FUTURE LAND USE response

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org>]

From: Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org>

I concur with both Don and Lenny's comments.
The Federal Facilities law did not give DoD a legislative or
judicial mandate to enter the regulatory-writing business; it
did not say: try to enact loopholes to bring down the cost,
responsibility, or intent of this Act.
I think DoD in the short and long run would be a lot better off
if it dropped its current strategy of making war with the states
(and other federal agencies not to mention local government and
citizens) and concentrated its rather prodigious resources and
expertise at developing a strategic plan for getting the cleanup
accomplished within the intent of the Federal Facilities Act.
By their own account (as documented in FY96-completion charts
in the DERP), the cleanup as currently identified will last a
solid 30 years (with some projects lasting till mid-2000s).
The cost is tens of billions of dollars. This does not factor
in what is almost certain to be continuing and extensive new base
closures during that time period. It does not factor in that the
future promises heightened environmental and public health
awareness.
I think all the players in the military enviornmental clean-up
arena realize that developing a strategy to reach not just the
new millenium but the actual completion of the cleanup cannot be
done in isolation nor can it be done by directive. DoD has
plenty of lessons already in the bag on that.
As a very wise man who until recently was sitting in the chair
of the Chief of Staff of the Army likes to say: Hope is not a
Method.
As a first step, I would suggest that DoD and the service
branches sit down with their installations and the states and
develop a mechanism to resolve the issue of timetables and other
"obligations" that cannot be currently met.
Polly Parks
(202) 879-4288
fax: (202) 783-0444