Federal Court Splits Liability under CERCLA for 19 Uranium Mines at Navajo

Here are the materials in El Paso Natural Gas Co. LLC v. United States (D. Ariz.):

186 US Post-Trial Brief

187 El Paso Post-Trial Brief

203 US Reply

204 El Paso Reply

217 DCT Order

Prior posts here.

National Mining Assn v. Zinke Cert Petition [Grand Canyon Uranium Mining]


NMA Petition

Question presented:

Can Congress’s delegation to the Department of the Interior of withdrawal authority over large tracts of land survive without the legislative veto right that Congress included as a check on the exercise of that authority?

Lower court materials here.


Cert Opp

Federal Court Holds US Govt. is “Owner” of Indian Trust Land under CERCLA for Liability Purposes

Here are the materials in El Paso Natural Gas Co. LLC v. United States (D. Ariz.):

130 El Paso Supplemental Brief

133 US Supplemental Brief

135 DCT Order

Prior post on this case here.

Navajo and US Bring CERCLA Actions over Uranium Mining; Consent Decree Reached

Here is Navajo Nation’s complaint in Navajo Nation v. Cyprus Amax Minerals Co. (D. Ariz.):


Here is the U.S. complaint in United States v. Cyprus Amax Minerals Co. (D. Ariz.):



Ninth Circuit Rejects Havasupai/Kaibab Paiute Challenge to Uranium Mine

Here is the opinion in Center for Biological Diversity v. Salazar. From the court’s summary:

The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the Secretary of the Interior and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management in an action challenging the decision to allow Denison Mines Corp. to restart mining operations at the Arizona 1 Mine. As a threshold issue, the panel held that a decision made by a prior panel of this court affirming the district court’s denial of appellants’ preliminary injunction motion did not  become law of the case as to any issue. The panel held that the Bureau of Land Management did not violate the National Environmental Policy Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and BLM’s own regulations, by permitting Denison Mines to restart mining operations under a plan of operations that BLM approved in 1988. The panel also held that BLM’s update of the Arizona 1 Mine reclamation bond should not be set aside. Finally, the panel held that BLM’s application of the categorical exclusion for issuance of the  Robinson Wash gravel permit was not arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law.

Briefs and materials here.