The Denver Post - Pollution

[Guest guest]

Article Launched: 06/25/2006 01:00:00 AM MDT

The Denver Post

perspective

New strategy for pollution

Environmental protection needs an update

By Roitman

For the past three decades, our environmental

protection system of federal laws and state

enforcement has made great progress - our air is

cleaner, hundreds of contaminated sites have been

cleaned up, hazardous and solid waste is well managed

and water quality has been improved.

But, as we look to the future, there are major changes

that need to be considered if we are to continue to

make progress.

First, Congress should fundamentally rethink the

current system and take a more integrated approach

that encourages better environmental performance and

stewardship while reducing bureaucratic processes. We

can make greater progress if we consider all

environmental impacts, including energy and water

consumption, from individual facilities, rather than

dealing separately with water quality, air emissions

and waste generation, as is done now. Streamlined

processes will allow state regulators to achieve the

goals of 100 percent compliance with environmental

laws and of controlling and reducing pollution. We

also need to do a better job of identifying and

developing approaches to pollution that isn't

generated from a single source, like run-off into

lakes and rivers.

The current system of individual permits for different

kinds of emissions and discharges and oversight by

multiple Environmental Protection Agency programs

often hinders creative approaches.

In many cases, EPA oversight is based on outdated

measures of what constitutes environmental success.

Our national laws need to be updated to recognize this

problem and reward innovation and improved performance

by states.

States, in fact, have become the leaders in

environmental innovation. States developed voluntary

programs that resulted in the clean-up and

redevelopment of thousands of contaminated properties

across the country, more than 500 in Colorado alone.

Many states are undertaking greenhouse gas reduction

initiatives. Colorado developed standards for

contaminants like DIMP (diisopropyl methylphosphonate)

and Trichloroethylene (TCE) in the absence of action

by EPA.

Colorado also has created a pilot program for an

integrated " environmental management system "

controlled by a single permit for a facility. Colorado

is also implementing " environmental results programs "

that improve coordinated compliance with all

environmental requirements.

But, in Colorado we still need to change how we set

environmental policy and provide resources for

environmental protection. Environmental policy is

often decided in an overly politicized atmosphere

through the legislative process and in appointed

commissions. Industry is powerful in these forums, and

typically environmental advocates are seriously

under-represented. The best public policy results from

good balance among the competing interests. Colorado

should instead consider a system where regulations are

adopted by the environmental professionals at the

Department of Public Health and Environment after an

informed public process.

A similar process determines funding. Roughly 5

percent of the environmental regulatory budget comes

from the state general fund. The balance comes from

federal grants and cash fees, and federal funding is

declining with EPA budget cuts. Companies should pay

for government services, but, if industry pays for a

significant portion of a regulatory program, it also

has a significant voice in how the program is run. How

does this happen? Fees are set in law, which means if

state employees get a 3 percent raise, a bill needs to

be passed that raises fees by that amount. An industry

group may seek a change in law, making it more

difficult to enact more stringent standards, for

example, in exchange for supporting a fee increase.

The public interest should be kept separate from the

financing of government services. Colorado should

increase general fund support to environmental

regulation and lessen our reliance on regulated

industries.

Finally, there are some specific environmental

challenges that Colorado faces:

* Climate Change. It is clear that parts of

Colorado are hotter and drier than in the past,

potentially affecting the ski industry, tourism,

agriculture and every one who uses water. Several

states have taken steps to control production of

greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change.

Colorado should begin now to evaluate the

opportunities to reduce these emissions, perhaps

creating opportunities for Colorado businesses along

the way.

* Oil and gas production. Barely a day passes

without newspapers stories about increased oil and gas

exploration and production. Environmental regulators

have focused on emissions that contribute to

ground-level ozone and water quality impacts from

storm water run-off. These efforts need to be expanded

to look at all potential health and environmental

impacts from these facilities.

* Mercury. Mercury interferes with nerve cell

function and is particularly dangerous for pregnant

women and children. Mercury released into the air may

be deposited in lakes where it is ingested by fish,

and then humans. Colorado has taken action to reduce

mercury emissions. For example, many salvage yards now

remove mercury switches before automobiles are sent to

steel mills for melting and recycling, thereby

reducing mercury emissions from the mills. This year,

the Air Quality Control Commission will address

mercury emissions from power plants. Many states are

going beyond EPA in requiring greater and faster

reductions. Coloradans should closely monitor this

process.

* Regional haze. Similarly, Colorado and other

Western states are developing plans to improve

visibility at pristine areas. This is an important

effort if Colorado's special places are to be

preserved for the future.

* Rocky Mountain National Park. The State,

National Park Service and EPA are collaborating to

address changes in lake ecosystems in the park. As

with many of these challenges, decades of population

growth and associated impacts may not be reversible,

but it is important to do the best possible job of

determining the causes of such impacts and being

creative in developing improvements.

* Naturally occurring radioactive material.

Radioactivity occurs naturally in rocks and soils in

many parts of the state. When water is treated or when

metals are processed, the resulting waste has low

radioactivity levels. Our state regulators are very

conservative in determining where such material can be

safely disposed, yet many citizens perceive a greater

risk than exists. Coloradans should become informed

about the risks from such material, participate in

public processes, and can rely on state radiation

experts to protect their health.

Colorado has been successful in addressing many of its

environmental issues. Future problems are more

challenging because their causes are more complex and

largely stem from the modern society we have all

created. All of us will need to bring our best

collaborative creativity to the table.

Roitman is the deputy executive director of the

Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste

Management Officials. He formerly served as director

of environmental programs at the Colorado Department

of Public Health and Environment.

__________________________________________________