What if the Animas River catastrophe had not been accompanied by a visible aberration of the river? The image of the kayakers on the tainted, but somehow oddly aesthetic yellow waters certainly forces attention. But absent the altered appearance of the water, what would the response have been? One can almost shudder at the thought.
Without the river’s yellow coloration, would a contractor have attempted a fix on its own and possibly forgo reporting, figuring it could go unnoticed at least for the while it might take to stop the release? And even if promptly reported, would the lack of a visible marker to the contamination possibly moderate the response given this situation from media and even the EPA itself?
These are obviously uncomfortable questions to ask. But we are a culture of the obvious, so I ask them. Our proclivity is to be more concerned about things that present to us via our senses. Things that present to our senses, more than scientific data, are what become salient and worthy of investigation to most of mainstream media, the public and, well, sometimes even government bureaucracies.
Many folks would likely imagine a stronger response to this catastrophe by virtue of the yellow color. This is unfortunate given the current profusion of mining and drilling project proposals all around the country and particularly in the West, in and around what is all of America’s natural heritage wilderness areas and vitally important water resources. Certainly not all failures of environmental projects come with such a commanding spectacle.
Perhaps now because of the Animas River catastrophe, which is now affecting the San Juan and Colorado rivers, the public will demand more input on projects and more rigorous mining and drilling environmental impact statements before any new mines and oil and gas fields are developed. Hopefully, it will also be the animus for more public insistence on greater protections for all of our cherished natural heritage sites.
Keith Robzen
Boulder
