The Environmental Protection Agency clearly blew it when the Gold King Mine began spewing a heavy-metal cocktail into the Animas River’s headwaters Aug. 5. The on-site crew did not communicate the incident in any sort of cohesive manner, and downstream communities were left scrambling to respond.
Beyond that obvious failure, there remain many questions still to resolve about what immediately led to the mine’s breach, and, more importantly, what protocols were in place and whether they were followed. While the larger, longer-term focus must be on a comprehensive fix for the polluted mine network above Silverton, discerning the lessons from EPA’s mishap is crucial to avoiding similar mistakes elsewhere.
To that end, Rep. Scott Tipton, R-Cortez, and 29 of his Republican colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives, have sent the EPA a lengthy list of questions they would like answered – and promptly; Tipton’s letter requests a reply before the House reconvenes this month. Tipton’s questions, which aim to discern timelines, budgets, chain of command and communications protocols – among other more politically pointed inquiries, are reasonable, and their answers should prove insightful to improving processes going forward, as well as ensuring accountability for the Gold King spill.
Those answers can accompany the findings from an internal EPA investigation, as well as an independent inquiry that the U.S. Department of Interior is conducting. It is critical to examine the episode – and the many practical and policy implications that flow from it – from many angles. It is equally critical that the information each entity gathers is shared – with one another and with the public. Poor communication and clarity are the fundamental criticisms being levied at the EPA in the Gold King spill’s aftermath, and crafting a transparent and comprehensive review process would help dispel that sensibility. It will also be instructive going forward on cleanup efforts throughout the United States’ network of 500,000 abandoned hard-rock mines.
The EPA’s mistakes at the Gold King Mine have drawn ideological criticism of the agency, and too politicized an inquiry could distract from these critical health and safety issues.
The House Natural Resources Committee, whose chairman, Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, has little love for the EPA, will conduct hearings on the incident. The House’s Energy and Commerce Committee is also looking into the matter, and other committee chairs are considering it. Those discussions, too, will help inform the needed improvements that ought to flow from such a comprehensive examination of the spill – but the rush to inquiry is starting to look a little like piling on. To avoid that, the effort must be coordinated and transparent – and geared toward improved policies, not simply agency-shaming.
As the various administrative and congressional inquiries begin, there is an opportunity to maximize the positive – if painfully learned – outcomes of the Gold King Mine spill. To do so, the EPA must commit to fully sharing its steps and missteps, and those asking the difficult questions must resist the urge to diminish the EPA’s value.
