Enforcement of Pollution Regulations

http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070206/NEWS/702060322

It is amazing how short sighted we can become while focusing on certain issues. Since starting this class I have become very interested in the clean up of the Hudson River by GE. This article by Greg Bruno of the Times Herald-Record has brought to light the New York state government’s inability to enforce regulations to prevent polluting rivers in the last 15 years. The article states that of the 359 spills reported to the DEC between Yonkers and Albany on the Hudson, only 13 ended with state issued consent orders. Granted, some of these spills must have been extremely small but this is still very inconsistent enforcement at best. It also makes me wonder about the effort the state makes in finding polluters, there must be a percentage of spills polluting the rivers that go unaccounted for. How much of an effort is put into tracking pollution in the river? In the article Basil Seggos, lead investigator for the environmental group Riverkeeper, is quoted saying, "The Pataki administration was decidedly anti-enforcement." This seems ridiculous; the Pataki administration did a poor job regulating pollution in the Hudson and other rivers at the same time that GE was under heavy fire about cleaning up the river? It seems that the publicity of the GE dredging case would influence the state to become more attentive and strict about pollution in the rivers.

The article concludes on a more positive note saying that Governor Spitzer has included on his new budget hiring more inspectors, biologists, engineers, and attorneys for the DEC. Hopefully these changes will lead to better enforcement of pollution regulations. If the enforcement of pollution regulations does not change, and the river is continually polluted, the effects of an environment project, like the GE dredging project, would be compromised. Why spend so much money to clean the river if people continually pollute it?