We have to have rules in place before we can do it.

We read the rules and they clearly require the BLM to prepare a full environmental impact statement and include the public in these processes. The BLM is simply trying to intimidate the public and prevent citizens from enforcing the law and protecting their public forest.

The substantive comment requirement was a serious problem because under these rules, members of the public might not even know that a project threatened their interests until after the Forest Service deadline for public comment.

But judges more than anyone else have to follow clear mandates of federal law. When you violate judicial rules of ethics, it matters, even if you're not doing it for any nefarious reason.

Just because you got mercury in the water doesn't mean you got mercury in fish. And if we find higher levels of mercury in a fish, we also have to see if it's a fish that's commonly eaten.

Regulation of these kinds of facilities tends to fall between the cracks.