Restoration: The EPA relaxes Clean Water Act permitting liability for some ‘Good Samaritan’ mine cleanups

Here’s the guidance document to EPA Regional Administrators from the Environmental Protection Agency:

From the Summit County Citizens Voice (Bob Berwyn):

The memo from EPA national headquarters to the agency’s regional offices extends the legal liability protections in cleanup agreements and specifies that Good Samaritans are generally not responsible for obtaining a Clean Water Act permit during or after a successful cleanup conducted according to a Good Samaritan agreement with EPA. Read the memo here.

The complex structure of the Clean Water Act has, in some cases, prevented community groups from proceeding with cleanups because of concerns over future liability for pollution.

Sen. Mark Udall, a Colorado Democrat, has been leading efforts to facilitate more protection for voluntary remediation efforts. He announced the new EPA guidance this week, saying that it required persistent communication with the agency, as well as direct appeals to the White House.

“This is a powerful statement coming from the EPA and I’m glad they decided to stand with me on this issue … True Good Samaritans can feel comfortable pursuing cleanups and partnerships with EPA knowing they won’t be responsible for pollution when they get done,” Udall said.

There are more than 7,000 abandoned mine sites in Colorado, many of them leaching toxic heavy metals into streams to the detriment of aquatic life. Udall said the new EPA guidance could ease cleanup projects at the Pennsylvania Mine site along Peru Creek, in Summit County, as well as at the Tiger Mine, along the Arkansas near Leadville, in the Animas River Basin near Silverton and along Willow Creek, near Creede.

“This new policy, which follows a multiyear effort I led, is welcome news for my constituents and Good Samaritans everywhere. Abandoned mines in Colorado and across the West threaten our waterways and the environment,” Udall said in a prepared statement.

“I am glad the EPA has partnered with me to develop this policy, which will free up Good Samaritans – like Trout Unlimited, the Animas River Stakeholders Group and the Willow Creek Reclamation Committee – to help protect our streams, waterways and drinking supplies. We still have work to do to address these abandoned mines, but this is a welcome step in the right direction that will unleash the power of local groups and volunteers.”

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Matt Hildner):

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday eased policy restrictions that had limited efforts by third parties to clean up abandoned hard rock mines. The move, which would enable third parties to partner with the agency for extended time periods and eliminate the need for a permit under the Clean Water Act during or after cleanup, may spur further reclamation here and at the nearly 7,000 abandoned mines in Colorado.

Good Samaritan groups, as many of the nonprofit and community­based cleanup organizations have been called, had feared tackling projects that directly involved a pollution source out of fear of being held liable for the site by the agency.

“The great thing here is that we’ve really superempowered these groups to go to work,” U.S. Sen. Mark Udall, D­ Colo., said in a conference call with reporters.

The senator visited Creede in 2011 and met with the Willow Creek Reclamation Committee, which has been working for 13 years to clean up the historic mining district north of town. At the time, the group pointed to the Solomon Mine on East Willow Creek as a site where more work could be done if the threat of liability was erased. The group’s director could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

The cleanup of the Tiger Mine near Leadville also was hampered by liability concerns. Elizabeth Russell, who heads mine cleanup efforts for Trout Unlimited in Colorado, said financial considerations might limit any immediate work on the project, but she said it was tailor­made for the new policy.

“The Tiger Mine is probably the best situation where this could probably work,” she said. Udall said he would monitor efforts under the new policy to see if a legislative fix was needed. But one effort he intends to push for is a bill that would allow federal funds for coal mine cleanup also to be directed toward hard­rock sites.

More water pollution coverage here.

Clean Water Act: ‘Why rivers no longer burn’ — James Salzman

Here’s an essay from James Salzman (writing for Slate) celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Clean Water Act. Here’s an excerpt:

A river catches fire, so polluted that its waters have “no visible life, not even low forms such as leeches and sludge worms.” This could describe the mythological River Styx from Hades. Residents of Cleveland, though, may recognize the government’s assessment of their own Cuyahoga River in 1969. While hard to imagine today, discharging raw sewage and pollution into our harbors and rivers has been common practice for most of the nation’s history, with devastating results. By the late 1960s, Lake Erie had become so polluted that Time magazine described it as dead. Bacteria levels in the Hudson River were 170 times above the safe limit.

I can attest to the state of the Charles River in Boston. While sailing in the 1970s, I capsized and had to be treated by a dermatologist for rashes caused by contact with the germ-laden waters. You can see the poor state of our waters for yourself in the iconic 1971 “Crying Indian” commercial.

In 1972, a landmark law reversed the course of this filthy tide. Today, four decades later, the Clean Water Act stands as one of the great success stories of environmental law. Supported by Republicans and Democrats alike, the act took a completely new approach to environmental protection. The law flatly stated there would be no discharge of pollutants from a point source (a pipe or ditch) into navigable waters without a permit. No more open sewers dumping crud into the local stream or bay. Permits would be issued by environmental officials and require the installation of the best available pollution-control technologies.

Click through and read the whole article. If you are an enemy of the EPA stop for a moment to reconsider. The agency has its place. If you are a polluter remember that the law you circumvent is there to prevent the continued loss of clean drinking water sources. If you are a conservationist take solace in the fact that the U.S. was once aligned politically behind protecting the environment. It may happen again.

More water pollution coverage here.

Clean Water Act 2.0: Rights of Waterways — Linda Sheehan

From the Huffington Post (Linda Sheehan):

Over the last 40 years [ed. since the Clean Water Act was passed], progress has undeniably been made — but it has also undeniably stalled. Over half of monitored rivers and streams nationwide, and almost 70 percent of lakes, reservoirs and ponds, still cannot meet one or more established beneficial uses such as swimming, fishing or habitat. Water flows are also increasingly compromised, with fish and even whales disappearing as water diversions increase. Climate change also is threatening waterways; in the recent opening days of the 67th Session of the U.N. General Assembly, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called for urgent action on climate change to ensure water and food security world-wide…

The 40th anniversary of the Clean Water Act calls for reflection on next steps. While the Act’s vision was laudable, it has in effect legalized pollution and extraction, with slowed but ongoing degradation. Our other environmental laws similarly have fallen short in protecting people and planet, their limitations evident from growing, global problems such as spreading species extinctions and accelerating climate change impacts.

One of the key reasons our environmental laws are falling short is that they accept without question the overarching assumption that the natural world can and should be manipulated and degraded for short-term financial profit [ed. emphasis mine]. Our laws fail to reflect the fact that we are inextricably intertwined with the natural world, and that what we do to the Earth, we do to ourselves. We must modernize our laws to correct this fundamental misunderstanding and guide us on a better path.

Thanks to @downstream2012 for the link.

Clean Water Act 2.0 - Rights of Waterways. Kudos to Linda Sheehan! huffingtonpost.com/linda-sheehan/…

—
Downstream Neighbor (@downstream2012) October 24, 2012

More water pollution coverage here and here.

Clean Water Act 40th anniversary: ‘I actually remember the Cuyahoga River in Ohio catching on fire’ — Lynn Bartels

Lynn Bartels (The Denver Post) is linking to a video about the Clean Water Act. Here’s an excerpt from her blog post:

No one’s ever accused me of being a tree-hugger but I watched from beginning to end this video on the Clean Water Act [Clean Water Act: Better at 40], which celebrates its 40th birthday this month.

I actually remember the Cuyahoga River in Ohio catching on fire.

Interestingly, President Nixon vetoed the Clean Water Act [ed. due to the Congress adding too much spending], but Congress overturned the veto by a stunning 10 to 1 vote.

More water pollution coverage here.

October 18 — Happy Birthday Clean Water Act

From The New York Times (Robert B. Sempla Jr.):

Thursday, Oct. 18, marks the 40th anniversary of the Clean Water Act, a critical turning point in the nation’s efforts to rescue its rivers, streams, lakes and wetlands from centuries of industrial, municipal and agricultural pollution. But what should be a moment of celebration is also a moment of apprehension: Republicans in the House have spent the last two years trying to undercut the law, and should they gain control of the White House and Congress in next month’s elections, they could well succeed.

These same Republicans are either ignorant of their political heritage or have no use for it. Richard Nixon, a savvy Republican who appreciated the raw force behind an environmental movement that had coalesced only two years before around Earth Day, was among those pushing hardest for the law. Nixon sent a clean water bill to Congress, then vetoed the final product on Oct. 17 after it had nearly doubled in size, forcing Congress to override the next day. But he did so on budgetary grounds, not because he objected to its substance. “The pollution of our rivers, lakes and streams degrades the quality of American life,” he said. “Cleaning up the nation’s waterways is a matter of urgent concern to me.”

More Clean Water Act coverage here.

Celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Clean Water Act EPA style

Click here for water-saving tips from the Environmental Protection Agency.

Celebrate the 40th Anniversary of the Clean Water Act EPA style

Here’s a list of things you can do to celebrate from the Environmental Protection Agency. Here’s an excerpt:

Volunteer in your community

Find a watershed or wellhead protection organization in your community and volunteer to help. If there are no active groups, consider starting one. Use EPA’s Adopt Your Watershed to locate groups in your community, or visit the Watershed Information Network’s How to Start a Watershed Team.

EPA’s adopt your watershed
How to start a watershed team

More EPA coverage here.

‘Can the EPA cut ocean plastic pollution with the Clean Water Act?’ — Bob Berwyn

#Environment: Can the EPA cut #oceans plastic pollution with the Clean Water Act? wp.me/pJ91e-ccz

—
Bob Berwyn (@bberwyn) August 26, 2012

Loopholes in the Clean Water Act are potentially detrimental to waterways

From the Colorado News Connection (Kathleen Ryan) via the Fowler Tribune:

…some worry that loopholes in the Clean Water Act could allow the mining industry to turn Colorado’s lakes and rivers into dumping ponds for waste. One loophole allows mines to treat nearby lakes, rivers and other wetlands as “water treatment systems,” exempt from Act provisions. The other allows for toxic mine tailings, or waste, to be treated as “fill.” Prior to 2002 that designation was limited to non-toxic waste such as rock, soil and clay.

Tony Turrini, an attorney with the National Wildlife Federation, says the solution isn’t to stop mining, but to make sure it’s done sensibly.

“We certainly appreciate the economic benefits that a mine can bring to a local community, but we do insist on responsible mining. Discharging waste into waters is not responsible mining.”

The National Wildlife Federation and other groups are calling for the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to close the two loopholes, saying it will allow for new hardrock mining at proposed sites while at the same time preserving Colorado’s environment.

More water pollution coverage here.

Should there be a Clean Water Act exemption for ‘Good Samaritan’ efforts at cleaning up abandoned mines?

The idea is catching on in some circles. Here’s a report from Gus Jarvis writing for The Telluride Watch. From the article:

After nearly 20 years of inaction, the creation of a Good Samaritan policy with regard to the cleanup of abandoned mine drainage flows has gained broad support across the West. There is now hope that it might gain traction with federal legislators and policy makers in Washington, D.C…

According to Ouray County Commissioner Lynn Padgett, the liability issue for Good Samaritans working on draining mines goes all the way back to 1994, when the EPA determined that draining mines are point source discharges and require National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits.

All too often, no viable financially responsible party exists for the abandoned mines. While the water quality in the vicinity of the mine continues to be impaired, no one can be held responsible for cleaning it up. Good Samaritans, be it state or federal agencies, watershed groups, environmental groups, or mining companies, often have programs in place to implement a mine cleanup but the liability issue prevents them from going forward with the cleanup.

“This is something people have been asking for 20 some years,” Padgett said in an interview on Tuesday. “There are some examples in Colorado of filtration systems that have been built but not turned on because of the liability piece. I think there has to be a common sense answer here.”

U.S. Senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) have addressed the issue with the EPA, asking it to use its authority to create a Good Samaritan policy that would allow them to improve water quality without fear of liability or citizen lawsuits under the Clean Water Act. Udall has been in favor of a Good Samaritan policy during his tenure in the Senate and has continued to push the idea. In 2009, Udall introduced the Good Samaritan Cleanup of Abandoned Hardrock Mines Act, which has not yet passed. Last month, after writing a letter to the EPA, Udall again took the issue to the Senate floor to gain support from his colleagues.

“Good Samaritans are too valuable of a resource to keep on the sidelines,” Udall said on Feb. 14. “Congress should do what is necessary to bring their efforts to bear on the cleanup of abandoned mine pollution…Good Samaritans can’t solve all of our abandoned mine pollution problems, but we can’t afford to turn away those willing to help any longer.”

More water pollution coverage here. More Good Samaritan coverage here and here.

Union Pacific Railroad Company to pay $1.5 million for Clean Water Act violations in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming

Here’s the release from the Environmental Protection Agency (Donna Inman/Matthew Allen):

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today announced a settlement with Union Pacific Railroad Company regarding alleged violations of the Clean Water Act and the Oil Pollution Act.

This settlement resolves a Clean Water Act enforcement action against Union Pacific that involves continuing operations at 20 rail yards in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, as well as spills of oil and coal in 2003 and 2004 along railroad lines in all three states.

For the railyards, EPA alleges Union Pacific violated EPA’s Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) and Facility Response Plan (FRP) regulations. These regulations are the first line of defense for preventing oil spills and providing immediate containment measures when an oil spill does occur.

“Today we have secured a settlement that will help prevent spills, protect water quality, and improve the safety of Union Pacific’s operations in 20 communities across Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming,” said Jim Martin, EPA regional administrator. “Union Pacific has already begun putting necessary measures in place and we will ensure they continue to do so.”

As part of the settlement, Union Pacific will pay a civil penalty of $1.5 million of which approximately $1.4 million will be deposited into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, a fund used by federal agencies to respond to oil spills. The remaining $100,000 will be deposited in the U.S. Treasury for the coal spills and stormwater violations. In addition, the settlement requires the company to develop a management and reporting system to ensure compliance with SPCC regulations, FRP regulations, and storm water requirements at 20 rail yards in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. Union Pacific must take further actions to control stormwater runoff at the Burnham Rail Yard in Denver, which are anticipated to prevent the discharge of approximately 2,500 pounds of chemical oxygen demand, 50 pounds of nitrate, 11,000 pounds of total suspended solids, and 30 pounds of zinc annually to waters in the Denver area.

This settlement will benefit many communities in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, many of which are disadvantaged, by requiring Union Pacific to install secondary containment to safely store oil and prevent oil spills from leaving its properties. Further, it will require the company to designate an environmental vice-president responsible for complying with oil spill prevention and stormwater control requirements at the 20 railyards. The majority of the 20 locations cited in the settlement are in disadvantaged areas with significant low-income and/ or minority populations.

The complaint alleges the following violations:

· Six oil spills in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming
· Three coal spills in Colorado
· Inadequate SPCC plans and/or inadequate SPCC plan implementation (e.g., inadequate secondary containment) at the following 20 rail yards:

o Denver 36th Street, Burnham, Denver North, East Portal Moffatt Tunnel, Grand Junction, Kremmling, Pueblo, and Rifle, all in Colorado
o Helper, Ogden, Provo, Roper, Salt Lake City North, and Summit, all in Utah

§ Also for six rail yards in Utah, failure to provide certifications and reports for storm water pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs) as required by the Utah Multi-Sector General Permit.

o Bill, Buford, Cheyenne, Green River, Laramie, and Rawlins, all in Wyoming

§ Also for the Rawlins, Wyoming rail yard, an inadequate FRP and a failed Government Initiated Unannounced Exercise

More Environmental Protection Agency coverage here and here.

Clean Water Action is asking the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to eliminate the ‘trade secret’ loophole in their proposed hydraulic fracturing regulations

From the Northern Colorado Business Report:

“Fracking is racing across Northern Colorado – the entire region is being used as a huge guinea pig,” said Gary Wockner, program director for Clean Water Action’s Colorado chapter based in Fort Collins. “At a minimum, we need to close the trade secret loophole, find out how much water is being used in fracking, and mark fracking fluids so that polluters can be held accountable.”[...]

The new proposed fracking regulations will be heard at a public meeting by COGCC on Dec. 5. The rules are aimed at providing more public disclosure of fracking fluids, but critics have noted that the rules as currently proposed allow oil and gas companies to keep some trade secrets regarding the chemical formulas they use…

Public comments on the proposed rules can be made at http://cogcc.state.co.us/.

More oil and gas coverage here and here.

LaFarge settles Clean Water Act violations in five states, including Colorado

From The Denver Post:

Following federal inspections of Lafarge facilities that involved a pattern of violations since 2006, Lafarge and its four U.S. subsidiaries will evaluate all its 189 concrete facilities to ensure they meet federal Clean Water Act standards and will pay $740,000 in penalties. The work will insure that stormwater that flows over Lafarge concrete manufacturing facilities does not carry pollutants that impact water quality in nearby watersheds.

Lafarge also will protect land using conservation easements in Maryland and Colorado on l66 acres valued at $2.95 million.

The comprehensive evaluation will involve permit reviews at each facility and an analysis of all discharges into U.S. waters. Lafarge also will install an environmental team of managers and directors overseeing stormwater compliance standards at its facilities. Lafarge will spend about $8 million over five years developing and maintaining its new environmental compliance program.

More water pollution coverage here.

Telluride: The Sheep Mountain Alliance plans to file a Clean Water Act citizen action against PacifiCorp over acid mine drainage into the Howard Fork of the San Miguel River

From The Telluride Watch:

Sheep Mountain Alliance has formally notified Oregon-based utility company PacifiCorp and Silver Bell owner Lee Wynne of plans to initiate a citizen enforcement action under the Clean Water Act to stop the pollution of the San Miguel River.

PacifiCorp owns and maintains the Silver Bell tailings remediation site, located near the Ophir Loop, but has, according to SMA Executive Director Hillary White, allowed the site to discharge heavy metals, acidic drainage, and effluent solids into the Howard Fork of the San Miguel between October 2006 and the present.

“Because of the persistent and ongoing nature of these violations, we have every reason to expect that PacifiCorp’s pollution will keep endangering the San Miguel River unless we take a strong stance and make it clear that the site must be cleaned up immediately and all the water quality violations corrected,” said White. “The Silver Bell tailings site at Ophir Loop is vitally important to protecting the health of the Howard Fork of the San Miguel,” she said, and “the site is violating discharge standards with acid discharge, iron, and solids, and that affects drinking water supplies downstream as well as habitat for fish and wildlife.”

PacifiCorp has 60 days to correct the ongoing discharge violations of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for the Silver Bell site, or it could potentially face fines, to be imposed by a federal court, for its past five years of violations.

More San Miguel River watershed coverage here and here.

Fountain Creek: Colorado appeals court rules that the Pueblo District Attorney is not authorized to sue Colorado Springs for pollution under the Clean Water Act

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The decision by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals nixes Thiebaut’s intention to sue the city again for discharging pollutants from its sewage system into the creek. Thiebaut said, however, his 2005 lawsuit, under the federal clean water law, prompted Colorado Springs to improve its sewage system, which discharges into the creek. “It is important to take stock of what this suit has accomplished for our community,” Thiebaut said. “No one has ever stood up against Colorado Springs on behalf of Pueblo before this suit was filed.”[...]

Thiebaut said Wednesday his lawsuit “woke up Colorado Springs to the fact that they would no longer get away with their shoddy practices and cheap stream crossings. “To avoid the full power of the court, they began to spend a lot of money to clean up their act, improving their sewage treatment system and stream crossings — and they need to do even more,” he said…

The Denver-based appeals court’s 3-0 decision said Thiebaut had conceded he, as an individual citizen, was entitled to have sued Colorado Springs under the federal water law. He chose, instead, to sue in his official capacity as district attorney. The appeals court agreed with [U.S. District Court judge, Walker Miller, who threw out Thiebaut's lawsuit in 2007] that the Colorado law which outlines the duties of district attorneys does not give them authority to sue under the Clean Water Act.

Here’s the order from Leagle.com.

More coverage from Associated Press via The Durango Herald:

Thiebaut’s lawsuit in 2005 argued that discharges of sewage between 1998 and 2007 were violating the Clean Water Act, hurting Fountain Creek and affecting Pueblo County’s economy. His lawsuit sought civil penalties. On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with a district court that found Thiebaut couldn’t file a citizen Clean Water Act lawsuit in his official capacity. Thiebaut said his office was reviewing the ruling before deciding what’s next…

The Sierra Club also sued over the spills. A judge fined the utility $35,500 to settle the Sierra Club’s claims.

Colorado Springs Utilities’ pipes cross creeks dozens of times, leaving them somewhat at risk in times of rainstorms, utility spokesman Steve Berry said. He said that since 2004, before Thiebaut sued, the municipal utility has invested more than $147 million in improving its wastewater collection system, which he said is now among the best-performing systems in the state. It expects to have spent $250 million by 2018, he said.

More Fountain Creek coverage here and here.

The Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011: Colorado Republican U.S. Representatives march in lockstep with their party (and a handful of Democrats) in an attempt to gut the Clean Water Act

From the Colorado Independent (David O. Williams):

U.S. Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., and the rest of Colorado’s majority Republican congressional delegation are all wet for voting along with the GOP-controlled House to pass the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act by a margin of 239-184 on Wednesday, according to the bill’s many outraged opponents.

“Rep. Gardner has once again made an extremist vote that increases profits for polluters at the expense of the public’s health and the environment” said Gary Wockner of Fort Collins-based Clean Water Action. “Rep. Gardner says he supports jobs, but he’s only voting to support corporate polluters’ profits.”

“It is time for the EPA to give Congress some straight answers about the consequences its regulations have on jobs and the economy, without knowing that information how can we judge whether a regulation is necessary or harmful?” Gardner said in a recent release…

All three Democratic members of Colorado’s congressional delegation voted against the bill, but Gardner joined fellow Colorado Republican House members Doug Lamborn, Mike Coffman and Scott Tipton in bucking the Obama administration, which earlier in the week promised a veto in the unlikely event the bill makes it out of the Senate.

More coverage from EarthJustice.org (Liz Judge). From the article:

The House passed this legislation 239-184, despite a vow from the White House promising a veto if the bill makes it through the Senate. This legislation is the most offensive in a fresh spate of clean water attacks waged by the majority of the 112th House. The bill undoes the basis of the Clean Water Act, the 40-year-old cornerstone of all drinkable, swimmable and fishable waters in this country. Without this landmark law, and the system it set up for federal oversight of waters across all states, we wouldn’t have the clean waters that we have today. HR 2018 removes federal oversight and leaves the fate of our waters, which flow between states and know no state boundaries, up to states.

More H.R. 2018 coverage here.

Restoration: Should there be a ‘Good Samaritan’ exemption to the Clean Water Act?

From The Durango Herald (Karen Frantz):

U.S. Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennet, both Democrats, want to ensure the rules protect so-called good Samaritan groups willing to participate in cleanup efforts. Specifically, the senators are asking the EPA for clarification about whether groups would need to get a Clean Water Act permit for cleanup projects to avoid liability, as well as other questions about the extent to which groups are protected…

Animas River Stakeholders Group member Peter Butler said the letter asks the right questions. “If EPA answers the questions thoroughly, it will hopefully end the debate as to whether or not an amendment to the Clean Water Act is necessary to limit liability enough for Good Samaritans to feel comfortable to clean up draining mines,” he said in an e-mail.

He also said it was significant that Boxer signed the letter because her staff had not been supportive of the need for good Samaritan legislation in the past and she chairs the committee such a bill would go through.

More water pollution coverage here.

More Good Samaritan exemption coverage here.

Restoration: Should there be a ‘Good Samaritan’ exemption to the Clean Water Act?

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

U.S. Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennet, along with chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, sent a letter to the EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson asking her to clarify the EPA’s ability to facilitate “Good Samaritan” cleanups of abandoned hard-rock mines. Good Samaritans are third-party groups that have no connection to or responsibility for the mining activities or resulting pollution but, nevertheless, they want to clean up these sites to mitigate damage to crucial watersheds and public health. The Government Accountability Office estimates that there are roughly 160,000 abandoned hard-rock mines in the twelve Western states and South Dakota, with 7,300 in Colorado…

The senators request that the agency update its administrative tools to clarify existing liability protections and improve outreach to Good Samaritan groups to promote more cleanups. The letter also lists specific questions, based on concerns the senators have heard from Good Samaritans, about the extent to which EPA believes existing administrative tools provide liability protection.

More water pollution coverage here.

More Good Samaritan exemption coverage here.

Restoration: Should there be a ‘Good Samaritan’ exemption to the Clean Water Act?

From the Associated Press via The Denver Post:

U.S. Senators Mark Udall and Michael Bennet are asking the Environmental Protection Agency to clarify the EPA’s ability to help unaffiliated groups that want to clean up abandoned hardrock mines. The third-party groups have no connection to or responsibility for the mining activities or resulting pollution but want to clean up these sites to mitigate damage to watersheds and public health, but they’re worried about legal liability.

More water pollution coverage here.

More Good Samaritan exemption coverage here.

Restoration: Should there be a ‘Good Samaritan’ exemption to the Clean Water Act?

From The Denver Post (Bruce Finley):

But as bad as the damage is, community watershed groups, mining companies and even state agencies contend they cannot embark on cleanups for fear of incurring legal liability. Under the Clean Water Act, parties who get involved at abandoned mines and accidentally make matters worse — even over the short term — could be vulnerable to federal prosecution for polluting waterways without a permit.

Obama administration officials two years ago promised to break gridlock on this issue, spurring a legislative fix to enable “good Samaritan” cleanups and devoting “significant resources” for watershed restoration. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar last week acknowledged there is still gridlock and that more must be done to deal with tens of thousands of leaking abandoned mines nationwide…

State records show:

• Colorado’s 7,300 abandoned mine sites contain about 17,000 point sources of pollution, such as open mine shafts and tunnels.

• At least 150 abandoned mines “significantly affect” surface water directly. Storm and snowmelt water running over slag heaps at another 300 abandoned mines measurably harms surface and groundwater.

• The abandoned mines are scattered widely — including Jamestown west of Boulder and the headwaters of the Mancos River in the southwestern corner of the state.

More water pollution coverage here.

More Good Samaritan exemption coverage here.

H.R. 1, Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 would strip Clean Water Act Protections from streams in Adams, Arapahoe, Broomfield and Park counties

From an oped penned by Sharon Lance and Jo Evans running in the Boulder Daily Camera:

One of the riders that Coloradans should be most concerned about also strikes at the heart of the Clean Water Act. This rider blocks federal guidance and rulemaking that would restore protection for some wetlands and streams which were curtailed by two harmful and confusing Supreme Court decisions, Rapanos (2006) and SWANCC (2001). Taken together, these decisions and existing agency guidance have removed protections for at least 20 million acres of wetlands, especially prairie potholes and other seasonal wetlands that are essential to waterfowl populations throughout the country.

In Adams, Arapahoe, Broomfield and Park counties, 40 percent to 60 percent of the stream miles feeding the drinking water supplies for 725,000 people are at risk of losing Clean Water Act protections from pollution. Preventing action on this issue denies protections for Colorado`s rivers, lakes and streams and denies clarity to landowners, conservationists and the regulated community.

Greeley: EPA fines Bucklen Equipment for Clean Water Act violations

Here’s a release from the EPA via The Greeley Tribune:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has reached an agreement with Bucklen Equipment Company to resolve alleged violations of the Clean Water Act in Weld County. Under the agreement, the company will pay a penalty of $16,000 and remove any remaining gravel piles from wetlands along the Cache la Poudre River within the city of Greeley.

The EPA, in a release Tuesday, said Bucklen Equipment introduced sediment and altered the condition of the river and nearby wetlands. The investigation began in August 2008 when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers received information that the company was doing excavation along the river, including the removal of islands and grading the river’s floodplain, according to the EPA release.

The EPA will inspect the area next summer to determine if it has properly recovered.

Clean Water Act permits are required before performing any work that results in material being placed into rivers, lakes, streams and wetlands. Any person planning work affecting waters and wetlands should contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Office at 9307 S. Wadsworth Ave., Littleton, CO, 80128-6901 or call (303) 979-4120 to determine if they need a permit.

More Cache la Poudre coverage here.

Good Samaritan legislation talk fuels Clean Water Act compromise fears

Cleaning up old mines is causing a split amongst conservationists. Some want to do the cleanup without assuming the risk of owning the pollution. Others are wary of granting exemptions to the Clean Water Act. Here’s a report from Katie Redding writing for the Colorado Independent. From the article:

“The environmental groups in Washington, D.C, surprisingly enough, are the biggest impediment to passing this legislation,” explained Jeff Crane, executive director of the Colorado Watershed Assembly. “It completely baffles my mind. I just don’t get it.”

For their part, environmental groups like the Washington, D.C.-based Clean Water Network and Oakland, Calif.-based Earthjustice, argue that waiving compliance with the Clean Water Act, for any reason, is a dangerous precedent. “Waiving environmental laws that are meant to protect people’s health defeats the purpose of having environmental laws to begin with,” said Jessica Ennis, spokeswoman for Earthjustice, a prior opponent.

More water pollution coverage here.

Southern Delivery System: Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act permit a foregone conclusion?

Here’s an update on Colorado Springs Utilities’ proposed Southern Delivery System, from R. Scott Rappold writing for The Colorado Springs Gazette. From the article:

The public comment period ended Friday, and 13 people and organizations -12 against, one in favor – submitted comments, a possible sign that people see the once-controversial project as a foregone conclusion, since the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and Pueblo County have both approved it. Van Truan, from the Corps of Engineers Pueblo office, said he was surprised by the low number of comments…

Truan said the Corps will not release the comments until a permit is issued or denied. The Corps is expected make a decision on the permit within 120 days, Truan said. He said most of the comments were similar to those voiced earlier in the process, so the agency has not decided if it will hold a hearing on the permit. “A lot them refer to things that are really not in the scope of our permit, but beyond that,” Truan said.

Some who commented released their remarks. The Sierra Club and the Rocky Mountain Environmental Labor Coalition called on the Corps to hold a public hearing. The Pueblo West Metropolitan District, a partner in the pipeline, asked the Corps to deny a permit because it wants to slow the approval process while the district tries to resolve a conflict with Pueblo County over flow guarantees through a whitewater park on the Arkansas River. Pueblo County District Attorney Bill Thiebaut, who has sued Colorado Springs over sewage spills and opposed the pipeline, urged the Corps to consider the cumulative impacts of the project and possible alternatives to the pipeline. “The Corps must require CSU to analyze other less environmentally harmful alternatives, such as water conservation strategies, water recycling and reuse and land use restrictions,” Thiebaut wrote in his comments, which his office released.

More coverage from The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

While Pueblo West is fighting a Pueblo County condition requiring it to help protect the Arkansas River below Pueblo Dam, the metro district has agreed in the past to help maintain flows through Pueblo. In a Nov. 13, 2001, agreement with the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Pueblo West agreed to cooperate in a flow management program as a condition for future storage in Lake Pueblo under the Preferred Storage Options Plan. On June 8, a decree in Pueblo West’s 1985 filing for reuse and exchange committed the metro district to forgo exchanges when levels in the Arkansas River fall below 100 cubic feet per second in order to maintain water quality…

Utilities Director Steve Harrison said Tuesday. “Every water provider knows the value of environmental flows, but there is a difference between environmental and recreation flows.”

Pueblo County is taking a hard line on the flow program because the variety of flows it helps to provide are needed for aquatic life as well as recreation, countered Ray Petros, special counsel for water and land-use issues for the county. “The health of the river below the dam is important,” Petros said. “The cost of restoring the river later would be much greater than protecting the river now.”

Pueblo West, currently undergoing political turmoil, still stands by the 2001 agreement, which was associated with the potential enlargement of Pueblo Dam under PSOP, Harrison said. “We didn’t think it would be that large of an issue. It was a voluntary program,” Harrison said. Petros argued it was more than a voluntary program, pointing out the 100 cfs limit was written into Pueblo West’s June 8 water court decree. “This was back in 2001, long before the county permit requirement,” Petros said. “At that point, they looked at this as what would be required as a condition for reservoir enlargement. I don’t agree it’s voluntary. It’s embedded in the contract.”[...]

Pueblo West would stand to lose more as a full participant in the Pueblo flow program, Harrison said. He pointed to a draft report by MWH Engineering, contracted by Colorado Springs, that shows Pueblo West eventually could lose the ability to exchange about 500 acre-feet of the 3,200 acre-feet of exchanges it could theoretically make now. The loss would be about one-third as much if Pueblo West is successful in developing a pump-back option of sewer flows from Wild Horse Creek to a gulch near the golf course. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment is considering that request…

Petros said the MWH report fails to consider how the Recovery of Yield program – which returns about 70 percent of forgone flows – would reduce that amount, and assumes that Pueblo West would be able to fully develop 8,400 acre-feet of water. Petros said other factors may pose a greater limit for the metro district’s ability to realize the full amount.

That doesn’t matter to Pueblo West, which doesn’t believe the county has any right to curtail its water supply, which is nearly all transmountain deliveries of water that would otherwise not be in the basin, Harrison said. “Pueblo West doesn’t want to dry up the river,” Harrison said. “I don’t understand why the county is trying to take a large chunk of our water. If we lose that water, we have to replace, and that could be expensive.”

More coverage from The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The Army Corps of Engineers has not decided whether a public hearing is needed for its evaluation of the Southern Delivery System. “We’re reviewing the comments we received to see if there would be valid, new information to be gained at a public hearing,” said Van Truan, chief of the Southern Colorado regulatory arm of the Corps. “There has been plenty of opportunity to comment on the project.”

The major impacts that concern the Corps is that 0.23 acres of wetlands would be permanently lost in the project, three outfall structures and numerous stream crossings of pipelines. Those impacts are relatively routine and the Corps considered issuing a permit under a process that requires no public review. “Colorado Springs is insisting we do everything in the open,” Truan said. “Having a public hearing is a big process for us. We may have a public input session.”[...]

Among the comments received:

The Rocky Mountain Environmental Labor Coalition and Sierra Club requested a public hearing on the SDS pipeline, as well as additional time to file comments. The coalition said alternatives to SDS have not been adequately studied.

Pueblo District Attorney Bill Thiebaut asked the Corps to delay a permit until ongoing problems on Fountain Creek, including sewer spills, flooding and sedimentation, are fixed.

Pueblo West, a participant in SDS, asked the Corps to delay action until its issues with Pueblo County over the Pueblo Arkansas River Flow Program are resolved.

Pueblo County endorsed any Corps action that incorporates pertinent conditions of the county’s 1041 permit. The county also refuted Pueblo West’s comments about the flow program, saying it is necessary to protect the Arkansas River.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Southern Delivery System: Corps of Engineers accepting comments for Clean Water Act permit until June 4

Colorado Springs Utilities has filed their application — with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers — to build in federal watersheds. The Corps is accepting comments until June 4. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The permit is required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of any project that affects waters of the United States. The permit is needed anytime there is work within the the flood plains of major rivers or their tributaries. In this case, Colorado Springs and its SDS partners – Security, Fountain and Pueblo West – are proposing to alter the river outlet at Pueblo Dam and to build new structures in Fountain Creek – two reservoirs on Williams Creek and a return pipeline from the lower reservoir. Less than an acre of land would be permanently disturbed and 14 acres would be temporarily affected, according to the initial review of SDS. “Our preliminary review indicates this project will not impact any threatened or endangered species or critical habitat,” said Lt. Col. Kimberly Colloton, commander of the Albuquerque district of the Corps. The Corps also has found no disturbance of historic or cultural resources and said the SDS partners are in compliance with state water quality regulations.

The Corps review can look at a wide range of impacts including stream conditions, safety, flood hazards, fish, wildlife, land use, property ownership and “in general, the needs and welfare of the people,” Colloton said.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.