Judge Rebuffs Attempt to Change Mining

(AP)  A federal judge on Wednesday rebuffed the Obama administration's attempt to reverse a last-minute Bush-era rule that allows surface mine waste to be dumped near streams.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar wanted the rule vacated, saying in April "it failed to pass the smell test." Salazar wanted to return to a 1983 regulation that kept coal companies 100 feet from streams unless they can prove mining won't harm water quality or quantity.

But U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr., wrote in his ruling that granting Salazar's request would be tantamount to changing a federal regulation without public input.

The Interior Department said it is reviewing the decision.

"This Administration has shown it is determined to improve mining practices and we will do so within the context of the court's ruling," spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said in an e-mail.

The ruling is a victory for the U.S. coal industry but another defeat for opponents of a practice called mountaintop removal mining, a process in which mining companies remove vast areas to expose coal. While they are required to restore much of the land, the removal creates many tons debris that's used to fill nearby valleys.

Groups such as the Sierra Club want the practice banned, claiming it destroys mountaintops and pollutes water, among other things. The coal industry argues that surface mines provide high-paying jobs and cheap electricity.

Sierra Club spokesman Oliver Bernstein called the ruling "unfortunate."

"It's really going to take a comprehensive effort to end this type of mining altogether," Bernstein said. "We are glad that the Obama administration is really giving a close look to mountaintop removal coal mining, but we are still waiting to see decisions that actually end this practice altogether."

Bernstein's comments came a day after the Sierra Club criticized the Obama administration for allowing the Army Corps of Engineers to issue a mountaintop removal mining permit in southern West Virginia.

[johndevinejr]

by the_majesty August 13, 2009 8:00 AM EDT
For the people that don't like coal fueled electrical plants.
Just stop using electricity. Maybe that would help your cause.


Please drink some of the water that this debris is dumped in.


Thanks

[sjc_1]

There jobs other than clear cutting forests or strip mining coal. We can provide all the electricity we need with hydro, renewable methane combined cycle, solar, wind, geothermal and many other renewable sources. To say you have to rape the land to feed your children is absurd. You can get jobs designing, making, installing and maintaining all the resources mentioned above, just get an education and do it, quite making false excuses.

[gramto8]

Clink the url below and then click the link 'see full size image'. It shows just what mountaintop mining has done to an area of formerly beautiful mountains in the Appalachians.


http://***********/n4wcpt

[gramto8]

You can also just scroll down the page of the above link and see the picture with a comparative picture of an area that has not been ravaged.

[the_majesty]

tmittlestaed --- Why don't you just stop using electricity.
Maybe that would help.

[tmittelstaed]

This isn't really a last-minute rule change. The regulations on stream fill are a result of a literal morass of conflicting court decisions and conflicting directives from Congress. The root of the problem is that Congress has never passed legislation that reconciles the demands of the anti-pollution laws (like the clean water act) with the demands of the people living downstream of these mountains to have the mining activity carried out in such a way that the mining doesn't create a flooding danger, and the demands of the environmental laws that disallow harm to fish and wildlife by mining activities. Many lawsuits have been filed by all involved parties that attempt to come at the problem by defining what a stream is, etc.

The so-called 1983 rule that kept coal companies from streams didn't actually do that at all. Instead, it was the result of several court decisions that happened as a result of lawsuits provoked by the 1983 rule that actually had that effect.

The federal agency charged with making these rules DID go though the appropriate public comment periods and such, but delayed implementing the results of the proposals for the simple reason that they knew that it was a waste of time since making a rule change would just give more reasons for all sides to file more lawsuits. Bush came along and told them to just issue the rule change as a way of breaking the logjam, knowing that it would just provoke more lawsuits. I'm sure the Republicans hope was that eventually this would force Congress to address the issue.

Historically, the minimg companies originally threw the fill into the streams and ponds, this caused the streams and ponds to reform to new channels, but in the process made them pretty dirty for a while. So then after people screamed about stream pollution the mining companies tried just piling up the fill outside of the streams, this caused flash flooding as rain came off the fill piles. Either solution was h e l l on the fish. So now the mining companies want to go back to throwing the fill into the streams and letting the streams find new channels.

Ultimately what needs to be decided is if the country really wants the coal more than the undisturbed land. Factually, if the land is strip mined, then reclaimed, after enough time you wouldn't be able to tell that it had ever been strip mined in the first place, other than the contours of the land would be different. But, for a couple of generations at least, the land would be pretty ugly. People also forget that Nature redraws land contours and moves streams all of the time, through erosion, ice ages, and such.

[KrisWhitt]

Finally, someone who took time to do some research and give a thoughtful answer, rather than sling mud and stupidity. Those of us who live in this area, have to consider more than just having fresh water for our children...we have to have jobs and money to buy food as well. We have to consider the rising cost of electricity as well. Environmental concerns are an issue, but only one of many when looking at this problem in context.

[kcits]

Seeing as a last-minute Bush-era rule replaced the 1983 rule. Why doesn't Obama write a new rule that replaces the last minute one. One that, say, doubles or triples the distance of the 1983 rule.

[sjc_1]

There are more jobs than raping the land for a few minerals. It seems to always come down to an either OR decision. Either let us have our way OR we make you homeless. Grow a spine and get a real job, quit being a stooge for the extortionists.

[Imadinnerjacket]

I'm not familiar with mountaintop mining, but I find the Sierra Club repulsive. They are responsible for more loss of jobs then GWB and Obama all put together.

[formrusmcsgt]

...a last-minute Bush-era rule that allows surface mine waste to be dumped near streams.
----
Hardly a surprise that dubya et. al. gave mining companies carte blanche to dump wherever they wish with no regard whatsoever for the rest of us....

[the_majesty]

Just another attempt by Obama Zombies to drive the cost of eletricity up and break the countries back. This would speed up Obama's takeover.

[the_majesty]

For the people that don't like coal fueled electrical plants.
Just stop using electricity. Maybe that would help your cause.