Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council

Last updated

Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued January 12, 2009
Decided June 22, 2009
Full case nameCoeur Alaska, Inc., Petitioner v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, et al.
Docket no. 07-984
Citations557 U.S. 261 ( more )
129 S. Ct. 2458; 174 L. Ed. 2d 193
Case history
PriorSummary judgment granted, CV-05-00012-J-JK (D. Alaska, 2005); reversed, 486 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2006); reversed and remanded.
Holding
The Army Corps of Engineers was the appropriate agency to permit the disposal of mine waste material into Lower Slate Lake.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy  · David Souter
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Case opinions
MajorityKennedy, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Breyer, Alito; Scalia (in part)
ConcurrenceBreyer
ConcurrenceScalia (in part)
DissentGinsburg, joined by Stevens, Souter
Laws applied
Clean Water Act

Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, 557 U.S. 261 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in favor of Coeur Alaska's permit to dump mine waste in a lake. The case addressed tailings from the Kensington mine, an underground mine located in Alaska. The gold mine had not operated since 1928, and Coeur Alaska obtained a permit in 2005 from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to dispose of up to 4.5 million tons of tailings in Lower Slate Lake, which is located in a National Forest.

Contents

The suit was filed by three environmental non-governmental organizations and brought before the United States District Court for the District of Alaska who found in favor of Coeur Alaska. The District Court's decision was overturned by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals before being brought before the Supreme Court, who also found in favor of Coeur Alaska.

The ruling was praised by the National Mining Association for the economic benefit it provided. Environmental groups criticised the decision for the impact it would have on Lower Slate Lake, and the opportunity for its use as a precedent in the future. In March 2009 proposed legislation, the Clean Water Protection Act, was introduced in Congress to remove mining waste from the definition of "fill material".

Background

In 2005 Coeur Alaska Inc., a subsidiary of Coeur d'Alene Mines, successfully applied for a tailings disposal permit from the USACE. The permit allowed Coeur Alaska to dispose of 4.5 million tons of tailings from the Kensington gold mine, 45 mi (72 km) north of Juneau, into Lower Slate Lake. The mine operated in the early 20th century, but had been inactive since 1928. The lake is 3 miles (4.8 km) from the mine, within the Tongass National Forest. [1] [2]

The boundary of the Kensington Mine Lease and the proposed Julian Mine. Kensington and Julian Mine (cropped).jpg
The boundary of the Kensington Mine Lease and the proposed Julian Mine.

The discharge of material into waters of the United States is regulated under the Clean Water Act by either the USACE or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), depending on what the material is. Discharge of "fill material" falls under the jurisdiction of the USACE; discharge of other pollutants falls under the jurisdiction of the EPA. In 2005 Coeur was granted a permit to dispose of tailings into Lower Slate Lake by the USACE under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. [3] The decision was based on the definition of "fill material" which had been revised in 2002 under the administration of George W. Bush. This new definition allowed some contaminants to be included in mine waste and still be classified as fill. [1] The permit allowed Coeur to dump 4.5 million tons of a combination of waste rock and tailings into Lower Slate Lake over a period of ten years, causing the floor elevation of the lake to rise by 50 ft (15 m). [4]

After the USACE issued the permit, the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, the Sierra Club, and Lynn Canal Conservation Inc. filed suit. The suit claimed that the permit was issued in violation of sections 301(a), 301(e), and 306(e) of the Clean Water Act. The United States District Court for the District of Alaska found that the USACE was correct in its application of section 404 of the act, because the permit was for "fill material", and therefore not covered under or in violation of sections 301(e) and 306(e). [3]

In May 2007 the District Court's 2006 decision was overturned by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Circuit Court found in favor of the non-governmental organizations, ruling that discharge of tailings was not permitted under the EPA's New Source Performance Standard. [3] [5]

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court found in favor of Coeur Alaska by a vote of 6–3, agreeing that the USACE is indeed the appropriate body to issue a permit to discharge mine waste into Lower Slate Lake. In her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated that currently discharging pollutants into a lake is permitted provided there is enough material to raise the lake's floor elevation, thereby turning it into a waste disposal site. Ginsburg voiced concern about the potential for pollution regulation to not apply to several industries (mining included) on the basis of this loophole. [3]

Subsequent developments

Aerial view of the Comet portal of the Kensington mine. Aerial view of Kensington Mine Comet portal.jpg
Aerial view of the Comet portal of the Kensington mine.

The decision was praised by the National Mining Association, which stated that it would "provide employment and greater economic certainty for all those involved in the project". [3] Alaska Governor Sarah Palin also welcomed the ruling, calling it a "green light for responsible resource development". The environmental groups that originally filed suit against Coeur Alaska were unhappy with the decision. Environmental groups stated that the proposed material includes aluminum, lead, and mercury (among other metals), and that discharging into Lower Slate Lake will have a detrimental effect on the lake and surrounding waters. A representative from Earthjustice warned of the ruling being used as a precedent, allowing other companies to discharge pollutants into other rivers and lakes. [1] Following the court's decision share prices of Coeur d'Alene Mines rose over 5%. [4]

In March 2009 a bill, the Clean Water Protection Act, was introduced in Congress by Frank Pallone and Dave Reichert. The Clean Water Protection Act would have changed the definition of "fill material" in the Clean Water Act. Under the new definition "fill material" would have excluded mine waste. [3] [6]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Industrial waste</span> Waste produced by industrial activity or manufacturing processes

Industrial waste is the waste produced by industrial activity which includes any material that is rendered useless during a manufacturing process such as that of factories, mills, and mining operations. Types of industrial waste include dirt and gravel, masonry and concrete, scrap metal, oil, solvents, chemicals, scrap lumber, even vegetable matter from restaurants. Industrial waste may be solid, semi-solid or liquid in form. It may be hazardous waste or non-hazardous waste. Industrial waste may pollute the nearby soil or adjacent water bodies, and can contaminate groundwater, lakes, streams, rivers or coastal waters. Industrial waste is often mixed into municipal waste, making accurate assessments difficult. An estimate for the US goes as high as 7.6 billion tons of industrial waste produced annually, as of 2017. Most countries have enacted legislation to deal with the problem of industrial waste, but strictness and compliance regimes vary. Enforcement is always an issue.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Clean Water Act</span> 1972 U.S. federal law regulating water pollution

The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary federal law in the United States governing water pollution. Its objective is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters; recognizing the responsibilities of the states in addressing pollution and providing assistance to states to do so, including funding for publicly owned treatment works for the improvement of wastewater treatment; and maintaining the integrity of wetlands.

S. D. Warren Co. v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection, 547 U.S. 370 (2006), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving licensing requirements under the Clean Water Act. The Court ruled unanimously that hydroelectric dams were subject to section 401 of the Act, which conditioned federal licensing for a licensed activity that could result in "any discharge" into navigable waters upon the receipt of a state certification that water protection laws would not be violated. The Court believed that since the Act did not define the word "discharge" it should be given its ordinary meaning, such that the simple flowing forth of water from a dam qualified.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pebble Mine</span> Undeveloped copper-gold-molybdenum mineral deposit in Alaska, United States

Pebble Mine is the common name of a proposed copper-gold-molybdenum mining project in the Bristol Bay region of Southwest Alaska, near Lake Iliamna and Lake Clark. It was discovered in 1987, optioned by Northern Dynasty Minerals in 2001, explored in 2002, and drilled from 2002-2013 with discovery in 2005. Preparing for the permitting process began and administrative review lasted over 13 years.

The Clean Water Protection Act was a bill introduced in the 111th United States Congress via the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. It proposed to redefine "fill material" to not include mining "waste" under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

The Juneau mining district is a gold mining area in the U.S. state of Alaska.

The Marcopper mining disaster is one of the worst mining and environmental disasters in Philippine history. It occurred on March 24, 1996, on the Philippine island of Marinduque, a province of the Philippines located in the Mimaropa region. The disaster led to drastic reforms in the country's mining policy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alaska Clean Water Initiative</span>

The Alaska Clean Water Initiative (ACWI) of 2008 was a citizens-initiative ballot measure. In Alaska, such measures become state law, if a majority of voters vote in favor of the measure. The ACWI contained regulatory language limiting the release and distribution of "sulfide mining" effluents and products into the environment. In August 2008, Ballot Measure 4, the "Alaska Clean Water Initiative," was voted down in the statewide primary election.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kensington mine</span>

Kensington mine is a gold mine located 45 mi (72 km) north of Juneau, Alaska. The mine is owned by Coeur Alaska Inc., a subsidiary company of Coeur Mining.

Lower Slate Lake is a lake in the State of Alaska in the Tongass National Forest. It is designated as the disposal site for the tailings from Coeur Alaska's Kensington mine. Lower Slate Lake is 1.38 mi (2.22 km) away from Berners Bay.

Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001), was a decision by the US Supreme Court that interpreted a provision of the Clean Water Act. Section 404 of the Act requires permits for the discharge of dredged or fill materials into "navigable waters," which is defined by the Act as "waters of the United States." That provision was the basis for the federal wetlands-permitting program.

Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461 (2004), is a US Supreme Court case clarifying the scope of state environmental regulators and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court found the EPA has authority to overrule state agency decisions under the Clean Air Act that a company is using the "best available controlling technology" to prevent pollution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States regulation of point source water pollution</span> Overview of the regulation of point source water pollution in the United States of America

Point source water pollution comes from discrete conveyances and alters the chemical, biological, and physical characteristics of water. In the United States, it is largely regulated by the Clean Water Act (CWA). Among other things, the Act requires dischargers to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to legally discharge pollutants into a water body. However, point source pollution remains an issue in some water bodies, due to some limitations of the Act. Consequently, other regulatory approaches have emerged, such as water quality trading and voluntary community-level efforts.

Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 568 U.S. 78 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Natural Resources Defense Council and Santa Monica Baykeeper challenged the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (District) for violating the terms of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit as shown in water quality measurements from monitoring stations within the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers. The Supreme Court, by a unanimous 9-0 vote, reversed and remanded the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the grounds that the flow of water from an improved portion of a navigable waterway into an unimproved portion of the same waterway does not qualify as a "discharge of a pollutant" under the Clean Water Act.

XS Platinum Inc., also known as XSP, is a wholly owned subsidiary of XS Platinum Ltd, and was founded in 2007 to be a sustainable mine that would get its platinum from mining waste as opposed to new mining. XSP had a contract with Tiffany & Co. On May 1, 2009, the BLM authorized the disposal of 200,000 cubic yards of processed tailing material as mineral materials from the following mining claims in the vicinity of Platinum, Alaska within the Togiak National Wildlife Refuge. At its beginning, day-to-day operations were to be under the direction of Phil Cash, a metallurgical engineer.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Clean Water Rule</span> 2015 EPA regulation

The Clean Water Rule is a 2015 regulation published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to clarify water resource management in the United States under a provision of the Clean Water Act of 1972. The regulation defined the scope of federal water protection in a more consistent manner, particularly over streams and wetlands which have a significant hydrological and ecological connection to traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and territorial seas. It is also referred to as the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule, which defines all bodies of water that fall under U.S. federal jurisdiction. The rule was published in response to concerns about lack of clarity over the act's scope from legislators at multiple levels, industry members, researchers and other science professionals, activists, and citizens.

<i>United States v. Reserve Mining Company</i>

United States of America v. Reserve Mining Company, 408 F. Supp. 1212, was a United States District Court for the District of Minnesota case that determined the Reserve Mining Company was responsible for amphibole asbestos fibers found in the public drinking water of Duluth, Minnesota and other North Shore (Minnesota) communities.

The Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC) is a non-profit organization that focuses on protecting the lands and waters of Southeast Alaska. They promote conservation and advocate for sustainable natural resource management. SEACC is located in the capital city of Alaska, Juneau. The environmental organization focuses on concerns in the Southeast region of Alaska, including the areas of the Panhandle, the Tongass National Forest, and the Inside Passage.

County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, No. 18-260, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving pollution discharges under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The case asked whether the Clean Water Act requires a permit when pollutants that originate from a non-point source can be traced to reach navigable waters through mechanisms such as groundwater transport. In a 6–3 decision, the Court ruled that such non-point discharges require a permit when they are the "functional equivalent of a direct discharge", a new test defined by the ruling. The decision vacated the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and remanded the case with instructions to apply the new standard to the lower courts with cooperation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Water pollution control law in New Jersey</span>

New Jersey Water Pollution Control Law consists of legislative and regulatory measures intended to limit the amount of harmful substances found in the state's lakes, rivers, and groundwater. In New Jersey, the federal Clean Water Act and the state Water Pollution Control Act are the most significant pieces of water pollution control legislation. These laws are implemented and enforced by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP).

References

  1. 1 2 3 Hebert, H. Josef (January 23, 2008). "Court OKs dumping gold mine waste in lake". London: The Guardian (Associated Press). Retrieved September 3, 2011.
  2. McKay, David L (2002). Why Mining?. Victoria, British Columbia: Trafford. p. 283. ISBN   1-55369-688-3.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Koons, Jennifer (June 22, 2009). "Supreme Court Backs Army Corps, Mining Company in Alaska Water Case". The New York Times . Retrieved June 24, 2009.
  4. 1 2 Vicini, James (June 22, 2009). "Miner Coeur gets OK to dump waste into Alaska lake". Reuters. Retrieved June 25, 2009.
  5. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 486F.3d638 ( 9th Cir. 2007).
  6. Golden, Kate (June 23, 2009). "Coeur Alaska wins Supreme Court case". Juneau Empire. Archived from the original on March 24, 2012. Retrieved December 6, 2011.