Sun editorial:

Bad ruling for environment

Supreme Court inexplicably allows mining company to dump waste in lake

Thursday, June 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.

Discussion: 6 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy.

By POWERPLAY

June 25, 2009

4:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

I think that they should dump all that sh#t in there CEO swimming pool at his great big mansion. THATS WERE I WOULD PUT IT! LIKE I SAID LAST NIGHT IN ONE OF MY POST THE BIGGEST THREAT TO AMERICA IS THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
By Future

June 25, 2009

7:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

Gee yesterday the LV Sun told us we should reduce the enviromental law that protect against the ravages of the Solar and Wind industry.

Which is is?

In an interpretation of the law the court ruled that the under Clean Water Act the Army Corps of Engineers can permitting mining companies release.

This is a law passed by Congress and being implemented by Obama.

The LV Sun should be pushing Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to write laws that work.

Wait till you see how the courts will have to interpet the inept cap and trade bill
By fremmasmind

June 25, 2009

8:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Judges have to set up their retirement plan somehow.
By neiman1

June 25, 2009

8:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

Why blame judges for a poorly written law. It is not the court's purpose to make laws better, that falls on Congress. Ask harry Reid why the law isn't changed? Maybe they should read a few of them before they vote.
By Patrick_R_Gibbons

June 25, 2009

8:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

The Clean Water Act needs to be eliminated. Did you know the Army Corps of Engineers can come in and regulate desert washes? The act says they can regulate navigable bodies of water but the supreme court ruled that a desert wash is a navigable body of water...even if it can only have a boat float on it for a single hour.

This means we have stupid rules that require us to build bridges across empty desert JUST IN CASE the 100 year flood comes by. It is an expensive and wasteful law that harms the economy and does nothing for the environment.

Here is a report on the CWA in the desert enviornment: http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/Common...
By Patrick_R_Gibbons

June 25, 2009

9:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

PS, the CWA identifies "crushed rock" as a pollutant. That is what the company is dumping into the lake pursuant to the laws that establish exemptions for "fill" material - ie crushed rocks - to be dumped in a lake to raise its level.

The case was Coeur Alaska Inc vs Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, the Supreme Court's decision can be found here: http://supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf...