Congress is on the verge of expanding the Superfund program for treating toxic waste dumps. Superfund, like other environmental programs, has good intentions. But, also like other environmental programs, Superfund has squandered hundreds of millions of dollars and done almost nothing to protect the public health.
Fifteen years ago, on Earth Day 1970, the great environmental-protection juggernaut began to roll. Since then, Congress has passed a flock of environmental laws, resulting in thousands of regulations affecting how Americans are allowed to live their lives. The federal Council on
Environmental Quality estimated that America would spend more than $900 billion to comply with federal environmental regulations between 1979 and 1988. This works out to more than $3,300 per citizen.
But our environmental laws have amounted to one budgetary ``Charge of the Light Brigade`` after another. Yet, despite federal and private spending of more than $100 billion on the Clean Water Act regulations, a coalition of environmental groups recently reported that ``almost four times the surface area of lakes and streams have been degraded as have improved`` since 1972. Despite hundreds of billions spent on air pollution controls, air quality in some places has sharply deteriorated.
``Act now, understand later`` has been the unwritten preamble of federal environmental legislation. There are serious threats to our health, and the federal government should protect the citizenry. But far too little research has been done toward understanding which chemicals affect humans, at what concentrations, and how best to protect against them.
For instance, the Clean Air Act of 1970 charged the Environmental Protection Agency with studying and setting standards for the major air pollutants. But, 15 years later, EPA has produced standards on only four of the top 37 suspected pollutants. And even the standards the EPA has come up with are doubtful. For example, it set the tolerance level for carbon monoxide at nine parts per million--based almost solely on research by one
``scientist`` who falsified data and fudged results. Even though EPA knows the scientist`s results are grossly unreliable, it has not revised its regulations. We have spent tens of billions to meet environmental standards that may as well have been pulled out of a hat.
Superfund--the current hot item on Capitol Hill--nicely fits the pattern of ``know-nothing`` environmental policies. Superfund is a dismal failure. Only 10 of the 400 waste sites on the national priority list of most dangerous sites have been cleaned up. Several of the sites EPA supposedly cleaned up have been found to still be contaminated.
Perhaps Superfund`s worst failing is the paucity of research on health threats from toxic waste sites. The gravest danger from hazardous waste dumps is that seepage will contaminate ground water and taint much of the nation`s water supply. But the General Accounting Office reports that little has been done to determine how dump sites contaminate the water supply. Nor do we know which chemicals are dangerous, and which are comparatively benign. Without this knowledge, it is impossible to run an effective clean-up program.
Instead of pouring $10 billion to $13 billion more into the current
``move a dump a day`` program, we should be plowing money into an intensive research effort. Otherwise, we are simply trying to build a skyscraper without first laying a foundation.
We have squandered enough billions trying to save the environment without knowing what we are doing. There is no excuse for the lack of sufficient research on environmental dangers. Throwing money at the environment serves no one, except government employees and environmental consultants.