Break Out of the Base Closure Doldrums : Military: Conversion to civilian use is doomed without a creative solution.

From Orange County’s El Toro Marine Corps Air Station to San Francisco’s Treasure Island, the California landscape is dotted with the fading dreams of converting more than 25 military bases to productive civilian use.

Projects at virtually every installation are mired in complicated constraints, but standing front and center is the bizarre four-part federal role as financier, cleanup/conversion project manager, environmental regulator and landlord. Unless a more rational federal role is devised, Congress will lose patience and closed bases will be nothing more than monuments to failed defense conversion.

As closures began in the late 1980s, it was thought that the federal government could finance its commitment to rid the bases of hazardous waste by selling off land and physical assets. But federal law requires that bases be clear of hazardous waste before a land transfer and the costs and complexity of cleanup stymied the process. A second wave of optimism began in 1993 when President Clinton focused on the base closure problem, announced an accelerated cleanup program and opened the coffers of the Treasury. About $1 billion was allocated in the last two to three budgets. Although Clinton’s program provided important innovations, the creativity and money are insignificant compared with the obstacles. Why has base cleanup and conversion run into the doldrums?

A recent Rand study points to the overly complex and controversial Superfund hazardous waste law, which has never worked well for the private waste sites it was intended to clean up and forms an even poorer fit with closing military bases. A flat real estate market, antiquated military infrastructure, building codes and a wide array of other hurdles also are involved. But standing above these issues is the relationship between the federal government and the local politics of base conversion.

Large bases, large budgets and high hopes for defense conversion created an unimaginable level of local scrutiny. Exceptionally strong and skilled project management is needed. And the military may be great against Iraq or Libya, but they’re no match for the collage of local groups interested in San Francisco’s Presidio or the golfing lobby near Monterey County’s Ft. Ord.

There is a basic disconnect between local and military interest in closed bases. With the soldiers long gone, closed bases have zero connectivity to military concerns. The military typically leaves behind a small inexperienced staff of civilians who have little support in the military chain of command and little accountability, but still are responsible for shepherding these enormous and politically complex projects.

While this contradiction may be the core of the problem, it’s not the end of the muddle. Throw in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s role as regulator of the cleanup projects, (a role redundant with California’s Environmental Protection Agency) and the military’s new strategy of leasing facilities on the bases (having almost given up on land transfer) and you’ve got a four-part role as financier, regulator, project manager and landlord.

The federal government has correctly pledged to finance the cleanup of its own hazardous waste, although growing costs mean the commitment will inevitably wane. We must quickly and realistically examine new approaches. At a minimum, Congress should recraft the Superfund law to fit the unique characteristics of military bases. We must also reevaluate the four-part federal role. Is it necessary for both the federal and state environmnetal protection agencies to regulate cleanup? It is even possible to remove the military from the process and limit the the federal role to financier. California could accept a single fixed payment in exchange for taking title to the land and to all regulatory and project management responsibilities.

While no single option is right for all bases, it is time to establish, monitor and evaluate new approaches. Congress through appropriate legislation, California through a willingness to take risks and more responsibility, and the Department of Defense through creative design of demonstrations must act quickly.