United States v. Reserve Mining Company

No. 5-72 Civ-19 (D. Minn. July 7, 1976)

Following the defendant's and state of Minnesota's failure to agree on an on-land waste disposal site, Chief Judge Devitt orders Reserve and its parent corporations to cease dumping taconite tailings into Lake Superior by July 7, 1977. This order follows the court of appeals' mandate, 5 ELR 20596, 20616, that Reserve must stop its discharges one year from "final administrative determination" that no acceptable on-land disposal site can be found.

Counsel are listed at 6 ELR 20481.

[6 ELR 20628]

Devitt, C.J.:

(AMENDED) ORDER TERMINATING DISCHARGE OF TACONITE TAILINGS

My responsibility now is to signal the end of the dumping of taconite tailings into Lake Superior — it is not to effect a choice between Milepost 7 and Milepost 20 as the appropriate on-land disposal site.

I regret that the parties have not been able to agree on a suitable disposal site. Because of danger to health and environment, Reserve must cease its discharge of production wastes into Lake Superior. If Minnesota and Reserve could have agreed on an on-land disposal site, the long relationship between them, economically beneficial to both, could have continued.

The authority I exercise this day comes from the court of appeals. Reserve Mining Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 514 F.2d 492, 538 [5 ELR 20596] (8th Cir. 1975). It declared that if Reserve and Minnesota were unable to reach agreement as to an on-land disposal site within a reasonable time — one year was suggested — then Reserve must stop its discharge into Lake Superior one year from "final administrative determination" that no acceptable site would be offered. Id.

Now, after almost 16 months of study, discussion, negotiation, debate, extensive hearings and official actions by state agencies, no agreement has been reached: Reserve still demands Milepost 7 which Minnesota will not permit, and Minnesota offers Milepost 20 which Reserve does not want.

Reserve argues that there has not been final administrative action until after judicial review of the state agencies' decisions. This contention, however, is belied by the court's use of the language "final administrative" action, would be inconsistent with the federal courts' oft-expressed concern for expeditious determination of this matter, and would occasion even further protracted hearings and legal proceedings in derogation of the public's right to a final resolution of this law suit.

Reserve has not made a showing through the affidavit of its Executive Vice President Banovitz that there are significant new justify a modification of the time limits set by the court of appeals.

On the basis of the files and records, I FIND that Minnesota [6 ELR 20629] has made a "final administrative determination that it will offer Reserve no site acceptable to Reserve for on-land disposal of tailings" and DIRECT that Reserve and its parent corporations cease discharge of taconite tailings into Lake Superior one year from today, at mionight on July 7, 1977.