I thought the Superfund was financed by levies on those responsible for the
pollution. This article seems to suggest that the source of funding is
general revenues.
Anyway, I have also read that the administration of the Superfund had
degenerated into a boon for lawyers representing both sides of the issue. I
also read that there had been significant problems with owners transferring
ownership to other endeavors, therefore leaving the polluter either defunct
or penurious.
It may seem unfortunate that Bush is cutting funds to the EPA and to say
that with regards to the Bush Administration the EPA Chief has said "the
money would be sufficient to "carry out our goals and objectives,"" is more
than a little bit scary as the Bush Administration quietly plots and
executes the final rape of our remaining resources. Perhaps we should be
considering how the many billions allocated to the EPA and other government
agencies can be coordinated into a plan that is comprehensive in its
relation to the environment (both natural and man-made).
Working for peace and cooperation,
Mike Morin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Anderson" <anderson@no.address>
To: "GreenYes" <greenyes@no.address>
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 11:27 AM
Subject: [greenyes] Superfund Funding
NEW YORK TIMES - May 20, 2005
New E.P.A. Chief Says Budget Is Sufficient
By MICHAEL JANOFSKY
WASHINGTON, May 19 - In his first appearance before Congress as the new
administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Stephen L. Johnson
told a Senate appropriations subcommittee on Thursday that he was
satisfied
with President Bush's budget for the agency even though it represented a 5
percent decrease from the current fiscal year.
The president's request of $7.6 billion for the 2006 fiscal year, which
begins on Sept. 1, "supports the work of the E.P.A. and its partners
across
the nation," Mr. Johnson said, adding that the agency was doing its part
to
help Mr. Bush reach his goal of cutting the overall budget deficit in half
by 2009.
But by saying that the money would be sufficient to "carry out our goals
and
objectives," Mr. Johnson left the strong impression that he would take his
lead from the White House, rather than cast a higher profile, as his
immediate predecessors, Christie Whitman and Michael O. Leavitt, did on
occasion.
"...
"...
"...
"...
"...
Mr. Burns also told Mr. Johnson that the Superfund program needed money
beyond the $1.27 billion requested, which is $32 million over the amount
allocated last year. Currently, the agency has more than 1,200 sites on
the
national priority list, including one of particular interest to Mr. Burns:
Libby, Mont., where the government in 1999 began cleaning up asbestos from
a
vermiculite mining operation that is now defunct.
Congress is considering legislation that would compensate victims of
asbestos exposure. One of the areas most affected is Libby, and Mr. Burns
wanted to know how much longer the cleanup would take.
Mr. Johnson did not have encouraging news. By the agency's best estimate,
he
said, as many as 1,200 properties remain to be cleaned up, and the agency
has only $17 million to cover 200 cleanups a year.
[NOTE: To do those 200 cleanups a year with $17 million is $85,000
per site, a trivial amount clearing demarking the fate of the program, and
the impact on the lives of the people who reside in the vicinity of the
listed sites, not to mention the overarching fact that even when there are
funds to do a cleanup -- AS PRESENTLY DEFINED -- that is almost always
only
palliative care and NOT remediation as most people have been led
incorrectly
to believe.]
FOR FULL ARTICLE:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/politics/20enviro.html?pagewanted=print
_________________________
Peter Anderson, President
RECYCLEWORLDS CONSULTING
4513 Vernon Blvd. Suite 15
Madison, WI 53705-4964
Ph: (608) 231-1100
Fax: (608) 233-0011
Cell: (608) 698-1314
eMail: anderson@no.address
web: www.recycleworlds.net
CONFIDENTIAL
This message, and all attachments thereto,
is covered by the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C., Sections 2510-2521.
This message is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are
not the intended recipient of this message,
then any retention, dissemination, distribution
or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. Please notify me if you received
this message in error at anderson@no.address
and then delete it.
|