From: | Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org> |
Date: | 4 Sep 2001 03:55:42 -0000 |
Reply: | cpeo-military |
Subject: | [CPEO-MEF] GAO Overview of Past Base Closures |
On August 28, 2001, Barry W. Holman, the General Accounting Office's Director for Defense Capabilities and Management, testified before a Subcommittee of the House Government Reform Committee. His testimony, "Military Base Closures: Overview of Economic Recovery, Property Transfer, and Environmental Cleanup" (GAO-01-1054T) is available from GAO's web site, http://www.gao.gov/audit.htm (listed under August 28, 2001). Holman's testimony did exactly as promised: It provided an overview of the impact of base closures on communities from the 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) rounds. Much of the information is not new, but as a package it provides solid background for current proposals for a new base closure round. The base closure process is torturous; there is a great deal of room for improvement. There are significant short-term impacts, and many people - such as base workers and nearby business owners - are negatively impacted. But communities as a whole are generally not devastated by the shutdown of military bases. GAO found, "According to the latest annual data, of the 62 communities surrounding major base closures, 43 (or 69 percent) had unemployment rates equal to or lower than the U.S. rate for 2000.... Furthermore, 33 (or 53 percent) of the affected communities had equal or higher average annual per capita income growth rates than the U.S. average rate for 1996-99. Another 7 communities (11 percent) had average annual per capita income growth rates that were in close proximity to the U.S. average rate." Holman did pass along findings from an MIT study, pointing out that counties impacted by Naval Shipyard closings did not fare well. It might be fair to blame the closings for economic conditions in Charleston (SC), Vallejo-Mare Island (CA), and possibly Philadelphia (PA), but in my view the Long Beach shipyard was too small a piece of the Los Angeles County economy to take all the blame. Cutbacks in aerospace contracting hurt the Los Angeles economy much more than base closures. Holman listed several factors contributing to economic recovery, including the strong national economy, government assistance, and the reuse of base property. He stopped short of crediting the base closures for the prosperity in many closure communities, and I think it would be difficult to show a causal relationship. The community with the highest growth rate, San Jose, California, was in the early stages of the Internet boom during that period. Its seven percent income growth rate should not be attributed to the closure of the Moffett Naval Air Station. But it is perhaps the extreme example of the fact that many communities can prosper without their historical annual influx of military installation funding. Holman reported that 44 percent, or 229,800 acres, of the 518,300 acres of military property declared excess through the BRAC process, will be retained by federal agencies. Another 55 percent (285,900) acres will be transferred to non-federal users, such as states, localities, and private parties. The remainder is still up for grabs. Forty-six percent of the federal transfers have been accomplished; 37 percent of the non-federal property has been transferred. Cleanup has been costly. Some $7 billion has been spent cleaning up BRAC bases thus far, and the Defense Department estimated that another $3.4 billion will be required to complete the job. This latter figure rose $1 billion over the Department's 1999 estimate, due "primarily to the inclusion of cleanup costs for unexploded ordnance, delays in the program, the refinement of cleanup requirements and DOD's cost estimates, and the use of more stringent cleanup standards due to changes in how installations will be used." The Air Force, with a projected cost to complete of $417 million at McClellan Air Force Base (Sacramento, CA), accounts for 52% ($1,764 million) of the total. The Navy projected $808 million, but it expects to boost its estimate by $142 million to meet more stringent cleanup standards - such as the requirement, by the state of Texas, to clean the Dallas Naval Air Station to residential standards. The Army's $796 million figure is expected to jump as well to cover the clearance of unexploded ordnance at Camp Bonneville (Vancouver, WA) and Fort Ord (Monterey County, CA). Ninety-nine of 204 BRAC installations had cleanup "underway or completed" by September 30, 2000. The Defense Department predicts that another 80 will be "underway or completed" by September 30, 2003. Thus far (by September 30, 2000) the early transfer authority, which permits property transfer before completion of cleanup, has not been used much. Ten properties at eight installations had been transferred under this legislation, including at least two facilities - Fleet Industrial Supply Center Oakland (CA) and Agana Naval Air Station (GU) - where local or territorial governments are conducting the cleanup. Does base closure increase cleanup costs? Perhaps, but it's hard to tell. GAO told the committee, "As noted in our July 2001 report [Military Base Closures: DOD's Updated Net Savings Estimate Remains Substantial (GAO-01-971, July 31, 2001)], DOD has reported that the vast majority of its BRAC environmental cleanup costs would have been incurred whether or not an installation is impacted by BRAC. DOD acknowledges, however, that environmental costs under the BRAC process may have accelerated in the shorter term. Others suggest that in some instances BRAC-related environmental cleanups may be done more stringently than would have been the case had the installation remained open. However, the marginal difference is not easily quantified and depends largely on the final use of the closed installation." Lenny -- 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: 650/968-1126 lsiegel@cpeo.org http://www.cpeo.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | |
Prev by Date: [CPEO-MEF] Fort Ord Site Security Next by Date: [CPEO-MEF] Special treatment | |
Prev by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] Fort Ord Site Security Next by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] Special treatment |