Environmentalists Defeated: SCOTUS OKs Dumping Waste In Lake

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Email Picture Michael Penn / Associated Press Operators of a gold mine plan to dump some 4.5 million tons of waste into Lower Slate Lake in Alaska, above Berners Bay.

The Supreme Court approves the draining of gold mine debris into a small lake. The Bush administration had labeled it 'fill' rather than pollution to make the dumping comply with the Clean Water Act.

By Jim Tankersley and David G. Savage

Reporting from Washington -- The Supreme Court gave its approval Monday for waste from a gold mine in Alaska to be drained into a mountain lake, dealing environmentalists their fifth defeat this court term and lobbing another controversial Bush administration policy into President Obama's lap.

The 6-3 ruling upheld a decision by the George W. Bush administration to label the planned drainage from Alaska's reopened Kensington mine as "fill" rather than pollution. The Clean Water Act forbids pollution of rivers, lakes and bays, but it also allows the Army Corps of Engineers to move dirt and gravel "fill" into waterways to divert the stream or build a dam.

Environmentalists said that draining the Alaska mine waste into Lower Slate Lake would kill the lake's fish, and that the ruling opened the door for similarly destructive dumping in waterways across the nation. But they also said the Obama administration could effectively nullify the ruling, and several other cases that conservation groups have lost recently at the high court, by issuing new rules to supersede Bush-era policies.

"It's been a tough, tough term for the environment" at the Supreme Court, said Tom Waldo, an attorney for the environmental group Earthjustice, who argued the Alaska mine case on behalf of conservation groups. "But these problems are fixable by the current administration, and we hope they'll take measures to do that."

The owner of the mine, Coeur d'Alene Mines Corp., said in a news release that it would push to start production at the mine by the second half of 2010. Industry allies hailed the decision. "If you're going to have mining, you've got to put [the waste] somewhere," said Virginia S. Albrecht, an environmental lawyer at Hunton & Williams in Washington who represents public and private entities regulated by the water act. "What happened here was, the corps said this was the least-damaging, practicable alternative."

Environmentalists have suffered a series of setbacks at the Supreme Court this term.

In November, the court overturned a judge's order in Los Angeles that sought to protect whales from the Navy's high-powered sonar that is used during training exercises off the California coast. The 7-2 decision said the judge's order unduly interfered in the Navy's anti-submarine training.

This spring, the high court threw out a challenge to the timber clearing sales in the national forests on the grounds that environmentalists did not have standing to challenge the government in court.

The justices also protected the owners of aging power plants that might be forced to upgrade their facilities to protect wildlife. In a 6-3 ruling, the court agreed with the Bush administration that the Environmental Protection Agency could weigh costs of the upgrades in deciding whether a change was needed.

In another ruling, the court shielded some corporations from paying to clean up a contaminated site.

Monday's case centered on plans to reopen a gold mine 45 miles north of Juneau that has been closed since 1928. The mine operators plan to employ a technique that over the life of the mine would dump some 4.5 million tons of sandy crushed rock -- mixed with water and laced with aluminum, copper, lead and mercury -- into a small but deep mountain lake.

In allowing those plans to move forward, the court cited ambiguities in the Clean Water Act and an informal Bush administration memo that dictated how to interpret them. "We accord deference to the agencies' reasonable decision," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for a majority that included Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Stephen G. Breyer and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Environmentalists said the Obama administration could still revoke the mine's dumping permit or issue new rules that redefine how to classify "fill" under the law. EPA officials' only response to Monday's decision was to issue a statement saying they were reviewing the ruling "and its potential implications regarding EPA's authority to ensure effective environmental protection under the Clean Water Act."

jtankersley@latimes.com

david.savage@latimes.com

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...0,3788572.story

[Peikko 1,575]

Ah, so it's not so much the crushed rock that's the problem, but the aluminum, lead and mercury. Nice. CA has areas polluted with that stuff from the gold rush, when mining was altogether less invasive. Lovely.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

cry me a fvckin RIVER!

Son, theres nuthin wrong with minerals in yer water. Just last week cuzzin Marc caught him a two-headed fish and I lost two more teeth today!

Edited June 23, 2009 by Private Pike

[Peikko 1,575]

Clearly, we need more gold as a hedge against, well, anything economic...bloody idiotic stupid moronic...

[Ban Hammer 13,398]

i sure hope obama can do something about this once he takes office.

[HAL 9000 96]

Just wow.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Just wow.

Judicial activism.

[HAL 9000 96]

Just wow.

Judicial activism.

No kidding man.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Just wow.

Judicial activism.

No kidding man.

Pretty creative to say that the Bush Administration could define how the Clean Water Act should be interpreted. That's putting a lot of power into the hands of the Executive Branch via the Judicial. Man oh man.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Meanwhile, in other news grenade fishing makes a comeback

[HAL 9000 96]

Just wow.

Judicial activism.

No kidding man.

Pretty creative to say that the Bush Administration could define how the Clean Water Act should be interpreted. That's putting a lot of power into the hands of the Executive Branch via the Judicial. Man oh man.

Bizzarre indeed. Of course, since its the environment getting the shaft (meaning all of us, or all that live in the vicinity of that lake), then its OK. But if that 'activism' is intended to make things right for all of us... wow... some folks have rabid attacks about how the Constitution states that judges are to not overstep their boundaries, yadda yadda. More hipocrisy at work?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Just wow.

Judicial activism.

No kidding man.

Pretty creative to say that the Bush Administration could define how the Clean Water Act should be interpreted. That's putting a lot of power into the hands of the Executive Branch via the Judicial. Man oh man.

Bizzarre indeed. Of course, since its the environment getting the shaft (meaning all of us, or all that live in the vicinity of that lake), then its OK. But if that 'activism' is intended to make things right for all of us... wow... some folks have rabid attacks about how the Constitution states that judges are to not overstep their boundaries, yadda yadda. More hipocrisy at work?

I was just reading up on the Clean Water Act and the exemptions to dredges and fills. Those exemptions were meant for agriculture. This is a friggin gold mine.

Those Supreme Justices are taking a lot of liberties with the interpretation of this act passed by Congress. Remember the Legislative Branch, fellas? You know....the ones who make the laws.

Edited June 23, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[HAL 9000 96]

Well Gold *is* supposed to be a bactericide. Any traces would certainly be good for those drinking any leaked gold from that fill into the aquifer. Damn hippies not wanting Goldschlager!

(Just ignore everything else in that fill! )

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Well Gold *is* supposed to be a bactericide. Any traces would certainly be good for those drinking any leaked gold from that fill into the aquifer. Damn hippies not wanting Goldschlager!

(Just ignore everything else in that fill! )

Yep. Those Supreme Court Justices essentially thumbed their noses at the CWA and what it was meant to do.

[Ban Hammer 13,398]

everyone run, the dems are about to wage war on scotus.