During her appearance this afternoon at the National Press Club in Washington, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson got a question about what her agency plans to do about mountaintop removal. Her comments didn’t make especially big news, especially given EPA’s statement in my Sunday story, but I thought I would pass them along anyway:
The EPA is currently in the process of reviewing those mountaintop mining permits that have been held through years and years, almost decades would be a fairer way to say it, of litigation.
This is a practice that is quite emotional for many people in America. There are thin seems of coal above mountaintops in Appalachia and the practice that is most cost efficient is to simply blow off the top, level it, remove that thin seam, and then all that rubble from the top of the mountain gets put into valleys and almost inevitably fills streams.
What we’re finding at EPA is that the process of filling the streams has a detrimental impact on water quality and as you might expect the more you fill, the more likely you’re going to see problems with water quality.
I’m really proud of the fact that EPA has stepped forward and said we’re going to review each and every one of these outstanding permits to try to minimize, if not end, any environmental degradation to the water. Because, after all, for EPA … EPA doesn’t regulate mining. We fight for clean water under the Clean Water Act. So our role is limited to ensuring that these projects if they’re approved do not have a detrimental impact on clean water. We’ll continue to do that.
I have promised Senator Byrd that we would get clarity of guidance out to those companies who have permits that are in the process. That will be happening in very short order.
I’ve also posted audio of her comments:
I’m not sure where Administrator Jackson got the idea that some of these permits had been in litigation for “decades” … and I also thought her comment that EPA may seek to “end” any degradation of water quality, rather than minimize it, was interesting.
Subscribe to the Coal Tattoo
Ken,
The Clean Water Act does not give the EPA authority to allow any degradation to water quality, so this shouldn’t be surprising. What is refreshing is now they seem to be rightly recognizing this as their primary responsibility under the law. And if they don’t follow up, there will certainly be more litigation.
Roselle,
That’s exactly why I thought it was interesting to hear Administrator Jackson say that …. Ken.
[...] Read the whole story March 8th, 2010 | Tags: mountaintop removal | Category: Coal, Mountaintop Removal [...]
I was struck by her use of “almost inevitably” with reference to valley fills. These fills are permitted. I think a better phrase would have been “deliberately fills streams.” This seems like a minor quibble, but as others have pointed out, words indicate frame of mind. It looks as though Secretary Jackson is still not willing to admit that valley fills have been deliberate federal government policy “for decades.”
SMCRA exempts mining from the 1973 Clean Water Act. Water standards were set in SMCRA. EPA has no dog in the fight. Surface coal mining our past, present and will continue to be our future.
Note that EPA reviews are not just on valley fills and/or MTR mines.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/e0840ed4b665e5c7852576e00077c7d7?OpenDocument
Mr. Woods, please show some facts that says surface coal mining is exempt from the 1973 Clean Water Act. I believe that EPA does have a dog in the fight. Thank you.
Leon, nothing in SMCRA overrides the CWA; otherwise, there would be language that amends the CWA, which the coal industry and Corps of Engineers attorneys would most certainly have whipped out in federal court. And surface mining, or any mining, of a finite resource will only be your future for a limited time. In the case of coal, it’s maybe a couple of decades according to the USGS, and production will decrease by half in the next 10 years, with or without climate legislation or MTR limitations according to the info Ken has posted from Downstream Strategies. It’s time to realize the very real and increasingly urgent need to diversify both our economy and energy production and take real, not token, steps to get to a sustainable future for all our kids and grandkids.
The EPA saying “soon” reminds me of when I was a kid and I’d ask my Mom when I would get something, like a toy, that I wanted a whole lot – “soon.” Or the ever popular car trip refrain, “Are we there yet?”
The US EPA needs to dust off a little item called NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, an oldie but goodie that forms the basic framework for ALL federal environmental policies and laws. I admit to going from memory here, but I believe one of NEPA’s core values is that protection of the environment must be weighted EQUALLY with all other considerations, such as economic development of a resource, when granting permits.
That has obviously not been done in West Virginia for the last 150 years, and anyone who says otherwise is seriously kidding themeselves. I find myself agreeing with Senator Byrd – West Virginia can jump on board the Engine of Change, or get run over by it in the next two to three decades.
Leon Wood,
Thanks for commenting, but your assertion is just simply not correct.
First, I believe you meant to refer to the Clean Water Act of 1972, not 1973.
Second, and more important, when it passed SMCRA, Congress specifically said that nothing in that law was intended to supercede, modify, amend or repeal a long list of other laws — including the Clean Water Act. That’s in 30 U.S.C. 1292, available online here http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/30/25/VII/1292
Third, the Clean Water Act requires coal companies to obtain NPDES permits and 404 permits, both of which give EPA a dog in this hunt.
Finally, water quality standards were not set by SMCRA. They are set by EPA and the states under the Clean Water Act and state water pollution laws.
Ken.
[...] it’s worth noting that the most recent words out of Lisa Jackson’s own mouth went farther, even if only a tiny [...]