AZL General Discussion, page-9572

OK Mr Falk, the game is up, the sleuths here have figured out who you are and why you created me. We'll just have to call you Geppetto from now on. Your brilliance is showing, it certainly is likely that the June 10 letter addressed to BLM was in fact sent to them before comments closed in July.
I have posted here numerous times (where have you been?) that the first, last and only reason for the BLM delay is the Hualapai objections. If groundwater is an issue, it's because the groundwater level is higher than the proposed drilling depth. See the hydrologist report submitted with the Hualapai comments.

If BLM were to conclude that the predictable outcome of drilling would be mining, and that mining would not be approved, then groundwater would be an issue. But they steadfastly maintain that "this only involves approval for drilling, it has nothing to do with approval for mining." Which might be a wise decision. It's like letting a case go to the jury even if reversible error was committed by the prosecution. If the verdict is "not guilty," it saves the trouble of starting over. If AZL drilling finds that there's not that much lithium after all -- something that all of their news releases admit could happen -- then the problem goes away.