An Essay 2 Revision: Environmental Justice in Onondaga County

Jason Wang
10/14/07

The disastrous pollution situation of Onondaga Lake perfectly demonstrates a few failures of the government's expensive emergency Superfund program, but the example also brings hope for improvement. Overall, one hopes that businesses, government and organizations can all work together to clean up and prevent hazardous waste, eliminating public health disasters, while improving life and cleaning the environment for future life.

According to the US Public Research Group (PIRG), one out of four Americans live within four miles of a Superfund site. Superfund is a government funded program that cleans up hazardous waste. Between 1980 and 2003, at a cost of more than $1 billion a year, the program has cleaned up 886 sites, which leaves 1,203 more sites on the “National Priorities List” that still need to be addressed. Marianne Lamont Horinko, an assistant administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), states that 699 construction projects in 436 sites remain, but funding for the Superfund program has significantly diminished since excise taxes on chemical and oil industries expired in 1995. The portion of the program funded by individual taxpayers has increased from 18 percent to 53 percent. Julie Wolk, environmental health advocate for PIRG, states, “taxpayers are paying more...the number of Superfund sites getting cleaned up [each year] has dropped by more than half.” (Knickerbocker)

Many criticize Superfund for its litigious methods of tracking down companies to pay for the cleaning because by the end of the process (in some cases) most of the money is used for lawyers, private investigators, consultants and other administrative overhead. Superfund can also discourage investment in new development when land buyers begin to fear liability for pollution. With all of these criticisms of Superfund, it remains politically infeasible to eliminate it, but administrators must find a way to pay for it. In the end, taxpayers continue to fund a majority of an increasingly inefficient Superfund program. (Knickerbocker)

In 1994, Onondaga Lake, located right on the edge of Syracuse, NY, was added to the EPA's Superfund list, consisting of areas most in need of cleanup. During the mid twentieth century, pollution from such companies as the Allied Chemical and Dye Corp contaminated Onondaga Lake with mercury and numerous other harmful substances. Additionally, sewage dumping and sewer overflows became prevalent, causing Onondaga Lake to become one of America's most polluted lakes. Resorts were driven away, most of the lake became unsafe to swim in and recreation around the area diminished. (Williamson)

EPA's ultimate goal is to make Superfund “faster, fairer and more efficient”, but many variables influence the success of Superfund, so one solution may not satisfy all situations or all people. In the case of Onondaga Lake, businesses, inhabitants, tourists and the government all had stakes into the historical area (Williamson). One study analyzes the factors involved in remediation at Superfund sites, under three models, “Administrative Convenience/Transaction Costs”, “Problem Severity” and “Political Pressure”. Surprisingly, too much community involvement causes decreased remedial progress because local groups tend to burden the federal Superfund program by prolonging the process with lobbies for certain permanent actions. Not surprisingly, an increase in political oversight improves results. Also, it is found that the EPA is more likely to focus on lower-risk sites, basically sites with cheaper costs. (Daley 375)

Regarding Onondaga Lake, things did not improve until New York's Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) became responsible for enforcing the Federal Clean Water Act of 1972. Then, in 1979 a new metropolitan sewage treatment plan, known as “Metro” was built to provide clean water flow into the lake, but still Metro polluted the lake with excessive amounts of phosphorous and ammonia (Williamson 10). In 1994, the EPA further entrusted DEC with $2.7 million to coordinate and spearhead cooperation among federal, state and local organizations, including the Onondaga Lake Management Conference, to clean Onondaga Lake (Swinn 1). Also, a few years after Onondaga Lake became a Superfund site in 1994, Metro was finally required to reduce its amounts of ammonia and phosphorous discharges in 1998. Since 2004, ammonia reduction goals have been met and now Metro is one of the world's most advanced waste-water treatment plants in the country. By 2012, all sewer overflows will no longer contribute bacteria and floating waste to the lake (Williamson 11). It is evident that political action was an impetus for the efforts to clean Onondaga Lake.

Still, the largest problem remains in paying for Superfund. According to the aforementioned analysis “transaction costs systematically influence remedial progress at Superfund sites” (Daley 386). Different solutions may help in preventing pollution, thus possibly decreasing Superfund costs. In 1994 Governor Mario M. Cuomo established the New York State Governor's Awards for Pollution Prevention and several companies were awarded for reduction of pollutants (Swinn 1). Awards like these can definitely help promote the idea of ultimately reducing hazardous waste, which relates to the idea of more political oversight and action. Only when the government enacted the Federal Clean Water Act of 1972 did the situation of Onondaga Lake become addressed, after over twenty years of overwhelming pollution (Williamson 10). Still, even after this initial act, more action was needed to clean the lake. Today, The Onondaga Lake Partnership continues to work with the government, organizations and the public to limit phosphorous contamination and develop a shared vision for the lake (Williamson 12). The Onondaga Lake Partnership is a large committee consisting of government, public and private interest groups, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. EPA (Williamson 11). Although local community involvement can sometimes be a burden for the federal Superfund program, it can also help if these organizations work with government leaders, like The Onondaga Lake Partnership does. Studies show that if an elected official from a site's congressional district sits on a Superfund oversight committee, this site is twenty percent more likely to be completed (Daley 387).

Overall, more political action is needed to make Superfund better. An inevitable circle of criticism exists when discussing the renewal of excise taxes for chemical and oil companies because more than just these companies are responsible for pollution. Instead, Superfund needs to be revised with a better plan regarding the distribution of its funds. Instead of unfair methods of choosing only low-risk sites, a new plan should create better laws that award businesses for environmental advances, while also enforcing federal pollution regulations. Also, the most hazardous areas should be addressed first. Changes in the sources of pollutions, where water pollution from run-offs is more prevalent (like with Onondaga Lake) and where mining companies now begin to contribute to pollution as well, the federal government must reevaluate their plans (Williamson, Knickerbocker 12). New plans should begin by focusing on the prevention of pollution, spearheaded by organizations like the Onondaga Lake Partnership willing to work with the government. Then, political action can be made to compromise and serve the needs of different areas, possibly by adding more oversight. Again, only after the DEC gained further responsibility did Onondaga Lake begin to solve its horrendous problems. During this time of Superfund inefficiency, the federal government needs to pay further attention to the environment and enact further laws to enforce environmental guidelines.

Works Cited

Daley, Dorothy M., and David F. Layton. "Policy Implementation and the Environmental Protection Agency: What Factors Influence Remediation at Superfund Sites?." Policy Studies Journal 32.3 (2004): 375-92. Social Sciences Full Text. H. W. Wilson. Syracuse University Library, Syracuse, NY. 7 Oct. 2007 [http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/].

Knickerbocker, Brad. "Superfund Program: A Smaller Cleanup Rag." The Christian Science Monitor 14 Nov. 2003. 2 Oct. 2007 [http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1114/p02s01-usgn.html?related].

Swinn, Brian W.. "DEC receives $2.7 million to clean up Onondaga Lake." The Conservationist 49 (1994): 38-9. General Science Full Text. H. W. Wilson. Syracuse University Library,Syracuse, NY. 7 Oct. 2007 [http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/].

Williamson, Karen, and Don Hesler. "Return to Glory: The resurgence of Onandaga Lake." New York State Conservationist 61.1 (2006): 7-14. Readers' Guide Full Text. H. W. Wilson.Syracuse University Library, Syracuse, NY. 7 Oct. 2007 [http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/].