Post by Admin on Feb 25, 2020 18:26:53 GMT -7
Lucky Minerals Goes to Mt Supreme Court
Michael Wright of the Bozeman Chronicle reports:
"Montana’s Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this spring on a Park County judge’s decision to block a mining company’s drilling plans in the mountains east of the Paradise Valley.
The Montana Department of Environmental Quality and Lucky Minerals Inc. appealed the Park County District Court’s decision to invalidate an exploratory drilling permit for private land near Emigrant last fall. The Park County Environmental Council and Greater Yellowstone Coalition had challenged the project over concerns that it could lead to large-scale mining with the potential to harm the environment.
Attorneys on both sides have filed briefs with the Montana Supreme Court and arguments have been scheduled for April 30 during Law Day at Montana State University.
The fight over mining in the mountains east of the Paradise Valley has been raging for almost five years now. This centers on one of the remaining loose ends — whether Lucky Minerals can go forward with drilling on its private land claims.
A key feature of the case is an amendment to the Montana Environmental Policy Act passed by the Montana Legislature in 2011. The change barred district judges from blocking projects because of violations of that law.
In this case, the two conservation groups successfully argued that amounts to a violation of the Montana constitution’s guarantee of a person’s right to a “clean and healthful environment.” The mining company and attorneys for the state disagree and are arguing otherwise.
Lucky Minerals first asked for permission to look for gold near Emigrant Peak in 2015. Locals and environmentalists opposed the project from the beginning, raising concerns that mining would harm wildlife, water quality and the region’s tourism-dependent economy.
The opposition ultimately persuaded Congress to permanently ban new mining claims on 30,000 acres of public land in the mountains there, covering federal land near Lucky’s claims and another mining project near the border of Yellowstone National Park. Supporters of the ban see it as a way to hamper the companies’ ability to mine profitably by limiting any potential expansion.
But none of that directly affected drilling on private land. DEQ approved Lucky’s private land plans in 2017. Not long after that, the Park County Environmental Council and Greater Yellowstone Coalition sued DEQ, arguing it had ignored key issues in its consideration of the project.
Park County District Judge Brenda Gilbert sided with the conservation groups, writing that DEQ had overlooked impacts to wildlife and water quality. But that ruling alone couldn’t invalidate the state’s approval of the project because of the amendment to MEPA barring a judge from issuing an injunction.
In a motion after that decision, the conservation groups asked the court to rule the law unconstitutional because it eliminated a way for people to protect their right to a clean environment.
In April 2019, Gilbert again sided with the environmental groups, finding the law unconstitutional “as applied to this case.”
Lucky Minerals and DEQ filed their appeal of the decision in August 2019. Briefs filed by their attorneys argue that Gilbert shouldn’t have found any fault with DEQ’s environmental analysis, and that it was thorough enough.
Attorneys for the Montana Department of Justice, which intervened in the case when it was in district court, have also filed briefs in the case challenging Gilbert’s finding that the law was unconstitutional. The DOJ’s opening brief argues there are many other ways for people to protect their right to a clean environment, and that the changes to MEPA simply “clarified existing law” and are constitutional.
The Earthjustice attorney representing the two conservation groups defended their positions in a response brief, writing that DEQ’s environmental analysis overlooked several key issues and didn’t look at options for reducing the project’s environmental impact.
The brief also argued that the amendments to MEPA turn the state’s environmental law into “a meaningless paperwork exercise that fails to meet its stated purpose of protecting Montanans’ fundamental rights.”
"Montana’s Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this spring on a Park County judge’s decision to block a mining company’s drilling plans in the mountains east of the Paradise Valley.
The Montana Department of Environmental Quality and Lucky Minerals Inc. appealed the Park County District Court’s decision to invalidate an exploratory drilling permit for private land near Emigrant last fall. The Park County Environmental Council and Greater Yellowstone Coalition had challenged the project over concerns that it could lead to large-scale mining with the potential to harm the environment.
Attorneys on both sides have filed briefs with the Montana Supreme Court and arguments have been scheduled for April 30 during Law Day at Montana State University.
The fight over mining in the mountains east of the Paradise Valley has been raging for almost five years now. This centers on one of the remaining loose ends — whether Lucky Minerals can go forward with drilling on its private land claims.
A key feature of the case is an amendment to the Montana Environmental Policy Act passed by the Montana Legislature in 2011. The change barred district judges from blocking projects because of violations of that law.
In this case, the two conservation groups successfully argued that amounts to a violation of the Montana constitution’s guarantee of a person’s right to a “clean and healthful environment.” The mining company and attorneys for the state disagree and are arguing otherwise.
Lucky Minerals first asked for permission to look for gold near Emigrant Peak in 2015. Locals and environmentalists opposed the project from the beginning, raising concerns that mining would harm wildlife, water quality and the region’s tourism-dependent economy.
The opposition ultimately persuaded Congress to permanently ban new mining claims on 30,000 acres of public land in the mountains there, covering federal land near Lucky’s claims and another mining project near the border of Yellowstone National Park. Supporters of the ban see it as a way to hamper the companies’ ability to mine profitably by limiting any potential expansion.
But none of that directly affected drilling on private land. DEQ approved Lucky’s private land plans in 2017. Not long after that, the Park County Environmental Council and Greater Yellowstone Coalition sued DEQ, arguing it had ignored key issues in its consideration of the project.
Park County District Judge Brenda Gilbert sided with the conservation groups, writing that DEQ had overlooked impacts to wildlife and water quality. But that ruling alone couldn’t invalidate the state’s approval of the project because of the amendment to MEPA barring a judge from issuing an injunction.
In a motion after that decision, the conservation groups asked the court to rule the law unconstitutional because it eliminated a way for people to protect their right to a clean environment.
In April 2019, Gilbert again sided with the environmental groups, finding the law unconstitutional “as applied to this case.”
Lucky Minerals and DEQ filed their appeal of the decision in August 2019. Briefs filed by their attorneys argue that Gilbert shouldn’t have found any fault with DEQ’s environmental analysis, and that it was thorough enough.
Attorneys for the Montana Department of Justice, which intervened in the case when it was in district court, have also filed briefs in the case challenging Gilbert’s finding that the law was unconstitutional. The DOJ’s opening brief argues there are many other ways for people to protect their right to a clean environment, and that the changes to MEPA simply “clarified existing law” and are constitutional.
The Earthjustice attorney representing the two conservation groups defended their positions in a response brief, writing that DEQ’s environmental analysis overlooked several key issues and didn’t look at options for reducing the project’s environmental impact.
The brief also argued that the amendments to MEPA turn the state’s environmental law into “a meaningless paperwork exercise that fails to meet its stated purpose of protecting Montanans’ fundamental rights.”