CAL DSMOA $$$

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org>]

CALIFORNIA DSMOA FUNDING UNRESOLVED

The state of California and the Department of Defense (DOD) remain 
mired in a protracted dispute over the proper level of reimbursment, 
from DOD to the state, for oversight of military cleanup programs 
within the state. Though California has the legal authority to recoup 
those costs through enforcement action, for the past several years it 
has received oversight funding under cooperative agreements associated 
with a Defense State Memorandum of Agreement (DSMOA).

I don't have access to all the data about the amounts of money 
involved, but it appears that DOD is unwilling to reimburse California 
at the level it has received in previous years. As a consequence, 
California is cutting back (or expects to cut back) on a variety of 
activities, including support for public participation and the state's 
involvement in a variety of partnership activities with the armed services.

There are a number of apparent reasons:

1) Congress has limited DSMOA funding nationally, and both Congress and 
the DOD hierarchy are pushing the cleanup programs to limit their 
"administrative expenses."

2) California requires or spends disproportionately more money on 
oversight than other states.

3) At most major bases within California, more than one state agency 
oversees cleanup. DSMOA money supports oversight that some people in 
DOD headquarters consider duplicative.

 I believe that the Defense Department is being pound-foolish. The state 
claims: "California has utilized DSMOA funding to assist DOD in saving 
an estimated $450 million in cleanup related costs." And it generated a 
list to back up the assertion. However, I think that figure overstates 
the financial benefit, because I am sure that there have be unlisted 
cases in which the state has insisted on more exhaustive investigation 
or protective remedation, costing the military money.

Still, I think state oversight has made the Defense cleanup program 
more cost-effective, not only in California, but it has created models 
that are improving cleanup nationally. 

For example, California regulators, along with regional EPA officials, 
have been meeting regularly for the past few years with the Navy to set 
cleanup priorities jointly among facilities. Now other western states 
take part in these meetings, and the General Accounting Office has 
recognized this effort as one of the few bright spots in the effort to 
improve national priority-setting practices.

California's regional water boards require less frequent groundwater 
sampling of the military, compared to private responsible parties, 
because they have had the DSMOA resources to do more complete oversight.

State public participation specialists usually take the lead in the 
formation of Restoration Advisory Boards, reducing the time required of 
base environmental staff. California developed the practical approach 
that became the basis of the DOD-EPA national guidance on RAB formation.

Underlying the differences over oversight spending is a more 
significant concern: The armed services perceive that they are spending 
disproportionately large amounts of money on actual cleanup in 
California. (Ironically, the military has never been that concerned 
about focusing weapons spending in the state.) They're probably right, 
and there are a mix of potential explanations:

California has a large population. It has more active bases and more 
closing bases. Though I've never seen a statistical analysis, those 
factors don't fully explain the amount of cleanup money that DOD has 
spent or expects to spend within the state.

Californians may actually care more about the environment, on average, 
than the rest of the country. The condition of the natural environment 
here is important, not only for tourism and agricultural industries, 
but to attract the urban professionals that have made the state a 
center for the high-technology and entertainment industries. California 
relies upon scarce, threatened groundwater and surface water supplies. 
But these are valid reasons for strict state environmental oversight - 
of the private sector as well as the federal government.

Despite California's historic commitment to environmental protection, 
the state has worked hard to cooperate with the military, and that 
cooperation - supported by DSMOA money - has improved not only the 
results, but the population's satisfaction with the program.

If DSMOA funding is not restored, that cooperation will suffer, not so 
much because of hard feelings, but because the state has no other way 
to fund its efforts.

I had hoped, given the close working relationship that has evolved 
between state and federal officials, that this situation would resolve 
itself before major damage is done. Right now I'm pessimistic. Unless 
the Pentagon and Congress hear about the need for adequate DSMOA 
funding for California, that working relationship is likely to erode.

Lenny Siegel