From: | Vernon Brechin <vbrechin@igc.org> |
Date: | Sat, 12 Oct 1996 00:12:56 -0700 (PDT) |
Reply: | cpeo-military |
Subject: | Re: FUTURE LAND USE COMMENTS |
From: Vernon Brechin <vbrechin@igc.org> Lenny, This is a response to your posting on cpro.military, Topic 605, Oct. 3, 1996, concerning land use policy. I am making the following comments from a position of naivet concerning the fine points of the law and without fully reading your postings on this issue. I look at this issue from a rather pessimistic view point. I do support your efforts to encourage complete clean-ups at early stages of the conversion process. Questions need to be raised as to how the public can be assured that institutional controls will be maintained, by federal agencies, into the distant future. Changes in world and domestic situations may partly or completely negate the original, mission of an executive federal agency. There is no guarantee that the public will continue to fund a federal agency after its original, major purpose has been lost. The public may not want to fund such an agency, just so that it can continue to fulfill its past promises to act as a caretaker for pieces of contaminated property. Another point, is that the public should not be placed in a position of having to fund a obsolete agency so that it can continue to protect the public from the contamination that the agency originally created. This may serve to preserve the positions of bureaucratic agency fat cats in Washington, DC. Our system of government was designed to be highly flexible. Using the fear, of the spread of contamination, to preserve obsolete government institutions, might be seen as a process of hardening of the arteries of our governmental system. It results in a reduction of governmental flexibility. I believe that this is a natural process which our system of participatory democracy and checks-and-balances is supposed to counteract. A similar situation can be seen in the case of the promotion of nuclear power generation. The early promoters were able to secure funding, for the development of the industry, because they promised the electorate that they would come up with a solution to the disposal of the high-level nuclear waste. One thing the public failed to realize, is that these promoters were not, and could not speak for the next generation, who's values turned out to be different than the values of the leaders of the 50's and 60's. Although it is natural for parents to assume that their offspring will have values that are similar to their own, this is not, and sometimes, should not be the case. In conclusion, DoD and DOE clean-ups should be very thorough and should be funded at the earliest possible date, while the responsible agencies are still solvent. Vernon J. Brechin ================================================================== ================================================================== The following letter was mailed on 10/11/96 ================================================================== October 11, 1996 Patricia Rivers Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security/Cleanup) 3400 Defense, Pentagon Washington, DC 20301-3400. Dear Ms. Rivers: The DoD has an obligation to make it clear, in its deliberations with members of the surrounding communities, that it is here to serve the public and not to intimidate them. The potential threat of contaminants, left during less than complete cleanup operations, should not be used by the military, to insure its role as public guardians into the distant future. The public would be making a serious mistake if it assumed that the federal agencies, which were responsible for a given contamination situation and a less then complete cleanup, will retain institutional control long after the initial contamination is forgotten by the general electorate. Our system of government is supposed to remain flexible and not be hamstrung by past federal practices. The the responsibility, of a federal agency that fails to fully cleanup its borrowed public property, should not be transfered into the relm of increasingly complex real estate documents which include the use of deed restrictions. Such deed restrictions may increase the cost of processing deeds while limiting future uses of the public's property. Clearly, this country's Founding Fathers provided us with a Constitution which severely limited the powers of the military. Allowing a system, in which the military plays a part in limiting future uses of public and private property, does not bode well for the future of American democracy. Base cleanups need to be done quickly and throughly so that the vast majority of the public's property can be freely used by future generations. Sincerely, Verrnon J. Brechin ================================================================== | |
References
| |
Prev by Date: Re: PERFORMANCE-BASED SYSTEM Next by Date: DOD Cleanups: consulting/cleanup contracts | |
Prev by Thread: FUTURE LAND USE COMMENTS Next by Thread: Kudo's to USEPA Region IX and X re Regional Forum |