EPA triples estimate of wastewater spilled into Colorado river
The Environmental Protection Agency now estimates that three million gallons, rather than one million, of heavy-metal laced water spilled into the Animas River.
The EPA now estimates that three million gallons of heavy-metal laced water spilled from an adit at the Gold King Mine into the Animas River, turning the water a sludgy orange. This estimate is a sharp increase from the one million gallons the agency first estimated, after using a stream gauge from the U.S. Geological Survey to measure the disaster.
[This message has been edited by Doug85GT (edited 08-11-2015).]
I was thinking the same thing when it happened. They opened it up by mistake, and from what I heard, it was several days before they told anyone what happened. If it had been someone else, heads would have rolled and fines would be thru the roof. Since they did it themselves, apparently just a 'oops' is sufficient.
The EPA is polluting our rivers and the "tree huggers" are burning our forests down. The president has alienated our allies and aided our enemies. The inmates are truly running the asylum.
That yellow stuff is the waste from mines that operated long before the EPA was established.
Obviously, the EPA screwed up here, but their objective was to keep this mine waste from leaking and polluting the river valley one drop at a time, instead of millions of gallons all at once.
And if there were no EPA, would the individual states be doing a better job of regulating the mines? Would anyone be doing that job? The mine owners themselves or some kind of mine owner's benevolent association?
The inmates running the asylum is better than no one running the asylum.
And if there were no EPA, would the individual states be doing a better job of regulating the mines? Would anyone be doing that job? The mine owners themselves or some kind of mine owner's benevolent association?
The most evil corporation in the world would just dump the waste into the river as it was created. Even that would be better overall than saving it up for years and years to dump it all at once.
The EPA has done a thorough internal investigation and have concluded that they are not guilty of any wrongdoing. Whew! That was a close one! Nothing to see here. Move along.
Originally posted by Formula88: The most evil corporation in the world would just dump the waste into the river as it was created. Even that would be better overall than saving it up for years and years to dump it all at once.
So you're talking about one mine and one river system. What about every mine like this dumping the waste, one day's amount at a time, every 24 hours, as a standard way of operating?
My point is that abolishing the EPA isn't an option. And the way that some posts are worded, it makes me think that some people have that idea in the back (or front) of their mind.
It seems like a no-brainer that a single massive release like this is more damaging than a drop-by-drop scenario, but the long term tradeoffs between the two scenarios may not be as totally one-sided as it looks to the naked eye.
I wonder if the EPA can levy a "dumping" fine on the EPA?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-11-2015).]
My point is that abolishing the EPA isn't an option. And the way that some posts are worded, it makes me think that some people have that idea in the back (or front) of their mind.
That is because your blanket statement that something simply "ISN'T an option"is absurd on the face of it and rational thinking adults recognize that.
It isn't an option in your mind only because a Leftist's view of the solution to almost *any* problem is always GOVERNMENT. A Leftist's view of any failure of government is also always MORE government. In the mind of the childlike Leftist, Capitalism is *always* evil and out to destroy it's own customers and Big Government is the loving, protecting "mother".
You simply cannot conceive of anything else:
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
And if there were no EPA, would the individual states be doing a better job of regulating the mines? Would anyone be doing that job? The mine owners themselves or some kind of mine owner's benevolent association?
The inmates running the asylum is better than no one running the asylum.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-11-2015).]
The EPA has done a thorough internal investigation and have concluded that they are not guilty of any wrongdoing. Whew! That was a close one! Nothing to see here. Move along.
If you think that was "fun" just wait to see if the "Progressives" get their way and we get single payer health care shoved down our throats. What do think is going to happen when the Gooberment, (FDA), "investigates" problems, or deaths within it's own healthcare?
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-11-2015).]
If you think that was "fun" just wait to see if the "Progressives" get their way and we get single payer health care shoved down our throats. What do think is going to happen when the Gooberment, (FDA), "investigates" problems, or deaths within it's own healthcare?
My post was clearly humor. We have been thru this recently in another thread. Please find someone else to pick fights with. I don't have the least bit of interest. Peace.
In the 2012 presidential race, Rick Perry went viral when he said that he would eliminate three federal agencies. I think he was talking about Education, Energy and Commerce.
Does anyone think that a conversation about dismantling the EPA is in order?
I don't know that anyone on this thread has actually presented this thought, but as I said before, it seems almost like a sub-text that comes in to some of the discussions here.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-11-2015).]
I wish that you could have seen my home town in the fifties. The worlds largest lead and silver mine along with it's smelter polluted the air so bad that nothing grew on the hills around town. They piled up millions of tons of slag from the smelter right in the middle of the valley and poured their waste into the Coeur ' d Alene river turning it into a chalky grey color that nothing could live in. The river flowed into the lake turning it into a lead polluted lake that there is no way to clean. I used to rescue swans across the road from my house that would get fatally leaded when the planes that they used to chase them off failed to do the job. It is still a super fund site with no end in site. The Bunker Hill mine and smelter did it because they could and because it was more profitable to just dump their waste. The epa screwed up here. I've screwed up a few times in my life too. We pick ourselves up analyze what went wrong and try to improve. We don't pollute just because we can get away with it. Yes the epa screwed up and someone should have to answer for it but to call for ending the spa is not a sane response.
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 08-12-2015).]
Does it seem like many of the federal agencies during the Obama regime escape from any fault from damages they cause. EPA, IRS, Education, NSA and VA all escape scrutiny and no heads roll. No problem here and it is under investigation is the usual response.
If a corporation had did this, they would be calling the river destroyed for generations and someone would have went to prison. Since it was the EPA, the water is safe, no harm, no foul.
In the 2012 presidential race, Rick Perry went viral when he said that he would eliminate three federal agencies. I think he was talking about Education, Energy and Commerce.
Does anyone think that a conversation about dismantling the EPA is in order?
I don't know that anyone on this thread has actually presented this thought, but as I said before, it seems almost like a sub-text that comes in to some of the discussions here.
Yes many want the EPA gone.. WHY Because it is a dept that sets rules and reg's and accountable to no one.. They can write a reg, that say, by 2020 30% of autosales must be zero emission vehicles , and no one can stop them, not the courts, not congress, not the bobble head in the oval office.. THATS WHY PEOPLE WANT THE EPA AS WE KNOW IT, DEAD AND GONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sadly liberals take that as evil 1%'s wanting to pollute the air/land/water . That is all they hear.. No matter what you explain, or facts. They go into the same crap , exp. read what Dratts posted above.. The epa needs to be accountable, and answer to congress, not a rouge government dept. that can do what it wants, set standards it wants, tell industry that complains, to suck it up and figure away to meet the standards.... What the liberals don't hear and don't seem to care about is, there has to be a balance of setting standards and how it will effect job's!!!!!!!!! Cause until the epa can force other country's we trade with to meet the same standards, all they are doing is moving the job's out of it's control. Everybody that wants an axe taken to the EPA also want clean air/land/water but they understand you have to balance that with job's.. As they don't turn a blind eye to what will happen when a new standard/reg comes online and can't be met and still compete with products made elsewhere.. They know the company will just move to another country to make it.. This never ends well.. And why the EPA needs to be killed, and a government dept, put into place that has to answer to congress, and can't just pull standards out of thin air, and say "find a way!!!!!!!!" They should have to support the new reg's with the tech and cost it will require and if it will do any good, cause setting standards and no one being able to meet them and just moving the works to another country didn't protect any environment.. But liberals and greenies go by the motto, out of sight out of mind.. They must think that having to roll back reg's and emission standards a little is worse than it being moved to another country, like the air/water only stays there. what's better rolling back standards to 2/3rds of what they are now, or no environmental regs at all,?? cause when companies move to countries with no reg's at all that is what you get.. much more air and water pollution that they can't do crap about.. but did manage to kill job's here.. If the EPA has any real care for the environment, if force all imported goods to meet the same standards as made here would.. but the EPA isn't about saving the environment, it's about control and money grab, nothing else. All they have done in the last 30 years is kill job's and cause more pollution, not less!!!! Because of their hell bent thinking of "tough sh t,deal with it" instead of finding middle ground and limiting pollution in a manner that didn't change it from limited/controlled to no control at all.. Somehow The dopes employed at the EPA think, if the pollution doesn't happen here, it didn't happen..
But in closing, all liberals will have taken from this is, he wants the EPA killed
[This message has been edited by E.Furgal (edited 08-12-2015).]
Thanks for mentioning me furgal. I can see that you are defending what happened in my home town before the epa. I don't give out a lot of negs but I'm seriously considering one for you. epa isn't perfect by any means but it is vastly better than what we had before. Creating jobs does not justify pollution to the degree that I have witnessed.
I wish that you could have seen my home town in the fifties. The worlds largest lead and silver mine along with it's smelter polluted the air so bad that nothing grew on the hills around town. They piled up millions of tons of slag from the smelter right in the middle of the valley and poured their waste into the Coeur ' d Alene river turning it into a chalky grey color that nothing could live in. The river flowed into the lake turning it into a lead polluted lake that there is no way to clean. I used to rescue swans across the road from my house that would get fatally leaded when the planes that they used to chase them off failed to do the job. It is still a super fund site with no end in site. The Bunker Hill mine and smelter did it because they could and because it was more profitable to just dump their waste. The epa screwed up here. I've screwed up a few times in my life too. We pick ourselves up analyze what went wrong and try to improve. We don't pollute just because we can get away with it. Yes the epa screwed up and someone should have to answer for it but to call for ending the spa is not a sane response.
Dratts, I'm pretty much with ya here. There has to be a balance. I had a similar situation in my hometown.
Elyria, OH has a Super Fund site as well. I remember as a kid that you wouldn't even want to put any part of your body in the Black River. Cascade Park was a beautiful gem and it totally was destroyed by poor environmental standards. Companies leaking chemicals into the river, raw sewage and such. The fish were so marred with Cancer with huge tumors. The Cuyahoga River even caught fire a couple of times!
But over the last 30-40 years I've personally witnessed a come back. I don't think people realize the ability of the Earth to bounce back. It never should have got that bad, that's why I believe it was a good thing for the government to get envolved back in the 70's and right the ship. But the pendulum has swung way too far the other way over time. Common Sense has been replaced with radical environmental adjendas. Conservatives aren't for dirty water and polution. Just a common sense approach. There must be a balance. We can take care of our environment AND be pro growth at the same time.
Thanks for mentioning me furgal. I can see that you are defending what happened in my home town before the epa. I don't give out a lot of negs but I'm seriously considering one for you. epa isn't perfect by any means but it is vastly better than what we had before. Creating jobs does not justify pollution to the degree that I have witnessed.
And like I said, a liberal will hear nothing but he wants the epa killed off, and nothing else..
let me ask you.. Are you ok with the fact that the EPA has to answer to no one.. not the white house, not congress, not the courts.. It baffles me that people don't find this to be a huge problem..
And as far as the job's go, I guess you have that stance as it won't or can't effect your job.. but if it did, I'm sure you'd have the same, reply.. "welp, I'm unemployed, but that company can't pollute, " oh,snap, they moved and now have no environmental rules to live by, ya, you showed them..
EPA - accidentally dumped waste into river, apologies and monitors impact. Company - negligently contaminates precious water resources and the environment.
EPA - ooopy! crap happens but the environment can take care of itself as evidenced by the gradual reduction in murkiness of the water... Company - Pay the fine, clean up the mess, settle lawsuits, own environment impact for ever and accept the sacrifice of their public image.
"Double Standard Noted"
[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 08-12-2015).]
I do believe that the EPA is ultimately answerable to the courts. Lawsuits can be brought against the EPA and any of its regulatory actions and the EPA regulations themselves and decided in the courts; ultimately the Supreme Court.
I think the EPA will be monitoring the effects of this super-sized river polluting for many months and perhaps years to come, and providing publicly available data from river and well water and soil sample tests throughout the affected region, which extends from Colorado into Utah and New Mexico.
I do believe that the EPA is ultimately answerable to the courts. Lawsuits can be brought against the EPA and any of its regulatory actions and the EPA regulations themselves and decided in the courts; ultimately the Supreme Court.
and you'd be wrong
[This message has been edited by E.Furgal (edited 08-12-2015).]
I wish that you could have seen my home town in the fifties. The worlds largest lead and silver mine along with it's smelter polluted the air so bad that nothing grew on the hills around town. They piled up millions of tons of slag from the smelter right in the middle of the valley and poured their waste into the Coeur ' d Alene river turning it into a chalky grey color that nothing could live in. The river flowed into the lake turning it into a lead polluted lake that there is no way to clean. I used to rescue swans across the road from my house that would get fatally leaded when the planes that they used to chase them off failed to do the job. It is still a super fund site with no end in site. The Bunker Hill mine and smelter did it because they could and because it was more profitable to just dump their waste. The epa screwed up here. I've screwed up a few times in my life too. We pick ourselves up analyze what went wrong and try to improve. We don't pollute just because we can get away with it. Yes the epa screwed up and someone should have to answer for it but to call for ending the spa is not a sane response.
Your own words confirm my earlier point.
"In the mind of the childlike Leftist, Capitalism is *always* evil and out to destroy it's own customers..."
quote
Originally posted by dratts: The Bunker Hill mine and smelter did it because they could and because it was more profitable to just dump their waste.
So your first and primary assumption is that this particular mining company, (and by association *all* Capitalism), just did it only because THEY COULD. Profit of course being the other classic "evil". No other motivation required in your mind but the *evil* intent that they COULD and secondarily for *profit*.
You attribute all pollution to nothing but the *EVIL* Capitalists of course, but then make the paradoxical statement:
quote
Originally posted by dratts:
We don't pollute just because we can get away with it.
Was what the mining company did back in the 50's LEGAL? Yes, it probably WAS. (note emphasis) Do we need a huge and still growing *Government Agency* that is now adversely affecting legitimate commerce while itself arguably damaging the environment, (California drought included) ?
Get rid of the EPA?
"It isn't an option in your mind only because a Leftist's view of the solution to almost *any* problem is always GOVERNMENT. A Leftist's view of any failure of government is also always MORE government.
You simply cannot conceive of anything else:"
quote
Originally posted by dratts: ...to call for ending the spa is not a sane response.
In your mind, no, it isn't "sane" because you simply cannot conceive of *anything* but GOVERNMENT solving all of your problems. You are so dedicated to that belief that you are willing to forgive almost any excess, failure or over-reach of government.
quote
Originally posted by dratts:
The epa screwed up here. I've screwed up a few times in my life too. We pick ourselves up analyze what went wrong and try to improve. We don't pollute just because we can get away with it. Yes the epa screwed up and someone should have to answer for it but to call for ending the spa is not a sane response.
Why such a willingness to hold a belief in "benevolence of government" ? Do people on the Left despise their fellow citizens *that* much?
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-12-2015).]
What would be your way to deal with a corporation that virtually owned my home town? Do nothing when there is such environmental damage? I must be misunderstanding part of your response. Are you saying that because there was no law against what they were doing it was ok? I don't think that capitalism is evil. Where did you get that? We live in a capitalist socialist country. What we need to do is balance the two. I have stated many times that I would not like us to have a pure capitalistic society or a pure socialist society. I take some from both the left and the right. You on the other hand seem to just automatically reject anything from the left. One of us has blinders on and can only see one side.
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 08-12-2015).]
I do believe that the EPA is ultimately answerable to the courts. Lawsuits can be brought against the EPA and any of its regulatory actions and the EPA regulations themselves and decided in the courts; ultimately the Supreme Court.
I think the EPA will be monitoring the effects of this super-sized river polluting for many months and perhaps years to come, and providing publicly available data from river and well water and soil sample tests throughout the affected region, which extends from Colorado into Utah and New Mexico.
The double standard is the degree to which the government and environmental groups will publicly prosecute the agency's negligence vs that of a corporation. The EPA will get credit for doing the right thing and the only people who will want them held accountable are the companies still recovering from their own "accidental spill or release of toxic materials into the environment".
Why wouldn't the person responsible be subject to civil charges? I don't see it as an intentional criminal act but I am legally responsible for damages that my incompetence or negligence causes. I'm not a lawyer.
I do believe that the EPA is ultimately answerable to the courts. Lawsuits can be brought against the EPA and any of its regulatory actions and the EPA regulations themselves and decided in the courts; ultimately the Supreme Court.
I think the EPA will be monitoring the effects of this super-sized river polluting for many months and perhaps years to come, and providing publicly available data from river and well water and soil sample tests throughout the affected region, which extends from Colorado into Utah and New Mexico.
Few individuals or even citizen groups have the time or $$ required to actively pursue a lawsuit against an alphabet soup agency, and it wasn't until 1980, when the Equal Access to Justice Act was passed, that the filer of a lawsuit stood any realistic chance of having their costs paid by US Treasury. Even with EAJA, unless congress (within each environmental act) has clearly specified that EPA/Treasury has to pay plaintiff's legal costs (assuming the plaintiff wins) it is nearly impossible to recoup plaintiff costs.
What would be your way to deal with a corporation that virtually owned my home town? Do nothing when there is such environmental damage? I must be misunderstanding part of your response. Are you saying that because there was no law against what they were doing it was ok?
Yes, You are misunderstanding. Perhaps not reading carefully.
"Was what the mining company did back in the 50's LEGAL? Yes, it probably WAS. (note emphasis)"
Was it "ok" in what regard?
Legally? Morally? Ethically? "Environmentally"?
If it wasn't illegal at the time, then the answer to the legally "ok" question is obvious. If it was legal *and* they had no knowledge at that time of any adverse impacts of their actions, then the "ok" Morally question is also obvious as is the Ethical question. If they were also ignorant or unaware of any environment impacts of their actions, as many of us all were back then, then the answer to your "is it ok?" question becomes much less subjective.
In the broadest sense, intentionally doing something obviously self destructive is usually not "ok" in the long term. Rational adults realize that.
That *same* idea ALSO applies to blindly clinging to a bloated and obtrusive government agency that has now gone FAR beyond it's well meaning original purpose and mandate and has now become the *problem* rather than the *cure*. But that is always the way of all big government once unleashed and THAT is what YOU clamor for Sir.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-12-2015).]
There were all sorts of things that were both legal and ethically acceptable "back then". Hand painted radium dials on wristwatches comes to mind. Playing with mercury in the palm of your hand in elementary school science class. Lead based paint in millions of homes. it's a very long list.
Yes, You are misunderstanding. Perhaps not reading carefully.
"Was what the mining company did back in the 50's LEGAL? Yes, it probably WAS. (note emphasis)"
Was it "ok" in what regard?
Legally? Morally? Ethically? "Environmentally"?
If it wasn't illegal at the time, then the answer to the legally "ok" question is obvious. If it was legal *and* they had no knowledge at that time of any adverse impacts of their actions, then the "ok" Morally question is also obvious as is the Ethical question. If they were also ignorant or unaware of any environment impacts of their actions, as many of us all were back then, then the answer to your "is it ok?" question becomes much less subjective.
In the broadest sense, intentionally doing something obviously self destructive is usually not "ok" in the long term. Rational adults realize that.
That *same* idea ALSO applies to blindly clinging to a bloated and obtrusive government agency that has now gone FAR beyond it's well meaning original purpose and mandate and has now become the *problem* rather than the *cure*. But that is always the way of all big government once unleashed and THAT is what YOU clamor for Sir.
Aw screw it! You deserve a negative. There was no way the mine could have been unaware that they were killing all the plant life around the town or killing the fish in the river. No way in hell! It was right there for them to see. You have no idea what it is that I clamor for Sir.
There were all sorts of things that were both legal and ethically acceptable "back then". Hand painted radium dials on wristwatches comes to mind. Playing with mercury in the palm of your hand in elementary school science class. Lead based paint in millions of homes. it's a very long list.
Yes it is a very long list at the USDA, the FDA and at the EPA, the CDC, the CPSC, OSHA, the EEOC, the FCC, the NLRB, the ICC, the DOE, HUD, the USDE, the DHS, and on and on and on...