That could be a more immediate concern, according to Karen Florini, a senior attorney with the Environmental Defense Fund. "Whatever you've got in [the water] is going to [disperse in the air]," she says. "It just depends on the levels."
Benzene, for example, makes an easy passage from water to the air to the bloodstream, one CDC study shows. The benzene-tainted water being poured into the canals could be releasing the chemical into the air, Florini says.
"You've got a potentially significant exposure to benzenes there," she says.
Maricopa County has done no testing to determine the health effects of exposure to the groundwater being poured into the canals. And no testing is being done of the water in the irrigation canals, according to the Roosevelt Irrigation District.
Despite the contamination, no cleanup of the groundwater in the West Van Buren area is under way or planned for any set date.
ADEQ considers remediation "infeasible because unmanageably large volumes of groundwater would require treatment and disposal," according to the ADEQ project summary.
Translation: So much groundwater has been fouled, we can't afford to clean it all.
But the possible health hazards of the plume seem to concern the county less than the legal battle to get out of paying for them.
Even an internal county document draws that conclusion. In a memo detailing the chronology of the county's role in the West Van Buren area, a staffer says that the county got bogged down in bickering, while the more important issue--removing a potential health hazard from the public's water--was ignored.
". . . [I]t appears that the Materials Management Department was unprepared to respond to either the environmental or human health issues in the West Van Buren WQARF (both at the tank farm and materials warehouse)," the staffer wrote. "Additionally, it appears that the County Attorney's Office focused almost exclusively upon legal issues . . . no department initiated the remedial investigation, risk assessment, and feasibility studies that are common to effectively define and/or limit the scope of exposures in this arena."
However, the county will "comprehensively" address health issues in the future, the memo promises.
The memo was written in 1993.
A recent letter to New Times from county administrator David Smith talks up the county's commitment to dealing with its environmental problems.
"The county is thoroughly committed to addressing its environmental responsibilities in order to protect public health, safety and welfare, while at the same time acting as a prudent steward of public monies," Smith wrote.
But when it comes to one of those responsibilities, ADEQ and Maricopa County can't think of anything to say. Both are reluctant at best to discuss the problems in the West Van Buren area. ADEQ's Olm would only answer a few questions before he told New Times he'd been instructed not to respond to any inquiries. "Now I'm starting to wonder if I'm defying . . . DEQ administration by continuing this conversation," he says.
The county's risk manager says he can't comment as long as the matter is in negotiation. The spokesman for the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and administration, Scott Celley, referred questions back to the risk manager.
Neither ADEQ nor Maricopa County will talk about the potential violation of law the county committed by dumping the hazardous waste at White Mountain.
The White Mountain site is considered a closed case. ADEQ has released Maricopa County from the group of responsible parties. Those who are left are now proposing "natural attenuation" as a solution--basically, letting the tainted groundwater flow away. ADEQ is considering the proposal.
Roland Bergen, the former liabilities manager, says that the county did dig up the dry well and dispose of the contaminated soil at White Mountain, though there is no record of this at ADEQ. Bergen can't explain why the county would not inform others about problems like the one he discovered at White Mountain.
The EDF's Karen Florini would offer a comment on the dumping, however.
"Who was stupid enough to do this?" she asks. "Unless this dry well it's been going down has a permit to receive hazardous waste, that disposal is illegal. And somebody's potentially in a lot of trouble.
