3 ms·

> Tribal members have also filed a lawsuit seeking to block the study’s publication. Hmm, that's kind of a weird step in the process to block via a lawsuit. Th

> Tribal members have also filed a lawsuit seeking to block the study’s publication. Hmm, that's kind of a weird step in the process to block via a lawsuit. The environmental study really doesn't have anything to do with who owns the land. If anything, I would think it would be of the Apache's benefit to have the study published. If the environment effects of a copper mine are damning which is a likely case, then the mine might face significant hurdles anyway.

leetcrew 6y ago
apparently the land can't change hands until the study is published. it's just a delaying tactic while they seek a favorable judgement.
beauzero 6y ago
This is how pretty much all of this stuff goes for natural resource extraction in western US. Same thing happens for timber extraction/runoff/roads, etc. out west. If you want to stop it you throw speed bumps in its way and hope that administrations change. It is very likely that under Biden the EPA/Forest Service/BLM/BIA may have different priorities.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
  Also infrastructure projects. Environmental lawsuits are used to drive up the time and monetary costs until it no longer becomes viable.
- smt88 6y ago
  Do you expect that the behavior of the Forest Service, BLM, and BIA will be drastically different under Biden? Are those orgs that under the sway of political appointees rather than career civil servants? My limited experience with Forest Service is that they were much the same org under Trump, but could not always say so publicly. Maybe that's wrong though.
  - beerandt 6y ago
    Yes. (Edit: not necessarily the specific ones you listed, but yes, in general.) For example, every jurisdictional pipeline project under the Obama admin was "delayed" in a manner that never had to be completed. (Not for the environment, but as a political favor to the railroads.) Some departments or offices are less flexible in their discretion, as you suggest, but it only takes one out of dozens+ to drag their feet and effectively kill a project. It has become a serious problem in the last ~20 years, especially as an avenue abused by lawfare type suits. All it takes is the government to not object to the suit, for which there is almost obligation of the executive to defend.
beerandt 6y ago
It's likely an EIS (Environmental Impact Study), which is a report on a proposed project, not a peer reviewed study. They're typically managed and written by engineering firms, who hire other scientist and specialists as needed for contributions. They almost universally have an archeological survey as a component, to ensure no major or unknown sites are accidentally bulldozed. They're required for almost any government project, as well as many/most large scale private projects. There are variations based on type of project and scale, but it serves as the document used by government officials to review a project before it's permitted. Not just an office or two, but dozens, or even hundreds of offices. Responses are given with official govt input, including requested changes. But often it's simply a letter waiving topical or geographic jurisdiction, or simply a letter of no objection. Once approved, it's all but a green light to proceed, politically. Which is why you sue if you know what it's going to say, and don't like it.

leetcrew 6y ago

apparently the land can't change hands until the study is published. it's just a delaying tactic while they seek a favorable judgement.

beauzero 6y ago

This is how pretty much all of this stuff goes for natural resource extraction in western US. Same thing happens for timber extraction/runoff/roads, etc. out west. If you want to stop it you throw speed bumps in its way and hope that administrations change. It is very likely that under Biden the EPA/Forest Service/BLM/BIA may have different priorities.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
Also infrastructure projects. Environmental lawsuits are used to drive up the time and monetary costs until it no longer becomes viable.
smt88 6y ago
Do you expect that the behavior of the Forest Service, BLM, and BIA will be drastically different under Biden? Are those orgs that under the sway of political appointees rather than career civil servants? My limited experience with Forest Service is that they were much the same org under Trump, but could not always say so publicly. Maybe that's wrong though.
- beerandt 6y ago
  Yes. (Edit: not necessarily the specific ones you listed, but yes, in general.) For example, every jurisdictional pipeline project under the Obama admin was "delayed" in a manner that never had to be completed. (Not for the environment, but as a political favor to the railroads.) Some departments or offices are less flexible in their discretion, as you suggest, but it only takes one out of dozens+ to drag their feet and effectively kill a project. It has become a serious problem in the last ~20 years, especially as an avenue abused by lawfare type suits. All it takes is the government to not object to the suit, for which there is almost obligation of the executive to defend.

beerandt 6y ago

It's likely an EIS (Environmental Impact Study), which is a report on a proposed project, not a peer reviewed study. They're typically managed and written by engineering firms, who hire other scientist and specialists as needed for contributions. They almost universally have an archeological survey as a component, to ensure no major or unknown sites are accidentally bulldozed. They're required for almost any government project, as well as many/most large scale private projects. There are variations based on type of project and scale, but it serves as the document used by government officials to review a project before it's permitted. Not just an office or two, but dozens, or even hundreds of offices. Responses are given with official govt input, including requested changes. But often it's simply a letter waiving topical or geographic jurisdiction, or simply a letter of no objection. Once approved, it's all but a green light to proceed, politically. Which is why you sue if you know what it's going to say, and don't like it.