A sign along the Animas River warns of its closure at Baker’s Bridge in Durango on Aug. 12. (Brent Lewis, The Denver Post)
Re: “EPA chief: Water normal,” Aug. 12 news story.
Were such a disaster the fault of private industry, to be sure such cavalier behavior and simple explanations like “mistakes happen” would be totally unacceptable. Even more appalling is the fact that while private industry must bear enormous financial penalties, in this case the monetary retribution will fall squarely on the taxpayers. If nothing else, there should be immediate terminations within the EPA. It is incomprehensible that a regulatory agency that runs roughshod on private enterprise lacked the fundamental sense to rely on an earthen dam to retain the flow of such hazardous effluent. When an agency such as this is so obviously unprepared to mitigate such a potential problem, why on earth should they be regulating industry?
Bill Lloyd, Castle Rock
This letter was published in the Aug. 16 edition.First, those who hate the EPA with such intensity that they are rejoicing over the Animas River spill should be asking themselves, “What are your real core beliefs?” Second, they may want to ask why the EPA was there in the first place. Was it because it raped the land for profit and suddenly decided to fix its misdeed? Or was it there because a mine owner who reaped all the profit from the mine spent the money he plundered from public land and then left taxpayers to clean up after them with an agency (the EPA) that is not infallible?
Ken Fiore, Arvada
This letter was published in the Aug. 16 edition.The Post should investigate whether the EPA was set up to trigger this 3 million gallon toxic spill into the Animas River. Who benefits the most? Why was it sitting there like an accident just waiting to happen? Who created this toxic wastewater? Who maintains and pays for its safety? Now, who will pay the cost of cleanup and remediation? It deserves a closer look from dogged investigative journalists. Ask the tough questions of the polluters as well as EPA.
Jim Chaney, Denver
This letter was published in the Aug. 16 edition.Recently there has been a lively discussion regarding the environmental impact of the toxic chemicals used by the mining industry over 100 years ago. There is the perception that those who had the most to gain from that practice neglected safeguards in favor of profits. Perhaps they weren’t able to imagine the disastrous outcome a century or more ago. Today, we know there are environmental consequences to digging far into the earth and using chemicals that could pollute our waters, yet we continue the questionable practice of fracking. Will there be a similar discussion in the future about our greed?
Dianna North, Erie
This letter was published in the Aug. 16 edition.Regarding EPA administrator Gina McCarthy’s “boots on the ground” visit to Durango: Perhaps it was more like “slippers on the street” in Durango, since the EPA could not afford a helicopter so she could visit the scene of the crime.
Crime? Yes. Surely it would have treated in that manner if the spill had been caused by private persons or businesses. Since it was the EPA, no problem.
Gary Smith, Granby
This letter was published in the Aug. 16 edition.The solution to the Gold King Mine discharge problem is obvious: Take the EPA off the job, and assign it to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Fred Barnard, Golden
This letter was published in the Aug. 16 edition.
Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
