Log in

View Full Version : The EPA is a Joke (& not a very good one)



rockgremlin
01-13-2017, 08:03 PM
This is infuriating. Since when is the EPA above the law? If anyone else pulled this crap they would be litigated into eternity.

Environmental Protection Agency....yea, right.


EPA Says it Can't Pay Damages From Mine Spill

DENVER — The Environmental Protection Agency announced Friday it will not repay claims totaling more than $1.2 billion for economic damages from a mine waste spill the agency accidentally triggered in Colorado, saying the law prohibits it. The EPA said the claims could be refiled in federal court, or Congress could authorize payments.

But attorneys for the EPA and the Justice Department concluded the agency is barred from paying the claims because of sovereign immunity, which prohibits most lawsuits against the government.

"The agency worked hard to find a way in which it could pay individuals for damages due to the incident, but unfortunately our hands are tied," EPA spokeswoman Nancy Grantham said.

The EPA said it has spent more than $31.3 million on the spill, including remediation work, water testing and payments to state, local and tribal agencies.

A total of 73 claims were filed, some by farmers who lost crops or had to haul water because rivers polluted by the spill were temporarily unusable for irrigation and livestock. Rafting companies and their employees sought lost income and wages because they couldn't take visitors on river trips. Some homeowners sought damages because they said their wells were affected.

"We had direct revenue losses of $50,000-plus," said Alex Mickel, owner of Mild to Wild Rafting in Durango, Colorado. Mickel said the EPA had left him with the impression it would compensate for economic losses.

"That just amazes me that they would do just a complete reversal," he said in an interview.Mickel said he would consult with his attorney on his next move.

The August 2015 spill at the Gold King Mine in southwestern Colorado released 3 million gallons of wastewater tainted with iron, aluminum, manganese, lead, copper and other metals. The Animas and San Juan rivers in Colorado, New Mexico and Utah were polluted, with stretches of waterway turning an eerie orange-yellow.

Navajo Nation President Russell Begaye said the nation would keep pushing for compensation.

"It was devastating to both the Navajo Nation and to the farmers," he said. "Even today, people still question if the water is clean enough for farming, livestock or human consumption."

The EPA has said water quality in the rivers has returned to pre-spill conditions.

Members of Congress expressed anger and disappointment at the EPA decision. New Mexico Sens. Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich and Rep. Ben Ray Lujan, all Democrats, accused the agency of reneging on a pledge.

"We are outraged at this last-ditch move by the federal government's lawyers to go back on the EPA's promise to the people of the state of New Mexico — and especially the Navajo Nation — that it would fully address this environmental disaster that still plagues the people of the Four Corners region."

Members of Colorado's congressional delegation said they would introduce legislation to repay economic damage.

"When the law allows the government to hide from those whom it has harmed, the law must change," Colorado Republican Sen. Cory Gardner said.

An EPA-led contractor crew triggered the spill while doing exploratory excavation work at the mine entrance in advance of a possible cleanup. Gold King is one of hundreds of inactive mines in the Colorado mountains that continuously spew polluted water into rivers or have the potential to do so.

The EPA has designated the area a Superfund site to pay for a broad cleanup. Initial research is underway.

State, federal and tribal officials have been harshly critical of the EPA for causing the spill and for its handling of the aftermath, including the costs. The Navajo Nation and the state of New Mexico have already sued the agency in federal court, and other lawsuits are likely after Friday's announcement.

Last month, the EPA said it would pay $4.5 million to state, local and tribal governments to cover the cost of their emergency response to the spill, but the agency rejected $20.4 million in other requests for past and future expenses, again citing federal law.

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=42862104&nid=148&title=epa-says-it-cant-pay-damages-from-mine-spill

Iceaxe
01-13-2017, 08:20 PM
That's been the law forever.... in the short easy to understand version you basically can't bring a lawsuit against the Federal government unless they give you permission to do so.

rockgremlin
01-17-2017, 05:51 PM
Just spent a good hour perusing this very well done slide show outlining the history of the Gold King mine. From my perspective, the EPA acted rashly and irresponsibly. There were several different ways to approach this problem, and they chose the most foolish.


http://www.hcn.org/issues/48.7/silvertons-gold-king-reckoning/a-gold-king-mine-timeline

BruteForce
01-17-2017, 06:20 PM
The EPA is a joke. They claim to be for the environment, but violate their own tenants at every turn. Had they done actual research, they would have seen that Diesel emissions -v- fuel waste on Diesel truck emissions was a joke.

2008+ truck with EPA Emissions = 10-12mpg and minimal emissions, but burns a ton of fuel
2008+ truck without emissions systems in place = 17-25mpg and no emissions unless the drivers = jackass and rolls coal

So, which is worse?

I heard the EPA asked folks in Alaska to stop burning wood to stay warm...what a joke!

Rob L
01-18-2017, 03:15 PM
You could replace "EPA" in the above posts with "NRA" and "mines" with "lead" and "pollution" with "gun deaths" and you'd nearly get the same article.

:2guns:

Iceaxe
01-18-2017, 03:27 PM
You could replace "EPA" in the above posts with "NRA" and "mines" with "lead" and "pollution" with "gun deaths" and you'd nearly get the same article.

:2guns:


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg/300px-Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg

Brian in SLC
01-18-2017, 03:45 PM
You could replace "EPA" in the above posts with "NRA" and "mines" with "lead" and "pollution" with "gun deaths" and you'd nearly get the same article.

:2guns:

And, it'll still be Obama's fault.

Air quality in Salt Lake City has been a joke for quite awhile...take a deep breath boys and girls...gonna be a bumpy ride...

Rob L
01-18-2017, 04:29 PM
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg/300px-Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg

Now why did I think I'd get just that response? :naughty:

rockgremlin
01-18-2017, 04:39 PM
You could replace "EPA" in the above posts with "NRA" and "mines" with "lead" and "pollution" with "gun deaths" and you'd nearly get the same article.

:2guns:

Nice troll.

A third grader with even a shred of common sense could identify how patently idiotic the EPA's actions were in handling this issue.

And then for the EPA to turn around after they screwed up and tell everyone they're untouchable and immune to lawsuit. Absolutely sickening.

Brian in SLC
01-19-2017, 10:39 AM
Nice troll.

A third grader with even a shred of common sense could identify how patently idiotic the EPA's actions were in handling this issue.

And then for the EPA to turn around after they screwed up and tell everyone they're untouchable and immune to lawsuit. Absolutely sickening.

Bigger picture out there to consider?

http://www.foreffectivegov.org/blog/congress-slashes-epa-budget-again-despite-strong-public-support-strengthening-health-protection

Water it down and take away funding...you get what you got.

I'd guess we can look forward to more of it in the future.

rockgremlin
01-19-2017, 11:41 AM
Bigger picture out there to consider?

http://www.foreffectivegov.org/blog/congress-slashes-epa-budget-again-despite-strong-public-support-strengthening-health-protection

Water it down and take away funding...you get what you got.

I'd guess we can look forward to more of it in the future.


Pretty soon the EPA won't be able to afford to pay out lawsuits...or to pay incompetent contractors.

Still, the EPA is far from bankrupt, and I think they need to be accountable for their actions. Hiding behind this "sovereign immunity" clause is shameful and cowardly. If any mining company pulled the plug on that dam they would not only be paying out massive lawsuits, but there's a good chance the operator would've been brought up on criminal charges.

Brian in SLC
01-19-2017, 02:49 PM
If any mining company pulled the plug on that dam they would not only be paying out massive lawsuits, but there's a good chance the operator would've been brought up on criminal charges.

What's bankrupt is the process that didn't declare that area a Superfund site.

EPA didn't create the mess...they just f'd up the tail end of it while trying to clean it up.

I'm sure the mining company would find a way to not be liable too.

Oh well...the solution to pollution is dilution...ha ha.

rockgremlin
01-19-2017, 03:44 PM
What's bankrupt is the process that didn't declare that area a Superfund site.

EPA didn't create the mess...they just f'd up the tail end of it while trying to clean it up.

I'm sure the mining company would find a way to not be liable too.

Oh well...the solution to pollution is dilution...ha ha.


I think the reason for no superfund designation is because once that designation has been made, it sterilizes the area against future mining activities...and there's still recoverable gold reserves in them thar hills. They wanted to maintain access to those gold reserves in the future, but wouldn't be able to do that if the feds were in there cleaning up the place.

From a mining engineering perspective, there are many unique challenges that this situation presents. This area has a very dynamic aquifer, and holding it back is gonna require a boatload of cash. There's no way to prevent mine water from leaking into the Animas River unless every single tunnel and every single adit is plugged with a Hoover Dam-esque dike holding the aquifer back. And since that's obviously not going to happen, then you've gotta regulate the water flow, and then impound and treat it before releasing it into the environment. This was being practiced to some extend all along. There just wasn't enough money to maintain that practice long term -- especially when the mines were idle. This is what I mean when I say it's gonna be expensive -- cuz they can't just slap a band aid on it and have it be fixed forever. They're going to have to regulate flow, impound, and treat that water indefinitely. Or at least until the mine water emissions cease to carry heavy metals -- which could take a very long time.

Scott P
01-19-2017, 04:06 PM
I think the reason for no superfund designation is because once that designation has been made, it sterilizes the area against future mining activities...and there's still recoverable gold reserves in them thar hills. They wanted to maintain access to those gold reserves in the future, but wouldn't be able to do that if the feds were in there cleaning up the place.

It was more than that. Although there is still probably recoverable gold in the Silverton area, tourism is now king. There are no active mines left in the area. Silverton is very much a big tourist town and destination (including the terminus of one of the most famous tourist landmarks in Colorado-the Durango Silverton RR). The town feared (perhaps justifiably) that designating the town as a Superfund site would damage the town's reputation and tourist industry, thus for years the town has been against the designation. Of course the town reversed its decision after the spill.

Other than the bulkhead blowout at the Gold King Mine, the mine wasn't that unique in that it is filled with toxic water. There are thousands of such mines all over the mountains of Colorado.

Iceaxe
01-19-2017, 04:37 PM
I'm sure the mining company would find a way to not be liable too.

Protecting certain types of companies (Construction being one) is actually simple and is very common in many forms of industry. To do it you create two companies. The first company is the one that does the actual work and signs the contracts but owns no hard assets. The second company owns all the hard assets (cars, trucks, computers, bulldozers, ect). You also keep very little money in the the first company.

Now here is how it works.... The first company leases or rents all assets from the second company. You can even have the first company rent employees from the second company. If anything goes wrong (say a bridge or mine collapses and kills 20 people) all the hard assets and money are protected in the form of a firewall between the first and second company.

That and no one wants to sue you if you don't have any money or deep pockets they can stick their hand into.

Of course this wouldn't be required if we didn't live in a litigation happy world where you can get sued for serving coffee that is too hot and other dumb shit.

:soapbox:

Brian in SLC
01-19-2017, 07:10 PM
Of course this wouldn't be required if we didn't live in a litigation happy world where you can get sued for serving coffee that is too hot and other dumb shit.

Hey, that coffee was like molten lead, served by the rim through the drive though...

http://www.gruberlawgroup.com/the-mcdonalds-hot-coffee-case-distortion-reform/

Look at the photo's...bon appetite!

Yeah, tort reform...

As an aside...did my college thesis on Silverbow Creek outside of Butte, America. Good times!