The New Year has started with a not insignificant victory for environmental groups and anyone concerned about public health. On January 7^th, an appeals court in Cincinnati, Ohio, ruled that the Bush administration could no longer exempt pesticides from the federal permit requirements for pollutants. This should mean that pesticides can no longer be indiscriminately dumped in the nation’s water supplies to the detriment of the ecosystem, and also fish, wildlife and human health.

White Sucker Fish: Subject of studies of intersex fish

The fact that pesticides have, until now, been exempt from the usual rules applying to water pollutants has been a subject of controversy. Some environmental groups would also argue that it is yet another example of how the EPA’s loyalty under the current government has been to the chemical or energy industry rather than the environment. However, with the entrance of the new government the mood has become more positive and hopes run high.

“We look forward to working with the new EPA to protect the environment rather than the chemical industry,” said Charlie Tebbutt, Western Environmental Law Center attorney and lead counsel for the environmental organizations and organic farms that challenged the rule.

Pesticides are carried into water supply in rainwater runoff from farm fields, suburban lawns, or roadside embankments. On occasion they are even sprayed into streams and rivers as part of the pest-control effort. However, they can have a highly damaging effect on the ecosystem and plant and animal life. Even “safe levels” of pesticides have resulted in a declining amphibian population. Atrazine, the second most commonly used pesticide in the U.S, has been linked to incidents of hermaphroditism observed in freshwater fish. Two years ago, EPA-funded scientists at the University of Colorado studied the fish in Boulder Creek and found of the 123 trout and other fish they netted, 101 were female, 12 were male and 10 were intersex. Atrazine was banned in the European Union (EU) in 2004 because of its persistent groundwater contamination, but in the U.S. 76 million pounds of it are applied each year.

Pesticides, via water, can also work themselves into the food chain, ultimately being consumed by both animals and humans. Ingested in sufficient quantities, they have been found to cause damage to reproductive systems, the nervous system, the liver, and DNA. They have also been thought to have a play a part in a variety of cancers.

The Clean Water Act is the act that protects the water supply and regulates the discharge of pollutants into the water supply. But, in Nov. 27, 2007 a rule by the Bush administration excluded pesticides from the Clean Water Act’s permitting requirements. This meant that farmers could indiscriminately spray pesticides without concern as to pesticide run-off into the water supply.

The 2007 ruling brought strong opposition from environmentalists who have challenged since it since came into effect. Groups, which have opposed the rule, include the National Center for Conservation Science and Policy, Oregon Wild, Californians for Alternatives to Toxics, Waterkeeper Alliance, Environment Maine, and Toxics Action Center. These groups upheld that the exemption was harmful for fish, aquatic life and humans and applauded the judges’ decision.

“This decision will help ensure, in communities across the country, that aquatic pests are addressed in ways that protect both water quality and the public health,” said Chuck Caldart of the National Environmental Law Center, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs.

Pesticides and the Rocky Mountain States

While the environmental groups challenging the law such were mainly from California and Oregon the Rocky Mountain States have their own pesticide issues.

A research study in Beyond Pesticides, 2008, by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) found pesticides in the surface waters in the Cache La Poudre River in Colorado. This river is used as a source for public water systems and the study found that low levels of the chemicals remained in the public water supplies even after being treated. Among the most commonly found pollutant was Atrazine. Although the measured concentration of the chemicals was low, less than 0.1 part per billion some scientists point to health effects associated to low level exposures well below the regulatory standards set by the government. For more details: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5208

Another USGS study in 2006 sampled pesticides in the surface water in the Bighorn and North Platte River Basins in Wyoming. This study also found detectable concentrations of pesticides (18 in total) in both river basins. The most commonly detected pesticide in the Bighorn River Basin was also Atrazine. For more details: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2007/3017/pdf/fs2007-3017.pdf

An earlier study by the USGS performed in both Wyoming and Montana found detectable levels of pesticides in all the sampling areas. For more details: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5012/pdf/sir2008-5012web.pdf

References

http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/01/08/Court_Cancels_EPA_Pesticide_Exemption.htm

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2009/2009-01-07-093.asp

If the economy isn’t hitting the Rocky Mountain Ski Resorts the weather certainly will. And it’s not the sort of snow dumping, wind chilling, nose numbing type of weather that leaves the rest of the country paralyzed, but skiers with a “mile wide grin,” and a mission to drive up I70 at the next available opportunity.

No. It’s warm. It’s wet. And it isn’t snow. And it will only get worse. At least so say University of Colorado at Boulder geography Professor Mark Williams and Brian Lazar of Stratus Consulting Inc.

Williams and Lazar predict in a new study that due to global warming, snowlines will rise and ski seasons will become shorter over the next century. And, by 2100, in some areas, any precipitation will fall as rain.

Snow Makers the Solution? It takes a lot of energy and water to make snow.

The researchers also predict that to stay competitive ski resorts will have to start manufacturing their own snow. However, finding the water to make snow is no mean feat in the Rocky Mountain States. Williams predicts that it will require the diversion and storage of large amounts of water. And water is already a scarce commodity.

“The bottom line is that in order to survive, these ski areas will need to find the necessary water wherever they can and hold it in storage to satisfy future snowmaking needs,” Williams said in a university press release. “Ski resort operators are really scrambling,”

William’s and Lazar’s study combined temperature and precipitation data for Aspen Park and Park City Mountain with climate circulation models to come up with the predictions. They presented three different scenarios for the future: a best case scenario where we curb our carbon emissions and slow down warming, a “business-as-usual” scenario where our carbon emissions stay at the rate that they are currently and a worst case scenario where the CO₂ emissions will increase over the current rate.

Under each of the emissions scenarios the length of the ski seasons will become shorter, and under the high-emissions scenario the researchers predict that Park City will have no snowpack at its base by 2100. Unfortunately, in he last five years, the global CO₂ emissions have already exceeded the worst-case scenario.

Williams and Lazar predict that all the states in the Rocky Mountains will be affected and that the key to their survival will be in their ability to adapt. For example they suggest that Aspen Mountain will have to triple its snowmaking efforts in the coming decades requiring the resort to obtain 50 cubic feet per second of water per month. Obtaining this amount of water would drain local streams and rivers and disturb their ecosystems so resorts would have to look further afield for their water.

Therefore, the researchers predict that in the future the resorts will follow the example of ski areas in Europe who are already making snow in order to survive. These resorts use water transported from basin to basin over long distances and stored at high elevations to create the snow required. In the Italian Alps, 70 percent of skiable terrain is currently covered by artificial snow.

However, transporting water and making snow are both carbon intensive processes. Add to that the carbon cost of shuttling people up the mountain, transporting in the latest batch of european tourists, and people driving in from out of state, and you are looking at a steady increase in carbon emissions. And all these factors will not only reduce the snowpack but also the quantity of water available to make snow.

While such a study proves valuable in helping the ski industry prepare for the next few years predicting scenarios ninety years from now independent of population growth and demands on water resources seems somewhat naive.

Unless serious attempts are made towards long term sustainability, it could be that our greatest concern in 2100 will not be where to ski but where to find water to drink.

This last week the Supreme Court has been hearing the case of Entergy v. Riverkeeper, which in layman’s terms boils down to Power Plants V. Fish, or, as always, The Bush Administration v. Environmentalists.

While not being directly relevant to the Rocky Mountain States at this stage, the case itself proves to be of relevance to just about anyone who is concerned about environmental conservation, clean water, and the role of the government agency, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in protecting the environment.

Power Plants and the Environment Can Co-exist: Valmont Power Plant in Boulder uses circulating water from three reservoirs for cooling. The plant site is also recognized as a unique wildlife refuge.

The dispute in question is over what steps older power plants should take to limit water use and minimize damage to the environment. Currently older power plants pull water into intake pipes in order to cool machinery: in the U.S. an estimated 200 billion gallons per day. However, along with the water comes fish and other aquatic organisms which are killed in the process.

In order to prevent this carnage, a provision in the Clean Water Act requires power plants to install water intake structures that “reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact.” Whereas newer power plants have been constructed with closed-cycle cooling systems that to some extent alleviate the problem, the problem lies with the older power plants. Retrofitting older power plants with the machinery is costly and industry representatives argue that the costs could drive up the price of electricity and even cause some plants to close. All, they say, for the sake of a few fish.

In 2004, in response to industry pleas, the Bush administration passed a rule that allowed the power plants to chose among several alternatives to reduce environmental harm from cooling water intake structures. This rule allowed them to avoid installing the best available technology if the costs outweighed the benefits.

Without stating the obvious, the costs and benefits under consideration where not those of your average trout. And, in response to the rule, six states and a coalition of environmental groups, led by Riverkeeper, sued, arguing the Clean Water Act does not permit accounts of economic costs and benefits to be into account when deciding on cooling water intake rules.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit agreed with this argument and struck down the regulation. However, this act only prompted the Bush administration and several utilities to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is now, therefore, considering legislation that will affect the economics of 550 power plants in the U.S. and the fate of many more fish.

The case, as presented, centers around Congress’s original intention in Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act and the phrasing of the provision. Did congress explicitly remove the consideration of costs and benefits from the calculation of the “best” technology? If so, the rule would be in favor of the fish. Or, is the provision ambiguous enough to allow the EPA to exercise control in considering the costs and benefits to all concerned?

U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Daryl Joseffer argued in the court on Tuesday December 9^th that the statute’s language is ambiguous and gives the EPA deference to balance costs and benefits. Arguing for the environmentalists, however, Georgetown University law professor Richard Lazarus said the statute clearly does not give the EPA this authority.

His argument was that best available technology “should not stop short of whatever is required to stop killing large quantities of river organisms.”

The judges, for the most part, were skeptical of the argument by Joseffer, and questioned how the economic costs and benefits of technology versus fish could be weighed in any meaningful way.

“Are 1,000 plankton worth $1 million?” said Justice Souter. “I don’t know.”

Given that it is almost impossible to put a price on the environment a cost-benefit analysis would be biased in favor of industry and would, Souter said, “basically eliminate the whole technology-driven point of the statute.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy said that his interpretation of the Clean Water Act was that best available technology meant “the most rigorous of standards,” and questioned where in the provision there were any suggestions with respect to cost considerations.

Lazarus, in discussing the role of the EPA, argued that the agency could consider whether the costs can be “reasonably borne by industry.” However, he argued that it is not in the position to determine whether the benefits are not worth the costs when considering the installation of the best technology.

While not all the justices were not in favor of the environmental stance, Justice Breyer attempted to strike a middle ground. He sketched out a vision of 316(b) in which costs were taken into account, and evenly balanced against benefits, but only in a limited fashion to prevent absurd results. He pointed out that for 30 years prior to the 2004 rule, the EPA has successfully “had a way” to consider whether the costs were “grossly disproportionate” and unreasonable to industry.

“Why not let sleeping dogs lie?” Breyer asked.

While the case is expected to be ruled on in the spring it raises broader questions than the well being of the fish and other aquatic creatures. A key issue is how we perceive and value the environment that we live in, and what sacrifices we are prepared to make in order to protect and preserve our national resources.

Can we afford the luxury of seeing ourselves as separate from our environment and trying to use the simple metric of economics to justify tampering with the ecosystem that balances the dynamics between the humans and the planet?

If the current state of the environment, natural resources, and world economics are anything to go on it would seem that the answer is not. While the well being of a few fish may seem insignificant in relation to our economics, that is simply a short-sighted and somewhat myopic perception. Unbalancing, wasting and destroying the natural environment is a course of action that could lead to no end of future problems, the least of them being economic.

Finally, we need to support and protect laws that have been put in place to protect vital resources and deliberately put them outside the realm of economic accountability. To interpret this particular provision in terms of a cost-benefits analysis would not only be disastrous but would be the start of a slippery slope towards an undermining of the intent of the Clean Water Act as established in Congress in 1974.

And who do we need to support this act? A government agency whose sole goal is to protect the environment. Now, there is a novel thought – an Environmental Protection Agency. Because right now you could be forgiven for thinking that the acronym EPA stood for the Energy Promotion Agency.

Resources

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/oral-argument-recap-entergy-v-riverkeeper/

Monday, December 8th, 2008 12:37 pm | Max Schwartz

Highest U.S. Court Ponders Power Plants and Fish Protection

J.R. Pegg

While on one hand Colorado is taking steps to monitor and reduce mercury pollution, on the other the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is pushing legislation that would effectively increase it.

Billowing Smoke Stack

Under the proposed legislation, power plants would be able to change how they measured pollution from a total annual output to an hourly rate. If their emissions do not exceed the hourly maximum, they would not be seen as violating the criteria of operating cleanly. However, this would be the case even if the total emissions annually were to increase.

In addition the proposal would mean that the power plants could increase their emissions without the installation of the air quality controls needed to ensure that those emissions do not impede the criteria set forth by the annual National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This would make the control of air pollution more, rather than less, difficult.

In a letter to the Stephen Johnson, the administrator of the EPA, U.S, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and Senator Tom Carper (D-DE), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, requested that the agency withdraw the new proposals, stating that “National Ambient Air Quality Standards that protect public health will be violated, threatening the health of children and families across the nation.”

There is hope, however, that the new rule will not be passed. It may be in conflict with the 2007 Supreme Court case, Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp., where the justices decided that Duke Energy needed to install pollution-control equipment if their annual pollution output increased. This ruling was made based on an annual, rather than hourly, measurement of emissions.

I received this information via a listserv of the Society of Environmental Journalists that I subscribe to. Following this news was a short excerpt detailing how bald eagles in the Catskill Park region of New York have been found to have alarming accumulations of mercury in their blood.

Even if you are not a bird and animal lover, the issue draws to attention the ubiquitous nature of mercury pollution in animals and ultimately in humans. While difficult to quantify, the health care costs to treat symptoms associated with mercury exposure must be significant. If the consideration in passing such legislation is to make coal plants more economical then the financial costs of consequences should also be weighed into the equation.

As a nation there is no doubt that we are currently stuck in the straight jacket of fossil fuel dependence. However, controlling the pollution from coal fired powered plants is possible and a step that we are entirely at liberty to take before the consequences of not doing so become life threatening.

Sources

Article by Matthew Blake in the Colorado Independent November 25, 2008.

http://yubanet.com/enviro/Boxer-and-Carper-Urge-EPA-to-Withdraw-New-Source-Review-Air-Pollution-Proposals.php

“Bald Eagles in Catskills Show Increasing Mercury”:

Anthony DePalma Reports for the New York Times November 24, 2008.

The term “clean coal” is an oxymoron; even if the clean coal technologies do manage to “wash the coal” or bury carbon emissions deep in the ground, coal-fired power plants are the single largest source of mercury pollution in the U.S. And the mercury released pollutes the nation’s water resources posing a serious public health threat to the population.

The Mercury Cycle

However, given that coal is a fundamental form of energy in the U.S., and will be around for the foreseeable future, a hopeful first step has been taken to reduce mercury pollution. Starting next year 11 coal fired power plants in Colorado will have to measure how much mercury they are emitting, with a view to eventually using the information to reduce mercury pollution. The goal of state regulators is to reduce mercury emissions in Colorado by 90% in the next 10 years.

According to the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) coal burning power plants account for the majority of man made mercury emissions worldwide. And in the U.S, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that these plants are the single largest source of mercury air pollution, accounting for roughly 40 percent of all mercury emissions nationwide. The non-profit, the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP), estimates that the top 50 most-polluting power plants in the U.S. emitted 20 tons of the dangerous neurotoxin mercury into the nation’s air in 2007.

And mercury is certainly a ubiquitous toxin. Once in the atmosphere up to 50 percent of the mercury from coal-fired power plants can travel up to 600 miles before it makes its way into the lakes and rivers, far from the original point of source. According to UNEP trace amounts of Mercury can be found in every individual living on earth today.

The consequences of mercury exposure can be deadly. Exposure over minimal levels has been associated with nervous system damage, brain damage, blindness, and damage to the kidneys, thyroid gland, and the immune system. Even very low levels of exposure can have severe impacts on human health.

However, the most seriously affected sectors of the population are newborn infants and unborn babies to which even very small levels of mercury can be toxic. Mercury in the mother can be transmitted through breast mile and then pass across the infant’s blood-brain barrier and can result in cognitive disorders and learning problems later in life. The Centers of Disease Control has found that roughly 6 percent of American women carry mercury concentrations at levels considered to put a fetus at risk of neurological damage.

Although it is widely accepted that coal-fired power plants emit toxic levels of mercury little has been done to regulate mercury emissions. And it is not that regulating mercury is impossible. The EIP states that working remedies for mercury pollution are readily available. A recent EIP report outlines the ways in which mercury pollution can be reduced with existing technologies; it states that one specific technology, activated carbon injection, can achieve mercury reductions of 90 percent.

However, the EIP reports also states that the EPA has backed away from strict power plant regulation. And, in February 2008, a federal appeals court ruled that the EPA’s approach to power plant mercury violates the Clean Air Act. Even so, a federal rule to regulate mercury pollution was overturned earlier this year.

While progress in reducing mercury pollution has proved disappointing so far, the latest move in Colorado to monitor mercury emissions may be a step in the right direction. Paul Tourangeau, the state’s director of the air pollution control division, says that utilities will install mercury monitors inside power plants smoke stacks next year that will tell regulators how much mercury the plants release into the atmosphere.

Talking on Colorado Public Radio on Tuesday November 25^th, Tourangeau stated that, “The monitors will give us that baseline from which we can then really understand consistently what are the mercury emissions and then understand to what levels do they need to bring those emissions down to, by using control technologies that they are prepared to install.”

This statement, however, strikes at the nub of the problem. Monitoring mercury levels is one thing but the real mark of progress will be what the power companies are willing to do to reduce mercury emissions. And, until policy changes are made to enforce these reductions we might be waiting a long time.

With mountains, skiing, and good weather its no surprise that people are moving to the Rocky Mountain States in droves. However, with a rising population comes an increasing demand for more water. And, right now, water is a dwindling resource.

While the situation in the West is not yet at the scale of that in the arid countries of Israel and Palestine, where there have been 21 armed disputes over the Jordan River, there are increasing disputes in the region over water resources. And some of these are requiring federal intervention to resolve.

The path of the Yellowstone River

Last week the U.S. Supreme Court appointed a special master to investigate allegations by Montana that Wyoming is withholding water more water than it is entitled to. This latest intervention follows a line of bickering and disagreement between the neighbor states over water rights that have centered on the Tongue and Powder rivers. Montana argues that these are being drained by Wyoming’s excessive water use.

The Tongue and Powder rivers flow through northern Wyoming and southern Montana before draining into the Yellowstone River. And Montana argues that the 1950 Yellowstone River Compact, which allocates each state a share of the water and its tributaries, is being violated by the water usage practices of Wyoming. The state says that the leaching of the rivers water is harming the Montana consumers and farmers that rely it.

In 2004 and 2006 Montana attempted to negotiate with Wyoming to increase the water flows downstream in the rivers. However in 2007, when these negotiations had proved unsuccessful, Montana sued Wyoming, alleging that the state’s agriculture and energy industries were using too much water and violating the interstate agreement.

However, in April 2008 Wyoming’s attorney general, Bruce Salzberg, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to dismiss the lawsuit. Salzberg argued that the suit was “fundamentally flawed” as it discussed the use of water from the river basins as well as the rivers themselves. His argument was that the compact solely covers the use of the rivers’ water.

Montana’s argument is that Wyoming is storing water that should be delivered downstream, and is also pumping underground water reserves to irrigate farmland that should feed into the two rivers. Underground water supplies are also pumped extensively as part of the process of coal bed methane production.

However, Wyoming argues that the Yellowstone compact encourages the construction of reservoirs and that depletion of the groundwater is outside the scope of the 1950 agreement. Montana attorney general Mike McGrath argued that Wyoming was giving precedence to its own residents at the expense of downstream farmers in Montana.

This is not the only dispute that is running over water issues between the two states. Each of the states has been trying to gain a greater share of the Bighorn River, another tributary of the Yellowstone to the West. In addition, Montana has drawn up new water quality standards that affect the Tongue and Powder rivers. Wyoming argues the new standards could dampen its energy industry development and this dispute, also, has reached the federal courts.

As demand for water increases and water in the arid Western states becomes even scarcer, more of these disputes are likely to crop up. The precise details of laws and regulations are going to be tested, as are the negotiation skills of all the stakeholders. However, just as the early pioneers were known for their rugged individualism, they were also known for their ability to co-operate to “Win the West.” And it will be precisely this skill that is needed to prevent the region entering a new “era of water wars.”

It was steam power that originally conquered the West and it might just be steam power that saves it. Fed on trees and water, the first “iron horses,” or steam locomotives, forged their way across the Rockies opening up economic opportunities and building a precedent of fossil fuel dependence. And now steam power is once again in the headlines. Only this time there’s no smoke and no fire, only an almost inexhaustible supply of clean energy.

Geothermal Power, termed the prolific renewable source that most people have never heard of by LA Times reporter Marla Dickerson, is energy that is generated by heat stored in the earth. The most common technique of harnessing this energy is to drill into underground reservoirs tapping steam and very hot water that are used primarily to drive power turbines. And most importantly Geothermal Power is an energy source is that it is both fully renewable and clean – greenhouse gas emissions are minimal.

However geothermal energy has until now been an under-exploited resource. The reservoirs can be both hard to locate and expensive to reach and these factors have meant that the U.S. currently derives less than 0.5% of its electricity from geothermal energy sources.

But now that’s all about to change. In late October, Secretary of Interior Dirk Kempthorne announced that more than 190 million acres of federal land in 12 western states would be opened for development of geothermal energy resources.

“Geothermal energy will play a key role in powering America’s energy future, which requires a wide variety of energy sources,” Kempthorne said in a conference call with reporters.

Kempthorne also predicted that the plans could increase the nation’s supply of geothermal energy to power more than 5.5 million homes within seven years and 12 million homes by 2025. The Geothermal Energy Association said new projects are underway in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.

“This is the new gold rush,” said Mark Taylor, a geothermal analyst with the consulting firm New Energy Finance in Washington. A powerful mix of factors have led to the current support to geothermal energy production; the financial meltdown on Wall Street, soaring oil prices, the volatility of the natural gas market, and concern about global warming to name but a few. Backed up with federal tax credits and state laws mandating the wider use of renewable energy the prospects have never looked better.

Relative to non-renewable energy sources there are, however, some environmental concerns associated with geothermal energy. Hot water from the deep below the earth’s surface contains trace amounts of toxins such as mercury and arsenic and care has to be taken with respect to where the water is discharged. This has raised the concerns of groups such as the Wilderness Society who, although supporting the development of geothermal programs, are questioning the speed at which changes are taking place. Lack of adequate planning with respect to waste disposal has been the downfall of many operations that seek to use underground resources.

“A rapid transition away from fossil fuels is important but not at the expense of our clean air and water and our public lands,” said Alex Daue, outreach coordinator of the Wilderness Society’s Bureau of Land Management Action Center. “A more measured approach would be better for the public and our public lands in the long run.”

Cotter Corp. Uranium Mine

In response to the expressed concerned of residents and the medical community, this week has seen the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Agency launch a full scale public health review of the area. This is the first study of its kind since the mine started operating in 1958. The purpose of the review is to investigate the link between possible pollution of the groundwater supply, and the observed increase of a variety of health disorders, such as cancer and neurological problems, in the Cañon City area.

In 1988, the Cotter Corp. uranium mill was declared a Superfund site; a Superfund site being any land that has been contaminated by hazardous waste and identified by Environmental Protection Agency as a candidate for cleanup because it poses a risk to human health. However, although the site is currently not in use, the cleanup has only partially been carried out. And incidences of proven water pollution have been frequent.

Earlier in the summer, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) issued a Notice of Violation to Cotter Corp. for exceeding groundwater standard for uranium. And on Sunday, the Denver Post reported that both state documents and Cotter mill operators have confirmed that a new plume of contaminated groundwater is spreading from the mill toward Cañon City and the Arkansas River.

As it seems that groundwater pollution from the site certainly exists, the Environmental Protection Agency is looking into how many of the residents are relying on the groundwater for drinking or cooking and the current review is investigating the potential impact to public health.

Concerns about water and air pollution from Uranium mining and the consequences of such pollution on the local environment and humans is by no means unique to Cañon City. With the current uranium mining rush, citizens and legislators are uniting in trying to tighten regulations and in some cases prevent mines from opening.

In Wyoming, the Department of Environmental Quality has issued a notice of violation to Power Resources Inc., which operates an in-situ leach uranium mine north of Douglas. Previously touted as a “model” Uranium mine, its website proclaims that it “uses an environment-friendly in-situ recovery (ISR) mining technique to extract uranium.” However, the investigative report filed details several environmental concerns including delayed restoration of groundwater and “routine” spills as a result of mining operations.

In Northern Colorado proposals to build a Uranium mine near Fort Collins and Greeley by Powertech Uranium Corporation has been strongly opposed by the group Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction (CARD), which is concerned about the health, environmental and economic impacts that proposals to mine uranium would have on northern Colorado.

The proposed open-pit area would take place 7 miles from Fort Collins, within 20 miles of 275,000 residents and members of CARD believe that there is a high risk that deadly radioactive compounds will leach outside of the uranium deposit and contaminate Front Range water supplies.

Given the track record of the Cañon City and Wyoming mines it would seem that their concerns are well justified. The objective stated on their website is to pull together as a community and prevent mining from destroying their local economy, water, health, and environment and in their words, “protect our valuable resources, especially water, for future generations.”

Rain. Just because it falls on your roof doesn’t mean it’s yours. At least not in Colorado or Utah.

In these states, citizens or businesses that attempt to collect or store rainwater are in fact breaking the law. The overriding rule here is that of prior appropriation i.e. in order to have any rights to water you have to gain a state water right.

However, in the drought plagued, over appropriated Western states, most of the water is already spoken for, which can make securing a water right complicated, if not impossible.

Although, in the context of history, the reasoning behind such legislature makes sense, it creates an irritating hurdle to conservation minded citizens who merely wish to optimize the use of water resources.

The laws are in place to ensure that those who have a legal right to water will receive their full share of the water appropriated to them. However, this legislation can result in a waste of valuable water resources in states where water is often a scarcity. In certain areas, much of the water that falls on rural residents’ property rarely makes it to the local rivers. A recent hydrological study found that in the undeveloped areas of Douglas County, Colorado, only a small proportion of the precipitation that falls on the undeveloped areas ever makes it to the streams.

In addition, advocates of water harvesting argue that allowing residents to collect rainwater that falls on their properties would reduce reliance on standard water supplies, alleviating the economic burden on public utilities budgets. In other states, such as Texas, the practice of water harvesting is fully supported, and residential rainwater collection systems have been subsidized.

In recognition of the potential advantages of water harvesting, state legislators in Utah and Colorado are working on new laws that would allow water collection of rain water runoff, on a small scale, without having to secure a water right. Although the logistics are extremely complex, in Colorado so many groups have a vested interest in the over appropriated water resources, legislators believe that rural residents will be legally able to harvest water next year.

The next step will then be to allow the same opportunities for residents in the cities. In Washington, another state that normally requires use of a state water right to capture water, the city of Seattle now has a master water permit allowing residents to collect some rainwater. In Colorado and Utah, some city officials believe that a similar system would be of benefit to them too.

Says Jeff Niermeyer, Salt Lake City’s public utilities director, in an interview with the High Country News; “The advantage to the city is that we can then take some demand off our system. That means we won’t have to develop other (water) sources as soon.”

Resource:

High Country News: “A good idea – if you can get away with it” by Peter Friederici

http://www.hcn.org/issues/40.18/a-good-idea-2013-if-you-can-get-away-with-it

Selenium, right by arsenic in the periodic table, is a poison in anything other than the smallest quantities. Over-exposure in humans has been found to result in hair and nail loss, loss of mental alertness, irritability, and liver disease. Higher levels of ingested selenium has also been linked to increased cancer rates.

And selenium accumulation is also devastating to ecosystems. In the 1980s, scientists of the USGS found that the high selenium content of the Kesterton river was responsible for the deaths and deformities of thousands of fish and waterfowl. Eventually the fish and flowers died, the survivors were mosquitoes and algae, and the site was declared a toxic waste dump.

This September two separate incidents relating to selenium water pollution have hit the news. Earlier in the month Johnson Matthey Inc., a mining corporation in Utah, pleaded guilty to charges of conspiring to cover up illegally high levels of toxic selenium in its wastewater run-off, and later in the month four conservation groups filed a lawsuit challenging the expansion of the Smoky Canyon phosphate mine into areas of the Caribou-Targhee National Forest in southeast Idaho.

These two separate incidents highlight the problem of trying to restrict water pollution by the mining industry.

Although, Johnson Matthey Inc., due to be charged in December, faces a $3 million fine in violation of the Clean Water Act, it posts revenues of more than $4.7 billion annually.

“I doubt if it will have a far-reaching or lasting impact on the mining industry. It will likely be business as usual,” said Dr. Dennis Lemly, a research biologist for the USDA-Forest Service who has done extensive work on selenium pollution.

The Smokey Canyon phosphate mine, operated by JR Simplot Co., has already been listed Superfund site, a site containing uncontrolled hazardous waste, due to its severe pollution of surrounding waterways and lands with selenium.

Now expansion is being planned into an area of more than 1,100 acres of pristine roadless forest. The expansion was approved by the Forest Service and the BLM on the assurances of the mine’s operator, J.R. Simplot Company, that additional selenium contamination will be effectively contained.

However, independent experts and even the agencies own scientists have questioned the proposed practices for preventing further selenium contamination. The general consensus is that the new mine will certainly cause additional selenium contamination to the state’s streams and ground water, as the mining industry has not yet found an effective solution to stop the spread of polluting selenium. J.R. Simplot Co. is currently seeking to intervene in a federal lawsuit filed by environmentalists. It argues that it should be allowed to join the legal fight because the future of its mine and therefore the economic livelihood of hundreds of workers depend on the expansion.

In response to the intervention John Hart, a spokesperson for the conservation groups, said, “The mine expansion will increase pollution and harm hunting, fishing, ranching, and recreation. Many people in the area of the mine rely on clean water for their livelihood and way of life. We know these are good people who work at the mine. But mining jobs should not trump the work of others or the economic value of clean water.”