OPINION Thursday, October 21, 1982 The Michigan Daily.,., Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan T1 A strange and wonderful pair: S - Pierre and Canada ' a Vol. XCIII, No. 37 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board Localized disaster IN THE VERY near future, the Environmental Protection Agency will formally propose some significant changes in the way thefederal gover- nment deals with meeting the goals of the Clean Water Act. The proposed changes are astounding-even by the incredibly bad environmental record of the Reagan administration. The changes are going to de- emphasize national standards for clean water and, instead, let individual states have a large say in deciding what water pollution standards in any given locale should be. The change is necessary, the administration will argue, .because federal pollution regulators are inherently insensitive to local needs and problems. Allowing more local control will result in a more effective water quality policy, accor- ding to the administration. But the new position on water policy doesn't seem to be aimed so much at improving the environment as it is aimed at dissipating the progress made in improving water quality over the last decade and at giving corporate America a bigger saytin environmen- tal policy. Turning responsibility for water quality over to the, states will almost certainly mean an easing in water quality standards-and the Reagan administration knows it. State regulatory agencies base their decisions on criteria that are often far different from those used by federal regulators. Under the new Reagan rules, water quality will be determined by local politics and the competition between states for industry-not on the basis of what is best for the environ- ment. One of the great victories of the en-, vironmental movement of the 60s was the awareness it created that pollution affects all of us-not just those who happen to live where its effects are most severe. The destruction of the en- vironment was viewed as a national-not just regional-problem. But the administration's position is diametrically opposed to this view. The new rules, if they are approved, will localize the determination of exac- tly what levels of pollution are accep- table. A concern for local input into water standards is legitimate and justified; perhaps, in this sense, the current standards for applying the Clean Water Act need to be reviewed. Any current misapplication of the rules, however, certainly does not merit a new policy which could very well put water policy in the hands of those who have the most to gain from the destruc- tion of the environment. By George Golubovski This past summer, Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau spent his vacation traveling on a train through Western Canada. I am sure he would have enjoyed the scenery, if it were not for the rubbish spread across his panoramic window. You see, many Western Canadians ex- pressed their unhappiness toward their chief executive by pelting his train with rotten vegetables. Trudeau responded in a similarly crude fashion: He gave the protesters the finger. Some relationship, eh? THESE INCIDENTS were not any real sur- prise-Trudeau's Liberal party doesn't have one seat west of Manitoba and Pierre has been known to exercise his middle finger before. What was interesting, howeverwere the results of this past week's three federal by- elections (district elections which are called because of a vacancy due to a death, resignation, etc.). All three contests were in Ontario, which is considered a swing province in federal elections. True, one of the elections was going to be safely won by Trudeau's main opposition, the Progressive Conservatives, but the other two could be viewed as a referendum on Trudeau and his handling of the Canadian economy. THE UNEMPLOYMENT rate in Canada is higher than here in the United States, and the federal deficit is $25 billion, which is larger than the entire budget, was when 'Trudeau became prime minister in 1968. Many Canadians would agree that Ann Ar- bor, with its affinity for Molson, Labatts and Moosehead beer, has done more for the Canadian economy than Trudeau has. But, seriously, Trudeau recently has made an attempt to change economic policy, if not Wasserman substantively, that facially, by shuffling his cabinet. YET CANADIANS used the elections to vote their disapproval. In an ethnic, blue-collar district in Toronto (won by the mildly socialist New Democrats), Trudeau's Liberals ran an astonishing 23 per- cent below their showing in the last election. And in a Northern Ontario district (won by the Progressive Conservatives), the Liberals showed a similar, though not as intense, decrease. Other factors (the volunteers, visits by prominent opposition members and local issues) played an integral part in the poor Liberal showing, but Trudeau was clearly the issue. So, if not Trudeau, then who do the Canadians want? SOME SUGGEST Progressive Conser- vative Joe Clark, who was prime minister for a short time in 1979. Clark went out of his way as a national leader to campaign for his par- tisans in the recent by-elections, but three road blocks prevent him from being seriously considered as prime minister again. First, he is having problems within his own party. Even though Clark survived a leader- ship review at a party convention, a big chunk disapproved of him being the head of their party. Second, Clark is perceived as a weak leader. As many Canadian commentators and columnists have noted, "he is a wimp." THIRD, IF Trudeau can hold on to a majority in the Parliament, as he is likely to do, he doesn't have to call an election until 1985. Canadians may end up until then with Trudeau whether they like it or not. Trudeau became prime minister when Lyndon Johnson was our president. Since the last Canadian election in 1980, Trudeau has said he will step down and end his lopg tenure. But in homage to unpredictibility, don't be ;, y t i -J4 { r.. "4 o,.a {>, .r u