CHAPTER 6 CRITICAL ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSED FEDERAL SURFACE MINING LEGISLATION

• Jurisdiction: United States

Western Coal Development
(Mar 1973)
CHAPTER 6
CRITICAL ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSED FEDERAL SURFACE MINING LEGISLATION
William E. Hynan
Vice President—Law National Coal Association

Before undertaking an analysis of the proposed federal surface mining legislation, a brief outline of where the coal industry stands on this critical issue will provide an essential backdrop to our discussion.

Contrary to the impression created by some of the news media and by some of the more emotional opponents of surface mining, the coal industry, represented by the National Coal Association, supports federal legislation that will require the states to establish and enforce strict regulations for the reclamation of surface mined lands. If the states fail to set up such programs, based on federal criteria, or fail to enforce them, then the federal government should step in and do the job.

Effective reclamation can be achieved because the responsible coal companies are doing it today. The technology exists and, therefore, any legislation should be based on requiring sound reclamation. It should not be based on prohibition or slope limitations. Such over-simplified approaches may sound appealing as rhetoric, but they make poor legislation. There are no short cut solutions to the complicated problems involved. Legislation should be corrective and not punitive or arbitrarily onerous.

Think for a moment, and I believe you will agree with us, that it is in the self interest of the responsible segment of the coal industry, which is trying to do a good job, to secure legislation that will require every operator to reclaim their mined lands. The coal industry is extremely competative and the responsible companies are at a tremendous disadvantage in competing against the operator who cuts

[Page 6-2]

costs by doing slip-shod reclamation work.

An approach which encourages the states to develop their own programs based on broad federal criteria provides the most effective way of insuring this objective. Climate, soil, vegetation and topography differ greatly throughout the country and state authorities are most familiar with the conditions in their particular areas and how to most effectively cope with them. Many states have also acquired considerable expertise in reclamation and already have a functioning regulatory structure, which can be modified to comply with the federal statute. Many of the legislative proposals introduced in the 92nd Congress recongized that the states should have the initial and primary responsibility in developing the specific regulations and requirements for achieving the federal standards for reclamation.

If a state does not submit a plan which meets the requirements of the legislation, as determined by the Secretary of Interior, or a state fails to adequately enforce its regulations, then the Secretary could require the state to take the necessary corrective action; failing in this, the federal government would issue and administer mining regulations for the state.

In my judgment direct federal regulation or legislation which attempts to set out the specific reclamation requirements would not be desirable. Such proposals could end up by imposing uniform regulations on all the states regardless of existing conditions and fail to give consideration to legitimate local concerns. It is far more realistic for Congress to require the states to establish the reclamation programs and permit the Secretary of Interior to insure their effectiveness.

[Page 6-3]

There is no advantage to legislation that would require the Secretary of Interior to develop and enforce federal regulations for all the states which would be permitted subsequently to submit their own plans for approval and, if accepted, would be substituted for the federal program. Most of the states where coal is surface-mined already have reclamation and surface mining regulations and would presumably be willing to modify them to comply with any federal criteria established. As a result, mine operators would be responsible first to the states, then to Washington, then back to the states. This would be confusing...