14—The Enemy of Progress
Observable pollution at Zink Dam continues amid misinformation
In the weeks after the City of Tulsa suggested that observable pollution at the west end of Zink Dam was a “normal and natural occurring phenomenon,” promoters of Arkansas River recreation and Gathering Place made public statements casting doubt that it was occurring and mocking residents who expressed concern.
Their social media activity amounted to many times more communication than any public employee or agency had provided to me about the ongoing disaster at the time.
Sept. 13, 2024, Blake Ewing posted a series of lengthy Facebook comments in response to requests for test data from the site.
A self-described “script-flipping specialist,” Ewing is a past city councilor and former defendant in multiple financial legal proceedings, including allegations of fraud, negligence and malicious wrong.1 Then-Mayor G.T. Bynum, who called Ewing “the conscience of what Tulsa can be,” appointed him chief of staff in 2022.
Ewing focused his Facebook comments on a sector of the public he characterized as irrevocably untrusting, suspicious and unwilling to accept data shared by the city. He repeatedly linked to the city’s water quality dashboard, which does not acknowledge the ongoing pollution or provide data from the site.
The Arkansas River at HF Sinclair’s south containment cap, opposite Gathering Place at the west end of Zink Dam. Footage from Sept. 9, 2024 by Tulsa resident Daniel Kane and Sept. 13 by Molly Bullock. Video posted Sept. 14 to social media and Watershed Notes. (Free and paid Watershed subscribers who have the Substack app receive a notification when I share a new note. Notes are archived under my writer profile; they do not go out by email or appear on the Watershed homepage.)
Tulsa resident Craig Immel replied to Ewing’s comments.
“How hard would it be to get some verifiable documentation that describes what happened, when did it happen, what was done or is being done to remediate it?” Immel asked.
“It doesn’t matter what the City of Tulsa says to citizens who think the City is lying,” Ewing said.2
Ewing continued to deflect requests for data from the site, redirecting attention to what he called “a group of people conspiracy theorizing on the internet all the time with little to no actual evidence of their claims.”
Ewing added that “we don’t have any test results that aren’t public.”3
Put another way, the city had no test results from its investigation at the site.
The city sampled the site just once to test for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) and did not wait for the results before announcing that officials “found no signs of petroleum or hydrocarbons on or in the water.”
… Although the city’s Sept. 12 statement also alleged that the site’s appearance was due to “iron oxidizing normal bacteria,” the city first sampled the site for iron-related bacteria on Sept. 13, and again Sept. 18.
Van Loo said the results, received Oct. 2, were “not conclusive with no confidence in the results.”
Ewing repeatedly suggested that members of the public test the area themselves to prove the pollution was occurring.
(People without knowledge of proper sampling techniques and safety measures should not attempt this. An environmental testing laboratory accredited by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) later identified benzene—a carcinogen—and other hazards at the site.4)
Within a week of Ewing’s initial Facebook comments, photographer Shane Bevel posted a series of derisive and misleading statements referencing the pollution. Bevel documented the construction of Gathering Place and lists the park, Kaiser-owned Bank of Oklahoma, and oil and gas industry companies among his marketing and advertising clients. He has also worked as a photojournalist.
Sept. 19, Bevel shared a video of first responders training at the Tulsa Wave Park, with “a little PSA” to “go to the river,” “enjoy yourself” and “be amazed,” but use a life preserver and raft.
A Tulsa resident commented with a photo of a rust-colored plume at the west end of Zink Dam and asked whether Bevel had seen it.
Bevel replied that he had “seen DEQ there testing.”
“You know…. With science,” Bevel said. “Don’t buy the ‘new found expert’ bullshit bro.”
(DEQ, the agency responsible for investigating on behalf of EPA, did not test the Arkansas River or the pollution streaming from the bank at the site despite multiple complaints.5)
“I like that Tulsa has a new rec feature,” the resident replied. “I do not like that refinery waste is leaking into this new feature. Doesn’t take a scientist to see.”
“Maybe check a map,” Bevel replied. “EVEN if that’s what’s happening … it’s not anywhere near the recreational parts of the water unless you are an angler driven deeply enough [to fish there].”
(The site sits directly across the Williams Crossing bridge from Gathering Place. I have seen people fishing there virtually every time I visited.)
The resident replied with a map.
“Doesn’t get much closer,” the resident said. “I think the bigger issue is that leaks happen all the time and occur upstream.”
Bevel replied with a series of deflective comments.
“Not sure why you’re defending the pollution,” the resident said.
“What I am defending is actual science,” Bevel said, adding that “there are certainly water quality issues that need to be addressed both in the Arkansas and every single other body of water in the state.”
“But reactionary screaming (like what’s been happening on Facebook the last week) and biased sensational reporting is the enemy of progress,” Bevel said.
“Just pointing out the pollution that has been brought up before the early ‘70s,” the resident replied. “So screaming at this point is warranted, but not what I’m doing in my comments or others that I’ve seen. Bringing attention to the pollution is a good thing. Ignoring or being complacent about the issues is harmful.”
“Why would anyone not just agree this pollution is not good and let people know it's happening,” the resident added.
Daniel Regan, co-chair of the Great Raft Race, inserted more disorienting commentary.6 Regan also posted misleading statements about water quality the day of the raft race.
He commented on the pollution at the west end of Zink Dam Sept. 30, after his mother, Lisa Regan, described the situation as “some kind of George Orwellian ‘Look away—nothing to see here.’”
“I just don’t see why someone doesn’t simply take a glass of it to a testing lab?” Daniel Regan wrote. “It feels like some folks don’t actually want facts / answers??”
He added a shrug emoji.
Ewing replied at 8:47 p.m.
“Conspiracy theories on Facebook lose some of their magic when actual data enters the mix,” Ewing said.
Tulsa resident Hope Egan replied.
“I haven’t seen any conspiracy theories but I did read an article that seemed like legitimate investigative journalism,” Egan said.
Ewing repeatedly referenced the City of Tulsa’s regular water testing, which does not include the site in question. He said the city posts the results online “but we’re accused of not testing for the right thing or about lying about the findings.”
Ewing emphasized that members of the public or “someone other than the City” testing the site was the “only way” he could think to resolve the situation.
“Since I’m even more untrustworthy than the government for whom I work, I’ve offered to contribute to any fund the conspiracy theorists establish,” Ewing said. “Let’s all fund a campaign to go test that water and prove once and for all that the city government (and all the people involved in covering up the truth) is lying.”
Craig Immel replied.
“We already have a publicly funded campaign,” Immel said. “It's called the taxpayer funded City of Tulsa, and our team of employee environmental technicians. … Insisting that layman taxpayers bear the burden of proof of determining exactly what is contributing to this ‘naturally occurring phenomenon’ that [reeks] of petrochemicals and only seems to occur next to refinery infrastructure is absolutely absurd.”
Oct. 11, I sent the City of Tulsa, River Parks Authority, DEQ and Muscogee Nation lab results for samples of fluid exiting the bank at the south containment cap. The analysis showed benzene—a carcinogen—and other hazards consistent with known soil and groundwater contamination in the area. …
Six months after the initial complaints, the area remains open to the public, with no communication from the City of Tulsa, River Parks Authority, HF Sinclair or DEQ to warn park users of potential exposure to toxic waste at the site.
Between 2 and 3 a.m. on Oct. 1, Ewing posted hundreds of words of additional statements on the thread. (His comments on the thread over the course of the evening totaled more than 1,800 words.)
At one point, Ewing acknowledged that the site in question “is not part of the City’s Zink Lake testing set” and suggested that testing conducted by the state “showed oxidized iron.” (This did not occur.)
Deep in the next comment, Ewing added that he “wasn’t speaking officially” and “hadn’t seen a report.”
“If you want those test results, I would check with the DEQ or EPA or some other group of letters,” Ewing said. “I will certainly request the official report and share it here with you all as soon as I get it so that you can go on telling me how much you don’t believe anything the City of I [sic] say. …
“And if that’s all you wanted to see, I guess you could’ve asked for that 1000 words ago. I’m just trying to do my job and that sometimes includes trying to be helpful to people who don’t trust us.”
Next: I reminded Edwards that there is nothing to stop park users, including children, from accessing the site.
“Where's the parent?” Edwards said. “Where's the parent? Is that my accountability over the parent's accountability?”
“How could the parent know that the area tested positive for benzene?” I asked. “I think the public would be afraid and disappointed to know that no one warned them that this was happening.”
Support independent investigative journalism.
Watershed is the result of thousands of hours of reporting, writing, editing and fact-checking, with no institutional funding or outside sponsorship. If you have the means, help us deliver essential reporting to everyone who needs access:
Subscribe for $7/month or $64/year.
Make a sustaining contribution at a higher level of your choice (choose Critical Mass and enter any amount above $64).
Purchase a gift or group subscription.
All free and paid subscribers get the latest updates delivered to your inbox, plus access to the full archive at mollybullock.substack.com. You can modify your subscription or cancel any time by logging in to your account.
Previously:
13—Take a Trip
The evening of Sept. 11, the petrochemical pall over HF Sinclair’s south containment cap closed in on me before I reached the west end of the…
If you’re new to Watershed, start at the beginning:
1—The Natural Law
In the hills above Tenkiller reservoir, shrouded in forest on a blustery April morning, Casey Camp-Horinek (Ponca) addressed a circle of visitors. Camp-Horinek stood in a black and red hoodie, red ribbon skirt and traditional beadwork. Beneath swaying Blackjacks and Post Oaks, she opened Convening of the Four Winds, the second in a series of intertribal…
Caplan|Cobb provides pro bono legal support to Watershed in collaboration with ProJourn: a program of Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
At the end of Bynum’s term, Ewing opened a “strategy and storytelling consultancy” called Luckdragon. The homepage advertises Luckdragon as “a collective of … producers, strategists, creatives, storytellers, ballers, and shot-callers who specialize in doing what is [sic] takes to bring home the bacon.” However, Ewing notes deeper in the site that the business is “just me” and “a potential collective.”
Ewing continued:
The people who think we’re lying to them should go test the water and publish the results…all the time. Every day. Everywhere. Over and over again.
If the City is lying, the citizens who call themselves experts should do more than blog and make comments on Facebook.
Go prove it scientifically.
We welcome it.
If we’re lying, the water is right there begging to be tested. I’ll even chip in to a go fund me to pay for the independent conspiracy theory/myth busting testing.
“We all just want the truth,” Ewing said in another comment. “And if we at City Hall are hiding it, the best way to prove it is for our accusers to produce irrefutable evidence.”
Ewing himself was impeding public access to water quality information and data at the time of his comment. In the weeks before the city opened Zink Lake to the public, he left multiple inquiries about bacterial contamination and requests for data unanswered.
At a public event about Zink Lake on Aug. 1, Water and Sewer Director Eric Lee refused to answer basic questions about the city’s bacteria testing because he said Ewing had told him that he would handle my questions.
(At the time, Lee had not responded to my emails for several months.)
“The discussion I’ve had with [Communications Director Michelle Brooks] and Blake is that everything needs to go through Blake,” Lee said.
When Ewing did reply, he said he “was not under the impression there were questions for me,” although the emails were addressed to him.
If you’re asking about water quality results, I don’t readily have specific information beyond what is already available on the dashboard.
I am not the expert or decision maker on anything related to water quality, the tests, or any related policies and procedures.
I apologize for not being able to provide more detailed information.
Thank you,
Blake
I asked Ewing to coordinate with Lee to provide the requested information, given Ewing’s instructions to Lee. Ewing did not reply.
I sent the results to the City of Tulsa, River Parks Authority, DEQ and Muscogee Nation Oct. 11.
Read about officials’ responses in article 13, “Take a Trip.” I will address the test results in greater detail in an upcoming article.
I will address DEQ’s failure to fully investigate the ongoing pollution in an upcoming article.
Regan is director of real estate and business development at Tulsa Airports Improvement Trust. He did not reply to a series of questions about his social media activity, including:
What prompted you to weigh in publicly on this issue?
Who were you referring to when you said “It feels like some folks don't actually want facts / answers?”
Did you mean to suggest that members of the public conduct testing for refining and industrial contamination themselves?
Did you sample the site and have it tested?
Are you aware that samples collected at the south containment cap tested positive for benzene, MTBE and other hazards consistent with known soil and groundwater contamination in the area?