Who Dun It?


 Behind every environmental issue, there is a lawsuit happening, or waiting to happen. It's not always clear who should pay for it, who is at fault, what should be done, or or if the damage is worth the pain. But where there is a will, there is a way, and where there is a lawsuit, there is bound to be a settlement. To resolve a conflict, one of four conditions should be addressed. 


The four conditions for settlement are brute force, a decision rule, an agreement, or a take-it-or-leave-it offer. Brute force is an extreme example of a condition, however not uncommon. Often after exerting brute force, the costs are higher than if an agreement had been reached civilly. In many cases, the threat of combat is enough to accept a settlement. Conflict resolution techniques are useful in warding off violence, and the costly and time-consuming cases will encourage a resolution, while the disputes can be taxed and donated charitably. 

An excellent example for a complicated lawsuit is the Gold King Mine spill. In August, 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency was excavating the entrance tunnel of the Gold King Mine, when an eroded plug gave in to the pressure of 3 million gallons of toxic mine waste that was just itching to be set free. Many find it ironic that the EPA caused the exact kind of disaster they're supposed to prevent, and they received a great many tongue-lashings from environmentalists across the country. But who is to say it was the fault of the EPA? While their actions were hasty, and their reactions rusty, they still took responsibility for the clean-up of the spill. What makes the lawsuit waters muddy is that in 1872, the General Mining Law was passed, stating that the mines were a free-for-all, and no payment for royalties or responsibility for clean-up was required. This outdated law has done nothing, if not cause problems all over the state. 

In my opinion, the EPA should have been responsible for cleaning up the spill, and good on them for actually doing it. Had their actions not been so careless, the spill could have been contained well before it was let loose. There are many possible disputes such as those between states over who is at fault for the contamination, those between private property owners who were effected, and who should be responsible for collateral damage. Additionally, there may also be a dispute as to whether the EPA is to blame for unleashing the fury, or if the State of Colorado is to blame for not having tighter mining laws. 

Resolution of this issue is teeming with what if's. In this type of situation, each entity must take partial blame for the disaster. Accountability will not only resolve the issue peacefully, but possibly even prevent it from happening in the future. There are thousands of mines just waiting to explode just like this one did, and if responsibility for the land is taken beforehand, the legal battle will be much smoother than if everyone is pointing fingers. We can all learn a little lesson from the Gold King Mine spill. Taking responsibility for our actions and interests will always have a more favorable outcome. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Delicate Balance of Environmental Policy

It's not my problem... Or is it?

Here. . . Fishy, Fishy!