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In many cases, EPA oversight is based on outdated measures of what constitutes environmental success.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.
Howard 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.
