|
Cleaning up contaminated sites is a costly endeavor, and the EPA draws the money it needs for the Superfund from two
distinct sources. The EPA’s first line of action is to order those responsible
for the contamination to pay for the cleanup. Should the responsible parties
refuse to do so, the EPA will attempt to clean up the contamination, and then can charge the polluters up to three times the
amount of the clean up. Additionally, the EPA can charge penalty fees. Generally speaking, polluters pay for about 70% of all cleanups. The
other 30% of cleanups are funded by a trust fund that was originally created by Congress.
The trust fund monies come from three different sources: a fee for the
purchase of toxic chemicals often found at contaminated sites; a fee for the purchase of crude oil; and the Corporate Environment
Income Tax, which is a tax placed on corporations whose income exceeds $2 million (Wolk).
The monies in the trust fund are dwindling now, though, because the Corporate Environment Income Tax expired in 1995
and George W. Bush has thus far refused to reinstate it (Science in Policy).
Bush has a history of choosing industry over the environment, dating back to the days of his governance
of Texas. According to TX Peer, “Many industry legislative initiatives during Gov. George
W. Bush’s term in office follow parallel themes: limiting liability for
polluters, reducing public input on regulatory decisions, allowing ‘voluntary’ instead of mandatory compliance
with environmental laws, and, allowing polluters to design their own anti-pollution programs” (TX Peer). Take for example Texas House Bill 2776. This bill, passed
by Bush in 1997, greatly changed the Texas Superfund program, which deals with the cleanup of contaminated sites that the
EPA does not allow into the federal Superfund program. After creating a workgroup
that was “dominated by the state’s most significant polluters” to examine the state’s Superfund program,
Bush made several important changes to the program. These changes only served
to weaken the Texas Superfund program as a whole. Among other things, these changes
allowed for “immunity from liability” for contamination on “other people’s property,” as well
as contained “covenants not to sue,” further protecting industrial polluters (TX Peer). It is apparent that Bush’s tendencies toward favoring industry have followed him to the White House.
Since the Bush administration
took over the White House in 2000, funding of the Superfund program has decreased dramatically. In January of 2004, the EPA released a report that “admits that the Bush Administration failed to
adequately fund the clean up of hazardous toxic waste sites in FY [fiscal year] 2003” (Willett). This lack of funding has made it impossible for the EPA to clean up as many contaminated sites as it might
otherwise have, had there been enough money in the trust fund. Throughout the
country, contaminated sites that should be receiving attention from the EPA’s Superfund are not. Both New
Jersey and Florida are suffering from the lack
of funds, as are countless other states, and the people who live near these sites.
Links
EPA's Superfund
Love Canal
|
