Lawrence and Douglas county
Farmland site conversion may cost taxpayers
March 11, 2008
Advertisement
City weighs cost to clean up Farmland property
The stakes may soon get higher for Lawrence taxpayers when it comes to the city's efforts to buy the old Farmland Industries plant. 6News reporter Chad Lawhorn has more. Enlarge video
Key facts: Farmland site
City commissioners will receive a briefing about efforts to buy the former Farmland property at their meeting at 6:35 p.m. today at City Hall. Some key facts about the property, according to the briefing material:
¢ The environmental trust fund has $5.2 million. The trustee overseeing the site has developed an environmental cleanup plan that would cost $7.4 million. Other plans that would clean the property using only the $5.2 million worth of trust fund money are being explored.
¢ An administrative trust fund has $7.8 million. It can be used for demolition of buildings on the property, and other administrative functions. It likely will not be enough to extend roads or sewer to the site, as some leaders had once hoped. Instead, city leaders likely would have to fund a "multimillion-dollar, multiyear" infrastructure project to cover those costs, City Manager David Corliss said. Those costs ideally would be repaid as the property develops.
¢ Of the 467-acre site, 225 acres need no significant environmental cleanup. The remaining 242 acres - most of it on the northern half of the site - need cleanup.
¢ Not all of the property would be used for a new business park. Corliss estimates the project could add about 200 acres to the city's business park supply. Other uses for the remaining property include open space and possible expansion of the Douglas County 4-H Fairgrounds.
If city leaders want to convert the vacant Farmland Industries plant into a new business park, they may have to be willing to put taxpayers on the hook for cleaning up the environmentally blighted property.
At least that's how the regulatory winds out of Topeka currently are blowing on the subject.
City commissioners at their meeting tonight will receive a briefing on efforts to purchase the 467-acre plant east of Lawrence that has been environmentally damaged by decades of fertilizer contamination.
Commissioners will be told that regulators with the Kansas Department of Health and Environment have balked at the city's previous idea of purchasing the property while not assuming any of the legal liability for the environmental cleanup.
"It looks like it would require a shift in the city's thinking," City Commissioner Rob Chestnut said after meeting with KDHE Secretary Rod Bremby and others last week.
In July, city commissioners signed off on a bid for the site that would have required the existing bankruptcy trust that oversees the property to continue being legally responsible for the environmental cleanup. Under that plan, commissioners were confident the city would be protected from a costly environmental cleanup that could result from finding unexpected contaminants on the property.
There could be reason to worry about that again.
"Before we do anything, I really want to know what we would be buying into," City Commissioner Mike Amyx said. "If you're not careful, you could be digging yourself into a hole that would be very difficult to get out of."
City Manager David Corliss, though, said he's still holding out hope that discussions with KDHE could produce a compromise position - preferably something that would not hold the city responsible for the discovery of any unexpected contaminants on the property. Corliss said he can't recommend the city take on any unknown environmental liabilities.
"I don't think it is wise to jump out of the plane and sew the parachute on the way down," Corliss said.
Some county leaders, though, are hoping that city commissioners don't further slow the process down. County Commissioner Charles Jones said he's disappointed that the city hasn't done more to gain the necessary confidence about the environmental condition of the property. The process already has been a multiyear one.
Jones, who is the former director of environment for KDHE, said he thinks the community can handle the cleanup of the site, which is mainly contaminated with nitrogen that has seeped into the groundwater.
"I think some people have whipped up this superfund mentality about this site," Jones said. "It really is very manageable and is being managed right now."
Currently, the bankruptcy trust is pumping nitrogen contaminated water from the site and transporting it via pipeline to North Lawrence where it is used as a fertilizer on farm fields. But that process - or something similar - may have to continue for up to 30 years, according to the KDHE analysis. That long time frame is one reason why KDHE thinks the city, not the trust, should be responsible for the cleanup.
Jones thinks the risks of finding a more dangerous contaminant that would be more expensive to clean up is remote. But, he said if one were found, government likely would be the entity that has to clean it up. He said he would rather get on with that process sooner than later.
"You can avoid making a decision, but that is not going to solve the problem," Jones said. "And the problem is two-fold. We have this terrible liability on a gateway to our community, and we need to add industrial space to our community."
The city and the county previously had been working together to purchase the property from the bankruptcy trust. But in 2006, county commissioners turned the process over to city commissioners at their request.
Jones said he now wants the county to become more involved, and wants to hear from the city what the county needs to do to help move the project forward.
Chestnut said he thinks the city and county ought to have that discussion, too.
More like this
- Stagnant Farmland 36 comments / March 24, 2008
- City ready to revisit Farmland discourse 17 comments / November 9, 2008
- City mulls plant action 12 comments / March 12, 2008
- City seeks exemption for Farmland cleanup 19 comments / July 3, 2007
- Need for industrial space prompts plans for Farmland site 1 comment / April 26, 2008
Top ads RSS
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Blog: Palin Book Could Be Your Cheapest Source For Winter Fuel November 20, 2009 · 88 comments
- Mangino's contract outlines probe November 21, 2009 · 72 comments
- Nation has right to ask ‘why?’ November 21, 2009 · 58 comments
- Blog: We Noticed November 19, 2009 · 126 comments
- Mangino denies validity of former player allegations November 19, 2009 · 158 comments
- Palin stirs feminist ambivalence November 21, 2009 · 29 comments
- Lawrence man charged in hit-and-run accident that killed bicyclist November 19, 2009 · 116 comments
- Wright’s role clarified November 21, 2009 · 18 comments
- Blog: Why Do People Repeat Falsehoods? November 20, 2009 · 58 comments
- Not-so-gentle reign November 19, 2009 · 133 comments
- Winter sports officially begin for city schools November 17, 2009
- Message warns students at Perry-Lecompton not to attend class today April 20, 2007
- The cowboy way: Williamstown church ministry draws unique following November 21, 2009
- No line at H1N1 immunization clinic November 21, 2009
- Lawrence couple excel in triathlons November 21, 2009
- Americans save more but earn less as interest rates fall November 21, 2009
- Four decades in crisis mode November 21, 2009
- Developers propose redesigned Boardwalk Apartments November 22, 2009
- Wright’s role clarified November 21, 2009
- Obesity activist crossing country to urge American Indians to embrace healthier diet November 20, 2009
11 March 2008
at 8:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
nekansan (Anonymous) says…
Perhaps in the future the State/City might think about requiring companies to provide bonds/insurance that would cover these types of environmental cleanups in the event the company creating the mess goes belly up. I wonder if the city has explored the liability that Farmland's insurance carrier at the time might have in funding the cleanup, or has the city waited too long and missed that opportunity?
11 March 2008
at 8:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
show of hands who did not see this coming?? Every private group that has looked at this has been shot down and now we going to pay for it.
11 March 2008
at 8:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BrianR (Anonymous) says…
Why is this corporate problem becoming my problem?
11 March 2008
at 8:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MCwzMC (Anonymous) says…
This is a cluster**ck waiting to happen. The cleanup cost estimates look a bit hazy. What happens when the city finds out that this will cost three or more times the estimates? Oh…no need to worry about that. That's what taxpayers are for. Not state taxpayers. I mean Lawrence taxpayers. Given the state's animosity toward Lawrence, I wouldn't count on the state for much assistance.
11 March 2008
at 8:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cowboy (Anonymous) says…
Hello city , there is a ton of available development ground that does not have the baggage this site has , what is so attractive about this ? Who's gonna make money off of it ?
11 March 2008
at 8:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
As I recall, a couple of years ago I predicted this very situation.
Leave the place alone, keep pumping the water, turn it into a public park and let nature handle the remaining pollutants, which job nature will handle nicely in a few years.
Bison would be good.
11 March 2008
at 8:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
monkeyhawk (Anonymous) says…
“Who's gonna make money off of it ?”
That is the million dollar question. Why are Jones and Corliss so, so interested in this project? Just how many other “remotely possible” pollutants are going to be uncovered and what effect might it have when exposed and it becomes airborne? Lucky most of the wind comes out of the west.
Do not force the taxpayers to invest in a speculative, mephitical wasteland so your buds can create even more wealth at the expense of your citizens.
11 March 2008
at 9:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
OfficeGirl (Anonymous) says…
Why do we need to add industrial space to our community when no businesses will locate here? More empty buildings and no more jobs.
11 March 2008
at 9:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bd (Anonymous) says…
moneypit!
11 March 2008
at 9:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
srj (Anonymous) says…
Basically it HAS to be cleaned up. Do we trust the governement to do it or the private sector?
11 March 2008
at 9:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
toefungus (Anonymous) says…
Where is the payback for supporting Bremby? We fall on the sword supporting killing coal plants and we get the shaft for the cleanup of Farmland. Hum, seems that we were a bit misguided in our efforts. I wonder how receptive the legislature will be to us asking for help. We had just better build a fence around it for now and fill a few potholes in our worn-out streets.
11 March 2008
at 9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KsTwister (Anonymous) says…
As enough taxpayers said no from the beginning I think the city needs not to ask the taxpayers for more. After all the only reason the commish wanted it in the first place is because it came with a few million in a clean up fund. Just because they cannot figure out how to get this money siphoned into the general account is not “our” problem. Get rid of it and the dirty money that came with it. This is your local Chamber of Commerce at work–-they can heave ho too. You had chance to sell it to someone to build hydrogen cells, look him up.
11 March 2008
at 9:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LogicMan (Anonymous) says…
“Leave the place alone, keep pumping the water, turn it into a public park and let nature handle the remaining pollutants, which job nature will handle nicely in a few years.”
Ditto, but many decades.
“Bison would be good.”
Hmmm … not a bad idea. Lawrence does need a big, new attraction. A wild-west zoo, theme park, shopping area, and casino might work. But it should be done privately, not by the City.
11 March 2008
at 10:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gayokay (Anonymous) says…
Can't we just grow some smokin' tobacky on that ground?
11 March 2008
at 10:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
billbodiggens (Anonymous) says…
BrianR “Why is this corporate problem becoming my problem?”
Well, Brian with an R, maybe it is your problem when nitrates oil are seeping into your water. Just maybe. Just maybe, it is a more immediate problem than some power plant 300 to 400 miles west of you. Maybe, it is only one of some 8 superfund problem sites in and around Lawrence that would seem to be even more of a problem. If it is not your problem, and you are living next door to it, well, good luck. See if you can live long enough to have someone esle take care of the problem.
11 March 2008
at 10:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tir (Anonymous) says…
Buying Farmland would be an incredibly bad deal for the city, and the citizens will end up footing a huge bill for a toxic waste dump that will cost a fortune to clean up. Lawrence can't even keep up with basic maintenance to roads and other infrastructure, and they're already talking about raising our taxes to fix the roads, and spending big bucks on redundant sewer plant studies. The cost to clean up and develop Farmland will be far greater than the property will be worth once the project is completed. It's a BAD investment. What part of that do they not understand?
11 March 2008
at 10:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
northtown (Anonymous) says…
I do property in your dying city,sad to say,and do not want to pay anymore taxes there.But where does this rotten water seep,into the kansas river?Is that just OK,let it take care of itself?But i do want the city to have a thing to do with it either.Now is the time,write the ones the reps,and the congressmen that you voted for in that state house,still your tax money.Get them to try for federal help,your town has problems enough,streets,the dam on the river needs repaired,who knows what else will come about??This is all coming out of your pocket,you do not need anything else.Call those or e-mail those on the commish today,let them hear how you feel and think,just don't print it here where it does no good!!Stand up now ,tell them not to dive inot another fine mess for you to have to pay for!!!!!!But that it is joice,just set and bitch,that is what they expect!!Citizens with no backbone or voice,you voted for them,now tell them how you feel !!!!!!!
11 March 2008
at 11:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Kontum1972 (Anonymous) says…
“I don't think it is wise to jump out of the plane and sew the parachute on the way down,” Corliss said.
hey Dave let me pack your parachute for ya…i have experience from the miltiary….
obtw..if your a great pilot you can land it….anyone u walk away from is a good landing.
11 March 2008
at 12:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jumpin_catfish (Anonymous) says…
Looneyville at its best! Hey city commission, not one thin dime for this or anything else.
11 March 2008
at 12:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
justthefacts (Anonymous) says…
Anyone who knows the tiniest bit of law regarding legal responsibility for cleaning up potential hazardous materials can tell you that if you are anywhere in the chain of title, the federal laws (and thus agencies responsible for such matters can) hold you (and every other former or current person/entity in the chain of title) financially responsible for clean up costs. And they usually go after the deepest and most available pockets. Like a city or county.
That is why any responsible public agency will not even dare to do a tax forclosure on a former gas station, let alone an industrial plant site; it risks being on the hook for millions of dollars if any toxicity is later discovered on the site!
For the city to even consider acquiring this site, by any means, is fiscally irreponsible without first getting a billion dollar bond posted and paid by the prior owners!
11 March 2008
at 12:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
Any serious light industrial development will cost taxpayers millions unless serious impact fees or excise taxes are placed on the backs of profitable developers.
The Airport project, a for profit entreprise for developers, requires the following just to prepare the area for the real estate/ development industry:
*$477,000 Bridge on E1600 rd
*$326,000 Culvert at 24/40
*$16,200,000(millions) in reconstruction projects
*$24,800,000(millions) in flood control
*8,000,000(millions) water and sewer lines
*Raising 24/40 highway up to act as a flood levy once the existing ground is covered up with roof tops and concrete. Cannot have the airport under water. The number of millions this will require has yet to be determined.
How much does anyone want to spend? Farmland may be the best deal because a few million will be coming from Farmland… I believe the LJW said something in the area of $7 million. ANND it comes with some infrastructure in place but not impact fees or excise taxes. Cleaning it up might be okay but leave the development to a developer with impact fees attached.
11 March 2008
at 1:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
Filing bankruptcy is common tool with polluters who wish to avoid paying the full price.
What type of development should also be a concern what with Lawrence being over saturated in residential and retail.
The other light industrial development projects have no tenants on contract. They just want taxpayers assistance for expanding their bank accounts. Citizen/taxpayers need to make plans for flooding city hall with lots of no don't do it votes. If not they get the idea citizens either don't give a damn or approve of their corrupt behavior.
11 March 2008
at 1:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
thomgreen (Anonymous) says…
Will we ever have politicians that want to do what is best for the public good instead of the private interests?
Can we get back to the basics? Spend the public money on the basic necessities that we need. Decent roads, infrastructure maintenance, schools, public services, etc. We should have never spent all that money on roundabouts when we have natural speed deterrents popping up all the time, I believe they're called potholes.
11 March 2008
at 1:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
JJE007 (Anonymous) says…
If we clean up where the excess fertilizer oozes out of the cracks, how will we ever have a city government again?~)
Just kidding…
11 March 2008
at 2:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
“Do we trust the governement to do it or the private sector?”
Yeah the private sector has a great track record of cleaning up pollution. Criminy - I think I just strained an abdominal. I am in no shape to laugh that hard.
11 March 2008
at 2:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blindrabbit (Anonymous) says…
Why doesn't the clean-up of this site fall under EPA's Superfund authorization, or if not, under the Brownfield's program for returning contaminated properties to useable purposes. The City/County should work this out with kdhe/usepa. These programs were established to avoid the very issue of a property owner skipping out on it's environmental obligations.
11 March 2008
at 3:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
(1) Fence the place with 10 ft. chain-link with anti-dig wire and double gates.
(2) Knock down all buidlings except the old office building which would be converted into a visitor's centre.
(3) Continue to pump the water.
(4) Plant the entire place with prairie grass and other indigenous plants.
(5) Bring in Bison, Deer and a few other native species.
(6) Permit a wild life rehab group to locate on the place, perhaps using one of the old buildings or put up an acceptable steel building for it.
(7) Place a public picnic and observation ground in the centre, with a double fenced access path; no vehicles allowed for use by the residents of Lawrence.
Can you imagine having your family gathering in the middle of a wildlife park?
Cool.
Tourist draw as well.
The bad stuff as I understand it is below ground for the most part so there would be little threat of exposure to any nasties.
Areas of high surface contamination could be easily removed and taken to proper storage for far less than total rehab of the property.
If surface contaminants are too high, I could be out in left field, so if anyone knows about the surface levels, let me know!
11 March 2008
at 3:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
Nice plan, Marion. Little greener than I expected, though. Sure you don't own a bunch of bison you are trying to relocate?
The problem I see is that once this land is reclaimed some donkey is going to propose an East Lawrence Trafficway and set off a firestorm between the dirt people and the pavement people.
Although - this may be a good place for Compton to store his animalia…
So many facets to consider.
11 March 2008
at 3:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Baille:
I am a *TRUE* conservative, one in the mould of Barry Goldwater, not one of these a**holes passing themselves off as conservatives, who are merely far-right Christian fundamentalists who have usurped the good name of the party!
11 March 2008
at 3:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KU_cynic (Anonymous) says…
Stop this madness!
Our little hamlet's part-time-volunteer city commission and minor-league professional management staff have absolutely no business getting into the environmentally-damaged property management business!
Stand aside, and let private developers take on this risk, or let them be free to develop alternative sites without the looming threat of competition from the city.
11 March 2008
at 3:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BrianR (Anonymous) says…
Congratulations Dilldobiggens for deftly missing my point.
11 March 2008
at 4 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
arlo (Anonymous) says…
just another case of corporate America getting rich and leaving the middle class to pick up the pieces.
11 March 2008
at 4:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
Nice to hear, Marion. You remind me a little of the old-time Kansans I knew growing up - more of Hunter Thompson - but a little of the old-timers nonetheless.
11 March 2008
at 5:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KEITHMILES05 (Anonymous) says…
The sad thing is people in Lawrence have their panties all in a wad thinking the coal plant is just “bad, bad, bad” yet right in your own neighborhood you have a horrible, long term crisis wreaking humanity. You'd be better of attempting to right the ship before you start pointing fingers somewhere else.
This is classic sticking your nose where it doesn't belong.
11 March 2008
at 6:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anon13 (Anonymous) says…
An friend of mine was once a maintenance worker at the farmland plant “back in the day.” He claims that at one point he was directed to dig a trench in an out-of-the-way corner of the property. An enormous amount of some nasty chemical was then dumped into the trench, so that Farmland could avoid paying to have the hazardous material properly disposed of. The city should be very careful about purchasing the property on the belief that the contaminants they will find are as relatively innocuous as nitrogen.
Last I heard, Farmland is still an enormous, profitable company. We should be outraged that they are not willing to pay for this cleanup in its entirety, when it was clearly their negligence that led to the problem in the first place.
11 March 2008
at 6:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Baille (Anonymous) says:
Nice to hear, Marion. You remind me a little of the old-time Kansans I knew growing up - more of Hunter Thompson - but a little of the old-timers nonetheless.”
Marion writes:
Well, that just *MADE* my day!
Best compliment I've ever received on this or any other forum!
11 March 2008
at 8:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
On the other hand, the old Farmland site is not quite the black hole that most think it is!
From the initial KDHE report (Also linked to below.):
“A major conclusion of the Site Characterization Report is that the much of the site is not impacted to a degree that poses a threat under either residential or commercial/industrial use scenarios. At least 225 acres of the 467-acre tract require no further action. In general, the report establishes that nitrate and ammonia contamination of soil and ground water are the dominant issue at the site. Elevated metals concentrations were also encountered in some of the main waste water ponds.”
http://kensas.kdhe.state.ks.us/pls/ce…
Spend some time reading the draft of the cleanup plan:
http://www.ci.lawrence.ks.us/planning…
This is a doable project and if done would be a great benefit to Lawrence but I do think that a private concern should handle the job.
11 March 2008
at 8:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…
Sorry to burst your bubble on environmental cleanup in Kansas, but the Kansas track record for “superfund” is not good. Three sites have been witheld or denied listing by the state KSHE and or the Gov. The sites are :
Gilbert and Mosley in Wichita that is supposed to be financed by TIF funds from the City of Wichita, but the KDHE needs to be audited for all the money that keeps going into this site from the state and diverted from federal cleanup money for other sites. The deal was that the City of Wichita would take financial responsibilty, but the City continues to take money from the state and federal funds continously, i.e. Wichita is ripping of the rest of Kansas.
The same thing is the “Northern Industrial Corridor” site. This is another TCE/PCE plume that was listed on the NPL and redied for superfund. Same thing, the City of Wichita passed a TIF funding, but still complains to the KDHE that they need more money after taking the responsibility in liue of becoming a superfund site.
Sunflower Army Ammunition Plant. Heavily contaminated with particulate asbestos and lead from the burning and detonation of 1496 buildings that were contaminated with nitorglycerin and nitroquanine. IT was the right move to burn them, however that would make this NPL site un fit legally and politically to be transferred under the Superfund FOSET, and 103 transfer covenants.
Sorry for those workers out ther in the dirt, but the lead and asbestos levels are way high. This was done by the Gov. Kathjy, and is a stupid manuever, and is not a “Green” move. Just wait for the cancer clusters to develope.
11 March 2008
at 8:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…
Marion wrote:
“A major conclusion of the Site Characterization Report is that the much of the site is not impacted to a degree that poses a threat under either residential or commercial/industrial use scenarios. At least 225 acres of the 467-acre tract require no further action.”
This is the way KDHE presently “cleans up” a site, i.e. they do not clean it up, they simply change the “use”.
Those pollutants remain, and eventually will have to be dealt with, better now, and use it to create environmental jobs on the cleanup.
BTW, the “elevated metals” levels include Hex Chrome. A former Lawrencinian mad a mint on a corrupt corp. on that metal, her name was Erin Brokovich. You may have heard of her.
Here is where the “Lawrence Green Lefty's” need to “put up or shut up”. Are you truley “green” or not? Clean up when expensive can be ignored, but stupid spiral lights makes one green? How is that incoherence congruent?
11 March 2008
at 9:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
asbestos:
Look, I just read the report online. If you have information which negates that report, I'd love to know about it so if yu have it, put it up so we can all see it!
Not that I'm doubting you, I want to know the truth.
12 March 2008
at 12:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Stain (Anonymous) says…
City Commissioner Mike Dever owns an environmental consulting firm.
City Commissioner Rob Chestnut used to work for Farmland Industries.
Somebody connect the dots please.
(Will there even be open bidding for the cleanup work or will they just hand it to Dever?)
12 March 2008
at 3:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
Superfund loses clout
Under Superfund, the EPA looks for what it calls “potentially responsible parties” to deal with hazards and health threats at the sites that make it to the National Priorities List. If a company refuses to clean up a site, the EPA can threaten to do the cleanup work and charge the company for that work and more, as a penalty. But the depletion of the trust fund, experts say, took away that threat.
“The federal government has unilaterally disarmed in the contest to get people to remediate these sites,” said former representative James Florio, a New Jersey Democrat who was a primary author of the original Superfund law.
Robert Spiegel, executive director of Edison Wetlands Association, a nonprofit environmental preservation group, viewed the trust fund as EPA's leverage to get the companies to cooperate.
“It was EPA's big stick to get the polluter to the table,” Spiegel said. Now, “since the EPA doesn't have the funding, it has no teeth because the polluters know EPA is bluffing,” he said.
But others in the environmental community say the downturn in cleanups reflects the Bush administration's relationship with industry.
“In a situation where you have a very pro-business, pro-industry administration, it is not surprising to see that cost recovery has gone down and that enforcement actions have gone down,” said Alex Fidis, environmental attorney with U.S. PIRG, a public-interest advocacy group.
Since the depletion of the trust fund - which reached $3.8 billion at its peak before running dry in 2003 - Superfund has had to rely on an annual appropriation of $1.2 billion to $1.3 billion in tax dollars and the decreasing amount of money the EPA recovered for cleanups from companies the EPA linked to the sites.
In the later years of his administration, Clinton tried unsuccessfully to reinstate the tax on polluters that had sustained the trust fund. While Bush did not try to revive it, he did attempt to increase the Superfund budget by $150 million in 2004. Ultimately, the Republican-controlled Congress increased the Superfund budget by $100 million.
According to a 2005 EPA Superfund accomplishments report, cleanups at nine sites were unable to begin because of funding issues. In 2006, cleanups at six sites were stalled because of funding.
In 2006, Bush called for a $7 million cut in the remedial action portion of the Superfund program, the part that pays for cleanup; in 2007, the president again called for a $7 million cut to the program as a whole.
02/06/2008
Bush Cuts $330M from EPA Budget
12 March 2008
at 1:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
Oh no, Max. I think that's right. The free market participants have a hard time cleaning up messes of their own making. Thanks to legally enforceable contracts, regulatory measures, and tort liability they do a decent job of cleaning up somebody else's mess.