1996-04-04_HYDROLOGY - M1977378 (2)

Home Browse Search

t , ! # Mineral Policy Center, 4Apr96 Sunnyside Settlement i + Following are some of our main issues of concern: + • This settlement deals predominantly with actions -which ( strive to avoid net increases in pollutants to the Upper. , t Animas River. However, the water Quality Act clearly states that its purpose is to "maintain and improve" water quality. i in Sunnyside's efforts to reclaim their operations, one would hope that it could be shown that the reclamation of u►ode;rn !� mining means a net decrease in contamination, not stotuB quo. I • The settlement not only provides no assurances that pollution will be reduced by this plan, but also it seems to ; absolve the mining company of that responsibility if;i.t does f not work. An innovative approach that cannot offer i guarantees is one thing, but to remove financial and:legal } responsibility from the operator who created the ; !! ; contamination is not acceptable. ` ( • This gives us the following E long term liability for rotecting: who is health, to bear the l I! ; Y protecting public health, maintaining the reclamation projects, and financing clean-up I if the settlement is ineffective? The only answer which` we j find in the settlement is this: the public. Sunnyside will i 1 provide funding and work for a finite period of time; after which the public may be left with a problem that may'grog I` # more serious with time. The bond level does not protect' against this event either. will we find that this sdttlement shows us that mining in the 1980s leaves the same mess, if ' not a greater mess, than the boom-and-bust operations ot' 100 years ago? Residents have no reason to believe that they may not have a net INCREASE in pollutant levels to the ecosybtem. F i I • Sunnyside's contribution of contaminants is ' particularly serious as it is to an environment which is. already saturated with metals and acids from mining operations. The Animas River Stakeholders and other :local I residents have worked hard to devise a long term strategy to , improve water quality in the region. Businesses who ;opCrate ' there should be i held to this expectation. • , i we agree that this settlement offers some attractivb a i options for sharing the burden of historic pollution. i However, we fear that its shortcomings may not only harm. the I efforts of those focused on improving water quality in the Animas River, but also hinder the efforts of concerned citizens in other regions dealing with similar challenges. j 2 i