My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1994-04-01_ENFORCEMENT - M1977378
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Enforcement
>
Minerals
>
M1977378
>
1994-04-01_ENFORCEMENT - M1977378
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/2/2021 12:18:23 PM
Creation date
6/20/2012 7:47:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977378
IBM Index Class Name
ENFORCEMENT
Doc Date
4/1/1994
Doc Name
NWF v. Gorsuch Case
From
AGO
To
Vranesh & Raisch, LLC
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Jerry W. Raisch, Esq. <br /> Page 2 <br /> the enclosed letter makes clear , EPA' s views with regard to the <br /> need for a permit to cover mine seeps are quite different from <br /> EPA' s views with regard to dam releases . EPA views mine seeps as <br /> point source discharges that require permits . <br /> The other crucial factor which determined the Gorsuch "no permit" <br /> decision but which is absent in the Sunnyside situation, is the <br /> fact that the activity involved in Gorsuch was strictly related <br /> to the lawful exercise of a water right . While acknowledging the <br /> Clean Water Act ' s heavy reliance on permits to control water pol- <br /> lution, the Gorsuch Court found support for its decision not to <br /> require permits for dam releases on the Congressional intent , as <br /> expressed in Section 101 (g) of the Act , that there should be <br /> minimal interference with state water management decisions . See <br /> Gorsuch at 1122 . The potential discharges associated with the i <br /> plugging of the Sunnyside mine tunnels are the result of a reme= <br /> dial effort and not the result of a water quantity management <br /> plan. Therefore, the Gorsuch rationale does not apply here . <br /> While Gorsuch is inapposite here, a recent Ninth Circuit Court <br /> decision provides guidance in the Sunnyside situation. Please <br /> refer to Committee to Save Mokelumne River v. East Bay Utility <br /> District, 13 F. 3d 305 ( 9th Cir . 1993 ) . I also recommend that you <br /> look at the lower court ' s decision in that case for a very rele- <br /> vant discussion on the subject of "discharge of pollutants . " <br /> In sum, I feel that the Division' s position in this matter is <br /> legally sound and I disagree with your assessment to the contrar- <br /> y. I agree, however , that working toward a mutually acceptable <br /> solution is in everyone ' s best interest . I understand that the <br /> Division has already mailed a letter to Sunnyside Gold Corpora- <br /> tion suggesting an approach to develop a monitoring protocol and <br /> action plan for the site. That should be a good first step <br /> towards resolution. Please do not hesitate to call me if you <br /> have any questions or further comments . <br /> Sincerely, <br /> - AMELIA WHITING <br /> Assi ant Attorney General <br /> Nat ral Resources Section <br /> ( 3 3 ) 866-5117 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.