Pollution: The New Entitlement (Updated)

The
term "entitlement" has garnered a strongly negative connotation in
recent years.  Usually, the word entitlement is
used to refer to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, plus other
programs that provide direct assistance (Aid to Families with Dependent
Children, student aid, housing, food stamps and other nutrition
programs, and direct public assistance).  



Of course, there is also a class of entitlements that do not go to
individuals; rather, they go to corporations in what is sometimes
called corporate
welfare.  Admittedly, it can be href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare">difficult
to decide exactly which programs fall into the category of
corporate welfare.  Even so, I think most people would agree
that it is reasonable to expect people, and corporations, to take care
of their own trash.  When corporations are allowed to escape
this responsibility, it is a form of corporate welfare.




On
December 11, 1980, the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), was
enacted in the USA.  It created the href="http://www.epa.gov/superfund/about.htm">Superfund
(the Hazardous Substance Superfund), a trust fund that is used to clean
up site contaminated by industrial activity.  (Except for
contamination by petroleum, which is href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/33/usc_sec_33_00001317----000-.html">specifically
excluded).  The multibillion-dollar fund is
administered by the the Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology
Innovation (OSRTI), a part of the EPA.
 

href="http://www.epa.gov/superfund/25anniversary/photo/pages/09kon.htm">

Despite
prodigious effort, still href="http://www.epa.gov/superfund/25anniversary/index.htm">25%
of Americans live within 3 miles of a Superfund-designated
contaminated site...

Moreover,
25
million Americans live within 10 miles of a site where
potential human exposure to contaminants is not yet under control.



As if that is not frightening enough, href="http://www.publicintegrity.org/Superfund/report.aspx?aid=870">more
than 100 schools are located within one mile of an
uncontrolled site.



The Superfund initially was supported by a combination of Congressional
appropriations, funds collected from parties responsible for pollution,
and industry taxes.  The taxes were allowed to expire in 1995.
 



What about the other sources of funding?  Congressional
appropriations are in process.   href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2643">H.R.
2643 was passed on June 27 of this year.  The Senate
bill, href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1696">S.
1696, is scheduled for debate.  It appears that the
funding from Congress is safe, unless there is a Republican filibuster
in the Senate, or a Presidential veto.  



The third source of funding, the money recouped from polluters, is not
secure at all.  It is the responsibility of the EPA to collect
this money.  You might think that this would not be a problem,
since the EPA is under the control of the party that boasts of its
advocacy for accountability, personal responsibility, and fiscal
responsibility.  Yet, money collected from polluters has
declined almost every year
since 2000.  This has had a negative impact on the
effectiveness of the Superfund.  According the the href="http://www.publicintegrity.org/superfund/report.aspx?aid=853">Center
for Public Integrity, "by every significant measure, the pace
of the Superfund program's progress and success in cleaning up the
nation's worst toxic waste sites has declined in the past six years."

face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">
href="http://www.publicintegrity.org/Superfund/report.aspx?aid=851">

Efforts are underway to make the problem even worse.  On Nov
16, 2005,US Rep. rel="tag">Ralph Hall [R-TX],  introduced
a bill (HR 4341) that would have granted href="http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/food_and_environment/Fact-Sheet-on-Congressman-Hall-s-Legislation-4-18-06.pdf">factory
farm operations (PDF link)the same kind of special exclusion
given to oil companies under the CERCLA.  He got 192
cosponsors, but the takover of Congress by Democrats led to the bill
going nowhere.



That got us a brief reprieve.  But, on March 8, 2007, US Rep. href="http://collinpeterson.house.gov/" rel="tag">Collin
Peterson [D-MN] introduced a similar bill ( href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1398">HR
1398).  This time, there are only 129 cosponsors,
and the bill has not yet been scheduled for debate.  The
corresponding Senate bill, S. 807, was introduced by US Sen. rel="tag" href="http://lincoln.senate.gov/">Blanche
Lincoln [D-AR] on the same date.  There are only 29
cosponsors.



The decline in sponsorship, at first glance, appears to be a good sign
(from the standpoint of an environmentalist).  But the effort
is still alive.  



Is anyone advocating for environmental protection?  In fact,
the answer is yes.  US Rep. href="http://www.house.gov/hinchey/" rel="tag">Maurice
Hinchey introduced href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1887">HR
1887 (Superfund Equity and Megasite Remediation Act
of 2007) on April 18, 2007.  Two days later, US Sen.
Robert
Casey [D-PA] introduced the corresponding bill, href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1179">S
1887:

A
bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
extend the financing for Superfund for purposes of cleanup activities
with respect to those Superfund sites for which removal and remedial
action is estimated to cost more than $50,000,000, and for other
purposes.

These would ensure that sufficient taxes are collected to keep the
Superfund trust at $5.7 billion.  If the size of the fund
exceeded that figure, the tax would be suspended until the balance
dipped below.



How popular is the Superfund Equity and Megasite Remediation Act of
2007?  Well, so far the number of cosponsors in the House is
zero.  The number of cosponsors in the Senate is zero.
 Searching on the title of the Act yields 77 hits in Yahoo and
135 in Google.  There are zero hits using Google News.
 There are zero hits using Google Blog Search, Blogpulse, or
BlogLines.



It seems that the "right" to pollute is becoming the new entitlement.



Yes, the Superfund Equity and Megasite Remediation Act of 2007 would be
a tax increase, compared to the current level.  But from a
different perspective, taxes would be restored to the same level they
were in 1995.  According to href="http://www.empirestatenews.net/News/20070418-8.html">EmpireStateNews.net:

Specifically,
the fees would be: 9.7 cents per barrel on crude oil used by U.S.
refineries, including imported petroleum products, but excluding oil
exported from the United States; various amounts ranging from $0.22 per
ton to $4.87 per ton on certain chemicals manufactured or sold in, or
imported into, the United States; and 0.12 percent of corporate
alternative minimum taxable income in excess of $2 million.

Additionally, the increase would be href="http://casey.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=272776">increased
for the first five years, in order to fund the cleanup of
megasites.  (This would not come close to making up the
shortfall caused by the 12-year lapse in the tax.)

Senator
Casey's Superfund Equity and Megasite Remediation Act would: (1)
reinstate the polluter-pays tax and make it permanent; and (2) increase
the tax by 50% a year for 5 years to fund the clean up of "megasites"
(sites that cost more the $50 million to remediate) with a new
Megasites Cleanup and High Risk Sites Account.

Undoubtedly, this would be derided as a "new" tax, and would be
unpopular in certain circles.  But given the benefits, the
cost would be modest.



UPDATE: Utne reader has more on this theme, including an interview with a former Superfund manager.