Industry Contaminates And Taxpayers Foot The Bill

Two unrelated items in the NY Times today show once again that taxpayers continue to have to pick up the tab for the failures of corporations. Today, it relates to contamination of the environment. In East Chicago, Indiana, the mayor has decided that a development that houses 1,100 people needs to be demolished and the residents moved for their own safety. Soil tests at the complex show incredibly high levels of lead and of arsenic. The EPA insists the soil can be removed safely but the mayor believed that moving so much soil would actually aggravate the problem. Of course, the problem really was caused by a smelting plant just south of the development that was owned by the US Smelter and Lead Refinery. That area has already been declared a Superfund site but officials were shocked to see the high levels of lead in arsenic outside the plant. Right now, the focus is on the EPA and why it didn't know about this sooner and be more diligent about warning residents of the danger. But let's be clear - the blame clearly lies with the smelting plant.

In New York, the upstate area around Hoosick Falls is suffering through the contamination of their water supply. Initial tests showed that the Hoosick Falls water supply was contaminated with perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a hazardous chemical used in the making of Teflon among other things. Subsequent studies showed the contamination extended to other nearby towns and even into Vermont. Landfills in three towns were also declared possible Superfund sites due to high levels of contamination with the chemical. Again, the EPA is accused of not being quick enough or transparent enough in informing communities of the dangers involved. And, again, the real cause of the problem is a nearby plant owned by Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics which is located on the Hoosick River and close to the municipal wells that provide water to Hoosick Falls. The company noted that it had paid for a water filtration system and was currently providing bottled water to residents as if that compensates for the damage that's been done and is an adequate replacement for having safe drinking water from your tap.

In both cases, the EPA is getting lots of flak about how they have handled the situation within the community and some of that may be deserved. But let's be clear that it is private industry that is creating these problems and then relying on government resources to clean them up. Initially, about 70% of the cost of cleanup of Superfund sites was borne by businesses, either through agreements with existing companies or via a tax on the petroleum and chemical industries. But since 2001, the majority of the cost of cleanup has fallen on taxpayers. In addition, the Superfund program is severely underfunded so that many sites are just sitting there due to the lack of resources for remediation. So the cycle continues - businesses pollute, citizens are harmed, and the problem just sits there or taxpayers foot the bill for the remediation that does occur. It's a great way to run a business.