Oil , Oil, Toil and Trouble

Finally the President and I agree on something-government cannot do it all. And the fact of the matter is we don't really want them to.

As much as the tragedy with BP in the Gulf of Mexico makes me crazy with sadness for the damage being inflicted, I am almost as distraught at the political response as I was in the Katrina situation. Although George Bush was a bit quicker on the draw than Barak Obama to go running down there, I am not sure it really makes any difference in the long run. The water kept flowing as does the oil.

As a former environmental regulator I have been there. Sure, our situations were not anywhere near this level of mega-disaster, but we had some pretty tough challenges: algae blooms in Lake Havasu, sewage gushers across the international border at Nogales and false reports from the Scottsdale drinking water quality lab. In all of these cases the government was at least partially at fault. In Lake Havasu thousands of septic tanks were permitted; in the Nogales and Scottsdale cases the local governments were the permittees, the Nogales case being complicated with the fact that the broken sewer line actually crossed the border.

These are complex issues for which a substantial amount of expertise and resources are required. Government can't afford either the former or the latter. But it sure can pretend that it does. There is such a fine line between the practical and the political when government is involved.

The environment is an area where it makes sense to regulate. The impacts, as we can see so vividly in the Gulf mess, are directed at the community. It is more than prudent to hash these issues out in a public forum and debate them in depth, even though we can never quantify all of the true costs. Despite best efforts no regulatory program is fail safe, yet the fact of government regulation gives the public the false sense of a kind of guarantee. Therein lies the crux of the political danger.

There are several reasons why these programs can never really work.

First, we think we know more than we do. We take the expert's word for it because we have no way to counter him. And for sure the worst case scenario cannot be fully vetted because airing the real potential problems is a huge risk if you ever really want to get a permit and as the permittee you are probably the only party with that information.

Second, there will always be human error. No one is perfect and under extreme conditions even less so. I just find it hard to believe that BP would risk this kind of nightmare to save a few bucks on mud or a few parts. Somebody just blew it--big time.

Third, we don't understand the larger picture. It has been said that the reason BP is operating around out there in 5000 feet of water is because the government banned drilling closer to shore in response to concerns about the environmental impacts. At least they have lots of experience in 1400 feet which is by implication a much less risky place to conduct this kind of business, thus proving the adage "be careful what you wish for." Had this potentiality been considered in making the decisions to ban drilling hither and yon (which decisions seem to get made and reversed with an almost knee jerk frequency) and a more comprehensive approach taken with the government serving as the ultimate coordinator to efficiently manage the resource, the proper role for government would be achieved. As it is the politics seem to drive these basic needs determinations.

In its zeal to be on top of it all, the government's failure to put the practical above the political can often be seen as making things worse.

This brings to mind the statement to Congress from the CEO of the West Virginia mining company that recently exploded. The company posits that the government regulators' required changes in the ventilation system, against the advice of the company's own experts, contributed to, if not flat out caused, the gas build up that resulted in the underground devastation that killed so many and closed a facility with a wide economic devastation.

Yep, those armchair pencil pushers know more about this stuff than the folks who do it for a living. I have personal experience with well meaning employees imposing baseless and unsupportable requirements on unsuspecting facilities, in an effort to prove they are doing something important. But many times the obsession with insignificant detail overshadows the larger issue. It takes a well-seasoned professional to appreciate that nuance, a rarity in government—save for the occasional personally dedicated individual, the real experts are making the big bucks in the private sector.

Apparently Obama recognizes that there is not a whole lot the government can do in the BP case. It simply does not have the tools. This is a political reality that it takes a lot of guts to admit; especially with James Carville calling you out on it. (Policy wonks are always at the ready with a criticism but never have a plan in hand.)

How is the President supposed to have a plan? He and his minions are more like the policy wonks than the businessmen, engineers and scientists who work these projects. I applaud Obama for admitting he is not IronMan. That is just a movie. This, sadly, is real life.