CLEANUP BUDGET: Now or Never

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org>]

NOW OR NEVER: DEFENSE CLEANUP MUST BE FUNDED

 Apparently, the Clinton Administration and key members of 
Congress believe that there is no constituency for Environmental 
Restoration at Defense facilities. The President's $1.6 billion 
request for DERA (the Defense Environmental Resoration Account) 
is pitifully far below requirements developed in the field.

 While I accept the need for all Federal programs to shoulder 
a share of the fight to cut spending, the proposed cut goes much to 
far. If upheld, it will mean:

1) Additional risk of exposure of people and the environment to 
hazardous substances from military activities.

2) Continued spread of contaminants, increasing long-term cleanup 
costs.

3) Undermining of the partnerships being developed, among all 
stakeholders, to improve cleanup.

4) Increased pressure, at each site, to accept inadequate 
investigations or weaker cleanups standards.

5) Less opportunity - at closing bases, in particular - to use cleanup 
projects to promote economic recovery and career transition.

6) Increased pressure on state and local governments to absorb the 
cost or the consequences of Federal decisions.

 It will not be easy to combat the downward slide in cleanup 
funding, but if the proponents of environmental security programs 
hesitate, things will only get worse. I propose, therefore, the 
circulation of statements or letters among various parties, to 
illustrate the widespread, non-partisan support for Defense 
environmental spending. Potential participants could include state 
governments, local governments, Indian tribes, environmental and 
environmental justice groups, sympathetic members of Congress, 
etc. Each group could tailor statements to their own areas of 
consensus, but the common theme would be to maintain steady 
funding for cleanup.

 It is important to stress that non-Federal stakeholders are 
working hard to make cleanup more efficient. We are helping to 
develop mechanisms for improving the setting of priorities, to 
streamline regulatory oversight, to demonstrate new technologies, 
and to establish real-world cleanup objectives. At a certain point, 
however, the Federal government's commitment to meet its legal 
and moral obligations may fall so low that we will have to resume 
the adversarial stance characteristic of the program before the 
1990's.

 Below I have listed some of the points that could be 
included in a letter signed by commuity-based advocates of 
Environmental Security.

A) Provide steady, sufficient funding for Defense environmental 
programs, including $2 billion a year for the Defense Environmental
Resoration Account.

B) Increase funding for the development and demonstration of 
innovative Defense environmental technologies, through programs 
such as the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program.

C) Fund and implement programs designed to promote partnerships 
with local stakeholders, such as training and technical assistance for 
RAB members.

D) Continue programs designed to support the development 
environmental regulatory capacity of Indian nations and promote 
environmental justice.

E) Provide cleanup funds and technical assistance to support the 
cleanup of former U.S. bases in less developed host countries such 
as Panama and the Philippines. [I'm not sure we want to include 
this, for tactical reasons.]

F) Reduce or eliminate funds for the construction of Chemical
Weapons incinerators unless/until they are proven to be safe, 
reliable, and cost-effective.

Lenny Siegel