SUPERFUND

The article "Superfund Program: A Smaller Cleanup Rag" appeared in the Christian Science Monitor in 2003 to stir up a little discussion about the funding cuts of the government environmental cleanup fund, Superfund. The article seeks to paint a picture of government inaction on the issue of environmental protection and weighs the positives and negatives of the environmental program. The fund, that recieved roughly one billion dollars of government money a year until 1995, sets out to cleanup our countries toxic waste sights, such as lakebeds, river bottoms, and various other sights tainted by the waste of industrial America. Recently, however, the fund has gone virtually bankrupt and the government has been uncooperative and slow to rush to it's assistance. The government's refusal to renew funds for Superfund leaves hundreds of toxic waste sights to fester and continue to deteriorate the communities that surround them.

Solutions for the lack of funding remain to be seen. A tax hike may be the solution needed to replenish the fund but is it really fair to tax the people whose once beautiful local areas have been robbed from them and replaced with the eye sores that have become these toxic waste sites. These sites not only can cause environmental problems, but can also cause health problems with people who live in close proximity to these places, and can even hurt economic development for the areas causing undue fiancial duress on a town or even city that could potentially prosper. Taxing the businesses however, has become a difficult tax to say the least. Under the "joint and several liability" clause the major corporations who have been blamed for the waste can then turn around and look for any party who may have had a hand in the deterioration of the sight and sue them for their share of the costs. This leaves much of the Superfund treasury drained due to the expenses paid out to lawyers and investigators. This leaves the only feasible solution as taxing the people who have much more difficulty dodging the government than major corporations.

While it would be ideal to have the large corporate industrialists fund the projects for cleaning up their messes it is unlikely that it will ever occur. Having a President who owns a company isn't helping Superfund's situation either. In order to change the solution from "taxpayer pays" to "polluter pays" people will have to look to the future in 2008 and head to the polls for whomever they believe will better their environment. Everyone must remember, this isn't just a health issue. It's a health issue that will plague coming generations and put a lock on our communities. Our children and their children deserve a better place than the one that we will leave behind for them.

http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/jumpstart.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e9e8f8b7ba403110643c6e53ab23e2e1682ed57e2e54231206c60058542b9c840&fmt=H
Swinn, B. W. DEC receives $2.7 million to clean up Onondaga Lake. The Conservationist v. 49 (August 1994) p. 38-9