From: | Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org> |
Date: | 23 Jan 2005 06:30:37 -0000 |
Reply: | cpeo-military |
Subject: | [CPEO-MEF] Analysis of GAO report on past base closures |
I've just reviewed the latest Governmental Accountability Office (GAO) report on base closures, "Military Base Closures: Updated Status of Prior Base Realignments and Closures" (GAO-05-138, January 13, 2005). It contains useful information, not only for communities that experienced closures and realignments during the last four rounds of closure (decided in 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995), but for the many communities that will be faced with closures from the 2005 round. Many such communities will be dealing with the challenges of base closure for the first time. * Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) clearly saves money. Though it's difficult to pin down the exact numbers, GAO concluded that the Defense Department had net savings from the four rounds of $28.9 billion through fiscal year 2003, and that it expects to save about $7 billion annually thereafter. * Local economies have been hurt by base closure, but they tend to recover. Almost 72 percent of the Defense civilian jobs lost to realignments and closure have been replaced, and other indicators suggest that closure communities fare well in comparison to the U.S. average. However, GAO reports, "the recovery process has not necessarily been easy with the strength of the national, regional, and local economies having a significant bearing on the recovery of any particular community facing a BRAC closure." Of course, the Defense Department and GAO did not analyze the impact on civilian workers and their families. In many communities, Defense industrial or maintenance jobs were the only jobs that paid a decent (union or comparable) wage to blue-collar workers, particularly people of color. When those jobs disappeared, it was difficult for those employees to find comparable work, anywhere. * Of the 504,000 acres not needed by the Defense Department from BRAC bases, here is the disposition: Transferred to nonfederal entities 264,000 acres 52% Transferred to federal entities 100,000 acres 20% Leased 91,000 acres 18% Neither transferred nor leased 49,000 acres 10% This table does not include the 343,000 acres, at Ft. Hunter-Liggett (CA), Fort Chaffee (AR), Ft. Pickett (VA), Ft. Dix (NJ), and Ft. McClellan (AL), that were turned over to Reserve components. Nor does it include properties, such as Army Ammunition Plants, closed outside of BRAC. * Two large transfers occurred since GAO's last study in 2002. 47,000 acres at the former Adak Naval Air Station (AK) were transferred to Native Alaskans in a specially arranged land swap with the Interior Department. 58,000 acres at Sierra Army Depot (CA) were transferred under the new Conservation Conveyance authority to a partnership of two non-profit organizations and two private-sector companies. These appear to be the largest BRAC land transfers to date. * Though the Defense Department originally projected land sales revenues of $4.7 billion from the first four BRAC rounds, sales have only brought in $595 million. "The decrease in expected sales is attributable primarily to national policy changes and legislation that emphasize assisting communities that are losing bases." Still, the Navy's "renewed interest" in sales has already brought in significant revenue. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES * Of the Army's 101,000 "untransferred" acres, 82% have environmental impediments, such as unexploded ordnance and/or toxic contamination, to transfer. 65% of the Navy's 13,000 untransferred acres have environmental problems. 98% of the Air Force's 24,000 untransferred acres have environmental cleanup issues. The term "untransferred" appears to refer to those unneeded lands that have been retained OR leased. (Note that many transferred properties as well as those retained by the Reserves also have major environmental obligations remaining.) * The report contains a table of 13 selected bases where environmental contamination has held up transfer. Of those, the base with the largest cost to complete ($772.7 million) is McClellan Air Force Base (CA). The base (of the 13 listed) with the largest number of affected acres (14,088) is Ft. Ord (CA). * The Early Transfer authority has been used by all three Defense components: Navy 9,500 acres Army 8,300 acres Air Force 700 acres. * The Defense Department "expected to spend an estimated $3.6 billion in fiscal year 2004 and beyond to complete environmental cleanup on BRAC properties, bringing the total BRAC environmental costs to $11.9 billion..." * The Defense components have projected their anticipated costs (2004 and beyond) for Munitions Response (including unexploded ordnance investigation and removal) on BRAC properties: Army 21,000 acres $496 million Navy 2,353 acres $32.3 million Air Force 180 acres $2.3 million These numbers are subject to change, because there are former ranges where the Army and Navy have not agreed with environmental regulators and/or transferees on what cleanup is necessary. Since GAO didn't mention it, it appears that the Army still intends to spend NO money cleaning up the 50,000-acre impact area and buffer zone at the former Jefferson Proving Ground (IN), which contains millions of unexploded shells as well as depleted uranium debris. The Navy's biggest range cleanup projects, the nearly "complete" Kaho'olawe (HI) effort and the still undetermined response on Vieques (PR), are not included in BRAC. Ranges transferred before the mid-1980s, as well as those closed but still on Defense property, are also not included in these figures. * GAO found that perchlorate contamination poses an unknown liability at BRAC facilities. Based upon investigations conducted thus far, I DOUBT that perchlorate remediation at BRAC properties will be a significant fraction of the overall cleanup program, even if state or federal regulatory agencies impose a stringent standard. (This is my conclusion, not GAO's.) * GAO did not address the issue of contaminants within structures, such as lead paint, PCBs, and asbestos. At many closing or closed bases, the Defense Department and its transferees are disputing, or have disputed, who is responsible for abating those hazards. This report, like all other GAO reports, may be downloaded or ordered at http://www.gao.gov. -- Lenny Siegel Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight c/o PSC, 278-A Hope St., Mountain View, CA 94041 Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545 Fax: 650/961-8918 <lsiegel@cpeo.org> http://www.cpeo.org _______________________________________________ Military mailing list Military@list.cpeo.org http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/military | |
Prev by Date: [CPEO-MEF] Rocky Flats Next by Date: [CPEO-MEF] Inland Empire perchlorate conference | |
Prev by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] Rocky Flats Next by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] Inland Empire perchlorate conference |