Portsmouth Herald
RAN 2/8/96 Pg. A7
By Susan Maddocks 
Herald Staff
   CONCORD - Some presidential candidates would dot the landscape with
nuclear power plants. Others would essentially wipe out protection of
wetlands. And many said they would eliminate the U.S. Department of Energy
all together.
   Not exactly ``environmental president'' material, said Kurt Ehrenberg,
shaking his head as he unveiled survey responses from the field of
presidential candidates to 15 environment-related questions.
   ``This is disappointing,'' said Ehrenberg, sitting with a group of
reporters at the Statehouse yesterday morning as he proffered the survey
results. For the second straight presidential election, Ehrenberg, on behalf
of non-profit, public policy agency Energy America Education Fund, has
managed to get straight answers from candidates on environmental issues.
   Each candidate responded to queries, ranging from whether they would
eliminate the DOE, build nuclear power plants or support legislation that
would grant property owners tax breaks on land they cannot use due to
environmental regulations prohibiting development near environmentally
sensitive wetlands, Ehrenberg said.
   ``There is a huge environmental consequence if environmental policy is
ignored,'' Ehrenberg said. ``Up until this point, both the candidates and the
media, sadly, have done that.''
   When asked whether they would eliminate the DOE, which oversees the
nuclear power industry and supervises disposal of radioactive waste, among
other duties, all but two candidates said they would ax the agency. President
Clinton and Republican candidate Richard Lugar both said they would preserve
it.
   On the matter of constructing nuclear power plants, most Republican
candidates answered ``yes.'' Lugar and Phil Gramm were not as clear.
   Said Lugar, ``I would not rule out such construction if a particular
nuclear plant is an economical and safe option. Nuclear power could help
combat the threat of global warming.
   Said Gramm, ``Federal safety standards governing the construction of
nuclear facilities should continue. States and localities should decide for
themselves if they want nuclear power plants in their communities.''
   Nor was Clinton clear. He said, ``...the administration supports research
ad development funding to help develop more cost-effective nuclear plant
designs. Ultimately, however, the market and the public must choose the
technology and fuels for future electricity generation - not the
government.''
   On the matter of private property owners restricted by environmental laws
from building near wetlands, all but Clinton and Lugar said they would
support giving ``payment'' to those landowners. Ehrenberg said such
legislation could cause communities to scrap protective rules for economic
reasons.
   Said Clinton, ``...It would cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars and
weaken safeguards for public health, safety and the environment.''
   Said Lugar, ``The Constitution already requires that landowners be
compensated for takings of their private property. I am skeptical that
Congress should try to improve upon the work of the courts in defining a
taking or determining what is just compensation.''
   Although Clinton is the most supportive of environmental legislation,
Ehrenberg said he was disappointed in the president's reversal on a move to
improve car fuel efficiency to reduce ozone impact of emissions. ``The
president said four years ago'' he would 
support stricter guidelines, Ehrenberg said.