Yukon government wants its decision upheld by court
The Yukon government is questioning the jurisdiction of the Yukon Water Board in an appeal to the Yukon Supreme Court.
The Yukon government is questioning the jurisdiction of the Yukon Water Board in an appeal to the Yukon Supreme Court.
The appeal, filed Sept. 1, seeks to have the water board implement the decisions the government made with respect to a placer mining application submitted to the Yukon Environmental and Socio- economic Assessment Board in August of last year.
At that time, Northern Exposures Inc. submitted a project proposal to carry out mining operations on claims along the Indian River and Ruby Creek.
In February, the assessment board decided the project could go ahead, except in certain sensitive areas containing undisturbed wetlands.
In March, the Yukon government reviewed the assessment board’s decision and amended its terms, saying Northern Exposures could mine the entire area proposed as long as the company also came up with a reclamation plan that “incorporates existing baseline data and which results in suitable terrain conditions that are conducive to the natural re-establishment, over time, of wetland habitat in post- mined areas.”
However, when the water board issued Northern Exposures’ licence in July, the terms of that licence included a paragraph stating Northern Exposures would not be permitted to alter or disturb any naturally occurring wetlands. The board’s placer land use approval for the company had the same stipulation.
“In its deliberations, the board agreed with the conclusions of the YESAB Evaluation Report and the interventions of the Tron’dek Hwech’in, First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun, and Yukon Conservation Society that there would be significant adverse effects on the wetlands ... ” read the board’s reasons.
Grounds for the government’s appeal suggest the water board erred in law and jurisdiction in ignoring the government’s decision to allow mining in the wetlands contrary to the assessment board’s recommendation.
The government is asking that the board not be allowed to grant rights that are contrary to the decision made by the government.
The appeal asks that the terms of the water licence be amended to reflect the government’s recommendation that the project go ahead as planned, with the addition of a post-mining reclamation plan for lands impacted by the placer mining project.
The case will be back in court for case management in October 4.
Comments (20)
Up 1 Down 3
Black Hat on Sep 12, 2016 at 10:32 pm
What cost again to the Taxpayers of the Yukon and Canada??????
We can only handle so much!!!!!!
The Water Board made a decision - that is the end of that.
Up 8 Down 9
Mark Sanders on Sep 10, 2016 at 1:02 pm
Time to correct the outdated mining regulations and take over control of the land and marshes and wetlands which are thousands of yrs old.
Gold can be mined irresponsibly in the developing world, let's control mining here to ensure it does not mess the environment up.
Up 14 Down 6
ProScience Greenie on Sep 9, 2016 at 3:41 pm
Sorry I call on, but I don't do Mining Watch propaganda. Nor Chamber of Mines propaganda.
Being pro-green and pro-science I know it takes hard rock metal mines to make solar panels and wind turbines, smart phones, defibrillators, Mars rovers etc. I like that stuff. It makes the world better and greener.
What are your solutions? They have to be realistic. And compassionate.
Up 13 Down 13
I call on Sep 9, 2016 at 10:09 am
@Pro something Greenie you continually mention the anti-everything crowd so that takes us out of the realm of just placer mining and into hard rock where the accidents are too numerous to list. These anti people are anti things like the river running red in Russia, immeasurable arsenic at the Giant mine area, Polley Mountain Imperial metals Quenell lake, time and again continually. Failed mines where the clean-up deposit was deficient and the mine abandoned and left for the tax-payer to clean up. Does any of this sound familiar to you? Please don't come back with the excuse that you are just talking about placer mining when you are the one using the 'anti-everything crowd.
Up 14 Down 6
Reality check on Sep 8, 2016 at 7:13 pm
This story is about the Yukon government saying that the Yukon water board exceeded it's jurisdiction. It's not about whether either party made a correct decision.
And as long as we are talking reality, it's time to dispel the myth that the Yukon water board is any more than a retirement boondoggle for political appointments. Those members get paid the highest level of honorarium, plus obscene payments for travel expenses and preparation time.
However, over the last several decades, other federal and territorial legislation has eroded the authority of the Yukon water board to the point where they are nothing more than a huge rubber stamp - and this court case proves it. They have no authority - and deciding to take on an authority that exceeds their jurisdiction has only landed them in court, where all of us will pay for their legal fees in a wasted effort. For a long time, government pretended that the board could make decisions by saying that the decisions of other bodies were the minimum but the board could always include more strict conditions in their licenses. But it appears now that isn't the case.
Strangely, since the last piece of legislation eroding their authority came into play (YESAA) the board's staff has gone from five to 12. Hard to figure that out. How many people does it take to take another authority's decisions and entrench them in a water license?
Up 21 Down 13
ProScience Greenie on Sep 8, 2016 at 3:21 pm
It is easy to appear pro-mining when you live in a territory full of so many that are so strongly anti-everything. Most of those people have comfy secure jobs for life with all the benefits and couldn't give a rat's behind about our friends, family and neighbors that work in placer mining and would shut the whole thing down in a heartbeat. Same with other resource workers. The cold lack of compassion of the anti crowd is scary.
Up 10 Down 11
It's a mystery on Sep 7, 2016 at 5:04 pm
Pro Mining Greenie at it again. Anything over one ten thousandth of a percent is 'kinda greedy', if it's coming out of a placer miners pocket.
'Kinda greedy' is her/his scientific assessment of the situation.
Up 17 Down 7
ProScience Greenie on Sep 7, 2016 at 4:26 pm
Indeed BnR, we talked about the Judas Cr. thing around the camp fire last night. What's up with that? Again I suggest that the most of these court cases are about political and intergovernmental power plays with little to do with the environment.
All our various boards and committees also need stronger oversight as they are not immune from political or ideological interference.
Overall we have a very dysfunctional territory and it will remain so no matter which party wins the next election.
Up 35 Down 16
drum on Sep 7, 2016 at 12:30 pm
YP Government just getting more and more like a nondemocratic dictatorship. They do not listen to the people in this Territory that made the mistake of voting them in - we will not make the same mistake again.
It is our taxpayers money that the YP Government is using to fight our opinion and wishes through the court system.
Up 35 Down 13
BnR on Sep 7, 2016 at 6:49 am
So inquiring minds want to know why the Yukon Party Gov didn't appeal YESABs decision re. Nick Goeppel and partners application near Judas creek? http://www.yukon-news.com/news/judas-creek-placer-mining-proposal-faces-scrutiny/
I guess we really don't need to wonder about that one.
One thing the YP has yet to collectively realize is that we have boards for a reason, to maintain separation between the gov and decisions like this which can be influenced politically without said boards.
They Just-Don't-Get-It.
Up 41 Down 15
Jack Colby on Sep 6, 2016 at 10:46 pm
annnnddddd the Pasloski Party is back in court YET AGAIN
Up 40 Down 13
Politico on Sep 6, 2016 at 9:32 pm
What is the point of the board if the government makes what ever decision it wants. We could save a lot of money by getting rid of the boards and just let the politicians do whatever they want. Oh, they already do.
Up 29 Down 10
Dee on Sep 6, 2016 at 8:05 pm
Is it the governments role to intervene on behalf of a company?
Up 22 Down 23
ralpH on Sep 6, 2016 at 6:31 pm
@ nature is worth more how are we to pay for that serine lifestyle? Are we to just sit back and expect everyone else to pay for a nirvana style existence that has absolutely no example anywhere else in the world?? Time to get real resource extraction is how we pay the bills and allow you to keep dreaming in that world with the purple sky!!
Up 34 Down 13
OJW on Sep 6, 2016 at 6:11 pm
Yep, one branch of government suing another, both using taxpayer dollars to pay for it, on behalf of one placer project.
By the way, the wetlands in question are peat wetlands. They can never be re-established as peat wetlands.
Up 21 Down 7
ProScience Greenie on Sep 6, 2016 at 5:25 pm
It could be viewed that wanting more than 17 cents an ounce in royalties is being kind of greedy. Would it be OK to mine this area if it was 17 dollars an ounce?
One would have to read through all the documents to be able to even begin to have an opinion on whether the project should go ahead. Not many folks do that.
As well there is a good chance that this matter is more about politics and power than the environment. Too much of that going on in the Yukon.
Also, we have to ask who's running the show in this territory. YP, Libs or NDP, any government is going to have to sooner or later deal with situations like this that are based on political power plays and optics. Science, economics and democracy often are not even part of it. Expect more similar court cases no matter who wins the election until we figure out who's in the drivers seat of this car full of politcal clowns we call the Yukon.
Up 39 Down 15
Joe on Sep 6, 2016 at 4:44 pm
Once again the YP thinking they can push their way through anyone who doesn't agree with them. Call an election, were tired of the disrespect and waste of our money on legal fees.
Up 37 Down 14
Herman Kaglik on Sep 6, 2016 at 3:49 pm
Enforcing the dictatorship of YP
Plain and simple
Up 60 Down 24
June Jackson on Sep 6, 2016 at 3:36 pm
In a nutshell, the Board is saying, do not disturb land and wetlands already existing...and the Pasloski government is saying.. go ahead, tear the crap out of it.. but just make sure the land can recover over time? How much time? 100 years? 200?
If I were a judge, this seems like a no brainer to me... unless i did not interpret the sides correctly, in which case I would appreciate correction.
Up 71 Down 29
nature is worth more! on Sep 6, 2016 at 3:28 pm
Enough is enough. Stop destroying our most valuable ecosystems for 17 cents an ounce in royalties from placer miners!
I am so fed up with the destruction of nature for the pure greed of the few. It is sick.