The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure‘s interrogation of EPA acting water chief Nancy Stoner seems to be winding down, as the GOP and the coal industry continue their efforts to discredit the Obama administration’s efforts to reduce the impacts of coal mining on Appalachian communities.
Testimony from the first panel of witnesses was about what you would expect, given last week’s initial day of this two-part hearing, dubbed, “EPA Mining Policies: Assault on Appalachian Jobs.”
– David Sunding, an economist at the University of California at Berkeley, warned lawmakers that Clean Water Act Section 404 permits are a big deal — involving projects for more than $220 billion in investments economy-wide every year — and questions about EPA’s review of them for mining could ripple through other industries.
– Reed Hopper, a lawyer with the Pacific Legal Foundation (a group that generally attacks all government efforts to protect the environment or public health), testified that his group believes EPA’s decision to veto Arch Coal’s permit for the Spruce Mine was an abuse of power that erodes the rights of all citizens.
– Mike Carey, president of the Ohio Coal Association, told committee members that the Obama administration’s “war on coal” makes Appalachia “ground zero for the fundamental overreach of the Obama regulatory agenda.”
– Steve Roberts, president of the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce, testified that his organization believes “the denial and revocation of 404 permits has already threatened our economy and our workforce.”
Today’s hearing went a little different from last week’s in some respects, though.
First of all, someone from EPA was actually given the chance to speak and explain the agency’s policies. Of course, the GOP committee leadership, contrary to long-standing protocols for congressional hearings, made EPA acting water chief Nancy Stoner follow the panel of industry witnesses. Traditionally, officials from administrative agencies usually appear first at such hearings.
Stoner made a strong statement about what EPA’s trying to do:
Appalachian families should not have to choose between healthy watersheds and a healthy economy — they deserve both.
And, she explained EPA’s view of its role in dealing with Clean Water Act 404 permits:
EPA does not view this authority as an opportunity to second guess the Corps’ decision-making, but rather as an important responsibility to conduct an independent review of projects that have the potential to significantly impact public health.
Stoner explained to committee members that EPA’s actions are backed up by more than 100 peer-reviewed studies, and she specifically cited the new West Virginia University paper that further documents concerns about mountaintop removal’s impacts on human health of residents who live near these mines.
This time around, we also got to see a couple of Democratic committee members actually challenge some of what the industry witnesses and their Republican hosts were saying.
For example, the subcommittee’s ranking Democrat, Rep. Timothy Bishop of New York, pointed out that EPA has not rejected any of the 140 pending coal-related 404 permit applications the Obama administration inherited when it took office two years ago. And, Bishop noted that over the past 39 years, EPA has used its veto authority only 13 times, while processing more than two million 404 permits:
Two million permits set against 13 permits [vetoed] It’s a little bit difficult to argue that there is a level of uncertainty that is debilitating.
And, Rep. Laura Richardson, D-Calif., questioned Carey’s proposal from the Ohio Coal Association for a “regulatory time out”, saying:
You’re not going to see no regulation.
Richardson tried to ask Carey what sort of middle ground proposals his organization would have for dealing with EPA, but Carey said he wasn’t interested in such compromises.
And Carey had another bit of testimony that was very interesting. In his public statement to the committee, he mentioned increased safety enforcement by the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration as part of the Obama administration’s “war on coal.”
In his written testimony, Carey tried to insist that his group was “… not complaining about enforcement actions that protect miners’ safety …” But, among a list of proposals his group is opposing, he included MSHA’s plan to “End Black Lung,” a disease that has killed 10,000 coal miners in the last decade.
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
Subscribe to the Coal Tattoo
While I’m not sure how these hearings are normally conducted, there certainly was no local or legal representation of the citizens of Appalachia that are concerned with the destruction going on in their own back yards. It seemed about as fair and balanced as a Fox News program. Especially every time bottled water was mentioned. I didn’t see any critters enjoying a full and healthy life cycle in those bottles of Perrier either.
I think Nancy Stoner held her own despite the constant and unrelenting attacks especially from Congressman Young of Alaska. The next time anyone claims that enviros are just basing their actions on emotions I should point out this gentleman’s rant about how EPA is killing America and should be defunded. Mr. Bishop brought up some great points, ones that seemed to have the industry backpedaling for answers when it comes to the number of permits actually denied v. those issued. I also think that including many other topics like open pits in Minnesota and the Yazoo pumps project veto in Mississippi was way off base and off topic. One thing I think all sides failed to bring up was the number of 404 permits that have been issued that were not included with the batch of ECP permits. I can’t speak for West Virginia but there have been many issued in Kentucky and Tennessee alone. Industry seems to think the EPA is operating in a vacuum, however Council of Environmental Quality mandated the ECP process and the June 2009 MOU to a)deal with the backlog of Corps permits b) get all the regulatory federal agencies working together again and c) allow coal mining and its pollution to be scrutinized in a scientific manner.
Do I think industry had some valid points? Yes, especially when it comes to process time and investment of capital for mines. I don’t think anyone denies that delay costs money and creates uncertainty. But the opponents of surface mining have little recourse since once the land is disturbed it takes several decades to heal and perhaps centuries for the full diversity of organisms to repopulate the land and streamscapes. Putting the science before the policy is good government and I think EPA had and continues to gather sufficient (and peer reviewed) evidence that surface mining is indeed having a detrimental effect on the mountains and streams of Appalachia. If industry can refute this science without pointing out that Evian or Perrier has a higher conductivity than many Appalachian streams then they should do so. I personally believe that if mining has to happen (and only the very naive believe otherwise) then it should be paced to allow recovery to occur in tandem with continued destruction of the landscape and headwaters.
And yes..the era of the wagonwheel is over. I’m glad I know that now.
I know everyone picks on the EPA for not considering employment or economics but the E in EPA does stand for Environment. There are plenty of other agencies, many with much more money and political influence, that defend industry and the economy. Someone has to stick out their necks for the environment otherwise we might all be drinking lead and arsenic while we watch the rivers burn.
At the risk of being banned from coal tatoo for repeating the message, I think Mr Sunding gets it. The second paragraph of Mr Sundings testimony makes my point as to how much power the EPA now wields.
For those who didn’t click through to the entire testimony, here’s the paragraph Watcher refers to:
“There are a wide range of public and private sector activities permitted under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. These activities are vital to the American economy and include: utility infrastructure; housing and commercial development; renewable energy projects like wind, solar, and biomass; pipeline and electric transmission; transportation infrastructures including roads and rail; agriculture; and many others. The Corps estimates that over $220 billion of investment annually is conditioned on the issuance of Section 404 permits. Given the breadth of the statute, a larger share of public and private infrastructure or development projects must receive and depend on the certain operation of the 404 permit.”
Rep. Timothy Bishop pointed out that EPA seldom uses the 404 veto authority, and what’s interesting is the suggestion from Sunding that what needs to happen is to have “certain operation of the 404 permit.”
Does “certain operation” mean that all applicants – from coal mine operators to commercial developers — must be “certain” that every permit application will be approved? If that’s the case, why not eliminate the permit process altogether?
Ken.
Watcher-
“The second paragraph of Mr Sundings testimony makes my point as to how much power the EPA now wields.”
Shouldn’t that read how much power the EPA has always wielded? I mean, EPA wasn’t just given those powers over 404 permits within this last administration.
I agree totally with Plethodon. If I hear another mention about the conductivity of bottled water, gatorade, or any other high conductivity drink, I think I am going to barf
13 denials out of 2 milliion permits. That is a acceptance rate of 0.9999935. To put that into perspective, in most (ok virtually all) scientific studies anything greater than 0.95 confidence is considered good enough certainity to make a decision. I guess that 0.0000065 is just too much uncertainty to bother applying for a permit.
RE: “…as the GOP and the coal industry continue their efforts to discredit the Obama administration’s efforts to reduce the impacts of coal mining on Appalachian communities.”
I’m coming at this issue from a 180 degree different perspective, but I love this blog because it is an incredible resource. That said, I don’t think the quote above is an accurate representation of what took place yesterday. This wasn’t a case of the GOP/coal industry railing on the EPA, and the DNP defending the EPA. Rather, there was unanimous bipartisan agreement that the EPA had overstepped its bounds with these “do or dare” permits (ie, follow the “non-binding” guidance, or else).
Subcommittee Ranking Member Bishop spoke of a “pendulum” between the “non-mutually exclusive” issues of environmental protection and economic activity. He said it had swung too far towards business in the Bush era, and now it appeared to have swung too far in the other direction. Of course, Rahall agreed with the Republicans. Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA), offered “our support, as a group…for anything we can do to lessen the burden.” You quoted Rep. Laura Richardson (D-Calif.) chiding Carey for his testimony, but you left out her most interesting comment during the exchange: “We are here to help you.” Later, she said, “When an issue raises to the level of the Congress, you know there’s a problem.” She was chiding EPA Acting Undersecretary Stoner.
To be sure, Rep. Bishop aggressively defended the EPA from the rhetorical claim, made by Carey, that the Obama Administration was waging a “war on coal” in order to fulfill the President’s promise to “bankrupt coal,” but he also allowed that EPA had gone too far when he made his pendulum analogy. Again, Rep. Rahall’s willingness to check the EPA was never in doubt. Rep. Altmire is from Appalachian PA, where surface coal mining is practiced (although there has been a dramatic conversion from surface to underground mines there over the last decade), but I couldn’t find any evidence of mountaintop removal coal mines in that State. Rep. Richardson’s skepticism of the EPA’s actions was most striking, given that her district is as far from Appalachia as it gets.
In an era of hyper-partisanship, it’s compelling that both parties questioned a major environmental policy of the President, on an issue as divisive as mountaintop removal mining
William Yeatman,
You make a reasonable point … I supposed I wrote this post the way I did, frankly, because I was a bit surprised that some Democrats engaged on this the way they did — by questioning both sides. Last week’s hearing offered none of that, and it appeared that the ranking Democrat on the full committee, Mr. Rahall, had his members in line.
Yesterday, those Democrats seemed to be both saying there was a problem, but also saying the industry was overstating (over-reaching?) in describing the extent of and impacts of that problem.
However, remember that this was one minor subcommittee of one congressional committee … there are also quite a few folks in Congress who don’t like mountaintop removal and support what EPA is doing. That’s one reason that the House GOP (with support from Democrats like Rahall) weren’t able to get the anti-EPA language on mining into their budget agreement.
Ken.
Using the “pendulum” analogy, after being held so far to the side of economy for so long, it seems that any swing toward the side of protecting the environment, no matter how little, is hysterically labeled “too much”.
“When an issue raises to the level of the Congress, you know there’s a problem.” Cynical me says that it means you have the juice, deep pockets, connections, or pull to get it put in front of Congress.