Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Remembering EPA’s Gold King Mine Blowout – Part 2
Townhall.com ^ | September 5, 2020 | Duggan Flanagan

Posted on 09/05/2020 8:32:13 AM PDT by Kaslin

On August 5, five years to the day after suffering from a 3-million-gallon spill of heavy-metal-laden toxic wastewater from Colorado’s Gold King Mine, the State of Utah announced a settlement of its claims against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and several EPA contractors (who thus far have not been held responsible, accountable or liable) for their alleged negligence in allowing the spill.

The notorious, devastating accident turned Cement Creek and the Animas, San Juan and Colorado Rivers yellow all the way from Colorado through New Mexico and Utah and into Lake Powell. The settlement is good news. Yet those whose memories of are faulty at best may not realize that the EPA is still in the throes of a consolidated lawsuit filed by the State of New Mexico, the Navajo Nation, and a group of 295 Navajo farmers and ranchers (and 16 other individuals) who were harmed by the spill.

Indeed, the Obama Administration made it very clear early on that neither the EPA nor the Federal Emergency Management Agency would provide just compensation for the damages caused by the incident, in which an EPA contractor using a backhoe to dig away rock and debris from the adit (mine portal or entrance) opened the floodgates. The spill happened because no one had done any testing to determine the height, volume or quality of water inside the mine. 

While the Navajo Nation hired the California law firm Hueston Hennigan almost immediately after the incident to represent its interests, the State of New Mexico on May 23, 2016, was the first to formally file a lawsuit seeking to recover damages from the EPA and its contractors.  

New Mexico Environment Secretary Ryan Flynn explained, “We tried over seven months to pursue a diplomatic path forward,” but the EPA refused to accept any responsibility for the spill and its aftermath. Flynn estimated that New Mexico would lose $130 million in income, taxes, fees and revenues because of lost tourism, fishing and land use.

The New Mexico lawsuit also named Obama era EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, Environmental Restoration, Kinross Gold Corp., Kinross Gold USA Inc. and Sunnyside Gold Corp as defendants and responsible parties. Another major reason for the lawsuit was that New Mexico and the EPA had been unable to “mutually agree” on a monitoring plan that “appropriately protects” state and tribal lands.

At the time, EPA Region 6 spokesperson David Gray asserted that his agency did take responsibility for the cleanup and was working to reimburse response costs and provide funding for observing monitoring plans developed by the state and tribe. His words held no sway and were not backed up by action.

Meanwhile, the Navajo Nation had its own share of frustrations with the federal response to the incident. According to Nation Attorney General Ethel Branch, “The impact has been devastating to our culture and economy, as well as to the peace of mind of our people. With unknown amounts of fine sediment in our water we now face the risk of reliving this nightmare with every major increased water flow event affecting the river.”

The Nation filed its lawsuit on August 16, 2016, noting that Navajo farmers had had to abandon large portions of their fields in the hopes of salvaging limited plots, and livestock had become dehydrated due to the lack of water that also dried up corn crops.

In filing the lawsuit, Navajo Nation President Russell Begaye complained that the tribe had to fight for even the tiny $1.1 million in compensation provided from the EPA – which came only after the tribe threatened legal action. “EPA, we’re holding your feet to the fire. We will not let you get away with this. We will be here,” Begaye asserted. 

Then in August 2017, the EPA reversed Region 6 Administrator Gray’s admission of responsibility. In February 2018, however, U.S. District Judge M. Christina Armijo opted to leave the now-consolidated lawsuit intact. Two years later, on July 26, 2018, the EPA again asked a federal judge to dismiss the case [and the Utah case], claiming that crews were already working on the cleanup. 

In their filing, the EPA’s attorneys claimed that “Granting any relief in New Mexico, within the Navajo Nation, or in Utah would conflict and interfere with EPA's exclusive jurisdiction over its on-going response action activities and cleanup remedies." [emphasis added] How paying reparations or assisting private, state and tribal cleanup would “interfere with” agency jurisdiction was never explained. 

A month later, EPA was hit with yet another lawsuit, this one filed on behalf of 295 Navajo farmers and ranchers from New Mexico. Attorney Kate Ferlic argued that these farmers and ranchers had lost crops and livestock and had to pay to haul clean water because they could no longer use water from rivers that were still polluted with heavy metals and other dangerous chemicals.

U.S. District Judge William P. Johnson immediately rolled the farmers and ranchers suit into the Navajo and New Mexico (and Utah) suits (there was also a suit involving a small number of New Mexico citizens). Once again the EPA sought to have the reconsolidated lawsuit thrown out. But on February 28, 2019, Judge Johnson denied the EPA’s latest ploy. 

As of this writing, while Utah has settled with the EPA and withdrawn from the consolidated lawsuit, the other claimants – New Mexico, Navajo Nation and two groups of citizens – are still awaiting compensation for the damages caused by the EPA’s alleged negligence in 2015.  

Five years have passed, and the Navajo in particular are still hurting even as they also battle the health, economic and unemployment consequences of the COVID 19 pandemic and forced shutdown of the tribe’s coal mine and coal-fired power plant. Compounding these problems, restrictions on travel and in-person interviews have slowed the ongoing discovery process such that the projected trial date has been pushed back to fall 2021, further postponing any compensation. 

While the Utah settlement may provide some hope for a pretrial resolution of the New Mexico and Navajo (and farmer and rancher) cases, hard-line positions taken over the past five years by the EPA – and the plaintiffs’ determination to finally win some meaningful relief – suggest that, barring some pre-election-day “miracle,” this consolidated case could easily drag on for years.



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: covid19; environment; epa; goldkingmine

1 posted on 09/05/2020 8:32:13 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Imagine if this had occurred when Trump was president

2 posted on 09/05/2020 8:59:12 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets ("Women's intuition" gave us the Salem witch trials and Kavanaugh hearings. Change my mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I remember it well. The EPA’s real world incompetency on full display.


3 posted on 09/05/2020 9:25:36 AM PDT by Liberty Valance (Keep a Simple Manner for a Happy Life :o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Why is there no mention of the editorial that a retired geologist wrote TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE SPILL, that clearly stated it looked like somebody was INTENTIONALLY setting up the flood and the spill to be able to declare the area a disaster and prohibit all future development????

Big surprise that all links to that editorial have been disappeared.

4 posted on 09/05/2020 9:43:12 AM PDT by G Larry (There is no merit in compromising with the Devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

Was that article archived?


5 posted on 09/05/2020 1:40:45 PM PDT by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

I’m checking my sources, but hoping some FReeper has a better filing system.


6 posted on 09/06/2020 7:13:15 AM PDT by G Larry (There is no merit in compromising with the Devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/08/letter-to-editor-predicted-colorado-epa-spill-one-week-before-catastrophe-so-epa-could-secure-superfund-cash/


7 posted on 09/06/2020 9:50:36 AM PDT by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

http://mosteklaw.com/epa-department-interior-gold-king-mine-disaster-part-4/


8 posted on 09/06/2020 9:54:39 AM PDT by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

EPA, the Department of the Interior, and the Gold King Mine Disaster - Part 4
In Part 4 of this series on EPA, the Department of Interior, and the Gold King Mine Disaster we explore an unusual coincidence. The blowout was actually predicted by a retired geologist a week before it happened.

Gold King Mine Disaster Predicted One Week Before It Happened

One week before the EPA dug into the Gold King Mine plug causing the blowout, a letter of warning was published. A retired geologist from Farmington, New Mexico wrote a letter to the editor of the Silverton Standard and Miner in Silverton, Colorado predicting exactly that type of event. Dave Taylor’s letter of warning to the Silverton community was published on July 30, 2015. Taylor stated his opinion that the EPA would intentionally cause mine wastewater to be released in order to secure Superfund money. [1,2,3]

Below are excerpts from his letter, which appear to be prompted by a June 23, 2015 Silverton meeting attended by Mr. Hestmark from the EPA in which the agency proposed to plug nearby mines as part of a “grand experiment”:

***

Based on my 47 years of experience as a professional geologist, it appears to me that the EPA is setting your town and the area up for a possible Superfund blitzkrieg…

Here’s the scenario that will occur based on my experience: Following the plugging, the exfiltrating water will be retained behind the bulkheads, accumulating at a rate of approximately 500 gallons per minute…..Initially it will appear that the miracle fix is working…..

But make no mistake, with in seven to 120 days all of the 500 gpm flow will return to Cement Creek. Contamination may actually increase due to disturbance and flushing action within the workings. The “grand experiment” in my opinion will fail. And guess what Mr. Hestmark will say then? Gee, ‘Plan A’ didn’t work so I guess we will have to build a treatment plant at a cost to taxpayers of $100 million to $500 million (who knows).

Reading between the lines, I believe that has been the EPA’s plan all along. The proposed Red & Bonita plugging plan has been their way of getting a foot in the door to justify their hidden agenda for construction of a treatment plant. After all, with a budget of $8.2 billion and 17,000 employees, the EPA needs new, big projects to feed the best and justify their existence.

I would recommend that anyone who owns a home, property water well or spring in the Cement Creek drainage take water samples ASAP to protect themselves from groundwater changes that may be cause by the EPA plugging operation! God bless America! God Bless Silverton, Colorado. And God protect us from the EPA. [4]

Dave Taylor, Farmington

Whether EPA had a “plan” for the blowout is a matter for debate. But if a geologist from New Mexico, applying his education, training and experience in the field, predicted the calamity one has to wonder why the EPA and all its experts could not foresee and do more to mitigate the risk of this terrible event. In Part 5 of this series, we will examine the decades-long battle between the EPA and Silverton, Colorado over Superfund designation of the area surrounding the Gold King Mine.

Mostek-Logotype-Black

How may we serve you?

Article by: Tami Schmitt

Photo by: Office of Emergency Management in La Plata County Colorado


9 posted on 09/06/2020 9:56:10 AM PDT by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

Obama:

“Never let a crisis go to waste.”

No crisis?

Let’s make one!!!

/sarc


10 posted on 09/06/2020 9:58:27 AM PDT by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Thank YOU!


11 posted on 09/06/2020 9:00:45 PM PDT by G Larry (There is no merit in compromising with the Devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson