RESPONSES TO LAND USE PAPER

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org>]

Here are a few illuminating "insider" comments that I've received in 
response to my posting on the relationship of land use to cleanup.

Lenny Siegel

1. One of the biggest problems we face in base closure/reuse is 
being able to recognize one entity as the responsible party for reuse. 
Unless a military installation falls entirely within the jurisdiction of 
one local government agency (City, County, etc.) there is normally 
quite a period of time before the local governments involved put 
together an organization that is capable of making decisions. In 
some cases, due to infighting and special conflicting interests, there 
is never a time when the reuse organization formed is very efficient 
in its decision making. We've even had problems getting decisions 
made when there was only one local government body involved! 

 Because of this I believe your paragraph #6* is possibly the 
best solution. It covers all the bases. This assumes, of course, that a 
residential level of clean-up is possible. If not, then we clean as best 
we can and place land use restrictions on the property when deeded.

 The reuse of installations is so changeable that I really do 
believe that it is less expensive in the long run to always "plan" on 
cleaning up to the strictest standard. In this way, when the 
opportunity arises for a reuse, or the reuse authority changes its 
mind (more likely), we're ready.

2. At the Sacramento Army Depot, the Army's relationship 
with the reuse authority was extremely good. In fact, in the eyes of 
some in Washington, too good. In any case the City of Sacramento 
was very aggressive in pursuing reuse alternatives. When the 
Packard Bell deal came up, they exhausted every alternative to get 
them to agree to come to Sacramento and the former Army Depot, 
including taking on quite a financial ($27 Million) and political risk. 
But even at that, they didn't have a reuse plan done and signed until 
around October, 1994. The Depot went on the list in 1991! 

 Unfortunately, they had not planned on Packard Bell in their 
reuse plan. However, the plan was broad enough, and the Packard 
Bell operations close enough to the original scheme, that the Army 
was able to make it fit. 

 By the way, the Army cleaned the Depot to residential 
standards. It was an NPL site, and it is possible that it will be off the 
list by the end of 1996. The Army started clean up when it hit the 
NPL in 1988. There will be two small sites that will have use 
restrictions placed on them due to remaining contamination. For 
example, they had to solidify and bury some heavy metals on-site, 
so no digging will be permitted in that area.

3. My comments on the bad experiences with the reuse 
authorities comes from the Fort Ord situation (at least five different 
jurisdictions involved), and the Tooele Army Depot situation, 
where the reuse authority, made up of representatives of the City 
and County of Tooele, seems to have difficulties coming to a
consensus.

 In conclusion: the actions of the local reuse authority are 
critical. The Army can do the best clean-up possible but unless the 
reuse people have their act together, the process of successful reuse 
is stalled.

 If the City of Sacramento had not made the decision to 
actively pursue Packard Bell, the Army would have never had a 
success story at the Depot, at least as far as rapid turn-over of the 
property to civilian reuse. The Army, through it's own successes in 
environmental clean-up and project management (i.e., cutting the 
red tape!) was able to provide the City with the ability to grab an 
opportunity when it arose (Packard Bell). Had the Army not been 
ready, the Packard Bell deal would have fallen through because 
they (Packard Bell) wanted the property immediately! The City of 
Sacramento was able to provide many incentives (money/tax 
breaks) to Packard Bell that the Army would not have been able to 
provide. The Army provided the clean property ready for reuse; the 
City provided the political and financial clout to land a deal with 
Packard Bell.

*"6) The cost and delay of determining and evaluating the impact of 
future use may make the strongest standard - such as, cleanup to 
meet a residential scenario - the most timely and cost effective."