|
 |
|
|
toxic waste
from June 1999 issue of Save All of Ballona
DreamWorks denied exemption from toxic waste laws--for now By Rex Frankel At the April 22, 1999 meeting of the L.A. Regional Water Quality Control Board, the DreamWorks studio project at the Ballona Wetlands was denied a release of financial liability for the toxic wastes that underlie the site. This is the first time a government agency has said no to a sweetheart deal for the firm and the entire Playa Vista development, which has been offered around $600 million in tax dollars, tax breaks and tax exempt housing and infrastructure bonds by the local and state government. The attorney for the water board, Jorge Leon, advised that state law does not allow exempting any current landowner from being responsible for paying for cleanup of hazardous waste on property, even if the landowner wasn't the one who put the toxics there. DreamWorks had sought a Prospective Purchaser Agreement (PPA) which would allow them to purchase about 50 acres at the 1000 -acre Ballona site without worry of being liable for the solvents, gasoline and heavy metals that had been spilled on the ex-Howard Hughes aircraft plant and are fouling local drinking water supplies. Approximately 100 acres at the far east end of Ballona are underlain by contaminated groundwater from 50 years of industrial use by Hughes Aircraft Co. The rest of the land contains wetlands and uplands that are home to over 1100 types of plants and animals. Under the State and federal government's toxic waste laws, all current and prior owners of toxic land can be sued by the government and billed for the cost of toxic cleanups. The PPA is designed to encourage redevelopment of toxic sites by freeing new investors from having to pay for mistakes by prior land owners. By selling the land, the theory goes, the former owners should be able to afford to clean up the toxics. Unfortunately for DreamWorks, they jumped the gun and closed escrow on the Ballona property on Monday April 19. Therefore, before the exemption was finalized they became owners and partially liable for the toxic problem. The PPA would have exempted DreamWorks for not just currently known toxic spills but also for any future problems that may surface. Granting a PPA now, Leon said, is "taking a step too far" and sets a bad precedent. "The key feature of a PPA is our agreement not to sue. We're releasing the parties from responsibility. It puts the burden on the Water Board, and the public to respond to the situation of finding the responsible party." Approving the deal for DreamWorks would open the floodgates for polluters around the state to ask for relief from the law. "How do we address it when any other property owners want an exemption?...It's like a gift of funds. The Board doesn't have the legal authority to do it," Leon said. The Board voted to ask for an opinion on the legality of such agreements from the state's attorney general, Bill Lockyer. Representing DreamWorks was attorney Maria Hoye. Members of the Ballona Ecosystem Education Project, Ballona Wetlands Land Trust, Friends of Animals and Wetlands Action Network were there to defend the ecosystem.
|
