Citizen Discourse on Contaminated Water, Superfund Cleanups, and ...

senses of place were being disrupted. For locals, questions regarding how the situation evolved and what should be done had to be addressed in terms of historic activities—namely milling and mining. The dam, the powerhouse, the reservoir, and the rivers were elements of locals’ senses of place. Nearly everyone also agreed that although Missoula and Milltown are separated by a mere five miles, they had never functioned as one community.

In chapter 4, interpretive resources associated with science are discussed. Locals explained their environmental problem in terms of a physical system and physical processes associated with sediment transportation, chemistry, and hydrology. Their interpretations of scientific arguments were sometimes rather fuzzy, yet nearly everyone made an effort to understand how mine wastes relocate, when arsenic and other contaminants are dangerous, and how surface and ground waters can commingle. Because local, state, and federal authorities relied on scientific information, locals invested great effort in coming to terms with the science of their situation.

Chapter 5 makes a close examination of the interpretive resources associated with locals’ desires to define and create a “good place” as a result of the cleanup. Central to the concerns of the people of the hamlets were issues regarding Milltown as “home” and Milltown as “a cause.” Safe drinking water, protection for endangered species, and reduced future risks were important concerns. Some issues were employed in a manner that enlarged the original problem, specifically, by creating spaces for talk of restoration as well as remediation. However, such spaces were not created solely from perspectives advanced by members of the immediate community—leaving open the question, “Whose cleanup is it, anyway?” At issue in chapter 5 are both underlying and overt concerns regarding the question of who is “local” and whether or not local voices matter once a Superfund designation is overlaid onto a community. The analysis shows that the justifications for the cleanup varied and that their variance caused additional concerns: Was human health or fish habitat more important? How did the political power of the downstream neighbor, Missoula, factor into the negotiations? Who was