LAND USE AND REMEDY SECTION: Sign-on Letter

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org>]

LAND USE AND REMEDY SELECTION: A LETTER

I am seeking signatures, for the following letter, from organizations
representing public stakeholders, local government representatives, and
others. The letter will be sent to state and federal policy-makers,
including elected officials, with an interest in or jurisdiction over
cleanup policy.

Please E-mail, fax, phone, or mail me (see contact info below) any such
indications of support by September 1, 1997.

Note: In response to many comments I received on previous drafts, I have
made a number of what I consider minor changes.

Lenny Siegel

Dear _______:

We are writing to draw to your attention a significant issue in the
development of risk management strategies for hazardous waste cleanup:
the relationship of cleanup standards to anticipated future land use.
Remedies based upon institutional land use controls often curtail local
planning prerogatives simply to benefit responsible parties. They fail
to recognize that land use policies in many areas are likely to change
over the life of the contamination. Furthermore, controls - even when
they are reinforced by legal instruments that "run with the land" -
provide uncertain or temporary protection for public health and the
environment. Nevertheless, remedies are increasingly being linked to the
future use of the contaminated property.

We believe that it is both possible and imperative to build safeguards
into the decision-making process, both to recognize that land use
planning generally is and should remain a local prerogative and to
ensure that the local community is prepared to enforce whatever controls
are necessary. Specifically, we recommend:

* The appropriate regulatory agency(ies) shall not approve any remedy or
response that incorporates or requires institutional controls on future
land use - that is, which restrict otherwise acceptable uses of the
property - without FULL PUBLIC REVIEW (notice and hearings) and approval
by the applicable local land use planning authority. Any such process
should be designed to involve directly site neighbors and others
directly affected by the resulting decisions.

* Where, through a formal finding of technical impracticability, it is
found that the property cannot be cleaned to the level desired by the
community, the local jurisdiction still should be directly involved in
the determination of institutional controls, for which in the long run
it may bear the responsibility of enforcement.

* Review and approval by the local land use planning authority should
not diminish the ability of the general community and community working
groups or advisory boards to oversee the remedy selection process. This
includes the provision of advice regarding the adoption of land use or
other controls necessary for remedies to be effective.

* In addition, local predominance in land use planning does not and
should not override the roles of public trust agencies and natural
resource trustees to protect the land and other natural resources for
which they have responsibility.

* While the level of public involvement in the cleanup decision-making
process often diminishes once remedies are selected, it is essential to
maintain continuing channels for public oversight wherever those
remedies require long-term institutional controls or active operation
and maintenance.

We believe that this approach will increase the likelihood that land use
controls will be both appropriate and effective. Anything less passes
the economic, health, and natural resource cost of the contamination to
the site's neighbors, the community in general, and to future
generations.

SIGNED:

Lenny Siegel
Director, SFSU CAREER/PRO (and Pacific Studies Center)
c/o PSC, 222B View St., Mountain View, CA 94041
Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
Fax: 650/968-1126
lsiegel@igc.org