The Animas River...an Update

The Animas River...an Update

   Normally, I try to let a subject drop once covered; but this recent spill into the Animas River has become somewhat of a microcosm for showing the depths and tangents of any subject.  Here are just two comments received on the site, Common Dreams about the recent toxic mining spill on the river in Colorado: 1) I wonder if this was intentional...the EPA is basically an arm of corporate industrial America...they have now ruined a river that people depend on...Native people...more genocide? The people responsible for this should be arrested...and after they work their fingers to the bone cleaning this up they should be imprisoned for life.  And 2) They did not ruin the river - a Google Earth visit to the area shows that the reach below the mine and well downstream from Silverton had been badly acid-impacted and mostly dead for a while.  They tried to get this area listed as a site eligible for superfund money - but the local tourist businesses loudly protested.  The EPA could have done nothing, and the problem would have been just as bad, it would have only taken a little longer.  Life is not simple, and a little understanding by the populace of the technical issues involved would go a long way.

  While reminiscent of a political debate, comments such as those above signal the divide that arises in most any situation, from a neighborhood dispute to a national tragedy.  One bit of good news is the quick path nature is taking to return the river flow to its normal state, something announced yesterday.  But it is such division that usually brings about an understanding, or a bit more detail of what behind the problem.  Here are two examples, the first being from Smithsonian.com and elaborating on how the simple act of mining can produce such toxic waste: The process begins when groundwater, rainwater and snowmelt, kept in check by pumps while the mine operates, fill up the tunnels once the site is abandoned.  The water mixes with pyrite (iron sulfide) and the mine's air to produce hydrogen ions and sulfates—which pair up to form sulfuric acid.  As if that acid isn't bad enough, it soon goes to work dissolving metals like iron, aluminum and manganese, as well as metalloids like arsenic, from the rocks commonly found in and around mines.  “Toxic metals are most soluble when the acidity is high, when the pH levels are low,” Cohen explains (Ronald Cohen, a professor at the Colorado School of Mines and at North-West University in South Africa) . “So when the pH goes down to pH 3, pH 2, the metals are very soluble and the acid sort of feeds back to dissolve those metals and make the water even more toxic.”  Once a volume of watery toxic waste forms, the job of handling it safely becomes very difficult.  The first step, Cohen notes, is to try to keep waste inside the mine until it can be removed and treated at a controlled rate.  “You put a cork in it,” he says.

   And as mentioned earlier, the Animas river spill is far from the first mining spill, and quite likely, destined to be equally far from the last.  To understand why, this opinion piece by Lauren Pagel which appeared CNN.com, cites a report on the spill from Earth Works and the 1872 Mining Law still on the U.S. government books:  Earthworks estimates that there are over 500,000 abandoned and inactive hardrock mines strewn across the country, with a hefty price tag attached to their clean up -- $50 billion, according to an EPA estimate.  Western communities face significant burdens associated with these old mines -- ranging from a disaster from a failed cleanup like the one that occurred last week, to more persistent water pollution issues, and the ever-present danger of improperly secured underground mines that pose a serious threat to public safety.  At least 40% of the streams feeding the headwaters of Western watersheds are polluted from mining.  That's because many mines -- like Gold King -- have significant acid mine drainage problems, which can persist for thousands of years if left untreated...The reason for the lack of action is the antiquated law, 143 years old and counting, that still governs hardrock mining on public lands throughout the West.  President Ulysses S. Grant signed the 1872 Mining Law to help settle the West.  And even though the West has surely been settled, this law is still on the books -- unchanged.  It allows corporations, foreign and domestic, to take public minerals, owned by us, the taxpayers, for free.  It contains no environmental provisions, requires no cleanup after mining is over, and unlike the law governing coal mining, does not require hardrock mining companies to pay a fee to clean up the legacy of pollution.  This archaic law is why funds to clean up mines like Gold King remain limited, despite the magnitude of the problem, putting safe drinking water and our healthy environment at risk.  A steady stream of long-term funding for hardrock mine cleanup, similar to the coal industry's abandoned mine fee, is essential to dealing with the scope of the problems we face from mine pollution. 

   Sometimes, it takes a disaster or something shocking, to bring about change; and change usually starts with discussion.  One may agree or disagree with the other's statements, but such views might at least stir a spark of thought.  This was recently highlighted in a piece by Lisa Bramen on sustainable logging in the magazine, Nature Conservancy.  Tom Kollasch is a program director at one of their forests (the Nature Conservancy's mission is "to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends.  We envision a world where the diversity of life thrives, and people act to conserve nature for its own sake and its ability to fulfill our needs and enrich our lives."): Providing jobs and continuing to allow recreational access on Conservancy land has helped build trust in communities where suspicion of environmentalists can run deep.  Kollasch recounts a story from his early days at Ellsworth (a forest preserve in the state of Washington), when a man in a truck pulled over outside the preserve to talk.  “I’m a logger, and you’re just going to lock this up,” barked the man, who was so upset he was shaking.  “You people will never be accepted here,” he said...Kollasch says he laid out the Conservancy’s plans for re-storing Ellsworth, “and by the end of it, he shook my hand.”

    Such understanding comes about slowly, but (one hopes) does come about.  In the now-revealed post-Vietnam War story about the then leader of the Viet Cong and the views of then Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, the leader, not knowing why the U.S. was so involved and why they couldn't grasp the level of resistance, allegedly says to McNamara, "why didn't you just ask us?"  McNamara, in his book, In Retrospect, reviewed by the NY Times among others, writes that, "We were wrong, terribly wrong."  The CIA debates this view (and makes for interesting reading, quite the world away from Hollywood's version).

   Remember the phrase, "can't we all just get along?"  An accident can seem purposeful, or it can seem an accident.  Much of the view comes from the eye of the beholder...but sometimes, listening to differing sides can bring about a softening lens.  History has much to teach us...but we have to be willing to sit and listen, and hopefully learn.  In the words of Leo Tolstoy, "Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself."