Nice update Kate. Both of the new filings, one by LAC and one by BLM, reinforce their argument that the May 3, 2021 letter from the NDEP that raises concerns about very long term negative impacts (300 years plus) on water quality below the water table should not be taken into account by Judge Du.

The planiffs have pointed to this letter as proof that the BLM decision is "illegal" because they didn't take these risks into account. LAC and the BLM argue that 1) the letter was after the BLM decision so procedurally it should not be considered, 2) the characterization of the letter by the plaintiffs is wrong in that they claim the NDEP letter shows that the issuance of a Water Pollution Control permit by the state would be illegal, where LAC argues that the letter more accurately states that permit controls would need to be put in place to identify and mitigate any damage, and 3) although the plaintiffs "trumpet a parade of horribles from alleged impacts to water quality of mining ..." (love the "horribles" reference), the letter actually proves the opposite by recognizing the BLM's requirement that the mine adhere to Nevada law. 

The difference in approach between the plaintiffs and the defendants seems to boil down to the plaintiffs' position that risks are not worth taking, regardless of mitigation strategies, while the defendants recognize that risks exist but through mine design, limits on operation, monitoring and risk/damage mitigation (in other words adhering to the permits), the mine can operate safely. 

I like our chances because I'm not sure the plaintiffs' position on what might happen will stand up to the permit stipulations that the mine must follow.