MONDAY, JANUARY 10, 1977  

    1 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR
AFFAIRS, Washington, D.C.  

    1 The committee met, pursuant to notice, 9:55 a.m., Hon. Morris K. Udall (chairman of the
committee) presiding.  

    1 The CHAIRMAN.  The committee will be in session.  

    1 I feel sometimes that I have been here before.  We are visiting old friends, the Federal strip
mining legislation.  While the Congress hasn't officially organized yet, and committees have not
been appointed by the House, we have scheduled 2 days this week for briefings to look into the
issues on the current status of strip mining and reclamation practices.  

    1 This committee has attempted to enact the Federal strip mining bill for the past several years. 
Critics have argued that the need for a national bill has vanished.  The bill's opponents argued
that the reclamation regulations of the States have improved vastly and that the environmental
abuses of strip mining are ancient history.  

    1 Today and Wednesday we will take a hard look at that proposition.  This morning we will
hear from people concerned about mining east of the Mississippi. Wednesday we will focus on
the West.  

    1 Today's schedule includes both operators and citizens from Kentucky, Virginia, and
Alabama.  Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado citizens are scheduled Wednesday and at that time
we will also hear from executives of major mining companies interested in Western coal
development.  

    1 On the first day of the 95th Congress, last week, I introduced H.R. 2, which is basically the
same bill the committee reported last year.  

    1 While the committee will hold formal hearings on this bill, the key provisions of H.R. 2 are
obviously relevant to today's sessions, and I am sure they will be discussed. 

    1 I have, however, asked that the witnesses be instructed to address also the more general issue
of the status of strip mining regulation in the States represented here today.  More detailed
testimony on the provisions of H.R. 2 will be received at our formal hearings.  

    1 The strip mining issue is not new to the Congress nor the Interior Committee.  We have been
actively engaged in the struggle to pass a strip mining bill through three successive Congresses.  

     2  We have reported five bills and received two vetoes.  Circumstances have changed,
however, and President-elect Carter, who will take office in just a few days, has expressed his
strong support for Federal strip mining legislation.  

    2 Clearly, supporters of a Federal strip mining bill have never been in a better position to
achieve enactment of a national bill.  

    2 While we are acting in a position of strength, it is as important as ever that we attempt to be
fair.We will start, therefore, with a fresh look at this issue and we will hear from the people most
directly affected, the people who mine the coal and the people who must live with coal mining.  

    2 We are going to try to conclude our series of witnesses by lunch time or shortly thereafter. 
We will ask the witnesses to be brief and to focus on the general issues this morning.  

    2 The first group of witnesses will be - before I proceed to that, does the gentleman from
Kansas have any opening comments?  

    2 Mr. SKUBITZ.  The gentleman from Kansas first wants to congratulate the chairman for the
appointment to the chairmanship of this committee.  

    2 The CHAIRMAN.  It is not official yet.  

    2 Mr. SKUBITZ.  I have served on many committees with the chairman.  He has always been
fair in his attitude.  This side of the aisle has no desire to try and stall this legislation.  We are
familiar, many of us, with the background of the legislation.  I feel the chairman should bear in
mind it has been 4 years since we held public hearings on this bill.  

    2 Twenty-two members, over half of this committee, were not present at the time of public
hearings.  About the same number were not present when the administrative officers were here
testifying.I feel obligated to the new members of this committee that we go into this legislation in
detail so they will know the pros and cons.  This committee in the past has had a reputation for
always doing its work.  

    2 Years ago the chairman on this committee, because of thoroughness, seldom lost a bill on the
floor.  I am certain the new chairman will want to continue on that road this year and the years to
come.  

    2 The CHAIRMAN.  I thank my colleague for his generosity and kindness.  We have a number
of old faces here.  The minority has completed its committee assignment procedures.  We have
Mr. Rudd and Mr. Edwards this morning.  We will be getting our members assigned this week
and next week. 

    2 I am glad to welcome the two new members.  

    2 I will now ask Mr. Kilgore to take the stand.  

 STATEMENT OF FRED KILGORE, CODIRECTOR, VIRGINIA CITIZENS FOR
BETTER RECLAMATION  

   2  Mr. KILGORE.  I would like to say that I appreciate the opportunity to be here.  I am
here to give what our organization feels is the present status of Virginia's strip mining
reclamation program.  

    2 First of all, our organization, Virginia Citizens for Better Reclamation, organized in April
1976.  Since that time, we have gained the membership of 250 members, three-quarters of which
are from the coalfield area of southwest Virginia.  

     3  We have a substantial number of coal miners in our group.  My father is a coal miner.  I
have lived there all my life - my family has been there for a couple of hundred years.  I hope you
don't consider this an outsider's view.  

    3 To give you some background of Virginia's surface mining reclamation in its current status, I
would like to read an excerpt from an official State testimony given by Mr. Roller,
Commissioner of the Division of Mining and Reclamation on October 29, 1976.  

    3 It has been learned that mining has not been performed with adequate controls for
minimizing or preventing adverse disruptions.  Many drainage systems are haphazardly installed
on strip sites in Virginia.  

    3 Spoils are not being retained on the benches.  According to our records, the division's office
and inspectors have received approximately 1,200 complaints during the last 12 months on these
problems.  There are at the present approximately 800 landslides occurring along about 1,700
miles of benches in southwestern Virginia.  

    3 The Division of Reclamation feels the present rules and regulations are broad enough to be
discretionary; however, in most instances they are too discretionary and place a big burden on our
inspectors.  

    3 They tend to be argumentative in respect to both the operator or because each may have good
ideas; however, without specific criteria in accomplishing a given task, it is left pretty much to
chance. 

    3 If we don't have specific criteria to install ponds and drainage systems, it is pretty much to
chance and sometimes improperly done or not accomplished at all.  

    3 Another excerpt from the testimony was by a representative of the Corps of Engineers from
Huntington, W.Va.  

    3 I am with the Corps of Engineers in Huntington, W.Va.  Our concern with the surface mine
industry in the State of Virginia is the Department of Mined Land Reclamation that deals with
three watersheds that drain into our multipurpose reservoir projects these projects were built a
few years ago with both Government and State money.  

    3 The purpose of these projects is to provide flood control and recreation for the people of
Virginia.  Our concern with the surface mine industry is the excessive sedimentation that has
taken place over the last couple of years in those projects.  This sedimentation not only endangers
the project purposes which I just discussed but could possibly cause a premature extinction of
those projects.  Currently, Virginia does not have adequate drainage and control regulations.  

    3 I would like to turn now to the slide program I put together discussing these inadequacies in
Virginia State law in detail.  

    3 [Slide.]  

    3 Mr. KILGORE.  This first shot is of the part of Jefferson National Forest showing deciduous
hardwood forest excellent timberland and excellent water drainage systems.  It is really good
watershed.  

    3 [Slide.]  

    3 Mr. KILGORE.  This next shot is taken west of Appalachia, Va., in Wise County.  On the
extreme left of our photo you see land.  This is land that was mined and not reclaimed because
Virginia didn't have a basic reclamation law until 1966.  

    3 It was amended in 1972 and strengthened.In the background the black spot is refuse from a
deep mine pit or a deep mine.  On the right, in the background, along this flat part of the bench
area is reclamation done under the 1966 law.  

    3 The law has been updated.  In 1972 it is stronger but still has a lot of loopholes.  This will be
original contour from the top of the highwall down to here.  The bench area is where spoil has
been pushed over to the side of the mountain.  Virginia law still allows spoil to be shoved over
the side of the mountain.  

     4  It reads, "Spoil will remain on the bench insofar as feasible."  

    4 Some inspectors have said they have a problem enforcing that.  Also, it concerns the
highwall which we are not really as concerned with as we are the spoil bank, the loose material
that washes down in the watersheds.  

    4 The highwall will be reduced to the maximum extent practicable under Virginia law.  This is
another shortcoming.  We feel that the two are interrelated.  If you retain spoil you are going to
reduce the highwall automatically.  

    4 [Slide.]  

    4 Mr. KILGORE.  This shot is of the Flat Gap region of Wise County, Va.  It was taken in
1972.  The lower seam has been reclaimed.  

    4 The upper seam is current operation.  

    4 [Slide.]  

    4 Mr. KILGORE.  This is the same area in 1976.  As you can see, the lower seams have been
reclaimed and the top seam is added.  Virginia allows stripping through temporary streams and
drainage systems.  Only permanent streams are protected.  

    4 [Slide.]  

    4 Mr. KILGORE.  As Mr. Roller said, there are 800 landslides occurring along 1,700 miles of
benches.  This shot was taken while we were on a tour with the Virginia delegates of various
strip mines.  

    4 We were standing on a mine site looking across the drainage; and according to the inspector
I was with, he said this land had been reclaimed last year. The slides have occurred there at a
pretty rapid rate.  

    4 Virginia has no stipulation on the degree of slope that can be mined compared to other States
which say no spoil can be pushed over the side at a certain degree of slope.  

    4 [Slide.]  

    4 Mr. KILGORE.  This is a shot of a surface mine closest to my home.  This is where I live. 
This is a coal company surface mine permit number 1631.  I think they got their permit in 1973.  

    4 [Slide.]  

    4 Mr. KILGORE.  I will take you down to the ground.  These show you reclamation in
Virginia, current reclamation.  First of all, during the operation, you see they stripped through the
head of a drainage system.  This is not a well controlled valley field.  

    4 Virginia does not require those but they are having hearings concerning the drainage control
handbook.  This loose material in this valley is very prone to erosion when the stream relocates
itself and runs through this area.  

    4 [Slide.]  

    4 Mr. KILGORE.  The site on the far side that is graded down has been reseeded and planted
with grass seed.  

    4 [Slide.] 

    4 Mr. KILGORE.  This is what it looked like about 3 months later.  This is before the bond
was returned.  This was taken in the fall of 1975.  Give it another growing season, down to the
ground in 1976.  

    4 [Slide.]  

     5    Mr. KILGORE.  In Virginia we have pretty good success with bench growth, revegetation
of bench areas because they are flat; but, I want to get into what I call the flat land theory after a
while.  

    5 A lot of operators claim this bench area can be used for building structures and improving
commercial and industrial use.  

    5 I think there are flaws in that theory.  First of all, you might notice the lush grass.  This
reminds me of a shot I saw in 1975.  A coal company in Virginia sent each Member of Congress
a picture of a well reclaimed bench area, small highwall, no spoil bank that had cattle grazing on
it.  

    5 I noticed in the picture it was only 2 miles from where I lived at the time.  I also recognized
the place that was out on the Wise Mountain.  It never had any cattle on it to my knowledge.  

    5 In fact, it doesn't have a fence around it.  I might ask you to be aware of that type of stuff.  

    5 [Slide.]  

    5 Mr. KILGORE.This is the same area just to give you an idea of the highwall.  This is the
director of organization standing here.This is the reclamation where the bond has been returned. 
This just gives you some idea of how many tons of spoil have been pushed over the mountain.  

    5 Virginia does not require segregation of any type of soil that would be put back over for
growing.  They require at least 4 feet of suitable overburden for revegetation be put over the tops
of materials.  

    5 [Slide.]  

    5 Mr. KILGORE.  Erosion starts almost immediately.  This is after reclamation.  Another thing
that I can show in this photo is the peak of the flat land theory.  If you were to build any type of
structure on this, this slope mine which is about 80 percent of Virginia's mine on slopes, you
would have difficulty keeping the structure there.  

    5 [Slide.]  

    5 Mr. KILGORE.  One problem, if you build it too close to the highwall, the highwall may
cave in on you.  

    5 [Slide.]  

    5 Mr. KILGORE.  If you wanted to graze cattle or grow a garden there, you might have a little
problem.  This is pretty typical around the higher mines, where they are near rock outcroppings. 

    5 [Slide.]  

    5 Mr. KILGORE.  As you get closer to the edge of the spoil bank, the soil gets thinner and
thinner.  Virginia requires 1,000 trees per acre be planted on the outer slopes, that 800 trees at a
minimum survive, including volunteer tree species.  

    5 [Slide.]  

    5 Mr. KILGORE.  Close to the edge you notice that the spoil bank starts slipping away going
down the mountain.  This is due to the fact that Virginia law allows operation to push the spoil
over onto vegetated areas.  

    5 [Slide.]  

    5 When the vegetation rots, slippage occurs.  The spoil bank keeps trying to find the angle of
repose which is usually in a drainage system.  

    5 [Slide.]  

     6  Mr. KILGORE.  This is a spoil bank after reclamation.  Permit number 1631.I spoke with
the area supervisor for the Division of Mining and Reclamation and he said this is one of the best
steep slope sites in the State of Virginia, reclamation sites.  

    6 [Slide.]  

    6 Mr. KILGORE.  Farther down the slope there is no limit on the amount of spoilage to be
pushed over the side of the mountain in Virginia.  

    6 [Slide.]  

    6 Mr. KILGORE.  Down the slope from that is the creek, the temporary stream which is also
not protected.  Keep in mind this is the closest one - closest mine to my home.  I could have
found this anywhere throughout Virginia.  You follow this tributary downstream to the
mainstream.  You come out at Honey Branch Stream.  

    6 I have lived there all my life.Before stripping never occurred above the drainage systems of
this hollow.  The creek there is about 6 feet deep and has a lot of aquatic life.  Now it has 6 feet
of sediment in it.  

    6 The only use I know for it now is the tourists use it for baptisms, sort of a test of faith. 
[Laughter.]  

    6 [Slide.]  

    6 Mr. KILGORE.  On upstream, this is Honey Branch Creek on up above there. This land
belongs to my uncle who is a coal miner.  The surface mine a mile above his home released this
amount of overburden into the creek causing the creek to be rerouted destroying his bottom land.  

    6 [Slide.] 

    6 Mr. KILGORE.  The creek kept going back and forth trying to get around this stuff, cutting
up the bottom land.  

    6 [Slide.]  

    6 Mr. KILGORE.  The area this bank was built on was undercut and he had to move his barn.  

    6 [Slide.]  

    6 Mr. KILGORE.  This is getting into another aspect of stripping in Virginia, the blasting
problem.  This area is Norton, Va., the only city in the coalfield section of southwest Virginia. 
This is a combination excavation site and mine site.  

    6 Along this area, the Thirteenth Street region of Norton, and along this area, over 25 homes
have been damaged due to flying rock and vibrations from excessive blasting.  

    6 We would know more about these blasting incidents only the Division of Mines and
Quarries won't allow us access to the records.  

    6 [Slide.]  

    6 Mr. KILGORE.  Here is a hole in the roof of one of the board members, Mr. Davis.In
January of last year a 10-pound rock came through this man's home.  

    6 [Slide.]  

    6 Mr. KILGORE.  The brick itself is cracked, and later after this, the chimney actually fell in
and the fire marshal condemned his chimney.  He had to have it rebuilt.  

    6 [Slide.]  

     7  Mr. KILGORE.  I am standing on the roof looking back at the site behind this man's
home.Virginia allows stripping within 5 feet of the adjoining property line.  

    7 [Slide.]  

    7 Mr. KILGORE.  There was an abnormal amount of dust kicked up by this operation, very
inadequate controls on the subduing of this dust.  

    7 As a result, several people have been - met with the diagnosis of contracting silicosis from
this job.  

    7 [Slide.]  

    7 Mr. KILGORE.  The company replied to the complaint saying they weren't even mining
coal.  So, I took this picture.  This mysterious black substance here caught my eye.  Up until
April of last year, TVA was buying this coal.  I went down and informed them about what was
going on on Thirteenth Street. 

    7 I think they quit buying the coal from this operation.  

    7 You notice in the middle there is a space between Mr. Davis's fence and a mine operation. 
That used to be Norton, Va.'s alley right-of-way.  It was sort of stripped out.I think they forgot
about the property line.  

    7 Norton had an emergency meeting and told them they would have to put the dirt back.  

    7 [Slide.]  

    7 Mr. KILGORE.  This is a bad slide, but it shows another weakness of Virginia's law.This
house is owned by the operator.  He can strip as close as he wants to.  Of course, he can strip
almost as close as he wants to to the house that is not his, within 5 feet of the property line.  It so
happens the house is built on the property line.  

    7 On top of these people on the hill is Norton.  They did not want to sell at first, but when they
saw D-9 sitting outside their door they decided to sell.  

    7 If there had been a public notice given, the people might not have bought the place to start
with.  

    7 No public notice or hearings are required in Virginia prior to the issuance of a permit.  

    7 [Slide.]  

    7 Mr. KILGORE.  Mr. William McCoy, their next door neighbor, was lucky.  He had 70 feet
behind his home.  He only owned land 3 feet on the other side of his home.I know for a fact they
didn't want to sell.  They have sold out since the Kellys sold out.  It is sort of a domino theory.  

    7 [Slide.]  

    7 Mr. KILGORE.  This is what was above their home for a few weeks.  

    7 [Slide.]  

    7 Mr. KILGORE.This is Mr. William McCoy, his two sons, aged 19 and 14; Mr. McCoy is a
military retiree, never worked a day in his life in the mines. Neither has his son.  Needless to say,
his 14-year-old has never worked a day in the mines.  

    7 They have all been diagnosed by certified black lung specialists with having contracted
silicosis.Over 24 people were employed and eight were found to have silicosis.None of those
eight people ever worked in the coal mines.  

     8  This is Quintz Valley College gym, an extension of the University of Virginia.  In 1975 a
blast set off caused $5 0,000 woth of damage to the swimming pool and gymnasium.  JKG Coal
Co. has except for that one incident done an outstanding job with reclamation.  They haven't
completely finished.  

    8 When they do, I intend to send pictures up to each Member of Congress to show what can be
done in Virginia.They have a very good site there for houses and trailers but this is mountaintop
stripping and you can do that much more easily on the plateau region than on steep slopes.  

    8 [Slide.]  

    8 Mr. KILGORE.  Another aspect of Virginia's stripping is public safety on the roads.  You see
the roadbed caving in.  This is Route 651 between Bull Hill and Sandy Ridge in Wise County.  

    8 [Slide.]  

    8 Mr. KILGORE.  Closer up you see the actual roadbed caving in, the guard rail dangling
down.  

    8 [Slide.]  

    8 Mr. KILGORE.  The reason is stripping is allowed in Virginia right up to the road, right up
to the right-of-way.  In Kentucky it forbids stripping within 100 feet of a public road.  I brought
this point out to the Department of Conservation and they said it was the highway department's
problem.  

    8 [Slide.]  

    8 Mr. KILGORE.  This is looking up.That's what I saw, this highwall right up against the
public road.  There has been one fatality reported on this road due to an accident of this highwall. 


    8 The State put the guardrail up.  

    8 [Slide.]  

    8 Mr. KILGORE.  The last two shots are Jefferson National Forest, Quintz Branch district in
southwest Virginia.  I put these in primarily because their group has come out in opposition to
stripping on national forest land in Virginia.  

    8 We feel that this available watershed has not that much coal.  It shouldn't be messed up when
the coal can be gotten on private lands.  The problem is 60 percent of the minerals in this forest
district are owned by private individuals or companies; and attempts are being made now to
obtain permits to strip in Wise County.  

    8 In fact, an attempt was made just a few weeks ago according to the Division of Mining and
Reclamation.  The only thing that kept the operator from obtaining the permit, he didn't have the
$12 permit fee in his bond money. Other than that, he would be allowed to go on to national
forest land.  

    8 [Slide.]  

    8 Mr. KILGORE.The last shot.  This is Clear Creek, Va., one of the finest trout streams in the
area.  A lot of people go up here for recreation.National forest stream, forest land on the right.  

    8 Coal company land on the left, which as I understand it is planned to be stripped.  We don't
have a whole lot of optimism about the future of that creek, but we have had a couple of hundred
thousand acres stripped without any heed to proper reclamation preplanning that Virginia has.  

     9  You get to expect this type of stuff.  

    9 That's the end of my slide presentation.  

    9 The CHAIRMAN.  Thank you very much, Mr. Kilgore, for your impressive presentation.  

    9 Let me ask you just a couple of questions, if I might.  

    9 You may sit down if you prefer.  

    9 Am I correct in assuming that your organization, the Virginia Citizens for Better
Reclamation, favors a Federal law and believes the State law is inadequate?  

    9 Mr. KILGORE.  We have concentrated almost full effort on the State effort since April of
1976.  We are not too optimistic about the successes we will have.  

    9 We prefer State controlled because we feel the community has more control, but if it is not
forthcoming, we feel that relief has to come from somewhere.  

    9 Our board has never endorsed or come out against the Federal strip mining bill because
unlike many people who deal with the Federal strip mining bill, we like to see it first and read it
and understand what's in it and what effect it would have in southwest Virginia.  

    9 If you are asking my personal opinion, the last House bill that you had, 13950, it has some
serious loopholes in it, but it also has some things I think should be made more flexible for the
coal operators' benefit.  

    9 But the loophole I see is the grandfather clause which allows permits that were issued prior
to enactment of the act.  If those grandfather clauses stand, there is no use in Virginia for any
type of favorable bill.  

    9 The permits have been accelerated, people going in and get permits so they can beat the
deadline.  Another thing that is not so much in Virginia, but Kentucky, and Tennessee, there's a
lot of broad form deeds there.  Land can be stripped without the landowner's consent.  

    9 In Virginia you cannot.  That is one great advantage we have over some of the other States. 
It is due to a lower court ruling, however, and could be overturned.  

    9 The CHAIRMAN.  Under the bill we had last time, and the one I just introduced, if Virginia
were to pass a law which was equal and as stringent as the Federal law, and chose to do so, it
could take over the administration of the program, of its own program so that you can have the
kind of local control.  

    9 Mr. KILGORE.  We made a point of that.  We wrote every coal operator in Virginia in
August of 1976 so we can sit down and work out a good bill that would make Federal
intervention unnecessary. 

    9 We got one reply to 400 letters from coal operators in Virginia.  That coal operator was
outside the State and had two coal constructions in Virginia, very well constructed.  He was
doing them under West Virginia law.  

    9 He said he saw no way to do it one way in West Virginia and another in Virginia.  Thus he
has one of the best reclamation projects in Virginia.  

    9 The CHAIRMAN.  We have a large number of witnesses this morning.  

    9 Are there questions, Mr. Skubitz?  

     10   Mr. SKUBITZ.  Mr. Kilgore was your organization created in 1976?  

    10 Mr. KILGORE.  Yes, sir.  

    10 Mr. SKUBITZ.  How many members do you have?  

    10 Mr. KILGORE.250.  

    10 Mr. SKUBITZ.  Are they concentrated in one area?  

    10 Mr. KILGORE.75 percent of them are in the coalfield region of southwest Virginia.  

    10 Mr. SKUBITZ.  How is your organization financed?  

    10 Mr. KILGORE.  Members give donations.  We get foundation support.  We have bake
sales.  

    10 Mr. SKUBITZ.  Have you been getting money from any foundation?  

    10 Mr. KILGORE.  I get $300 a month salary from a foundation.  

    10 Mr. SKUBITZ.  Which one?  

    10 Mr. KILGORE.  The Youth Project in Washington, D.C.  

    10 Mr. SKUBITZ.  Do you speak for all members of your organization?  

    10 Mr. KILGORE.Well, I am codirector and elected spokesman.  Any matter that deviates
from our articles of incorporation has to go before the nine-member board.  

    10 Mr. SKUBITZ.  Were you authorized to come here today and speak for the organization?  

    10 Mr. KILGORE.  Yes, sir.  

    10 Mr. SKUBITZ.Are you a member of the Sierra Club?  

    10 Mr. KILGORE.  No.  

    10 Mr. SKUBITZ.  Friends of the Earth? 

    10 Mr. KILGORE.  No.  

    10 Mr. SKUBITZ.  I ask these questions for one reason.Several years ago we had about four
people come in from four different organizations.  They all had their offices in the same room on
C Street.  

    10 Mr. KILGORE.  My office is in my living room.  [Laughter.]  

    10 Mr. SKUBITZ.  What officers do you have?  

    10 Mr. KILGORE.We have a nine-member board of directors, of which our articles - our
bylaws require that they be a majority of them born in - native to the coalfield region of
southwest Virginia.  

    10 We don't want outside influence.  

    10 Mr. SKUBITZ.Do you all operate out of the same living room?  

    10 Mr. KILGORE.  The board of directors live in their own homes and we meet occasionally.  

    10 Mr. SKUBITZ.  You have criticized the Virginia law as being weak.  If I understand your
testimony, am I to assume you would rather see the citizens of the State take care of this matter
rather than the Federal Government?  

    10 Is that correct?  

    10 Mr. KILGORE.  Let me say what you wish and what might be necessary are two different
things.  I wish Virginia had a good law, had one since stripping first started.  The operators
themselves I feel in States like Virginia are what causes Federal intervention to start with.  

    10 If they won't do it, somebody is going to do it or a lot of people are going to suffer.  

    10 Mr. SKUBITZ.Did your organization commence operation last year?  

    10 Mr. KILGORE.  Right.  

     11    Mr. SKUBITZ.  Have you given your State legislators an opportunity to respond?  

    11 Mr. KILGORE.  We are in the process of that.  We contacted every delegate on the House
Mining and Resource Committee; three of the four coalfield delegates won't even answer mail. 
In fact, material we send to them, they reroute it to a strip miners' group.  They get it before other
people in the eastern part of the State get it.  

    11 We have a delegate in Grundy who has introducd a bill to transfer the Department of
Mining and Reclamation to the Department of Labor and Industry and take out 10 percent of the
reclamation program by excluding the high roads.  

    11 He did this bill after coal company operators financed the writing up of the bill.  He
admitted that.  He did not research on the bill. 

    11 The Division of Mines and Quarries which was to take the responsibility from the Division
of Mining and Reclamation admitted they did no resarch on the bill; so, we have that to look at.  

    11 We can't be overly optimistic with that lack of support.  We are going to work hard on the
State level and have been working hard on the State level.  

    11 I was asked to come here today to testify as to Virginia's present program; and, you can
draw your own conclusions.  

    11 Mr. SKUBITZ.  Thank you.  

    11 The CHAIRMAN.  Any questions over here?  

    11 Any further questions?  

    11 [No response.]  

    11 The CHAIRMAN.  Thank you very much, Mr. Kilgore.  

    11 Our next group of witnesses are operators in southwestern Virginia.  Mr. Willis, Mr.
Manicure, Mr. Mullins, Mr. Nicewonder, Mr. Robertson, Mr. Witt? Would you come forward to
the witness table? 

  A PANEL CONSISTING OF DENNIS WILLIS, THOMPSON & LITTON, INC.;
JAMES MANICURE, VICE PRESIDENT, VIRGINIA COAL & COKE CO.; J. D.
NICEWONDER, PRESIDENT, CONTRACTING ENTERPRISES AND PRESIDENT,
VIRGINIA ENERGY COAL CO.: F. D. ROBERTSON, PRESIDENT, KNOX CREEK COAL;
AND LUKE WITT, PRESIDENT, VIRGINIA COAL ASSOCIATION  

   11  Mr. ROBERTSON.  Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I have the dubious
distinction of becoming a spokesman for this group.  We are up here in a group so if the
committee would like to have some particular questions answered, there are people up here that
are more familiar than others on certain aspects than on others.  

    11 The CHAIRMAN.  Would you identify yourself?  

    11 Mr. ROBERTSON.  I am Franklin Delano Robertson.  I am a resident of Buchanan County,
Va.; a mining engineer licensed to practice in Virginia, Kentucky, and West Virginia; a graduate
of the University of Virginia Law School, a member of the Virginia State Bar; a property owner,
and a coal operator.  I appear before this committee -  

    11 The CHAIRMAN.  Would you identify your colleagues for the record.  

    11 Mr. ROBERTSON.  Yes.  They are Dennis Willis, James Manicure, J. D. Nicewonder, and
Luke Witt.  

     12  I appear before this committee because of my deep concern for the economic and
sociologic impact that the proposed Surface Mine Act will have on the State of Virginia and the
Nation.  

    12 First, the Virginia problem, only seven of Virginia's 97 counties produce coal.  They are
Buchanan, Dickenson, Lee, Russell, Scott, Tazewell, and Wise. In order that you may know the
potential economic impact on Virginia of this bill certain data concerning Buchanan County, Va.,
is being submitted to this committee.  It is used as a typical example of the counties in Virginia
that produce coal.  

    12 Buchanan County has a population of approximately 35,000 people.  Its only industry is
coal mining.  In 1975, this county produced 14 million tons of coal, of which 33.5 percent or 4.7
million tons were mined by surface methods.Severance taxes collected by the county for the year
1975 were in excess of $2 million.  

    12 This amount accounted for over 50 percent of the total local taxes collected.  Surface mines
accounted for $6 70,000 of the total.  These taxes are placed in the general fund and are used
primarily for public schools.  Buchanan County cannot afford the loss of this tax income.  

    12 Surface mines in Buchanan County at the present time employ 1,375 persons and pay
annual wages of $1 0,180,000.  This area has historically been an area of high unemployment. 
The surface mine industry is directly furnishing 1,375 jobs and indirectly furnishing many more.  

    12 In 1975, all of Virginia's coal producing counties produced 35.5 million tons of coal, of
which 37 percent or 13.3 million tons were produced by 517 surface mines who paid
$40,300,000 in wages to 4,097 employees.  

    12 The present Virginia reclamation law allows Virginia operators to surface mine coal only if
they reclaim the land.  Our Commonwealth sets standards that meet her needs.  In Virginia, the
coal terrain is extremely mountainous.  Level land sells at a premium.  

    12 Sergeant York, the most highly decorated G.I. in World War I, was from the mountain
portion of our neighboring State, Tennessee.  Upon his return to the United States, he found the
entire Nation at his feet, offering untold riches.  His only request of the Nation that he had so
gallantly served was "40 acres of bottom land." This desire for level land is born in us hillbillies
and stays with us throughout our lives.  

    12 The provisions of this act requiring that surface mined land be returned to its approximate
original contour would deny us the opportunity to increase the amount of level land available in
our area.  In my years of working in coal fields of Virginia, I have on many occasions been
required to negotiate with surface owners, trying to acquire their permission to conduct surface
mining on their lands.  One of the prime trading points is the fact that they will be left with some
flat land.  The surface owners want flat land, land they can use, and do not want their land
returned to its original contour.  

    12 I want to emphasize that the coal-bearing mountains of Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky,
and parts of Tennessee are unique in the Nation. Ninety-nine percent of the surface mining
production in Virginia comes from slopes that are 20 degrees or steeper.  

     13  We could not engage in competitive mining if these slopes had to be restored to original
contour.  Members of this committee, Virginia cannot afford to suffer a curtailment in surface
mining activities.  

    13 The census statistics for 1970 establish that 80 percent of the families in the 9th
Congressional District had a family income of less than $1 0,000. Since 1970, the demand for
surface coal has brought an economic renaissance to our area.  This bill as now drawn would
return our people to the depressed conditions that previously existed. 

    13 I also want to respectfully recommend that this distinguished committee communicate with
President-elect Carter to make sure that the provisions of this bill as now drawn are compatible
with the national energy policy that is now being formulated by Presidentelect Carter.  

    13 It is essential that the formulation and articulation of the Carter energy policy be completed
prior to the enactment of any legislation designed to implement that policy.  

    13 I am advised that a recent critical study of U.S. energy policy has been prepared for
President-elect Carter by a task force headed by Lawrence Klein of the Wharton School of
Finance, Philadelphia, Pa.  

    13 It is pointed out in the study that six factors must be considered by President-elect Carter in
dealing with the constraints facing the new administration in devising the most effective energy
policy for the Nation.  

    13 These six factors are:  

    13 One: Energy impact on U.S. economic performance;  

    13 Two: Energy impact on the Nation's trade balance - overall and bilateral;  

    13 Three: Capital needs to provide long-term energy needs and their impact on credit markets;  

    13 Four: Environmental damage resulting from energy policies which do not adequately reflect
environmental costs;  

    13 Five: Uncertainty in energy policy which creates uncertainty in the minds of energy
producers who must plan large-scale investments; and  

    13 Six: Income distribution and the relative well being of poor families.  

    13 In connection with factor one, the passage of a Federal surface mining bill will create the
following conditions:  

    13 One: A serious loss of jobs in the mining industry itself in areas that have been historically
depressed;  

    13 Two: A serious loss of jobs in the supporting parts and equipment manufacturing
industries;  

    13 Three: A loss of jobs in the retail sector in areas affected by surface mining;  

    13 Four: A serious loss of tax revenues to the counties, States, and Federal Government,
including severance taxes, sales taxes, and personal income taxes to the State and Federal
Governments;  

    13 Five: Untold millions of Federal and State welfare dollars will be required to provide only
partial sustenance to all people so affected; and  

     14  Six: The loss of millions of tons of surface coal production will inflate the price of the
remaining deep mine coal, resulting in Arab OPEC oil kind of inflation that caused the recent
disastrous doubledigit inflation here at home.  An already precarious world economy could easily
be pushed over the brink.  

    14 In connection with factor number two, the energy impact on the U.S. economic
performance will be burdened with the additional millions of barrels of high-cost Arab oil that
will be needed to replace the millions of tons of coal that will never be mined.  

    14 The resulting negative balance of payment could be staggering.  

    14 In connection with factor number three, it is well known that the costs of additional
development of conventional oil, gas and coal continues to accelerate.  However, the costs that
must be faced when alternative new sources of energy are developed will be horrendous.  

    14 To bring oil shale, tar sands, coal gasification, coal liquefaction, solar power, wind power,
and all other new energy possibilities to the marketplace, it could well be estimated that all the
available credit in the market may well be exhausted before the problem is halfway solved.  

    14 In connection with factor four, the tremendous amount of intangible costs to be faced by
both industry and Government are beyond the scope of this writer.  

    14 In connection with factor number five, the formation of a new capital investment for the
coal industry will be impossible if any businessman carefully reads the proposed legislation. 
Further, any businessman with an ounce of knowledge and one that has ever made a payroll out
of his own pocket, whether it be in the coal industry or growing peanuts, could not ever be
persuaded to invest even $0.03 in the surface coal mining industry.  

    14 In connection with factor six, the relative well-being of poor families will be further
depressed.  The net income available to them for purchasing the other essentials of life will be
reduced directly by the ever-increasing high cost of electrical power resulting from the increased
costs of mining.  

    14 I would like at this time to submit a statement by Dennis Willis of Thompson and Litton,
Inc., in describing the progress made in sediment control in Virginia in the past year.  Included in
this statement are data on emission control and erosion control and hollow fill procedures which
were not known at the time of the drafting of the present legislation.  In summary, this bill would
stop technological advances.  The bill is inflexible.  Virginia and other States are continually
seeking to lessen the impact on the environment of surface mining.  To make these States
conform to a uniform Federal law will stifle technical advances which may be made to suit the
particular terrain and climate of the individual States.  

    14 Virginia has 226 million tons of surface mine reserves or stated differently, 17.1 years of
life at the present rate of mining.  Essentially, all of Virginia's reserves underlie steep slopes as
they are defined in the bill now under consideration by you.  

    14 Under present economic conditions, it will be impossible to surface mine coal in Virginia if
this bill is enacted.  In order to allow Virginians to surface mine Virginia coal under this bill, the
steep slope provision, the return to approximate original contour provision, the data-gathering
provisions, the permitting provisions, the bonding provisions, and the citizens-suit provisions
must all be modified.  

     15  It is important that this committee realize that the coal discussed here today is a very
special type of coal.  It is used primarily in the manufacture of coke.  Only a small portion of our
Nation's total coal reserves will make coke.  Practically none of the Western coals are suitable for
manufacturing coke.  Coking coals must be low in sulphur and ash content but in addition, must
have certain unique chemical and petrographic properties before they can be turned into coke and
used in the manufacture of steel.  Our Nation's greatest reserves of coking coal lie in the steep
Appalachian Mountains which are the most seriously affected by this bill.  In Virginia alone, this
bill will cost the Nation 226 million tons of coking coal that it can never replace.  This coal
cannot be mined by any method except the surface mining method.  

    15 We, in Virginia, respectfully request that this committee come to Virginia and see the uses
being made of the flatland left after the contour stripping without returning the land to its original
contour.  Among these uses, you will see colleges, schools, farms, airports, housing
developments, trailer parks, and many other desirable uses.  

    15 If you will visit with and weigh the economic and sociologic cost of this legislation, you
can come to no other conclusion than, this is a matter best left to the States.  

    15 I thank you for your time.  

    15 The CHAIRMAN.  Thank you, Mr. Robertson, for a very effective presentation of your
point of view.  

    15 Just a couple of questions.  Are all your associates at the table coal operators?  

    15 Mr. WITT.  No, sir, Mr. Chairman, I am president of Virginia Coal Association which
represents some of the members.  

    15 Mr. ROBERTSON.  Mr. Dennis Willis is consulting engineer with Thompson and Litton. 
The other two gentlemen are coal operators.  

    15 The CHAIRMAN.  Tell me this.  For the operators here today from Virginia, what is the
average size operator in terms of payroll, number of employees, number of coal - tons of coal
produced?  Could you give us an idea of whether you are a big operator, medium sized?  

    15 Mr. ROBERTSON.  We are an area of very small operators.  The average operation - I did
not even realize myself that it was this small, but it only produces 25,000 tons of coal a year. 
There are 517 surface mines in the State of Virginia producing 14 million tons.  

    15 The CHAIRMAN.  In your own case, how many mines, how many separate operations do
you have going, how many employees?  Can you give us some idea?  

    15 Mr. ROBERTSON.  We have - in the operation in which I am directly involved with, we
operate three surface mines.  We operate 15 deep mines.  We directly or indirectly furnish
employment for about 400 people.  

    15 The CHAIRMAN.  400?  

    15 Are your operations smaller or larger than your other two colleagues?  

    15 Mr. ROBERTSON.I would say James' is larger than mine and J.D.'s is probably smaller.  

     16  The CHAIRMAN.  Are you typical of the range of size of operators?  

    16 Mr. ROBERTSON.  We feel that we are.  

    16 The CHAIRMAN.  What is the price of coal you are getting now for your production?  

    16 Mr. ROBERTSON.In the $3 0 range.  

    16 The CHAIRMAN.  Thirty?  

    16 Mr. ROBERTSON.  In the $3 0 range for metallurgical coal after it is prepared and cleaned. 


    16 The CHAIRMAN.  How does that compare with what you were getting 5 years ago?  

    16 Mr. ROBERTSON.  About 100 percent increase.  

    16 The CHAIRMAN.  We were told in testimony last year or the year before that at the very
most, total reclamation, the kind the bill requires, is a factor of maybe 5 percent of production
costs at the most.  Would you contest that figure?  

    16 Mr. ROBERTSON.  Yes, sir.  A lot of the information - I don't know where your particular
figure came from, Chairman Udall - a lot of that information came from the report written by
mathematica and Francis Bacon.  It was written in a project over in eastern Kentucky.  We don't
know and can't really quantify what the actual cost will be to us.  

    16 The CHAIRMAN.  Let me be more basic.  That study and the experience in Pennsylvania
and other places suggests to me and to the other members of the committee that you can put the
land back, even on steep slopes; and if you use new techniques, the modified block cut, other
such techniques, at a fair and modest cost.You can put the land back, not to the original contour
but to the approximate original contour without any highwalls.  Your testimony suggests today in
southwestern Virginia in your area, the choice is either leave the coal there or get it out leaving
highwalls and continuing the practices we saw in the slides.  Are you telling me there is no way
technologically you can get the coal out in your area and not leave highwalls?  

    16 Mr. ROBERTSON.  Not under present economic conditions.  If you want to spend enough
money, you can do anything.  If the price of coal goes to $60, $70, $80, $90, $100 a ton, we can
surface mine and put it back. 

    16 The CHAIRMAN.  You are suggesting the costs of putting it back on steep slopes might be
$30, $4 0, $50 a ton?  

    16 Mr. ROBERTSON.  Possibly.  

    16 The CHAIRMAN.  You would contest the Pennsylvania operators?  

    16 Mr. ROBERTSON.  I contest the 5 percent.  

    16 The CHAIRMAN.  They tell us they are doing it on steep slopes in the cost of -  

    16 Mr. ROBERTSON.  There is so much difference, Chairman Udall, in the terrain of
Pennsylvania and what their steep slope problems are and our terrain, that the experiences which
they have up there, although they are beneficial as a learning process are really not applicable to
our area.  

    16 The CHAIRMAN.I have one final question.  On the last page of your statement, you
suggest that doing it the way you are now doing it, contour stripping, leaving highwalls,
providing land for colleges, schools, airports, housing development, trailer parks, and other
desirable uses.  What percent of the land might grow something for a farmer?  What percentage
of the land that has been left on the bench is being used for schools, colleges, airports, housing
developments, intensive uses of those kinds?  

     17  Mr. ROBERTSON.  A very small percentage.  If you exclude farms, a very small
percentage.  

    17 The CHAIRMAN.  Other questions on my left?  

    17 Mr. WEAVER.  Yes, Mr. Chairman.  

    17 The CHAIRMAN.  Mr. Weaver.  

    17 Mr. WEAVER.  You mentioned the price of coal has gone up 100 percent in the last 5
years to $3 0 a ton.  How much have operating expenses gone up, excluding land? Just the task
of getting the coal out?  

    17 Mr. ROBERTSON.  They have gone up commensurate with the increase in prices and even
greaterin most cases.  

    17 Mr. WEAVER.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  

    17 Mr. ROBERTSON.  If you take it on a percentage basis, Mr. Congressman, the cost, the
actual cost has gone up greater than the price.  

    17 Mr. WEAVER.  Excluding the price of land, profit margins haven't increased?  

    17 Mr. ROBERTSON.  Percentagewise, no, sir.  

    17 The CHAIRMAN.  Mr. Eckhardt?  

    17 Mr. ECKHARDT.  Suppose you have bottom land and changes in uplands after the water
flow so as to erode it away as in one of the cases Mr. Kilogore described?  I suppose that could
happen, could it not?  

    17 Mr. ROBERTSON.  It could happen.  I am not sure I understand your question.  

    17 Mr. ECKHARDT.  Suppose you have that situation.  Do you think that a man's bottom land
should be so damaged if there is a resultant net increase in tax recovery and employment?  I
mean, how are you going to weigh a man's interest in not having his property altered by another
man's use as against the general tax benefit?  

    17 Mr. ROBERTSON.  I wish I knew the answer to that.  

    17 Mr. ECKHARDT.  You would go ahead and permit the destruction to the man's bottom
land if the net result were a total increase in tax take and a total increase in employment?  

    17 Mr. ROBERTSON.  I didn't intend to leave that impression.  The impression I intended to
leave with the committee was that surface mining can be done on steep slopes, surface mining
can be done responsibly on steep slopes.The provisions which require return to the original
contour with new technological advances and sedimentation control, those provisions are no
longer useful.  It certainly is not my position or the position of any coal operator I know to abuse
any individual or to harm anyone in any way for no other reason they have an economic reason
not to, because, of course, we are liable for damages, for any damage they do.  

    17 Mr. ECKHARDT.  You then say that you are in favor of some type of controls, some type
of reasonable regulation to prevent the injury of operations in strip mining by one man on his
land to the land of another man?  You are saying that some reasonable regulation is necessary to
prevent injury to the other man's land?  That it is desirable and you would favor it?  

     18  Mr. ROBERTSON.  As the State of Virginia has, and as the State of Virginia is
continuing to work with.  

    18 Mr. ECKHARDT.  What about this situation Mr. Kilgore describes?  He says the State of
Virginia permits this kind of operation and he showed slides of it within 5 feet, I believe of one
man's land?  Is there not a considerable declivity in that man's homes, barns, equipment?  Does
the State of Virginia permit that?  

    18 Mr. ROBERTSON.  The State of Virginia permits you to stay on your own property and go
within 5 feet of another man's but you must stay 50 feet away from his buildings.  The State of
Virginia has amended the laws once and strengthened them.  It has committees and commissions
appointed which are looking at them again.Mr. Kilgore's organization was formed in 1976.  The
Legislature of the State of Virginia has not been in session since his organization was formed.  I
am sure that he will be received by the legislature and will have his input into the legislative
process on the State level.  

    18 Mr. ECKHARDT.  I notice you state in your statement that only 7 of Virginia's 97 counties
produce coal.  So, he is one of those persons in the 7 counties who may have to vote in
opposition; at least his representative may be voting in opposition to 90 other counties' positions. 
Now, I have noted in my State when I was in the legislature that sometimes the 7 counties that
are badly hurt are badly outvoted by the 90 counties that may be concerned primarily with the
maximum tax.  Isn't that really a problem for Mr. Kilgore and for those like him?  

    18 Mr. ROBERTSON.  I don't think the other 90 counties in Virginia will ignore the problems
of seven.  

    18 Mr. ECKHARDT.  I hope not.  

    18 Mr. ROBERTSON.  It is 7 percent of the total population of the State.  

    18 The CHAIRMAN.  Mr. Kazen?  

    18 Mr. KAZEN.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  

    18 Talking about Buchanan County, you say that severance taxes collected by the county are in
excess of $2 million.Were those $2 million on the 4.7 million tons of surface mining or was that
on the 14 million tons all together?  

    18 Mr. ROBERTSON.  That was on the 14 million tons all together.  Of the $2 million,
$670,000 came from surface mining.  

    18 Mr. KAZEN.  What is the severance tax?  What is the rate?  

    18 Mr. ROBERTSON.One percent.  Oen percent of gross sales.  

    18 Mr. KAZEN.  One percent of gross sales?  

    18 Mr. ROBERTSON.  Yes.  

    18 Mr. KAZEN.  When was that tax put in?  

    18 Mr. ROBERTSON.  It was boosted to 1 percent - it was 1/2 of 1 percent. It was put in in
about 1972 and boosted to 1 percent in 1976-1975-1976.  So, the figure you have is for 1975. 
The figure not available for 1976, I would have brought it with me.  It will be in the range of 4
million.  

    18 Mr. KAZEN.  In other words, the State of Virginia took advantage of the fact more coal
was being used and sold and therefore, wanted some more revenue and all they did was raise the
severance tax by 100 percent?  

    18 Mr. ROBERTSON.  Yes, sir.  But this money stays in the locality in the county.  

     19  Mr. KAZEN.  I understand.  But the consumer has to pay it?  

    19 Mr. ROBERTSON.  Yes, sir.  

    19 Mr. KAZEN.  Thank you.  

    19 The CHAIRMAN.  I am going over here for a moment.Any questions on my right?  Mr.
Skubitz? 

    19 Mr. SKUBITZ.  Mr. Kilgore's testimony indicates that you mine about 5,000 tons of coal
per acre.  This bill provides for reclamation fees of 35 cents per ton which would mean $1 ,750
per acre for reclamation of the land.  Mr. Kilgore said it took from $266 to $6 36 per acre to
reclaim the land.  Do you agree or disagree with Mr. Kilgore?  

    19 Mr. ROBERTSON.  I will address a part of that and let one of my colleagues address the
rest.  The 5,000 tons per acre is an arbitrary figure and is based upon a certain seam height.  That
particular seam height should be about - and I am doing this in my head - about 3 feet or 36
inches.  We have jobs working 18 inches.  Available in place in bituminous coal, there is 1,800
tons per foot-acre; so, when people start saying, "Well, there are so many tons per acre," it
depends upon how thick it is.  So, you won't always have a fixed amount of - on your tonnage
basis on the 35 cents on the proposed bill to work with on reclamation.  

    19 Mr. Nicewonder, do you think you can speak further to that?  

    19 Mr. NICEWONDER.  Well, we disturb about 3 acres of surface for each acre of coal that
we mine.  That throws that figure way off.  With our roads and outer slopes and all of our extra
work that is not directly on the coal seam, we disturb approximately 3 acres per each acre of coal
that is mined.  

    19 Mr. SKUBITZ.  Do you have to reclaim all 3 acres?  

    19 Mr. NICEWONDER.  We definitely do.  We have to bond that at the rate of $800 per acre
in the State of Virginia.  

    19 Mr. SKUBITZ.That is all, Mr. Chairman.  

    19 The CHAIRMAN.  Mr. Tsongas?  

    19 Mr. TSONGAS.Mr. Robertson, on page 3 of your testimony, you say since 1970 demand
for surface coal has brought an economic renaisance to our area, the bottom line of that page.  In
response to Mr. Weaver's question, you said the cost of coal mining since 1970, the increase has
exceeded the increase in price.  

    19 Mr. ROBERTSON.  I think I said the percentage increases.  Coal mining is profitable today
and is profitable in southwest Virginia.  It has brought an economic renaissance.  It was also
profitable in 1970.  The- if you take the return on your total gross sales in 1970, the rate of return,
and apply that rate of return on your total gross sales in 1976, you will find that your rate of
return in 1976 is smaller than your rate of return was in 1970.  

    19 Mr. TSONGAS.  Could you supply those figures for the committee?  

    19 Mr. ROBERTSON.  Yes, sir.  [Information requested will be placed in the committee files
when received.]  

    19 Mr. TSONGAS.  The second question, your final statement is that this is a matter best left
to the States.  Could you or your colleagues tell me what efforts you have made since 1970 to
bring about a strip mining bill in the State legislature? 

     20  Mr. ROBERTSON.  The State legislature has strengthened the strip mining bill which was
essentially passed in 1966.  They strengthened it in 1972.  I think Mr. Kilgore agreed with that in
his verbal presentation here, and so do I.  

    20 Mr. TSONGAS.What was the stand of your colleagues on those two bills?  

    20 Mr. ROBERTSON.  Sir?  

    20 Mr. TSONGAS.  What position did you and your colleagues take in 1966 and 1972?  

    20 Mr. ROBERTSON.  Personally, I took no position on either of those two bills.  Completely
hands off.  

    20 Mr. TSONGAS.  What about your -  

    20 Mr. ROBERTSON.  My colleagues are present.Mr. Nicewonder is, for example, a member
of a commission, a committee appointed by the legislature to study the present State bill; and
make suggestions to the legislature for further amendments.  

    20 J.D., you tell them.  

    20 Mr. NICEWONDER.  You spoke about 1966.  My company, Contracting Enterprises went
on record as advocating a strip bill for the State of Virginia. I could see the need that was existing
then.  From then on, we have worked with the State and I am on the committee now.We are
going to upgrade the law as we can live with and as is needed.  

    20 Mr. TSONGAS.  Could you supply for the record collectively a statement indicating what
improvement on the present strip mining bill in Virginia you would advocate to your own State
legislature.  

    20 Mr. MANICURE.  I am currently a member of the committee Mr. Nicewonder is talking
about.  These recommendations will be finalized by March on the committee I am serving on. 
These are new rules that the Virginia surface mine operators will operate under.  As it pertains to
drainage, we are designing a drainage handbook and manual.  After March, the Virginia
operators will be mining under a different set of rules than we are mining under now.  These will
be made available to you at that time; they will not be complete until March.  

    20 Mr. TSONGAS.  Fine.  The final point is last year when we had the strip mining bill, the
argument used by Mr. Zarb and others against the bill is that it would cost jobs, 36,000 jobs lost
to the American economy.  I think it is rather obvious that coal is the - one of the - one of the
energy resources of the future.Do you believe that a strip mining bill would cost jobs in the States
given the increased demand for coal?  

    20 Mr. ROBERTSON.  Nationwide, I am not sure.  In my own mind, the bill as presently
constituted would stop mining economically on the steep slopes in Virginia.  I think also affected
would be small portions of east Kentucky, a small portion of east Tennessee, and a smaller area
in southern West Virginia.  

    20 Can they mine 70-foot thick coal seams in Wyoming?  The coal is so thick it boggles the
imagination.  I can see no way that they couldn't do it.  We are mining 18 inches, 20 inches; and
if we are real lucky, we get 36 inches.  To us, it is a much more difficult problem.  

     21  Mr. TSONGAS.  The figure of 36,000 jobs nationwide, you don't find to be a credible
thing?  

    21 Mr. ROBERTSON.  No.  

    21 The CHAIRMAN.  Mr. Carr?  

    21 Mr. CARR.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Mr. Robertson, can you tell us what Buchanan
County's unemployment was 5 years ago?  The unemployment rate?  

    21 Mr. ROBERTSON.  Not and be positively accurate.  I can give you a ballpark figure.  

    21 Mr. CARR.  OK.  

    21 Mr. ROBERTSON.  I would guess around 10, 11, 12 percent.  

    21 Mr. CARR.  Do you know its unemployment rate today?  

    21 Mr. ROBERTSON.  I would guess, again, 6 percent, maybe even lower than that.  

    21 Mr. CARR.  Is it your testimony that coal mining directly or indirectly makes up that
difference?  

    21 Mr. ROBERTSON.  Yes, sir; it is our only industry.  It is the only industry we have at all.  

    21 Mr. CARR.  You have no recreation industry?  

    21 Mr. ROBERTSON.  No tourism.  

    21 Mr. CARR.  People don't come to fish, camp, backpack?  

    21 Mr. ROBERTSON.  There is an inter-Stat epark which lies in Dickson County, I believe,
which is pretty close to Buchanan and that attracts some tourism.  The county itself seems to reap
no benefits from that.  There is no motel industry, no restaurant industry.  The park itself has
within the park itself one motel, its own restaurants.  

    21 Mr. CARR.  Mr. Robertson, are your miners, your employees making 100 percent more
today than they were 5 years ago?  

    21 Mr. ROBERTSON.  In some cases, they are doing better than that, Mr. Carr.  

    21 Mr. CARR.  What is the average hourly wage?  

    21 Mr. ROBERTSON.  Probably around $8.  

    21 Mr. CARR.Five years ago, it was $4 or less? 

    21 Mr. ROBERTSON.  Yes. $3.50 or 4.  

    21 Mr. CARR.  What is your local property tax rate there?  

    21 Mr. ROBERTSON. $5 .50 per hundred dollars.  That is per hundred dollars of assessed. 
That is not $5.50 fair market value.  

    21 Mr. CARR.I understand.What is your assessment as a percentage of fair market value?  

    21 Mr. ROBERTSON.  Ten percent.  

    21 Mr. CARR.  Is that 100 percent more than 5 years ago?  

    21 Mr. ROBERTSON.  No, sir, but there has been one increase.  The structure is that they
normally do a new assessment every 6 years, I believe.  The period has come within the last 5.  

    21 Mr. CARR.  I was interested in your comments that your coal is used for coking.  You said
even without the bill, you've got 17 years of life at the present rate of mining; is that correct?  

    21 Mr. ROBERTSON.  That is assuming that the 226 million tons of reserve is correct.  That
is a figure this committee came up with in its hearings in 1973. It came from one of the
environmental council groups.  

     22  Mr. CARR.  You mean to tell me in 17 years, we are going to be out of coking coal?  

    22 Mr. ROBERTSON.No, sir.  I am telling you in 17 years, if the initial figure was correct,
Virginia will be out of surface mining coal.  

    22 Mr. CARR.  Then, you said that your coal is unique because of its composition and it was
used mainly for coking; is that correct?  

    22 Mr. ROBERTSON.  Yes, sir.  

    22 Mr. CARR.  I am putting the two together.  Are we not adding up to a 17-year life for
coking coal?  

    22 Mr. ROBERTSON.  That applies basically to the coal we are talking about, surface mining
here on the steep slopes.  Virginia has also deep mine coal, somewhere in the neighborhood of
1,500 million tons.  It is going to be around for a long time.  It is of the same quality.  I am
talking about -  

    22 Mr. CARR.  That is used for coking coal?  

    22 Mr. ROBERTSON.  That is used for coking coal also.  

    22 Mr. CARR.  And Arab oil, I suppose, is not a substitute for coking coal?  

    22 Mr. ROBERTSON.  No, sir.  

    22 Mr. CARR.  I have no further questions. 

    22 The CHAIRMAN.The gentleman from Oklahoma.  

    22 Mr. EDWARDS.  You commented first on Sergeant York and his reference to wanting
bottom land.  I am a city boy, but even I understand that bottom land and level land are not the
same thing.  Are you trying to say that the people in the area you represent believe you are
performing a beneficial service by your strip mining in that you are leaving the land more level?  

    22 Mr. ROBERTSON.  Yes.  

    22 Mr. EDWARDS.  The people in your area favor strip mining because it is leaving the land
level?  

    22 Mr. ROBERTSON.  Yes, in my opinion.  

    22 Mr. EDWARDS.  You talk about a serious loss of jobs in the mining industry if this
legislation is passed.  If this legislation is passed, do you personally anticipate cutting back your
operations, and how many people do you anticipate laying off?  

    22 Mr. ROBERTSON.  I have three surface mine jobs, one of which is a mountaintop
removal.  That job will continue until I run out of the - it will continue for about 2 years until I
run out of mountaintop stripping.  The other two jobs are contour strip jobs on steep slopes. 
These will be closed down. That will put about 30 people out of work.  

    22 Mr. EDWARDS.Maybe I didn't understand.  You said you would be closing that operation
down regardless?  

    22 Mr. ROBERTSON.  No, sir.  Only if the law passes.  

    22 Mr. EDWARDS.  Is that essentially the same thing that would happen with your colleagues
who are operators?  

    22 Mr. MANICURE.  The surface mining we do on our property is all on slopes. One out of
twenty operations - we only have one operation that would qualify as a mountaintop removal. 
The two other operations would - they would just phase out as the bill is presently constituted
and as I understand it.  

     23  Mr. EDWARDS.  I have one additional question.  I wonder if you would comment on one
of Mr. Kilgore's statements which bothered me some.  That is the reports of people in the area
contracting silicosis as a result of the mining operations on adjoining property.  

    23 Mr. ROBERTSON.  It is the first time I ever heard of it, in this room today.I would not like
- I would like to know a lot more of the facts than what I heard said today.  

    23 Mr. EDWARDS.  If it is true, and you can confirm it, or we can confirm it for you, would
you support legislation or support actions by the coal mining industry to see that that is changed?  

    23 Mr. ROBERTSON.  Of course. 

    23 Mr. EDWARDS.  You would personally and your colleagues would support it?  

    23 Mr. ROBERTSON.  Of course.  

    23 The CHAIRMAN.  Mr. Seiberling?  

    23 Mr. SEIBERLING.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  

    23 Mr. Robertson, can you tell us - in your testimony, you said that essentially all of Virginia's
reserves underlie steep slopes.  Can you tell us what the average slope is that is being mined in
Virginia today?  You said there are over 20 degrees.  

    23 Mr. ROBERTSON.  In 1971, it was 9 million tons, I believe, roughly 9 million tons
produced in the State of Virginia.  8.9 million of those tons was produced on slopes of 20 degrees
or greater.  They went up to as high as 35.  

    23 Mr. SEIBERLING.  What is the average slope? That is my question?  

    23 Mr. ROBERTSON.  This will be a guess.  I would say probably around 27, 28.  

    23 Mr. SEIBERLING.  How wide is the bench you use to get from the average slope?  What is
the average bench width that you would leave after mining?  

    23 Mr. NICEWONDER.  This is a ballpark figure.  We don't have the figures. We haven't
measured them.  I would say 200 feet average.  

    23 Mr. SEIBERLING.Only about - a small, very small percentage of those are actually being
used today after the mining is completed; is that correct?  

    23 Mr. NICEWONDER.  If you eliminate farming, cattle raising, and so on, yes.Very small
percentage.  But if you put in cattle raising, which we are doing on my operations, then the
percentage will go up greatly.  

    23 Mr. SEIBERLING.  What do you do with the spoil that you don't put back on the slope in
this method that you are advocating?  

    23 Mr. WILLIS.We use the hollow fill technique to distribute our spoils to hollows.  This
would be the manner you use.  You have a certain swell factor involved when you remove your
overburden of about a third.  

    23 Mr. NICEWONDER.  The problem with this bill as written says nothing can be deposited
below the coal level.  Well, that eliminates us hauling any material around to the designated areas
if they are below the coal level.  That is where they are.  

    23 Mr. SEIBERLING.  As I recall, there is a provision in the bill that does permit moving the
overburden to another point where that is necessary if it is approved by the regulatory authority;
but are you saying that none of the overburden is dumped over the downslope?  

     24  Mr. NICEWONDER.  Definitely, it is being dumped over now. 

    24 Mr. SEIBERLING.What percentage of your overburden goes to hollow fill and what
percentage goes over the side?  

    24 Mr. NICEWONDER.  Well, this is another ballpark figure.  I would say 50 percent of it
now is being hauled.  That is in the State regulations.  

    24 Mr. SEIBERLING.  To a hollow fill or hauled to what point?  

    24 Mr. NICEWONDER.  In the heads of the hollows.  

    24 Mr. SEIBERLING.  Are you saying also that nobody is mining steep slopes and restoring
the original contour in Virginia?  

    24 Mr. NICEWONDER.  No one in the State of Virginia.  

    24 Mr. SEIBERLING.  No one?  

    24 Well, I understood that last year Mr. Zarb went down and inspected mines in Virginia
where contour is beingrestored on steep slopes.  

    24 Mr. MANICURE.  Not in Virginia.  There is nothing being done.  

    24 Mr. SEIBERLING.  Perhaps I am mistaken.  It may have been West Virginia. Aren't they
mining - aren't they doing it on steep slopes in West Virginia?  

    24 Mr. NICEWONDER.  They started doing it and a big percentage of them are out of
business.  

    24 Mr. SEIBERLING.  Are they doing it in Pennsylvania?  

    24 Mr. NICEWONDER.  You have a different terrain, completely different.  

    24 Mr. SEIBERLING.But there are steep slopes that are being mined and recontoured in
Pennsylvania, are there not?  

    24 Mr. MANICURE.  Pennsylvania is mining more of the box-cutting method with the rolling
terrain that they have.  They are using drag lines to do this.  We cannot use this type of
equipment on our slopes.  

    24 Mr. SEIBERLING.  You are saying the box-cut method is not applicable to slopes in
Virginia?  

    24 Mr. MANICURE.  Not in Virginia.  

    24 Mr. SEIBERLING.  Why is that?  

    24 Mr. NICEWONDER.  Due to the terrain.  

    24 Mr. SEIBERLING.  Well, there are steep slopes being mined in other States.  That is the
thing I don't understand by the box-cut method.  

    24 Mr. NICEWONDER.  The box-cut method can only be used in areas, I would say, 8, 10
degrees or less.  You strip - that box cut, you strip the complete area.  You take out a block, move
over, and continue that.There is no way to do that on the steep mountains.  You take out one cut,
possibly two, and then you have a wall there that is 60 to 80 feet high.  If you took another
50-foot cut, you would -  

    24 Mr. SEIBERLING.  You are saying with a 200-foot bench, you cannot put the overburden
back so as to restore the original contour? I find that hard to believe, particularly since I have
seen it done in some States on steep slopes.  

    24 Mr. WILLIS.  You still have this swell factor.  

    24 Mr. SEIBERLING.  That is something else again.  That is a matter of disposing of the
excess overburden.  Your testimony, Mr. Robertson's testimony was you cannot restore the
original contour on steep slopes.  I notice that that is not a fact in other States.  I find it hard to
understand why it can't be done in Virginia.  

     25  Mr. NICEWONDER.  To begin with, it is 200 feet that I spoke of.  At least approximately
half of that is fill, where we have filled out.  So, pulling it back to a hundred feet of natural
ground here, that is what you would have to work with under your system.  

    25 Mr. SEIBERLING.  Well, if you have a 200-foot bench, that will take a lot of overburden. 
It seems to me that that ought to be possible with a bench of that width to restore the original
approximate contour and eliminate the highwall.  I don't understand why some States that are
competing with you can do it and you say that you cannot.  

    25 Mr. MANICURE.  The 200-foot bench is not all original ground that you are dealing with. 
Your original ground, if you are going to try to stack material out on the last 50 to 75 feet of that
bench you are talking about, you are going to have slides as Mr. Kilgore pointed out.  That is part
of the weakness in our law that we have in Virginia which is going to be strengthened under the
new rules we are currently working on.  

    25 Virginia is not going to allow anything to a hundred feet below the seam of coal which
would only take a hundred feet down.  This is going to eliminate that sizable bench we are
talking about and eliminate the slides Mr. Kilgore was referring to.  You cannot take this material
and stack it on spoil, which you are referring to on your 200-foot bench.  You may leave a bench
200 feet, but that does not mean we recovered coal for 200 feet.  We may have only have
recovered a 100-foot pit of coal.  The other 100 feet is out in spoil.  

    25 Mr. SEIBERLING.  That has nothing to do with the question of whether you can fill back
against a highwall and eliminate the highwall, does it?  

    25 Mr. NICEWONDER.  That has all to do with it, because you reduce your bench from 200
feet down to 100 and you have 100 percent of your material in if you have retained it all on the
bench.  

    25 Mr. SEIBERLING.  I am not saying you do retain it all on the bench.  Your point was you
could - Mr. Robertson made the statement that they could not restore the approximate original
contour and remain in business; and I understood that to mean that he was saying they could not
be required to backfill and eliminate the highwall.  Now, getting rid of the excess overburden or
spoil is another problem; and obviously that has to be handled and our bill makes a provision for
that. 

    25 So, I find it very difficult to equate Mr. Robertson's testimony with the practice that we
know is successfully being done in other States that are competing with Virginia.  

    25 Mr. ROBERTSON.  It is not being done in Virginia nor is it being done in States and in the
smaller area of hard-core central Appalachia where the maximum amount of historical erosion
has occurred, where the slopes are the steepest, where the valleys are the narrowest, where the
hills are the highest.  The difference between the top of the terrain and the bottom.If anybody
thinks they can raise capital to invest in a surface mine under that bill and restore to the original
contour, and you won't let, under the bill, store below the coal seam itself, there is no place to put
it.  

     26  Mr. SEIBERLING.  Just one final question.  Somebody said that West Virginia, the
companies were mining on steep slopes and tried to restore the original contour and found they
couldn't do it economically and have gone out of business.  Is it possible that if every State had to
follow the same rules that they might not have gone out of business, because they are competing
with you, and you don't have to restore the original contour?  That is the whole reason for a
national set of standards.  So everybody is going by the same rules.  

    26 Mr. ROBERTSON.  How can you set a national set of standards with something that would
apply to the rolling country of Wyoming and something that would apply to the steep slopes of
Appalachia?  

    26 Mr. SEIBERLING.I think if you look at this bill we have standards for steep slopes and
different standards for level or rolling terrain so you have one set of standards for a particular
type of terrain.  Then, everybody who has that type is under the same rule.  There are steep slopes
in Ohio.We have a bill like Pennsylvania that requires eliminating the highwalls.  We are
competing with coal from Virginia and West Virginia.  

    26 Mr. ROBERTSON.  Have you been down to southwest Virginia?Have you been down to
Buchanan County?  

    26 Mr. SEIBERLING.  I have been to West Virginia.  I would like to go to Virginia.  

    26 Mr. ROBERTSON.  I invite you to come.  I have been in your fine State of Ohio.  What
you call steep slopes in Ohio are bottom land to us.  [Laughter.]  

    26 Mr. SEIBERLING.  Well, that is true by and large.  We do have some steep slopes.  Let me
say if I sound a little skeptical, we heard this same type of testimony in 1971 before the State of
Ohio put its new strip mining law in place.  The president of Hannah Coal Co. said if you pass
this law, we will go out of business; and the law was hardly 6 weeks old before he was asking
permission to take the devices across Interstate 70 so they could open up strip mining on the
other side.  I take some predictions of gloom with a grain of salt.  I would be happy to go to
Virginia and see what the situation is.  

    26 The CHAIRMAN.We have a long list of witnesses here.  Any other questions?  

    26 Mr. MILLER.  In response to Chairman Udall's question about the cost of reclamation, are
you suggesting to the committee in your area it is $30 a ton? 

    26 Mr. ROBERTSON.  No, sir.  No, sir.  

    26 Mr. MILLER.  Then, what?  

    26 Mr. ROBERTSON.  What I tried to suggest to the committee was that I do not have a
quantifiable answer as to what the cost of reclamation under this bill would be.  The information
that was presented to this committee in its hearings in 1973, I disagree very vehemently with it.  I
am positive it will be substantially in excess of that.  

     27  Mr. MILLER.  When you answered it could possibly be as high as $30 a ton, that is not to
suggest that it in fact is.  

    27 Mr. ROBERTSON.  That it will be, I don't know.  What I am saying is it could be.  

    27 Mr. MILLER.  You are required, if I understood one of the other witnesses, you are
required to bond the land to the extent of $800 an acre?  

    27 Mr. ROBERTSON.  Yes, sir; the statute in Virginia calls for from $200 to $1 ,000 an acre. 
The bonding fee is set pretty much by the regulatory agency. Everything being bonded now is at
the rate of $800 an acre.  

    27 Mr. MILLER.  I assume there is a basis in fact for arriving at that figure for reclamation
purposes given the way you mine the land today?  That is not an arbitrary figure, is it?  

    27 Mr. MANICURE.  As a guide, just to seed and to fertilize and mulch an acre, the price now
is $3 50 an acre.That is only for seed and mulch.  It does not count the trees that must be put back
on your grading.  

    27 Mr. ROBERTSON.  Or regrading costs.  

    27 Mr. MILLER.  So, there is some relationship between that $8 00 figure and the cost?  

    27 Mr. ROBERTSON.Yes.  

    27 Mr. MILLER.  Thank you.  

    27 The CHAIRMAN.  Thank you, Mr. Robertson.  You and your colleagues have given us a
very effective presentation.  We were happy to have you with us today.  

    27 [Prepared statement of Franklin D. Robertson follows:]  

     28     MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE:  

    28 My name is Franklin Delano Robertson.  I am a resident of Buchanan County Virginia; a
Mining Engineer licensed to practice in Virginia, Kentucky and West Virginia; a graduate of the
University of Virginia Law School; a member of the Virginia State Bar; a property owner, and a
coal operator.  

    28 I appear before this Committee because of my deep concern for the economic and socialigic
impact that the proposed Surface Mine Act will have on the State of Virginia and the Nation.  

    28 First the Virginia Problem, Only seven of Virginia's 97 Counties produce coal.  They are
Buchanan, Dickenson, Lee, Russell, Scott, Tazewell and Wise.  In order that you may know the
potential economic impact on Virginia of this Bill, certain data concerning Buchanan County,
Virginia, is being submitted to this Committee.  It is used as a typical example of the Counties in
Virginia that produce coal.  

    28 Buchanan County has a population of approximately 35,000 people.  Its only industry is
coal mining.  In 1975, it produced 14 million tons of coal, of which 33.5% or 4.7 million tons
was mined by surface methods. n1 Severance taxes collected by the County for the year 1975
were in excess of $2, ,,000000.00. This amount accounted for over 50% of the total local taxes
collected.  Surface mines accounted for $6 70,000.00 of the total. n2 These taxes are placed in
the general fund and are used primarily for public schools.  Buchanan County cannot afford the
loss of this tax income.  

    28 n1 Virginia Department of Labor & Industry Annual Report, (1975)  

    28 n2 Supplied by Commissioner of Revenue's Office, Buchanan Co., Virginia.  

     29  Surface mines in Buchanan County at the present time employ 1,375 persons and pay
annual wages of $1 0,180,000.00.  This area has historically been an area of high unemployment. 
The surface mine industry is directly furnishing 1,375 jobs and indirectly furnishing many more.
n3  

    29 n3 Virginia Department of Labor & Industry Annual Report, Ibid  

    29 In 1975, all of Virginia's coal producing counties produced 35.5 million tons of coal, of
which 37% or 13.3 million tons were produced by 517 surface mines who paid $40,300,000.00
in wages to 4,097 employees. n4  

    29 n4 Virginia Department of Labor & Industry Annual Report, Ibid  

    29 The present Virginia Reclamation Law allows Virginia operators to surface mine coal only
if they reclaim the land.  Our Commonwealth sets standards that meet her needs.  In Virginia, the
terrain is extremely mountainous.  Level land sells at a premium.  

    29 Sgt. York, the most highly decorated G.I. in World War I, was from the mountain portion
of our neighboring State, Tennessee.  Upon his return to the United States, he found the entire
nation at his feet, offering untold riches. His only request of the nation that he had so gallantly
served was "forty acres of bottom land." This desire for level land is born in us hillbillies and
stays with us throughout our lives.  The provisions of this Act requiring that surface mined land
be returned to its approximate original contour would deny us the opportunity to increase the
amount of level land available in our area.  In my years of working in coal fields of Virginia, I
have on many occasions, been required to negotiate with surface owners, trying to acquire their
permission to condust surface mining on their lands.  One of the prime trading points is the fact
that they will be left with some flat land.The surface owners want flat land, land they can use,
and do not want their land returned to its original contour. 

     30  I want to emphasize that the coal bearing mountains of Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky
and parts of Tennessee are unique in the nation.  Ninety-nine percent of the surface mining
production in Virginia comes from slopes that are twenty degrees or steeper.  

    30 We could not engage in competitive mining if these slopes had to be restored to original
contour.  

    30 Members of this Committee, Virginia cannot afford to suffer a curtailment in surface
mining activities.  

    30 The census statistics for 1970 establish that 80% of the families in the 9th Congressional
District had a family income of less than $1 0,000.  Since 1970 the demand for surface coal has
brought an economic renaissance to our area.  

     31  This Bill as now drawn would return our people to the depressed conditions that
previously existed.  

    31 I also want to respectfully recommend that this distinquished committee communicate with
President-elect Carter to make sure that the provisions of this Bill as now drawn are compatible
with the National Energy Policy that is now being formulated by President-elect Carter.  

    31 It is essential that the formulation and articulation of the Carter Energy Policy be completed
prior to the enactment of any legislation designed to implement that policy.  

    31 I am advised that a recent critical study of U.S. Energy Policy has been prepared for
President-elect Carter by a task force headed by Lawrence Klein of the Wharton School of
Finance, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  

    31 It is pointed out in the Study that six factors must be considered by President-elect Carter in
dealing with the constraints facing the new administration in devising the most effective Energy
Policy for the nation.  

    31 The six factors are:  

    31 1) Energy impact on U.S. economic performance,  

    31 2) Energy impact on the nation's trade balance (overall and bilateral),  

    31 3) Capital needs to provide long-term energy needs and their impact on credit markets,  

     32  4) Environmental damage resulting from energy policies which do not adequately reflect
environmental costs,  

    32 5) Uncertainty in energy policy which creates uncertainty in the minds of energy producers
who must plan large-scale investments, and  

    32 6) Income distribution and the relative well being of poor families.  

    32 In connection with Factor No. 1, the passage of a Federal Surface Mining Bill will create
the following conditions: 

    32 A.  A serious loss of jobs in the mining industry itself in areas that have been historically
depressed.  

    32 B.  A serious loss of jobs in the supporting parts and equipment manufacturing industries.  

    32 C.  A loss of jobs in the retail sector in areas affected by surface mining.  

    32 D.  A serious loss of tax revenues to the Counties, States, and Federal Government,
including Severance Taxes, Sales Taxes, and Personal Income Taxes to the State and Federal
Governments.  

    32 E.  Untold millions of Federal and State Welfare dollars will be required to provide only
partial sustenance to all people so affected.  

    32 F.The loss of millions of tons of surface coal production will inflate the price of the
remaining deep mine coal, resulting in Arab OPEC oil kind of inflation that caused the recent
disasterous double-digit inflation here at home.  An already precarious world economy could
easily be pushed over the brink.  

    32 In connection with Factor No. 2, the energy impact on the U.S. economic performance will
be burdened with the additional millions of barrels of high cost Arab oil that will be needed to
replace the millions of tons of coal that will never be mined.  The resulting negative balance of
payment could be staggering!  

     33  In connection with Factor No. 3, it is well known that the costs of additional development
of conventional oil, gas and coal continues to accelerate.  However, the costs that must be faced
when alternative new sources of energy are developed will be horrendous.  To bring oil shale, tar
sands, coal gasification, coal liquefaction, solar power, wind power, and all other new energy
possibilities to the marketplace, it is estimated that all the available credit in the market may well
be exhausted before the problem is halfway solved.  

    33 In connection with Factor No. 4, the tremendous amount of intangible costs to be faced by
both industry and government are beyond the scope of this writer.  

    33 In connection with Factor No. 5, the formation of new capital investment for the coal
industry will be impossible if any businessman carefully reads the proposed Bill.  Further, any
businessman with an ounce of knowledge and one that has ever made a payroll out of his own
pocker, whether it be in the coal industry or growing peanuts could not ever be persuaded to
invest even $0 .03 in the surface coal mining industry.  

    33 In connection with Factor No. 6, the relative wellbeing of poor families will be further
depressed.  The net income available to them for purchasing the other essentials of life will be
reduced directly by the ever increasing high cost of electrical power resulting from the increased
costs of mining.  

     34  In summary this Bill would stop technological advances.  The Bill is inflexible.  Virginia
and other States are continually seeking to lessen the impact on the enviroment of surface
mining.  To make these States conform to a uniform Federal Law will stifle technical advances
which may be made to suit the particular terrain and climate of the individual states.  

    34 Virginia has 226 million tons of surface mine reserves or stated differently, 17.1 years of
life at the present rate of mining.  Essentially all of Virginia's reserves underlie steep slopes as
they are defined in the Bill now under consideration by you. n5 Under present economic
conditions, it will be impossible to surface mine coal in Virginia if this Bill is enacted.  In order
to allow Virginians to surface mine Virginia coal under this Bill, the Steep slope provision, the
return to approximate original contour provision, the data gathering provisions, the permitting
provisions, the bonding provisions, and the citizens suit provisions must all be modified.  It is
important that this Committee realize that the coal discussed here today is a very special type of
coal.  It is used primarily in the manufacture of coke.  Only a small portion of our nations total
coal reserves will make coke.  Practically none of the western coals are suitable for
manufacturing coke.  Coking coals must be low in sulphur and ash content but in addition must
have certain unique chemical and petrographic properties before they can be turned into coke and
used in the manufacture of steel.  Our nations' greatest reserves of coking coal lie in the steep
Applachian Mountains which are the most seriously affected by this Act. In Virginia alone this
Bill will cost the nation 226 million tons of coking coal that it can never replace.  This coal
cannot be mined by any method except the surface mining method.  

    34 n5 Congressional Record Senate 4507 et seq., (March 13, 1973)  

     35  We, in Virginia, respectfully request that this Committee come to Virginia and see the
uses being made of the flat land left after contour stripping without returning the land to its
original contour.  Among these uses you will see colleges, schools, farms, airports, housing
developments, trailer parks and many other desirable uses.  

    35 If you will visit with and weigh the economic and socialogic cost of this Legislation, you
can come to no other conclusion than, "This is a matter best left to the States."  

    35 I thank you for your time.  

    35 F. D. Robertson  

     36  The CHAIRMAN.Congressman Wampler couldn't be here this morning.  He has a
statement that will be included in the record.  

    36 [Prepared statement of Hon. William C. Wample follows:]  

    36 PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM C. WAMPLER, BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS BRIEFING ON SURFACE MINING
ISSUES  

    36 Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee: Thank you for allowing me the opportunity
to offer brief remarks today on the issue of surface mining.  

    36 As I understand the situation, the purpose of today's briefing is to determine public
sentiment on the need for federal surface mining and reclamation legislation.  Also, I understand
that if the committee decides to go ahead with legislation on this issue, hearings will be held in
the near future at which time extended statements may be offered.  The bill which the committee
would have before it, H.R. 2, is identical or very nearly identical to H.R. 13950, which was
offered in the 94th Congress but was not granted a rule for consideration by the full House.  My
remarks are based on this presumption, as I have been advised copies of H.R. 2 are not yet
available.  

    36 My reasons for opposing federal surface mining legislation have not changed in the several
years the Congress has had such legislation presented before it.  The ready availability of coal
through surface mining should not be hampered by the government at a time when we are again
faced with increasing costs of imported oil.  The many persons employed or dependent upon the
surface mining industry for their livelihood should not be forced into the ranks of the
unemployed at a time when we are trying desperately to decrease our unemployment percentage. 
With strict federal regulation, as proposed in H.R. 2, surface mining would virtually be banned in
Virginia, thereby increasing the cost of coal available by other means to the utilities, and, as a
result, increasing the cost of utilities to the consumer.  

    36 Approximately 85 percent of the surface mined coal in Virginia is mined on slopes of 25
degrees or greater.  In addition to severely decreasing coal production by requiring return to
original contour, much flat land resulting from the mining which could be used for grazing, home
or industrial building, would be lost to the affected areas.  This is one of my major objections to
the bill as it has previously been presented.  My other main objection is with regard to the section
concerning citizens suits, whereby any citizen, whether damaged or not, could protest the
issuance and renewal of permits or bond release.  Under such a system, it could take up to a year
before an operation could be started after application for a permit.  Such delays, in themselves,
could have disastrous effects upon not only the surface mining industry, but upon the consumer
of coal.  

    36 Faced with our current and increasing energy needs, such obstructions in the way of mining
a basic, abundant, and readily available fuel source are highly impractical, and, one could say,
bordering on the ridiculous.  

    36 Virginia State law has taken a realistic, and responsible approach in their regulation of the
surface mining industry in my state.  Because of the differences in terrain, type of coal and other
variables which exist in the several coal producing states, I feel very strongly that the State
government is the proper forum for lawmaking with respect to surface mining.  

    36 The incoming Administration has proposed a streamlining of the bureaucracy and therefore
less red tape and interference in state and local matters, to result in less waste of the taxpayers
money.  Enactment of a strict federal surface mining law will, in all probability, result in an
increased bureaucracy, also resulting in greater cost to the taxpayer.  

    36 The Appalachian area, hard hit by unemployment and inflation, and long an area of special
recognition for its needs by the federal government, can ill afford the resultant situation of such
legislation becoming law.  

    36 I have briefly outlined here my objections to the need for federal surface mining legislation. 
If the Committee persists in going ahead with such a proposal I will discuss my views in depth at
a later hearing.  Although I object, it is my feeling that the Committee will take such action. 

    36 In closing, I would like to offer a few suggestions for a realistic approach to such hearings
by the members of the Committee.  

    36 The last comprehensive hearings on legislation for this purpose were held in 1973.  Since
then, nearly identical bills have been offered to the Congress with little or no attention to changes
in the text of the bill.  Over 50 percent of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, once it is
fully organized, will not have participated in those comprehensive hearings.  

     37  Extensive hearings should be conducted, with careful attention being given to all the facts,
as I know you will do.  In addition, I feel that field hearings, with viewings of surface mining
areas on the ground, instead of by air, should be taken to those areas which will be affected by
such legislation.  

    37 The incoming Administration will have an energy policy for the nation which should also
be carefully and realistically considered.  I hope Mr. Udall and the other Committee members
will be meeting with President-elect Carter to discuss this before going ahead with the proposed
legislation.  

    37 Again, I appreciate this opportunity to briefly express my views, and would welcome a visit
by the Committee members to Southwestern Virginia to view our surface mining operations.  

    37 The CHAIRMAN.  We now turn to the Commonwealth of Kentucky.We will have Mr.
David Smith, operator, Corbin, Ky., Kentucky Independent Coal Producers Association.  

    37 Mr. Smith?  

    37 Mr. Smith, we have your statement.  You may proceed.  

  STATEMENT OF DAVID SMITH, OPERATOR, KENTUCKY INDEPENDENT
COAL PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION, CORBIN, KY.  

   37  Mr. SMITH.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.  

    37 I am David Smith.  I reside in Corbin, Ky., and am actively involved in the coal mining
industry in eastern Kentucky.  

    37 I represent the following Kentucky coal associations: The Kentucky Independent Coal
Producers Association, of which I am a vice president; Kentucky-Tennessee Coal Operators
Association, of which I am the executive vice president; Harlan County Coal Operators
Association; Letcher-Knott-Perry Independent Coal Operators Association; and Coal Operators
and Associates of Pikeville.  

    37 The membership of these associations comprises over 600 small and medium sized deep
and surface coal mining companies in Kentucky.  

    37 I had hoped that during the 95th Congress, I would be invited to give testimony concerning
the need for a coordinated national energy policy and not a law legislating coal mine reclamation. 
This is because the need for a Federal reclamation law does not exist.  However, the need for a
national energy policy has become so paramount to each of us that it is a cliche of the American
way of life.  It is this energy plan which we should be considering today, instead of yet another
Federal coal mine reclamation bill.  During this period of continuing national energy shortages
and prior to formulation of a national energy plan, the passage of a Federal reclamation law is
ill-timed and ill-conceived.Passage of unnecessary Federal reclamation standards before
determination of which source or sources of energy reserves will be developed to meet our
Nation's energy requirements through the next century will eliminate coal from consideration as a
major element of our total energy plan.  

    37 This is due to the unnecessary and unreasonable constraints placed upon current and future
production of not only surface mine coal, but deep mine coal by this reclamation bill.  

    37 A major fallacy exists in the assumption that lost surface mine coal production due to the
passage of this bill will be replaced by increased deep mine coal production in the short and long
term.  Obviously, this assumption is incorrect because deep mine coal production will also be
seriously curtailed due to the stringent permit process and reclamation standards for surface
effects of deep mining contained in this reclamation act.  Therefore, we are going to lose in the
short term and long term essential coal production from both surface and deep mines.  A loss our
energy hungry Nation cannot afford.  Furthermore, by any interpretation, the bill will result in a
period of 6 months to 3 years whereby no new surface or deep mines could conceivably be
opened and the Nation would have to rely on the coal production solely from the currently
existing mines if they can meet the Federal requirements of this act.  

     38     Ideally, the logical approach would be to first determine which sources of energy the
Congress and the Nation want to develop to make America an energy independent Nation, and
after this determination, decide the balance to be struck between increased environmental
protection and our national objectives of energy independence, a strong economy, curtailing the
outflow of dollars to other nations, unemployment, and higher consumer costs, particularly for
electricity.  

    38 Now, let us consider the environmental protection to be obtained from this bill in real
terms.  First, the bill does not set reclamation standards for noncoal surface mines, but only
mandates a departmental study of this area. Certainly, the copper, iron ore, phosphate, uranium,
and other noncoal mining industries have been in existence a sufficient period of time to
determine if reclamation standards are necessary.  During the 92d Congress we saw the Federal
surface mine bill undergo a major change from an "all minerals bill" to a "coal only" bill after
significant lobbying efforts by environmental groups, farm organizations and noncoal mining
associations.  We can only speculate why Congress does not want to extend environmental
sanctions to the noncoal mining industry.  

    38 A further deficiency in overall environmental protection in this bill is the lack of
reclamation standards for Indian lands In title 7, section 710, the proposed legislation establishes
only a study and fails to establish long-term legislation to regulate surface mining on Indian
lands.  

    38 Did we want to maintain environmental protection by violating the U.S. Constitution?  The
bill currently under consideration does just this.  In title 5, section 522(3), the bill provides for no
compensation to the owner of mineral rights where the Federal Government owns the surface. 
This is a form of reverse condemnation and a direct violation of the constitutional guarantee that
no citizen shall be deprived of property without just compensation and due process of law.  And
section 522 and 601 delve further into the violation of the Constitution through deprivation of
land and mineral rights by establishing procedures to designate areas unsuitable for coal and
noncoal mining activities without compensation to the owner thereof.  

    38 Another serious error of the proposed bill is the conflict of the bill itself with the findings
of Congress stated in section 101(e) where the State is given primary responsibility for surface
mine reclamation.  After such findings, Congress and this committee proceed in the next 175-180
pages to completely circumvent the States' authority in these areas and leave control firmly with
the Federal Government.  By the enactment of this conflict, we are forcing the development of
another duplicative Federal bureaucracy.  This new bureaucracy would have to perform the
reclamation duties presently being carried out by State governments and the following Federal
departments and agencies:  

     39     The Department of Interior; The Department of Defense; The Department of Justice;
The Department of Agriculture; Council on Environmental Quality; The Bureau of Mines; The
National Environmental Protection Agency; The U.S. Geological Survey; The Corps of
Engineers; Mining Enforcement and Safety Administration; Division of Forestry; and The
Division of Soil Conservation.  

    39 Not to count numerous other State and Federal agencies.  

    39 One must realize that when the Environmental Protection Agency promulgates in the near
future the new source performance standards for surface mining as required by Public Law
92-500 that this publication will effectively abolish any necessity for this bill.  

    39 In conclusion, the time and need for this type of Federal legislation has passed.  This
legislation might have been practical and perhaps even workable if it had been enacted by
Congress between 1940 and the late 1960's.  Yet Congress failed to take any major legislative
action between 1940 and 1970 even though 45 Federal surface mine bills were introduced and
several hearings were conducted. In 1971, another major effort was undertaken by Congress to
enact a Federal reclamation law, when a forerunner of the current bill under consideration was
introduced.  At that time, only eight States had surface mine reclamation laws. As of 1976, 38
States have surface mine reclamation laws which are individually suited to their citizens'
economic environmental, social, geographical, and ecological needs and objectives.  Twenty-one
States accounting for over 90 percent of the coal production do have reclamation laws.  

    39 In reality, the efforts of Congress and this committee have been fulfilled by prompting the
passage of State reclamation laws under the threat of impending Federal legislation and by the
passage of other Federal environmental laws.The currently proposed bill is not needed.  

    39 I seriously wondered why the supporters of this bill continually reintroduce the bill in
Congress.  I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you and give you my views.  I do hope
the supporters of this bill do not look for a victory after many defeats on this bill.  

    39 Thank you.  

    39 The CHAIRMAN.  Thank you, Mr. Smith.  

    39 In response to your last comment, inquiry as to why we continue to sponsor the bill, as one
who has been doing that, I will tell you why.  We have had this issue before us for four
Congresses now.  In every Congress we voted on this topic.  More than two-thirds of the
Members of the House, more than two-thirds of the Members of the Senate elected to represent
the people in this country, said they wanted the bill.  

    39 Virtually every Governor of every coal State has said they wanted the bill.  What we really
had was a veto by one man, Gerald Ford, supported by one-third plus three in the House who said
they didn't want it.  

     40  We didn't have majority rule.  We had minority rule.  We had a small minority in this
country getting what they wanted over a substantial majority of the people who did want the bill. 
That would be my response ot your inquiry.  

    40 I just have one question.  At the bottom of page 2, you say by any interpretation this bill
would result in a period of 6 months to 3 years whereby no new surface mining or deep mining
could conceivably be opened and the Nation would have to rely on coal production in the
currently existing mines.  I would make two comments on this, and you can respond if you like.  

    40 One is that we don't even deal very largely with deep mines.  I don't know how our bill
could prevent new deep mines from opening.  

    40 Second, this bill was patterned originally on the law of Pennsylvania. It is a good pattern. 
We followed it quite closely.  They have been mining coal in Pennsylvania under essentially this
law for years now.  

    40 Production has increased with none of the dire consequences that you predict.  Why can
they meet the standards of this law in Pennsylvania and not in Kentucky?  

    40 Mr. SMITH.  I am not talking about meeting the standards.  I am talking about the delay in
time that it may take for State legislatures that do not meet on an annual basis.  It would take
them time to pass the statutes necessary for the departments of reclamation in several States to
adopt this criteria.  

    40 I don't think the departments will have the authority to encompass the Federal surface mine
bill without going to their legislature.  There is also the problem what if a State rejects the
Federal bill and the Federal Government has to come in and set up the standards there?There will
be a delay there.  

    40 The other major problem we see in Kentucky is the fact we have very limited resources of
technical people that will be necessary to prepare this type of permit application.  By my
estimate, it would take approximately a year or more to collect the data that is necessary as in the
core drilling requirements for the hydrologic assessments.  

    40 I recently completed a survey and there were only about seven firms in the State of
Kentucky and they are currently involved with road contracting that would be able to perform
these types of services.  I can see a great surge upon this group of technical people and great
delays in bringing about the permit process.  

    40 The CHAIRMAN.  Let me tell you, I don't favor a 3-year or 3-month moratorium.  I think
the country is going to have to get more coal from deep mines and surface mines.  During three
different sessions we amended this bill to try to meet the objections that indicated a moratorium. 
The last time around, last year there were a half a dozen provisions designed to make sure we had
a reasonable phasing period so that the legislation wouldn't have a drastic impact.  If you can
show us later when we get into the specific drafting of amendments that this legislation would
have these horrendous results, I would be glad to look at those specific points.  

    40 If you look at our bill carefully, you will see it will not have the impact that you argue. 

     41  Mr. SMITH.  I will be submitting to the committee within the week, a technical analysis
of the bill.  

    41 The CHAIRMAN.  Any questions on my right?  

    41 Over here?  Mr. Tsongas?  

    41 Mr. TSONGAS.  One question: You say that this bill should have been enacted somewhere
between 1940 and present?  Your argument is that between 1940 and 1975, 1976, you did
everything you could to defeat a strip mining bill and were successful.  Now, you come back in
1977 and say, since you didn't do it before, there is no point in doing it now.  

    41 Mr. SMITH.  That is not exactly what I intended to be the result of my argument.  Between
1940 - I think in 1940 - the late Senator Everett Dirksen introduced a bill that would require them
to put the dirt back in the holes they left in his home State.  Through 1970, there were
approximately 45 bills.  There was a lot of activity or a lot of national impetus to have a bill like
this passed that resulted in the environmental movement.  

    41 Since 1970 we have seen a great majority of States, approximately 30, pass reclamation
laws.  My argument is that you have served your purpose in bringing about reclamation by
holding these hearings and by - under the threat of Federal legislation.  The States now have
reclamation laws and they are improving on those laws daily.  

    41 Mr. TSONGAS.  Which would argue if you remove the Federal threat -  

    41 Mr. SMITH.  I didn't hear you.  

    41 Mr. TSONGAS.  You are arguing now if yo remove the Federal threat, then the pressure
will be off the States to improve their strip mining bill.  I would assume that the coal operators
association would be as active in the future as in the past to make improvements in State laws?  

    41 Mr. SMITH.  I think there is a great impetus in the States as you saw from the citizens'
organizations that were here this morning and the citizens' group that will be here after my
testimony.  There is a great movement in the State to bring about good reclamation laws.  We are
continually improving on those laws.  

    41 As far as being opposed to reclamation -  

    41 Mr. TSONGAS.  Have you supported those efforts or opposed them?  

    41 Mr. SMITH.  I personally feel we need good reclamation laws in the coal industry.That is
the only way we will be able to stay in business.  We cannot do things that we used to now
because they are not environmentally acceptable.  I think a vast majority of the coal operators
have accepted their environmental responsibilities in this area.  I am continuously working with
our State department to bring about good reclamation.  I am opposed to more redtape and
unnecessary things because the real thing we are trying to do is the end result of reclamation. 

    41 We don't get that by a lot of redtape and extra criteria in between.  

    41 Mr. TSONGAS.  You say the operators have accepted their environmental responsibility?  

    41 Mr. SMITH.  I think a vast majority have.  

    41 Mr. TSONGAS.  What caused them to accept that responsibility?  

    41 Mr. SMITH.  I think part of the threat of the Federal legislation, the fact that we just can't
do the things that have been done in the past.  

     42  The CHAIRMAN.  Mr. Eckhardt?  

    42 Mr. ECKHARDT.  I notice on page 4 you state that this bill has unconstitutional
provisions, and as I recall you added the little phrase that wasn't in your original statement.  I
don't mean to explain about it, but I didn't quite get it.It is after the Federal Government owns the
surface.  

    42 Mr. SMITH.  Right.  What we were concerned about was whether the Federal Government
owns the surface of the land and private ownership, citizens ownership of the minerals under that
land.  If they were denied access to surface mine on that property, who is going to pay for the
value of the minerals underneath?  

    42 Mr. ECKHARDT.  I looked up that section in the bill.  I notice that you are totally
capitalizing.  I suppose you refer to section 522(e)?  

    42 Mr. SMITH.  Yes, sir.  

    42 Mr. ECKHARDT.  It starts out, "subject to valid existing rights, no surface coal mining
operations except those which exist on the date of the enactment of this act shall be permitted."  

    42 I would assume that would make two exceptions.  One, operations existing on the date of
the bill; and two, where there are valid subsisting rights for future operations.  I can't see anything
unconstitutional about that.  Can you?  

    42 Mr. SMITH.  I really didn't follow your analysis.  

    42 Mr. ECKHARDT.  It seems to me the exceptions are twofold.  One, if there is presently
mining on the premises, that is excepted, that is in effect grandfathered.  But in addition to that, it
starts with "subject to valid existing rights." For instance, if someone had an ownership right on
the land by original deed, by lease, by transfer which gave him the right to produce minerals
under the soil, I would think that that would be a valid existing right.  So I can't see anything
unconstitutional about that section.  

    42 Mr. SMITH.  Well, there is no procedure in there if mining would be denied on these
Federal lands.  We are having this problem right now in Kentucky.  In the south central part I live
in, it is owned by the Federal Government and the Daniel Boone National Forest.  Certain areas
have been designated under the Wilderness Act. 

    42 Mr. ECKHARDT.  Maybe you have trouble under existing law.  I don't know about that. 
Under this act, this act protects valid existing rights.  Now, I assume that means constitutional
rights.  I assume you would not object if in this bill we made it clear that there is simply no intent
here to violate the Constitution.  

    42 Certainly, I think that is implied.  I think it is also expressed.  I just don't see where you say
that this is unconstitutional.  

    42 Mr. SMITH.  Your interpretation of the bill then, if we use the criteria in 601 where you
can designate lands that are unsuitable for surface mining, and, therefore, that mineral could not
be developed by surface mining.  

    42 Mr. ECKHARDT.  Unless there is a valid existing right to do that.  

    42 The CHAIRMAN.  That provision was directed to publicly owned lands to which the
Federal Government has the title.  The Federal Government can designate its own lands as
unsuitable for mining.  

     43  Mr. ECKHARDT.  Sure; if there were some existing right of some type, it seems to me
the bill steers around it.  I can't see anything unconstitutional in that section.  

    43 Do you really see the unconstitutionality?  

    43 Mr. SMITH.  Yes, sir; I can see that, if these minerals are not able to be developed, and
there is no provision in this act for compensation.  

    43 Mr. ECKHARDT.  This is subject to valid existing rights.  If there is a valid existing
constitutional right - which I don't think would exist in many cases in these public lands, perhaps
in no cases - but if there is one, the bill simply steers around it.  

    43 The CHAIRMAN.  You raised a red flag and we will look at it.  

    43 Any other questions?  

    43 Mr. Seiberling?  

    43 Mr. SEIBERLING.  You mentioned there are 38 States that have reclamation laws.  Of
course, they vary greatly.  Would you be willing to accept in Kentucky a law comparable to that
that is now enforced in Pennsylvania to the extent that conditions - the physical conditions are
comparable?  

    43 Mr. SMITH.  I am not that familiar with the Pennsylvania law.  I understand it will be a 100
percent haulback and return to original contour in Kentucky.  

    43 Mr. SEIBERLING.  I believe they allow the modified log cut method.  

    43 Mr. SMITH.  In Kentucky we can put 30 to 40 percent of the overburden over the site with
hollow fill.  I can see no purpose of returning to original contour.  I am not saying that we can't
do it or won't do it, but I just do not see the purpose in it. 

    43 Mr. SEIBERLING.  Well, that brings out the point I want to make.  Just calling a law a
reclamation law couldn't mean it will result in real reclamation.  The Pennsylvania law requires
real reclamation.  The Kentucky law does not.  

    43 Mr. SMITH.  That is your interpretation of what reclamation is?  

    43 Mr. SEIBERLING.  Pennsylvania coal operators are competing against Kentucky coal
which does not have to go to the length and expense that the Pennsylvania coal operators do and
it seems to mw that there is no way that we are going to have effective reclamation by the States
unless we set certain standards as this bill does.  

    43 Mr. SMITH.  I think you have to determine what type of reclamation you want; and I think
the gist of your argument is that you would like to do away with the competitive market in coal.  

    43 Mr. SEIBERLING.  No; just the opposite.  We don't want the poorest, the lowest
reclamation standards to set the standards for the whole country which is what is happening
today.  Ohio cannot effectively enforce its strip mining law because its miners are competing
with those in other States that have much weaker laws which means that the States where the
coal associations have the greatest domination over the legislature, and result in the weakest law,
are setting the standards for the whole country.  That is what the Congress on several occasions
decided they don't want to do.  That is really the issue in a nutshell.  

    43 The CHAIRMAN.  Thank you, Mr. Smith.  We appreciate your presence here today.  

    43 [Prepared statement of David O. Smith follows:]  

     44    KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE  

    44 Coal Operators Association, Inc.  

    44 1001 CIRCLE DRIVE/CORBIN, KENTUCKY 40701  

    44 Testimony of David O. Smith before the House of Representatives, Interior Subcommittee,
Washington, D.C., 9:30 a.m., January 10, 1977, re: the "Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act."  

     45     MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE-  

    45 MY NAME IS DAVID O. SMITH.  I RESIDE IN CORBIN, KENTUCKY, AND I AM
ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN THE COAL MINING INDUSTRY IN EASTERN KENTUCKY.  I
REPRESENT THE FOLLOWING KENTUCKY COAL ASSOCIATIONS:  

    45 A.  KENTUCKY INDEPENDENT COAL PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION OF WHICH I
AM A VICE PRESIDENT  

    45 B.  KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE COAL OPERATORS ASSOCIATION OF WHICH I AM
THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT 

    45 C.  HARLAN COUNTY COAL OPERATORS ASSOCIATION  

    45 D.  LETCHER-KNOTT-PERRY INDEPENDENT COAL OPERATORS ASSOCIATION  

    45 E.  COAL OPERATORS AND ASSOCIATES OF PIKEVILLE  

    45 THE MEMBERSHIP OF THESE ASSOCIATIONS COMPRISES OVER SIX HUNDRED
SMALL AND MEDIUM SIZED DEEP AND SURFACE COAL MINING COMPANIES IN
KENTUCKY.  

    45 I HAD HOPED THAT DURING THE 95TH CONGRESS, I WOULD BE INVITED TO
GIVE TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE NEED FOR A COORDINATED NATIONAL
ENERGY POLICY AND NOT A LAW LEGISLATING COAL MINE RECLAMATION.  THIS
IS BECAUSE THE NEED FOR A FEDERAL RECLAMATION LAW DOES NOT EXIST. 
HOWEVER, THE NEED FOR A NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY HAS BECOME SO
PARAMOUNT TO EACH OF US THAT IT IS A CLICHE OF THE AMERICAN WAY OF
LIFE.  IT IS THIS ENERGY PLAN WHICH WE SHOULD BE CONSIDERING TODAY,
INSTEAD OF YET ANOTHER FEDERAL COAL MINE RECLAMATION BILL.  DURING
THIS PERIOD OF CONTINUING NATIONAL ENERGY SHORTAGES AND PRIOR TO
FORMULATION OF A NATIONAL ENERGY PLAN, THE PASSAGE OF A FEDERAL
RECLAMATION LAW IS ILL TIMED AND ILL CONCEIVED.  PASSAGE OF
UNNECESSARY FEDERAL RECLAMATION STANDARDS BEFORE DETERMINATION
OF WHICH SOURCE OR SOURCES OF ENERGY RESERVES WILL BE DEVELOPED TO
MEET OUR NATION'S ENERGY REQUIREMENTS THROUGH THE NEXT CENTURY
WILL ELIMINATE COAL FROM CONSIDERATION AS A MAJOR ELEMENT OF OUR
TOTAL ENERGY PLAN.  

     46  THIS IS DUE TO THE UNNECESSARY AND UNREASONABLE CONSTRAINTS
PLACED UPON CURRENT AND FUTURE PRODUCTION OF NOT ONLY SURFACE
MINE COAL BUT DEEP MINE COAL BY THIS RECLAMATION BILL.  

    46 A MAJOR FALLACY EXISTS IN THE ASSUMPTION THAT LOST SURFACE MINE
COAL PRODUCTION DUE TO THE PASSAGE OF THIS BILL WILL BE REPLACED BY
INCREASED DEEP MINE COAL PRODUCTION IN THE SHORT AND LONG TERM. 
OBVIOUSLY, THIS ASSUMPTION IS INCORRECT BECAUSE DEEP MINE COAL
PRODUCTION WILL ALSO BE SERIOUSLY CURTAILED DUE TO THE STRINGENT
PERMIT PROCESS AND RECLAMATION STANDARDS FOR SURFACE EFFECTS OF
DEEP MINING CONTAINED IN THIS RECLAMATION ACT.  THEREFORE, WE ARE
GOING TO LOSE IN THE SHORT TERM AND THE LONG TERM ESSENTIAL COAL
PRODUCTION FROM BOTH SURFACE AND DEEP MINES.  A LOSS OUR ENERGY
HUNGRY NATION CANNOT AFFORD.  FURTHERMORE, BY ANY INTERPRETATION,
THE BILL WILL RESULT IN A PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS TO 3 YEARS WHEREBY NO
NEW SURFACE OR DEEP MINES COULD CONCEIVABLY BE OPENED AND THE
NATION WOULD HAVE TO RELY ON THE COAL PRODUCTION SOLELY FROM THE
CURRENTLY EXISTING MINES IF THEY CAN MEET THE FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS
OF THIS ACT.  IS THIS WHAT CONGRESS WANTS?  

    46 IDEALLY, THE LOGICAL APPROACH WOULD BE TO FIRST DETERMINE WHICH
SOURCES OF ENERGY THE CONGRESS AND THE NATION WANT TO DEVELOP TO
MAKE AMERICA AN ENERGY INDEPENDENT NATION, AND AFTER THIS
DETERMINATION, DECIDE THE BALANCE TO BE STRUCK BETWEEN INCREASED
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND OUR NATIONAL OBJECTIVES OF ENERGY
INDEPENDENCE, A STRONG ECONOMY, CURTAILING THE OUTFLOW OF DOLLARS
TO OTHER NATIONS, UNEMPLOYMENT, AND HIGHER CONSUMER COSTS,
PARTICULARLY FOR ELECTRICITY.  

     47  NOW, LET US CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TO BE
OBTAINED FROM THIS BILL IN REAL TERMS.  FIRST, THE BILL DOES NOT SET
RECLAMATION STANDARDS FOR NON-COAL SURFACE MINES, BUT, ONLY
MANDATES A DEPARTMENTAL STUDY OF THIS AREA. CERTAINLY, THE COPPER,
IRON ORE, PHOSPHATE, URANIUM, AND OTHER NON-COAL MINING INDUSTRIES
HAVE BEEN IN EXISTENCE A SUFFICIENT PERIOD OF TIME TO DETERMINE IF
RECLAMATION STANDARDS ARE NECESSARY.  DURING THE 92ND CONGRESS WE
SAW THE FEDERAL SURFACE MINE BILL UNDERGO A MAJOR CHANGE FROM AN
"ALL MINERALS BILL" TO A "COAL ONLY".  BILL AFTER SIGNIFICANT LOBBYING
EFFORTS BY ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS, FARM ORGANIZATIONS AND NON-COAL
MINING ASSOCIATIONS.  WE CAN ONLY SPECULATE WHY CONGRESS DOES NOT
WANT TO EXTEND ENVIRONMENTAL SANCTIONS TO THE NON-COAL MINING
INDUSTRY.  

    47 A FURTHER DEFICIENCY IN OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION IN
THIS BILL IS THE LACK OF RECLAMATION STANDARDS FOR INDIAN LANDS.  IN
TITLE 7, SECTION 710, THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION ESTABLISHES ONLY A STUDY
AND FAILS TO ESTABLISH LONG TERM LEGISLATION TO REGULATE SURFACE
MINING ON INDIAN LANDS.  

     48  DO WE WANT TO MAINTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BY VIOLATING
THE U.S. CONSTITUTION?  THE BILL CURRENTLY UNDER CONSIDERATION DOES
JUST THIS.  IN TITLE 5, SECTION 522(E), THE BILL PROVIDES FOR NO
COMPENSATION TO THE OWNER OF MINERAL RIGHTS WHERE THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT OWNS THE SURFACE.  THIS IS A FORM OF REVERSE
CONDEMNATION AND A DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
GUARANTEE THAT NO CITIZEN SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF PROPERTY WITHOUT
JUST COMPENSATION AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 5 OF
OUR BILL OF RIGHTS.  AND SECTION 522 AND 601 DELVE FURTHER INTO THE
VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION THROUGH DEPRIVATION OF LAND AND
MINERAL RIGHTS BY ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES TO DESIGNATE AREAS
UNSUITABLE FOR COAL AND NON-COAL MINING ACTIVITIES WITHOUT
COMPENSATION TO THE OWNER THEREOF.  

    48 ANOTHER SERIOUS ERROR OF THE PROPOSED BILL IS THE CONFLICT OF THE
BILL ITSELF WITH THE FINDINGS OF CONGRESS STATED IN SECTION 101(E)
WHERE THE STATE IS GIVEN PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR SURFACE MINE
RECLAMATION.  AFTER SUCH FINDINGS, CONGRESS AND THIS COMMITTEE
PROCEED IN THE NEXT 175-180 PAGES TO COMPLETELY CIRCUMVENT THE
STATES AUTHORITY IN THESE AREAS AND LEAVE CONTROL FIRMLY WITH THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  BY THE ENACTMENT OF THIS CONFLICT WE ARE
FORCING THE DEVELOPMENT OF ANOTHER DUPLICATIVE FEDERAL
BUREAUCRACY.  THIS NEW BUREAUCRACY WOULD HAVE TO PERFORM THE
RECLAMATION DUTIES PRESENTLY BEING CARRIED OUT BY STATE
GOVERNMENTS AND THE FLOOWING FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES:  

     49     THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR  

    49 THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE  

    49 THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE  

    49 THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE  

    49 COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY  

    49 THE BUREAU OF MINES  

    49 THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY  

    49 THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY  

    49 THE CORP OF ENGINEERS  

    49 MINING ENFORCEMENT AND SAFETY ADMINISTRATION  

    49 DIVISION OF FORESTRY 

    49 DIVISION OF SOIL CONSRVATION  

    49 ONE MUST REALIZE THAT WHEN THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY PROMULGATES IN THE NEAR FUTURE THE NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS FOR SURFACE MINING AS REQUIRED BY PL 92-500 THAT THIS
PUBLICATION WILL EFFECTIVELY ABOLISH ANY NECESSITY FOR THIS BILL.  

    49 IN CONCLUSION, THE TIME AND NEED FOR THIS TY