trois, as well as compliance w i t h facets of the Clean Air Act, will trigger the sales increase. However, Jeff Smith, ICAC's director, w a r n e d that the increased market activity may not pull the air control industry out of its " c u r r e n t doldrums." Representatives of businesses and insurance companies say they are willing to pay higher taxes to fund reform of the Superfund liability system. Testifying before the Senate on Nov. 4, these business representatives also argued for an e n d to retroactive liability for site pollution. On the other h a n d , environmental groups were joined by an unlikely partner, the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA), in supporting retroactive liability. Speaking for the CMA, Bernard Reilly said that if this liability is eliminated, EPA will have to clean u p older sites— something that industry can do more efficiently.
In November, Mobil Corporation ended its 19-year commitment to solar energy. The oil c o m p a n y a n n o u n c e d that it is shutting d o w n its solar demonstration project in Billerica, MA, a n d putting its solar subsidiary, Mobil Solar Energy Corp., u p for sale. Mobil's move leaves Amoco as the only U.S. oil c o m p a n y in the solar business. The Department of Energy has awarded funding to 33 small, high-tech firms for developing environmentally related technologies. The grant topics i n c l u d e d monitoring sensors for remediation activities, in situ treatment of heavy-metal-contaminated soils a n d groundwater, waste stream diagnostics a n d controls, on-site treatment of surface water a n d groundwater, a n d in situ bioremediation of contaminated sites. The grants are funded through the Small Business Innovation Research Program; Phase I grants, to
determine the feasibility of the concept, will average about $75,000 for about six m o n t h s of work. DOE expects b e t w e e n one-third a n d one-half of these concepts to move into Phase II development, u n d e r w h i c h two-year grants of $600,000 w o u l d b e awarded. In a first-of-its-kind program, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is selling 58 environmentally distressed properties. The properties, in five N e w England states, all have contamination problems a n d have been foreclosed by a financial institution. None of the properties is u n d e r a federal or state c l e a n u p m a n d a t e , such as Superfund, but n e w owners w o u l d have to deal w i t h the contamination. Properties range from single-family dwellings w i t h asbestos to large industrial sites w i t h groundwater contamination. If the sale is a success, the federal government might repeat the offer in other regions.
Environment-Friendly agriculture BY A L A N
NEWMAN
S
ix decades of U.S. agricultural programs designed to stem soil erosion m a y soon be changed to address broader environmental concerns. In November the National Academy of Science's National Research Council (NRC) released a report outlining four n e w principles for agriculture that are designed to protect soil and water quality as well as halt soil erosion (2). The report r e c o m m e n d s n e w m e t h o d s of farm management and federal programs targeted at farms in environmentally sensitive areas or w h e r e pollution is most severe. "In the last decade it has become increasingly obvious that intertwining soil erosion programs with income programs has been an ineffective way to achieve environmental goals," said Sandra Batie (Michigan State University), chair of the committee that wrote the NRC report. "Moreover, it is n o w clear that the environmental effects of farming can be broader than erosion." Such effects include increased levels of salt in soils as a result of irrigation in Western states, soil compaction caused by heavy farm equipment, and the loss of organic matter in soils. 14 A
Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 28, No. 1, 1994
To promote environmentfriendly farms, the committee reco m m e n d s four national policy goals: conserve and e n h a n c e soil quality; increase nutrient, pesti-
cide, a n d water efficiency; make farms less susceptible to erosion a n d runoff; a n d create more buffer zones to r e d u c e runoff. These concepts m e s h nicely w i t h pollution prevention in watersheds, w h i c h EPA is n o w promoting. The report calls for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) a n d EPA to w o r k together to develop better monitoring tools a n d
standards for evaluating farm management. In addition, the report asks USDA a n d EPA to give high priority to the development of n e w farming technologies. " T h e n e w w a y s of farming may be as different from current practices as current practices are from those used just a generation ago," said Batie. The committee reported that only 3 0 % of U.S. croplands are n o w farmed w i t h reduced tillage a n d residue m a n a g e m e n t practices designed to limit runoff a n d erosion. The committee also took aim at several current policies that inhibit environmental improvements. High on that list are the traditional single-focus, best management practices designed to maximize farm yields. The report calls for a farming system plan that w o u l d take a broader environmental view. Implementation of such a p l a n w o u l d then become the basis for farm assistance a n d compliance w i t h regulatory programs. Batie labeled s u c h a plan, " t h e road m a p that cuts across all types of farms." For instance, a farming system plan w o u l d monitor soil levels of organic matter, nitrogen, and p h o s p h o r o u s . The data w o u l d be used to determine h o w m u c h a n d
when fertilizer and pesticides should be applied; whether crop rotation might improve soil; and even whether animal manure might replace other fertilizers. The report also finds that commodity price supports, which guarantee farmers a certain price for their crops, impede environmental practices. Although some analyses cited in the report suggest that elimination of this longstanding program would improve environmental quality, the report only recommends modifications in the price support program to reflect environmental concerns. The report argues that, because of limited financial resources, new programs must be targeted to specific regions and farms. This represents a break from conservation programs that are widely dissemi-
nated and, as a result, find their resources spread thin. Where new funds are needed, the committee recommends taxes on farm materials such as fertilizers, pesticides, heavy tractors, and irrigation water that degrade soil and water. In addition, the report endorses marketbased incentives such as tradable pollution permits, taxes, and fees. These would mirror the marketable permits now allowed under the Clean Air Act. Further incentives would be added by enlisting food processors into these programs. For instance, large food processors could specify certain farming system practices in their contracts with farmers. The report supports long-term easements on environmentally sensitive lands, a move certain to
be opposed by strong advocates of landowner's rights. However, the report does not support "green" payments to farmers, as some environmentalists have suggested. "In some regions, soil degradation and water pollution may already be serious enough that solutions will entail economic losses," admits Batie. "Concerted action is needed to prevent the list of such regions from getting longer." Reference (1)
"Soil and Water Quality: An Agenda for Agriculture"; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1993.
Alan Newman is associate editor on the Washington staff of ES&T.
How to improve R&D for the environment? BY S T A N T O N
F
MILLER
ederal environmental research and development (R&D) has grown piecemeal in the United States over the past 25 years. Now no federal agency is satisfied with it, partly because the nation faces more intractable problems, said Rep. Tim Valentine (D-NC), chair of the House Science Committee's subcommittee on Technology, Environment, and Aviation. To deal with the problem, Valentine held a hearing in November on proposed legislation (HR 2918) to create a National Institute for the Environment (NIE) and thereby improve the scientific basis for decision making on environmental issues. The bill, introduced by Rep. George Brown (D-CA) with 52 bipartisan cosponsors, received little enthusiasm at the hearing. In this time of budget caps and limited, more focused spending, the chances for the proposed new agency seem slim indeed. Nevertheless, witness after witness testified for NIE. Mark Schaefer, assistant director of environment at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), commented on several weaknesses of the present system and said, "One goal of the administration is to create a single interagency committee that would coordinate all federal environmental and natural
resources research and development activities and that will link science and policy." A witness spoke on behalf of each of four recent reports (1-4) on federal R&D. Dale Corson, president emeritus of Cornell University and chair of the National Research Council (NRC) Committee, also cited the shortcomings of the research system and called for nine changes, including the linking of environmental research and policy. Stephen Gage, formerly in charge of R&D at EPA, then a member of the OSTP White House staff, and now president of the Cleveland Advanced Manufacturing Program, said that today more than a dozen federal departments and agencies, with annual budgets totaling approximately $5 billion, conduct environmentrelated R&D. A member of the Carnegie Commission, Gage said that a key recommendation of its report (2) calls for a federal monitoring agency (5). Henry Howe, testifying on behalf of the Committee for the NIE, said that the present R&D system misses critical problems and does not anticipate new ones. In his view, the NIE would offer environmental security (3). J. Clarence Davies of Resources for the Future testified on behalf of the National Commission on the Environment. In its report "Choosing a Sustainable Future"
(4), the commission noted that "Inadequate scientific knowledge handicaps almost every effort to achieve sustainable development" (6). Davies said, "EPA promulgates, on average, 500-600 major regulations each year. That's an average of two each working day." It will take more time, effort, and funds to create a new agency for science. If and when EPA is elevated to cabinet level, then perhaps environmental R&D may see a new day. References (1)
" R e s e a r c h to Protect, Restore and Manage the Environment"; National Research Council: Washington, DC, 1993. (2) "Environmental Research and Development: Strengthening the Federal Infrastructure"; Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government: Washington, DC, December 1992. (3) "A Proposal for a National Institute for the Environment: Nee, Rationale and Structure"; Committee for the National Institute for the Environment: Washington, DC, 1993. (4) "Choosing a Sustainable Future"; National Commission on the Environment: Washington, DC, 1993. (5) Miller, S. S. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1993, 2, 211. (6) Miller, S. S. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1993, 2, 210.
Stanton S. Miller is executive editor of ES&T. Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 28, No. 1, 1994
15 A
