Mine may dump waste in lake, justices rule

[jimmy olsen]

Ugh, horrible decision.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31490416/ns/us_news-environment/

Mine may dump waste in lake, justices rule
Permit was correct, they say; tailings will kill fish at national forest

updated 1 hour, 32 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a U.S. government permit to dump rock waste from a gold mine in Alaska into a nearby lake, even though all its fish would be killed.

By a 6-3 vote, the justices said a federal appeals court wrongly blocked the permit on environmental grounds.

Environmentalists fear that the ruling could set a precedent for how mining waste is disposed in American lakes, streams and rivers.

"If a mining company can turn Lower Slate Lake in Alaska into a lifeless waste dump, other polluters with solids in their wastewater can potentially do the same to any water body in America," said Earthjustice President Trip Van Noppen said in a statement.

The Army Corps of Engineers in 2005 issued Coeur d'Alene Mines Corp. a permit to put 4.5 million tons of mine tailings into the lake over a decade. The proposed Kensington mine would be north of Juneau, the state capital.

Under the plan, tailings — waste left after metals are extracted from ore — would be dumped into Lower Slate Lake.

Environmentalists sued to halt the practice, saying dumping the mine tailings in the lake would kill fish. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco blocked the permit, saying the dumping is barred by stringent Environmental Protection Agency requirements under the Clean Water Act of 1972.

Inside Tongass National Forest
The Corps of Engineers, not the federal Environmental Protection Agency, has the authority to permit the slurry discharge, and the Corps acted in accordance with the law in issuing the discharge permit to Coeur, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the Supreme Court majority.

The deposits would have raised the height of 23-acre Lower Slate Lake by 50 feet, so the company proposed building a 90-foot-high dam at the site in the scenic Tongass National Forest.

Idaho-based Coeur, one of the world's largest silver producers, argued that depositing tailings in the lake was the most practical and environmentally sound option. It has said it hopes the mine will produce 100,000 ounces of gold a year.

Both Coeur and the state of Alaska appealed to the Supreme Court. The federal government supported their appeals.

Environmentalists argued that modern mines have never been allowed to dump tailings into lakes, and the appeals court ruling confirmed a rule of law in place for more than 30 years.

Writing for the six-member court majority, Kennedy said deference must be given to the reasonable decision by the Corps of Engineers.

Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented.

Activists now hope that President Barack Obama or Congress will repeal a Bush-era rule that they say allowed weakened the Clean Water Act and allowed the Corps to issue the permit.

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

[Caliga]

Gold > trout. 

[Lettow77]

Potentially do the same to 'any body of water in america?' Arent we laying it on a little thick here?

[Berkut]

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a U.S. government permit to dump rock waste from a gold mine in Alaska into a nearby lake, even though all its fish would be killed.

Is that accurate, or is that just the claim from the enviros who are suing to stop it from happening?

[Martinus]

Well, it's not Alaska has anything worth preserving.

[HVC]

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a U.S. government permit to dump rock waste from a gold mine in Alaska into a nearby lake, even though all its fish would be killed.

Is that accurate, or is that just the claim from the enviros who are suing to stop it from happening?

Gold mines use arsenic to extract gold, right? or is that only copper mines?

[ulmont]

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a U.S. government permit to dump rock waste from a gold mine in Alaska into a nearby lake, even though all its fish would be killed.

Is that accurate, or is that just the claim from the enviros who are suing to stop it from happening?

From page 5 of the majority opinion:

[T]he slurry will at first destroy the lake's small population of common fish

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-984.pdf

From page 1 and footnote 1 of the dissent:

It is undisputed that the discharge would kill all of the lake's fish and nearly all of its other aquatic life.1
1. Whether aquatic life will eventually be able to inhabit the lake again is uncertain. Compare ante, at 5, with App. 201a–202a; and Southeast Alaska Conservation Council v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 486 F. 3d 638, 642 (CA9 2007)

From the opinion below:

Coeur Alaska and the Corps admit that the discharge and settling of the tailings into the lake would kill all the fish and nearly all the aquatic life. The effluent would have a pH factor of over 10, which is considerably higher than the lake's current pH factor, and would contain concentrations of several potentially hazardous materials, including aluminum, copper, lead, and mercury. The toxicity of the discharge may have lasting effects on the lake and may negatively affect its ability to sustain aquatic life in the future. The Corps intends that aquatic life would be reintroduced into the lake, but the extent to which aquatic life could be restored eventually is unclear.

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/486/486.F3d.638.06-35679.html

[Berkut]

So it is a small popularion of common fish.

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a U.S. government permit to dump rock waste from a gold mine in Alaska into a nearby lake, even though all its fish would be killed.

Is that accurate, or is that just the claim from the enviros who are suing to stop it from happening?

Gold mines use arsenic to extract gold, right? or is that only copper mines?

I don't doubt that it is possible, I am just trying to figure out if:

1. The SC is saying go ahead, and the fact that it will kill fish is immaterial, or
2. The SC is saying go ahead because the danger to the fish is over-stated, or
3. The SC is saying go ahead because it is not their job to determine that the danger is to fish, that is up to the COE, and they already decided on the issue.

[ulmont]

So it is a small popularion of common fish.

Well, it's all the fish that are in the lake now.

I don't doubt that it is possible, I am just trying to figure out if:

1. The SC is saying go ahead, and the fact that it will kill fish is immaterial, or
2. The SC is saying go ahead because the danger to the fish is over-stated, or
3. The SC is saying go ahead because it is not their job to determine that the danger is to fish, that is up to the COE, and they already decided on the issue.

Option 1.

[ulmont]

The issues, as framed by the majority opinion:

These cases require us to address two questions under the Clean Water Act (CWA or Act). The first is whether the Act gives authority to the United States Army Corps of Engineers, or instead to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to issue a permit for the discharge of mining waste, called slurry. The Corps of Engineers has issued a permit to petitioner Coeur Alaska, Inc. (Coeur Alaska), for a discharge of slurry into a lake in Southeast Alaska. The second question is whether, when the Corps issued that permit, the agency acted in accordance with law. We conclude that the Corps was the appropriate agency to issue the permit and that the permit is lawful.

It seems reasonably clear from the opinion that the EPA could not have lawfully issued the discharge permit, if they had been the ones in charge.

[Neil]

Well, that makes sense.  If the US has determined that the Corps of Engineers is the body who determines which lakes can be used for tailings, then I can't find fault with the decision.

[ulmont]

Well, that makes sense.  If the US has determined that the Corps of Engineers is the body who determines which lakes can be used for tailings, then I can't find fault with the decision.

It was somewhat unclear up until this point, because the Corps of Engineer generally deals more with fill material than with pollutant discharges, and these tailings have elements of both.

[Caliga]

Here's hoping some PETA nut immolates themselves in front of the SCOTUS. 

[Jaron]

I bet CdM is going to drive up there and bring all the fish home with him.

[jimmy olsen]

I bet CdM is going to drive up there and bring all the fish home with him.