Saturday, November 22, 2008
Government Waste
Saturday, November 22, 2008 | 
Posted by
Chris Waner
I received a "Notice of Hearing" in the mail today for citizens of Westchester County, NY--just north of New York City. The topic of concern is the $234.7 million dollars in additional spending this year for several coastal towns, spending which the county did not vote to enact, is not budgeted for, and as of this point represents nothing less than debt for the county if the Board cannot raise the funding.How did Westchester acquire this debt? In 1998, the States of New York and Connecticut entered into an agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency. This agreement requires the reduction of nitrogen from sewage treatment plants. Westchester County has repeatedly objected to the unfunded expenditures, but the Federal Government maintains that the agreement is binding and that there will be no Federal aid for the mandate.
According to Westchester County representatives, the only solution to the problem is to begin a Bond initiative in order to woo investors. If the Bond initiative fails, however, Westchester County will face millions of dollars in State and Federal fines and still be forced to comply with the EPA regulations.
So what's the problem? Municipal Bond initiatives remain a mainstay in improvement projects around the country and throughout US history. The issue in this case is the compulsory nature of the regulation. Westchester residents did not rise up in opposition to elevated nitrogen levels and set out to pressure sewage treatment plants to shape up. Rather this is the result of the cart-before-horse environmental lobby standing on the shoulders of the Federal Clean Water Act in order to pass through what they refer to as "much needed" reforms for the preservation of marine wildlife on the Long Island Sound [source].
The truth is that one of the most persistent arguments against free market capitalism in recent decades has been the disincentive for corporations to behave in ways deemed enviornmentally friendly when that behavior runs opposite to the corporation's financial interests. This argument remains so ubiquitous that it almost always goes completely unchallenged. This is a shame given the strength of the opposing argument. Further, I relish the opportunity to address the free market approach with a system as complex as water treatment, because unlike many other industries, you can't just start new sewage treatment plants overnight.
The beauty of the free market argument is that it does not require the lobbyists to find a new line of work, but rather simply change those whom they lobby. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that the environmental lobby (EL) is completely accurate when it claims that increased nitrogen levels in the water can be traced primarily to sewage treatment and that it is harmful to marine life. But now let us imagine that the Federal Government behaved according to the strict limits placed on it by the US Constitution. The EL could not count on the the Federal government to tell states and businesses how to run operations. So the EL would be forced to do what it should be doing in the first place, that is rely on the strength of their argument and the persuasive power of their beliefs to convince the people of Westchester County that it is in the best interest of everyone and everything that sewage treatment plants reduce nitrogen levels. If the EL was successful, the people of that state could either vote and budget for the appropriate changes or entrepreneurs could immediately begin working on more economical methods of nitrogen reduction, or both.
The advantage in either case is that the from-the-ground-up approach adequately budgets and creates the means of solving the problem. At worst it is publicly agreed upon and reluctantly funded, and at best it creates new jobs, industry, money, and solves the problem economically for the treatment plants. The top-down approach, however, does none of those things, and, in fact, does the exact opposite. When the Federal Government comes in with a regulation of this kind, the funding is no where in sight; the technology available to reduce the nitrogen is immature and therefore very expensive, and absolutely no jobs are created. As a matter of fact, jobs are likely lost. Why? Because Westchester county must now create a Bond initiative to take on private investment which could be going to fund butchers, and bakers, and, yes, candlestick makers; and, instead, is now funneling those funds to an unexpected, unsupported, and previously funded pit. The reduced nitrogen levels could have been a net gain for Westchester, but instead will be a net loss.
But the marine wildlife is saved either way, right? Perhaps, but it is time to realize the wisdom of the grass-roots approach to activism. Is it better to save the wildlife at the expense of the citizens or to save the wildlife and benefit the citizens? Yes, but what if the citizens decided not to fund the nitrogen reduction? At least with the top-down Federal fiat, the states are forced to adhere and the fish are still saved. My answer, be careful what you wish for. The next Federal government will be voted into power by the people you hurt, not the fish you saved.
Labels:
Environmentalism
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
0 comments:
Post a Comment