| Chapter 1: | The Milltown Cleanup |
|
|
Locals’ accounts suggest that nearly everyone living in or near Milltown attended at least one of the various public meetings concerning the contaminated water wells. As the purposes of the meetings evolved from ones focused on information dissemination to meetings dedicated to public participation, many locals became active and regular participants. They spoke as individuals, as loosely allied interest groups, and as formally organized citizen stakeholder groups. A series of negotiations ensued in which various groups pressed both for the remediation of the groundwater situation and for the restoration of the river. At nearly the same time, scholarly critics were noting the ironies of inventing and reinventing landscapes and nature via both restorative processes and more general cultural processes. The scholarly discussions led to a stylistic convention whereby the products of such efforts, recognized for their distinctly humanized purposes, became noted as (re)inventions (i.e., Duncan & Duncan, 1988). Thus, we note that officials and locals embarked on the project to (re)make Milltown and that as various parties attempted to envision Milltown after remediation, notions regarding a (re)naturalized river became commonplace. Talk of restoring a free-flowing river gained attention, but members of the local community learned that federal remediation requirements could not include mandates to restore or to (re)naturalize the streambed. Indeed, with groundwater contamination identified as the principal problem, ARCO submitted a plan in 1996 that, had it been followed, would have only addressed the groundwater contamination. By 2005, locals referred to ARCO's 1996 submission as the “original plan.” As locals understood it, the plan called for lowering the reservoir in order to release hydraulic pressure, for leaving the contaminated sediments in place, and for constructing a concrete channel (a route for the river that would avoid further contamination of water coming from upstream). For some, leaving the dam in place was an acceptable outcome, as the powerhouse and the reservoir were considered local landmarks. For others, this original plan seemed woefully inadequate. Talk of dredging the sediments had circulated, but had not gained a great deal of support. Debates regarding the removal of the dam remained mostly unresolved,