That opinion is contrary to evidence from both government and independent scientists establishing that the tailings must be moved in order to protect the health and safety of 25 million people living in Utah, Nevada, Arizona and California.

The Moab mill tailings rest on top of very fine sands and silt that are the remnants of recent floods of modest size. Below these fine sands and silts lie coarse gravel and boulders that were deposited during large and very forceful floods. This material indicates that in the recent past, flooding completely scoured away the finer silt and sand that forms the very foundation for the tailings.

A 2002 National Research Council report commissioned by Congress says that the potential for flooding along the Colorado River is a "near certainty." It documents why such an event would be so serious. Last week's opinion piece claimed we shouldn't worry about flooding, saying we should assume that if a flood washed the tailings, en masse and in a precise mixture, completely into the mud beneath Lake Powell there might not be cause for alarm. That is an unreasonable assumption.

As we learned from Washington County's recent disaster, flooding is violently unpredictable. No one has even attempted to model what the result could be in the aftermath of a major flood through the Moab mill site. However, the NRC report notes that "no plausible scenario produces uniform deposition."

In other words, thousands of "hot spots" would likely be created by ribbons of radioactive debris flung across the beaches and sandbars downstream. Scientists conclude that "such contamination could appear along the Colorado River from Moab to Lake Powell, requiring remedial action over a long period of time."

With no realistic way to map the extent of the contamination, or warn people away, officials would have no choice but to close it off. The instability of the current site has been called "a deal-breaker" by scientists who looked at the options of capping the tailings in place or moving them.

Without question, the tailings pile at this moment poses a real risk to the local groundwater supply and to the river, which is the source of drinking water for millions downstream in Utah, Nevada, Arizona and California.

Preliminary research shows that contamination already may be migrating toward the Moab aquifer that is tapped by private wells. Independent studies reveal that the river is not a barrier and, in fact, its gravels might be an excellent conduit for the uranium that has been found in drilling samples taken from the Matheson Wetland Preserve on the opposite side of the river.

Is the cheapest method of remediation the safest, best or even the most cost-effective solution? Scientists know that the waste will pose a danger for more than 1,000 years. Is the well-being of Moab less a priority than that of the Colorado communities of Grand Junction, Rifle or Durango - where the federal government has moved mill tailings out of the flood plain?

Will the economies of Grand and San Juan counties be harmed if precious aquifers are polluted or if the Colorado River beaches are closed to tourists because they are radioactive?

DOE's action should be to remove the radioactive waste and provide long-term protection for Utah's citizens, visitors and the environment as well as for the health and safety of those downstream.

---

Democratic Rep. Jim Matheson represents Utah's 2nd Congressional District.