Final answer:
Environmental legislation, including requirements for environmental impact statements, garnered overwhelming support due to public environmental advocacy and recognition of potential economic benefits. Nonetheless, these laws faced challenges and compromises due to lobbying, economic concerns, and political bargaining, leading to regulations with exceptions and loopholes.
Step-by-step explanation:
The legislation requiring environmental impact statements (EIS) passed by overwhelming majorities not just because it was recognized as a pro-environment law, but also due to the heightened public support for environmental protection, evidenced by the success of the first Earth Day in 1970. This public movement compelled even politicians not previously identified as environmentalists, like President Nixon, to act on environmental issues. Moreover, there was a recognition that command-and-control regulations, such as those related to EIS, could lead to economic benefits by preventing pollution, which could otherwise cost businesses more in the long run. However, these environmental laws often included compromises and exceptions due to political lobbying and concerns about their impact on existing businesses and jobs, particularly during economic downturns.
Throughout the 1970s, the US saw a wave of environmental-legislation activity. Laws were enacted to limit pesticides, protect endangered species, and ensure that mine operators reduced pollution. Yet, economic stagnation and corporate concerns about new regulations raised doubts about the EPA's restrictions. Consequently, while environmental laws such as the EIS requirement generally enjoyed public support for their positive environmental goals, they also faced scrutiny over potential economic costs and were subjected to lobbying efforts that created loopholes.