Freep Article on Back 40 Mine

As a side note, the Indian Law Clinic got to work on parts of this issue a few years back, and this article nicely encapsulates how complicated it is, and how dangerous the mine is.

Here.

The Michigan-based permitting process for the Back Forty mine has left the Wisconsin side of the river mostly on the sidelines, Cox said.

“When the EPA, the Army Corps, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service all take actions that are federal, they are obligated to consult with the tribe under laws such as the National Historic Preservation Act, the National American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act,” he said.

“(Michigan) gets to contend, ‘Nope, we’re the authority now, so we’re not obligated to do anything with you Indian nations — you independent, sovereign nations. We’ll send you a letter, let you know what we’re doing. But we won’t communicate with you directly.’ “

Cox questioned Michigan’s “strange-sounding process” of leaving so many things unresolved in the approved permit.

“You would think that, rather than try to conditionalize a permit to include all that’s required, you would just say, ‘We’re not going to issue this permit until all of these big things are addressed, like groundwater modeling,'” he said. “I guess in Michigan they don’t see it that way.”

Across the river, in Michigan’s Menominee County, the board of commissioners passed a resolution opposing the Back Forty mine back in 2017.

“It’s right on the river, 150 feet from the Menominee River,” board vice chairman William Cech said. “There’s never really been a successful sulfide mine without leaving a large stain on the landscape that they are digging in

D.C. Circuit Decides United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians v. FCC

Here is the opinion.

An excerpt:

We grant in part the petitions for review because the Order does not justify the Commission’s determination that it was not in the public interest to require review of small cell deployments. In particular, the Commission failed to justify its confidence that small cell deployments pose little to no cognizable religious, cultural, or environmental risk, particularly given the vast number of proposed deployments and the reality that the Order will principally affect small cells that require new construction. The Commission accordingly did not, pursuant to its public interest authority, 47 U.S.C. § 319(d), adequately address possible harms of deregulation and benefits of environmental and historic-preservation review. The Order’s deregulation of small cells is thus arbitrary and capricious. We do not reach the alternative objections to the elimination of review on small cell construction. We deny the petitions for review on the remaining grounds.

Prior post here.

Yurok Tribe Sues Bureau of Reclamation over Klamath River Flows

Here is the complaint in Yurok Tribe v. Bureau of Reclamation (N.D. Cal.):

1-complaint-1.pdf

Ninth Circuit Affirms Rule 19 Dismissal of Environmental Challenge to Four Corners Power Plant

Here is the opinion in Diné Citizens against Ruining Our Environment v. Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Briefs here.

Bad River Ojibwe Sues Enbridge

Here is the complaint in Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Enbridge Inc. (W.D. Wis.):

01-complaint-1.pdf

“Life in the Native American oil protest camps”

From BBC, here.

High Country News: “How to Indigenize the Green New Deal and environmental justice”

Here.

Split Minnesota COA Rejects Environmental Impact Statement on Enbridge Line 3 Replacement Project

Here is the opinion in In re Applications of Enbridge Energy (Minn. Ct. App.):

Minnesota COA Opinion

SCOTUS Denies Cert in Casino Pauma v. NLRB & Havasupai Tribe v. Provencio

Here is today’s order list.

Casino Pauma cert stage materials here.

Havasupai v. Provencio materials here.