Superfund

A Christian Science Monitor article, "Superfund Program: A Smaller Cleanup Rag" was released into the public on November 14, 2003. The article outlines the pros and cons of a federal cleanup program, known as Superfund. Superfund was put into effect in 1980 to enable the cleanup of hazardous wastes that filled our streams, lakes, and air, threatening not only the environment itself, but the health of many living near these toxic sites. Each year the government has dished out $1 billion to carry out necessary actions to cleanup each particular site, and the program has succeeded in cleaning up 866 sites thus far. Now Congress has failed to reinstate Superfund's budget since 1995 and they are ultimately bankrupt. So the problem prevails, who is going to pay for the remaining sites that still are a health threat?


There are basically two solutions, make the "polluter pay," or make the taxpayers foot the bill. The "polluter pay" principle usually involves the Environmental Protection Agency trying to "hunt down one or two deep-pocket corporations that can somehow be linked to the site and then hits them with the full cost of cleanup." This principle results in many excess fees due to the need for lawyer and private investigators, draining the Superfund's funds for unnecessary reasons. Forcing the taxpayers to pay is becoming by increasing numbers, the solution. In fact, Superfund has grown to become 58 percent of the taxpayers responsibility, up from 18 percent.


Superfund's dilemma has caused these waste sites to remain worthless areas of the community because urban developers are hesitant to purchase land in fear that they will remain responsible for the land's past history. In the end it is most likely that American taxpayers will remain responsible for the irresponsible actions of large corporations, a typicality of the this country.