THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, October 12, 1996 TAG: 9610120015
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A14 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: 88 lines
Virginia's environment would be better protected if the state Department of Environmental Quality and the federal Environmental Protection Agency were working together. Instead, they're exchanging accusations.
The heart of the differences between the state and federal agencies is philosophical.
Gov. George F. Allen's administration believes that environmental regulations constrain landowners and hinder job creation. It further believes that most environmental problems can be solved if state regulators and company officials cooperate as reasonable people. There's usually no need, in other words, for regulators to get pushy and punitive. Better to be business-friendly.
The federal philosophy is less accommodating: Environmental laws, the same as other laws, should be enforced, with violators punished.
There's no question EPA has at times been heavy-handed. It would be pleasant if Allen's amiable alternative worked. But EPA makes a compelling case that the practical result is often increased environmental abuse.
Differences between the state and federal agencies are evident in a letter to Thomas C. Hopkins, director of the DEQ, from W. Michael McCabe, administrator for EPA Region III, which includes Virginia.
``. . . The Governor and other representatives of the Commonwealth have made clear the desire to conduct less enforcement,'' McCabe complained last week. The letter noted that penalties collected by the DEQ have declined from $318,802 in 1993 to $149,576 in 1994 to $26,500 in 1995.
Declining penalties could indicate declining violations, but McCabe made a second and even more serious complaint that the DEQ is ``insulating violating industries from federal enforcement.''
On several occasions, when the federal agency has prepared to seek penalties from a Virginia firm, McCabe said, the state has blocked the action by taking its own action first. ``In each case,'' McCabe wrote, ``the actions taken by the Commonwealth and the penalties collected were much less than EPA believes were appropriate.''
Under the federal Clean Water Act, a state suit blocks EPA action unless the Justice Department determines that the state is inadequately enforcing water laws.
In a rare move, McCabe has asked the U.S. Justice Department to declare that Virginia inadequately enforced water laws in the high-profile case of Smithfield Foods. Should the Justice Department make that determination, the EPA could ``override'' the state suit and file its own.
McCabe accuses the state of suing Smithfield Foods for environmental violations merely to block a tougher suit planned by the EPA. The state suit, filed shortly after Virginia learned a federal suit was planned, seeks up to $2 million in penalties, but McCabe said the state probably will settle for a ``slap on the wrist,'' judging from its handling of other cases. The EPA would seek a penalty of more than $2 million.
In an interview, McCabe gave persuasive reasons for preferring the federal disposition to enforce environmental laws firmly and consistently.
If Smithfield Foods can violate them for years and escape with a small penalty, he said, the company gains a significant economic advantage over law-abiding competitors.
That, he said, is the flaw in the governor's methods - they favor the violator. A Virginia industry may never be caught breaking environmental rules, given reductions in DEQ staff, McCabe said. But even if the violation is detected, the amount of the state fine is far less than the economic gain from breaking the law.
One purpose of the Clean Water Act, McCabe said, is to create a level playing field for businesses. Most companies obey the law; violators pay more in penalties than they gain by breaking the law. There is no competitive advantage to doing the right thing, but there is a disadvantage to getting caught doing the wrong thing.
In response to McCabe's complaints about Virginia's environmental record, Allen said last week, ``I think this gentleman is just having a little hissy-fit over something.'' Allen administration officials contend that McCabe's letter was politically motivated and that President Clinton is seeking to sue Smithfield as an election-year stunt.
In mocking McCabe, Allen said something revealing: ``Since we are. . . creating jobs for Virginians, I guess that upsets him as well.''
In Allen's view, environmental battles pit Nature against jobs, and he sides with jobs. But Virginia shouldn't have to choose between clean water and jobs. In fact, the state's natural bounty is one of its prime attractions, to businesses as well as tourists.
Virginia must enforce environmental laws. When the state is soft on one violator, precedent is set to be soft on another, until environmental laws become meaningless and environmental quality suffers.
The market logic Governor Allen subscribes to actually argues in favor of enforcing environmental laws even-handedly. The Allen administration is giving polluters an incentive to skimp on compliance, drag their feet when caught and profit from it all. That's wrong. The federal government is right to object. by CNB