|
by John Stouffer
Atlantic Chapter Legislative Director
It's rare that a term coined to describe something as odious as a
contaminated industrial site can transport many within earshot to a
state of near-bliss. That, however, seems to be the peculiar power of
the word "brownfields." And while the concept behind brownfields
proposals is laudable -- that is, rehabilitating the abandoned
industrial sites that dot our urban landscapes -- environmentalists
should cast a wary eye on any brownfields bills now making their way
through many state legislatures. As always, the devil is in the
details.
Along with being ugly, brownfields sites are often brimming with
hazardous materials and largely defy attempts at redevelopment by
financial institutions, or by the municipalities that surround them.
They often pose hazards to their neighbors, and usually contribute
nothing to the local tax base. Cleaning them up and making them
productive again, therefore, would benefit everyone. Wouldn't it?
Further, residents living next to these sites look to brownfields
projects as job-creating, "environmental justice" efforts for their
disadvantaged communities. Others see them as a way to protect green
space outside the urban core by redeveloping brownfields in place of
new urban sprawl. All of these good things could indeed happen -- so
long as good intentions are not abused by developers in search of
cheap, low-oversight projects.
In some states, though, brownfields laws enacted without an
understanding of the real barriers to contaminated site-redevelopment
have resulted in repeal of health-based cleanup standards and overall
weakening of cleanup programs.
Problems occur because the brownfields debate tends to center on
speeding economic revitalization. Environmental quality concerns, such
as protection of public health and prevention of sprawling new
industrial development, have been secondary considerations. Since the
focus is on economics, much of the legislation is designed not so much
to eliminate the public health threats at the sites as to remove
barriers to their redevelopment.
The theory behind much of the legislation and policy proposed on
brownfields is as follows: Liability for existing contamination at
these sites is a barrier to redevelopment. Therefore, to encourage
redevelopment, we must expedite any required cleanup at the site. In
most cases, this boils down to reducing the target standards for site
cleanup, eliminating offsite testing requirements, restricting public
participation, providing a liability waiver for any future cleanup at
the sites and, in some cases, removing any liability adhering to
municipalities and financial institutions. The driving forces behind
these policies tend to be large real-estate interests, municipalities,
financial institutions and industry.
In practice, legislative proposals and individual projects demand
closer scrutiny. Reading a typical bill, one imagines a weedgrown,
fenced tract left behind by the defunct gas station or steel
fabricating plant of an unregulated yesterday. However, nothing in many
of the recently enacted brownfields laws ensures that freshly
contaminated sites won't come into existence years or decades hence
precisely because a brownfields cleanup option with reduced standards
and liability relief will be available. It is essential to limit
brownfields programs to past contamination so as not to encourage more
pollution and the creation of new hazardous sites.
A key component of brownfields redevelopment proposals is that the
contamination at these sites need only be cleaned up to levels
commensurate with the new proposed industrial/commercial use. The
Sierra Club tends to believe that lowering cleanup standards for
contaminated sites threatens the health of current and future
populations exposed to those sites. It also increases the possibility
that unremediated contaminants will migrate off-site and cause health
and environmental damage over time. At best, superficial clean-ups
transfer risks and costs to future generations in order to suit the
convenience of today's political constituencies -- precisely the same
short- sighted, self-serving logic that got us into this mess in the
first place.
Up to Top
|
