Gold King Mine spill

This article does not receive scheduled updates. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia. Contact our team to suggest an update.

State environmental policy
U.S. environmental policy
Endangered species policy
State endangered species
Federal land policy
Environmental terms

The Gold King Mine spill occurred at the Gold King Mine—an abandoned mine near Silverton, Colorado—in August 2015. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) personnel and a company under EPA contract triggered the release of toxic wastewater in an attempt to remove such wastewater from the mine. More than 3 million gallons of mine wastewater, including heavy metals and other toxic materials like arsenic, emptied into the Animas River.

Though the EPA took responsibility for the incident, several groups and legislators have criticized the agency for its handling of the spill, which affected waterways in Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah as well as waters used by the Navajo Nation.

HIGHLIGHTS

Critics of the EPA's role in the spill have questioned whether the agency took proper precautions before it had started work on the mine.

An October 2015 investigation by the U.S. Interior Department found that the spill could have been avoided if the EPA had monitored water levels inside the mine before it began digging.

In November 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court asked the Justice Department to weigh in on New Mexico's lawsuit against Colorado over the spill.

Background

Entrance to the Gold King Mine

In August 2015, waste from an abandoned gold mine in Colorado spilled into the Animas River, a tributary of the San Juan River, when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) attempted to remove wastewater from the mine. Crews supervised by the EPA were excavating the Gold King Mine's entrance when acidic wastewater began pouring into a creek emptying into the Animas River; it took about one hour for the spill to be contained. The EPA reported that water samples taken from the creek contained heavy metals such as cadmium and lead. The spill led to temporary closures in areas with drinking water supplies and prevented cropland irrigation in various areas. The EPA began its official investigation of the spill on August 17, 2015.

The Animas River within 24 hours of the spill

The Gold King Mine spill came a few months after a March 2015 spill in Greensboro, Georgia, in which EPA-funded contractors were using a backhoe to level the future site of a low-income housing complex. The contractors struck a water main that sent contaminated water from a 19th-century cotton mill into a nearby creek, which eventually sent soil and water polluted with arsenic, chromium, lead, and mercury into the Oconee River and Lake Oconee. Heavy rains managed to wash the contaminated soil out of the creek.

EPA response for other projects

On August 12, 2015, the EPA suspended cleanup activities at 10 polluted mines in four states following the Gold King Mine spill, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press in September 2015. The conditions at the 10 mines, which are located in California, Colorado, Montana, and Missouri, resembled those that led to the Gold King Mine spill. The EPA exempted sites where halting its activities would result in a health risk or environmental damage by the stop-work order. Two sites in northern California, the Leviathan sulfur mine and Iron Mountain metals mine, were among these exempted sites. Operations at those mines include collecting and discharging wastewater for treatment.

Additionally, cleanup work was temporarily stopped at the Standard Mine in west-central Colorado. The mine's wastewater periodically spills over into an impoundment (a reservoir created by a dam), and the mine could blow out in a way similar to the Gold King Mine. However, the EPA said it did not consider the mine at risk to do so. Meanwhile, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment stated that the mine's wastewater leaking was not considered a major health risk. Work at the Standard Mine resumed on September 4, 2015.

EPA payments

On December 9, 2016, the EPA announced it would pay $4.5 million to states, localities, and American Indian tribal governments affected by the spill but rejected claims totaling $20.4 million to cover state, local, and tribal expenses. The EPA also rejected claims requesting payment for attorneys' fees, prospective water quality monitoring, and travel to Washington, D.C. to testify before Congress. Additionally, the Navajo Nation in November 2016 sued the EPA, requesting $162 million to cover the costs of the spill, including $3.1 million for unreimbursed costs and $159 million for water development projects and monitoring. In response, the EPA said that the tribe had filed a claim for just $1.4 million and would receive $603,000 in reimbursements. According to The Associated Press, "The difference in the EPA and Navajo figures couldn't immediately be reconciled."

The EPA previously paid the Navajo Nation approximately $90,000 immediately after the spill to deliver water to affected areas, but the agency argued that the river's quality had recovered to its pre-spill condition by September 2015. Projects requested by the Navajo Nation and rejected by the EPA included a $250,000 project to replace water supplies taken from the San Juan River. Meanwhile, the EPA agreed to reimburse cities and state agencies in New Mexico for a total of $1.1 million. However, the agency rejected other requested reimbursement payments in New Mexico totaling approximately $236,000.

Initial reactions

Organizations

The EPA has been widely criticized by different political organizations for the spill. Some groups accused the EPA of downplaying the extent and impact of the spill in the agency's initial statement. These critics argued that the EPA's response underestimated the spill's effects on water quality and endangered species. The Center for Biological Diversity, a nonprofit group that favors federal protection for a greater number of endangered species, stated that the "EPA's downplaying of potential impacts is troubling and raises deeper questions about the thoroughness of its mine-reclamation efforts." The junction of the Animas and San Juan rivers is a habitat for the Colorado pike minnow and the Razorback sucker, two fish species listed as endangered. The organization further stated, "The fact that fish populations in the upper Animas have already been decimated by mining pollution offers no comfort to concerns about pollution impacts farther downstream. … These species are hanging by a thread, and every new bit of toxic exposure makes a bad situation worse." Meanwhile, Dan Kish, senior vice president for policy at the Institute for Energy Research, a nonprofit group that supports free market energy policies, said, "It raises serious questions about competency. … It couldn’t have happened at a worse time, from EPA’s perspective, in terms of trying to push their agenda on many other items, including the Clean Power Plan." Kish further stated, "The EPA has many people and groups that they fund that support them, and therefore the EPA is very, very concerned about brand loyalty." the EPA's response "raises serious questions about competency."

Legislators

Federal legislators criticized the EPA over its response to the spill. Below are the reactions of members of Congress from Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah, and others.

• U.S. Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) said, "Based on an initial review of the report, I am deeply troubled that not only was the EPA found responsible for the release of millions of gallons of toxic waste into the Animas River, but it could have been prevented." Gardner further stated, "I fully expect accountability and transparency from the EPA, and I look forward to a response to my questions surrounding the EPA’s insufficient and untimely recovery efforts and its proactive measures to prevent a disaster of similar magnitude in the future."

• Then-Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) said, "This EPA spill is very serious, as is the EPA’s slow response. … The Obama administration must do everything in its power to protect the lives and livelihoods of the people in the affected states."

• Rep. Scott Tipton (R-Colo.), whose district contains the mine, criticized the EPA's lack of technical expertise in handling the cleanup, calling it "obviously a glaring weakness."

• Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) said, "The Gold King Mine spill caused significant damage to the environment and economy in southwest Colorado. It is our hope that recommendations in the report will lead to improved processes for remediating mines so this type of accident doesn't happen again. It's also critical we hold the EPA and individuals accountable for any gross mistakes or negligence." Bennet further stated, "In addition to reviewing the findings, we will continue to work on Good Samaritan legislation and hard rock mining reform to help clean up these mines and reduce the risk they pose to communities throughout Colorado."

• The six U.S. senators from Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah sent a letter to the EPA requesting an investigation into the agency's role in the spill. The letter stated, "It is our belief that there was a lack of transparency, coordination and communication in the events leading up to and following EPA's spill of approximately three million gallons of contaminated water into Cement Creek and the Animas River."

Investigations

Congressional hearing

On September 17, 2015, the House Committee on Oversight and the House Committee on Natural Resources held a hearing on the spill.

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy testified, "I would argue that we should have done it better. Are we trying to do better? Yes." McCarthy said that the agency would attempt to speed up the process of informing states and tribes of any accidents or spills that may affect them.

U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chairman of the House Oversight Committee, said that the EPA's communication to the Navajo Nation lacked transparency and that the agency should have immediately contacted the tribe after the spill. Chaffetz asked McCarthy, " What's your excuse for that?" McCarthy responded, "Sir, I admitted our response could have been better. We did take a day. I regret that. I wish it would have been earlier." .

Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said that the EPA violated federal law by failing to notify the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service about how the spill could damage endangered species habitats.

Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-Mo.), a member of the House Oversight Committee, said that the hearing was being used to blame the EPA for the spill rather than the companies that own the mines. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), the Natural Resource Committee's most senior member, said that Republican lawmakers wrongly blamed the EPA because of its presence at the mine during the spill rather than the mining companies' responsibility for the Gold King Mine's condition.

Navajo Nation President Russell Begaye said at the hearing that the EPA had caused the spill and mismanaged the cleanup of rivers and tributaries, stating that the spill had "unknown physical, chemical, biological and economic effects" on the Navajo Nation.

Interior Department investigation

An October 2015 investigation by the U.S. Department of the Interior faulted the EPA for the spill. According to the report, the EPA cleanup crew had failed to acknowledge the complex engineering of its work, which ending up causing the blowout.

In the 132-page report, federal investigators found that the spill could have been avoided if the EPA had monitored water levels inside the Gold King Mine before it began digging. "A collapsed flooded mine is in effect a dam, and failure must be prevented by routine monitoring, maintenance, and in some cases remediation. ... However, there appears to be a general absence of knowledge of the risks associated with these facilities," according to the report. The report estimated that the total cost of containing and remedying the spill could total $50 billion.

After the blowout, the EPA's own investigation found that the spill was "likely inevitable." Meanwhile, the Interior Department report contradicted the EPA's statement. The department identified EPA documents showing that EPA officials knew in June 2014 about the mine's potential to cause a spill. The department's report also found that the EPA crew could have prevented the spill by drilling differently into the mine tunnel. "This error resulted in development of a plan to open the mine in a manner that appeared to guard against blowout, but instead led directly to the failure," the report stated. The EPA responded that the mine was already leaking at its entrance and could have blown out despite the crew's actions, a claim that the Interior Department acknowledged as a possibility.

The full Interior Department report can be found here.

Legislation

On December 8, 2016, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a provision requiring the EPA to process all damage complaints from states, localities, and American Indian tribes affected by the spill within 180 days if the bill is enacted. The provision was passed as part of a bill—known as the Water Resources Development Act—to maintain and improve water infrastructure nationwide. Additionally, the bill allows federal funding for water quality monitoring in areas affected by the spill. The bill passed the House by a vote of 360 to 61. On December 10, 2016, the U.S. Senate passed the bill by a vote of 78 to 21. As of December 12, 2016, the president had not signed the bill.

Lawsuits

As of December 12, 2016, neither Utah nor Colorado (both of which were affected by the spill) had filed any lawsuit against the EPA. On November 28, 2016, the Utah Attorney General's Office announced it had yet to decide whether to bring a lawsuit against Colorado for its role in regulating the mine.

New Mexico lawsuit against Colorado

In June 2016, New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas (D) filed a complaint against Colorado with the U.S. Supreme Court over the spill, claiming that Colorado was partly responsible for the spill due to insufficient oversight and irresponsible actions. Balderas said, "The Gold King Mine release is the result of two decades of disastrous environmental decision-making by Colorado, for which New Mexico and its citizens are now paying the price." Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman (R) responded that the lawsuit against Colorado would not further the two states' goal of holding the EPA accountable for the spill.

On November 28, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court asked the Solicitor General at the Justice Department for Obama administration's response to the New Mexico lawsuit against Colorado. As of December 12, 2016, no action had been taken by the Justice Department. According to the Albuquerque Journal, "Since President-elect Donald Trump will take place in less than two months, it’s possible the federal agency will wait until after Trump takes office to act on the request."

New Mexico lawsuit against EPA

In May 2016, New Mexico became the first state to sue the EPA and two mine owners over the spill. New Mexico Environment Secretary Ryan Flynn said that the EPA’s liability for the spill was clear. The state’s lawsuit claimed that the spill's pollution was worse than what the federal government had previously claimed. Additionally, the lawsuit demanded payment for the costs of New Mexico’s immediate response to the spill as well as funding to make up for long-term cleanup costs and lost revenue to the state. The EPA responded that the agency takes responsibility for the cleanup and was working at the time on a plan to reimburse those affected by the spill (read more about the EPA's payments above).

See also

• 

  Environmental policy in Colorado

• 

  Environmental policy in New Mexico

• 

  Environmental policy in Utah

• 

  Endangered species in Colorado

Environmental policy in the 50 states

Click on a state below to read more about environmental policy in that state.

Choose your state...AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWashington, D.C.West VirginiaWisconsinWyoming

http://ballotpedia.org/Environmental_policy_in_STATE

External links

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• U.S. Interior Department investigation of the Gold King Mine spill