Supreme Court inexplicably allows mining company to dump waste in lake
Thu, Jun 25, 2009 (2:06 a.m.)
The U.S. Supreme Court turned its back on the environment Monday when a 6-3 majority gave a gold mining company permission to dump its toxic waste in an Alaskan lake.
In a narrow interpretation of the law — so narrow that it defies common sense — the court ruled that the Clean Water Act does not prohibit the Army Corps of Engineers from permitting mining companies to dump waste in bodies of water as long as the discharge can be classified as “fill material” that changes the bottom elevation of the water. The toxicity of the waste inexplicably did not factor into the majority’s decision.
Trip Van Noppen, president of the environmental advocacy group Earthjustice, put the court’s ruling in proper perspective when he told The New York Times: “If a mining company can turn Lower Slate Lake in Alaska into a lifeless dump, other polluters with solids in their wastewater can potentially do the same to any water body in America.”
This case has exposed an alarming loophole in the Clean Water Act that should be closed by Congress immediately. Otherwise, mining companies and polluters from other industries could interpret the ruling as giving them license to turn the nation’s lakes, rivers and streams into toxic cesspools.
That was not the intent of the Clean Water Act when it was enacted in 1972. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the court minority, clearly understood this. Quoting from the act itself, she wrote that its intent was to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity” of bodies of water in the U.S.
Does mining company Coeur Alaska Inc. intend to maintain the integrity of Lower Slate Lake? The answer is a resounding “No.” As Ginsburg wrote, the company plans to dump into the lake 4.5 million tons of solid tailings whose contents will include aluminum, copper, lead and mercury.
All of the lake’s fish would be killed. For that we will have the Supreme Court to thank.
-----------------------------
One More Threat to Clean Water
Thanks to the Bush administration’s industry-friendly rulings and a Supreme Court determined to ignore the plain language of the Clean Water Act, America’s waterways are at risk of becoming industrial dumps.
The latest indignity was a 6-to-3 decision on Monday that will allow an American gold mining company to discharge 210,000 gallons a day of potentially toxic mining waste into a 23-acre lake near Juneau, Alaska. A joyous Sarah Palin, Alaska’s governor, called the ruling a “great victory” for Alaska and, astonishingly, “a green light for responsible resource development.”
What it is, rather, is a green light for the extinction of every fish in the lake. The mining company says it will pretreat the waste and restore the lake’s vegetation down the road, but we’re not betting on it.
The decision was based in part on a 2002 Bush rule that cleared the way for the dumping of mining waste in previously protected waters. Until that rule, the Clean Water Act had stipulated that the Army Corps of Engineers could place “fill material” in waters when it was building bridges and levees. The Bush administration enlarged the definition of fill material to include contaminated mining waste, in clear violation of the law’s intent. This is the same regulatory trick the corps relies on to allow coal mining companies in Appalachia to dump the waste from mountaintop mining into the valleys below — a practice that has obliterated 1,200 miles of streams.
Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that the court had little choice but to “accord deference” to the corps’ reading of the law. To which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg replied, in effect, what about paying deference to the Clean Water Act?
The act, she rightly argued, states plainly that waterways cannot be used for waste disposal. The court’s job, she suggested, is not to take refuge in ambiguities but to reaffirm the clear purpose of the law.
Fortunately, the ruling does not have to be the last word. The Obama administration can save that Alaskan lake — and other threatened water bodies — simply by reversing the Bush “fill” rule. Congress could also step in; a House bill that would reverse the rule already has 151 co-sponsors. Before any more damage is done, a way must be found to protect America’s vulnerable waters.
--------------------------
Are you absolutely sure you want to delete this article? This process cannot be undone and is permanent.
Yes, Delete This Article
Are you absolutely sure you want to remove this article? This process cannot be undone and is permanent.
Yes, Remove This Article
Supreme Court inexplicably allows mining company to dump waste in lake
Thu, Jun 25, 2009 (2:06 a.m.)
The U.S. Supreme Court turned its back on the environment Monday when a 6-3 majority gave a gold mining company permission to dump its toxic waste in an Alaskan lake.
In a narrow interpretation of the law — so narrow that it defies common sense — the court ruled that the Clean Water Act does not prohibit the Army Corps of Engineers from permitting mining companies to dump waste in bodies of water as long as the discharge can be classified as “fill material” that changes the bottom elevation of the water. The toxicity of the waste inexplicably did not factor into the majority’s decision.
Trip Van Noppen, president of the environmental advocacy group Earthjustice, put the court’s ruling in proper perspective when he told The New York Times: “If a mining company can turn Lower Slate Lake in Alaska into a lifeless dump, other polluters with solids in their wastewater can potentially do the same to any water body in America.”
This case has exposed an alarming loophole in the Clean Water Act that should be closed by Congress immediately. Otherwise, mining companies and polluters from other industries could interpret the ruling as giving them license to turn the nation’s lakes, rivers and streams into toxic cesspools.
That was not the intent of the Clean Water Act when it was enacted in 1972. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the court minority, clearly understood this. Quoting from the act itself, she wrote that its intent was to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity” of bodies of water in the U.S.
Does mining company Coeur Alaska Inc. intend to maintain the integrity of Lower Slate Lake? The answer is a resounding “No.” As Ginsburg wrote, the company plans to dump into the lake 4.5 million tons of solid tailings whose contents will include aluminum, copper, lead and mercury.
All of the lake’s fish would be killed. For that we will have the Supreme Court to thank.
-----------------------------
One More Threat to Clean Water
Thanks to the Bush administration’s industry-friendly rulings and a Supreme Court determined to ignore the plain language of the Clean Water Act, America’s waterways are at risk of becoming industrial dumps.
The latest indignity was a 6-to-3 decision on Monday that will allow an American gold mining company to discharge 210,000 gallons a day of potentially toxic mining waste into a 23-acre lake near Juneau, Alaska. A joyous Sarah Palin, Alaska’s governor, called the ruling a “great victory” for Alaska and, astonishingly, “a green light for responsible resource development.”
What it is, rather, is a green light for the extinction of every fish in the lake. The mining company says it will pretreat the waste and restore the lake’s vegetation down the road, but we’re not betting on it.
The decision was based in part on a 2002 Bush rule that cleared the way for the dumping of mining waste in previously protected waters. Until that rule, the Clean Water Act had stipulated that the Army Corps of Engineers could place “fill material” in waters when it was building bridges and levees. The Bush administration enlarged the definition of fill material to include contaminated mining waste, in clear violation of the law’s intent. This is the same regulatory trick the corps relies on to allow coal mining companies in Appalachia to dump the waste from mountaintop mining into the valleys below — a practice that has obliterated 1,200 miles of streams.
Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that the court had little choice but to “accord deference” to the corps’ reading of the law. To which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg replied, in effect, what about paying deference to the Clean Water Act?
The act, she rightly argued, states plainly that waterways cannot be used for waste disposal. The court’s job, she suggested, is not to take refuge in ambiguities but to reaffirm the clear purpose of the law.
Fortunately, the ruling does not have to be the last word. The Obama administration can save that Alaskan lake — and other threatened water bodies — simply by reversing the Bush “fill” rule. Congress could also step in; a House bill that would reverse the rule already has 151 co-sponsors. Before any more damage is done, a way must be found to protect America’s vulnerable waters.
--------------------------
Are you absolutely sure you want to delete this article? This process cannot be undone and is permanent.
Yes, Delete This Article
Are you absolutely sure you want to remove this article? This process cannot be undone and is permanent.
Yes, Remove This Article
Contact Us
Send to a Friend
Comments
There are no comments.