[CPEO-MEF] Joint Land Use vs. "Encroachment"

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

[The following is from the May, 2001 edition of "Coming Clean," the
newsletter of the Aberdeen Proving Ground Superfund Citizens Coalition.]


Joint Land Use versus Community "Encroachment":
Should the Military Have it Both Ways?

Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) has recently expressed an interest in the
joint use of APG airfields with Harford County. This proposal, which
will blur the line between county and military land, comes at a time
when the Department of Defense is complaining of community
"encroachment" and actively lobbying Congress to reduce the
environmental restrictions on military activities.  

Despite the fact that such joint use proposals will bring the public
even closer to contaminated military land, if the Department of Defense
has its way, communities that live adjacent to military bases will have
reduced options to address the air, water and soil contamination,
resulting from military activities, which jeopardize human health and
the environment. 

Because they are an economic boon to military bases, joint use
agreements will become increasingly popular. For instance, APG will
directly benefit from the joint use proposal for APG airfields.  But
these agreements will also result in closer contact between the general
public and the military base.  Undoubtedly, this will result in
heightened concern for the effects of contamination due to military
activities.  So, can the Department of Defense have it both ways? Can
they negotiate joint use agreements on the one hand, while demanding
immunity from the consequences of their testing and training activities
on the other? Should they be allowed to have it both ways?

RECENT TESTIMONY: REDUCE RESTRICTIONS!

Representatives of the Department of Defense have recently testified
before Congress that they are facing a crisis of encroachment. According
to the Department of Defense, while military bases used for testing and
training were once isolated in rural areas, development is now bringing
people closer to their boundaries. Communities then express concerns
over the noise and contamination that result from testing and training,
pressuring the DoD to limit their activities to protect the public.
Cited in the testimony was a case where the US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) required the Army to cease live-fire testing at the
Massachusetts Military Reserve because this testing resulted in
extensive groundwater contamination that was poisoning the community's
drinking water wells and cranberry bogs. The EPA's authority was based
on their mandate to abate contamination that could have an imminent
impact on human health and the environment. According to the Army, this
cease-fire will compromise military readiness and therefore they are
looking to Congress for protection from such actions in the future.

What the DoD fails to understand is that while communities may support
the military agenda, the release of chemical and radiological
contaminants into the environment  - even in the name of national
defense - must be strictly controlled.  No one should have to bear the
consequences of the military testing and training with compromised health.

Most people do not consider that by purchasing land near a military
base, they will be asked to sacrifice their health or quality of life. 
It is rare that state and local governments require the disclosure of
potential risks and hazards stemming from military activities to the
home buyers. 

For example there are new homes being built adjacent to APG's Lauderick
Creek Area, which is littered with unexploded ordnance that may be
filled with lethal chemical agents.  Do these new homeowners know what
is going on next door?  Since there is no requirement to disclose the
nature and extent of the contamination or cleanup, we doubt it! It
probably would not occur to most people that military activities are
resulting in extensive environmental contamination or that the
Department of Defense is requesting an exemption from environmental
legislation. So the public cannot be blamed for expressing outrage when
they find that their air, soil or groundwater is impacted by such activities.

PHILLIPS ARMY AIRFIELD: WRONG FOR JOINT USE

Harford County's proposal for joint use of the Phillips Army Airfield
(Figure 1) has been met with favor by APG and with disapproval by the
community.  The objections raised by community members include concern
for the effects of increased use of the Airfield on the groundwater
(Perryman Wellfield), which serves over 90,000 people and businesses in
Harford County, and for the increased air and noise pollution that will
result.  Due to the presence of the Perryman Wellfield, there is an
inadequate buffer zone at this site to provide for protection of the
public from pollution due to use of the Airfield by ANY entity.  It most
certainly cannot support the increased activity that will come with the
joint use proposal.  Instead of looking for ways to use this land, it
should be viewed as a buffer zone with restricted activity.

Moreover, the joint use of this facility will bring members of the
public closer to the active ranges at APG, increasing the pressure on
the military to control contaminants resulting from active training
activities.  How can APG and the Department of Defense resolve this
inherent conflict of interest?

STATE AND COUNTY: NO PROTECTION HERE!

We are convinced that state and county governments view undeveloped land
adjacent to military bases in terms of increased tax base.  Whether it
is housing or industrial and commercial development, there is no
economic room for a buffer zone between the base and the community. 
There is, in fact, no incentive to leave this land undeveloped.  It is
therefore up to the Department of Defense to provide an adequate buffer
zone around their training areas. 

Military testing and training devastates the environment, therefore the
military must control contaminants and maintain this buffer zone. They
cannot expect the state or counties to do this for them; economic
pressures to develop are just too great. 

Regardless, the state and federal government cannot allow the military
to release contaminants into the environment unchecked.  Testing and
training activities can continue, but they must be accompanied by
monitoring to assure that no contaminants are moving off of the active
ranges.  And if they are - they must be addressed.

LESS REGULATION, MORE INTEGRATION?

Joint use and land transfers result in the close integration of public
and military lands as the public is brought even closer to active
military ranges. Yet isn't this close proximity just what the Department
of Defense is complaining about?  Isn't it in fact this close proximity
that has resulted in the "encroachment problems" encountered by the
military? So why invite the public in by promoting joint use nd land
transfer proposals? If, in fact, the Department of Defense obtains
relief from environmental regulations, and is successful in their
pursuit of joint use and land transfer proposals, then the public will
suffer the double whammy of being brought onto former military lands,
while having fewer regulations to protect human health and the
environment.  

APGSCC maintains that the military can not and should not have it both
ways. If indeed they want fewer restrictions on their activities, then
they must take responsibility for purchasing and retaining buffer zones
that are adequate to protect the community from the contaminants they
release.  And they should not be allowed to pursue joint use and land
transfer agreements, which undermine this buffer zone.

A FALSE DICHOTOMY?

The DoD may be presenting us with a false dichotomy: either we have
access to unrestricted training, or we suffer in military preparedness.
We reject this assertion.  We believe that it is possible to require
military entities to take responsibility for the pollution they produce
during testing and training activities, and to protect adjacent
communities from being impacted by these contaminants.  An adequate
buffer zone may be an integral part of this equation, however we must
emphasize that this is the responsibility of the military entities, and
not of the county or state governments. The historical and ongoing
mission of the Department of Defense must not diminish the quality of
life of the people with which it is charged to protect and defend.

-- 


Lenny Siegel
Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
c/o PSC, 222B View St., Mountain View, CA 94041
Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
Fax: 650/961-8918
lsiegel@cpeo.org
http://www.cpeo.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~