#environmentalethics — Public Fediverse posts

A Pagan Case Against Lawns: Rethinking the Tyranny of Turf

https://pagangrove.wordpress.com/2026/04/09/a-pagan-case-against-lawns-rethinking-the-tyranny-of-turf/

New Correspondence Entered into the Twin Metals v. US Docket, Reiterating the Risk of Serious and Irreparable Harm to the Boundary Waters

The attorney for the Environmental and Natural Resources Division of the DOJ just entered this correspondence into the Twin Metals v. US docket.

It attempts to clarify a point on which the federal government has insisted: since the Forest Service moved to withdraw more than 225,000 acres Superior National Forest lands from mineral exploration and development in September of 2021, the Bureau of Land Management acted lawfully — or with authority — when it denied Twin Metals’ Preference Rights Lease Applications, or PRLAs. Therefore, the government contends, Twin Metals has no claim, so Judge Cooper was right to dismiss Twin Metals’ complaint. (For a little more context, see this post.)

In response to the Bureau of Land Management’s request for clarification, the Forest Service reiterates its position:

The record for the 2016 lease consent determination and 2023 withdrawal application demonstrate that development of these mineral resources presented an unacceptable, inherent risk of serious and irreparable harm to the BWCAW natural resources. It has been thoroughly documented that the proposed mineral leasing is not a compatible use within the watershed in such proximity to the wilderness and that the Forest Service’s withholding of consent to the issuance of leases for MNES-057965 and MNES- 050264 would be consistent with the record. This is entirely consistent with previous consent decisions on mineral lease renewals in the same area of the Rainy River Watershed, as well as last year’s decision to withdraw approximately 225,378 acres of land within the watershed from mineral leasing. Extensive analysis and public input associated with prior consent decisions and the mineral withdrawal process informs and supports this response. [emphasis mine]

There is a to to unpack here, and can’t help but wonder why this correspondence comes at such a late hour. Is the federal government is just making sure to cover all bases, or are there alarm bells ringing? Be that as it may, here are the letters in question.

Subscribe

#ANTO #administrativeState #corruption #environmentalEthics #ethics #lawfulAuthority #pollution #Water

New Correspondence Entered into the Twin Metals v. US Docket, Reiterating the Risk of Serious and Irreparable Harm to the Boundary Waters

The attorney for the Environmental and Natural Resources Division of the DOJ just entered this correspondence into the Twin Metals v. US docket.

It attempts to clarify a point on which the federal government has insisted: since the Forest Service moved to withdraw more than 225,000 acres Superior National Forest lands from mineral exploration and development in September of 2021, the Bureau of Land Management acted lawfully — or with authority — when it denied Twin Metals’ Preference Rights Lease Applications, or PRLAs. Therefore, the government contends, Twin Metals has no claim, so Judge Cooper was right to dismiss Twin Metals’ complaint. (For a little more context, see this post.)

In response to the Bureau of Land Management’s request for clarification, the Forest Service reiterates its position:

The record for the 2016 lease consent determination and 2023 withdrawal application demonstrate that development of these mineral resources presented an unacceptable, inherent risk of serious and irreparable harm to the BWCAW natural resources. It has been thoroughly documented that the proposed mineral leasing is not a compatible use within the watershed in such proximity to the wilderness and that the Forest Service’s withholding of consent to the issuance of leases for MNES-057965 and MNES- 050264 would be consistent with the record. This is entirely consistent with previous consent decisions on mineral lease renewals in the same area of the Rainy River Watershed, as well as last year’s decision to withdraw approximately 225,378 acres of land within the watershed from mineral leasing. Extensive analysis and public input associated with prior consent decisions and the mineral withdrawal process informs and supports this response. [emphasis mine]

There is a to to unpack here, and can’t help but wonder why this correspondence comes at such a late hour. Is the federal government is just making sure to cover all bases, or are there alarm bells ringing? Be that as it may, here are the letters in question.

Subscribe

#ANTO #administrativeState #corruption #environmentalEthics #ethics #lawfulAuthority #pollution #Water

New Correspondence Entered into the Twin Metals v. US Docket, Reiterating the Risk of Serious and Irreparable Harm to the Boundary Waters

The attorney for the Environmental and Natural Resources Division of the DOJ just entered this correspondence into the Twin Metals v. US docket.

It attempts to clarify a point on which the federal government has insisted: since the Forest Service moved to withdraw more than 225,000 acres Superior National Forest lands from mineral exploration and development in September of 2021, the Bureau of Land Management acted lawfully — or with authority — when it denied Twin Metals’ Preference Rights Lease Applications, or PRLAs. Therefore, the government contends, Twin Metals has no claim, so Judge Cooper was right to dismiss Twin Metals’ complaint. (For a little more context, see this post.)

In response to the Bureau of Land Management’s request for clarification, the Forest Service reiterates its position:

The record for the 2016 lease consent determination and 2023 withdrawal application demonstrate that development of these mineral resources presented an unacceptable, inherent risk of serious and irreparable harm to the BWCAW natural resources. It has been thoroughly documented that the proposed mineral leasing is not a compatible use within the watershed in such proximity to the wilderness and that the Forest Service’s withholding of consent to the issuance of leases for MNES-057965 and MNES- 050264 would be consistent with the record. This is entirely consistent with previous consent decisions on mineral lease renewals in the same area of the Rainy River Watershed, as well as last year’s decision to withdraw approximately 225,378 acres of land within the watershed from mineral leasing. Extensive analysis and public input associated with prior consent decisions and the mineral withdrawal process informs and supports this response. [emphasis mine]

There is a to to unpack here, and can’t help but wonder why this correspondence comes at such a late hour. Is the federal government is just making sure to cover all bases, or are there alarm bells ringing? Be that as it may, here are the letters in question.

Subscribe

#ANTO #administrativeState #corruption #environmentalEthics #ethics #lawfulAuthority #pollution #Water

New Correspondence Entered into the Twin Metals v. US Docket, Reiterating the Risk of Serious and Irreparable Harm to the Boundary Waters

The attorney for the Environmental and Natural Resources Division of the DOJ just entered this correspondence into the Twin Metals v. US docket.

It attempts to clarify a point on which the federal government has insisted: since the Forest Service moved to withdraw more than 225,000 acres Superior National Forest lands from mineral exploration and development in September of 2021, the Bureau of Land Management acted lawfully — or with authority — when it denied Twin Metals’ Preference Rights Lease Applications, or PRLAs. Therefore, the government contends, Twin Metals has no claim, so Judge Cooper was right to dismiss Twin Metals’ complaint. (For a little more context, see this post.)

In response to the Bureau of Land Management’s request for clarification, the Forest Service reiterates its position:

The record for the 2016 lease consent determination and 2023 withdrawal application demonstrate that development of these mineral resources presented an unacceptable, inherent risk of serious and irreparable harm to the BWCAW natural resources. It has been thoroughly documented that the proposed mineral leasing is not a compatible use within the watershed in such proximity to the wilderness and that the Forest Service’s withholding of consent to the issuance of leases for MNES-057965 and MNES- 050264 would be consistent with the record. This is entirely consistent with previous consent decisions on mineral lease renewals in the same area of the Rainy River Watershed, as well as last year’s decision to withdraw approximately 225,378 acres of land within the watershed from mineral leasing. Extensive analysis and public input associated with prior consent decisions and the mineral withdrawal process informs and supports this response. [emphasis mine]

There is a to to unpack here, and can’t help but wonder why this correspondence comes at such a late hour. Is the federal government is just making sure to cover all bases, or are there alarm bells ringing? Be that as it may, here are the letters in question.

Subscribe

#ANTO #administrativeState #corruption #environmentalEthics #ethics #lawfulAuthority #pollution #Water

Public Comment on the Rainy River Watershed Withdrawal

https://twitter.com/lvgaldieri/status/1478795253108912128?s=20

My written comments ran to five pages, so instead of posting them here, I put them online as a PDF, which you can read here. I also made a three-minute comment in the live session hosted by the Bureau of Land Management and the US Forest Service this afternoon. My comments focus mainly on the story I’ve been pursuing for the past few years — a story of corruption. The first couple of paragraphs convey the general idea:

Federal lands in the Rainy River Watershed should be withdrawn from disposition under US mineral and geothermal leasing laws for the proposed initial twenty-year period, if not permanently. This is an overdue decision, grounded in science, economics, law, and environmental ethics.

Why, then, hasn’t it already happened? How did this withdrawal process, which started in 2017, go off track? Agency records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act show clearly that a foreign mining company, Antofagasta plc, acted to prevent the withdrawal; and from 2017-2021, members of Congress and the executive branch ran political interference on its behalf. Decisions taken behind closed doors during that period served foreign private interests, not the American public interest. The agencies now have an opportunity to rectify the situation.

I end with three recommendations:

The announcement on October 20, 2021, that the Biden administration will complete the “science-based environmental analysis” was encouraging. Given all the political interference, the two-year study really ought to have been started all over again, from scratch, in the interest of scientific integrity. At the very least, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack should release – unredacted — the preliminary findings of the canceled two-year scientific study, so that they can be compared with the new and complete analysis.

As agencies work toward a science-based decision on the twenty-year withdrawal, they also need to take additional steps to restore public confidence and guard against undue influence. As a first step, the USDA Inspector General could review Secretary Perdue’s decision to cancel the 2017 withdrawal process and report on scientific independence, ethical conduct, and political interference at the agency.

Finally, the agencies can help raise standards. Industry repeatedly assures us that non-ferrous mining in the Rainy River Watershed and elsewhere can be done “responsibly,” and there are a growing number of calls, from Congress and from within the Biden administration, for “responsible mining” for the transition to renewables. How should government respond? Rigorous and practical guidance for agencies on the law and ethics as well as the technical and scientific aspects of “responsible mining” would be a good start.

Here is a recording of my three-minute live comment, which tracks all this pretty closely. Video is cued to the mark.

https://youtu.be/jThQgcFySC8?t=8859

#BoundaryWaters #corruption #environmentalEthics #ethics #ethicsOfMining #goodGovernment #governmentFailure #Water