Point-Counterpoint: CDPHE and BOCC lock horns over funding

April 3, 2008

Jim Martin
Executive Director
Colorado Dept. of Public Health and Environment
4300 Cherry Creek Dr. South
Denver, Colorado 80246-1530

Re: Lake County Mine Pool/Canterbury Tunnel Project

Dear Mr. Martin,

It is with great bewilderment that the Lake County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) reviewed the memo that you and your staff obviously invested much time and effort to personally distribute yesterday at the State Capitol titled "Reasons to Oppose Amendments Directing Funding to Drilling a Well at Canterbury Tunnel in Lake County."

When the BOCC declared a state of emergency on February 13, 2008 concerning the threat posed by the elevated groundwater in the Lake County mining district that could lead to a catastrophic blow out and release of toxic water into the Arkansas River, CDPHE indicated their support for the declaration and offered to participate in the solution to this problem. You personally, Mr. Martin, stated that your agency would agree to take on one component of the multi-pronged solution to this problem by taking responsibility for the drilling at the Canterbury tunnel, a known historical relief valve to the mine pool which has recently become blocked. We repeatedly asked that you inform us if you lacked authority and funding for this project so that our State legislative delegation could take necessary action to obtain it for you. We never received a final answer from you on this repeated question, despite the clock ticking rapidly toward the end of the legislative session.

As our State legislative delegation worked to obtain funding for this necessary project at the State Capitol yesterday, you and your staff went to the Capitol to actively oppose such funding without any prior discussions with the BOCC. We do not understand your sudden opposition to this part of the mine pool solution. Such opposition was not expressed by CDPHE on our latest agency mine pool conference call on Monday, March 31, 2008. We can only presume that your actions stem from a grudge against Lake County for its active opposition to the continuation of the community as a designated Superfund site for more than 25 years. Or maybe they are symptomatic of some kind of strange power play on your part because of Senator Wiens involvement in supporting Lake County in this matter.

In any event, your actions are particularly puzzling because you are opposing a project that is an important component to preventing an environmental disaster in Lake County, and that would have far reaching benefits to the health of the Arkansas River. Further, you are acting in contradiction to the stated mission of your department, to protect the environment of Colorado.

To clear up any misunderstandings, the following is a point-by-point reply to the bullet points contained in your memo:

1. You state "EPA has already installed a pump at the Gaw shaft, near the top of the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel (LMDT), and is pumping water from the Gaw to the Arkansas River to lower the water level of the mine pool that drains into the LMDT and to reduce the water pressure within the LMDT."

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), Lake County and CDPHE all indicated agreement during meetings in February that the response to the emergency situation regarding the Lake County mine pool problem would involve a multi-pronged approach. Pumping at the Gaw alone will not solve the rising mine pool problem. The issue with the Canterbury is the large volume of clean water that infiltrates the mine pool from that location. The purpose of work at the Canterbury is to reduce recharge of fresh water to the mine pool. This problem will not be addressed by pumping at the Gaw.

2. You state "EPA is moving rapidly to drill a well into the upper reaches of the LMDT and will install a pump that will begin to dewater the pool of water accumulating behind what is assumed to be a blockage within the tunnel. That water will be piped to the wastewater treatment plant operated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation."

Again, as with our response to number 1, drilling the well above the LMDT is only one part of the multi-pronged approach to solving the rising groundwater problem. It makes no sense to pump and treat a large volume of clean water that is infiltrating the LMDT when that source can be removed at the Canterbury, thereby reducing the amount of water that will need to be treated at the LMDT. It is expensive to treat water. Removing a source of clean water from the LMDT treatment process makes sense. The problem of clean water infiltrating the mine pool at the Canterbury will not be addressed by the pumping at the LMDT.

3. You state, "These measures are expected to provide the most expedient and most significant direct relief at this site."

Yes, pumping at the Gaw and drilling at the LMDT are important components of the solution to the rising mine pool in Lake County but it is just conjecture on your part that the GAW and LMDT wells are the "most significant and direct relief." Eliminating 1300 gpm of fresh water recharge to the mine pool at the Canterbury is also a very significant direct relief for the problem. Why spend huge sums of government dollars to treat clean water in perpetuity through the LMDT when it can easily be prevented from entering the mine pool by simply drilling a well at the Canterbury to divert it from recharging the mine pool?

4. You state, "Staff from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) has been meeting with staff from the congressional delegation to identify additional measure that may need to be taken in response to the environmental issues that surround the LMDT, including potential federal funding for any additional actions."

CDPHE appears to be passing the buck to the federal government in an effort not to have to do anything regarding the rising mine pool problem. This is an issue that affects Colorado residents and threatens the ecosystem of a major river in Colorado now, yet all CDPHE can say is that they have met with staff from the congressional delegation in the hopes that the federal government will take care of it? CDPHE urges inaction to the State legislature in the face of a declared emergency.

5. You state, "Staff from CDPHE has been studying the area around the Canterbury Tunnel and the legal technical and financial issues that may affect a decision to drill a new well into the Canterbury Tunnel and to begin pumping water from the tunnel. "

CDPHE has been "studying" this issue since mid-February in the face of a declared emergency and still is urging inaction for more studies. In the meantime, EPA and BOR have taken immediate action for their part of the necessary work. Why is CDPHE not able to take immediate action for simply removing a clean water source from the mine pool, when EPA and BOR can do their part? It is far better to focus on good immediate improvement at the Canterbury rather than studies by CDPHE staff that seems to be lengthy in nature.

6. You state, "The geohydrology at the site is complex and uncertain. Some reports suggest a hydraulic connection between the Canterbury and the LMDT, while others do not. Given the state of the knowledge it is difficult to say with any confidence whether pumping from a new well at the Canterbury Tunnel will assist in dewatering the LMDT. It is possible that such an action could have adverse consequences, though those also cannot be anticipated with any confidence."

Yes, it is true that hydrology at the site is complex. However, historic information at the time the Canterbury Tunnel was accessible and flowing strongly supports the conclusion that the tunnel had short-circuited a significant heavy recharge of the active mine workings during the 1923 to 1931 period. The Canterbury was drilled in the 1920's for the purpose of dewatering the mine pool. This connection is confirmed in a January 30, 2008 report from Source Water Consultants to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency which states, "In summary, recent water level increases in the OU6 mine pool appear to be influenced by a reduction in discharge from the Canterbury Tunnel in 2005. There has been no significant increase in average annual precipitation in the last 8 years. Yet since January 2005, the OU6 mine pool continues to gain extensive volume. Historically the Canterbury Tunnel provided a sink for the OU6 mine pool recharge. It appears that the LMDT mine pool has lost this beneficial drain and water levels will continue to rise and discharge into California Gulch and possibly Iowa Gulch."

7. You state, "It is impossible to anticipate whether the quality of water might change over time if pumping occurs, whether the discharged water would require treatment, who would be responsible for treatment if that were required, or for how long a treatment plant would need to operate. "

Again, CDPHE and you Mr. Martin, seem more concerned with potential "liability" than actually responding to do what is required to prevent a major environmental disaster. All historical evidence points to the fact that the Canterbury water is clean water, just as it is at the Gaw. EPA had no problem pumping at the Gaw in the face of the possibility that water quality might change. They simply perform monitoring of the water and thus far the water quality is good.

8. You state, "Ownership of the land at the Canterbury is at best unclear, as is the authority of any entity to enter upon the land and drill a new well and install a new pump. The design and location of a pipeline that would be needed to transport water from a new well to a discharge point, to Parkview Water, or to both, has not been studied, to the best of CDPHE's knowledge. Costs of right-of-way acquisition are unknown to CDPHE."

Lake County has already previously informed CDPHE that there is no known legal owner to the Canterbury and it is probably considered abandoned. However, Lake County Clerk and Recorder's office is searching this issue. The Tunnel was drilled in the 1920's as a community funded project. The Leadville Mine Development Company previously possessed a tunnel right of way. That company is now defunct with no known successors. Parkville Water, the local municipal water supply, (not "Parkview" Water as you call it) is the current owner of water rights to the Canterbury and is in full support of drilling at the Canterbury. This is not a major hurdle to taking immediate action. Eminent domain is available to the governmental entities involved if such proves necessary to gain a right-of-way. Or CDPHE could have asked the State legislature for authority to act, rather than using this as an excuse for inaction. EPA has taken immediate action at the LMDT and is in the process of laying pipe. They managed to design and locate the pipeline for the LMDT in a very short time frame and obtain access from landowners.

9. You state, "CDPHE has been working with Congressional staff as well as with experts in the state and federal government to identify the most responsible course forward. "

Why isn't CDPHE willing to work with the local government? This is not a matter that requires only input and involvement from the federal government. Lake County has a wealth of historical knowledge of the ownership and workings of its own mining district. CDPHE seems intent on ignoring serious local input to this problem and certainly seems intent on ignoring the preferred local solutions. To our knowledge, CDPHE's involvement with the Congressional delegation has been minimal and the bulk of the communication regarding proposed federal legislation has been from Lake County.

10. You state "CDPHE currently believes that before investing public funds in a drilling and pumping project of this kind, it would be useful to better understand how the pumping would affect the LMDT and how this new project would fit into the larger Superfund cleanup at the site."

It is interesting that for years CDPHE attempted to get BOR to take action at the LMDT agreeing that the rising mine pool was a serious problem. Now that CDPHE is also asked to take action it wants to stall and do nothing just as BOR for the last number of years. Lake County is tired of the finger pointing and lack of responsibility and action by our state and federal agencies. Why can't CDPHE just step up to the plate and finally take action when the opportunity for funding for good immediate improvement to the mine pool problem is present?

11. You state, CDPHE hopes to present a proposal to the General Assembly next week that would outline the work needed to better understand this site along with a potential funding source, while also seeking authority to work with the congressional delegation for federal funding for such work."

It boggles the mind that CDPHE is now proposing more study of this site. We have had years of study of this site and no action, which has resulted in the dangerously record high level of the mine pool we currently face. No more studies, we need action. The evidence is overwhelming that dewatering at the Canterbury is important component of the overall solution to the mine pool problem in Lake County. It will also benefit downstream users of the Arkansas River by restoring a clean water source to the river, thereby benefiting the aquatic ecosystem of the Arkansas River, fisheries and downstream water providers. CDPHE can continue to stall and find reasons why not to contribute to the solution of the rising mine pool or it can chose to become part of the solution.

Lake County Commissioners

Michael J. Hickman,

Carl F. Schaefer
BOCC Chairman