COLORADO A.G. ON HR1778

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org>]

The following is a letter to the House National Security Committee from 
the (Republican) Attorney General of Colorado:

 June 10, 1997

 The Honorable Floyd Spence, Chairman
The Honorable Ronald V. Dellums, Ranking Member
House Committee on National Security
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: HR 1778, The Defense Reform Act of 1997

Dear Messrs. Spence and Dellums:

On Friday, my office obtained a copy of the above-referenced
bill. I understand that this bill is scheduled for markup in the
National Security Committee on Wednesday, June 11, 1997. I write
to urge you to delete Title III, "Environmental Reforms," from
this bill.

It is clear that the purpose of this bill is to redirect dollars
from bureaucratic waste to readiness. I support this effort. I
also support attempts to reform the superfund law; in particular,
I commend attempts to streamline the federal facility program,
and ensure that dollars go to cleanup rather than litigation or
administrative expenses.

I cannot, however, support passage of Environmental Reforms title
for two reasons: first, states and interested parties have not
been provided with an opportunity to review the bill and comment
on its provisions. Because passage of this title would have such
wide-ranging effects -- not limited to federal contaminated
sites -- and because superfund reform has been so technically
complex and contentious, such reform should only be pursued in an
orderly, open process. Such a thorough process is the best
insurance against unintended consequences and increased rancor.

Second, many of the provisions would contravene historical state
positions regarding the responsibility of federal facilities to
comply with environmental laws to the same extent as private
parties. For example, section 314 would exempt the armed
services from complying with new air pollution standards for
ozone and particulates; section 304 would require states, not
federal polluters, to pay "incremental" costs of compliance with
state selected remedy plans; and section 313 could be interpreted
as allowing budget to drive cleanup, rather than compliance
driving budgetary outlays at DOE facilities.

As someone who has worked on federal facility cleanups for a
number of years, I believe it is important to apply the same laws
to federal facilities as to private businesses. If the pro-
visions and the process are too costly and cumbersome for federal
agencies, then they should be re-examined for everyone. Title
III's provisions violate the principle of equal treatment of
federal facilities under the law, and therefore would be
strenuously opposed by states. They might even be opposed by
private businesses, if they shift compliance costs to the private
sector, as section 314 might do.

The problems mentioned above are not the only problems we have
identified with the bill; they merely illustrate in part why I
believe passage of Title III is ill-advised at this time.

I would welcome any questions you may have on this issue, and
wish you well in your efforts to curb wasteful spending by our
military services.

 Sincerely,

 Gale Norton

cc: The Honorable Joel Hefley