Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

regulationclean water act
regulationclean water act

Related Cases

Hoffman Homes, Inc. v. Administrator, U.S. E.P.A., 999 F.2d 256, 36 ERC 2098, 62 USLW 2056, 23 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,139
View Case »
Rybachek v. U.S. E.P.A., 904 F.2d 1276, 31 ERC 1585, 58 USLW 2735, 20 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,973
View Case »
Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Yost, 919 F.2d 27, 32 ERC 1675, 59 USLW 2397, 21 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,336
View Case »
Chesapeake Bay Foundation v. Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd., 611 F.Supp. 1542, 22 ERC 2121, 15 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,663
View Case »
Earth Island Institute v. Pengilly, 376 F.Supp.2d 994
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, 557 U.S. 261, 129 S.Ct. 2458, 174 L.Ed.2d 193, 68 ERC 1513, 77 USLW 4559, 09 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7704, 2009 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8998, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 973

Facts

Coeur Alaska, Inc. sought to reopen a closed gold mine in Alaska, planning to use a froth-flotation technique that would produce a slurry of crushed rock and water. The company obtained a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers to discharge this slurry into Lower Slate Lake, which is classified as navigable water under the Clean Water Act. Environmental groups sued, arguing that the slurry discharge violated EPA performance standards and that the permit should have been issued by the EPA instead of the Corps.

Coeur Alaska, Inc. sought to reopen a closed gold mine in Alaska, planning to use a froth-flotation technique that would produce a slurry of crushed rock and water. The company obtained a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers to discharge this slurry into Lower Slate Lake, which is classified as navigable water under the Clean Water Act. Environmental groups sued, arguing that the slurry discharge violated EPA performance standards and that the permit should have been issued by the EPA instead of the Corps.

Issue

Did the Army Corps of Engineers have the authority to issue a permit for the discharge of mining waste, and did the Corps act in accordance with the law in issuing that permit?

The first is whether the 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 waste, called slurry. The Corps of Engineers has issued a permit to petitioner Coeur Alaska, Inc. (Coeur Alaska), for a discharge of slurry into a lake in Southeast Alaska. The second question is whether, when the Corps issued that permit, the agency acted in accordance with law.

Rule

The Clean Water Act grants the Army Corps of Engineers authority to issue permits for the discharge of fill material, while the EPA has authority to issue permits for the discharge of pollutants, except as provided in the Corps' permitting authority under § 404.

Section 404(a) of the CWA grants the Corps the power to “issue permits … for the discharge of … fill material.” 86 Stat. 884; 33 U.S.C. § 1344(a). But the EPA also has authority to issue permits for the discharge of pollutants. Section 402 of the Act grants the EPA authority to “issue a permit for the discharge of any pollutant” “[e]xcept as provided in” § 404.

Analysis

The Supreme Court determined that the slurry Coeur Alaska intended to discharge was classified as 'fill material' under the Clean Water Act, thus falling under the Corps' permitting authority. The Court found that the Corps acted within its legal authority and that the EPA's performance standards did not apply to the discharge of fill material. The Court also noted that the agencies' interpretations of the regulations were reasonable and consistent with the statutory framework.

The Supreme Court determined that the slurry Coeur Alaska intended to discharge was classified as 'fill material' under the Clean Water Act, thus falling under the Corps' permitting authority. The Court found that the Corps acted within its legal authority and that the EPA's performance standards did not apply to the discharge of fill material. The Court also noted that the agencies' interpretations of the regulations were reasonable and consistent with the statutory framework.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision, holding that the Army Corps of Engineers had the authority to issue the permit for the slurry discharge and that the Corps acted in accordance with the law.

The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision, holding that the Army Corps of Engineers had the authority to issue the permit for the slurry discharge and that the Corps acted in accordance with the law.

Who won?

Coeur Alaska, Inc. prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court found that the Army Corps of Engineers had the authority to issue the permit for the slurry discharge, and that the Corps acted lawfully in doing so.

Coeur Alaska, Inc. prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court found that the Army Corps of Engineers had the authority to issue the permit for the slurry discharge, and that the Corps acted lawfully in doing so.

You must be