended

that the report and plan for each river present both “the advantages to the Nation of

preserving the stream in its natural state” and “economic values that would result from

its development” before Congress made any decision to include a river in the system.

The Army suggested an amendment to require submission to Congress of reports and

plans for each proposed river before enactment of legislation. 39

One of the stated basic principles of the proposed scenic river system required coordi-

nation among the federal government and states. As described by Gary Warren Hart,

as special assistant to the solicitor, Department of the Interior, with regard to passage

37 H. Rep. No. 1623, 55–57. 38 42 U.S.C. 1962. 39 David E. McGiffert, Acting Secretary of the Army, to Hon. Wayne N. Aspinall, Chairman, Committee

on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, Aug. 11, 1967, in H. Rep. No. 1623, 34–35.

66 | Federal History 2017

of the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 (PL 89-80), a new trend of “creative fed-

eralism” aimed to incorporate regional planning and development in order to recog-

nize geographical borders of natural resources rather than political ones. Water resource

planning for a river basin made more sense than limiting planning to a particular state.

Hart called the approach a “political-governmental innovation—a response to problems

peculiar to this era,” but he reminded that the approach required new regional agencies

with “governmental authority and responsibility, at least for planning purposes.” 40 As the

committee report suggested, coordination would require more than discussion among

the parties and planning with each interest in mind. For the Army’s planners, coordina-

tion meant detailed economic review for the river basin, with final approval resting with

Congress. The Tennessee Valley Authority pointed out that its existing regional develop-

ment role should be recognized, and that it should participate in any designation and

management of scenic rivers in the Tennessee Basin. The Federal Power Commission

submitted a detailed response to the proposed bills, but its main concerns dealt with

wanting its licensing jurisdiction defined more clearly to align with the Federal Power Act

and wanting the moratorium on licensing shortened from five years to two. 41

The creative design of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act demonstrated a departure

from New Deal federal programs directed at river concerns in two ways. First, the

act established a new concern with the aesthetics of rivers, a significant turn from

the traditional concerns with navigability, flood control, and irrigation. Under

Johnson, the federal government sought to set standards of value for the health,

beauty, and preservation of rivers. Second, it would set up programs and provide

some assistance, but it would also no longer take full responsibility for conserving

natural resources. A general agreement existed among federal agencies that the

federal government should provide assistance in the form of appropriations and

incentives, but that local interests rightfully held responsibility for ensuring pres-

ervation and administration of rivers flowing through their jurisdictions. The act,

adopted October 2, 1968, outlined procedures for meeting this objective. John-

son’s “creative federalism” again achieved acceptance on the floor of Congress. 42

40 Gary Warren Hart, “Creative Federalism: Recent Trends in Regional Water Resources Planning

and Development,” University of Colorado Law Review 39 (1966–1967): 29–47, 31. 41 Aubrey J. Wagner, Chairman, Tennessee Valley Authority, to Hon. Wayne N. Aspinall, Chairman,

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, June 9, 1967, in H. Rep. No. 1623, 27-28;

and Lee C. White, Chairman, Federal Power Commission, to Hon. Wayne N. Aspinall, Chairman, Committee

on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, Mar. 7, 1968, in H. Rep. No. 1623, 46-47. 42 Rebecca Lave, Martin Doyle, and Morgan Robertson, “Privatizing Stream Restoration in the US,” Social

Studies of Science 40, no. 5 (Oct. 2010): 679; Hart, “Creative Federalism,” 29–47; and David B. Walker, “The

Nature and Systemic Impact of ‘Creative Federalism,’” in The Great Society and Its Legacy: Twenty Years of U.S.

Social Policy, eds. Marshall Kaplan and Peggy Cuciti (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1986), 197–208.

Negotiating for the Environment | 67

The final version of the act represented an intermediate approach that intended to

preserve the wild, scenic, or recreational qualities of specific sections of rivers while

leaving the remaining sections available for development. One stated goal of the act

was regional planning and development relying on geographical boundaries, yet the

act drew lines to designate only portions of rivers for protection. Despite the expec-

tations of creative federalism, the methods for protecting rivers did not progress

in a straight line, and political interests continued to carry weight. Western states

objected to loss of unappropriated water sources, while eastern states focused on

land use and land taxes. Pragmatism, including negotiation over which segments of

rivers would become part of the system and which segments would continue to be

available for development, allowed the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to gain congres-

sional approval.

Conclusion

During the Johnson administration, the need to place some checks on a society

rapidly advancing in terms of population, science, technology, and consump-

tion prompted a beautification campaign and passage of protective legislation for

scenic waterways, among other initiatives. Legislation in part aimed to untangle

the federal government from the responsibilities for natural resources protection.

Johnson’s push for a “new conservation,” stressing appreciation of the value of

natural resources for the human spirit, and calling for partnerships and local par-

ticipation in resource management appealed to the American people’s sense of

individualism. That long-standing American belief in personal autonomy, related

to the rights of private property and personal pursuit of prosperity, valued the

right to use natural resources for one’s livelihood and social betterment. By the

mid-20th century, however, such personal rights required a balancing of environ-

mental protection to allow continued development of natural resources. By point-

ing out growing threats to the beauty of the nation, while emphasizing human

benefits and local and individual choice in remedying those threats, Johnson’s

message spoke to the concerns of many Americans.

Johnson’s negotiations to achieve balance between natural resource conservation and

individualism constituted a transition to the new priorities of environmentalism in the

1970s. Yet, balance remained an elusive goal. As an energy shortage, deindustrializa-

tion, growing sentiments of distrust of government, and social and cultural revolutions

captured the attention of Americans in the 1970s, the degrading natural environment

joined the list of critical issues prompting outcries for change. Grassroots groups orga-

nized to confront perceived wrongs by industry and government that affected their

communities and lives, and in the process, compelled millions of Americans to recognize

68 | Federal History 2017

the implications of, and to support regulation of, human actions. Federal government

officials struggled to respond to these multifaceted issues facing the nation. 43

Although threats to the natural environment had caught the nation’s attention and

influenced national policy, postwar Americans still expected and desired contin-

ued development and growth. They also continued to trust that expert planning

and management would arrest the degeneration of the natural environment. To

a large extent, environmentalists attained their goals of heightened public under-

standing and protective federal laws, but their goals to effect a changed vision of

economics and public welfare continued to encounter the widespread insistence

on personal freedom and rights grounded in American individualism.

_______ Photo Credits: Lady Bird Johnson planting, President Johnson signing Clean Air Act, and Highway

Beautification Act commemorative pen, brochure, from the Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library

and Museum; St. Croix National Scenic Riverway from National Park Service, Multimedia Collection.

_______ © Society for History in the Federal Government. Readers can download Federal History articles and share them but must credit the journal and author. They cannot change the articles in any way or use them commercially. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND).

43 See, for example, Paul C. Milazzo, Unlikely Environmentalists: Congress and Clean Water, 1945–

1972 (Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 2006); Wellock, Preserving the Nation, 135–85; and John

C. Whitaker, Striking a Balance: Environmental and Natural Resources Policy in the Nixon-Ford Years

(Wash., DC: American Enterprise Institute , and Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution on War, Revolution

and Peace, 1976).

Copyright of Federal History is the property of Society for History in the Federal Government and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.