ould the EPA Administrator ever say “the river is restoring itself” so soon following a spill that was caused by any force other than the EPA itself? Would a private company be given the courtesy of a reassurance of that type? Would a farmer would be given such consideration? When private companies cause pollution through negligence, carelessness, and greed, the EPA goes after them hammer and tongs. If damage is caused by industry, EPA has an interest in making it seem like a disaster; but if it causes the damage, the EPA wants us to think it's not such a big deal. Yes, the EPA spill was “a mistake,” but almost every spill is accidental or unintentional. Very few are done on purpose, but the EPA normally doesn’t cut much slack. Some good could come out of this disaster if the EPA learns to be a bit more understanding when the next spill happens. No, we don’t mean it should stop issuing fines or prosecuting cases, and we certainly don’t mean that the EPA should ignore environmental damage or pretend that spills are not serious. But if the EPA remembers that in August 2015 it caused a million-gallon spill, it might have the decency to judge less harshly the mistakes and accidents of farmers and miners and industry.
By John Shaffer The EPA has admitted its responsibility for polluting the Animas River with over a million gallons of wastewater from an abandoned gold mine, north of Silverton, Colorado. Farmers and ranchers were advised to cease taking water from the river, and recreational areas have been shut down as well. The EPA, we are sure, will not be harsh on itself – in fact, within a week, the Administrator of the EPA was assuring the public that “the river is restoring itself.” That may be true – but if it is, it also is true with almost every other chemical or toxic spill. Severe damage may be caused to water quality, wildlife, local economies, etc., but as time passes the damaged river begins to recover. W ould the EPA Administrator ever say “the river is restoring itself” so soon following a spill that was caused by any force other than the EPA itself? Would a private company be given the courtesy of a reassurance of that type? Would a farmer would be given such consideration? When private companies cause pollution through negligence, carelessness, and greed, the EPA goes after them hammer and tongs. If damage is caused by industry, EPA has an interest in making it seem like a disaster; but if it causes the damage, the EPA wants us to think it's not such a big deal. Yes, the EPA spill was “a mistake,” but almost every spill is accidental or unintentional. Very few are done on purpose, but the EPA normally doesn’t cut much slack. Some good could come out of this disaster if the EPA learns to be a bit more understanding when the next spill happens. No, we don’t mean it should stop issuing fines or prosecuting cases, and we certainly don’t mean that the EPA should ignore environmental damage or pretend that spills are not serious. But if the EPA remembers that in August 2015 it caused a million-gallon spill, it might have the decency to judge less harshly the mistakes and accidents of farmers and miners and industry. Comments are closed.
|
Local ColumnistsFind articles by date or topic through quick links below. Categories
All
Archives
March 2020
|