Almost as soon as the Gold King Mine began spewing 3 million gallons of polluted water into the Animas River, an inter-jurisdictional debate began as to the extent of the harm to water quality the spill represents. While the immediate danger to human and aquatic life passed relatively quickly with the surge of metal-laden water, the long-term implications of the Aug. 5 event remain uncertain. The chemical makeup of the sediment left behind is a concern, as are the pre-existing and enduring chemical loads that have plagued the Animas River for years. Add to the mix a range of scientific methodologies and agencies, and the scenario becomes even less clear. In order to gain a clear sense of what risks the future holds, a meeting of the scientific minds is essential.
The Environmental Protection Agency has been criticized for many things related to the spill; not least among them is the relative lack of transparency in the agency’s methods and findings with respect to water quality testing. There are very specific questions for which local communities need answers: namely, what are the levels of lead, cadmium, mercury, arsenic, manganese, zinc and iron – both suspended in the water, and contained in the sediment left behind by the spill. The EPA’s answers were slow to arrive, almost certainly owed to an institutional risk aversion that is both frustrating and understandable: Before deeming the river and its contents safe, the agency wanted to be absolutely certain.
However, that certainty is a bit more elusive than it would at first seem. How, where and when water and sediment samples were taken are significant variables that make comparison to other testing efforts – by the state Department of Public Health and Environment as well as by independent research groups – challenging. By extension, that variability makes the data somewhat nebulous to interpret. While the state cleared the Animas for recreational use much sooner than the EPA did, the state data had similarly unclear elements. Add to that the unknown impacts of the remaining sediment – and inconsistencies in how it is being assessed – and the question about the river’s long-term health and safety for consumption, recreational use and irrigation remains murky.
Contextualizing the water and sediment data – in terms of sampling strategy, exposure guidelines, and health effects – would help in clarifying the issue for communities. Coordinated monitoring efforts – at least through data-sharing – would go further still. Without such comprehensive coordination between state, federal and independent monitoring teams – plus transparency to the public – there is a risk that fighting over whose science is right will eclipse the larger question of just how large an impact the Gold King Mine spill has had – and will continue to have – on human and environmental health. There are plenty of opportunities for politics to infuse the conversation surrounding the spill; science should not be one of them. Better to coordinate and cover more ground there – and leave the fighting to the politicians.
