Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council
Headline: Court allows mining company to dump slurry into a lake, ruling the Army Corps—not the EPA—may issue a fill-material permit, making it easier for mines to use lakes as tailings storage.
Holding: The Court ruled that the Army Corps of Engineers, not the EPA, could lawfully issue the Corps’ fill-material permit because the mine’s slurry counts as fill, and the EPA new-source standard does not bar the initial lake discharge.
- Allows mines to obtain Corps fill permits for lake tailings disposal.
- EPA retains control over downstream water quality and can veto in special cases.
- Gives states and groups a harder path to block Corps-issued fill permits.
Summary
Background
A mining company wants to reopen a gold mine and dispose of a rock-and-water mixture called slurry by pumping it into a small nearby lake. The Army Corps of Engineers granted a permit treating the slurry as “fill material.” The EPA issued a separate permit for purified water leaving the lake and had the power to veto the Corps’ permit but declined to do so. Environmental groups sued, arguing the EPA’s strict new-source rule forbids any discharge from this kind of mine.
Reasoning
The Court asked which agency had authority and whether the Corps’ permit broke the law. The justices found the Corps’ permit power covers material that raises a waterbody’s bottom elevation and that the agencies’ joint regulation defines slurry as fill. Because of that definition and related agency rules and memoranda, the Court concluded the Corps was the correct permitting agency and that the EPA’s new-source performance standard does not block the initial placement of slurry into a closed lake, though EPA limits apply to water leaving the lake.
Real world impact
The ruling means companies that meet the regulatory definition of “fill” can seek Corps permits rather than EPA discharge permits for initial placement of solids. EPA still can limit downstream discharges, monitor water quality, and veto Corps permits in narrow circumstances. The decision preserves the Corps’ role in weighing alternatives and environmental tradeoffs when the discharge qualifies as fill.
Dissents or concurrances
A dissent warned this approach lets regulated industries evade strict new-source pollution rules by labeling wastes as fill and argued EPA-administered permits should control such discharges to protect water quality.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?