 |
|
 |
| ||
|
Spotlight on Toxic Cleanup
Over the objections of dischargers who say the program unfairly penalizes them, legislation extending the Bay Protection and Toxic Cleanup Program was approved by the California Assembly in May. The program, which requires Regional Water Quality Control Boards to identify toxic hot spots in the state's bays and estuaries and develop remediation plans, is scheduled to expire at the end of 1997. A Senate vote on the legislation to extend the program to 2001 is expected this fall.
Much of the opposition to the program's continuation stems from the fact that although it is funded through fees paid by dischargers, "there are some stakeholders who have not taken responsibility," says Geoff Brosseau of the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association.
Others put it more bluntly: "Agriculture is being exempted and my members are paying for it," says M'K Veloz of the Northern California Marine Association. "Our membersgot roped into this thing merely because of their presence on the water's edge."
The bill specifically exempts agricultural nonpoint dischargers from fees. "We did talk about including agriculture in the bill, but decided not to because it would be politically next to impossible," says Keith Nakatani of Save the Bay, which sponsored the legislation. He contends, however, that the complaints about the fees are little more than a smokescreen put up by dischargers who want to kill the program before cleanup plans are developed. "The main reason dischargers are opposed to the program is that they want to avoid financial responsibility for cleaning up the pollution they created,"he says.
Beyond the issue of fees, program critics say it has been mismanaged since it began in 1990. "The legislation that established the program was based on advocacy, not consensus," says Brosseau. "The program was underfunded and overscoped. Much of the money went into methods development instead of fulfilling the mandate of the program." Brosseau also thinks that polarization of the Advisory Committee set up to oversee the program hampered its effectiveness, making it difficult even to agree on a definition of a "toxic hot spot." "The terminology was unfortunately chosen and inflamatory," he says. "It made people nervous because of its implications of liability."
The new legislation changes "toxic hot spot" to "area of sediment contamination." Nakatani acknowledges that the program "should have accomplished much more than it has," but says bureaucratic sabotage by dischargers is to blame. He adds that despite its problems, the program has pioneered new monitoring and assessment methodologies and collected valuable data. "The program needs to be refunded and restructured, not ended," he says.
The current legislation includes amendments requiring that no more than 50% of the program's Advisory Committee be comprised of dischargers, and shifts more responsibility for the program to the regional boards rather than the state board.
The Estuary's two regional boards have both generated valuable data through the program. The S.F. Board has developed new reference sites and toxicity tests tailored to S.F. Bay conditions, measured contaminant levels in Bay fish, and screened more than 100 possible hot spots to prioritize sites for cleanup, with final recommendations due early next year.
"Some statewide pesticide issues were brought to light by this project," says Bill Croyle of the Central Valley Board, who believes the program provides important resources for addressing sediment toxic hot spots and reuse of sediment in the Delta. Noting that many sources of funds for monitoring and assessment are drying up he concludes, "This program is pretty critical for us. We've got a lot more to do."
Contact: Geoff Brosseau (510)286-0615 or Keith Nakatani (510) 452 9261
[ ABAG HOME | SFEP HOME ]
Copyright © 2002, San Francisco Estuary Project