Big Oil and citizenship

[coboardhead]

To use one of your terms. "Perfection is the enemy of progress". The CLean Water Act (CWA) is, ironically, one of the biggest stumbling blocks for cleaning up the mine discharge using water treatment facilities. Poor performance of the facility puts the designers and operators at risk for not hitting the designated discharge quality.

So, the cleanup may become too expensive. Instead of 90% we get 0 %.

Some areas get around this. Above Telluride steep reductions in acid drainage were realized by diverting the water from contact rather than treatment or bulk heads. An end run on the CWA if you will. Why do we need to resort to these sort of tricks?

Colorado citizens have decided we would rather spend money in other areas than abandoned mine clean up...like education. Simple as that.

[mac]

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Maybe we should let things get to good. Colorado has a $25 billion budget, 35% education and 30% health care. More on corrections than transportation. Yet $1 million--1/25,000 of the budget--on reclaiming mines?

Here's my prediction--citizen groups insist on more, through litigation if not legislative appropriation. Perhaps the corollary is that a crisis never goes to waste?

[isobars]

[techno900]

I can't speak to the solution for the current issues, but I am somewhat familiar with the area. On two different trips to Ouray to rent a jeep, we spent 6 days exploring the area between Silverton, Ouray, Lake City and Telluride, plus a climb of Mt. Sneffels, 14,158'.

In addition, I have skied at Telluride at least 10 times/weeks over the last 20 years (my wife's favorite spot).

The area and it's old mines is spectacular as it stands today. Four wheeling is a very big part of the appeal and a huge tourist draw. Exploring the old abandoned mining communities is a lot of fun in a gorgeous area. There is no place quite like southwest Colorado.

Prior to the Animas river issue, I would venture to say that if you took a sampling of the folks that visit the area and asked them if they were aware of the mine pollution, 99% would say "what pollution".

[coboardhead]

The people who live here will also say the same thing about the contaminants.

I have no doubt that the transplants from CA that are taking over Durango will do exactly what Mac predicts. A friend of mine from Durango...one of this group...has never ventured out as Techno has and so has no understanding of what could be lost with an ill conceived cleanup.

Mac. Government regulators are seen as having too much power as it is. We cannot build a bike trail without having at least 3 agencies involved. We, constantly, fight with regulators to keep the trails open that we have. In my business, the highway department has become impossible to work with as a small firm. This issue has not generated enough interest, until now perhaps, to convince us we need more government.

[coboardhead]

Mac got me interested in what other states spend on abandoned mines. Another state with a huge number of abandoned mines is California. Budget item 3025 was for only $1 million bucks! Also looked at CA regulatory agency that covers mining. $8 million budget? Same as Colorado's?

Mac, are these numbers correct?

[mac]

CB--Some of this I'm going to transfer to the death of journalism story, because I think the coverage of the mine spill was far worse than the mistakes EPA made. But you've asked a fair question about comparing California and Colorado in responding to abandoned mines, which deserves the best answer I can come up with.

As I've poked around a bit on the EPA site looking at their risk assessment, and in particular at the USGS report from 2007, I see that there are some significant similarities between the California and Colorado approaches. (I was trying to prod you into doing some of this on your own, rather than just kvetch about EPA.) Both California and Colorado regulate water quality as an Executive function under the governor. Both have boards that provide policy and priority guidance to the staff. In Colorado, the agency is the Water Quality Control Division, in California it is the State Water Resources Control Board and it's regional boards. Those state agencies administer the State legislation, and the parts of the Clean Water Act that the state is authorized to carry out. Both have been very active in dealing with mine waste--something not clear from the media coverage.

While California is reported to have some 47,000 abandoned mines, and Colorado a little over half that number, not all of those mines continue to be a threat to water quality or public health. Looking at California, a reasonable place to start is EPA's web site, http://www.epa.gov/region9/cleanup/california.html

There is a more finite world of mine clean ups—8 on this list--that seem to be high priority. I know it is incomplete because it does not include the most serious in our region, the New Almaden Mercury mine south of San Jose, and the Leona Heights Sulphur mine in Oakland which we just cleaned up this past year. Most of the sites on this list are being cleaned up as Superfund sites, and you can click on each site to see the status. If you do, you can see that significant actions have been taken on each of these sites, and one of the most serious, the Leviathan mine in Alpine County, where the State of California took over the clean-up, has been stabilized, which reduced loadings 95%, and has additional seasonal remedial actions that reduce loadings another 4.5%. Pretty good start

You need to drill down a bit into each site to get the current status, and the magnitude of the problem. Here’s a link to show the clean up of Leona Heights—a small, but highly acidic source: https://localwiki.org/oakland/Leona_Heights_Sulfur_Mine

From my perspective, and responsibilities in dealing with the Bay Area, our most serious mine contamination problem is the New Almaden district south of San Jose. Largest mercury mine in California, perhaps in the country. Methyl mercury being rendered out of tailings and taken up by organisms. http://explore.museumca.org/creeks/z-mercurymines.html The Regional Board adopted a TMDL that looks at the problem on a watershed basis. A number of different clean-up actions have been completed, and more are scheduled to begin this year. For a more complete status see: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/TMDLs/guadaluperivermercurytmdl.shtml

The Cubs were slaughtering the Giants last night, so I poked around quite a bit on EPA's web site, and in particular in the USGS study on the Upper Animas watershed. What I had not known is that there is a completed TMDL in place for the Upper Animas and Cement Creek watersheds. http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_watershed.control?p_huc=14080104&p_state=CO&p_cycle=2008&p_report_type=

It can be found here: http://ofmpub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_impaired_waters.show_tmdl_document?p_tmdl_doc_blobs_id=63740

It calls for a watershed based approach, developed with stakeholders, to reduce non-point sources. Not terribly robust, but approved by EPA and starts the process.

Either aerial photographs or topographic surveys illustrate the dramatic challenges in the Animas watershed. It is really steep. There were over 400 mines, and mining practices entailed on-site rendering of ore and wholesale dumping of tailings all over the very steep landscape where they have eroded, spread, and leached metals. The water quality monitoring for Cement Creek is scary bad for habitat, but does not appear to pose a direct threat to drinking water supplies. And it appears that EPA and the State have been engaged in a number of different clean-up activities cooperatively since the 1990's. Those include the bulkheading of American Tunnel, which some think led to higher groundwater at the Gold King mine site. Another is the agreement that Sunnyside Gold Company made with the State to remediate a few mine sites in exchange for turning off the Gladstone treatment plant.

[coboardhead]

Mac

Thanks for the in-depth reply.

One way to get anyone in my area wound up is to say "we do it this way in California and you should do it the same in Colorado" I react with much more civility than many here would.

What I was surprised, when you suggested how delinquent my State had been, was how little funding is provided by any of the States. And, how large the problem of identifying, and cataloguing, mining sites is on a national level. Much less cleaning them up.

I supported the EPA doing some sort of superfund when it was brought up again a couple years back. We just wanted it to be named something besides the name of our town and we wanted to know the scope. Crested Butte, Aspen, Telluride all have superfund sites named after the mines or mills. Yet, the locals were getting tweaked with how it might be designated. I have no idea how this started.

I am pretty familiar with the Colorado Water Resource people as I work on projects that need their review. They are more like the "NO" folks. They seem to be in place to tell us we did something incorrectly instead of being helpful. That is fine. But, I don't pretend that they offer much to the mine cleanup process.

That is why the Stakeholders group has been, somewhat successful. The problem, in this instance, I think, had more to do with politics that are now nearly 20 years old between the Feds, State, mining companies and some vested locals. It was a poorly executed plan that, unfortunately, was approved by both the State and the EPA back when.

Now, there may be more political will than we want. This is the perfect scenario for a knee jerk over reaction. This should not have been a taxpayer only cleanup. Now, it has become one.

The Navajos are not going to water their crops next year and are suing the EPA. So, the lawyers will get paid much of the resources.

[isobars]

The owner of the mine that the EPA flushed says EPA documents show that a nearby mine bears 1,000 times the threat his did, that the EPA has known of the threat for 12 years, and that nothing is being done about it.

Like unions, the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, and the DOE, the EPA sounds good on paper and did some great things decades ago. Now -- especially since the Obama administration weaponized them -- they often do more harm than good. This will only get worse if and when Obama pushes their button and turns them loose even further.

[coboardhead]

Isobars hit the nail on the head...for the other thread on the accuracy of news.

The EPA has only really started the study of the complexity of the condition in this particular drainage. Anything this owner claims MUST be taken with a serious amount of salt. No news story should be presented using a source with, clearly, such a vested financial interest in the drainage.

The local stakeholders...the group that has been cleaning up the area...had a meeting last night. I could not attend, but had a pretty good source recap for me. There were a number of news folks at the meeting...we will see about the accuracy of the reporting.

A couple interesting things came out of that meeting. The superfund designation could, actually, delay cleanup. Really, it just means you get on the list.

Also, The proposed original superfund, 20 years ago, was for treatment of the contaminated water. Problem is...the Fed will only fund for 10 years. Then the State is required to take over treatment...forever. The State already feels they have enough of these open-ended commitments.

So, back when the original idea of the superfund was proposed, it was not just local opposition (as our media here would like to portray it). The State wanted a solution without a commitment. So, the mine was plugged and MAY have contributed to the blowout. The mine owner was on board because this was a cheaper fix.

This questionable fix, and the increased flow from the mines adjacent to the Gold King, caused the EPA, State and local group to do the work they were into when the blowout occurred.

Based on what I now know, I think this was a case of bad timing and a poorly planned backup plan for catastrophe. But, in the defense of all involved, after seeing a 3-d model of the mines, this is uncharted territory. There is a high potential for more blowouts.

BTW, it was reported that a couple years ago, there was another spontaneous blowout high up in a basin where a lake contained it. Seems that ice plugs may be a real possibility even without the EPA.