February 8, 16, and 22, 1977 Hearing
|
|
Legislative History February 8, 16, and 22, 1977 Hearing |
| |
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1977
1 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT,
COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Washington, D.C.
1 The subcommittee met at 9:52 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 1324,
Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Morris K. Udall, chairman, presiding.
1 The CHAIRMAN. The Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment will be in
session. We have scheduled this morning witnesses on the bill, H.R. 2, an act
to provide for the cooperation between the Secretary of the Interior and the
States with respect to the reclamation of surface coal mine operations.
1 We are pleased to have as our leadoff witness this morning the
distinguished Secretary of the Interior, the Honorable Cecil Andrus. Mr.
Secretary, glad to have you back before this committee. We have your statement
which, without objection, will be made a part of the record at this point.
1 [Prepared statement of Hon. Cecil Andrus may be found at the end of his
testimony.]
1 The CHAIRMAN. We will be pleased to hear from you, sir.
STATEMENT OF CECIL D. ANDRUS, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
1 Secretary ANDRUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members
of the House Interior Committee. Before I get into my presentation of the
statement and supplying the necessary documents, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you
could tell me whether Mr. Burton of California will be with us this morning. If
not, for the record, I owe the man an apology. I would like to make it before
we start, Mr. Chairman.
1 The CHAIRMAN. Well, this is a hearing of the Energy and Environment
Subcommittee rather than the full committee. Mr. Burton is not a member of this
subcommittee.
1 Secretary ANDRUS. I would like to take about 60 seconds to point
1 The CHAIRMAN. Yes, you certainly may.
1 Secretary ANDRUS. I would like to take about 60 seconds to point out an
oversight on the part of myself. As you might know, and I think it would be of
interest to everyone, it is our intent within the Department of the Interior,
Mr. Chairman, to cut down some of the political appointees, particularly in
those little regional offices where they have been representatives of the
Secretary, level C, and so forth. There are 11 of those throughout America
authorized. There are eight of them full. We made the decision to cut that
back to three and eliminate some of those political positions. Protocol would
require, and common courtesy demands, that you contact the Congressmen of the
States in which these offices are located before you take any such action; and
somehow, by my staff, Mr. Burton was not contacted. Although I wasn't making
the phone calls, it is my responsibility. I wanted to publicly acknowledge that
I take the responsibility for that action.
2 I appologize. If I caught the Congressman unaware, it was my fault.
2 If I may proceed?
2 The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Burton will appreciate it. We will pass it on to him.
Since there were no offices closed in Arizona, we will let you continue with
your testimony. [Laughter.]
2 Secretary ANDRUS. Your neighboring State of New Mexico had one, Mr.
Chairman.
2 Again, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, the Department of the
Interior strongly endorses the enactment of comprehensive surface mining control
legislation. Your committee has worked on, and the Congress has passed, such
legislation during the past two Congresses. A Presidential signature on it is
long overdue and I am glad to see that you have personally placed it on the top
of your agenda for this session.
2 Drawing on your past efforts and expertise, this administration looks
forward to a new law under which an effective surface mining control program can
be carried out.
2 Increasing this Nation's ability to produce and use coal in order to
decrease our reliance on imported oil and scarce natural gas is essential. With
sound environmental safeguards, surface mining will be an acceptable way to
produce much of the coal that will be needed to meet this demand.
2 Fortunately, coal is abundant in this country. We can afford to be
particular about where and how we mine it, consistent with conservation of the
resource. We can afford to declare certain areas off limits to strip mining
because of other important resource values, and we can insist on ending the
abuses which historically have been associated with coal strip mining.
2 Prompt establishment of new ground rules for surface coal mining is
essential both for a sound environmental policy and a sound energy and economic
policy. Despite recent improvements in State and Federal programs, a uniform
approach, that is approved by the Congress, needs to be adopted to assure a high
level of environmental protection; to provide for sound management of our land
resources; to eliminate competitive economic pressures on States to lower their
reclamation standards; and to provide the coal industry with firm guides for its
future development.
2 If I may expand upon my prepared statement there, let me say that there
are many, many reputable, strong coal companies who really desire to have the
guidelines put forth prior to the time that they have to put the front-end money
into the development to know exactly what they are doing.I think we owe it to
them to come forth with strong guidelines so they will know the ground rules.
3 In reaffirming my support of this legislation, I would like particularly
to mention some of its fundamental components, which have been developed in the
last few years of debate and compromise on this legislation on the Hill.
3 First, that reclamation is required to fully restore strip-mined land to
at least its original productivity; second, that the burden is on the operator,
not on the Government or on the people to demonstrate affirmatively that
reclamation according to the law will be achieved; third, that certain areas
will be off limits to strip mining because of other important resource values,
preserving the option for society later to determine whether the coal is worth
the the sacrifices associated with mining by surface methods, fourth, that
citizens will have meaningful opportunities to participate in the implementation
of the law - through availability of information, hearings, and opportunities
for citizen suits; last, that abandoned, unreclaimed mines will be reclaimed
using money from production fees.
3 In approaching this legislation, I want to see a bill which will make for
an effective and efficient program without an undue burden on the economy. More
specifically, the following principles should govern, Mr. Chairman, in my
opinion.
3 No arbitrarily imposed losses of coal production should result from the
program.
3 It shoudl not result in significant unemployment.
3 No substantial consumer impacts should result.
3 It should assign responsibilities to State and Federal Governments
appropriately.
3 It should not adversely affect competition.
3 No unreasonable administrative burdens and governmental costs should be
imposed.
3 In general, I believe that the legislation before you meets these tests.
3 I hope that you will agree with me, however, that if we can improve the
bill, we should not be deterred from this by past history and, in any event,
several issues remain to be resolved.
3 How to protect the owners of surface interests in lands where the Federal
Government owns and might lease coal for surface mining is an issue of central
concern. Some recognition is certainly appropriate to protect the interests of
individuals who have, in many instances, created by their own labor a working
ranch or farm and who may be faced with serious losses if Federal leases are
issued.
3 Many hours of your time were spent in the last Congress trying to resolve
this difficult issue. The bill which finally passed conferred a right to
consent on a specified class of surface owners. To avoid large windfalls, it
also specified compensation which could be paid for consent. The concept of
this provision in the vetoed bill would appear to be preferable to an outright
prohibition in the splitownership situation. At this point, I can only suggest
that we remain open to reaching the most reasonable possible solution of the
problem and I will be ready to work with you to this end.
3 A second question is the protection of alluvial valley floors. I fully
support such protection. H.R. 2 clarifies the alluvial valley floor prohibition
in the vetoed bill and makes specific allowance for the continued operation of
approved mines already producing coal. These changes appear to be desirable to
me.
4 As I mentioned, a basic feature of H.R. 2 which I support is its
provisions for remedying the historical environmental neglect of lands already
mined and now abandoned. Some estimates are that 1 1/2 million acres of land
have been disturbed by all coal mining.
4 As you consider the bill's provisions for abandoned land reclamation, let
me urge you to focus on highest priority needs. A tremendous amount of
reclamation work must be done to repair the scars and correct the continuing
environmental harm from mines where responsibility for reclamation has ended and
we must assure that our limited resources will be used to produce the greatest
possible good.
4 Another issue of some concern is the assignment of responsibility for the
surface mining reclamation program on Federal lands between the States and the
Federal Government.
4 I favor accommodating arrangements worked out in the last year to permit
States to enforce the reclamation program on Federal lands. I would urge,
however, that you make these arrangements like other portions of State programs,
subject to review by the Secretary and approval by the Secretary, rather than
election by the States.
4 Other issues will also need resolution. The Department's legislative
report, which you have, addresses most of these specifically and I will be happy
to answer any questions that any of you may have. My staff will also work with
you in making whatever changes will improve the bill that can be approved by
this subcommittee and by the Department.
4 As we plan and undertake preparation for implementation of the program, we
will keep you fully advised and remain open to your advice.
4 Coal constitutes over 85 percent of our hydrocarbon energy reserves and
there can be no question that coal will provide a significant proportion of our
energy needs for years to come. But as coal production increases, the
environmental and land use problems it entails will also increase.
4 We just can't afford to permit historical mining practices to continue,
particularly since environmentally sound mining can meet the Nation's energy and
economic needs. The pollution of some 11,000 miles of streams by acid mine
drainage, extensive siluation, the loss of forest and agricultural lands from
productive capacity, the destruction of wildlife habitat, burning mine waste
dumps, and health and safety hazards must all be controlled. Major impacts on
land use and water resources are associated with many surface mines and these
must be dealt with carefully.
4 The framework provided by H.R. 2 to deal with surface coal mining
reclamation is sound. I want to work with you to make needed improvements
expeditiously and produce a bill for President Carter to sign. I assure you
that the administration is committed to helping you pass such legislation and to
careful administration of the program the legislation provides.
4 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have the legislative report available to
you. I would be happy to respond to any questions.
5 The CHAIRMAN. Well, the legislative report is more comprehensive and is
excellent. We have already made it a part of our hearing record. I am sure the
members will want to refer to it.
5 [The legislative report referred to may be found at the conclusion of Mr.
Andrus' oral testimony.]
5 The CHAIRMAN. I just wanted to say that a good part of the last 4 years
of my life went into this effort to get sensible strip mining legislation. I
never really felt the impact of the election of last November until this morning
when I see the official representative of the administration here telling us
that it is a good bill, we need it, and offering to help us.
5 The whole story of the last 4 years was of administration attempts to
sabotage the bill by offering mischievous amendments, espousing misleading
production and employment figures, and all of the rest. I don't want to sound
too partisan, although I confess I am on this issue.
5 I just want to thank you for what I think is a sensible statement and to
tell you we will work very closely with you in the weeks ahead in moving this
bill forward.
5 The Secretary has a tight schedule this morning. I told him I would try
to get him out as soon as possible. I don't want to unduly restrict the
questioning. I won't call on each member but I will ask if there are questions
here on my left on the majority side.
5 Mr. Tsongas?
5 Mr. TSONGAS. Just a comment. I sat here when your predecessor, once
removed, indicated that although he supported the concept, he could not support
a strip mining bill. That was 2 years ago and was one of the most sorry
spectacles from a man who was compelled to give testimony that he must, deep
inside, have disagreed with violently. It is a pleasure to see you here. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
5 Mr. SKUBITZ. Mr. Chairman?
5 The CHAIRMAN. Yes, Mr. Skubitz?
5 Mr. SKUBITZ. I didn't want to let the remarks of Mr. Tsongas and your
remarks go without saying one thing. If you intend to make this a political
issue, let's get it out on the table right now. Personally, I think there
should be honest differences of opinion regarding what is a good strip mining
bill without accusing one party or the other of playing politics with this
legislation. I resent the type of statement that both of you are making.
5 The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's views are on the record. Mr. Bauman, do
you want to get involved in this nonpartisan friendly exchange?
5 Mr. SKUBITZ. To make the record clear, we didn't bring the subject up.
5 Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Chairman, I had occasion to have dinner with the former
Secretary of the Interior only two or three evenings ago. He reiterated his
opposition to the strip mining bill to me privately. If you want to have him in
to testify publicly, I never knew Rod Morton to say anything publicly he didn't
believe. I would like the record to show that in response to the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
5 I do have a question for the Secretary.
6 Mr. Secretary, you have been in office a very short time. You brought
to us this morning the official departmental recommendations for some
modifications in this bill.
6 Hopefully, since we are going to have a strip mining bill - and I think
that is a foregone conclusion - it will be in a form that will take cognizance
of the fact that we have now in this country an even more acute energy problem
than we had when this bill was first recommended. You yourself, I believe in
your statement this morning, drew attention to the reserves of coal and to the
need to replace oil and gas with coal production. So, the fundamental question
becomes the balance between the desire to preserve and protect our environment
and the need to produce more coal.
6 As you know, the previous administration referred to the loss of 36,000
jobs and number of hundreds of tons of coal to be lost, and so on.
6 As a result of that, a study was ordered by the Council on Environmental
Quality and the Environmental Protection Agency which was contracted out by the
Federal Government to this firm called ICF.
6 Now, I would like to ask you whether or not this report was used in
determining your suggestions and your support for this bill, whether it played a
part in your determinations of support for this bill?
6 Secretary ANDRUS. Mr. Chairman, Congressmen, no, sir. I testified
yesterday on the Senate side. I heard the comments with reference to this ICF
report. I have not personally seen that report.There was a question as to
calendar dates of preliminary reports from it that were somewhat confusing. I
do not know whether staff and Interior have these reports.
6 I suspect that they have. I was told that they were made available to
some people over the weekend; and my testimony was prepared and presented to you
prior to that time. I did not use them in the preparation of this. If I might
say, Mr. Chairman, and to the Congressman, I think his point is well taken.In my
testimony, I pointed out that any improvements that can be made should be made,
sir.
6 There is no way I can win the battle of the argument as to the history of
the bill. What I am here for this morning is to attempt to go forward from this
date to achieve a bill; and if I find myself bogged down in the arguments about
what could have been or should have been, I am going to lose the battle before I
start.
6 I am going to try to go forward with it.
6 Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Secretary, the reason I pose my question is because of my
interest in what might be, not what has been. I am interested in what might be
as a result of this legislation. I would like to ask you to provide for us at
some future date an explanation of why this report - perhaps your explanation
may be that it wasn't in your purview - this report by ICF, that was supposed to
be the definitive study on the loss of coal production and the loss to consumers
if this bill was passed, was in fact substantially altered between the original
version, January 24, which was issued by this contractor for the Government, and
February 1, to the point where tables were divided by two as to show loss
production in the alluvial valley floor areas, for instance. It seems to me
if this was to be the definitive report, before we can intelligently make a
decision on this bill and its amendments, we ought to know whether or not we are
going to suffer substantial losses; and if not, we should know that also.
7 I would ask you to - if your staff or you can provide us with a full
explanation of why this report was so substantially changed that was supposed to
be the Government's last word on lost production.
7 Secretary ANDRUS. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, I will comply with your
request. Permit me to make one point if I might here. Any time that you
contract out for studies - and I think all of us at some point in our political
and professional lives have been involved in it - that it is a constant
massaging of the information before they get to the end result; but that the
contract with he firm that is responsible, their reputation is on the line on
the final document that carries the signature of the officer of that company,
and that that is the one that normally we all look at.
7 I don't think it is anything new to see figures changed; but I can't
debate the issue because I haven't compared the two documents. I will, and we
will respond to you.
7 [The information requested may be found at the conclusion of Mr. Andrus'
oral testimony.]
7 Mr. BAUMAN. You do understand the concern we have? If the original
figures are correct, they do go a large way to proving some of the statements
made by the previous administration; and that ought to affect the concerns that
your Department and this committee have about what this is going to do to our
overall energy picture. That, of course, has been the fundamental issue in all
of the debate for years.
7 Mr. SKUBITZ. Will the gentleman yield?
7 The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized on his own time.
7 Mr. SKUBITZ. Mr. Secretary, you have just stated that there has been a
constant massaging until the final reports are submitted. Don't you think it is
rather odd that the production figures themselves in this report have been
reduced one-half? Isn't that going just a little bit too far in this massaging
period?
7 Secretary ANDRUS. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, my point was not
specifically to the report referred to by Mr. Bauman. I haven't seen those two
documents. I was using as an example the constant study. I can't say that that
took place in this one, but I would suspect you have it in your hand and I am
about to be enlightened.
7 Mr. SKUBITZ. I am not going to question you on it, Mr. Secretary. I just
use the term that you used. While you are making your study, may I call your
attention to page 13 in both executive summaries where there is a difference in
production loss in 1977 - where one of them shows 17 million tons, the other 35
million tons; this is concerning the alluvial valley floor production impact,
1978, the worst case shows, 51 million tons; the revised report shows 25 million
tons.
7 And so on and so forth. Everything has just been cut in half. I think
this is a matter that the Secretary should study very carefully before he comes
up here. I hope that our chairman will have you up here once again before the
markup of this bill at which time you should be thoroughly familiar with all of
the provisions of this bill and can properly address them. I can't believe, Mr.
Secretary, that in this short time you have been able to master all of the
controversial provisions contained in this bill.
8 The CHAIRMAN. He is pretty quick.
8 Mr. SKUBITZ. Can we assume that you are thoroughly familiar with every
provision of the bill and are you ready to testify at this moment to questions?
8 Secretary ANDRUS. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, no, I don't sit before you
this morning saying I know -
8 Mr. SKUBITZ. I wouldn't think so, Mr. Secretary.
8 Secretary ANDRUS. No, sir.
8 Mr. SKUBITZ. I am going to ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to submit
to the Secretary a comprehensive list of questions dealing with various
provisions of this bill. I am hopeful he will answer them as honestly and
candidly in his report to us as he did the other day when he testified before us
and is doing so today.
8 The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Kansas and any other
member of the subcommittee will have the right to submit questions to the
Secretary on this specific issue.
8 Mr. SKUBITZ. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
8 The Chairman. Let me say two things in the interest of harmony if I can.
This whole thing has been a numbers game all along. The figures you are talking
about depend upon assumptions. The last administration assumed that no
steep-slope mining could be carried on under the bill if it were passed. If
mountain slopes were over 20 degrees, all mining on such slopes would come to a
grinding halt. We assume that mine operators in all States can do as Governor
Shapp stated they do in Pennsylvania: mine on steep slopes. The administration
always took the worst assumption that all mining on alluvial deposits in Wyoming
would come to a grinding halt. We assume alluvial floor subsection provisions
would be interpreted sensibly and most of the coal in Wyoming would be available
to strip mining.
8 It is simply an assumption. It isn't a question of someone being able to
find the right figures up in the sky and having all the truth that we can agree
on. We didn't agree on these figures last year and probably won't this year.
8 I cast no aspersion on any member of this committee. As I said the other
day, the good thing about service on this committee is we have been pretty much
a nonpartisan committee. There were people on your side, including the
gentleman from Kansas himself who put in amendments from time to time as far as
the surface mining bill. There were people on our side of the aisle against
this thing from the very beginning and they did all they could do to defeat it.
I am trying to express my relief at having an administration which wanted a
bill and would help us get one as against an administration that I assume
consciously and conscientiously made up its mind they didn't want one.
8 Mr. RONCALIO?
8 Mr. RONCALIO.Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Have a good day on the Hill, Mr.
Secretary. I have no questions for you today. We are hoping we can reduce this
178-page bill that was about 230 pages last time down to 128 pages. That will
reduce some of the verbosity.We are always interested in the possibility of
reducing the tyranny of words and abundance of verbiage that makes our work so
difficult.
9 I would like to call your attention to title VI and impress upon you,
Mr. Secretary, its great value to you. It gives you the authority to designate
areas as unsuitable for any or all types of mining operations. For example, if
it should come to your attention that there are claims upon limestone desposits
within 1 mile of beautiful little towns like Story, Wyo., nestled in the
foothills of the Bighorns, and there is limestone elsewhere in the forest that
can also serve the need for limestone for scrubbers, you can designate such an
area unsuitable for mining, subject to valid existing rights. That gives you
some good sense legislation that I hope you will use.
9 Second, we hope to amend the language so that we can continue with the
cooperative agreements which are so excellent, and which allow a State that has
a State law which has equal or more stringent requirements for reclamation to do
the administering on Federal lands with a one-shot type that you don't have to
do more than go by once a year to see that the program is working
satisfactorily. I again admonish you, Mr. Secretary, please protect the surface
owners' consent that there be no rancher run off the land because somebody got a
lease in their hand and the country needs the coal and he is denied his title in
fee simply to the property he owns when nobody gives anybody the right to
disrupt the surface and drop it 80 feet without his written consent.
9 That is about all I have to say.
9 Thank you very much.
9 The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana was here early this morning.
Mr. Huckaby?
9 Mr. HUCKABY. Mr. Secretary, what is your estimate of the percent of our
normal reserves that would be off limits, analytically speaking?
9 Secretary ANDRUS. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, with reference to the
alluvial valley floors, about 3 percent where you are talking about being off
limits with that protection is the figure that has been used. I have accepted
it as a basis of fact; and the point would be that if the prohibition against
new mining on alluvial valley floors goes into being, that is about 3 percent of
the total reserve that is available. You still have available to you the other
97 percent where you can make the decision and then future generations may want
to come back and make the determination that we have not been willing to make
today. That is what I meant in my testimony when I said that they can then
compare the sacrifices against the proposed technology that is available at that
time and make their own determination.
9 We would not, in our opinion at the Department, lose any production
because of it, because we protect this - this bill would protect the existing
operations; but the prohibition would simply say you can't mine here, but you
can mine over here, so that total production should be available.
10 Mr. HUCKABY. All right.
10 Thank you.
10 The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Seiberling?
10 Mr. SEIBERLING. Thank you.
10 Mr. Secretary, you cannot imagine how your words are music to the ears of
some of us who sweated out the long years of trying to get a bill; and while I
don't wish to cast any political aspersions, I would like to make one
observation.
10 President Ford twice vetoed a bill comparable to this one. If he had
come to the State of Ohio before the election campaign last year and looked at
the strip mining devastation in our State - and I can remember it has been going
on ever since I was a teenager - I think he might have had a different feel for
this problem; and I think he might have not vetoed the bill. If he had not
vetoed the bill, he might well have carried the State of Ohio because the people
in our State are bitter because after fighting the reclamation - so-called
Reclamation Association, which is the strip miners' association for years to get
a good strong bill, which is comparable to this bill, we have not been able to
enforce it effectively because of the fact that we are competing with States
like West Virginia and Kentucky which have a weaker bill, and, therefore, the
coal mining industry has said, "We simply can't compete if you impose all the
conditions of this bill."
10 The people of our State are bitter about that fact; and I really think
that if President Ford had not vetoed that bill, he might well have carried the
State, which a shift of 6,000 votes would have given the State of Ohio to
President Ford and presently changed the results of the last election.
10 Maybe that is at least one good result, from my viewpoint, in what was an
unfortunate situation as far as strip mining was concerned. I really think that
he might well, if he had understood the problem of seeing what was happening to
our State and others, had a different feel for this problem.
10 Secretary Morton himself sat here and denied the allegations that were
made by Mr. Zarb and others as to the amount of unemployment and loss of
production that would be caused by this bill. In fact, Secretary Morton said
this bill would produce a net gain in employment.
10 Now, with that in mind, I would like to ask you a question: part of the
debate over the last several years on this bill and other bills like it has
given rise to a reasonable question as to the integrity in the past of the
Interior Department's data-gathering procedures and to its conclusions. In
fact, I think we had a pretty strong feeling that - and we conducted a special
hearing on this subject - that some of the data generated by the Bureau of Mines
indicated a strong politicalization of what should have been an objective
data-gathering system. Now, I would like to ask you, now that you are putting
together a new structure in your Department, if you would explore fully the
procedures used in gathering coal reserve and resource data and the methods used
to analyze the production impacts of this legislation, because it seem to me
that this is an essential step not only in putting together a bill, because by
now I think the committee has pretty good data that we have collected - but in
putting together a policy for coal mining and - as well as for strip mining
reclamation.
11 Now, there are some features of this bill that I would like to call
your attention to which I think you might want to give some careful thought to.
11 Title IV of the bill covers the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund; and we
have provided for reclamation fees of 15 cents per ton on all deep-mined coal
and 30 cents a ton on all strip-mined coal which according to our estimates
would result in an average of about 25 cents per ton on all coal.
11 I have had some recent calculations submitted to me based on Bureau of
Mines estimates as to the costs of reclamining all of the abandoned coal land
and collecting deep-mine subsidence problems and acid mine drainage and so forth
that indicates the total cost at today's dollars would be $25.31 billion.
11 Now, the fee would produce at the current rate of production of coal of
640 million tons a year about a net of $8 6.4 million a year for reclamation.
If you divide 86,400 into 25.31 billion, you find that at the current rate of
production of coal, and the current fee in this bill, it would take 294 years to
complete all of the reclamation that the Bureau of Mines estimates needs to be
done.
11 Of course, coal production we expect is going to increase very
substantially in the years to come; but I would appreciate it if you would give
some consideration to whether we ought not to increase the fee so that at least
maybe we would produce an average of 50 cents a ton instead of 25 cents a ton
for reclamation of the hundreds of thousands of acres of land and the thousands
of miles of rivers and streams that have been ruined by strip mining practices
in the past.
11 I would just like to ask a couple of other questions if I may.
11 The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is trying to stay close to some kind of 5-minute
rule. The gentleman has had about 7.
11 Mr. SEIBERLING. I will yield.
11 The CHAIRMAN. We are submitting written questions if the gentleman would
yield.
11 Mr. SEIBERLING. Are we going to have a second go-around possibly?
11 The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
11 Mr. SKUBITZ. Mr. Chairman?
11 The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas?
11 Mr. SKUBITZ. I ask unanimous consent to ask the gentleman from Ohio one
question at this point.
11 The CHAIRMAN. Well, the Chair will recognize Mr. Marriott and ask him to
yield to the gentleman from Kansas for that purpose.
11 Mr. MARRIOTT.I yield.
11 Mr. SKUBITZ. Mr. Seiberling, time and again I have heard you make the
statement in this committee that Mr. Morton changed his position.
11 Mr. SEIBERLING. He didn't change his position. He reiterated his
previous position.
11 Mr. SKUBITZ. Then, I would ask you - I thought you said that he changed
his position. I believe that is a matter of record now.
12 I would ask unanimous consent that Mr. Seiberling be given an
opportunity to place Mr. Morton's official statement in the record because I
presume he knows exactly where it is in the old one.
12 Mr. SEIBERLING.Well, if the gentleman would yield?
12 Mr. SKUBITZ. Yes.
12 Mr. SEIBERLING. The statement is already in the record. Mr. Morton
stated in our hearing -
12 Mr. SKUBITZ. Mr. Chairman, if he did state such then let's put it in the
record and let the record speak for itself.
12 The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will find the testimony of Mr. Morton and we
will place a reference to it in the file.
12 [Transcript of document referred to above may be found in the committee
files.]
12 Mr. SEIBERLING. If the gentleman would yield? Since he stated what I
stated, I would like to state what I stated.
12 The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Utah will yield to you for that
purpose.
12 Mr. SEIBERLING.Mr. Morton testified in a hearing before this committee
several years ago before the second veto of the strip mining bill that the bill
would produce a net increase in employment. In the veto message, the President
said that it would produce a decrease in employment; and so we hailed Mr. Morton
and Mr. Zarb who advised the President before this committee in a special
hearing. Mr. Morton reiterated his position. So, he didn't change it.
12 The CHAIRMAN. I think Mr. Skubitz' point is that the record itself would
be the best evidence of what Mr. Morton said and not my version or your version
or anyone else's recollection of what he said. We will put that reference into
the record.
12 Mr. SKUBITZ. My recollection is not the same as Mr. Seiberling's. Let's
let the record speak for itself for the benefit of the new members.
12 The CHAIRMAN. My recollection is the same, too, but I don't think it
helps us write a bill to overhaul what was said in the past.
12 Any further questions? You have a little time left.
12 Mr. MARRIOTT. How much time do I have left.
12 The CHAIRMAN. About 3 minutes.
12 Mr. MARRIOTT. Mr. Secretary, you stated last time you were here, as I
recall, that you were in favor of H.R. 2. Today I thought I heard you say you
were in favor of a strip mining bill. Do I misinterpret this that you may not
be in favor of H.R. 2 or is it just other legislation in that hearing?
12 Secretary ANDRUS. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, no.
12 My position and the Department of the Interior's position is that we
favor H.R. 2. We ask that we keep an open mind for any amendments that would
improve the bill; but we urge expeditious handling of it so that the bill can be
passed; but if I am put in a position, Mr. Chairman, of saying do I favor it,
yes; but I would like to offer those suggestions I had in my statement.
12 Mr. MARRIOTT. Also, you indicated that you had not read the ICF report
which had been substantially amended and cost about $2 00,000, as I recall, to
put that study out. What information between and data have you relied on to
this point in formulating your approval or acceptance of H.R. 2?
13 Secretary ANDRUS. Mr. Chairman, the ICF report has been mentioned. I
believe the draft copies were available this weekend. I, frankly, haven't had
the time to go into them; but the records at the Department of Interior, the
past hearing records that were held on this subject matter in prior years have
been utilized. The discussions between myself and the President of the United
States with reference to this legislation has brought us to the position that we
are in.
13 I have had endless hours of discussion with staff persons; but I think
also in all fairness, if memory serves me, the ICF report was not budgeted by
the Department of the Interior.
13 I believe that is an EPA and FEA report that has really - it will come to
us in hopefully a final form that we can then rely with reference to this
legislation have brought us to the position that I submit to you today.
13 Mr. MARRIOTT. One other question, if I may.
13 That is, it appears to me that what is necessary is not a lot of splinter
programs, but a long-term national energy policy. Would it not be a good idea,
Mr. Secretary, to table this so-called H.R. 2 bill temporarily until we can put
together - working together - a long-term policy that would have some meaning
and some guts, if you will?
13 Secretary ANDRUS. Mr. Chairman, no, sir.
13 I do not concur with that statement. I think that we must move ahead
now. This Nation has to look to coal as a source of energy to end the
dependence of this Nation on energy sources from outside of America; and coal is
the largest resource that we have easily available to us to bring about an end
to this dependency.
13 I would hope that this committee would not move to table this
legislation, because there are many, many coal companies in America that are
capable of extracting this energy from the earth in a manner that is
environmentally sound; but they want to know that they have national guidelines
so that they will not be put at a competitive disadvantage with another coal
company that might be operating in another State.
13 I think that your hearings will show, as they proceed, that there are
many private industry entities that are willing to move ahead, but they want to
know what the ground rules are going to be. I would hope, sir, you would not
move to table this bill, that you would proceed to amend it, if you will, to
improve it; but that you would go for early passage.
13 The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions of the Secretary?
13 Mr. SYMMS. Mr. Chairman.
13 The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. Symms.
13 Mr. SYMMS. I hate to come in late and ask a question. I apologize for
not being here although our Forestry Committee on Agriculture is meeting on this
double tractor we ride. It is very important in my district also. I just
wanted to ask the Secretary one question about something that you said Sunday -
and I agreed with what you said right here about the necessity for us to develop
coal.
13 I am somewhat concerned about anything that might discriminate against
any group of people who might be able to have the technology and the expertise
to go out and develop coal. Do you have any immediate plans for blocking oil
companies from getting into the business of developing coal? Or did I
misunderstand what you said Sunday?
14 Secretary ANDRUS.No.
14 Mr. Chairman, in response to the Congressman's questions, you say do I
have any immediate plans? No, sir.
14 In response to a question on a question and answer situation, my concern
was that - let me back up and see if I can articulate it more briefly.
14 I was asked a question about large oil companies getting into the coal
business. My response was that I did not want to see us create in America large
energy companies so that we would be faced with the same monopolistic approach
that sometimes gets us in trouble with the OPEC nations so we would, in turn, be
dealing with the same power brokers, if you will, but that their national
citizenship is the United States of America instead of some other country.
14 I don't believe that one company should control all of the energy so that
you have an energy company that then has control of the pricing.
14 Mr. SYMMS. You want to be very careful, I would assume, though, in
anything that would discriminate against people who had the engineers, the
technology, the capital, the wherewithal to develop the coal mines in this
country? That was my concern.
14 Secretary ANDRUS. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, I would have to say in
response to the first part of your question, you said immediate concerns. No,
sir.
14 Obviously in 2 weeks, Congressman, I have been busy trying to formulate
this policy not looking ahead to the others. I would prefer to defer that. I
don't quarrel with what you are saying about the ability to have the technical
expertise.
14 Mr. SYMMS. I see.
14 Secretary ANDRUS. I will stick by my guns that I don't think in my
opinion that it is wise to have company XYZ control the oil, the gas, the coal,
and everything else.
14 Mr. TSONGAS. Would the gentleman yield?
14 Mr. SYMMS.Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield.
14 Mr. TSONGAS. Mr. Secretary, I strongly support your statement about
going to coal as an end resource.
14 I hope as we do that, as we burn more massive amounts of coal, that we
study the impact on the environment, on health, the so-called hot house effect
of that burning as we proceed down the road. the CHAIRMAN. All right.
14 Mr. Bauman wanted seconds and so did Mr. Seiberling.
14 All right. Mr. Rahall? Mr. Murphy?
14 Mr. Murphy was here first.
14 Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
14 I want to say, Mr. Secretary, I am sure that the words I say will be more
fully explained by my good Governor Shapp who is here this morning and
previously talked to you.
14 I went through the same frustrations as my good Chairman, Mr. Udall, in
1958, 1959, and 1960, 1961 in Pennsylvania, as a proponent of Pennsylvania's
strip mine law. I am sure Governor Shapp will say the same to you. During
those periods of frustration, we had demonstrations at our State capital. We
were accused of attempting to close all strip mining in Pennsylvania. We were
going to strave women and children. It was a long, hard battle.
15 I want to say it was a bipartisan battle. We had a great deal of
opposition. We have an excellent strip mine law in content. We have an
excellent enforcement of that, Mr. Guckert and Mr. Heine are here this morning.
15 A credit to a previous Republican Governor who supported the program and
signed it, and a credit to Governor Shapp who kept the same people on who were
doing a tremendous enforcement job.
15 In Pennsylvania, we have a good program; it was a bipartisan program. It
has been a great asset to our State. It did not greatly affect the cost of coal
production, but it did affect it some. It added some cost to the consumer; but
at the same time, we were taking not millions but hundreds of millions of tax
dollars in the way of a huge bond issue and reclaiming land that had been
desecrated before there was strip mining controls.
15 I say to my colleagues who are concerned about the small added cost of
production, John Seiberling indicated it is going to be in the matter of cents
not dollars, that it is far better that we add a few cents a ton onto the cost
of production today than hundreds of millions of dollars thrust onto taxpayers
of the future the way we have had to reclaim our land in Pennsylvania.
15 We are just about caught up; and we hope that the rest of the United
States joins us. We are put at an unfair competitive advantage in our strip
mined coal; but we are producing more stripmined coal in Pennsylvania today than
we were in 1958 and 1959 when I sponsored the first bill.
15 With my speech over, Mr. Secretary, I just want to ask: You made one
comment, and you said that it would be subject to the review of your Department
rather than the delegation of the enforcement. Now, I think we in Pennsylvania
are quite concerned on two aspects. We have some good strip miners in
Pennsylvania; and we have a good law enforcement bureau. To thrust additional
unnecessary cost, not only on the coal mining industry - and we have more small
operators, incidentally, than the biggest - and to thrust additional cost and
effort and energy onto an already overloaded enforcement arm we are very much
concerned with your attitude, as well as the provisions of how you will treat a
State like Pennsylvania.
15 Secretary ANDRUS. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, first, let me say that you
said with some levity that now that the speech is over. I think Pennsylvania
has a right to be proud. I am learning that you were the author of that
legislation that puts Pennsylvania in the forefront, admittedly, of other States
with reference to strip mining legislation. So I think that the accolades are
due everyone involved in that.
15 I wish that all States could make the same speech. I would not be here
before your committee testifying this morning.
15 But, no, my past experience - I come from State government, as I think
was pointed out the other day, a former Governor. I would prefer to have the
States be the controlling authority if they all have a bill like Pennsylvania;
and it would be my intent to have the Department look at that. The reason that
I asked that we be in a position of entering into a contract instead of a
blanket request from the State is the fact that all States do not have the same
legislation that Pennsylvania has the benefit of.
16 So. therefore, I think that the Department should have the opportunity
to look at those, enter into an agreement where we could specify maybe one
area that we felt happened to be lax.
16 Using Pennsylvania as an example, I would suspect we are not going to
hire a bunch of Federal employees and go up there and look over the shoulder of
your people who are doing a good job.We will supply any technical expertise that
you might find necessary or would request from us, but I don't want to be in the
police force business any more than we absolutely have to.
16 I would suspect that the other thing would be true: We would be drawing
upon the experience and the expertise of Pennsylvania. I would like to enter
into a contract with the States. We all want the same thing as long as the
State is doing it, I would prefer to have the State do it. I wouldn't get in
the way and direct traffic.
16 Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
16 Mr. TSONGAS. [Presiding].Mr. Rahall?
16 Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
16 Mr. Secretary, like my colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murphy, I have
concerns about the creation of a Federal bureaucracy superimposed upon our State
bureaucracy. In defense of my home State of West Virginia, we were one of the
first States to enact a reclamation law in 1939. In recent years we have been
pretty good about enforcement of laws on the books.
16 There are many concerns I have with H.R. 2, many questions I have which I
will submit to you in writing because they are detailed questions. Many of the
concerns are about the small operators that my colleague, Mr. Murphy, mentioned,
the costs that the small operator has to bear under H.R. 2.
16 There are terracing provisions in H.R. 2 for which I feel that West
Virginia law is more reasonable.There are other concerns I have with this bill.
16 I am glad to hear your statement about the state of coal. You would
rather have the authority placed with the States. These are provisions I will
address in writing to you.
16 I would also like to extend to you the invitation I extended to this
committee, which this committee has accepted. To tour strip mine sites in West
Virginia to see firsthand the progress that our State has made in reclamation.
16 While the sites and dates have not been determined, and I know you have
toured Kentucky over the weekend, I would still like to extend the invitation to
you. I look forward to your responses in writing to my questions.
16 Secretary ANDRUS. Thank you, sir.
16 Mr. RAHALL.Thank you.
16 Mr. TSONGAS. I recognize the gentleman from Maryland, who may yield.
16 Mr. BAUMAN. I yield.
16 Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you.
17 Mr. Secretary, I came in late. Of course, I think I was familiar
with your views from what you said the other day and from what you said, I won't
ask you any questions. I think you made yourself very clear. I would like to
make this very brief statement. We have just gotten through recognizing that
this Nation is in a severe fuel crisis, especially in the area of natural gas.
17 It is also true in the area of oil. We have been in that crisis because
people in the Congress of the United States felt that it was not proper for
either the free enterprise system or for the States to take charge of these
areas, but to get the Federal Government involved so that we can make everything
better.
17 I sit here and quiver as I see that now we have learned absolutely
nothing from the experience of the past and we say, "Well, here is another area
that we are not adequately regulating, coal. Let's let the Federal Government
get in and mess up that system, too."
17 I was very impressed by your comments the other day and by your desire,
as you expressed it again today, to rely heavily upon the States, and I just
hope that as amendments come up to H.R. 2, as I am sure they will, that you will
look at them with that same light that the more we can get the Federal
Government out of the business of messing up energy production, the better off
we are all going to be.
17 Thank you.
17 Mr. TSONGAS.Mr. Bauman?
17 Mr. BAUMAN.Mr. Secretary, the gentlemen from Utah, Mr. Marriott, touched
upon this. Perhaps he used too strong a suggestion, saying that the bill should
be tabled. Quite obviously, the Carter energy package, aside from the sweaters
involved, really hasn't been presented to the United States; and in April, we
are told that this will come down as a comprehensive package. There isn't any
way physically that you could possibly consider the relationship of this
legislation to nuclear legislation, natural gas deregulation, synthetic fuels,
coal degasification, and so on.
17 Yet, you have told us that we should move ahead. Would it be too much to
ask that you might at least agree to delaying final action on this bill until we
do have a Carter energy package in which this most abundant resource has to play
one of the most important parts. Otherwise, we are likely to get ahead of
ourselves and indeed have to back up.
17 Secretary ANDRUS. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, it would appear to me that
H.R. 2 and the discussion we are having here this morning on the regulation for
strip mining coal deals with where and how you extract it more than the volume
that you extract, an established Btu need.
17 I honestly believe that the regulatory decisions as to how it is
extracted and where it is extracted geographically can be answered without an
overall energy policy as to how many Btu's you are going to need and what volume
you rely on coal.
17 I respectfully disagree that we must wait until we get the energy
package. If we waited - and I would not want to put the burden on Congress any
more than the executive branch of the government - but sometimes those move from
the thought process to the final Presidential signature over a long, long period
of time.
18 I hope we can move ahead with the extraction of coal in the interim so
our coal companies can continue to produce, our people can be employed, the
marketplace can experience the excitement of the revenue that comes from it
without waiting for an overall energy policy.
18 Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Secretary, I don't think the excitement by the people
shivering in their homes or put out of work is going to be greater than
increasing revenues or the passage of this one bill.The reason I brought up this
$2 00,000 report earlier is that even though it does not place any imprimatur on
the previous administration's figures, it proves, or at least attempts to prove,
hundreds of millions of coal production annually will be lost.
18 It seems to me when you ask two of our major environmental agencies to
assess the impact of the bill and they come back with their independent
contractor, albeit there is a question about the form of their summary, and say
this:
18 It might be well for you to consider the overall picture and this report
despite what it may do and the good intentions expressed.
18 Mr. TSONGAS. Mr. Seiberling?
18 Mr. SEIBERLING. Thank you.
18 Mr. Secretary, section 710 of H.R. 2 provides for a study of the
deregulation of surface mining on Indian land, but provides only minimal
protection of those lands during the study period.
18 I have been told there is some indication that the tribes affected by
this legislation may request the Congress to amend this section so as to treat
Indians basically the same as States are treated, provided, of course, that
adequate Federal funding would be forthcoming to assist the tribes in developing
their regulatory programs.
18 Section 505(a) and (b) of the legislation clarifies that States may apply
more stringent standards than are contained in the legislation; so that if
tribal lands were treated as States, presumably they would also be protected by
section 505. I am not going to ask you what your view of these two sections and
how they would interrelate would be with respect to Indian lands at the present
time, but I would draw your attention to that and suggest that that is one area
that you might want to give us some recommendations; but I also would suggest
caution, because I think we probably spend more time wrangling over how to
handle the Indian lands problem under this bill than almost any other section of
the bill.
18 It is not an easy question - and I would be very reluctant to upset the
balance that we finally arrived at in order to resolve the problem here - but
there is an enormous amount of coal on Indian lands. I think if we can come to
grips with that, we ought to try at an early time.
18 Another section I would like to invite your attention to is the socalled
Alaska loophole, which is section 708, which provides for a study of Alaskan
surface coal mining problems for up to 3 years after enactment of the bill
during which time the full force of the bill would not be in effect on Alaskan
coal lands.
18 Of course, Alaska has unique soil and climatic characteristics which make
it a much more fragile ecosystem than a lot of the land in the lower 48; and I
suggest that this might deserve a special study by the Interior Department and,
perhaps, an amendment to the bill providing that in the meantime the bill will
apply to Alaska lands the same as to other lands.
18 We need to protect those lands, if anything, more carefully rather than
less carefully. At the same time, we don't want to prevent mining of coal to
the extent it is essential to serve domestic needs in Alaska.
18 I would bring that to your attention. I would like to say on the
suggestion that this bill be delayed until an energy policy is worked out, I
think there's considerable evidence that the mining of coal - and particularly
the investment in new mines - has been set back due to the fact that for over 4
years now the Congress has been laboring to bring forth a strip mining bill, and
the industry still doesn't know what the rules of the game are going to be.
18 There is an old saying that money flees uncertainty.
18 I think we owe it to the mining industry and the people living in the
mining areas to move ahead with this bill. If when an energy policy is
developed in more detail, we find that there are some features that need to be
amended, I am sure that we can do that; but on the theory that was advanced by
the gentleman from Maryland, it seems to me that we would never have passed the
Coal Mine Safety Act, and a whole lot of other legislation that affects our
economy on the grounds that we haven't finally figured out how to handle the
problems of the future.
18 There is an enormous amount of coal available. We heard the gentleman
from Pennsylvania point out that mining production in his State has actually
gone up since the Pennsylvania law was enacted - which is a law comparable to
this one - and it does seem to me that those are two entirely separate problems.
18 Secretary ANDRUS. Thank you.
18 Mr. Chairman, although that was a statement, may I respond to your
reference to section 701, Congressman?
18 Mr. SEIBERLING. Certainly.
18 Secretary ANDRUS. We in the Department of the Interior are very
concerned about this, for many of the reasons that I am sure this committee is
concerned about it, as to what happens to those lands. There is other
legislation in the Congress that gives a year later date, I believe H.R. 2 is
1978, and another piece of legislation is 1979. My concern in the delay is that
there's a lot of damage that could take place if the controls were not in place
at the same time on all the lands.
18 There are pressures that could be brought about to accelerate some mining
on Indian lands that may not be handled in proper manner as they might be on the
lands controlled by this act.
18 In the Department of the Interior, we do not object to treating the
Indian Nations as a State with regards to their lands. We would like to be in a
position to help them provide that nation with the expertise to bring about
their program on the same line that Mr. Murphy from Pennsylvania mentioned we
would treat the States.
18 We have no objection. But there is a danger that if you have a different
calendar date in that bill, that there will be some abuse take place.
20 Mr. SEIBERLING. I couldn't agree with you more. You have stated my
position essentially, too; but for reasons which I don't fully understand
because I am not an expert on Indian law and policy, we have spent an enormous
amount of time on this Indian lands problem.
20 It isn't an easy one. Let me just also say that as an antitrust lawyer
for many years, I couldn't agree with you more either on your statement about
not having a single huge group of energy companies in this country. If we are
going to preserve the free enterprise system, we must preserve competition.
That includes competition between competing forms of energy, or sources of
energy. While that is a separate subject, I just wanted to state that what you
have stated is very sound antitrust law doctrine.
20 Mr. TSONGAS. For the information of Mr. Markey and Mr. Miller, we went
to those members who had questions and not used the 5-minute rule per se. Do
you have any questions, Mr. Miller?
20 Mr. MILLER. Mr. Secretary, just one question.
20 I think it sounds a little bit like a homerun question. I think the
point that the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Bauman, has raised is one that will
be raised from now until and maybe even after this bill is signed into law.
20 Fortunately, coal is abundant in this country.We can afford to be
particular about where and how we mine it, consistent with conservation of the
resource.
20 We just cannot afford to permit historical mining practices to continue,
particularly since environmentally sound mining can meet the Nation's energy and
economic needs.
20 Now, does that clearly state your informed opinion about this, because I
think time and again we will see the issue raised that this will prevent us from
having an energy policy, this will cause people to shiver in their homes.
20 It is clearly your Department's opinion apparently that we can enact H.R.
2 or something very similar thereto and still continue to meet the energy needs
consistent with whatever happens in April or what the President comes up with or
what finally the Congress turns out.
20 I think that has to be very clear in people's minds that that is your
informed opinion, if in fact these two statements reflect that.
20 Secretary ANDRUS. Yes, sir.
20 Mr. Chairman, Mr. Miller, yes, that is our opinion.
20 I thought my statement, position was clear until you read both pieces and
asked the question; and I can see where maybe there would be some confusion
about present methods of continuation.
20 I don't think anybody in this room or any other room questions the vast
quantities of coal that are located in the United States. It is the methodology
used to extract that resource from the ground.We have seen abuses in the past
because of what I term in my statement conventional practices, that those - that
technology is changing, can change, and must change; but in no way in my opinion
would the passage of this bill cause a decrease in the production of coal; and
that comes from records, consultation, staff, technical experts.
20 I think what we have to do, Mr. Miller, is to get on with the program.
20 Mr. MILLER. Thank you.
21 Mr. BAUMAN. Would the gentleman from California yield on that point?
21 Mr. Secretary, I wish you would reanswer that question after you read the
official report the Government submitted. It comes to a far different
conclusion than you just stated about the reduction in the production of coal.
21 Mr. MARLENEE. Mr. Chairman?
21 The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Marlenee.
21 Mr. MARLENEE.Mr. Secretary, you spoke of treating the Indian Nations as a
State in regard to the coal upon their lands; and in Montana we have several
Indian reservations, including the Crow Reservation.
21 Recently, a judge ruled that the Crow Reservation was entitled to a
25-percent coal, severance tax. In Montana we have a 30-percent coal severance
tax. That would bring the tax up to 55 percent of the price of coal, a
considerable consumer impact and a considerable deterrent to the mining of coal
in Montana.
21 Then we add the fees for reclaiming lands that has already been mined,
and a lot of the lands have been mined in the East from the time when they
started mining coal and were not reclaimed.
21 This places an additional burden on the State on Montana in view of the
high tax. Is there any mechanism that you have in mind to equate this with the
States?
21 Secretary ANDRUS.Well, Mr. Chairman, let me respond by saying,
Congressman, that the marketplace is going to make that decision. Is it
economically feasible to extract the coal from that land as opposed to a
different fee structure or tax than from another area? But for the reclamation,
I favor - the Department favors that that money come from a fee on the coal so
that it is, in fact, a cost of doing business for that company, and the consumer
at the end. I think we all admit he will be paying the bill; a utility bill,
or whatever use that coal is put to.
21 I think the marketplace will control the extra fees that might be placed
on, because it will be, in fact, a cost of doing business in the end result.
21 The comparison of treating the States the same, I think that we have to
recognize that there are treaties dealing with Indian Nations that are quite
different from the sovereignty of the individual States and how they came about.
I am not personally familiar with the one that you say the judge rendered the
decision on.
21 I would suspect that someplace in that treaty, there were certain rights
given that Indian Nation that the judge was protecting in his decision.
21 That is supposition on my part. I have not read the treaty.
21 Mr. MARLENEE. Thank you.
21 The CHAIRMAN [Mr. Udall presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. It has
been a very useful warning. We will be working with you in the weeks ahead.
21 Secretary ANDRUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We stand at your pleasure.
21 [Prepared statement together with additional material referred to in Mr.
Andrus' testimony follows:]
22 STATEMENT OF CECIL D. ANDRUS SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR
AND INSULAR AFFAIRS FEBRUARY 8, 1977
22 MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE:
22 I strongly endorse the enactment of comprehensive surface mining control
legislation. Your committee has worked on, and the Congress has passed, such
legislation during the past two Congresses. A Presidential signature on it is
long overdue and I am glad to see it placed at the top of your agenda. Drawing
on your past efforts and expertise, this Administration looks forward to a new
law under which an effective surface mining control program can be carried out.
22 Increasing this Nation's ability to produce and use coal in order to
decrease our reliance on imported oil and scarce natural gas is essential. With
sound environmental safeguards, surface mining will be an acceptable way to
produce much of this coal.
22 Fortunately, coal is abundant in this country. We can afford to be
particular about where and how we mine it, consistent with conservation of the
resource. We can afford to declare certain areas off limits to strip mining
because of other important resource values, and we can insist on ending the
abuses which historically have been associated with coal strip mining.
22 Prompt establishment of new ground rules for surface coal mining is
essential both for a sound environmental policy and a sound energy and economic
policy. Despite recent improvements in state and Federal programs, a uniform
approach, approved by the Congress, needs to be adopted:
23 - to assure a high level of environmental protection
23 - to provide for sound management of our land resources
23 - to eliminate competitive economic pressures on states to lower their
reclamation standards, and
23 - to provide the coal industry with firm guides for its future
development.
23 In reaffirming my support of this legislation, I would like particularly
to mention some of its fundamental components, which have been developed in the
last few years of debate and compromise on this legislation:
23 - First, that reclamation is required to fully restore strip mined land
to at least its original productivity
23 - Second, that the burden is on the operator, not the government or
citizen, to demonstrate affirmatively that reclamation according to the law will
be achieved.
23 - Third, that certain areas will be off limits to strip mining because of
other important resource values, preserving the option for society later to
determine whether the coal is worth the sacrifices associated with mining by
surface methods.
23 - Fourth, that citizens will have meaningful opportunities to participate
in the implementation of the law - through availability of information,
hearings and opportunities for citizen suits.
23 - Last, that abandoned, unreclaimed mines will be reclaimed using money
from production fees.
23 In approaching this legislation, I want to see a bill which will make for
an effective and efficient program without an undue burden on the economy. More
specifically, the following principles should govern:
24 - No arbitrarily imposed losses of coal production should result from
the program.
24 - It should not result in significant unemployment.
24 - No substantial consumer impacts should result.
24 - It should assign responsibilities to State and Federal governments
appropriately.
24 - It should not adversely affect competition.
24 - No unreasonable administrative burdens and governmental costs should be
imposed.
24 In general, I believe the legislation before you meets these tests.
24 I hope you will agree with me, however, that if we can improve the bill,
we should not be deterred from this by past history and, in any event, several
issues remain to be resolved.
24 How to protect the owners of surface interests in lands where the Federal
Government owns and might lease coal for surface mining is an issue of central
concern. Some recognition is certainly appropriate to protect the interests of
individuals who have, in many instances, created by their own labor a working
ranch or farm and who may be faced with serious losses if Federal leases are
issued. Many hours of your time were spent in the last Congress trying to
resolve this difficult issue. The bill which finally passed conferred a right
to consent on a specified class of surface owners. To avoid large windfalls, it
also specified compensation which could be paid for consent. The concept of
this provision in the vetoed bill would appear preferable to an outright
prohibition in the split ownership situation. At this point, I can only suggest
that we remain open to reaching the most reasonable possible solution of the
problem and I will be ready to work with you to this end.
25 A second question is the protection of alluvial valley floors. I fully
support such protection. H.R. 2 clarifies the alluvial valley floor prohibition
in the vetoed bill and makes specific allowance for the continued operation of
approved mines already producing coal. These changes appear desirable.
25 As I mentioned, a basic feature of H.R. 2 which I support is its
provisions for remedying the historical environmental neglect of lands already
mined and now abandoned. Some estimates are that a million and a half acres of
land have been disturbed by all coal mining.
25 As you consider the bill's provisions for abandoned land reclamation,
however, let me urge you to focus on highest priority needs. A tremendous
amount of reclamation work must be done to repair the scars and correct the
continuing environmental harm from mines where responsibility for reclamation
has ended and we must assure that our limited resources will be used to produce
the greatest good possible.
25 Another issue of some concern is the assignment of responsibility for the
surface mining reclamation program on Federal lands between the States and the
Federal government. I favor accommodating arrangements worked out in the last
year to permit States to enforce the reclamation program on Federal lands. I
would urge, however, that you make those arrangements like other portions of
State programs, subject to review and approval by the Secretary, rather than
election by the States.
26 Other issues will also need resolution. The Department's
legislative report, which you have, addresses most of these specifically and I
will be happy to answer any questions about them you may have. My staff will
also work with you in making whatever changes will improve the bill. As we plan
and undertake preparation for implementation of the program we will keep you
fully advised and remain open to your advice.
26 Coal constitutes over 85 percent of our hydrocarbon energy reserves and
there can be no question that coal will provide a significant proportion of our
energy needs for years to come. But as coal production increases, the
environmental and land use problems it entails will also increase. We just
cannot afford to permit historical mining practices to continue, particularly
since environmentally sound mining can meet the Nation's energy and economic
needs. The pollution of some 11,000 miles of streams by acid mine drainage,
extensive siltation, the loss of forest and agricultural lands from productive
capacity, the destruction of wildlife habitat, burning mine waste dumps, and
health and safety hazards must all be controlled. Major impacts on land use and
water resources are associated with many surface mines and these must be dealt
with carefully.
26 The framework provided by H.R. 2 to deal with surface coal mining
reclamation is sound. I want to work with you to make needed improvements
expeditiously and produce a bill for President Carter to sign. I assure you
that the Administration is committed to helping you pass such legislation and to
careful administration of the program the legislation provides.
27
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
FEB 4 - 1977
Dear Mr. Chairman: This responds to your request for the views of this
Department concerning H.R. 2, the "Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of
1977." We strongly support enactment of this measure. A new law to control
surface mining of coal and provide for reclamation of mined lands is badly
needed and the legislation your Committee has before it is well conceived to
meet that need. Its expeditious passage is a high priority of President
Carter.H.R. 2 would provide for a cooperative surface coal mining regulatory
program with responsibility for implementation being snared between the States
and the Secretary of the Interior. Strong reclamation performance standards and
permit requirements would assure that both State and Federal mined land would be
fully reclaimed and that the environment would be protected. On the other hand,
under mechanisms provided by the bill, the production of needed coal could
continue under national standards in a reasonable manner. Public participation
in decisions about surface coal mining would be provided for. Full development
of needed information would be required or encouraged to serve as a basis for
effective and reasonble regulation of surface mining operations. Through H.R.
2's bonding and enforcement provisions, actual compliance with the standards and
requirements would be assured. In addition to the reclamation regulatory
program, the bill provides for reclamation of lands already damaged by past
mining. Financed in H.R. 2 through a fee levied against coal, the bill provides
both for reclamation of rural lands through the Department of Agriculture and
for acquisition and reclamation of abandoned and unreclaimed mined lands and for
alleviation of problems related to mining, including community impacts of coal
development. H.R. 2 would also establish Mining and Mineral Institutes and sets
forth provisions for the designation of lands unsuitable for noncoal mining.
The effects of inadequately controlled surface coal mining are well known.Among
them are destruction or diminution of the utility of land, erosion and land
slide, flooding, water pollution, destruction of fish and wildlife habitat, loss
of natural beauty, property damage, health and safety hazards, and adverse
social impacts.
28 Increasingly in the future, the Nation's energy needs will depend on
coal mining. Current trends indicate that more and more of this mining will be
by surface methods. Federal and other western lands will be called on to supply
coal, in many instances for the first time. Against this background, the need
for legislation such as H.R. 2 is urgent.
28 In developing and carrying out an effective and efficient surface coal
mining control and reclamation law, the Department will work closely with the
Congress. President Carter has indicated that he would have signed the surface
mining legislation, H.R. 25, passed by the last Congress, but vetoed. The
President is prepared to approve similar legislation and has directed the
Secretary to work with Congress in resolving remaining major issues and
developing whatever changes in introduced bills may appear advisable to improve
them.
28 Protection of surface owners of land where the Federal Government owns
and proposes to lease coal was a particularly difficult issue for the last
Congress. Section 714 of H.R. 2 incorporates the surface owner consent
provision finally developed and included in the vetoed bill. That provision
afforded a right to consent to specified individuals and limited the amount that
such individuals could obtain if they consent. The amount specified has three
components to be determined by appointed appraisers: (1) the fair market value
of "the surface estate"; (2) certain specified losses and damages; and (3) an
additional reasonable amount limited to the lesser of item 2 losses or $1 00 per
acre. If this provision is adopted, the language of item (1) should be
clarified so that it would apply to the fair market value of the "surface estate
(based on its use for agricultural purposes and exclusive of the value of
minerals or the right to consent under this section)". Clarified in this way, a
provision of this type is preferable to a provision which would prohibit surface
mining of Federal coal where the surface is owned by a non-Federal party.
28 To limit the administrative and financial burden which might otherwise be
placed on small mine operators, we support modifications of the vetoed bill
which have been incorporated in H.R. 2, including:
28 - directing the regulatory authority to undertake the development of some
of the information required to obtain a mining permit
28 - financing this work in part from the reclamation fee collected pursuant
to section 401(d)
28 - permitting reduced application fees
28 - omission of certain permit application data as determined by the
regulatory authority and in some instances requiring less data
28 - modifying the bond release administrative provisions by limiting the
scope of the notice to be given and providing an informal procedure for release.
29 A related matter concerns the schedule provided by the bill for
implementation of the program. H.R. 2 would apply performance standards to new
mines beginning six months after enactment and to existing mines beginning after
one year.In addition, application for permanent permits would be made only after
a State or Federal program is approved. The regulatory authority's
determination whether to issue a permit could not be delayed longer than six
months after application is made (but not longer than 38 months after enactment
of the bill). Tying the permanent permit application procedure to approval of a
State or Federal program in this fashion is administratively preferable to
requiring permit applications 20 months after enactment, whether or not a
program has been approved. These modifications of the vetoed bill appear
desirable to reduce any disruption which might otherwise have occurred. We
also support H.R. 2's provisions for Federal "back-up" inspections where there
is an indication of specific need - that is, when the Secretary receives
information giving reason to believe that there are violations of the Act's
requirements. Under the bill, the enforcement of reclamation requirements is
principally intended to be a State responsibility. A full program of regular
Federal inspections might weaken those incentives and encourage States to
withdraw from the regulatory program.
29 In addition, the Administration would like to work further with the
Congress to determine whether the provisions of section 405 relating to
secondary impacts of mining are best suited to meeting problems posed by
abandoned lands. We particularly question whether providing funding for
developments in energy impacted areas is appropriate in the light of legislation
passed at the end of the last Congress relating to the State share of revenue
from federally owned minerals and payments in lieu of taxes. It is important
that resources of the abandoned land reclamation program be directed to matters
of highest priority and that past environmental damage be remedied effectively
and expeditiously. To this end, consideration of the requirement that fifty
percent of the fees collected for the fund be initially allocated to the State
from which they are derived may warrant modification to assure greater
flexibility in directing resources to areas of greatest need.
29 An important purpose of this legislation is to protect fish, wildlife and
other ecological values. In developing and implementing this program, we intend
to assure that these values are appropriately recognized.
29 The provisions of Title III for State Mining and Mineral Resources and
Research Institutes need to be carefully examined since there are other more
effective ways of developing needed manpower and knowledge. We recommend that
this matter be separately considered and not included in surface mining
legislation.
30 We believe that administration of provisions of H.R. 2 relating to
judicial matters may also be improved. With respect to citizen suits seeking to
compel the Secretary or a regulatory authority to perform any act or duty under
the Act which is not discretionary, it may be appropriate to specify that the
citizen suit provision shall constitute the exclusive remedy to assure that the
Secretary or regulatory authority will receive sixty days notice except for
situations involving an imminent threat to the health or safety of the plaintiff
or immediately affecting a legal interest of the plaintiff. This will allow the
Secretary opportunity to remedy any failure that may in fact exist without the
necessity for suit. In addition, a provision of the Clean Air Act similar to
section 526(a)(1) of H.R. 2 has been the subject of much needless litigation
concerning the specification of "the apporpriate" United States Court of
Appeals. We recommend that this be clarified by providing that review of
actions relating to State programs or Federal programs for a State shall be by
the Court of Appeals for the Circuit in which the State is located. Review of
orders or decisions of national scope under section 526(a)(2) should be in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
30 Finally, we recommend that section 523 be amended to provide for the
application of State programs to Federal lands. This should be carried out by
agreement between the States and the Secretary of the Interior. The Interior
Department has concluded similar agreements with several States during the past
year. To accomplish this, H.R. 2 should provide that States with cooperative
agreements will be permitted to retain their regulatory function, with
appropriate modification, prior to the approval of a State program, that the
Department will retain its statutory duty to receive and approve mining plans
and that the designation of lands unsuitable for mining will continue to be an
Interior responsibility. It should also be specified that the States choice
will be subject to Departmental review and approval as are other aspects of the
program.
30 This Administration is firmly committed to the prompt enactment of good
surface mining control and reclamation legislation. We are prepared to work
closely with the Congress, both with respect to the modifications outlined above
and to other improvements that may appear advisable as the Congress acts on the
measure. More importantly we will continue that close relationship in
implementing an effective program. The harm left in the wake of past surface
mining must be ended promptly. Enactment of legislation such as H.R. 2 in the
near future is a high priority both of President Carter's energy policy and his
environmental policy.
31 The Office of Management and Budget has advised that enactment of
legislation conforming to the views set forth above would be in accord with the
program of the President and it has no objection to the presentation of this
report.
31 Sincerely,
31 CECIL D. ANDRUS SECRETARY
31 Honorable Morris K. Udall Chairman, Committee on
31 Interior and Insular Affairs House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515
32 ICF INCORPORATED 1990 M Street Northwest Suite 400 Washington DC 20036
(202) 785- 3440 February 10, 1977
32 MEMORANDUM
32 TO: Barry R. Flamm (CEQ) James Speyer (EPA)
32 FROM: C. Hoff Stauffer, Jr. Daniel E. Klein
32 SUBJECT: "Energy and Economic Impacts of H.R. 13950"
32 It has come to our attention that questions have been raised regarding
modifications to our report between the Draft Final Report released on February
1, 1977, and the interagency review version of January 24, 1977. Some of the
differences have been noted during both the Senate hearings on S. 7 (February 7,
1977) and the House hearings on H.R. 2 (February 8, 1977). On these occasions
an inference was made that such changes could have been due to political
considerations rather than analytical judgments. In this memorandum we would
like to fully resolve any confusion which may had arisen.
32 We wish to strongly emphasize that in no instance in our Draft Final
Report (or in any preliminary drafts and/or memoranda) was any compromise made
to the analytical integrity in order to effect findings which would appear
politically desirable. The Draft Final Report of February 1 represents our very
best analytical judgments at that point in time, just as any earlier drafts
and/or memoranda represented our best judgments at earlier points in time.
Hence, changes over time represent what we consider to be improvements in
methodology, data, and/or assumptions, and in no way represent analytical
compromises made for political convenience.
32 Throughout our study we have fully documented the data and assumptions
underlying the impact estimates. Thus, any changes in impact estimates can be
related directly to changes in underlying assumptions, where such changes are
based upon what we consider to be analytically sound judgments and are fully
documented. Any textual changes relate directly to efforts to (a) improve prove
clarity, (b) improve readability, or (c) impart a more neutral tone to the
document, since our study does not represent an advocacy document but rather an
analysis.
32 The following sections will expand upon these points and detail the
changes in particular impact estimates which have been noted in previous
discussions. The first section will be a general discussion of ICF's approach
in developing a Draft Final Report. This is followed by a detailed explanation
of changes found between the interagency review version of January 24, 1977 and
the Draft Final Report released on February 1, 1977.
33 GENERAL COMMENTS
33 Since ICF began its analysis of H.R. 13950, our approach has been one
which has stressed cooperation with numerous and diverse interest groups, both
in and out of government.This analysis has proven to be quite complex; since our
own resources are limited, we have welcomed valid inputs from all who were
willing to contribute. The primary vehicle for the solicitation of advice has
been the use of draft reports and memoranda. These reflected our best judgments
and knowledge at the time. By virtue of the extensive cooperation and
thoughtful comments we received from others, we were often able to make what we
considered analytical improvements in subsequent drafts. In those instances
where we felt that the review comments did not contribute to the substance
and/or appeared to be political at the expense of the analytical integrity, such
comments were rejected.
33 In keeping with this approach, we prepared preliminary copies dated
January 24, 1977 for the purpose of interagency review. This was done for the
purpose of allowing several agencies (CEQ, EPA, FEA, BOM, DOI, OMB, TVA) to
review and comment prior to the release of our Draft Final Report of February 1,
1977. It was never intended that the interagency review version of January 24
be the version submitted as our Draft Final Report under the terms of our
contract. In fact, we at ICF were making several minor changes concurrent with
the interagency review. Due to the high level of cooperation from these
agencies, we were able to make what we consider to be analytically sound
modifications and editorial improvements.Any suggestions which would have
compromised the analytical integrity to achieve politically desirable findings
were rejected, as were any other suggestions we judged to be unsound.
33 Accordingly, the Draft Final Report which we submitted on February 1,
1977 represents our best analytical judgments at this time. Still, we must note
that it is a draft report, and is subject to further modification as additional
reviewer comments are received. As stated in the Preface to the report.
33 "This draft is being distributed for purposes of review and comment.
Further work is being conducted. Refinements are underway.Constructive comments
are welcomed."
33 CHANGES IN TEXT
33 Some questions have arisen regarding textual changes which have occurned
between versions leading up to the Draft Final Report of February 1, 1977. The
concern was that these changes were made in an effort to distort or canceal
substantive points developed in carlier versions. These concerns are unfounded.
33 Before describing the changes, it is useful to note types of changes
which were not made. No changes were made which would distort or conceal
substantive points. No omissions of previously-analyzed issues were made. No
changes were made which would impart a partisan tone (either for or
34 The text changes which have been made in the Draft Final Report can be
categorized in three basic types:
34 (1) Readability. Several minor changes were made throughout the report to
rephrase sentences and paragraphs in an effort to improve readability and
facilitate understanding of some of the more difficult points.
34 (2) Clarity. Several additions were made in the Draft Final Report to
expand upon the assumptions, methodologies, and findings. Most of these
additions were made in response to questions raised during the review process,
and include footnotes, supplementary descriptors, and additional caveats where
necessary.
34 (3) Tone. Throughout this study we have attempted to present an impartial
and factual analysis. This is in keeping with our instructions to develop
impact estimates and not an advocacy document. We have refrained from
expressing judgments as to the merits of the legislation or to what preferred
legislation might read, and have limited our analysis to the impacts of H.R.
13950 as reported August 31, 1976. Although we have tried to present our
analysis in neutral terms, we have been made aware of several instances in which
the phrasing could possibly suggest a bias either for or against the bill. To
avoid the appearance of having taken any advocacy position, alternative wordings
were sought which would not suggest a bias while still retaining the substantive
value. We did not make such tonal changes when the result would have been a
diminuation of the analytical finding.
34 Examples of such text changes which are particularly noteworthy are the
first two major conclusions in the Executive Summary of the Draft Final Report.
These paragraphs do not add any new material to the section, but seek to
highlight the major conclusions which follow. In the interagency review version
of January 24, these two paragraphs were combined. While the first part
(relating to impacts which were not great) remained the same, the second part
(relating to non-cost impacts and varying interpretations) was made less
specific in the Draft Final Report. During the interagency review, it was
suggested that this paragraph was combining general findings with specific
points, and that insufficient detail had yet been presented which would make
these specific points meaningful. Further, it was suggested that the original
wording implied that these were the only impacts, where in fact there were
several more. In response to what we considered to be valid criticism, we
reworded this to read as two general conclusions. We note that all of the
specific issues raised are still raised in detail in the Summary, and all are
analyzed in full in the body of the report.
35 ALLUVIAL VALLEY FLOORS - HIGH PRODUCTION IMPACT SCENARIO
35 Between the interagency review version of January 24 and the February 1
Draft Final Report, the assumptions used to develop the high production impact
scenario for alluvial valley floors were modified. Whereas in the interagency
review version the assumption was made that any lease area containing alluvial
valley floors would be impacted, the Draft Final Report took account of the fact
that not all of these sites would be impacted under a reasonable high impact
scenario.The effect of this change in assumptions was to reduce the high
production impact estimates to approximately one-half of those estimated in the
interagency review version.
35 The assumptions used in developing these estimates are fully documented
in the analysis, and are summarized in the Executive Summary. The scenario
specification used in the interagency review version of January 24 is as
follows:
35 [*]
36 [*]
37 [*]
38 In estimating production impacts due to the alluvial valley floor
provisions, the term "production impact" should not be equated with the term
"production losses." As clearly noted in the summary tables:
38 "Production impacts, as used here, do not necessarily mean production
losses; delays and/or mining plan revisions are alternative impacts."
38 The term "worst-case production impact" was changed to "high production
impact" in the Draft Final Report of February 1, 1977. This change was made for
two reasons. First, it was claimed by some that "worst-case" implied that we
opposed such an outcome, whereas others might see such an outcome as desirable.
In keeping with an apolitical approach, this term was changed to a more neutral
"high production impact." Second, a worst-case estimate calls for the most
extreme case imaginable; in this case, the joint probability of every mine
having alluvial valley floors within the lease area being impacted. The joint
probability of such an event is extremely small. A high impact estimate, on the
other hand, need not include the most extreme case imaginable, but can be
tempered with judgment concerning the low probability that every mine having
alluvial valley floors within the lease area might be impacted. This judgment
is clearly stated in our report.
38 The change in assumptions made in the Draft Final Report was based upon
our professional judgment that our original assumptions were overly strict.
Through discussions generated during the interagency review process, coupled
with a re-examination of the interviews with the western mine operators (fully
documented in Appendix F); we concluded that alternative assumptions were
necessary in order to ensure that the analysis presented our best analytical
judgments at that point in time.
38 The February 1, 1977 report is still a draft report. All assumptions
have been documented. Reviewer comments are still welcome. Should new evidence
be presented which convinces us that further modifications are warranted,
further modifications will be made and the assumptions clearly documented.
38 Due to the substantial uncertainties associated with estimating these
impacts, we believe (as clearly stated in our report) that no undue emphasis
should be attached to any specific number or set of numbers. In the case of the
alluvial valley floor provisions, the point being made was that there is a wide
range of potential impacts (associated with both data uncertainty and varying
interpretations of the language of the bill) ranging from zero to some very
large numbers. We note that this point did not change at all between the
interagency review version of January 24 and the Draft Final Report of February
1, 1977.
39 SURFACE OWNER PROVISIONS - RESERVE BASE IMPACTS
39 Between the interagency review version of January 24 and the February 1
Draft Final Report, the assumptions used to develop the reserve base impacts of
the surface owner protection provisions were changed.The methodology used to
develop these estimates is the same in both versions - beginning with estimates
of the quantity of federal strippable coal beneath non-federal surface,
adjustments are made to account for (1) the percent of this land owned by a
qualified surface owner, (2) the percent of qualified surface owners who might
be unwilling to consent to having the coal reserves leased, and (3) the nearby
reserves which would be excluded. The changes in impacts relate directly to
changes in these adjustment factors, and in total reduce the impacts by about
one-half.
39 The description of the methodology is identical in both the interagency
review version of January 24 and the Draft Final Report of February 1, and
reads:
39 [*]
40 In the interagency review version of January 24, the reserve base
impacts were developed as follows (page V-10):
*3*Scenario
Low Impact Moderate Impact High Impact
Federal coal
beneath non-federal
surface (million
tons) 9,126 12,120 13,071
Qualified surface
owner (%) 33 50 67
Percent unwilling
to allow leasing 25 50 75
Nearby reserves
effectively
excluded (%) 10 20 30
Foserves impacted
(million tons,
rounded) 800 3,600 8,500
In the Draft Final Report of February 1, 1977, the reserve base impacts were
developed as follows (page V-11):
*3*Scenario
Low Impact Moderate Impact High Impact
Federal coal
beneath non-federal
surface (million
tons) 9,126 12,120 13,071
Qualified surface
owner (%) 25 35 50
Percent unwilling
to allow leasing 15 30 50
Nearby reserves
effectively
excluded (%) 10 20 30
Reserves impacted
(million tons,
rounded) 400 1,500 4,200
41 The following points are worthy of note:
41 In both versions the estimates of federal strippable coal beneath
non-federal surface are the same. Reserve base impact estimates differ only
because of changes in the subjective estimates of (1) the percent of this land
owned by qualified surface owners, and (2) the percent of qualified surface
owners who might be unwilling to consent to having the coal reserves leased.
41 The factors which changed were and still are subjective estimates, based
upon a paucity of meaningful data.Our subjective estimates were revised based
upon reviewer comments relating to the success that energy companies have been
having in acquiring surface rights in the West. These comments led us to
believe that our earlier estimates had been too high.
41 The February 1, 1977 report is still a draft report. All assumptions
have been documented. Reviewer comments are still welcome. Should new evidence
be presented which convinces us that further modifications are warranted,
further modifications will be made and the assumptions clearly documented.
41 We are uneasy about these estimates because there are very few data upon
which assumptions can be based. We considered making no estimates at all, but
judged this would not be a positive contribution toward helping others
understand the potential impacts of the bill. Hence, we decided to estimate a
range of potential impacts, making clear our methodology and assumptions. This
gives the reader the opportunity to test the effects of alternative assumptions
on the estimates.
42 The CHAIRMAN. With us is the distinguished Governor of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Milton Shapp, accompanied by two outstanding
experts in this field, Mr. Walter Heine and Mr. William E. Guckert.
42 Governor Shapp, it is good to have an old friend back before this
committee, particularly one who has been such a long and effective advocate of
sensible strip mining of coal.
42 Secretary Andrus and I were down in Kentucky over the weekend as the
guests of Governor Carroll of that State, and I was pleased to see that he
supports a Federal bill again this year, so that we have at least two of the
Governors of our largest coal-producing States who are on record of a Federal
approach along the lines of H.R. 2.
42 I am delighted you could take time to come down here today. It is a
great pleasure to have you with us.
STATEMENT OF HON. MILTON J. SHAPP, GOVERNOR OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA, ACCOMPANIED BY WALTER N. HEINE, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY SECRETARY, MINES
AND LAND PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES; AND WILLIAM E.
GUCKERT, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF SURFACE MINE RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
42 Governor SHAPP. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your kind
words.
42 I am Milton J. Shapp, Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I
would like to thank Congressman Udall and members of this committee for inviting
me here today. I have long been an advocate of a national strip mining bill,
and I am here to testify in favor of the legislation now before this House
committee.
42 There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to delay passage of this bill to
await passage of an overall national energy bill. Implementation of the law
that you are considering will create no reduction in ability to produce coal.
In fact, we are increasing coal production in Pennsylvania even while operators
must mine under the toughest environmental restrictions anywhere in the Nation
under some State restrictions that are tougher than those proposed in the
Federal bill under consideration by this committee.
42 Our Nation is in the grip of a severe energy crisis. It is nothing new.
We have seen it coming for years. But the previous administration in Washington
either sat on its hands or blocked legislation that would have led to a national
energy policy geared to save us from critical shortages.
42 Coal is an important answer to our country's energy needs. Fortunately
we are blessed with an abundant supply. But the problem is to extract coal
without doing unnecessary damage to our lands. It seems to me that if we rush
to strip mine our coal without providing adequate safeguards to our environment,
as was done so often in the past and even today in extensive areas of our
Nation, we will end up exchanging the current crisis of an energy shortage for
an even greater future land, water and health crisis.
43 We can surface mine coal cleanly, efficiently, and relatively
inexpensively with proper environmental safeguards. We have been doing this for
13 years in Pennsylvania, since enactment of State strip mining legislation.
There is no reason why coal producers in other States cannot do the same. It
would mean expanded coal production for our Nation without detriment our other
essential resources - land and water.
43 It is refreshing for me to join with a receptive and progressive
administration in Washington in calling for enactment of national strip mining
legislation. Failure to override President Ford's veto of last session's bill
was a disappointment to me in that Pennsylvania was forced to continue coal
production at somewhat of an economic disadvantage.
43 Though that disadvantage represented less than 2 percent of the cost of
mining, I think it is wrong for us to be penalized because of our concern for
the environment.
43 Pennsylvania is the third largest coal-producing State. Yet we mine our
coal under strong State laws and a regulatory program that protects our land and
water. The Nation's energy needs have created a demand for more coal production
in Pennsylvania and other States. That is why national minimum standards for
strip mining must be established now.
43 The true cost of meeting the Nation's energy demands should be realized
throughout the country. And that cost includes returning the land to productive
use once the coal has been removed. As I indicated previously, in Pennsylvania
we have found that cost to be very reasonable. Concurrent backfilling of strip
mine operations may add anywhere from 35 to 50 cents a ton to the cost of
producing coal. Considering today's market price of coal, this is a small price
to pay to give the land renewed life, and to make it available for farming,
construction, or recreational purposes.
43 Last year President Ford and other critics charged that a national strip
mine bill could cost as many as 36,000 jobs and decrease the production of coal
nationally. Nothing could be farther from the truth. There are not even 36,000
mine workers employed across the Nation in strip mining.
43 In Pennsylvania the production record speaks for itself. Seven years
after our law became effect, in 1971, 26.8 million tons of bituminous coal were
strip mined in Pennsylvania. It took 5,432 strip mine employees to do this job.
However, by 1974, Pennsylvania's coal production soared to 36 million tons. The
industry used 6,416 mine employees to produce this coal. By 1976, surface mined
coal production was up to 38.9 million tons, employing 7,100 miners.
43 Pennsylvania not only experienced an increase in the amount of coal
produced, but an increase in the number of mine-related jobs despite the
introduction of more sophisticated mining equipment. The profits of our coal
companies have also increased significantly over this period, primarily as a
result of maintaining price parity with that of oil.
43 This has been our experience, though Pennsylvania's strip mine law is the
Nation's strongest and our present regulations and enforcement are probably more
stringent than will be the case for many other coal States under the proposed
Federal law.
44 Yet, to answer some of the questions that have been raised here this
morning, even though with tough State regulations, Pennsylvania's coal
production is up and constantly rising. The number of coal mining jobs in
Pennsylvania is increasing and so are the profits of coal mining companies in
our State.
44 I might add the legislation you are considering also means new jobs for
Pennsylvania through reclamation. We have what we call the orphan lands program
to clean up abandoned mine sites in our State now. The declamation fund in this
bill would send millions of dollars more back to our State and to others to
restore scarred areas. Jobless people will be hired to return our land to
economic health. With 8 percent unemployed presently in Pennsylvania, we can
use every one of these new jobs.
44 Our commitment to coal in Pennsylvania is no secret. We encourage the
use of Pennsylvania coal throughout our State to produce energy and to heat
buildings and homes. It has been our policy in recent years since I have been
Governor to convert all homes to coal, although I was disappointed when I could
not change the Federal Government from going from coal to natural gas a few
years ago, I think to their sorrow today.
44 Our law has not hampered production, stifled profits, or cost jobs. An
economic benefit has resulted while the scars of coal production have been
reclaimed into valuable public and private resources. Pennsylvania's land is
producing coal and continues to be productive through reclamation.
44 I have with me today, Mr. Chairman, as you indicated before, two members
of our department of environmental resources, the department that controls our
coal mining operations in Pennsylvania, Mr. Walter Heine, the deputy secretary
of the department of environmental resources, and Bill Guckert, the man who has
been in charge for a number of years of implementing the legislation that we
have in Pennsylvania.
44 Bill Guckert, I might add, was also greatly instrumental in getting the
passage of this bill through. He is one of the leading environmentalists of our
State. They would also like a few moments to discuss a few amendments to the
proposed bill that shaped up at our National Governors Conference last year.
44 As I indicated, Bill Guckert has been running our strip mine reclamation
program for many years and is well known as the man who gave those strip mine
operators "religion."
44 Now before I turn the floor over to my associates, I would like to invite
the members of the committee to visit Pennsylvania and see firsthand what can be
done and talk to the coal operators who have been producing coal under our laws.
I am sure we can fix you up with a quick trip any time you are ready.
44 It will be a revelation for many Members of Congress to witness in
successful operation what so many opponents of tough stripping laws claim would
be the death knell of the strip mining.
44 Thank you.
44 The CHAIRMAN. Governor, thank you for a very effective statement and for
your kind invitation. It was 4 years ago almost that we were in Pennsylvania
with Walter Heine. I know we were all very impressed at that time. I am going
to give every member of this subcommittee who is willing an opportunity to see
some surface coal mine areas. They will probably take you up on that
invitation.
45 I just had one other comment. It has been my observation out of
this struggle that you really need three things if you are going to treat the
land right. You need a law that is good, but that isn't enough by itself. The
Soviet Constitution reads about as well as ours does on human liberties. It is
the spirit and enforcement that goes into it.
45 You need people like Bill Guckert and Walter Heine who believe in the law
and who are determined to enforce it.
45 The third thing you need is the money and resources and people to do that
job. Pennsylvania is one of the few places that has the combination of all
three things. It is due to good people like you and folks like Congressman
Murphy, who wrote the law, that you have led the way in Pennsylvania.
45 It is a great pleasure to me to see you again and have you and your
people here before us testifying on this legislation. Let me ask you about your
time problem. Do you want to stay here through the testimony of Mr. Heine and
Mr. Guckert or do you want to see if there are any questions for you so that you
could leave earlier?
45 Governor CHAIRMAN. The technical testimony about amendments and problem.
It is not -
45 The CHAIRMAN. The technical testimony about amendments and so on will be
presented by them?
45 Governor SHAPP. That's right.
45 The CHAIRMAN. We will limit the questions to any comments you have for
Governor Shapp.
45 On my left, any observations or questions?
45 Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman?
45 The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Seiberling.
45 Mr. SEIBERLING. I would like to make a brief observation.
45 Governor, I certainly applaud your testimony. As your know, Governor
Gilligan was instrumental in getting bills similar to Pennsylvania's passed in
1972. We have had difficulty in getting it fully enforced because of the fact
that Ohio coal seams are such in the quality of the coal that it is a little bit
higher priced, much of it.
45 Second, because we are competing with States on the other side of us who
haven't gone so far as Ohio or Pennsylvania in strip mining laws and
enforcement.
45 I drive through Pennsylvania many times a year and have flown over some
of the strip mine sites that the committee has visited. I must say that there
is still an awful lot of abandoned and unreclaimed lands that you could do a
great deal to help to restore.
45 I would like to just ask you one question: Can you tell me what
percentage of Pennsylvania's strip mining is currently conducted on steep
slopes, say, 20 degrees or more?
45 Governor SHAPP. Bill - I would rather have Bill answer that. The
question is what percentage of our coal mining -
45 Mr. GUCKERT. What do you call steep slopes?
45 Mr. SEIBERLING. Well, I consider a 15-degree slope as pretty steep, but
20 degrees is what is bandied around here.
45 Mr. GUCKERT. I would say if you are talking about 15-degree slopes, I
would say 25 to 30 percent, even up to 35-degree slopes. I will show you slides
on it after a while.
46 Mr. SEIBERLING. Fine. In other words, a substantial amount of coal is
being mined on steep slopes in Pennsylvania?
46 Mr. GUCKERT. There is quite a bit of it; yes.
46 Governor SHAPP. There is one comment I would like to make with reference
to what you said, Congressman.
46 In the western part of the State, years ago, before the strip mining bill
was put into operation, they used to strip and just dump debris around, make
these deep mine craters in western Pennsylvania.At that time they did not have
the equipment to dig down another 70 feet and take out another seam of coal.
46 Since our strip mining laws have been in effect, many coal operators have
come back in the same area and are now digging the second seam; and, of course,
as they do that, they are restoring the original contour, so that a large
percentage of the scars of western Pennsylvania, where we had this double seam,
have already been corrected; and you will find golf courses, rivers with fish.
You will find residential areas being built now on this reclaimed land.
46 Most of the scars that we still have, where we have run out of money for
reclamation, is in the anthracite region where we have not been going down below
the surface seams; and that area still does look like moon crater land, and we
are hoping, through the money reclamation, to do a considerable amount of
improvement of that land.
46 I think in another decade the scars of the former strip mining operations
in Pennsylvania will have disappeared.
46 Mr. SEIBERLING. I must say that I have seen some of the reaffectation
that has been done by private operators, and it is very impressive. In
Pennsylvania, in 1971, I went to visit the operations of the C. & K. Coal Co.,
which at that time was the largest strip mining operator in Pennsylvania. I was
very impressed with what they were doing. However, I must say also that in
western Pennsylvania I can show you an awful lot of old strip mines that were
never reclaimed and can still stand an awful lot of work on it.
46 Governor SHAPP. You are obsolutely correct, sir
46 Mr. SEIBERLING. It does need to be done.
46 Mr. GUCKERT. Congressman, you want to keep in mind that at these old
areas - pre-act we call them, you call them "orhan lands," when you come back
the operators can reaffect those areas and level them off at no cost to the
taxpayers.
46 Industry can do it for about one-third of what the State can do it for.
46 Mr. SEIBERLING. Every time you can do that, we are all ahead.
46 Mr. GUCKERT. That's right. We are putting back between 3,000 and 4,000
acres a year at no cost to the taxpayers.
46 The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland.
46 Mr. BAUMAN. Governor, we are glad to have you here today. I notice in
citing the blame for the energy crisis, you cite the previous administration. I
have only been in Congress less than 4 years, and it has been my impression that
Congress has to take some of that blame, too. We did pass a "tinker toy" energy
bill a year or two ago that the President signed and many of us voted against.
It hasn't helped much. It was largely written by the Congress.
46 I only make that comment in passing.
47 Mr. TSONGAS. Would the gentleman yield?
47 Mr. BAUMAN. I yield, of course.
47 Mr. TSONGAS. I don't like to let an opportunity go by where I can agree
with you.
47 The CHAIRMAN. It may be the only time this year. We want the record to
reflect that.
47 Mr. BAUMAN. I am not going to yield the next time.
47 You make the statement in here that - in your testimony - that there are
extensive areas of the Nation that today suffer from the results of at least
less regulated strip mining as compared to the State of Pennsylvania. It has
been my impression that in the last 6 or 7 years many States, as a matter of
fact, most States, that have strip mining have enacted legislation or tightened
their regulations to the point that Secretary Andrus was able to tell us that he
prefers State enforcement and the use of State authority in this area to Federal
enforcement and authority.
47 Isn't that somewhat a little bit overdrawn? Where are these extensive
areas?
47 Governor SHAPP. I think if you go down into West Virginia, and some of
the other coal-producing States, you will find that their restrictions are
nowhere equal to what we have been doing; and I think the big fear out in the
western area is the strip mining of coal around the Federal reservations that do
not, therefore, come under the control of the States in the West as far as strip
mining is concerned.
47 Mr. BAUMAN. Of course, if the Federal law is imposed, which would bring
up all States to, let's say, Pennsylvania's strict standard, it would be an
economic benefit to Pennsylvania's coal companies and operators because all
operations would suffer under the same economic disability of increased costs.
Isn't that true?
47 Governor SHAPP. I think you use the word "suffer" in its wrong intent.
I don't think there is a coal company in Pennsylvania suffering under our land
reclamation programs. The fact of the matter, back in 1971, when I first took
over as Governor of Pennsylvania, and the coal companies at that time were
getting somewhere around $9, $10, $11, $12 a ton for utility-grade coal.
47 When OPEC raised the price of oil, the coal companies were permitted by
some of our utility companies to arbitrarily abrogate the long-term contracts
they had and they just raised their price of coal $15, $16, $1 8 a ton. Yet it
only cost about 35 to 50 cents a ton to meet the conditions of our environmental
protection laws in Pennsylvania.
47 So I don't quite frankly cast many tears for the plight of some of the
coal companies in Pennsylvania who have taken advantage of OPEC oil prices to
raise their prices.The utilities have allowed them to cancel their contracts in
this regard.
47 Mr. BAUMAN. I would say to the gentleman perhaps I misjudged the
placement of the suffering.Ultimately it is the consumer in Pennsylvania and the
other 49 States who pay for the costs. To that extent they have to pay more
money to suffer, do they not?
47 Governor SHAPP. I think that is entirely incorrect, sir.
47 Mr. BAUMAN.They don't pay for the costs?
48 Governor SHAPP.No. I think the costs of leaving our land devastated,
the costs of leaving our streams polluted, is far greater than the added costs
to the consumers for the few cents that are added onto the cost of coal in this
regard.
48 What I want to see is to have every State equal with Pennsylvania in this
respect because we are at a slight disadvantage pricewise. That disadvantage is
less than 2 percent.
48 Mr. BAUMAN. Thank you.
48 The CHAIRMAN. Any other questions?Mr. Marriott? mr. MARRIOTT. Mr.
Governor, I come from the western part of the country, and I have no
preconceived ideas as to whether I like this H.R. 2 bill or not. I am still
getting some facts on it. I am concerned about one thing: That is with such a
great State law as you have in Pennsylvania, why in the devil do you need a
Federal law on top of it? I can't understand that?
48 Is it possible that through such a law Pennsylvania may benefit at the
expense of States farther to the West?
48 Governor SHAPP. No. It is no - as I indicated, the cost differential is
less than 2 percent. First of all, I am interested in Pennsylvania, but I am
also an American citizen. Don't like to see the American landscape charred and
torn up the way it is being done in many of these areas.
48 I think it is better for the Nation to have a tough strip mining bill so
that we don't in any area of this country ruin our land and pollute our waters.
48 Mr. MARRIOTT. Thank you.
48 The CHAIRMAN.Mr. Murphy?
48 Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
48 Governor Shapp, it is nice to see you this morning.
48 Many of those opposed, Governor, are concerned with the increased costs
to the consumer. Do you, Mr. Guckert, and Mr. Heine have any information in
hand - I know you have it in the back of your mind - how much did this cost the
Pennsylvaia taxpayer to reclaim the lands that were stripped prior to the 1963
act before they were under the actual requirements they are under now?
48 Do you have an aggregate cost that it cost us?
48 Governor SHAPP. The cost - the aggregate cost in dllars, what was that -
the bond -
48 Mr. MURPHY. $500 million.
48 Governor SHAPP. A half billion. On top of that, we had additional
expenditures -
48 Mr. MURPHY. Annual appropriations -
48 Governor SHAPP [continuing]. To go along with it, I think there have
been reductions in that. The improved land has increased business activity in
these areas and created more jobs. At the same time, we have had some
commercial development of some of the property that has been reclaimed. What
that amount would be, I can't tell, but I think that would be a reduction to the
State in what has been invested in the reclamation program.
48 Mr. MURPHY. OK. I want to just add, Mr. Chairman, my comments to that
of my Governor's. I don't think our interest is primarily that we become - we
take any competitive advantage or our miners receive any competitive advantage,
but that we would like - and my Governor is advising the members of this
committee - we would like all of the United States to start on the program we
have in Pennsylvania.
49 Someday we are going to have our State quota reclaimed.I think that is
our concern, that the United States has not, where they are starting to strip,
that they don't fall as far behind as we did.
49 Mr. SEIBERLING. Would the gentleman yield?
49 In other words, you don't want your State to suffer a competitive
disadvantage because you have done a good job of trying to protect your land?
49 Mr. MURPHY. That might be about our third reason, John. Our second
reason would be one that I don't know whether Bill Guckert is going to live
forever.He may, but if he doesn't, we want to make sure we have continued
vigilance. That continued vigilance would, of course, come from an overall
uniform regulation on the Federal level.
49 The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Edwards?
49 Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
49 Governor, I would just first like to thank you for your very eloquent
testimony on behalf of what a State can do in regulating strip mining. I think
you have given a very good case for the ability of a State to control the strip
mining activities.
49 Second, I am confused by one of the items in your statement. You have a
statement in here that Pennsylvania was forced to continue coal production at an
economic disadvantage; and you then spend about four or five paragraphs talking
about the tremendous increase in coal production in Pennsylvania which I assume
also resulted in increased coal sales for the State of Pennsylvania.
49 You say our law has not hampered production, stifled profits or cost
jobs. What is this economic disadvantage you are talking about?
49 Governor SHAPP. We have, as I say, about a 35- to 50-cent item which
comes to maybe a 2-percent cost factor, which enters into the cost of strip
mining coal in Pennsylvania. That is a disadvantage we have. It is a very
slight one.
49 I minimize it, but it is there. I don't think that companies that
operate in Pennsylvania should be placed at any disadvantage because they are
trying to work with a State that wants to improve its environment.
49 Mr. EDWARDS. You obviously think that even though the State of
Pennsylvania consists of a number of people like yourself who are very much
involved in tryi