U.S. Military Environmental Impact: Law, Conflict, and Policy

Introduction: Military Activity and Environmental Impact

Military activity affects the environment in direct and indirect ways. This paper examines the impact of military training and readiness activities as well as the impact of armed conflict and war on the environment. Most environmental impact resulting from armed conflict and war occurs in foreign rather than domestic environments. However, military training and readiness activities have the potential to affect both domestic and international environments. Different standards govern the regulation of military activity depending on the geographic, national, and political arenas in which that activity occurs. Another dimension affecting the environmental standards to which the military is held accountable involves the perceptions and attitudes of lawmakers, citizens, and military personnel toward peacetime and readiness operations versus armed conflict and war. This paper explores the nexus of policy, compliance, attitude, and resource utilization.

Several frameworks are used to explore the ways in which the military impacts the environment. One of the most commonly applied models reviews environmental impact legislation and examines the interchange between military forces and the law. This model allows readers to explore a military point of view and the rationale behind attempts to establish exceptions to environmental law. The discussion explores the history and nature of interactions between Congress and military leaders regarding the application of environmental protection laws to the actions of military forces. Within this framework, the military is treated as an industry, with the focus on how it deals with the legal and regulatory pressures of doing business.

A second framework focuses on the impact of the military during wartime or armed conflict. The perspective gained from this framework is useful because it illustrates how the exigencies of making war shape both the physical environment and the mental paradigms of people. To give structure to this discussion, the paper employs four categories of environmental effects attributable to the military: collateral effects, use of environment as a weapon, environmental modification to aid own operations or impede the enemy, and eco-terrorism (Duke, 2010).

Peacetime Environmental Regulation of U.S. Military Installations

The physical environment is affected by the military in a number of direct and indirect ways. In peacetime, through the military's efforts to train forces, maintain readiness, and protect national security, air, land, and water pollution occurs. Land is converted to military use or transferred out of military jurisdiction after having been altered by that use. Armed conflict has immediate and long-term effects that include air, land, and water pollution, harm to animals, and destruction of habitat.

Overseas environmental law. The environmental laws that govern Department of Defense (DOD) installations and facilities overseas are conceptually similar to those in the United States. Some nations have well-developed regulatory systems with clear structure and comprehensive, integrated laws; others do not. "A fine balance of sovereignty is inherent in the basing of foreign forces within a host nation," and this balance is reflected in the interpretation and implementation of environmental laws and requirements for overseas installations. A "unique synthesis" of domestic and foreign viewpoints and standards is melded into a set of requirements that encompasses DOD policy, audits by the General Accounting Office, international treaties and agreements, Presidential Executive Orders, host-nation environmental regulations, and U.S. domestic standards and laws. The implementation of regulations and the perceived obligations of the DOD overseas may be "self-imposed as a matter of policy rather than as a matter of law." Regardless, compliance of DOD installations with environmental regulations in overseas host nations is critically important.

Non-compliance can result in significant consequences. At stake are the long-term relations with the host nation and sanctions or penalties for DOD employees. Host nations retain the right to impose local criminal sanctions on DOD employees who do not comply with their environmental regulations. Furthermore, under circumstances where non-compliance is severe, continued access to the military installation and the continuation of international agreements could be jeopardized. The overseas application of the principle of "environmental security" calls for "sound environmental stewardship as a means to ensure our continued access to installations and facilities vital to U.S. national security" (Phelps, 1996).

How big is the problem? "The world's military forces are responsible for the release of more than two thirds of CFC-113 into the ozone layer" ("sustainable development," 2002, p. 3). "Pollution from aircraft is currently less than 3% of the total environmental pollution" ("online guide," 2006). The Pentagon has been accused of creating five times more toxins than those produced by the five major chemical companies in the United States ("sustainable development," 2002, p. 3), and the U.S. military has been described as the largest single source of environmental pollution in the country. In the decade following the publication of these statements, climate change became a prominent issue with the potential to impact military operations. The armed forces have all released energy and environmental statements, established websites, and participated in summits focused on the environment. Yet, as recently as 2008, when the Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative FY 2008 Defense Authorization proposal was released, the stance of the DOD was clearly one of protecting and extending existing exemptions to environmental laws.

Army and Navy Green Initiatives

Army pollution prevention. The Army's initiative to reduce and prevent pollution at its source is called P2, for "pollution prevention." The goals of P2 are to effectively use resources to decrease the generation of pollutants through avoidance, prevention, and reduction. The areas of emphasis for the P2 program are conservation of resources, waste reduction, recycling, and replacing toxic or hazardous materials with less hazardous alternatives. The following federal, state, and local regulations and requirements, in addition to Presidential Executive Orders, guide and direct the P2 initiative:

The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990; Executive Order (EO) 12856, Federal Compliance with Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements; EO 13101, Greening the Government Through Waste Prevention, Recycling and Federal Acquisition; EO 13123, Greening the Government Through Efficient Energy Management; EO 13148, Greening the Government Through Leadership in Environmental Management; EO 13149, Greening the Government Through Federal Fleet and Transportation Efficiency; the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA); the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); the Clean Water Act (CWA); the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA); the Clean Air Act (CAA); and the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations.

The provisions of P2 affect the Army in three important ways. First, by reducing pollution on military installations at the source, the initiative can reduce the Army's burden of complying with environmental regulations by minimizing or eliminating the conditions that trigger those laws. There is simply less to police and less to remedy. Second, when a P2 initiative is successfully implemented, operational costs are reduced; the reduction of waste and pollution generation saves resources across the board and over time. "The Army P2 program focuses on implementing changes in chemicals, equipment, and processes in order to achieve a meaningful, cost-effective reduction in the generation of pollution without adversely impacting mission readiness" (USAEC, 2010). Third, the Army's implementation of the Environmental Management System (EMS) is enhanced by P2, which works at the origin or potential source of environmental impact to address the significant aspects of an installation before they require remediation. Examples of P2 projects include battery recycling, paint stripping and coating removal, fluorescent light recycling, fuel filter reuse, green procurement, natural gas conversion of boilers, recycling of non-hazardous waste, solvent recycling, waste reduction, and improved weapons cleaning systems (USAEC, 2010).

The U.S. Army Environmental Command and the P2 initiative work together to achieve compliance with environmental regulations. Their day-to-day activities include: integrating P2 into all compliance programs (air management, drinking water management, EPCRA implementation, hazardous waste management, integrated solid waste management, storage tank and spill management, and toxics management); working with the Office of the Director of Environmental Programs (ODEP), Installation Management Command (IMCOM), Army Materiel Command (AMC), and Army National Guard (ARNG) to develop compliance and P2 strategies; integrating P2 into installation EMS planning and execution; documenting and evaluating the performance of P2 initiatives by collecting and sharing success stories and lessons learned; tracking the Army's progress in meeting DOD and Army environmental goals; reviewing all P2-related presidential orders and local, state, and federal requirements; preparing programmatic and media-specific guidance documents; developing tools to assist installations in complying with P2 requirements; maintaining contact with the EPA to stay abreast of current and future initiatives; and representing the Army on DOD committees (USAEC, 2010).

The Navy gets greener. Pentagon expert Jackalyne Pfannenstiel, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy, Installations, and Environment, stated that a "great green fleet" would be tested on a trial basis by 2012. The fleet was to include a group of aircraft carriers powered by nuclear and green fuels. In concert with environmental concerns, strategic and tactical considerations have contributed to the Navy's reduction in power usage at installations and the use of smart meters to gauge future energy use. When motor fuel is transported on the battlefield, it is "incredibly vulnerable" and generates high risk for personnel. Portable solar installations are being deployed in theater. Imported oil is being replaced with lower-polluting biofuels. F/A-18 Hornets and helicopters in the Great Green Fleet, flying on mixtures of jet fuel and biofuels, were anticipated to be fully operational by 2016.

To illustrate the depth and complexity of meeting the ever-changing environmental regulatory requirements to which the DOD must respond, news items from just one issue of the Navy's environmental periodical, Currents (2010), spanning April 9 through June 25, 2010, include: a proposed rule minimizing the use of hexavalent chromium in DOD systems; a final rule on Clean Air Act Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas; a final primary NAAQS rule for sulfur dioxide; standards of performance for stationary internal combustion engines between 10 and 30 liters per cylinder; and a proposed rule on emission standards for commercial and industrial solid waste incineration.

Why War Is a Special Case: Wartime Environmental Effects

References to the Persian Gulf War of 1991 use the term "environmental warfare" as though something new was being declared, but environmental warfare is not new (Dutch, 2010). There is a certain mutuality between war and the environment that is often pushed to the background. The environment in which war is carried out strongly influences — and often dictates — how impactful military activity will be. Dutch (2010) invokes "mountain warfare, jungle warfare, winter warfare" as precedents that identify the environment as the unit of analysis. The discussion that follows uses the conceptual framework developed by Dutch (2010) to describe both the intent and the impact of military action, organized under the categories outlined by Duke.

Collateral damage. There is no direct intention to affect the environment in collateral damage, yet the effects can be widespread and enduring. Collateral damage includes emissions and physical damage from vehicle usage, cratering ("bombturbation") of the ground, vandalism, injury to animals, plants, and ecosystems, chemical contamination, and nuclear accidents (Dutch, 2010). The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan add the issue of burn pits, which are common in theater and contribute to air, surface, and groundwater pollution while posing a direct hazard to service members (Kurera, 2010).

Collateral protection. The environment is sometimes protected by the military. Most commonly, this occurs on military installations that include large tracts of land used in realistic training exercises, where encroachment by human development is undesirable. Camp Pendleton, for instance, is unique in its status as a large protected area of open land within the otherwise densely settled coastal region of California. Other examples include the World War II Siegfried Line and former East European frontiers, where tracts of land have remained largely undisturbed for decades. More recently, the Army has pursued the establishment of Army Compatible Use Buffers, which effectively create green belts around military bases to improve training effectiveness, reduce interaction between military and civilian communications systems, and lessen the impact on civilian neighborhoods and wildlife (USAEC, 2011).

Operational modifications. Nearly all military construction falls into this category, from foxholes to strategic highways to dams. Most environmental modifications made to facilitate military operations are small in scale, as quickly changing conditions and resource constraints generally impede large efforts. The Maginot Line is one notable exception, extending from Switzerland to Luxembourg. Canal cutting was common in the U.S. Civil War. Road building is somewhat more common, with two notable extensive projects occurring during World War II. The Burma Road connected China — where Japanese forces were occupying the coast — to Burma across rugged mountains, permitting supplies to reach China without flying the dangerous route over the Himalayas. In Vietnam, defoliation operations using Agent Orange were used to eliminate the foliage that provided cover to communist forces.

Modifications to impede the enemy. As Duke notes in his taxonomy, it is easier to destroy or disturb environmental features during wartime, so changes to the environment designed to impede enemy forces are common. These modifications include trenches and fortifications, destruction of food supplies and agricultural fields, diversion of waterways, and chemical warfare.

Strategic modifications. Massive projects fall into this category, most of which involve engineering and are intended to serve both military and civilian purposes over the long term, constructed on domestic, friendly, or secure territory. The many attempts to clear the Red River would be placed here, as would the construction of strategic highway systems and canals. Because railway systems in the United States could not meet the logistical needs of the Army in World War I, truck convoys were employed to move soldiers, supplies, and munitions. In 1919, the first truck convoy slowly made its way across the continental United States. Eventually, President Eisenhower signed the act that created the Interstate and Defense Highway System. The Suez Canal and the Panama Canal are waterway examples of this strategic use of the environment.

Use of the environment as a weapon. Until recently, the technology to effectively use the environment as a weapon was largely unavailable to armed forces. That said, in ancient times disease was employed as an environmental weapon. Dead animals and human corpses known to be infected with disease were catapulted over the walls of enemy fortresses and placed in water supplies upon which the enemy depended, requiring proximity between enemy forces and agents of disease.

Environmental terrorism. This is a thoroughly modern construct, as the means to create environmental catastrophe involve modern technology and because the notion of environmental protection is itself a relatively modern concept. At least the indignation — rather than an expectation based on standard operating procedures — over environmental harm as an intentional result of war is modern. The primary reasons for eco-terrorism include reducing the quality of life for the enemy, intimidation or deterrence, and depriving the enemy of the fruits of victory. The Sea Island oil spill and the burning of the Kuwaiti oil wells in the Persian Gulf War of 1991 are unique in being examples of pure eco-terrorism.