Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Settlement Funds topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah recovers response costs and secures water‑quality grants after 2015 Gold King Mine blowout
Summary
Utah recovered roughly $900,000 in response costs, EPA committed about $3 million in water‑quality grants and mining companies contributed about $7 million under a multi‑state settlement tied to the 2015 Gold King Mine release, officials said.
Utah officials say the state has recovered costs and secured funding tied to the 2015 Gold King Mine blowout that sent contaminated mine water into the San Juan River and Lake Powell.
Craig Anderson, director of the environment and health divisions in the Utah Attorney General’s office, said the state recovered about $900,000 in emergency‑response costs and that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency agreed to fund roughly $3,000,000 in water‑quality grants to the Utah Division of Water Quality. Anderson also said three mining companies — Sunnyside Gold, Kinross Gold and Harrison Western — contributed about $7,000,000 in cash to settle litigation that the state joined with the Navajo Nation and New Mexico.
The funds were the result of protracted negotiations and multi‑state litigation consolidated in federal court in New Mexico, Anderson said. "We recovered our response costs which totaled about $900,000, and then in terms of settlement with EPA, EPA agreed to fund water quality grants to the Utah Division of Water Quality totaling about $3,000,000," he said.
The cash contributions from the mining companies were placed into state litigation and general funds, Anderson said. He added that one of the settlement's practical outcomes was EPA’s agreement to perform removal‑site evaluations at Utah mining districts with similarities to the Colorado sites.
State officials and Anderson emphasized that the bulk of the spill's sediments settled in Lake Powell and that officials judged large‑scale dredging to be counterproductive. "The estimated costs for doing that were determined to outweigh the other environmental risks associated with doing dredging," Anderson said, explaining why dredging was not pursued as a primary cleanup option.
The settlement also includes a reopener clause, Anderson said, allowing the state to return to negotiations if a later determination identifies problems not addressed by the agreement. For now, Anderson said, ongoing sampling and water‑quality monitoring are in place to watch for exposure risks.
What happens next: EPA removal‑site evaluations and the water‑quality grants are intended to improve monitoring and protective measures for surface waters in Utah. The state will use recovered funds and grants for response activities and water‑quality projects, as specified in settlement‑related agreements and grant terms.
— Craig Anderson, director, Environment and Health divisions, Utah Attorney General’s office; quoted from a recorded interview on the podcast 'Legally Speaking.'
