Washington Backs Epa At Basin Study Hearing Idahoans Voice Embarrassment For Their State’S Stand On Pollution

The Spokane River contains more mining pollution than all of Washing ton’s other rivers combined, a top state environmental official said Wednesday at a public hearing in Spokane.

That’s why Washington state supports the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal for an expanded Superfund study of a century of mining pollution in Idaho, said Tony Grover, regional director of the Washington Department of Ecology.

Several rivers, including the Columbia, the Pend Oreille and the Snake, bring mine pollution into Washington, Grover said. But those rivers “don’t hold a candle to the amount of contamination coming down the Spokane River into Washington,” he said.

Zinc levels considered safe for aquatic life are exceeded every day in the Spokane River, and lead and cadmium pollution exceeds state limits during periods of heavy floods and runoff.

The pollution isn’t considered a human health threat, but that could change if water conditions in Lake Coeur d’Alene deteriorate, moving millions of tons of lead and other contaminants downstream, Grover said.

“How can we not do anything about this? How can we stand by?” he said.

Grover’s message was in sharp contrast to a hostile reception the EPA got Monday night in Coeur d’Alene at the fourth of five public hearings on the proposed cleanup.

A Superfund cleanup of a 21-square-mile area around Kellogg is nearly complete. But the EPA has proposed expanding the cleanup because tons of heavy metals are washing into Lake Coeur d’Alene and some contamination is showing up miles downstream in the Spokane River.

At the Spokane hearing, many in the crowd of over 100 people said the EPA is needed to ensure the cleanup is done thoroughly to protect public health.

“If we don’t deal with this, we’ll be dealing with lead poisoning problems among our citizens in Washington state,” said Dr. Paula Lantsberger, a Spokane expert in occupational medicine.

Their other clear message: Idaho should make a seat at the table for Washington state to help guide plans for an expanded cleanup by 2000.

Several Idahoans traveled to Spokane in support of a strong role for Washington in the EPA cleanup.

“Our message to Spokane County is, do not let someone else’s interests across the state line end up fouling your water. Do what you have to do - even if it means litigation,” said Norman Campbell, a Coeur d’Alene Tribal Council member.

John Bentley of Post Falls said he was embarrassed by the Idaho crowd’s outcry against the EPA at the public hearing in Coeur d’Alene on Monday night.

“I apologize for the rude treatment. My state has been an unwilling participant” in the Coeur d’Alene basin cleanup, Bentley said.

“The EPA should determine once and for all if there’s a problem. I can’t see why anybody would object to that,” he said.

Mining wealth from Idaho built Spokane’s mansions and its economy, said Tom Fudge of Wallace. He asked Grover if Spokane would now return the favor and help contribute to the costs of the Idaho cleanup.

Washington state law is clear: The polluter, in this case the mining companies, must pay because they profited from mining Idaho’s wealth and ignored the pollution from their operations, Grover said.

But if Washington collects any money from the mining companies to pay for the river cleanup, it “will go right back to Idaho” to study where the pollution can be cleaned up, Grover said.

Ivan Urnovitz of the Northwest Mining Association said his industry group agrees that Washington state should be represented on a commission that would direct the expanded cleanup.

But the association is fighting the EPA’s plans. They’d prefer a study of all the pollutants in the Spokane River outside of Superfund.

“We agree there are significant impacts to the Spokane River. Does that justify a Superfund designation? We don’t think so,” Urnovitz said.

Washington Assistant Attorney General Owen Clarke was skeptical of Urnovitz’ olive branch concerning a role for Washington state.

He reminded the audience that the mining group fought a $600,000 appropriation to study pollution in the Spokane River that Gov. Gary Locke requested from the Washington Legislature last year.

“The Northwest Mining Association opposed our appropriation request to work on this issue. They got the money cut in half,” Clarke said.

And just Tuesday, Clarke got a letter from the mining association addressed to Locke and the Washington congressional delegation “taking our office to task” for trying to study any pollution outside of the 21-square mile Superfund site around Kellogg, Clarke said.

The mining association opposes the Washington attorney general’s involvement in the Spokane River studies because it’s a signal the state may eventually sue the mining companies, Urnovitz said.

The EPA supports a modified Superfund cleanup for the lower Coeur d’Alene Basin because it’s an open public process, it addresses human health concerns, and it’s legally enforceable, said the EPA’s Earl Liverman.

“There’s also an opportunity to tap the Superfund. The mining companies will contribute, but they can’t do it all,” Liverman said.

Michelle Nonni of the Inland Empire Lands Council, a Spokane-based environmental group, said the “hysteria” about Superfund heard at many of the Idaho hearings is misplaced.

“The EPA already has authority to continue. This is our best opportunity,” she said.