That's Some Environmentalism We can Believe In, My Friends
This probably shouldn't come as a surprise, but the Supreme Court has agreed to review Alaska's challenge to the Clean Water Act. In a nutshell:
Mining Co. uses expensive technique to get gold out of the ground, involving 3 steps: (1) flood mine with water and chemicals; (2) skim gold off the sludge; (3) dump sludge. When the price of gold dropped, to expensive to dispose of the sludge in tanks, so they wanted to make a lake of it. (I am not making this up.) The army corps of engineers said it was OK. Environmentalists sued. The state of Alaska intervened to support the mining company. They won at the D. Court, lost at the 9th Cir. to a unanimous panel, and appealed the case up.
A couple of notes: First, the state intervention in a case like this is an obviously political decision. What's not clear from the story is whether the decision to intervene was made while Palin was governor, but she should be asked if she plans to pursue the appeal. Second, this does not bode well for the environment. If the Court thought the 9th Cir. was right, it may well have left it alone, and the reasons given for granting the petition had nothing to do with a split in the circuits.
Without reading the merits (a dangerous proposition) this has all the stylistic machinations of a 5-4 reversal. I also recall (but can't find) a link to a change in EPA (?) regulations now in their notice and comment period that permits the agency (in this case the Corps) to sign off on the environmental impact of particular actions. If anyone could point me to that, I'd appreciate it.
Mining Co. uses expensive technique to get gold out of the ground, involving 3 steps: (1) flood mine with water and chemicals; (2) skim gold off the sludge; (3) dump sludge. When the price of gold dropped, to expensive to dispose of the sludge in tanks, so they wanted to make a lake of it. (I am not making this up.) The army corps of engineers said it was OK. Environmentalists sued. The state of Alaska intervened to support the mining company. They won at the D. Court, lost at the 9th Cir. to a unanimous panel, and appealed the case up.
A couple of notes: First, the state intervention in a case like this is an obviously political decision. What's not clear from the story is whether the decision to intervene was made while Palin was governor, but she should be asked if she plans to pursue the appeal. Second, this does not bode well for the environment. If the Court thought the 9th Cir. was right, it may well have left it alone, and the reasons given for granting the petition had nothing to do with a split in the circuits.
Without reading the merits (a dangerous proposition) this has all the stylistic machinations of a 5-4 reversal. I also recall (but can't find) a link to a change in EPA (?) regulations now in their notice and comment period that permits the agency (in this case the Corps) to sign off on the environmental impact of particular actions. If anyone could point me to that, I'd appreciate it.
