Friday, August 14, 2015

After river disaster, is it time to re-evaluate EPA?

By Rob Nikolewski

Exxon had its Valdez, BP had its Deepwater Horizon and now the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has its Animas River disaster with which to contend.

The federal agency ensured with safeguarding the nation’s ecosystems is facing a barrage of criticism and charges of double standards after millions of gallons of toxic sludge containing cadmium, lead, arsenic and mercury spilled into the Animas River after an EPA backhoe accidentally punched a hole into a waste pit during a clean-up effort at an abandoned gold mine in Colorado.

“Nobody is going to take the attention away from EPA’s incompetence on this,” Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colorado, told the Wall Street Journal. “If this was a private company, all hell would be breaking loose.”

Nicolas Loris is an economist who focuses on energy, environmental and regulatory issues for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that has been critical of EPA.

“They’re heavy-handed with their fines to an extent that it prohibits economic development and when you have something like this that’s their own fault, obviously the efforts to identify the problem and clean it up as efficiently and as swiftly as possible have been negligent,” Loris told

But Loris emphasized his larger question in the wake of the Animas River disaster centers less on EPA’s initial response and more on the agency’s reason for existing, some 45 years after it was created.

“That’s really what’s at the heart of the matter,” Loris said in a telephone interview. “Transitioning away from the federal government and devolving most of those decisions down to the states.

“There are just too many times the federal government and EPA are placing more stringent air quality standards that produce diminishing marginal returns that are almost to a vanishing point. Whether it’s new ozone standards, the Clean Power Plan regulations for climate change all are going to cost the economy a great deal of money in terms of higher prices, higher compliance costs, lost jobs and less gross domestic product — all for minimal or negligible environmental benefits.”

But can states really take on greater environmental responsibilities?

“The states have shown they do care about their own backyards,” Loris said. “People don’t want to pollute their own property. States don’t want to do so either. That’s not to say there aren’t cross-border issues but that can be dealt with between states and through a federal arbitrator. So I don’t necessarily think that returning the power to the states will result in environmental degradation. Just the opposite. I think states are better equipped to customize policies for the local conditions of their states.”

Richard Revesz, director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law, vehemently disagrees.

“The idea that environmental regulation can be devolved to the states is frankly ludicrous as an across-the-board argument because pollution doesn’t respect state boundaries,” Revesz told “States left to their own devices will not and cannot regulate pollution that has impact on other states. They have no incentive to do that.”

In the meantime, EPA is trying to minimize the damage that’s rolled through Colorado, entered into New Mexico and threatens Utah, Arizona and possibly even the Colorado River that flows into California.

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy flew into Durango, Colorado, on Wednesday to look at the damage first-hand and promised the agency will take “full responsibility” for the accident that she described as “heartbreaking.”

“My job is to manage the agency and the response and to ensure everyone that we will be fully accountable,” McCarthy said. “Our mission is to protect public health. We will hold ourselves to a higher standard.”

McCarthy said early testing shows the river’s water quality has returned to the level prior to the spill, but Colorado’s attorney general told reporters the long-term contamination effects may take years to determine.

EPA has been blasted on a number of fronts since the the breach occurred Aug. 5, some seven days before McCarthy arrived on the scene.

State officials in New Mexico and Colorado as well as leaders of the Navajo Nation complained that EPA did not notify them of the spill until nearly 24 hours after it happened. A spokesman for New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez told the governor’s office first got word of the spill from an Indian tribe instead of EPA.

Related: Two coal ash spills, two very different penalties

In addition, the EPA first reported the spill was estimated at 1 million gallons, but that estimate was way too low. The U.S. Geological Survey reported the leakage to be about 3 million gallons, turning the river into a mustard-colored mess.

Read more....

No comments:

Post a Comment