Extra credit - Stephanie, Zach and Jason

In 2006, the city of Syracuse was named as the seventeenth greenest – or most environmentally friendly – city by National Geographic. National Geographic produces an annual list which assesses cities across the country on environmental proficiency. The magazine chose cities that “are providing energy-efficient, least polluting and healthy living spaces - those cities whose green achievements set the standard for others” (The Green Guide). National Geographic rates each city on eleven environmental criteria ranging from air quality to energy proficiency. Syracuse made the list because of “Good air, smoking bans and commitment to reduce greenhouse gases.” The ultimate irony of this accolade is that about five miles away is Onondaga Lake, the most polluted lake in the country.
When the Industrial Revolution hit Syracuse, the lake’s western shore became a center for industrialization and factories (Onondaga Lake Partnership). Sewage disposal and industrial discharges augmented pollution and left the waters of Onondaga Lake hopelessly contaminated. Soon enough, the lake was so impure that people stopped using the lake for swimming and fishing and the lake was converted into a dumping ground of industrial waste.
In 1994, Onondaga Lake was added to the Superfund list, a program by the Environmental Protection Agency which was created to clean up extremely polluted areas. Superfund sites are all over although not much has been done to clean them.
Superfund was government legislation that has been attempting to cleanup hazardous waste sites throughout the US including Onondaga Lake. The cleanup of Onondaga Lake has been ongoing for awhile, and has slowly cleaned the lake. Being on the Superfund national priority list in the 1990’s helped shut down the factories that were polluting the lake, “The active pollution of the lake stopped when the factories shut down, but work continues on those sites to prevent any more leakage” (Stevenson), meaning that these sites may not be running but they could still be polluting the lake. Onondaga Lake still faces many hurdles before becoming clean enough to fish or swim in.
EPA's ultimate goal is to make Superfund faster, fairer and more efficient, but many variables influence the success of Superfund, so one solution may not satisfy all situations or all people. In the case of Onondaga Lake, businesses, inhabitants, tourists and the government all had stakes in the historical area (Williamson). One study analyzes the factors involved in remediation at Superfund sites, under three models - Administrative Convenience/Transaction Costs, Problem Severity and Political Pressure. Surprisingly, too much community involvement causes decreased remedial progress because local groups tend to burden the federal Superfund program by prolonging the process with lobbies for certain permanent actions. Not surprisingly, an increase in political oversight improves results.
Also, it is found that the EPA is more likely to focus on lower-risk sites, basically sites with cheaper costs. (Daley 375) Only when the government enacted the Federal Clean Water Act of 1972 did the situation of Onondaga Lake become addressed, after over twenty years of overwhelming pollution (Williamson 10). Still, even after this initial act, more action was needed to clean the lake. Today, the Onondaga Lake Partnership continues to work with the government, organizations and the public to limit phosphorous contamination and develop a shared vision for the lake (Williamson 12). The Onondaga Lake Partnership is a large committee consisting of government, public and private interest groups, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. EPA (Williamson 11). Although local community involvement can sometimes be a burden for the federal Superfund program, it can also help if these organizations work with government leaders, like the Onondaga Lake Partnership does. Studies show that if an elected official from a site's congressional district sits on a Superfund oversight committee, this site is twenty percent more likely to be completed (Daley 387).

In 2004, Aerospace giant Honeywell Inc. agreed to spend $451 million to clean up contaminated sediments in Onondaga Lake. Honeywell became the party responsible for the contamination after buying Allied-Signal in 1999. Onondaga County is also currently spending $500 million on a 15-year project to curb discharges of untreated sewage into the lake. The state has spent some $125 million since 1995 to improve water quality at the lake - the federal government has spent more than $100 million on the effort (CorpWatch).
State regulators required Honeywell Inc. to pay for the cleanup after the company tried to implement a more limited cleanup that would cost the company only $237 million, about half of the initial cost. Companies like Honeywell are trying to cut corners on cleanup by choosing a less expensive and as a result, less thorough cleaning of the polluted site (Urbina). In other words, Honeywell is more concerned with its own self-interest that they will not take the initiative to ensure that Onondaga Lake is cleaned up properly unless they are required to do so. But if this was the case, what would be the incentive for corporations to clean up their mess? There needs to be some sort of regulation on Superfund sites stating explicitly who is responsible for clean up so corporations cannot play the blame-game.
The amount of money the agency recovered from those companies has fallen by half in the past six fiscal years, compared with the previous six years” (Sapien). Onondaga Lake is a sad example of this problem. Honeywell is only proposing half what Superfund wants from them, and even then according to Onondaga nation, it will not be enough to truly clean the lake “Capping is not allowed on the Hudson and should be avoided on the Onondaga Lake because it is a Band-Aid approach that will surely fail” (Urbina). According to Onondaga Nation and some experts, the EPA and Superfund is taking the easy way out when it comes to Onondaga Lake
Honeywell’s proposal of $237 million instead of $448 million demonstrates corporations’ unwillingness to devote the necessary time and money to clean up messes because that would cost them money. Because the money is coming out of the pockets of the corporations, they are trying to reduce the cost. According to the Honeywell website, “We are building a world that’s safer and more secure … more comfortable and energy efficient … more innovative and productive.” Honeywell claims that they are trying to build a world that is ‘safer’ however their words do not match their actions. If Honeywell was truly trying to make the world safer, the first thing they should do everything in their power to ensure that Onondaga Lake is cleaned up to the same standard that it once was. If Honeywell really wanted to make the world safer, they could start by disinfecting the lake and purifying the water for swimming and for fishing.
Efforts are being done to clean up Onondaga Lake however only after corporate companies or tax payers are roped into paying for it. If Superfund wants to continue being effective, the EPA needs to come up with a strict list of criteria about who is responsible for the cleanup. Onondaga Lake is one place where there has been some progress but there are other sites are that need assistance but are not receiving any. Onondaga Lake is notoriously known for being overly polluted with industrial waste while other areas might not have the same ostentatious circumstances. This makes me speculate about whether a contaminated body needs to hold the title of ‘the most polluted lake in America for there to be a response.