Deregulation and greed leads to massive pollution dump in river

[SimpleDon]

Everything the government touches turns to excrement. EPA is part of government.
__________
Suppose we hired a private contractor who would be responsible for any damage (he has insurance).
The government has the people's money in common. It will be used to pay for the damage.
__________
The money on the books in Washington is ours, collectively. Common property. The Tragedy of the Commons is in effect. That common property is being taken by a few for their benefit, not the common benefit. We will pay for every mistake our government makes. Every single one.

You don't see any benefit in all of us not being poisoned by pollution?

And you do seem to be coming down on the side of demanding perfection from the government mining engineers while accepting less from private company mining engineers.

Also I would urge you to try harder to understand economic terms. The tragedy of the commons is when someone acting in their own self-interests exhausts common resources. The classic case is when the farmer over grazes his sheep on the village common green.

The remediation of the legacy mine would be paid for from government funds whether it is accomplished by private contractors or by the government. If a contractor had caused the breach we could have claimed against his insurance, once. After that the insurance would be prohibitively expensive. This is how private insurance works, they have to pay for claims out of premiums. This is why the government self-insures in these cases. It is cheaper in the long run if they do.

The problem here isn't with the government, its with the unregulated mines that caused the problem of a huge containment with no one to maintain it, allowing it to seep into people's drinking water. Such a retainment today would have to have a liner to prevent seepage into the groundwater or surface streams and a bond sufficient to allow for the water to be treated and the dam and its pond to be removed.

 

[atrib]

If a private company had been out poking about the site for some reason and released all the polluted water would it still be the fault of the people in 1923?

Ultimately, yes. The pollutants are a direct product of the mining operation, and would not exist if the mine had not been operated.

If a private company were working at the site with knowledge of the contamination, without implementing proper protocols to mitigate the impact of their activities (which would be in violation of existing regulations), then the company might also have some responsibility in the sudden release of large volumes of the contaminants.

 

[ksen]

If a private company had been out poking about the site for some reason and released all the polluted water would it still be the fault of the people in 1923?

Is the current private company capable of time travel and did they go back to the 1920s and operate this mine in such a way that 90 years later the mine would be full of contaminated waste?

 

[KeepTalking]

If a private company had been out poking about the site for some reason and released all the polluted water would it still be the fault of the people in 1923?

Ultimately, yes. The private company in this scenario would, however, be the immediate cause, as is the EPA in the real world scenario.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Like strontium-90 from atmospheric nuclear blasts.

All of the crap that we emit usually ends up eventually in the oceans. Including the massive amounts of carbon dioxide and the mercury from burning coal that the five not so wise men on the Supreme Court tell us is not real pollution.

Of course it's not real pollution. There are unreal amounts of it, it must be unreal pollution!

 

[bilby]

Like strontium-90 from atmospheric nuclear blasts.

All of the crap that we emit usually ends up eventually in the oceans. Including the massive amounts of carbon dioxide and the mercury from burning coal that the five not so wise men on the Supreme Court tell us is not real pollution.

The solution to pollution is dilution. The oceans are big; There are few oceanic pollutants we need to worry much about. The Pacific Ocean is homeopathic nuclear waste - only ignorant hippies think that the amount of radioisotopes in ocean water is a cause for concern.

A few pollutants that bio-accumulate are a concern for people who eat a lot of seafood, and we should try to avoid releasing too much crap into the oceans as a result; but it's not reasonable to get too upset about small accidental releases of pollutants - as long as large or sustained routine pollution is prohibited, the occasional accidental release - like the Fukushima incident, or the mine waste in the OP - is only harmful locally, where the pollutant remains concentrated.

The spill in the OP, once dispersed through the Pacific Ocean, will add a couple of molecules per litre to the ocean - most of which are harmless water molecules; Our most sensitive instruments couldn't measure that contamination level*










*Although as radioisotopes are easier to detect, our most sensitive instruments can measure such minuscule contamination from nuclear pollution, leading to much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the uneducated people who think one or two molecules are a cause for concern.

 

[George S]

If a private company had been out poking about the site for some reason and released all the polluted water would it still be the fault of the people in 1923?

Ultimately, yes. The private company in this scenario would, however, be the immediate cause, as is the EPA in the real world scenario.

In the private ownership scenario that old mine is owned. The owner, knowing of the possibility of prior pollution, would have purchased pollution insurance. And hired someone to clean it up; a contractor who, in turn, would have liability insurance. The insurance companies would hash out how to pay and whom to pay.

 

[jonatha]

In the private ownership scenario that old mine is owned.

Why? Who would buy an old mine full of nasty stuff?

The owner, knowing of the possibility of prior pollution, would have purchased pollution insurance.

Why? The previous one didn't.

And hired someone to clean it up;

Why? That would cost money.

 

[dismal]

Why? Who would buy an old mine full of nasty stuff?

The owner, knowing of the possibility of prior pollution, would have purchased pollution insurance.

Why? The previous one didn't.

And hired someone to clean it up;

Why? That would cost money.

in the oil & gas business it's not at all uncommon to see properties bought and sold with known contaminated sites. They can be bundled in with other things you want to buy. They can be parts of an ongoing business.

The cost of dealing with such things is another of the costs one must evaluate when making the decision to buy something.

 

[atrib]

Ultimately, yes. The private company in this scenario would, however, be the immediate cause, as is the EPA in the real world scenario.

In the private ownership scenario that old mine is owned. The owner, knowing of the possibility of prior pollution, would have purchased pollution insurance. And hired someone to clean it up; a contractor who, in turn, would have liability insurance. The insurance companies would hash out how to pay and whom to pay.

I don't understand your point. The mine was owned and operated privately by individuals or a corporation when it was in operation. The mine owners did NOT buy pollution insurance that we know of, nor did they hire a contractor to clean up the mess their operations created, because there were no laws at that time that required them to do so. They original private owners walked away from the mess they had created when their mining operations were completed. The government had to step in at a later date to try to clean up the mess created by the mine's original owners.

If you are talking about private ownership at the present time, why would someone want to buy an old mine to then have to spend a fortune to clean up the existing pollution?

 

[KeepTalking]

Ultimately, yes. The private company in this scenario would, however, be the immediate cause, as is the EPA in the real world scenario.

In the private ownership scenario that old mine is owned. The owner, knowing of the possibility of prior pollution, would have purchased pollution insurance. And hired someone to clean it up; a contractor who, in turn, would have liability insurance. The insurance companies would hash out how to pay and whom to pay.

I don't see any reason to disagree, I would just like to point out that the question dismal asked was one of who would be at fault, so that is the question I answered.