By SHAWN DICKERSON
From the 1880s until 1968 mining in the Coeur d'Alene basin produced billions of dollars of silver, lead, zinc and other metals, and dumping millions of tons of waste into the Coeur d'Alene river at the same time.
According to Hecla Mining Company, however, when these activities took place 'the vast majority of (them) were legal ... and were actively encouraged and supported by federal and state government.'
There was a period of time, during the war years of the 1940s, that the federal government controlled mining prices, the mining workforce and even their pay.
But now the government is suing these same companies.
Since March 1996, the United States Department of Justice has been in the process of suing 'eight mining companies ... for extensive environmental damage caused by their mining operations in the Coeur d'Alene River Basin in northern Idaho. The cost of restoring the river and the surrounding area is estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars.'
In a statement about the lawsuit the Department of Justice wrote, 'The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Boise, Idaho, alleges that more than 70 million tons of mine wastes have been discharged by the companies into the Coeur d'Alene River and its tributaries.'
The suit has been brought against four mining companies: ASARCO Inc., based in New York City; Hecla Mining Company Inc. of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho; Sunshine Mining Company Inc. of Boise, Idaho; Coeur d'Alene Mines, a company also based in Coeur d'Alene and several affiliates of these companies.
While the Justice Department asserts this lawsuit is making a stand to restore the quality of the Coeur d'Alene Basin, the defendants, while in agreement that action must be taken, see the lawsuit as the wrong course.
'(The government) wants to dredge the tens of millions of tons of tailings out of the system. There's not a scientist on earth that would agree with them,' said Holly Houston, spokeswoman for the defendants. 'That's why (the cleanup estimates) are so high,' she said.
'The thing that's sort of an irony here ... is if the federal government and the tribe are so worried about the tailings then the last thing you should be doing is digging (them) up ... and stirring up everything,' Houston said.
'The problem is the number sounds very sexy to talk about $600 million or $1 billion or whatever they want to call it,' she said. 'But when you get down to what is actually a contaminant out there, and what actually needs to be removed, and what actually needs to be contained and what are the best ways of doing that, from a scientific perspective, then you're talking about a much different cost.'
Houston cited a November 1994 proposal, prepared by the mining companies, as a more appropriate solution to the problem. The proposal, part of a bill introduced to Congress, breaks the river and its delta into various sections and calls for a variety of measures from tailings removal to prevention of erosion on the banks of the river.
She also said no dumping has taken place in that region since 1968 and companies obeyed any laws in place at the time.
'The companies don't feel that they should be responsible for things that happened during a time when society accepted it, when society was eagerly wanting to industrialize and wanting all the metals,' she said.
Bill Brooks, spokesman for the Department of Justice, said, 'If you excluded all of the activity that polluted the country, that happened before (cleanup laws) were passed in 1980, you would be excluding most of the worst contaminated areas in the country.'
'There's been, over time, a great deal of damage done to natural resources in the area as a result of the mining and it continues to get worse,' he said. 'Every time it rains, (the tailings) spread out ... and that's the reason we brought the case.'
Brooks also said because the federal government controlled the mines for a period of time during the war was not a valid defense to the lawsuit since the mining companies involved profited from that business.
Not all residents of the Coeur d'Alene area, however, share the government's assessment of the area or its plan for clean-up.
'If you were here and drove through the area, you'd think it was a wonderful, beautiful area,' said Mike Fish, a resident of Coeur d'Alene and member of its citizens' advisory committee.
Fish said there were definitely signs of damage to the area, particularly in the region's swans that feed off the bottom of the lake, but the government's actions may be extreme.
'(The lawsuit) is probably within the law, but I think that most people, more than just myself, would say, OK, this happened over a hundred years ago under a bunch of different conditions,' he said. 'The law says the current owner is responsible, but there seems to be some sort of an inequity there.'
The government's plan to dredge the system doesn't seem to be the best course of clean-up to pursue and leaves many questions unanswered, Fish said.
Fish also noted a settlement between the mining companies and the state of Idaho around the early 1990s that garnered far less money than the federal government now asks for.
'Through some very prudent spending of their monies, they're making some real good progress,' he said. 'Our Department of Environmental Quality measures behind these folks. They've made significant improvements, it looks a whole lot better and they're probably doing it for ten cents on the dollar what the federal government is asking.'
Houston said the mining companies realize the need for clean-up in the area and hope for better negotiations and cooperation with the federal government than simply following through with a lawsuit that, she said, really only benefits the lawyers involved.
Brooks, however, while not commenting specifically on this lawsuit, said the Department of Justice always seeks to settle cases before moving to a lawsuit.