Play Live Radio
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
0:00 0:00
Available On Air Stations

Montana Supreme Court Hears Gold Exploration Case Near Yellowstone

A towering mountain in the background, golden aspens in the mid-ground and a shimmering blue river in the foreground
Jim Bechtel
/
Flickr (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
Emigrant Peak

The Montana Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments over an exploratory gold mining permit on private land north of Yellowstone National Park. A key argument in the case is an amendment to the state’s bedrock environmental law.

The Canadian mining company Lucky Minerals and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality argued in front of the state’s high court this week that a district judge shouldn’t have blocked Lucky’s gold exploration project on private land near Emigrant.

Lucky’s attorney KD Feeback also argued the two conservation groups challenging the project are putting the cart before the horse. He said exploratory drilling does not necessarily mean there will be a large gold mine.

“There’s no way in the world that you can suppose that there’s going to be a mine come forth from this very minor exploration project. It’s not impossible, it’s just highly unlikely and in any event would be an issue for another day," Feeback said.

But the two conservation groups, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition and Park County Environmental Council, say the proposed exploration project itself is a problem. They successfully argued in district court last year that DEQ overlooked the impacts exploratory drilling and road improvements would have on wildlife and water quality.

DEQ has conceded that it did not adequately review the impacts to wildlife but that the project should move ahead next summer while the agency does additional environmental analysis. The attorney for DEQ said it was unclear if the analysis could be completed before Lucky Minerals started its exploration.

Jenny Harbine, an attorney with Earthjustice, said DEQ failed to follow the Montana Environmental Policy Act, or MEPA, which requires agencies to consider a range of potential impacts and public input.

“If Lucky’s exploration project is allowed to proceed before DEQ fully considers the project’s impacts and alternatives to lessen them, the very purpose of MEPA and the constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment are undermined," Harbine said.

Harbine also argued a 2011 amendment to MEPA is unconstitutional. She said the change to the bedrock law prevents district courts from stopping projects even when they find the environmental analysis lacking.

The Attorney General’s Office defended the amendment’s constitutional standing.

The Montana Supreme Court is expected to release a final decision in three to five months.