Seminar Prep:

1. Future Implications What is the best solution to both ensure economic prosperity and
environmental health for current and future generations?
In my belief, the best solution is for the Upper Animas basin to be designated a
Superfund as long as they can work together with the Animas River Stakeholders Group to
improve the water quality. A Superfund designation would provide the funding and money
necessary while the Animas River Stakeholders Group could provide the perspective of multiple
communities such as Silverton, Durango, miners, environmentalists, and much more in order to
create the best plan for the betterment of the quality of the San Juan river.
Superfunds the only long-term solution that can be financially supported. An ongoing
cleanup can only be sustained through a priority-status (AKA, on the national priorities list)
through Superfund. But, as Freddy said, only if were designated a national priority will we get
enough funding using the Superfund. If were not, then were better off with the ARSG.
A Superfund designation wouldnt mean no teamwork, they could work together with the
community. Its not like designating Silverton as a Superfund will mean that the ARSG will be
useless, they can work together to represent the communitys best interests. But is it guaranteed
that Silverton will be put on the National priorities list?
(http://www.durangoherald.com/article/20140423/NEWS01/140429803//article/20140423/NEW
S01/140429803/Superfund-label-stokes-Silverton%92s-curiosity, Chase Olivarius-Mcallister,
Superfund label stokes Silvertons Curiosity)
A Superfund designation wouldnt necessarily hurt tourism or affect the economy of
Silverton negatively. It would bring new jobs and raise property values. The tourism in Leadville,
which was also a Superfund site, wasnt negatively affected. The only downside is that it would

close off mining for good. Although its not guaranteed that mining would have a future without
the Superfund, either. The pollution of the Animas River affects more than one community, so is
it worth it to sacrifice one community for the sake of many others?
(http://www.durangoherald.com/article/20150214/NEWS01/150219763/Is-Silverton-ready-for-acleanup , Chase Olivarius-Mcallister, Is Silverton ready for a cleanup?)
In 2006, Ed and Patti Zink, who have a ranch just North of Durango, enrolled 80 acres of
their land to be an open conservation. They turned 50 acres of that land into a wetland. This
wetland provides a habitat for animals and it improves the water quality of the Animas. This
wetland is extremely useful for projects in sensitive areas of the environment. For example, La
Plata County just bought acres of the wetlands to improve an intersection so that it impacts the
environment less.
The Zinks wetland is a perfect example that shows that wetlands can be created along
the Animas River, and that they can improve the water quality while at the same time providing a
healthy habitat. In my opinion, the EPA should create wetlands like this in order to help filter and
clean the river.
(http://www.durangoherald.com/article/20121019/NEWS01/121019465/Zinks-winenvironmental-award-for-wetlands-work, Dale Rodebaugh, Zinks win environmental award for
wetlands work)
A limestone water treatment plant to treat the water would cost 12 million to 17 million to
build and 1 million a year to maintain it, something that the Animas River Stakeholders Group
wouldnt be able to fund.
(http://www.durangoherald.com/article/20140422/NEWS01/140429856, Chase OlivariusMcallister, Silverton flirting with Superfund?)

A limestone water treatment plant would be impractical because its extremely expensive
to build and maintain, the limestone chips used in the process are easily coated and made useless,
and it would add to the suspended particles in the water.
(http://www.phadjustment.com/TArticles/Limestone.html, Digital Analysis Corporation)
3. Causes of the Spill Could the spill have been prevented and if so how?
The EPA had been planning to install a pump in the Gold King prior to the bursting of the
mine, and instead they underestimated the high levels of water and ended up releasing it.
(https://www.cpr.org/news/story/gold-king-mine-1887-claim-private-profits-and-social-costs,
Colorado Public Radio Staff, The Gold King Mine: From an 1887 Claim, Private Profits and
Social Costs)
The EPA was mainly in the Upper Animas in order to bulkhead the Red and Bonita mines which
were discharging heavily contaminated water. They planned to reconstruct the Gold King mine
portal.
(https://drive.google.com/a/animashighschool.com/file/d/0B5ktO3NLUDlcSzZUS0ZLSURqRF
E/view, EPA, Upper Animas Red and Bonita fact sheet)
From my knowledge gathered in Silverton on the field trip, the EPA should have been
more cautious and drilled into the top of the mine in order to measure the water pressure. They
also waited several hours before telling anyone about the spill or their involvement in it. It makes
you wonder, if the toxic water hadnt been such a noticeable color, would the EPA still tell
people? Or would they cover it up and keep it as hidden as possible? The spill wouldnt have
gotten as much media coverage or national attention if the river werent orange.
4. Ecological Impact How far reaching will the ecological impacts be and how will they
vary based on the region of the spill (think about impacts on the aquatic life, fish,

agriculture from Silverton all the way through New Mexico where the Animas meets the
San Juan River and then into Lake Powell where the Colorado meets the San Juan River
AND think about various voices in that region including but not limited to the Navajo
nation)

Only one out of a hundred fish placed in the river after the spill died. The spills impact reaches
to Farmington, Aztec, and the Navajo Nation. Over 1,640 miles of Colorado river are affected by
mining. (https://www.cpr.org/news/story/gold-king-mine-1887-claim-private-profits-and-socialcosts, Colorado Public Radio Staff, The Gold King Mine: From an 1887 Claim, Private Profits
and Social Costs)
5. Historical Context 1.How was the river affected by pollution before the actual spill?
Between 2005 and 2010, three out of four of the fish species that lived in the Upper
Animas beneath Silverton died. The number of insect species have also lowered recently.
...since 2006...the water flowing under Bakers Bridge - then downstream, into Durango carries concentrations of zinc that are toxic to animal life
(http://www.durangoherald.com/article/20140422/NEWS01/140429856, Chase
Olivarius-Mcallister, Silverton Flirting with Superfund?)
The Animas River has been polluted ever since mining began in the 1870s. The miners
poured their tailings into the river, and the mines they made created acid mine drainage. In acid
mine drainage, ...water reacts with iron disulfide (pyrite) and oxygen to form sulfuric acid. The
acidic water dissolves naturally occurring heavy metals such as zinc, lead, cadmium, copper and
aluminum. There were no fish in Silverton below the mines due to the pollution.

In 1975, another spill occurred in the Animas River in which 50,000 tons of tailings
polluted the river for 100 miles downstream. It was the color of aluminum. Just like with this
spill, fish were placed in the river in order to test it, and all of them died within 24 hours of being
in the water.
In 1978, Sunnyside accidentally breached Lake Emma and all the tailings and sludge in the
American Tunnel were swept out into the river.
(https://www.hcn.org/articles/when-our-river-turned-orange-animas-river-spill, Jonathan
Thompson, When Our River Turned Orange)
So its clear that our river wasnt clean before the spill, and it hasnt been truly clean
since the beginning of mining in the region. The Animas River has been polluted by mining, acid
mine drainage, and spills that have impacted aquatic life and the health of the river. This current
spill isnt the worst thing that has happened to the Animas River, its only served to open the eyes
of communities downstream from Silverton to how truly unhealthy and damaged our river has
become.