Commentary

Idaho betrays spirit of local cooperation
Our View: Spokane County must have a full voice in metals cleanup.
Related stories

John Webster
For the editorial board

Thanks to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Idaho's Silver Valley is a safer, cleaner place to live now than it was in the heyday of the mining industry. The air is clear, tailings are being sealed, and lead poisoning among children has become less likely.

Although much progress has been made, brightening the Valley's future, there is more to do. Metals pose a problem downstream. In the Coeur d'Alene River. In Lake Coeur d'Alene.

And, in Washington. Within Spokane County are 11 "hot spots" of metals contamination, on beaches along the Spokane River and in sediment behind Spokane River dams. Depending on how well metals are sealed off at the source in Idaho, floods and erosion can carry more contamination into Washington for years to come.

So this next cleanup phase must not be thought of as an issue for only Idahoans to control. And there lies a problem.

During the past few years, public officials and business leaders from Spokane County and Washington state have reached across the state line in a spirit of goodwill, supporting Idaho's effort to carry out the final phase of cleanup with a maximum of local control. If the federal EPA got carried away, it was feared by Idahoans as well as leaders in Spokane that a huge inland region would be tarred as a Superfund cleanup site, damaging our ability to attract tourism and businesses.

Idaho's Legislature came up with a plan: Create a multi-agency, two-state commission to oversee the next phase of cleanup.

Washington's support for this approach was based on the assumption that local control means solid representation on this commission for the people of Spokane County and Washington state -- just as it means representation for the people of Idaho.

At first, Idaho officials agreed. Now, it appears they are reneging. Initially, Idaho's Legislature gave a seat on the commission to a Spokane County commissioner. Then Washington state's Ecology Department requested a seat. Instead of adding an additional seat, the Idaho Legislature took away the seat for Spokane County and gave it to the state. Unlike Idaho's representatives, Washington's would have no power to veto cleanup plans it deems unacceptable. Heeding Spokane area protests, the cleanup commission agreed in June to invite a Spokane County commissioner to attend. But state officials in Boise killed that idea.

This puts the notion of local control and regional cooperation in serious jeopardy. It casts a shadow on whether Idaho intends a good-faith cleanup effort that would be in the interests of Washington residents who live on the receiving end of Idaho metals contamination. It also violates the spirit of cooperation that has occurred in other areas, such as aquifer protection, higher education and economic development.

A regional cleanup commission is still a good idea, but only if it really does provide Spokane County a voice, identical to the voice Idaho has provided to Idaho's county commissioners. Unless Idaho comes to its senses, the EPA will have to consider taking full charge of the cleanup's next phase, for its authority does cover people on both sides of the state line.

John Webster/For the editorial board

Back to Top