cjac,
Paste assist for those without IBD access.
I have always considered our "greeno" man in chair number two (or three if you count Hillary!) one of the greatest potential assets for GRNO once the business matures. The enviro issue is too page one for either party to ignore, as IBD points out. Even if Superfund is axed by the GOP it would merely put the impetus on the states to partner in some manner with companies like GRNO that are hitting environmental home runs (seasonal reference). The IBD story....
NATIONAL ISSUE
WILL SUPERFUND EVER BE FIXED? Even Minor GOP
Reforms Face Green Opposition
Date: 3/24/97
Author: Charles Oliver
Few things stir passions like hazardous landfills. Unless, of course, it's lawyers getting fat at the public trough.
Or small-business owners getting dragged into a maze of red tape, court fights and huge fines.
Such is the debate over Superfund.
Republican leaders in Congress have made Superfund renewal, and reform, one of their top priorities.
But it seems unlikely that they can come up with a bill that pleases everyone. And some proponents of change
worry that the GOP wants too much to please everyone.
That, they fear, means that serious reform and deregulation of Superfund may not be possible. In fact, say
critics, Congress could end up passing a law worse than the current one.
Republicans in the Senate have introduced a bill with reforms that industry supports. It clears up some
questions of liability. And it makes it easier for firms to invest in Superfund sites without acquiring responsibility
for cleanup. Those who want change say that it would be an improvement over current law.
But some say that these reforms are minor, and they worry that green opposition will kill even those changes.
The result, they fear, is that nothing will be done to reduce the costs of Superfund.
And if the law isn't changed, some economists say, it will cost the country $400 billion eventually.
''However that cost is paid -through taxes or fines or whatever - it uiltimately comes out of consumers'
pockets,'' said Raymond Keating, chief economist with the Small Business Survival Committee.
There are now about 1,200 sites on the Superfund national priorities list. But the General Accounting Office
says that could grow to 35,000. Some studies put the number of potential sites even higher.
It's important to remember that the private sector gets stuck with most of Superfund's bills. About 80% of the
costs associated with cleanups are paid by the private sector.
One of the big reasons for Superfund's exploding costs is the litigation it fosters.
Superfund calls for retroactive liability. This means practices that were deemed safe and legal, that were even
legally required, years ago can be punished.
And Superfund calls for ''joint and several'' liability: Any party that touched any waste in a site may have to pay
all costs of cleanup.
Those who can be punished include those who own or operate a site now, those who owned or operated it
when wastes were put there, those who sent waste to the site and those who carried the waste to the site.
Lawyers, private investigators and other overhead costs eat up huge amounts of Superfund dollars: 35% of
corporate spending, 50% of government spending, and 88% of insurance company spending on Superfund.
''We'd like to see Superfund go away,'' said Keating of the Small Business Survival Committee. ''We don't
think this is an issue for the federal government. State and local governments know better how to deal with
cleanups.'' More than 40 states have their own Superfund-style programs.
If Superfund can't be abolished, business would like to see changes that make it less costly.
But lawyers and greens oppose the types of change business favors.
So for six years Congress has been unable to muster the votes to reauthorize Superfund. No new law can get a
majority of votes. Congress just keeps extending the original law one year at a time.
GOP leaders vow this Congress will be different.
''The Republican leadership wants to prove that they can pass environmental legislation,'' said Jerry Taylor,
director of natural resource studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.
''Superfund reauthorization has shown up on all of their lists of top priorities,'' he added.
But some GOP lawmakers have made clear they won't vote for a bill unless it has reforms. They have
proposed some changes for Superfund.
For one, they would replace ''joint and several'' liability with a ''fair share'' approach. Liability would be
determined by the amount and toxicity of waste a party dumped.
They also want to make it easier for firms to develop industrial sites on the Superfund list. This usually involves
shielding those who buy the sites for development from cleanup liability.
Some in the GOP would also exempt small firms and nonprofits from Superfund liability, and they would
reduce the liability of recyclers.
In the Senate, the GOP has already introduced a bill that contains many of these changes.
But some reformers see these changes as minor.
''There's still the terrible problem of retroactive liability. There's still all of these thousands of sites that may be
listed,'' said James DeLong, an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market think tank
in Washington. ''The (Senate) bill is basically messing around the edges.''
The reforms being pushed by the GOP may or may not be small, but some worry that making even these
changes may be impossible.
''The Republican leadership has made it clear that they want reform, but they've also made it clear they don't
want any changes that would earn the unified resistance of the environmental movement,'' said Cato's Taylor.
''This effectively gives the environmental movement a veto over any reforms,'' he added.
The green movement might accept some reforms, but it's likely to oppose most of the changes the GOP wants.
''The (Senate) bill is out of the question,'' said Karen Florini, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense
Council.
The Environmental Protection Agency has said it may support exempting some small firms from liability, but,
for the most part, the administration also opposes GOP-style change.
In fact, in his latest budget request, Clinton asked for a $650 million increase in Superfund spending.
That would bring federal Superfund spending to $2.1 billion next year.
Republicans fear being tarred as environmental extremists.
''The environmentalists are masters of the five-second sound bite. It's easy to say, 'The Republicans are gutting
environmental protections,' '' said DeLong of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. ''But this law can't be fixed
with five-second sound bites.''
Experts predict that opponents of reform will try to drag this issue into next year.
With an election looming, charges of ''rolling back protections'' might have more resonance, and the GOP may
be unwilling to make changes in the law.
''Delay empowers those opposed to reform of Superfund,'' said the Small Business Survival Committee's
Keating.
In fact, some fear that greens may push for changes that make Superfund even more costly.
''The environmental movement will obviously try to get everything it can,'' said Cato's Taylor. ''If the (GOP)
leadership is determined to pass Superfund at any cost, it is possible that we could wind up with a Superfund
law that's more heavy-handed than the current one.''
But few experts say they believe Republicans want Superfund renewal that badly. If the cost gets too great,
they may walk away, and Congress will once again just roll over the current law for another year.
''It's certainly possible that there will be no Superfund reauthorization by this Congress,'' said Florini of the
Natural Resources Defense Council. ''I don't think anyone can say with certainty right now what will happen.''
If they can't get Superfund reauthorization, GOP leaders may press to pass another big environmental law.
''They really want some accomplishment in this area,'' said Cato's Taylor.
The Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act are likely targets. Like Superfund, both have been due
for reauthorization for some years.
Lacking a consensus on their directions, Congress has simply temporarily extended them several times.
But right-of-center Republicans also want big changes in these laws.
(C) Copyright 1997 Investors Business Daily, Inc.
L2 and Long Mark |
