State needs to reconsider tank law

Former race car driver and inventor John Fitch has been through some trying experiences in his life. He was a fighter pilot during World War II and a prisoner of war. Later, as a driver in the 24 Hours of Le Mans race in 1955, he watched helplessly as 82 people perished in the worst motorsports accident in history.

But, at age 90, nothing has prepared him for the prospect of financial ruin, as a story by Terry Cowgill in last weeks Lakeville Journal made clear. A pair of 1,000-gallon underground heating oil tanks on his property have been leaking for years, prompting demands from the state Department of Environmental Protection that he pay for the remediation of the site and the disposal of 2,000 tons of contaminated soil removed, along with the tanks, by his excavation contractor.

Since the tanks were already in the ground when Fitch and his wife Elizabeth bought their Lime Rock home in 1958, you'd think they would be free of substantial liability, especially since Fitch took the initiative in investigating the matter and reporting it to the authorities last fall. Now, since the DEP is requiring that he finance the whole remediation project, Fitch is having second thoughts about doing the right thing. The price tag for the disposal of the excavated soil alone is in excess of $100,000. If, as the DEP wants, Fitch pumps the water out from the excavation pit in an effort to remove yet more soil, the price could soar. This is on top of the $10,000 Fitch has already spent on contractors who have detected no contamination of nearby wells.

The lack of relief stems from the unwillingness of the state to fund the remediation of residential properties through the DEP's Underground Storage Tank Petroleum Cleanup Account, which currently covers only sites which are current or former businesses.

Another similar and recent fiasco in the Northwest Corner was ultimately resolved when Cornwall's Monte and Liane Dunn were able to tap into the cleanup account because their property was previously used as a gasoline station. But those whose residential property never had an industrial past are left out in the cold. Remarkably, it hasn't always been that way. The General Assembly voted to discontinue the residential component of the program about five years ago because members suspected it was being abused.

"It was born of noble intentions - which was to help people do the right thing," State Sen. Andrew Roraback (R-30) told The Journal. "But we did an analysis of who was taking advantage of the program and there were a lot of fancy addresses on that list."

But common sense tells us that if unworthy applicants are abusing a program, then the state should take action against the abusers - not discontinue the program altogether. After all, the state's Department of Revenue Services has comprehensive financial data on all Connecticut residents, so if a hedge fund manager from Darien wants taxpayers to fund his tank removal, then it would be easy to means-test applicants to the program and weed out those who can easily afford to fix the problem without public funds. There should be a way to cap a homeowner's liability keyed to one's personal income and resources. Should private residents be under threat of bankruptcy, or worse, because environmental laws have changed since they bought their homes?

Eager as always to help one of his constituents, Roraback said he would be happy to introduce legislation allowing for residential funding, but he did not want to give Fitch "false hope" that it would pass. Fitch said an attorney he consulted has told him there are likely thousands of underground oil tanks in the state. And even if only a fraction of them are leaking, the bill could be enormous.

At best, the current unwillingness of the state to fund residential cleanups seems discriminatory. At worst, to use the words of Roraback himself, "the system works a grave injustice." We strongly urge the General Assembly to take up the issue after it goes into session later this month.