Victory! Court recognizes public's interest in clean water

Kentucky citizens got a victory today when the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that KFTC, Kentucky Riverkeepers and others have the right to intervene in a Clean Water Act enforcement case.

"In a strongly worded ruling the Kentucky Supreme Court has for the first time affirmed the right of every Kentucky citizen to intervene in state court enforcement actions," said Doug Doerrfeld, a member of KFTC's Litigation  Team. "This is a victory for every citizen of our Commonwealth who values clean water."

The case dates back to October 2010 when Appalachian Voices, KFTC and other groups and individuals notified ICG (International Coal Group) and Frasure Creek Mining of our intent to sue over thousands of violations of the Clean Water Act at the companies' mines in eastern Kentucky.

Officials with the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet attempted to prevent that lawsuit by negotiating a settlement with the companies, which they asked the Franklin Circuit Court to approve in December 2010. These deals represented a light slap on the hand, called for inadequate remedial actions and did nothing to discourage ongoing violations, so KFTC and our allies asked to intervene in the case.

After hearings and written arguments, during which cabinet officials called us an "unwarranted burden," Judge Shepherd allowed KFTC, Appalachian Voices, Kentucky Riverkeeper and the Waterkeeper Alliance to become parties in the case to represent the public interest in clean water.

After the Court of Appeals upheld Shepherd's ruling, the cabinet and Frasure Creek appealed to the Supreme Court, leading to today's unanimous decision.

"The Supreme Court has strongly rebuked an attempt by the Energy and Environment Cabinet to slam the door shut on Kentucky citizens who want to exercise their rights to intervention in state enforcement actions," said Doerrfeld. "The court went so far to assert that, '… an interested citizen’s not being permitted to so intervene can be a factor in casting doubt upon the ‘diligence’ of the state’s enforcement efforts.'”

Here's a copy of the ruling.