Stewardship. The term invokes a sense of duty to responsibly care for something valuable entrusted to one’s custody. Decisions must be made based on how the options align with the agreed-upon values and goals. Compromises and tradeoffs must be weighed and priorities set. Mistakes or unanticipated results may cause damage. Hindsight and review guide better future decisions. The stewardship process is most successful when it is most simple. When the values and goals are shared. When the valuable “something” is well-defined. When there is trust.
The Rocky Flats Superfund site challenges every one of these aspects of successful stewardship. Its environmental impact has been the center of secrecy and conflict that continues unabated more than sixty years after the first plutonium was processed and more than ten years after the Environmental Protection Agency declared the clean-up complete. Time marches on and memories fade. The rolling hills and grazing herds of elk in the shadow of the majestic Flatirons give no notice to any uninformed parties of the controversy still lurking both literally and figuratively just below the surface.
The urbanization of what was once the remote mesa chosen by mistake for this Cold War military complex is forcing the controversy out into the light. Wild fires and fracking have happened only a short distance away. New highways, new parks, and new homes are closing in. The decisions that must be made are complicated by what can only be called a broken stewardship process. The secrecy of forty years of national defense operations has continued under the guise of protection against the risk of exposure to the contamination that remains buried in place. A forced social contract is the fragile tie between the local population most at risk and the government agencies with the access, the power and the resources to manage the site. Trust between the parties has been compromised by a disputed history of accidents, cover-ups, and activism.
The courts have been the battleground when this social contract breaks down too far. Citizens have asked for compensation for damages done.
Whistleblowers and activists have challenged dangerously flawed operations and policy positions. Environmental organizations have pursued enforcement of existing laws and regulations. Local governments have sought more power to influence the federal actors.
Court battles will continue to rage in the gulf of distrust and disdain created by the fundamental disagreements between the parties on six key points.
Stewardship. The term invokes a sense of duty to responsibly care for something valuable entrusted to one’s custody. Decisions must be made based on how the options align with the agreed-upon values and goals. Compromises and tradeoffs must be weighed and priorities set. Mistakes or unanticipated results may cause damage. Hindsight and review guide better future decisions. The stewardship process is most successful when it is most simple. When the values and goals are shared. When the valuable “something” is well-defined. When there is trust.
The Rocky Flats Superfund site challenges every one of these aspects of successful stewardship. Its environmental impact has been the center of secrecy and conflict that continues unabated more than sixty years after the first plutonium was processed and more than ten years after the Environmental Protection Agency declared the clean-up complete. Time marches on and memories fade. The rolling hills and grazing herds of elk in the shadow of the majestic Flatirons give no notice to any uninformed parties of the controversy still lurking both literally and figuratively just below the surface.
The urbanization of what was once the remote mesa chosen by mistake for this Cold War military complex is forcing the controversy out into the light. Wild fires and fracking have happened only a short distance away. New highways, new parks, and new homes are closing in. The decisions that must be made are complicated by what can only be called a broken stewardship process. The secrecy of forty years of national defense operations has continued under the guise of protection against the risk of exposure to the contamination that remains buried in place. A forced social contract is the fragile tie between the local population most at risk and the government agencies with the access, the power and the resources to manage the site. Trust between the parties has been compromised by a disputed history of accidents, cover-ups, and activism.
The courts have been the battleground when this social contract breaks down too far. Citizens have asked for compensation for damages done.
Whistleblowers and activists have challenged dangerously flawed operations and policy positions. Environmental organizations have pursued enforcement of existing laws and regulations. Local governments have sought more power to influence the federal actors.
Court battles will continue to rage in the gulf of distrust and disdain created by the fundamental disagreements between the parties on six key points.