But there are some individuals who enjoy wading in this environmental quagmire - the attorneys:The most comprehensive independent research analysis of the Superfund is a 1989 Rand Corp. study, which is now being updated. Principal researcher Jan Acton said he could not release the new Rand data, which are scheduled for publication in August, but added: 'The numbers (for attorneys' fees and overhead) could be truly staggering.'[7]
It took Dell Perlman 'no longer than my first Superfund negotiating session' to conclude that the toxic waste crisis is a bonanza for at least one U.S. industry - the legal profession.The session, a preliminary hearing on a hazardous dump, was scheduled recently at a high school near a contaminated disposal site. 'EPA had to hold it in the gym, because so many people turned out,' said Perlman, who is assistant general counsel for the Chemical Manufacturers Association.
'I looked around the stands, and I realized they were full of lawyers, all billing their time at around $200 per hour,' he said. 'Extrapolate those kinds of costs over the next 10 years, and you come up with quite a figure.'. . .
[T]here are more than 20,000 U.S. attorneys now specializing in environmental litigation and issues, up from fewer than 2,000 when the Superfund was created in 1980. . . .
Their needs have generated a golden job market where none existed barely, a decade ago. According to the National Law Journal, attorneys six years out of law school who have experience in environmental litigation are being offered salaries of up to $225,000 a year. [8]
The Superfund legislation may furnish livelihoods, even upper-class livelihoods, but it is not preventing environmental disasters in the making. For example, the EPA reported in 1991 that 22,650 U.S. plants and facilities released 5.7 billion pounds of new toxic chemicals into the environment in 1989 - new releases and emissions coupled with Legislative and Judicial delays against combating these emissions means that "projected costs rise with each day spent in court - rather than at the sites themselves - as untouched toxic wastes seep into groundwater and increase the size of polluted areas that must be cleaned up."[9]
END PART 3: TO BE CONTINUED
FOOTNOTES
[1] Constitutional Reform and Effective Government, James Sundquist (Brookings: 1986), p. ix.
[2] Justice for All (Brookings: 1989), p. 1.
[3] 3 Records 222.
[4] Injustice for All, p. 146.
[5] "Hot Debate Magnifies A Modest Gun Law," The New York Times, May 12, 1991, p. E-5, Representative Edward Feighan (D-OH).
[6] All the work was for naught: the Brady Bill, ultimately, did not pass the Senate. Ten months later, in an article titled "Republicans' Filibuster in Senate Kills Chances for Anti-Crime Bill," The New York Times reported that "The Senate, mired in election-year politics, today virtually killed for the year an anti-crime bill that included a five-day nationwide waiting period for handgun sales." Thus, all the money and time that was invested in the passage of the Brady Bill was wasted.
See The New York Times, March 20, 1992, p. A-2.
[7] "Superfund Costs May Top S&L Bailout," San Francisco Chronicle May 29, 1991, p. 1.
[8] San Francisco Chronicle, May 29, 1991, p. A-4.
[9] San Francisco Chronicle, May 29, 1991, p. A-4.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
