138 The Environmental Debate
in the name of progress and economic neces-
sity should be required to show that their
actions are in the public interest. Thus, the
suit heard in the Riverhead courtroom was a
pioneering effort to establish vital precedents
in future conservation law.
The six-day trial was taken up largely with
the testimony of scientists and other expert wit-
nesses presented by the plaintiff’s legal counsel.
The counsel for the defense was hard put to sum-
mon any valid scientific support for the necessity
of using DDT for mosquito control or to show
that it was harmless to nontarget organisms. In
fact, any economic arguments in favor of DDT
were nonexistent.
The court-imposed temporary ban on DDT
use by the defendant held for about a year, at
which time the judge ruled that, although it had
been proven that DDT was contaminating the
environment, action for a permanent ban must
come from the state legislature. Victory, how-
ever, was snatched from an ultimate defeat, for
orders from the County administration came in
time to make the ban permanent.
* * *
Emboldened by the small but significant vic-
tory in Suffolk, the original group decided to fol-
low their courtroom tactics on a broader scale....
Accordingly, in the fall of 1967, the Environ-
mental Defense Fund (EDF) was formed.Source: Dennis Puleston, “Defending the Environment: A
Case History,” Brookhaven Lecture Series, Number 104,
September 15, 1971 (Springfield, VA: National Technical
Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce,
December 1971), pp. 1, 3, 4, 5.concentrations as high as 32 lbs/acre—this in an
area far from any agricultural spraying. Appeals
to the Commission had no effect; their job, they
claimed, was to kill mosquitoes, and DDT was the
best way to do it. Effects on other wildlife forms
were not their concern. Besides, they insisted,
wasn’t DDT “harmless to animals”?
Thus the idea of court action was born.
A local lawyer was anxious to try his mettle,
and there was plenty of scientific testimony to
support his case. This was provided by a small
group of life scientists and conservationists,
members of the local Brookhaven Town Natu-
ral Resources Committee. Affidavits, charts,
photographs, and a substantial technical appen-
dix were prepared and in early 1966 an Order
to Show Cause, together with a plaintiff’s affi-
davit, summons, and verified complaint were
filed with the Supreme Court of the State of
New York in Riverhead, Suffolk County.... In
August the Court determined that “... upon all
the facts before the Court... sufficient grounds
exist for the discretion vested in the Court to
stay a practice injurious to the County and its
residents.”
In November 1966, the action was heard.
This was a “class action,” whereby the plain-
tiff, instead of seeking personal damages,
seeks to persuade the Court that, as a matter
of equity and constitutional privilege, the citi-
zenry has a right to the cleanest possible envi-
ronment consistent with the general welfare.
While such a right is not specifically men-
tioned in the Constitution, it can readily be
inferred. This doctrine holds that those who
pollute and disturb the environment adversely