Re: [CPEO-MEF] Partnerships to support intra-federal land transfers

[StellaVB@aol.com]

In a message dated 8/23/01 12:07:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
lsiegel@cpeo.org writes:


> (from <Gilsailer@aol.com>)
> 
> The future for DoD and others to get funds should be about the same for
> certain things...the thing that has always puzzled me...while in and
> since retired from civil service...there are several interagency
> organizations that could or a need for an interagency focus to deal with
> some of the cross cutting organizational and budget situations that do
> not get properly supported depending on the Administration.
> 
> The reality is that some of the real issues I see before us are more
> along this line  
> 
> 1. there is no question that excess infrastructure exists. Putting off
> closure -moth balling or appropriate relocation to improve mission does
> not improve availability of funds nor does it get an unpleasant
> expensive job CLEANING UP ONES MESS any faster or easier. 


Maybe I'm missing the point but by ADDING more closed bases, would that not 
tax the already limited resources?  I seems to me the military does not have 
the money or time or interest to invest in the closed bases already within 
their branches.  It seems that adding more closed bases would dilute whatever

energy is being spent now.  So again I ask the question, am I missing 
something here?

> 
> 2. all these tax cut people missed the real debate about the future
> liability. putting that money into cleanup of fuds, brac but most
> importantly current facility cleanups would improve and long term reduce
> our tax liability of the future. 


What exactly do you mean when you say 'our tax liability of the future'?  

> 
> 3. the fact that DoD is disposing of and cleaning up property under fuds
> or brac does not positively support the management and stewardship of
> the on board assets  . many of the symptoms you raise are being
> continually repeated even though they are problems today. Problem
> appears to be ownership and operational control and budget
> justification. 


I couldn't agree with you more (once again if I'm understanding you 
correctly) about the problem.  My question is how do we go about finding the 
solution?  I do not believe most local governments can handle ownership of 
these sites due to a lack of time and energy necessary to read documents, 
attend meetings, communicating with those who have technology expertise in 
order to truly understand the daunting cleanup process and then managing it 
into the future with the risks that will always be there (the military has 
made it clear these sites will never be fully cleaned up with the technology 
at hand).  So WHO should manage these sites and it needs to be someone who is

in it for the 'long haul'?  As it is, with the Camp Bonneville Base Closure, 
we have seen so many people in authority come and go that it is hard to 
retain any semblance of continuity with this project.

> 
> 4. many people are unrealistic about what can be done in the clean up
> arena.  the focus on army navy air force misses the point... there is no
> functional place that will have longterm responsibility for
> identification,implementation or tracking....of all these agreements
> whether serious or escapes as some contend. there is not cataloging or
> inventory of these agreements, terms and liabilities that is feasible to
> research, budget, or analyze the cross cutting or systemic issues
> inherent in the data. 

I have thought about this one myself.  The Dept. of Commerce does the Census 
so it has an understanding of 'data' projects.  Is it possible to have this 
dept. handle this?  If this idea is too far fetched, maybe someone out there 
knows of a business that could handle this (some would say the government and

military should NOT be involved in this).  


> 
> 5. The environmental deals being cooked are not as troubling as some of
> the financial, leasing, or conditions subsequent where there is no
> advocate group such as the environmental community. 


Once again, you are right and this is a problem!  Now, what kind of solutions

can solve them?  Legislative laws?  Demanding local governments take these 
concerns seriously while most struggle following the environmental laws 
before them now?!  I continue to have major concerns with these sites and the

dangers posed by them.  Somehow the military MUST stay involved till 
technology provides us with a means for 100% cleanup.  They, along with 
UXO/EOD professionals, are the ONLY ones who truly understand such dangers.

Thank you for the discussion!
Stella

> 
> -- 
> 
> 

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