12. Costs and Funding Recommendations

The Task Force was asked by the Agencies to recommend possible funding sources for agency activities to address area-wide soil contamination. A central theme in these discussions was that the State government, and in particular the Agencies, should provide financial assistance for local government efforts to address area-wide soil contamination to avoid establishing unfunded mandates. Moreover, individual residents, childcare providers, and others who choose to take actions to address area-wide soil contamination should not bear the full burden of the costs to conduct property evaluations, implement individual protection measures, maintain good soil cover, and implement any other appropriate protection measures. The Task Force recognizes that State agencies do not have limitless resources and that there are competing demands for the use of available resources. This creates a need to target available resources effectively and seek additional funding from a broad array of potential sources.

To provide information for the Task Force's deliberations on possible funding sources and funding strategies, the project support contractor developed rough estimates of the costs to implement the Task Force's recommendations and researched potential funding sources for those recommendations. Cost estimates are included in Appendix L. Note that the Task Force did not attempt to align funding sources with cost estimates for individual activities. Although the Task Force recommends that the Agencies provide financial support to individuals who choose to take action to address area-wide soil contamination, it also recognizes that in many cases the costs of responding to area-wide soil contamination will be borne by residents, not government agencies. This recognition was one of the reasons the Task Force focused on identifying responses to area-wide soil contamination that are practical and affordable, as well as effective.

Recommendations

In developing funding recommendations, the Task Force was motivated by several guiding principles:

• Wherever possible, individuals and institutions should minimize costs by integrating responses to area-wide soil contamination into existing processes and activities to leverage resources.
  
• State and local government agencies should provide information, technical assistance, financial support, and other incentives to residents and property owners to evaluate the potential for exposure to arsenic and lead in soil and to take effective, practical, and affordable steps to minimize exposure.
  
• State and Federal agencies should provide local agencies with the financial resources needed to implement any new obligations, in order to avoid establishing unfunded mandates.
  
• Resources to address area-wide soil contamination should be fairly allocated across the state.

(top)

The Task Force recognizes that MTCA is based on the "polluter pays" model for financing cleanup of contamination, and that Ecology has a statutory obligation to seek to recover its costs in administering the MTCA program from potentially liable parties. The Task Force believes that Ecology should discharge its legal duties wherever possible; at the same time, the Task Force recognizes that Ecology may face unusual challenges in trying to recover its costs for addressing area-wide soil contamination, and that, in some instances, it may not be feasible to recover some or all costs. Because of these potentially difficult circumstances, the Task Force also recommends that Ecology seek funding from a broad array of Federal, State, and private sources:

• Where possible, the Agencies should use the State and Local Toxics Accounts to implement the Task Force recommendations. These accounts, which were established under MTCA, receive revenue primarily from taxes on hazardous substances. The State Toxics Account supports State agency efforts, including the hazardous sites cleanup program, while the Local Toxics Account provides funding to local governments and non-profit organizations for public education and outreach, individual property evaluations, cleanup actions, and other activities.
  
• The Agencies should work with OSPI to continue its efforts to identify and address contamination during new school construction and to explore opportunities to use school construction funds to address area-wide soil contamination. The Task Force also encourages the Agencies to look for other opportunities to use existing funding programs to support local efforts to implement the Task Force recommendations.
  
• The Agencies should seek supplementary funding from private foundations, Federal grant programs, and other Federal, State, and private sources. Examples of potential funding sources include Federal grant programs, such as EPA Environmental Education Grants and the HUD Community Development Block Grants, and grants from private sources such as the Bullitt Foundation and the DuPont Lead-Safe…for Kids' Sake grant program. (See Appendix M for a more complete summary of applicable grant programs and other potential funding sources.) Many of these grant programs are available to local jurisdictions, non-profit organizations, and other entities.
  
• The Task Force recognizes that it will be difficult to obtain significant amounts of money from many of these sources, including the competitive and formula-based grant programs. Thus, it may also be necessary for the Agencies to seek additional funding directly from the Federal government and the State legislature.
  

(top)