Go Back to Square One, Says Montana Supreme Court to Rock Creek Mine
By Robert Struckman, 12-05-08
The Montana Supreme Court Thursday handed a victory to those seeking to protect Montana’s waterways and dealt a setback to the proposed Rock Creek Mine near Noxon.
“Absolutely. This is a victory,” said Clark Fork Coalition director Karen Knudsen, about the ruling that voided the Revett Minerals‘ permit to discharge up to 3.3 million gallons of polluted water per day into the Clark Fork River.
A collection of conservation groups had challenged the water quality permit, issued in 2001. The mine has been on the drawing board for more than 30 years. The ruling overturned a previous ruling from district court, which OK’d the Montana Department of Environmental Quality decision to deem the discharge “nonsignificant,” thus allowing the mine to avoid a more rigorous “non-degradation analysis.”
The Missoula-based Clark Fork Coalition, the Rock Creek Alliance of North Idaho and other local and national nonprofits sued the DEQ, saying the permit violated Montana’s Water Quality Act.
“This decision is an important step forward protecting our waterways and local economies from a mining project that risks degrading the river forever,” Knudsen said.
The 5-2 ruling sends Revett Minerals back to square one, where it will need to comply with Montana’s Water Quality Act, which requires a non-degradation review before permitting any project that would compromise “high quality waters.”
Officials from Revett Minerals could not be reached on short notice Friday.
[End of article]Thank you for this excellent article. I applaud and commend the Montana Supreme Court for their positive decision to protect the Clark Fork and other Montana rivers!
Comment By Pete, 12-05-08Does anyone know the basis for the decision? What was it about this discharge permit that violated the Montana Water Quality Act? How did the discharge not meet 'nonsignificance' requirements?
Comment By Mary Costello, 12-07-08The discharge would be perpetual and could not be stopped once started. There are criteria that DEQ should use when evaluating whether or not a discharge is significant, including length of time of discharge. The long term nature of the discharge makes it significant. The mine would discharge up to 3 million gallons of waste water per day and, even after treatment, it would contain heavy metals including arsenic which is a human carcinogen.
A perpetual discharge means that someone has to be around to "mind the store" forever. That is not what mining companies do. Montana tax payers would ultimately be responsible after the company makes it profit and then runs.
And I totally agree with them. I also heard they were selling some kind of <a >Detoximan</a> vitamins and that`s why they have been drugged to the court. Now I don`t know what to believe anymore.
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/city/article/go_back_to_square_one_says_montana_supreme_court_to_rock_creek_mine/C8/L8/