Cross-posted by permission from Legal Planet.
In an opinion by Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court decided two issues in this case, over a dissent by Justice Ginsburg. The first was whether the Clean Air Act gives authority to the United States Army Corps of Engineers, or instead to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to issue a permit for the discharge of mining slurry. The second question was whether the Corps acted lawfully in issuing the permit. The Court held that the Corps was the appropriate agency to issue the permit and that the permit is lawful.
This case involved a federal permit for a mining operation. Over the life of the mine, Coeur Alaska intends to put 4.5 million tons of tailings in the lake. This will raise the lake bed 50 feet—to what is now the lake’s surface—and will increase the lake’s area from 23 to about 60 acres. The “tailings slurry” would contain concentrations of aluminum, copper, lead, and mercury. Over the life of the mine, roughly 4.5 million tons of solid tailings would enter the lake. It is undisputed that the discharge would kill all of the lake’s fish and nearly all of its other aquatic life. The Corps of Engineers issued a permit to Coeur Alaska, Inc. to discharge of slurry into a lake in Southeast Alaska.
From the perspective of administrative law scholars, the most interesting aspect of the case is the Court found the statute and regulations ambiguous, but deferred to an internal EPA memorandum. In the Court’s view, the question was addressed and resolved in a reasonable and coherent way by the practice and policy of the two agencies, as recorded in a memorandum written in May 2004 by Diane Regas, then the Director of the EPA’s Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, to Randy Smith, the Director of the EPA’s regional Office of Water with responsibility over the mine. The Court deferred to the memo for the following reasons:
The Regas Memorandum’s interpretation of the agencies’ regulations is consistent with the regulatory scheme as a whole. The Memorandum preserves a role for the EPA’s performance standards; it guards against the possi- bility of evasion of those standards; it employs the Corps’ expertise in evaluating the effects of fill material on the aquatic environment; it does not allow toxic pollutants to be discharged; and we have been offered no better way to harmonize the regulations. We defer to the EPA’s conclusion that its performance standard does not apply to the initial discharge of slurry into the lake but applies only to the later discharge of water from the lake into the down-stream creek.
Showing 2,824 results
Daniel Farber | June 23, 2009
Cross-posted by permission from Legal Planet. In an opinion by Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court decided two issues in this case, over a dissent by Justice Ginsburg. The first was whether the Clean Air Act gives authority to the United States Army Corps of Engineers, or instead to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to issue […]
Victor Flatt | June 23, 2009
Yesterday the Supreme Court ruled in Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council that the United States EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers could interpret the Clean Water Act to exempt water pollution sources from pollution control requirements if the pollution was accompanied by fill material. This legal feat was accomplished because the […]
Matt Shudtz | June 22, 2009
While his colleagues (and former colleagues) jockey for the healthcare reform limelight, Rep. Frank Pallone is quietly busy making sure that, regardless of who pays for healthcare, the sick and injured will have safe and effective solutions to their problems. Last Thursday, Rep. Pallone held a hearing to assess FDA’s ability to properly oversee the […]
Holly Doremus | June 19, 2009
Cross posted by permission from Legal Planet. Rick earlier posted about the 20th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. This week, the Ninth Circuit may finally have brought the litigation that followed that spill to a close. You may recall that last year the U.S. Supreme Court heard Exxon’s challenge to the punitive damages […]
Ben Somberg | June 19, 2009
Andrew Freedman of washingtonpost.com’s Capital Weather Gang has a nifty catch: the Heartland Institute, the people cluttering up my newspaper this week with climate-change-denying ads, have officially changed tack on their lobbying policy. Back in March, the group told Freedman: “Our purpose is to bring scientists, economists, and policy experts together to address issues overlooked […]
Ben Somberg | June 18, 2009
Today CPR releases Reauthorizing the Chesapeake Bay Program: Exchanging Promises for Results (press release, full report). For years, the jurisdictions within the Chesapeake Bay watershed (the states and Washington D.C.) have essentially not faced consequences for failing to meet pollution-reduction targets. It’s not surprising that the Chesapeake Bay has languished. What the new CPR report […]
Alice Kaswan | June 17, 2009
The Waxman-Markey bill, in its current form, continues the nation’s wise respect for the complementary roles of the federal government and the states. By establishing a national cap and a national trading program, the bill would draw all states into the essential task of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. But, like the federal environmental laws […]
Daniel Farber | June 16, 2009
The Congressional Budget Office recently issued its report on the Waxman-Markey bill. The Washington Times soon trumpeted: “CBO puts hefty price tag on emissions plan: Obama’s cap-and-trade system seen costing $846 billion.” This is quite misleading. Actually, the CBO report tells us virtually nothing about the economic costs of the bill or how much consumers […]
Yee Huang | June 15, 2009
It’s a frackin’ mess out there in the world of natural gas extraction – exploding houses and water wells, dying cattle, and curious rashes. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources of the House Natural Resources Committee recently held a hearing to explore the risks of hydraulic fracturing, or fracing (sometimes spelled, “fracking”), which is […]