Tuesday, Aug. 5, marks the 10th anniversary of the Gold King Mine release above Silverton when EPA contractors accidentally released 3 million gallons of metal-laden water backed up in the mine into a tributary of the Animas River.
By the next day, released metals turned the Animas River bright yellow-orange, and photos of the river were popping up on all national news networks. Metal-infused water flowed through New Mexico, Utah and three Indian reservations down to Lake Powell.
While the release caused economic impacts, the environmental damage turned out to be minimal. The EPA marshaled significant resources in response, spending $30 million over the following year. It monitored the environmental impacts of the release, stabilized the Gold King entrance, installed a flow-through bulkhead in the mine and laid pipe to carry the mine drainage to a quickly constructed treatment plant.
A year after the release, 46 abandoned and inactive mines and two study areas above Silverton were designated as the Bonita Peak Mining District, or BPMD, Superfund site. Since the designation, I conservatively estimate the EPA has spent an additional $110 million, not including legal costs. The EPA has not released estimates itself for years, saying that with multiple funding sources, it doesn’t have a clear picture of how much has been spent. I’ve stated my estimate several times in public meetings with EPA and have received no pushback.
Overall, EPA has spent an estimated $140 million over the last 10 years, and other than continuous treatment of the Gold King drainage, nothing has been done to significantly improve water quality in the Animas River.
In addition to treatment, EPA spending has included characterizing environmental issues related to mining throughout the watershed and mitigating minimal human health concerns at several informal camping areas. They have undertaken maintenance-type projects at a dozen sites where metals could be released to streams. The most significant project is the continuing construction of a large, permanent repository for sludge from the treatment plant.
Before the Gold King release, a large group of stakeholders had worked for 20 years to characterize in stream water quality and metal sources from over a 100 mine sites in the basin. Those sites were prioritized for clean up and several dozen projects were completed.
Data from one major tributary showed 80%-95% reductions for priority metals. Two stream segments now support trout that previously had not, all with far less funding than EPA has spent. Unfortunately, the stakeholders couldn’t address the worst sites because of liability and funding issues.
The Superfund process is primarily designed to support litigation and extract revenue from potentially responsible parties, or PRP’s, not to effectuate quick and efficient environmental cleanup. Deep-pocketed PRP’s can be held liable for all environmental damage at a site, not just what they may have caused directly.
Data collection and remedial actions are extensively planned and documented to withstand court challenges. EPA investigates a broad range of parameters, regardless if they are thought to exist, and follows the evidence wherever it leads, not unlike a well-funded special prosecutor.
Several years ago, an unusual $90 million settlement for the BPMD was finalized by all the major PRP’s. Because of the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service’s liability for mine sites on public lands and EPA’s liability for the Gold King release, the federal government and a major mining company each contributed half the funding, indicating equal liability.
So far, the Superfund cleanup has been slow and costly with little environmental benefit other than treating the Gold King drainage. EPA staff working on site are nice, hardworking people caught up in a process that fosters inefficiency. Their small number makes them heavily dependent on large, high-priced consulting firms incentivized to generate more billable hours. Cutting EPA staff and resources will not improve efficiency. It will simply slow the pace of cleanup.
In addition to the inherent inefficiencies of Superfund, lack of environmental progress at the BPMD can be attributed to site-specific issues. Some of EPA’s site goals are vague and open-ended, allowing for tangential studies and projects. EPA listed many relatively inconsequential mine sites throughout the 146-square-mile basin that they were then obligated to work on. Some of the listed mine sites lie on federal lands, and the managing agencies’ perspectives in terms of remediation differ from EPA’s.
After the Gold King release, Superfund was touted to the local community as the solution to abandoned mine issues in the Animas River Basin, and EPA has committed substantial resources to this site. Unfortunately, any real progress in improving water quality appears to be years away. This Superfund site continues to plod along like many other sites around the country.
Peter Butler, of Durango, is the former coordinator of the Animas River Stakeholders Group, has a Ph.D. in natural resource policy, and has been involved with Colorado water issues for 40 years. This article originally appeared in The Colorado Sun, a reader-supported, nonpartisan news organization dedicated to covering Colorado issues. To learn more, go to coloradosun.com.
