February 24 and 25, 1977 Hearing
|
|
Legislative History February 24 and 25, 1977 Hearing |
| |
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 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 9:45 a.m., pursuant to recess 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 a very, very long list of witnesses today and groups
who have asked to testify on H.R. 2, the surface coal mine legislation.
1 We will stay here as long as necessary today. I would like to urge all
the witnesses to summarize their testimony when it can be done to avoid
duplication. Tell us why you are for or against the bill and how we can change
it or improve it and we will do the best we can with the time we have today.
1 We first scheduled the Honorable Max Baucus, our colleague from the First
District of Montana. Will you take the stand and we will be glad to hear from
you.
1 Mr. BAUCUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a prepared statement which I
would like to submit for the record.
1 The CHAIRMAN. It will be printed in full as though you read it. It is
good to hear from you.
1 [Editor's Note. - Prepared statements and additional material submitted
for the hearing record may be found in the appendix at the conclusion of this
volume.]
STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF
MONTANA
1 Mr. BAUCUS. Basically, Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend you for
your expeditious approach to these hearings. After all the difficulty we have
had in the last 2 years, I think it is vitally important to push this bill
through as quickly as possible. Western coal will inevitably be mined, but let
us put the horse before the cart and make surface mining legislation a part of
our national energy policy.
1 There are several positions I wish to bring out which I think are
particularly important to my State of Montana.
2 One is the prohibition of the bill against surface mining in national
forests. I think this is very important.
2 We do face an energy problem in the West, but it is equally important to
protect wood fibers as a resource in our national forests. I commend the
committee for that provision in the bill.
2 Second, I think it is very important to keep the public input portion in
the bill as well. In my experience it has been extremely helpful to have
various interest groups, various people across the country, testify in public
hearings. It is essential both as we develop the bill and as we implement it
when a company submits an application to proceed with mining. By hearing the
views of different people with different perspectives we can protect the public
interest in a much better fashion than would be the case if there was no public
input.
2 Of course, we could bog down the process with excessive public comment.
So, I think that the committee should find the proper balance - as much public
input as possible yet at the same time expeditious, orderly processes so we can
decide with sufficient clarity whether or not a company should proceed to mine.
2 I also want to emphasize the wisdom of the committee in taking special
pains to protect the hydrological balance in various areas. This is all the
more important today because of the potential drought in the West. Water, next
to coal, is one of the most important resources in the West, as you know. Mr.
Chairman, coming from Arizona, you know that water is a big problem.
2 I strongly urge the committee to keep these provisions in the bill,
because they are very important to us in Montana.
2 Those are just three points on which I wish to commend the chairman.
2 Finally, I pledge my cooperation to do whatever I can to help the chairman
of this committee get this bill passed. We worked last year on all of the
overrides, unfortunately unsuccessfully. This year I do not believe that this
will happen.
2 The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I appreciate this long support for this
legislation and your interest in this problem.
2 As you indicate in your statement, Montana is perhaps as impacted as any
other State by surface mining. You have a real and genuine interest in this. I
am particularly glad to see your support.
2 I skimmed through the statement to see your support for the surface owner
protection clause that we worked out after many months and after months of
negotiating in the last Congress.
2 I am a little troubled by the provision of the reinvolvement of the old
Mansfield amendment offered by your senior Senator from Montana.
2 It seems to me that we have come up with a solution that everyone can live
with. I am delighted to see that you support that program.It can be worked out
and I think the committee has done a good job of balancing out those various
interests. It gives us a chance to do so.
2 Mr. BAUCUS. It gives them a chance to do so.
3 I would also like to point out, in my judgment, the State provisions
should control where they are more stringent, as a general rule, given the quilt
or checkerboard pattern of land ownership in Montana, we need uniform
enforcement. I have great confidence in the ability of my home State of Montana
not only to pass but to maintain more stringent standards of reclamation.
3 With that in view, I would hope the committee will allow States that have
more stringent standards to administer the provisions and also handle
jurisdiction.
3 The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you one thing. I note in the early part of your
statement you referred to provisions that prohibit mining, strip mining, in
national forests. Our colleague from Utah, Mr. McMay, has a situation in his
State where national forests exist but in large areas of them there are no
trees. I have the same situation in my own State. We have an area designated
as a national forest where there might not be a tree within 10 miles but it is
still national forest.
3 He would like an exception provided so that where the land and reclamation
can be achieved that you could surface mine in national forests but not those
which have any trees on it, only brush or
3 Mr. BAUCUS. I would have no strong feeling either way, because that is
not the case in Montana. He is in a much better position to comment on the
situation in the State of Utah, as you would be in the case of the State of
Arizona. I would have no strong feeling either way on that.
3 The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions?
3 If not, thank you Congressman Baucus. We appreciate your presence here
today.
3 Congressman Wampler is the next witness. He is to appear with a group of
State officials.
3 If you would, come forward and introduce them.
3 Mr. SKUBITZ. Before the witness testifies may I say it is really tragic
that at this very hour we have meetings of the Interior Committee, the
subcommittees on Energy, Water and Power, and Interior on specific
investigations. This makes it impossible for a member of these committees to be
present at three places at one time. I think people in the audience watch this
and wonder just how important we as Members of the Congress take our
responsibilities. I find only three members present.
3 If it is at all possible as chairman of the full committee you should
exert your power to see that only one committee or not more than two committees,
meet at the same hour.
3 The CHAIRMAN. I share my colleagues concern. The other committees were
not to last all morning and they are important.We get 2,000 bills introduced and
referred to this committee and we must have some kind of system where we can
process more than one of them at a time.
3 Mr. SKUBITZ. I hope we will not pass all 2,000 this year.
3 [Prepared statement of Hon. Max Baucus may be found in the appendix.]
3 The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Wampler, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM WAMPLER, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
4 Mr. WAMPLER. It is a pleasure to appear before your subcommittee on
Energy and the Environment.
4 I would like to introduce a distinguished panel of high officials from the
Commonwealth of Virginia to relate to you some of their fears of the impact of
the bill, H.R. 2, on the citizens of Virginia.
4 The Honorable Mills E. Godwin was scheduled to appear but the General
Assembly of Virginia is in session and is scheduled to adjourn next week. For
obvious reasons, he was not able to be here. He extends his deep regrets.
4 In his stead we have the secretary of commerce and resources, Hon. Earl
Shiflet; the attorney general of Virginia, Hon. Anthony Troy; commissioner of
tazation, Hon. William Forst; the commissioner of Virginia State Employment
Commission, Hon. Robert Masden.
4 We have three members of the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University, Mr. Holland White, Mr. Wolf, and Mr. Morse.
4 We also have two representatives of District 28, United Mine Workers of
America.
4 Mr. Chairman, I also have a statement that I would like to submit and I
would ask unanimous consent that it appear in the record.
4 The CHAIRMAN.Without objection it will appear in the record. We will be
happy to have a summary of your position.
4 We have a long agenda though.
4 Mr. WAMPLER. My position is pretty well known on this legislation.
4 The CHAIRMAN. I began to think you were against the legislation.
4 Mr. WAMPLER. In the interest of time, I would ask that Mr. Shiflet be
permitted to present the Governor's statement and then if he will introduce the
other members of the panel for their presentations.
STATEMENT OF EARL SHIFLET, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE AND RESOURCES,
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
4 Mr. SHIFLET. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members, Governor Godwin
extends his regrets for not being able to get here.
4 As Congressman Wampler has relayed, the requirements of the agenda of the
General Assembly make it impossible for him to be here with you this morning. I
shall read into the record his statement for him with your approval, sir.
4 The CHAIRMAN. Do you have copies of this statement?
4 Mr. WAMPLER. We have made them available to the clerk.
4 The CHAIRMAN. Our rules say they are to be filed here 24 hours in
advance. But we are glad to get them even late.
4 Mr. SHIFLET. We apologize for the fact they were not sent in advance.
5 The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.
5 Mr. SHIFLET [reading].
5 The Governor presents himself as Mills E. Godwin and states that he
appreciates this opportunity to present some of our views on the implications of
surface mining legislation before this committee.
5 My purpose today is to underline the way coal is surface mined in the
mountains and narrow valleys of southwestern Virginia and our neighboring States
and the consequent differences in the impact the legislation before you will
have.
5 As the committee is well aware, surface mining by major coal companies
with huge machines on level or gently rolling land contrasts sharply with the
small, often family-owned surface mining operations in the Appalachian region.
5 The economic impact of H.R. 2 by conservative estimates will be
substantial. The larger operators will likely be forced to reduce production.
Many of the smaller operators are likely to be forced out of business. Our
State agencies estimate that some 3,000 workers depend directly on surface
mining operations for their livelihoods.
5 The mountains of southwestern Virginia, as you know, have long been a
depressed economic area. For a number of years, I have had the pleasure of
serving on the Appalachian Regional Commission which is a Federal agency
designed to attempt to alleviate the restricted opportunities in a highly
mountainous area which has largely been unable to attract new industry, and
where farming operations are limited to the few areas of flat ground.
5 In southwest Virginia, as in many areas of our surrounding States, coal is
king and the fortunes of the entire region rise and fall with its price and
availability.
5 Surface mining has an entirely different meaning in southwest Virginia
from its application in the Western prairies.
5 To restore surface mined land in our southwestern counties to its original
contours would be a costly undertaking in relation to the value of the coal
produced. Much of Virginia's surface mine production is steam coal in contrast
with the more valuable metallurgical coal produced by some of our neighboring
States.
5 As it is practiced in southwest Virginia, some coal surface mining
consists of perhaps one entrepreneur who has a lease on the land. He employs
perhaps two or three in his blasting operation and perhaps one or two bulldozers
to remove the overburden and a front-end loader to dig the coal and load the
trucks.
5 He may have a truck or two of his own, but he relies primarily on
individual heads of families who own their own trucks and haul the coal to the
tipple where it is transported by rail to market.
5 Such an operator who is independent or who is agent for a larger
corporation would find it beyond his financial or his physical capabilities to
restore mountainsides fully to their original contour. The requirement would,
in fact, put him out of business along with all those who depend on him for a
living.
5 In Virginia we are currently engaged in increasing our own surveillance
and approaches to the environmental problems that surface mining inevitably
involves.
5 This process has been continuing for several years and has been increased
since I have been in office.
5 Currently, Virginia levies a fee of $1 2 per disturbed acre on surface
mining operations, most of which goes to operate the reclamation program. Bills
now before the General Assembly of Virginia would increase this fee
substantially.
5 At the present time, Virginia is producing some 13.6 million tons of coal
annually by surface mining methods, which employ approximately 3,000 workers and
generate a total payroll of $4 0 million, which in the counties of far southwest
Virginia is a mighty sum indeed.
5 What is more, our coal producing counties rely heavily on their own coal
severance taxes in meeting demands of public services.
5 Finally, the bill before you aims to protect the public interest through a
number of required public newspaper notices and provisions for citizen suits,
the clear import of which is that neither State nor Federal authorities can be
trusted to enforce the law.
6 Surely it is difficult enough today for the small businessman to
struggle through the process of obtaining permits and complying with a host of
regulatory rules and regulations from formal government agencies, without having
to contend with a self-appointed guardian of the public domain, whose claim to a
personal interest is that he is a member of the general public.
6 Virginia's position on environmental matters is, and has been, that
environmental concerns must be protected.
6 Virginia had one of the early water control boards to begin the task of
cleaning up our rivers and streams. This was followed by an air pollution
control board to provide clean air.
6 Environmental regulations for coal surface mining began in 1966 and have
been addressed periodically since.
6 Our environmental legislation covers wetlands, flood plains, suburban
shopping centers, and residential communities and construction by the State
itself.
6 As a consequence, my own strong feeling is that the regulation on surface
mining should be left to the individual States.
6 I, therefore, strongly suggest that you reject this legislation in its
present form and allow the Commonwealth of Virginia to look after her own.
6 That completes the statement of Governor Godwin.
6 May I present three other gentlemen from the Commonwealth of Virginia.
6 First, I would like to ask the attorney general, Mr. Anthony Troy, to come
forward for a statement.
6 The CHAIRMAN. Good morning, Mr. Troy. Do you have a prepared statement?
6 Mr. TROY. I do have one and copies are available. I apologize that they
were not pre-sent. They are being handed to the reporter.
6 The CHAIRMAN. How long is your statement?
6 Mr. TROY. The statement is roughly six pages but in the view of saving
time I will, if the chairman permits, merely summarize the salient points that
are being made.
6 The CHAIRMAN. That would be very helpful. We will print it in full in
the record. You can summarize.
6 We have a lot of people that have come a long distance from a great number
of States and we have agreed to some ground rules as being 10 minutes for each
group, although I recognize the great importance of this subject to your State.
STATEMENT OF ANTHONY F. TROY, ATTORNEY GENERAL, COMMONWEALTH OF
VIRGINIA
6 Mr. TROY. Mr. Chairman, I think the record will demonstrate that the
Commonwealth of Virginia has in fact been responsive and is committed to an
effective and continuing environmental protection program in the surface mining
of coal, especially through the southwestern portion of Virginia.
6 Conditions now regarding the regulation of Virginia coal mining operations
should remain, we submit, with the Commonwealth's legislative or administrative
agencies. They are in the best position to consider the unique conditions of
Virginia's environment and coal mining industry.
6 The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act now being considered will,
of course, completely preeempt the ability of Virginia to set its own
environmental protection standards. The bill will impose mining methods upon us
in Virginia which have no significant relationship to Virginia's unique
environmental situation.
7 For example, the requirement of original contour of hillsides as it
existed prior to mining. This requirement will entail the use of expensive,
heavy, additional moving equipment which an average operation in Virginia simply
will not be able to afford. In Virginia where most mining is operated on
contour the result of the restoration requirement to original will be a long
string of problems even until such time as vegetation has been established.
These long sloping hills, of course, are subject to restoration.
7 Virginia does not require a contour restoration which, we submit, is of
little, if any, environmental value. Instead, a mining operator currently must
leave a bench which is relatively stable and the bench must be sloped inward so
that drainage is done to an appropriate point where it is released and therefore
minimizing any error. The bench, of course, would be revegetated. At the
present time, Virginia is trying to move forward even more because the
overburden on the downslopes and revegetated areas are being reconsidered to the
amount of downslope that will be allowed.
7 Thus, Virginia policy presently controls the environmental disruptions. I
submit the requirement of the Federal law to esthetically restore the given
original contour does not enhance the environment at all and in Virginia
especially where under our proposal and at all and in Virginia especially
where under our proposal and under current law the downslope can be used for
creating flat tablelands. That land can now, in fact, be utilized for future
industrial development.
7 In addition to objections to the provisions of H.R. 2 which unnecessarily
encumbers surface mining, the problem is created in the area of Federal-State
relations. Section 502(b) of H.R. 2 establishes standards that all State
permits which are incurred 6 months after the date of enactment of the act will
also require complying with certain environmental standards, including
restoration to original contour, minimization of hydrological disturbance to
ground water.
7 As said previously, Virginia law does not require restoration to original
contour nor has it been found feasible to make certain comprehensive
hydrological consequences. Virginia, therefore, is simply not going to be able
to comply with 502(b) of H.R. 2, if in fact it does become law. Being unable to
comply, I presume the State regulatory processes will be dismantled until or
unless the Virginia legislature conforms State laws to specifics of H.R. 2.
7 Accordingly, if Congress should impose requirements of H.R. 2 upon
operations until a complete State or Federal program is established then
Congress must establish and enforce it through a Federal agency.
7 The Commonwealth of Virginia reserves powers of States to require that the
State and Federal Government administer their own laws without imposing that
responsibility on others.
7 In summary, the Commonwealth of Virginia does oppose Federal amendments to
completely displace State programs to regulate coal surface mining. Virginians
are concerned about environmental problems and I submit the Commonwealth of
Virginia has reacted responsibly to those concerns. Because, however, of the
differences in geological climate, mineral resources, and mining, bonds which
exist among the States, the subject is one which should clearly remain under the
control of the individual States and not be subject to the sweeping laws, such
as that proposed in H.R. 2.
8 Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to make these remarks. I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before the panel and we will be happy to
answer any questions at a later time.
8 The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
8 [Prepared statement of Anthony F. Troy may be found in the appendix.]
8 Mr. SHIFLET. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Robert Masden who is Commissioner of
Virginia Employment Commission who would like to make a brief comment.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. MASDEN, COMMISSIONER, VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT
COMMISSION, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
8 Mr. MASDEN. I will take only about 2 minutes.
8 I don't think there is any need for me to remind you of the limited
economic base in the area that we are talking about, seven far southwestern
Virginia counties and its special relationship to other economic centers.
8 These people really are left to use the economic resources available, the
natural resources, coal being that principal one.
8 Also, let me remind you that between 1955 and the early 1970's in this
area where the demand for coal was very low, the unemployment persisted in the
area of 15 to 18 percent. And that is in spite of all the efforts of the
Federal Government and the State government to lower that unemployment rate.Now,
this dropped below the Stae average because of demand for coal so that the area
is economically viable.
8 This legislation could in fact destroy its economic activities.I think it
is important as we look at the impact to realize that if unemployment - if we
should lose 2,000 jobs in that area this could cost millions of dollars in our
trust fund but that does not tell the entire story in terms of its adverse
nature. Because of Federal legislation, under which we act, the unemployment
system will have employers who are impacted by the layoffs and have in turn to
replace the money in the trust fund.
8 That means that it is doubly devastating to these people. We have a trust
fund based upon Federal legislation which is supposed to be actuarially sound.
That is, the very employers who experience the layoffs have to replace the trust
fund money so that at the time you force them to reduce their work force
immediately we begin requiring them to replace the money we pay out on
unemployment payments to the trust fund.
8 So really, an economic impact has to be doubled and tripled on these
employers. That is all.
8 The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.
8 Mr. SHIFLET. Mr. Chairman, Mr. William Forst, commissioner of tax of the
Commonwealth of Virginia has a brief remark to make.
8 The CHAIRMAN. All right.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. FORST, STATE TAX COMMISSIONER, COMMONWEALTH OF
VIRGINIA
9 Mr. FORST. I will be very brief and I hope precise and concise.
9 I am here to say something to you that is quite obvious. Any unemployment
in that area, any pollution of their economic base creates problems not only for
the State but also for local revenues.
9 I have a complete statement for the record that would indicate that the
revenues have a potential loss, annual potential loss of somewhere around $8
million, not a very great deal.
9 Hopefully, those $5 million worth of revenues from severance taxes that
are employed by these mines affect the value of the company's contracts, a very
significant problem there.
9 Another item that I think we can relate to you, if the staff will collect
the data elements that are used for distributing revenue sharing funds today,
they will find that they are using 1972 per capita income for this region. It
averages less than $3 ,000 per capita. Today, on returns we find per capita
income of these six counties is in excess of $3,000 a year.
9 So coal has done for this Appalachian region in a very short period of
time what the whole Appeal Commission has been trying to do since the early
1960's.
9 Mr. Chairman, that is the only thing I have to say.
9 The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. We will put your tables in the files.
9 [The documents referred to have been placed in the committee files.]
9 Mr. WAMPLER. Mr. Chairman, there are three gentlemen here from our
land-grant university, V.P.I. & S.U., who have been working as a research group
on the agricultural uses of reclaimed strip mined coal lands. It is my
understanding that they have statements to file but would appreciate the
opportunity to make a brief summary.
9 The CHAIRMAN. I am going to really have to insist these be very brief,
from 8 to 10 minutes.
9 Mr. WAMPLER. I understand the dilemma but we feel the legislation is so
important that we would like an opportunity to be heard.
9 The CHAIRMAN. Well, it is important and we heard it previously from
witnesses and we undoubtedly will hear more.
STATEMENT OF HOLLAND WHITE, AGRONOMY EXTENSION SERVICE, VIRGINIA
POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
9 Mr. WHITE. Virginia Polytechnic Institute, land-grant university,
has been very much interested and highly involved in research and educational
programs in the strip mining areas of Virginia.
9 I would just like to indicate that in 1969 V.P.I. had two technicians who
were assigned to the agricultural program under a cooperative grant to study
revegetation. In 1976 the turnover of this particular group was $50,000 to
$150,000.
10 The Virginia Energy Co., which is primarily a company of mining coal,
awarded two research grants, one of which is a 2-year grant for $2 5,000 to
study strip mining from spoil to soil. The other is a $12,000 renewable to
study horticulture.
10 EPA has been awarded one for $4 0,000 to research the relationship of
strip mining to horticulture.
10 There are the equivalent of three full-time scientists and two
technicians working with these research and educational programs in Virginia.
10 The overall goal for these areas is to make available - is for areas made
available by surface mining in southwestern Virginia to be effectively
revegetated and utilized to expand the monoeconomy coal base of the area through
increased agricultural production.
10 I will just add these research efforts are showing quite conclusively
that higher use of these areas is certainly feasible and a practical way of
utilizing these areas and in most cases returning these steep areas to the
original contour would eliminate much of this higher use for agricultural uses.
10 The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your complete statement.
10 Mr. SHIFLET. Our final witnesses are representatives of District 28,
United Mine Workers of America.
10 The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH TATE, PRESIDENT OF LOCAL UNION 2166, DISTRICT
EXECUTIVE BOARD, DISTRICT 28, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA
10 Mr. TATE. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Joe
Tate. I am a resident of Dickenson County in southwest Virginia, a member of
the United States Mine Workers of America, president of Local Union 2166 and a
member of the District Executive Board, District 28, United Mine Workers of
America.
10 I appear before you in opposition to H.R. 2.
10 In contrast to the proponents of this legislation, I feel that H.R. 2
would invoke undue hardships on all United Mine Workers, cause increased energy
costs and cause our Nation to be more dependent on foreign nations for our
energy needs. To expand further on this, I offer the following for your
consideration:
10 Having been directly involved in surface mining for the last 6 years of
my 21 years employment in the coal industry I feel this qualifies my opinion as
well, if not better, than those who view our segment of the coal industry as an
unnecessary evil.
10 Surface coal mine production in Virginia as compared to deep mine
production is almost equal. If H.R. 2 is enacted and it has the effect I think
it will, how will this production be replaced? If H.R. 2 does contain a steep
slope provision and a return to original contour provision, I am convinced that
I and thousands of my coworkers in Virginia, and other States affected by this
legislation, will join the ever-growing ranks of the unemployed. If this does
happen, as I believe it surely will, there will also be disastrous effect on the
health and retirement fund of the United Mine Workers of America due to the fact
that over 55 percent of all moneys paid into our health and retirement fund is
derived from surface mine employers signatory to our 1974 agreement.
11 H.R. 2, if enacted, will no doubt be a boon to the environment. But
what of the people? Does this committee of Congress have anything but an
educated guess as to what will happen to the regions most affected by this type
of legislation?
11 Take a chance with H.R. 2?
11 As a member of the United Mine Workers, I cannot afford it.
11 As a consumer, I cannot afford it.
11 As an American who wants his country to be independent of all foreign
energy, I definitely cannot afford it.
11 The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF JAMES P. BROOKS, REPRESENTATIVE, DISTRICT 28, UNITED MINE
WORKERS OF AMERICA
11 Mr. BROOKS. My name is James P. Brooks, I am from District 28 Local
7276 UMWA, Southwest Virginia. I am a member of the District 28 Compensation
Executive Board and chairman of the 7276 Local Mine and Safety Committee.
11 In April of 1975 when this same bill was before a committee up here, I
lost 2 weeks wages on a wildcat strike in protest of this bill, my health
services and pension fund lost thousands of dollars in royalty to our fund, and
this bill and our opinion has neither one changed. As you all know in our 1976
constitutional convention by a great majority voted against a Federal bill and
for a State by State strip mine bill, because of the different terrain in our
several coal producing States.
11 If this bill is passed, there will be millions of tons of coal that can
never be recovered by deep mining because some of these seams of coal are too
thin to be deep mined. There will be thousands of lives lost over the next few
years because of trying to mine this outcrop coal that has very little cover
over it. I speak of this from experience because in 1948 when I was an
underground miner, I was covered up in a roof fall while trying to help drive a
drain way outside under this bad top near the outside. I have 25 years surface
and 5 years underground mining experience. This should qualify me to speak on
this subject. The first 7 days of 1977 there were seven miners killed in the
mines which is just statistics to most people who do not realize the dangers of
mining coal, but I can assure you it means much more to their families and
widows and children. It also means more to me because these are my fraternal
brothers.This slaughter continues in spite of our 1969 Health and Safety Act. I
believe that most of the testimony presented to this committee in favor of this
bill has been by people that have never worked in an underground coal mine or
even seen one, yet they say to me, "Go back underground and mine this coal."
11 Also, people point to the Pennsylvania strip mine bill and say they are
doing this kind of mining in Pennsylvania. But no one has mentioned the fact
that over the past 3 to 5 years $9 million have been pulled out of our dues
money to subsidize the anthracite pen sion and health services fund. Part of
this Pennsylvania anthracite fund comes from stripping anthracite coal. Looking
at the facts, I don't believe our bituminous funds can survive under this great
loss of moneys to our funds that comes from the royalty of strip mine coal that
comes from our steep slope mines that will be abolished by this bill.
12 This committee was shown slides of about 10 mine sites in southwest
Virginia, which is my home. One of these was of the Backbone Ridge mine in the
city of Norton, Va., where reclamation and seeding had not been done because the
mining had not been completed.I don't believe the fact was mentioned that a
hospital and shipping center was being built on this so-called raped land, that
sold for $2 8,000 per acre, gentlemen. We have a deep mine brother with us who
is on the board of directors of this hospital who is available for comment if
any committee member is interested.
12 We also have a multimillion-dollar airport in Wise that will accommodate
jet aircraft that would not have been possible under this bill. These are only
two examples of what can be done with this strip mined land in this rugged hill
country of the Appalachian region.
12 In closing, this land is my home where I sincerely hope to work at my
trade as a strip miner until retirement age and live the rest of my remaining
days in the peace of my homeland.
12 Gentlemen, I thank you for the privilege you have granted me by listening
to what I had to say.
12 The CHAIRMAN. Thank you Mr. Brooks.
12 Mr. WAMPLER. Mr. Chairman, if time permits, and if there are any
questions the panel is available to respond.
12 The CHAIRMAN. We will take just a few moments for questions before we
move on.
12 Let me say to you, Congressman Wampler, I thank you for coming here and
for putting together a very well informed and important panel made up State
officials and people who work in the mines and we are glad to have you here. We
are anxious to keep an open mind. If it is a bad bill we want to know why and
if we can improve it we want to know how, too.
12 I wish you would become a missionary on one thing for me. We hear from
State after State, both from environmentalists and from coal interest, "Why
don't you come down and see it." The environmentalists say it is a good bill and
you reply it is the meanest bill that has ever been proposed. The coal people
say we are doing such a good job in Virginia and "can't you leave us alone." You
want us to pass a Federal bill. So I set up a schedule of field trips to the
different areas of our country. There is one scheduled going West in a couple
of weeks and we have one down to Virginia scheduled for March 12 or 13. We are
going to arrange for helicopters from the Army and get people out and around and
see Virginia and Kentucky. I think the problem is we cannot get any members to
go. We had one member sign up for the trip to your area out of 46 people on the
committee.
12 It takes about 48 hours of our time. I have seen them and I am going
back but I wish you would get after your colleagues and highpressure and move
them and romance them and get them to come down and see it.
13 If Virginia is doing as good a job as we were told here today maybe you
can make some converts down there. I urge my colleagues to take -
13 Mr. WAMPLER. This is the first time that I was aware this visit was
scheduled. I am particularly appreciative to you for doing it. The gentlemen
from Virginia will be there to greet you and I will follow your suggestion and
talk to at least some of the members that I feel I may have some persuasion with
because this is particularly important to see.
13 May I say that there are two remedies. Somewhere in the middle lies the
answer. Abolition is not the answer and to go unregulated is not the answer.
It is just that many of us feel the States are doing an adequate job. They can
do a better job but we do not want to legislate this industry out of business
and I am afraid of the limits H.R. 2 -
13 The CHAIRMAN. That is the difference of opinion I have with you.
13 Let me just say two or three quick things and then I will let my
colleagues get into the act. We start from different assumptions. You start
from one assumption. I start from another and your assumption is that if we
pass this bill we are going to put you out of business.
13 The mining and strip mining of coal in southwestern Virginia will come to
a grinding halt. On the contrary, I do not think it will. I think the
experience elsewhere shows it. I want to mine more coal. I want to see your
area come back. I think these communities were down and out because coal was
flat on its back and the young people had to go off to the big cities like
Detroit and Cleveland. I would like to see them come back and see these areas
prosper.
13 I want to write a bill to see this increase in the production of coal and
double it in the next 10 years.
13 You are persuaded that the bill will not permit it. I am persuaded that
it will.
13 We had the fellow from Pennsylvania and they have got some steep hills
just as steep as yours. He said the mining companies told us we could not do
it. We forced them to do it and now they are very happy. Many of them are
realizing that coal is coming back and we are putting the land back and so on.
13 But we have tried to write a bill that lets the States take over. The
States are proud of their law and the States can do a good job. We encourage
them to administer the law and take over the process.
13 I am for your airports and I am for using flat land. I think you need
flat land. I know you have uses for it, in your airports, or a hospital or a
school or a shopping center or housing. Let's create some flat land out of this
strip mining process.
13 So, we hope we can improve the bill and we listen to you cheerfully and
the only reason I have been a little bit impatient this morning is that we have
a lot of people, an overcrowded schedule. I personally have heard all these
arguments before. I try to listen to them again with an open mind. Some of my
newer colleagues have not heard them and they have a right to be educated and to
listen to your opinions and views.
14 Mr. WAMPLER. We have proposed some amendments that I hope we can live
with but as the law is presently written I am convinced we cannot do so. I
heard from people whose judgment I value and they say that we simply cannot do
it.
14 The CHAIRMAN. That is an honest difference.
14 Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, one word sir.
14 I have strong feelings that this committee owes it to these people and
the people of this Nation to come down to our country.Don't take our word for
it. I will take time off my job. I will walk you over Wise County.
14 The CHAIRMAN. I am trying to get them to come down. I have been there
several times and I will go again.
14 Mr. RAHALL. I would just like to express my appreciation that
Congressman Wampler brought his men from Virginia. I represent the neighboring
State of West Virginia on this committee. I am very concerned with a lot of the
concerns you expressed in regard to this bill and I would like to commend the
chairman for setting up the visits that he has set up.
14 He will be coming into my home State also. Unfortunately, the time of
the year is not the best but I do realize the necessity to proceed along with
this bill that has been before this committee for many years.
14 I would like to also express my desire to work with you and to hear your
amendments that you present to this committee.
14 Again, thank you for your testimony here today.
14 Mr. RONCALIO. I would like to just take a minute, Mr. Chairman, to first
compliment Congressman Wampler in the presence of this audience of his
constituents.
14 We have had this bill a couple of times on the floor of the House of
Representatives. There is not a more articulate man than Bill Wampler in having
defeated this legislation and the overrides of the President. He was
responsible for at least 10 votes to sustain the overrides and you ought to know
this.
14 Our purpose, as the chairman so eloquently said, is not to frustrate
anybody, but it is to write a bill we can all live with, in Montana, Wyoming,
South Dakota, Virginia, Kentucky, Nevada. We all must live with something that
can define the problem where you have a surface mine that is not reclaimed and
massive coal deposits, I believe, with a minimum of possible danger of
depression hurting people.
14 One thing you keep repeating, my friends, is that you cannot live with
the provision requiring restoration to original contour. The bill does not
require restoration where it is going to be a massive difference between
original contour because it need not be. No place in the bill does it say so.
14 Now, you start thumbing through the bill.You won't find it. You will
find "approximately." That means a massive difference. It can mean the
difference of 30 to 90 feet in the places where you are drilling.
14 So, let me say, we want to live with what we are doing and we will try to
take all of your suggestions and appeals and write a bill we can all live with.
15 The CHAIRMAN.Mr. Bauman.
15 Mr. BAUMAN. I want to say something not only to the gentleman whose
State officials appeared, but to the gentlemen from southwestern Virginia, who
took the time to come up here today. We do appreciate not only your being here
but your views. A lot of people come here and make their views known. I do not
think I will forget at any time the massive protest we saw here last year of
this legislation. To me it evidenced the deep human concern, that all of you
have, as Mr. Brooks and Mr. Tate have shown very eloquently here.
15 I do not want you to feel that your views are forgotten. You have an
eloquent spokesman in your Congressman from southwestern Virginia and he relates
your views well.
15 We will be glad to have amendments. As one member of the subcommittee, I
certainly will be able to offer some of those to try and perfect the bill so
that it is liveable.
15 I do not agree with one of the leaders of the Congress who said on
television Sunday that the American people sometimes want one thing, but the
Congress knows better what they ought to have. We are trying to save the
environment; but human beings are part of the environment.
15 Being here today allows us to understand that.
15 Keep up the pressure.
15 The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions?
15 There was one truck that said, "Udall's own canyon is a high wall."
15 Mr. EDWARDS. I just want to point out, we have had a number of very
eloquent witnesses that have appeared before this committee.
15 One of the things that very seldom gets brought out is the effect of H.R.
2 on a different kind of animal, the human animal. We are all concerned with
cars so that they forget about looking after an animal that needs to be taken
care of.
15 I share the concerns about this bill that were brought up this morning.
I just wanted to thank you, especially Mr. Brooks and Mr. Tate, because we have
such a problem in this Congress with limousine liberals who are so busy trying
to protect people from themselves that it is about time we had an opportunity to
hear from the people who are going to be adversely affected by some of our
brainstorms up here and have the chance for them to have some input into the
process.
15 We will definitely, some of us, take your amendments very seriously.
They may be the only additive we have to defeating the bill but I appreciate it.
15 Mr. Wampler, I want to say that I appreciate very much the role that you
have had in bringing these people here. It is a side of the issue that we too
seldom hear in words and we need to hear more of it.
15 The CHAIRMAN. We thank you Congressman Wampler and all of the good
folks.
15 Mr. SEIBERLING. One comment. I just would like to point out that Mr.
Carter has abolished the limousines that were chauffeuring Republican
bureaucrats in the last 8 years. So I do not know where the limousine liberals
are.
16 Mr. EDWARDS. Permit me to say just this, I passed one of them today as
I was coming in on the beltway.
16 Mr. SEIBERLING. It must have been one of the holdovers from the last
administration.
16 Second, I just would like to say when we had testimony on Tuesday from
representatives of mining companies in Virginia I asked them questions as to
what was so different, specifically, about Virginia that made it different from
other States where mining on steep slopes is taking place, such as Pennsylvania,
West Virginia, and Kentucky.The only thing they could come up with was that
these other States had said they could live with this bill and Virginia cannot.
16 The only answer I got was that Virginia has a higher percentage of steep
slopes. But the point I was looking to make was nevertheless in Pennsylvania
and these other States they are mining slopes of 35 degrees and doing so
successfully restoring slopes to the original contour and so forth.
16 I wish you gentlemen could throw some light on this by writing us; it
would be very, very appreciated, as to what your peculiar problems are because
if they are different we certainly should address ourselves to them.
16 Thank you.
16 The CHAIRMAN. I am afraid we started a war with limousine liberals.
16 Mr. SKUBITZ. There are a few questions I would like to ask these
gentlemen from Virginia. Do I understand you correctly? Do you have a
reclamation law within the State? Do you feel that it is working
satisfactorily?
16 You mention the State of Virginia levies a $1 2 per acre tax on stripped
land. Does the State feel this is sufficient to take care of the reclamation
within the areas?
16 Mr. SHIFLET. We have legislation before the General Assembly now asking
for increase in that. We hope we will be successful in it.
16 Mr. SKUBITZ.How much of an increase?
16 Mr. SHIFLET. One bill asks for about a 25-percent increase, another asks
for a 300 percent increase.
16 Mr. SKUBITZ. I would like to see the State of Virginia go to a per ton
tax on coal in order to raise money to take care of their problems.
16 I was impressed with Jim Brooks' testimony. He expressed some of the
things we talk about. I can tell my colleagues if they think you are going to
start mining coal by deep shaft at present prices, forget it.
16 I would like to see some of them do it. It is not such an easy job to
crawl under that desk. That is about the depth of the coal in my State. Try
working there for 8 hours and shoveling coal for 8 hours and find out if they
want to go back to deep mining again.
16 The CHAIRMAN. All right.
16 Mr. SKUBITZ. Some of the evidence here today brought up one thing and
that is those members of the committee that are constantly talking about this
not stopping the production of coal, may just as well forget it.
16 One thing we are doing by this legislation in its present form is driving
the small producer out of business. He cannot afford the type of equipment or
the expense that is incurred to reclaim land. The big producers can; they may
be able to do the job.
17 The small fellow cannot. I have seen that operation, Mr. Chairman.
My father was blackballed and could not get a job and we had to mine a small
dinky mine in order to make a living. I know that these fellows are operating
with two or three small trucks trying to make a living. They do not want to go
on this wonderful welfare program we have.
17 They cannot afford to buy the equipment thus they cannot do the
reclamation that is required.
17 I am wondering, Mr. Chairman, if it would be possible in this
legislation, before the final draft, to exempt these operations that employ up
to 10 people. Then let the State make the determination as to the reclamation
project that is necessary to stop pollution.
17 That would be a big improvement and would make it possible for the little
fellow, who is still in the free enterprise system, that this bill could put out
of existence, to stay in business.
17 I thank you.
17 The CHAIRMAN. I think we are really at the end again, Congressman
Wampler and all your fine citizens from the Commonwealth of Virginia, we thank
you.You have been very helpful.
17 Mr. WAMPLER. I thank you for your kindness.
17 The CHAIRMAN. Tell the Governor we will expect him next time.
17 Our next witness is Mr. Frank Mendicino, the attorney general of the
great State of Wyoming.
17 Mr. SKUBITZ. Mr. Chairman, I ask the unanimous consent, following Mr.
Roncalio's statement, regarding th ereturn to original contour, that we insert
in the record at that point, following his statement, page 4, line 10 through
line 15.
17 Mr. RONCALIO. May I reserve the right to be heard?
17 I read from the language and I said in order to restore to the
approximate original contour.
17 Mr. SKUBITZ. That is where the debate takes place, what we mean by
approximate.
17 Mr. RONCALIO. There is no debate. While the bill is before the members,
I do not think it is necessary to inflict upon the taxpayers the cost of
printing the language.
17 Mr. SKUBITZ. I am just asking for 10 lines.
17 The CHAIRMAN. If there is not objection, it will be placed in the
committee files.
17 Mr. RONCALIO. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
17 The last person I want to argue with is my good friend Mr. Skubitz who is
a coal miner and so am I. His father coal mined and so did mine. We come from
the same part of the world and we are immigrant sons.
17 We have no business quarreling about this bill. It does not require
anybody to restore to the original, which we can live with.
17 In Wyoming, the attorney general is Frank Mendicino. He, too, comes from
immigrant stock.
17 We have been down this road time and time and time again and we are
asking you all to help us write a bill we can all live with.
17 This is an unfortunate emotional introduction. I introduce to you our
good friend, Frank Mendicino.
STATEMENT OF V. FRANK MENDICINO, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF WYOMING
18 Mr. MENDICINO. I have prepared a statement to the staff which I
believe has been circulated.
18 The CHAIRMAN. It will be received and printed in the record in full
along with the comments and recommendations that you made.
18 [Prepared statement of V. Frank Mendicino may be found in the appendix.]
18 Mr. MENDICINO. You will note from the statement, I am here on behalf of
the Governor of Wyoming who is involved in the closing days of our legislative
session. He asked me to convey his best wishes to the committee and his thanks
for allowing us to appear before you on this.
18 Attached to the statement are some very specific section by section
comments and recommendations which I will not touch on in my remarks today which
I submitted for your consideration.
18 It has long been the position of our Governor that comprehensive
regulation of local surface mining operations is essential in order to protect
and preserve our environment while developing a sound energy and economic
policy. This committee, and the Congress, has devoted a great deal of effort in
developing a national strip mining bill which attempts to meet those objectives.
18 First, State programs with primary jurisdictions for administering the
provisions of either H.R. 2 or S. 7 will be viable in Western States only if
Federal lands are also subject to those State programs. Where ownership of a
vast majority of the surface and/or the mineral estate is vested in the Federal
Government, a State program limited to only private or State lands cannot be
effective. Furthermore, the interspersing of Federal lands with State and
private lands would make the program even more complex. In addition, one of the
stated findings of both bills is that "Primary governmental responsibility for
developing, authorizing, issuing, and enforcing regulations for surface mining
and operations subject to this act should rest with the States."
18 This emphasis on primary State jurisdiction as the preferred method of
implementing environmental protection laws is consistent with the provisions of
the Clean Air Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. For these
reasons, we would urge the committee to adopt the provisions of S. 7,
particularly 423(d), relating to State jurisdiction over Federal lands under an
approved State program.
18 The next point we considered to be extremely important has to do with
what happens during the interim period between the passage of the bill and the
approval of a State program.
18 We are concerned that the bill currently calls for the Federal Government
to create a large interim bureaucracy to enforce the interim provisions. Those
States that have entered into agreements with the Department of the Interior
pursuant to 30 CFR 211.75, or that are otherwise qualified to make such
agreements, should continue to have primary responsibility for enforcing
reclamation laws, pending an administrative determination on the approvability
of the State program under the Federal bills. This approach would minimize the
creation of an interim Federal bureaucracy which, as we are all too painfully
aware, may tend to become a permanent Federal bureaucracy.
19 In this regard, section 702(d) appears to us to require the preparation
of an environmental impact statement prior to the approval of a State program.
Congress, by enacting either H.R. 2 or S. 7, would appear to have concluded that
a State program meeting the requirements of the law should be approved. I fail
to perceive what added benefits the EIS process will add in view of that fact
determination.
19 Turning to the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund, we would request the
committee to continue the emphasis on State responsibility by changing the
language of section 401(e) to conform to section 301(d) of S. 7, which allows
the States to administer the funds, if there is an approved State law.
19 As you might expect, we endorse the 35 percent ton add-on in H.R. 2
rather than the Senate version which diverts a portion of the Federal mineral
royalty. In addition, we believe the purposes for which the funds can be used
should be expanded to include noncoal surface mining operations which have been
abandoned. Abandoned uranium pits from the 1950's and early 1960's are the
major problem in Wyoming and some other Western States, perhaps even more so
than abandoned coal mines.
19 Although it is not now a part of H.R. 2, we would like to express our
concern about the Mansfield amendment, section 423(e) of S. 7. We believe this
provision is undesirable because we believe it could force mining into areas
which are more difficult to reclaim. In addition, given the amounts of coal
which have already been leased, the importance of that section in terms of land
owner protection is likely to be minimal.
19 Gentlemen, I recognize that at this stage in the development of this
legislation you are no longer interested in broad, general statements and that
what you want now are specific comments and recommendations and we have
attempted to provide those to you. In order to make my final, and perhaps
strongest recommendation, I must, however, make a general statement with respect
to our greatest concern in Wyoming.
19 Really, what we are asking for is the opportunity for the State of
Wyoming to administer its reclamation program. As you probably know, we
concluded several months of negotiation with the Department of the Interior on
this very issue by entering into an agreement pursuant to 30 CFR 211.75 which
allows us this opportunity. There are many who have ridiculed this agreement
because it is apparent that a Federal bill will be passed in the near future.
Even in the West there are many States that do not agree with us primarily
because they want Federal dollars to administer their programs or they are
unable to enact strong reclamation legislation in their States.
19 We understand their problems but we do not understand why a Federal bill
cannot be passed including provisions which will allow us to administer our
program so long as a determination has been made by the Secretary that it is at
least as stringent as Federal law. We are concerned that the bill presently is
ambiguous with respect to the authority of a State if a State plan is approved.
20 I repeat, we feel that there is a great deal of ambiguity as to what
happens next if the State plan is approved. We would like to see stronger
language in the bill regarding this point. It is our understanding that it is
the thought and the intention of this committee, if the State program is
approved, that the Federal involvement will likely be limited to a monitoring of
the State program to insure that the provisions of the law are being complied
with and the State program is being enforced.
20 We can live with that but we do not want to see anything in the bill that
says that. We would feel a lot more comfortable if there was something there.
20 In addition, we believe that the technical provisions in both the House
and Senate versions of the bill make it nearly impossible for a State to develop
a meaningful and workable State program. If these provisions are applied with
great rigidity, the response from the States may well be similar to our response
to the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Federal Government can keep the program.
20 By comparison, the other two pieces of Federal legislation which I have
mentioned, the Clean Air Act and the Water Pollution Control Act, provides the
flexibility which we think make those pieces of legislation far more acceptable
to the States. It is on those concerns, with regard to the specificity of the
bill, that are provided in the appendix.
20 The CHAIRMAN. I particularly like your emphasis on the specific
language. We hear a lot here, emotional statements, and it is understandable on
issues as important as this, but we want to write a bill. We are going to do
that in the next couple of weeks. We need to have a specific critique.
20 So, I thank you for that input.
20 Do I understand that Governor Herschler supports a bill along the lines
of H.R. 2?
20 Mr. MENDICINO. As long as the points that I have pointed out are
considered, Mr. Chairman. I think that he would.
20 We are very concerned. It has been a most significant thing to us for
the past 2 years, relative to the involvement of the States in these matters and
we are primarily concerned with the present language that we feel simply cannot
be enforced by the Federal bill. If it is taken from the Federal Government we
would just as well do that but there are certain minimums that we must make. If
there were standards set up by the Federal bill and we were allowed to enforce
our own program, I think that it would be acceptable.
20 The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other inquiries?
20 Mr. RONCALIO. I am going to take my leave, Mr. Attorney General. I
called a luncheon meeting at 11:45 - I see I have time for that. I do not have
to leave just yet.
20 We have to mark up this bill soon and we will get input from your
specific recommendation. They will be given paramount - I think more than
paramount - consideration.
20 Last fall the language caused serious concern on my part.
fall the language caused serious concern on my part.
21 State regulations should lead and the States should administer it
where there is a paramount threat.
21 Well, what is a paramount threat? It is what some Federal official says
it is.
21 A few years ago Gerald Ford stood on the floor of the House and said the
ground rules for impeachment are not what anybody says they are. They are what
the Congress says it is at any given time. He said that is what the ground
rules of impeachment are. It is too ambiguous, too nebulous, to get on the
books so that was the only reason we felt it was very plain.
21 We want State leadership where the State laws are more stringent. I hope
I can take out of this whatever will result in ambiguity.
21 We have enough trouble mining the coal now. We see where we can get
caught up in redtape.
21 Mr. SKUBITZ. I would like his definition of paramount. What Congress
thinks it is. I wonder if he says the same applies to the word approximate?
21 Mr. RONCALIO. The difference is the word approximate is put in the
statute, Mr. Skubitz. The difference is the word approximate is written in the
law. It is not written in the law what paramount is. I think there is a lot of
difference in the wording.
21 Mr. SKUBITZ. Approximate will be what the court defines it to be.
21 I have one question, Mr. Attorney General. Is most of the coal in your
State, Government-owned coal?
21 Mr. MENDICINO. Yes.
21 Mr. SKUBITZ. In this law there is a 35-cent tax per ton of coal produced
to be levied for reclaimed or flatlands. That is correct, is it not?
21 Mr. MENDICINO. Yes.
21 Mr. SKUBITZ. 17 1/2 cents per ton of that will remain in your State.
21 We in Kansas and the other States did not get that. We mine most of our
coal and the coal that we are paying this tax on is Kansas coal as well as your
coal and we believe it belongs to Uncle Sam.
21 If my figures are correct, you mine about 72,000 tons of coal per acre.
That is a nice return, is it not, to reclaim 1 acre of land?
21 In addition to that, there is a 17 1/2-cents-per-ton tax annually on all
coal mined. The company itself will have to reclaim that land, will it not?
Then add that expense to the cost of production.
21 In your statement, I understand that you have legislation pending, or are
anticipating introducing legislation to place a severance tax on coal. Can you
tell me what the thought is in the State. How much per ton?
21 Mr. MENDICINO. Our tax, our severance tax, Congressman, is now on a
percentage basis. We are, if the bills which are now in various stages of
process in the House and the senate of our State pass in the form they were in
when I left, we would have a total severance tax of approximately 11 percent.
21 Mr. SKUBITZ. Inasmuch as this is Federal coal, I feel the 35 cents
reclamation fee should be distributed by the Federal Government itself into
those areas requiring reclamation for flatlands wherever they may be found. It
should not go to the States and be at their disposal.
22 Thank you.
22 Mr. MENDICINO. Congressman, if I may respond. If I am understanding
your statement correctly, you are having some concern relative to the amount of
money which this bill would leave in Wyoming. Perhaps I am not understanding
you correctly, that you have concern in view of your request that we administer
our own program. I think our response to you is if we are given the choice, if
you say to us in this bill, "You administer your own program with certain
minimums and you receive less money from the Government to do it," we will take
that, sir.
22 We want the opportunity to administer our own program. We recognize that
one of the enticements of the bill is the money that is made available and that
this is very attractive to some of our sister States in the West. We say, sir,
we will prefer spending our own money and administering our own program rather
than having a program imposed upon us and receiving as a price tag for that a
substantial amount of Federal money.
22 Mr. SKUBITZ. I would like to see a proposal. Let the States make the
determination. The point I am trying to make is that in your area, you mine
about 2,000 tons of coal per acre. We allow 17 1/2 cents per ton to be left in
the States to reclaim 1 acre. That is a tremendous sum of money, $350 per acre,
to be exact.
22 Inasmuch as it is Federal land, that money should be distributed by Uncle
Sam, on some sort of basis, to all States where we have mined coal, where we
have flatlands.
22 The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions?
22 Mr. RUPPE. Thank you, Chairman.
22 I believe you made reference to the fact that about half of the
reclamation fee paid in the State stays in the producing State. I believe your
comments on page 3 of your testimony is that in the utilization of these
reclamation funds you feel the dollars ought to be used not just for reclamation
of coal mined lands but for reclamation of any other type of orphan lands within
your State.
22 Mr. MENDICINO. You are referring to the number of lands? Is that what
you are referring to?
22 Mr. RUPPE. Yes.
22 Mr. MENDICINO. That is correct.
22 Mr. RUPPE. I gather you are of a mind also, that if the State now has
developed an arrangement with the Federal Government complying with what I
believe are recently issued regulations governing the mines of the West, you are
saying then that the State ought to control the present arrangement even during
the interim process, rather than having the Government direct its own interim
program to achieve what you are now achieving through the present agreements
held with the Federal Government.
22 Mr. MENDICINO. That is correct.
22 Mr. RUPPE. You indicate opposition to the Mansfield amendment. I would
suspect that is the opinion that is widely held in this committee. What do you
feel in general, in terms of surface mining owner consent?
23 Mr. MENDICINO. We support certain statements on owner consent, with
a provision in our own law. We suspect that that is going to be required.
23 Mr. RUPPE. Well, you have a surface owner consent clause in your law.
Do you know that the Federal Government has a surface owner consent clause in
this legislation or could you tell me what would be the cost to the various
States to administer that program and let the various States, whether they are
Wyoming or Kentucky, administer that program on the State level.
23 Mr. MENDICINO. I think we will have to take the position that we would
like to do that at a State level.
23 Mr. RUPPE. On page 1 of your appendix, I gather you are addressing the
point that - or rather it is page 2. I am sorry, I think it is page 2, when you
refer to stringency. I gather what you are saying, at least what I understand
you are saying, is if a mining company reclaims the land involved such that
better agricultural use of the land is possible than may be the case prior to
mining, that you would not want that precluded by this statute?
23 Mr. MENDICINO. That is correct.Although, the mind trust of that
particular comment, Congressman, is that we hope that mere dollars will not
become the test of stringency but rather the uses.
23 In other words, that the greater number of dollars that are required for
reclamation does not necessarily mean the higher the use.
23 Mr. RUPPE. In other words, you are saying, let's look to the uses, not
look to the dollars involved in the reclamation process.
23 Mr. MENDICINO. Right. What is the result of reclamation going to be.
23 Mr. RUPPE. On page 1 you indicate, I gather, so far as unsuitability is
concerned, you would find it difficult to go through the State of Wyoming and
set up a suitability or unsuitability pattern throughout the State. You would
prefer to have the question of unsuitability done on a case-by-case basis with
the test being can it or can it not be reclaimed?
23 Mr. MENDICINO. That is correct. That aspect of the bill does cause us
some concern. The way that our State on reclamation is set up there is a
significant number determined during our permitting process at the present time.
We would prefer doing it that way rather than trying to catalog at a point those
properties or those tracts which can or cannot be.
23 Mr. RUPPE. Do you know what procedures you have? Do you have enough
information in Wyoming to really designate on any kind of a permanent basis the
suitability or unsuitability of your State lands for the mining process?
23 Mr. MENDICINO. No. We think we have got the information. We would
simply prefer to do it through the permitting process.
23 Mr. RUPPE. You also indicate on page 5 of your appendix that you feel a
monthly report filed here is not necessarily the best way to do the job but it
simply leads to more paperwork.
23 Do you feel that the experience in Wyoming is that you would feel
comfortable in reporting to the regulatory authorities on a 3-month basis and
you would be comfortable, at least in your State, with that. Is that what you
are saying, that it would be sufficient to insure that the mining companies
would operate in conformity with the law?
24 Mr. MENDICINO. Surely. However, in all fairness, I must say that we
recognize that our problem in this area, in Wyoming, is not as severe as it is
in other parts of the country and I guess really what we are saying in that
regard is that perhaps the difficulty is in section and that the different parts
of the country should be taken into consideration.
24 Mr. RUPPE. Thank you very much.
24 Mr. UDALL. Let me say to my colleagues, we shall have a long wait, far
into the night, the way we are going.
24 We have a vote on right now. We will go to 12 o'clock and break for
lunch until about 1:30. We will move along as quickly as we can this afternoon.
24 Mr. SEIBERLING. Could I just make a couple of comments so we can get his
reactions. First of all, it seems to me your suggestion about having State and
Federal regulation - I mean, State and Federal regulation - I mean, State and
Federal law is being very sound. I do not think, however, we can call up a
Federal administrator to wait and see what the States go for. One thing we have
to make sure, that they do what they are told to and if they do not then we have
a further delay, if we wait to create a Federal structure. Do you want to
comment on that?
24 Mr. MENDICINO.Yes. All we are saying is that we want an agreement with
the Department which sets up the kind of machinery. We recognize that it could
require some adopting in order to administer the things that are in this bill
and what we are saying is that we want that relationship created, that we should
have the opportunity to expand on it and use it with respect to this bill.
24 Incidentally, there are two or three other States that have followed our
lead.
24 Mr. SEIBERLING. I think that makes sense.
24 Another thing is I do not think it is practical to have each State deal
with the surface owner permits. We are dealing with Federal coal. It is all
Federal coal and we know we have a uniform treatment.
24 Mr. MENDICINO. I do not think that.
24 The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.
24 Our next set of witnesses is a panel from Appalachian Coalition Citizens
panel.
24 Who is quarterback of this group?
24 All right, Mr. Askins.
24 I am going to leave to vote in just a couple of minutes and I will
24 I am going to leave to vote in just a couple of minutes and I will return
but we will have to interrupt at that point, but let's go ahead.
STATEMENT OF DONALD ASKINS, APPALACHIAN COALITION, INC.
24 Mr. ASKINS. My name is Donald Askins, and I am from Jenkins, Ky., a
small mining town in eastern Kentucky. My friends and I represent the
Appalachian Coalition, a regional nonprofit citizens organization composed of
State and local community groups from the coal-producing sections of Appalachia.
The coalition is a response by Appalachian citizens to the widespread
environmental and social destruction and suffering that strip mining has
subjected them to for the past 20 years, and continues to subject them to today.
The coalition reflects the sense of the people that, in the controversy
surrounding the issue of strip mining, their voice and their concerns have been
largely ignored, particularly in the last 5 years or so.
25 The CHAIRMAN. Excuse me for interrupting, Mr. Askins. I think I
better go. We will just suspend for a couple of minutes.
25 [Recess.]
25 [Prepared statement of Donald Askins may be found in the appendix.]
25 AFTER RECESS
25 The CHAIRMAN. My voting record has been saved so we can proceed.
25 Mr. ASKINS. We thank you for the opportunity to speak here today, and we
trust that this committee will be both sensitive and responsive to the needs of
the hundreds of thousands of Appalachian citizens who now live under the ominous
burden of strip mining.
25 I would now like to present the Rev.R. Baldwin Lloyd.
STATEMENT OF REV.R. BALDWIN LLOYD, APPALACHIAN PEOPLES SERVICE
ORGANIZATION
25 Reverend LLOYD. I appreciate the opportunity to be a part of this
panel to testify before you today. I only wish that the thousands of people
throughout this great land of ours who have suffered so the ravages of strip
mining could be here to speak to you today, too. For only if you can grasp the
enormity of the evil - the desecration of peoples lives, of their communities
and their land, can you truly be able to understand the immensity of the problem
and why strip mining must be phased out.
25 My remarks will be addressed to moral questions implied in strip mining.
I know that when we speak about what is or is not moral that that depends on
what frame of reference we use; we each speak from our own. I also know that
there are many frames of reference upon which people in our society act, and
many interpretations of any set of moral values. But his should not prevent us
from addressing the moral questions.
25 My own view of morality is based upon a Judeo-Christian understanding of
creation. It is one that understands that God created all the heavens and the
Earth. It is one that understands with the psalmist that, "The Earth is the
Lord's and all this is in it." It is one that understands God created everything
with a purpose to be fulfilled - all of creation, this earthly home of ours.
God created the world as one, whole, interconnected, limited, fragile entity -
held together in a delicate balance of interrelationships of all living things.
We as human beings, today as never before, experience and know the
interdependence of all people. Also and unalterably, we of the human family are
mutually interdependent with all the rest of Earth's creation - the fertile,
life-giving land, the water, the air and all living things. The special role
assigned to us in this interdependence is to be caretakers and to live in
harmony with creation's on-going, life-giving process. To understand is to know
that to hoard, to destroy or to waste the Earth is to destroy life, and that
this destruction is wrong and evil.
26 In the words of Warren Wright, a great mountain preacher, who has been
himself personally affected by strip mining:
26 Strip mining is not, or should not be, a debatable subject. It's like
debating whether to cut off your hand if you can't get enough money out of it.
How do you debate the worth of taking our topsoil and destroying the balance
of nature and dealing with the rights of every generation of people?
26 What do we usually discuss about strip mining? Our debates on the issue
are full of the economic pros and cons of strip mining, the energy crisis, and
the role of fossil fuels. We hear much about the need to produce more and more
energy for more and more technological advancements that benefit fewer and fewer
people. We might indeed ask, in the scale of values, do all these benefits
really contribute to a more humane society?
26 Lost in the debate is what is happening to the people and to the
environment in which they live. Also lost in this debate is the question of
whose would it is that we human beings inhabit. There is no consideration of
this Earth as God's and no understanding that the fulfillment of our human lives
- indeed that of all living things - has somehow to do with God's intended
purpose for all his creation.
26 So the debate about strip mining is a moral question above all else.
Strip mining is immoral because of what it does to people and to land and water
and forests, and all other living creatures it affects.
26 What are the effects of strip mining in Appalachia? Allow me to give
just a few concrete examples of this.
26 In a region of steep mountains and heavy rainfall, the people of
Appalachia live in constant danger of floods and landslides. Some of the
heaviest costs of strip mining are off of the actual strip mine sites.Households
- whole communities live increasingly in fear every time there are extended
rains or sudden cloudbursts, common to the mountain region.
26 In the spring of 1975, you will remember, eastern Kentucky, southwestern
Virginia, and southern West Virginia experienced devastating floods, not one,
but in some areas, three in a period of 1 month. Hundreds of homes were
destroyed or damaged, farms and gardens, highways and bridges were destroyed.
The cost was in the millions of dollars. In eastern Kentucky, two men were
drowned in the floods of that time. Even Congressman Carl Perkins of Kentucky
attributed the worst of this damage directly to strip mining.
26 These are costs left behind - not internalized in the production of strip
mined coal. These are costs thousands of Appalachians have had to endure for a
long time. And with the rapid acceleration we have seen of strip mining in the
region, tens of thousands more people are faced with the same ill-fated
prospect.
26 Blasting has proved to be a terror in the lives of thousands of people,
killing and injuring people and causing serious emotional and mental anguish.
Last summer near the Breaks Interstate Park, on the part of Virginia near
Kentucky, a huge boulder on the opposite side of the mountain from strip mine
operations was dislodged. It crashed down the mountain leaving destruction in
its path, killing a young Kentucky couple and leaving two children orphaned.
The previous year a 700-pound boulder crushed 72-year od Alice Fugate as she lay
in bed in Buchanan County, Va. She died 2 days later.
27 In December 1975, in Wise County, Va., the Clinch Valley College
fieldhouse suffered $5 0,000 damages from flying boulders crashing through its
roof. In Norton, Va., residents of 13th Street were pelted by flyrock and
buried in dust. The dust was so intense that even in midsummer windows and
doors had to be kept tightly closed. Even that did not prevent dust seeping in
to cover furniture, clothes, food, everything. Children could not play outside,
for fear of flyrock and dust effect to health. Nevertheless, several contracted
silicosis. None had ever worked a day in a mine or in a quarry.
27 In 1976, a study was compiled by the Center for Science in the Public
Interest which charged that strip mine blasting caused $2 00 million in damage
to about 10,000 citizens. Over the past 10 years, the damage exceeded $1 .5
billion and has affected 75,000 people. Most of these costs have never been
internalized in the cost of coal production.
27 Legal support is hard to come by for those who suffer from strip mining.
One medical doctor in Wise County, Va., learned what countless others had
learned when seeking help. His small cattle farm lost its water supply due to
blasting. Even 25 years' medical practice in Wise County could not assure him
of local assistance, even from his lawyer patients. He had to go outside the
area to get a lawyer who would be willing to take his case.
27 Virtually every lawyer in Virginia's seven coal counties is retained by
strip mine operators or is into stripping himself. The victims of strip mining
are for all intents and purposes legally disenfranchised.Few have the money or
know-how to gain the legal support they desperately need.
27 For many in Central Appalachia, strip mining sounds the toll of death for
their region. "Dying men live by dying streams in the midst of dying mountains.
Our homeland is dying."
27 Few today, of whatever religious persuasion, have thought seriously or
spoken out about the morality of our relationship to the natural world. This
now suddenly becomes for all of us a critical issue for the survival of world
and all of life. And we are caught largely unprepared.
27 Science and technology can be used to help, if used to seek and promote
truth and that which affirms the whole creative process of life; or it can be
used to exploit, control, and disrupt, regardless of the consequences, in order
to fulfill the insatiable appetites of power and profit-hungry people and
corporations. It seems as though we live and behave like we are the last
generation that will inhabit this Earth, with little or no thought for the
legacy we will leave for future generations.
27 There is no wise answer to strip mining but to phase it out as quickly as
we can. The moral cost - human and environmental - is too great for it to
continue. And to know that we don't have to strip mine at all only compounds
the moral judgment placed on our generation. The terrible desecration of human
life and land is all but a small percentage of the total minable coal - for less
than 5 percent of it - a mere pittance.
28 For 7 years, efforts to end these abuses through congressional
legislation have failed, more than time enough to have made the transition from
strip mining back to deep mining. Even the coal industry said 5 years ago that
it would take 3 to 5 years to make this transition. This was in response to
Congressman Ken Hechler's timetable to ban strip mining in 3 years. But it is
clear industry will take no steps in this direction unless by law it must; for
strip mining has greatly accelerated, and deep mining has diminished over the
course of these 5 years.
28 Now, however, we have a new administration and a new Congress, a new day,
we pray, a chance to begin again and set things right.
28 Mr. Chairman, I also, on behalf of the people who have suffered so long
in southwestern Virginia and who cannot be here implore you and the committee
and I commend you that you are having this tour in Virginia. I implore all the
members of the committee to come and to talk with those who have suffered so
long, to see and hear what they have to say.
28 The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.
28 [Prepared statement of Rev.R. Baldwin Lloyd may be found in the
appendix.]
28 Mr. ASKINS. Next we have J. W. Balradley from Save our Cumberland
Mountains.
STATEMENT OF J. W. BRADLEY, PRESIDENT, SAVE OUR CUMBERLAND MOUNTAINS
28 Mr. BRADLEY. I will have my full statement printed in the record if
you will strike from the record now all the untruths that have been told here
this morning about why we need strip mining.
28 Evidently, you are not going to do it.
28 I would like for you to take this picture and look at it. It is what
happened to a mountain and this picture was taken by the National Geographic.
This is not something that we do.
28 I would like my testimony to be put in the record.
28 My talk may be burdensome. For many years Tennessee was the 50th in per
capita income for their educational system in the United States. But at the
same time we have some of the wealthiest Representatives, both State and
Federal, that exist.
28 I am ashamed of the UMW because the UMW, regardless of what it was made
for, that union was made by deep miners and not strip miners. I have often said
that the strip miners were smarter. They go ahead and join the union and get
the equipment and deep mine.
28 I have a picture that I would like to show you that illustrates some of
the things that we are talking about. They say that they are opposed to going
to make original contour, whatever the argument was a while ago.
29 One study shows that we have 27.9 tons of silt run off per square acre
from a particular mountain.
29 OK. We strip mine it. We leave a high wall of a 100 feet. Then we put
back none of that and then we drain the water back to the high wall but nature
has already told us if you have any commonsense, that this is going to erode and
fill up the waterways and you are going to have an overspill.
29 You bring it back to approximate original contour and this type here is
estimated that it's 30,000 tons of drainage. That is from a strip mined area
and that was back in 1970 when we had smaller equipment and different people
operating it. They weren't as greedy as they are now. But you've got this
exposed and so forth and so on.
29 You are displacing the water table because you've stopped the natural
water reservoir in these mountains and any where else. You have already made a
lot of these mineable coals unrecoverable because you've fractured over it.
29 There is probably less than 1 percent of the total coal in the United
States that can be recovered by strip mine's present technology. I say this
because the strip mine companies borrow from the research of the deep mine
industry. There is some deep mine coal that can be stripped but there is very
little. And they didn't give credit to the strip mined coal that is deep
mineable so they take us from there.
29 But this is just to show what goes on there.I have got a case of this
sort that has been in court for over 5 years. Strip miners have an injunction
to keep me off my own property. You take the size of the TVA, the world's
largest consumer of strip mined coal, they are with the strip mine industry.
They have financed strip mining. They have supported strip mining. They even
go as far as to accept illegally located coal and strip mines, and the very
nature of it is of a worse quality than the deep mined coal.
29 One thing we did was to show that TVA had been getting $1 1/2 million on
one coal contract by illegally located strip mining companies. A year later the
FBI did a study to show that there was no violation still going on. We went
back as before and had articles to show them, and we took TV's down there to
where these violations were occurring. We watched them film it. Then we took
the FBI back and the FBI witnessed the illegal loading and the processes and
they verified it. We got search warrants for these people and when it was taken
into the Federal court they couldn't get an indictment. They didn't have
anything but visual, videotape witnesses of both the process and the citizens.
The TVA attorney and the FBI said they didn't have enough to go on.
29 We feel that the only sensible thing is to start a regulated phase out of
the strip mining. We are not going to close down the industry but we know if we
do less than 1 percent of coal that can actually be strip mined then it is going
to phase itself out.
29 So, the longer we wait the more time we are wasting. The Federal
Government can set up a bureaucracy. I wish they had done that 5 years ago.
Maybe then they wouldn't have gotten as big a raise as they got this time.
29 It is expensive to regulate strip mining. It is useless to set up a
bureaucracy that is going to destroy the land, the water, and the people, and a
lot of the natural resources. I wish I had time to really tell you what's going
on.
30 [Prepared statement of J. W. Bradley may be found in the appendix.]
30 The CHAIRMAN. Well, you feel very strongly, and you make an impressive
witness, Mr. Bradley.
30 Mr. BRADLEY. It's not worth much. I've been told that before.
30 The CHAIRMAN. Well, I have heard it before and one of my dreams is that
before the summer is here we are going to have a strip mining bill, at long
last, that will start some Federal regulation of these abuses you are talking
about.
30 Mr. BRADLEY. I don't want to argue with you, sir, but the bill that you
are all after is the same as the bill over 2 years ago. We lost confidence in
that.
30 Mr. ASKINS. Now I would like to present Judy Stephenson, executive
director of Save Our Mountains from West Virginia.
STATEMENT OF JUDY STEPHENSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SAVE OUR MOUNTAINS
30 Ms. STEPHENSON. I am also going to be a little shakey. The severe
winter in West Virginia has taken its toll in more than just the water pipes and
the natural gas shortage. It has taken its toll on a lot of our healths,
including mine.
30 In 1949 we had the strongest reclamation law in the country and a
bureaucracy that was trying to regulate strip mining. Congressman Rahall, who
sits on this committee is a freshman Congressman from West Virginia, and he has
made the statement that our law in a lot of ways is a lot stronger than H.R. 2
and it is in a couple of aspects a lot weaker.
30 Under our law, the Department of Natural Resources director has authority
to do several things. One, is to issue permits and to inspect strip mines and
approve applications. There is a great deal of debate. We have an appeal now
before the board of review, concerning that application process as laid out in
the law but there is a process which strip mining operators must come and
present plans to the department which must be accepted and then bonds must be
posted, et cetera.
30 One of the problems with that is the Division of Reclamation currently
has no technicians except for one geologist among their specialists. A lot of
these people are on civil service. There is no provision that these people be
trained to read the plans, reclamation plans that have been drawn up by
engineers or appropriate geotechnical people by the strip mine operators before
they are submitted.
30 The pay is low. Most start at about $9 ,000 a year and go up from there,
probably the ceiling is about $1 1,000 for a strip mine inspector. Due to this
there is a lot of bribing going on. There is a lot of bribing in the hills any
way, but there is a lot of bribing and I have documented it in our testimony.
30 People are offered everything from Christmas gifts to a bulldozer, to a
job that would pay a hundred percent more than they are making now. Operators -
I mean inspectors have also been threatened by operators. You report this
violation and your family lives down the road, that kind of a threat.
31 Another problem inspectors have is when a lot of violations are brought
before the courts. They have no lawyer to go with them and there is a coal
company represented by their own legal counsel before a local magistrate that
also has the same problem of living in the local district where the strip mining
is going on.
31 As for the mines, the West Virginia code sets up a nice section 20-6-30
that requires a $100 to $1 ,000 fine or up to 6 months imprisonment or both be
levied when an operator operates without a permit or bond, falsifies
information, or wilfully violates the law. If the violation is deliberate, the
fine ranges from $1,000 to $1 0,000. Each day of violation constitutes a
separate offense and may be fined accordingly.
31 The average fine levied in 1972 was $4 7.83 and increased to $2 31.73 in
1975. Despite this increase the fines levied in West Virginia are a sham. The
amounts collected would not deter an operator from violating the law. The
operator oftens finds it less expensive to violate the law and risk being fined
than to correct his violation.
31 We have a Reclamation Commission. The commission is made up of the
director of the Department of Mines, the director of the Department of
Resources, the director of Water Resources, and the director of the Division of
Reclamation. Three of those men, the last three, are part of the Department of
Natural Resources. The purpose of the commission is to review the regulations
set up under the law. Therefore, the people who are administering the law are
also reviewing their own decisions.
31 The Reclamation Board of Review is appointed by the Governor. One of
these people has to be a representative of the mining industry, one of forestry,
one in agriculture. Presently, one of the members of the board is president of
a coal company, while the other member is representing Gates Engineering which
does extensive work with coal companies. So, we would state that coal companies
are more than represented on the board, considering there is also one vacancy.
31 Another thing the law requires is that where there is no bench involved
with strip mining they are to return as much as possible of the land to its
natural contour. We have that section in our law also. Section 11 requires -
well, doesn't require, it allows, the director of the Department of Natural
Resources to delete certain areas from strip mining. This came into effect in
1971. Since that time not one area has been deleted from strip mining.
31 Shavers Fork area of West Virginia is a well known reclamation area and
despite the protests of local citizens the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife
Division and the U.S. Corps of Army Engineers on two separate occasions when the
department refused to permit it, the Reclamation Board overturned and ruled for
the mine operators on Shavers Fork.
31 One of the problems with the provisions in the State law is that most
citizens have no technical expertise or have no access to technical expertise to
finally review plans.
32 Also, many of them have a lack of access to the information although
I must say the Department of Natural Resources have kept their files open to
anybody at any time during the natural day when you - working day.
32 One of the problems in West Virginia has been the ownership of the land.
There is a chart in my testimony dealing with the ownership of the land. Over
5 million acres of land in West Virginia are owned by 50 large companies. Four
of the top land holding companies in the State own almost 2 million acres of
land.
32 The problem we think, goes back again to the fact of the citizens being
almost powerless. If somebody can own that much land and strip mine it
themselves - I mean, the Department of Natural Resources is caught in the middle
of trying to administer the law in a State where companies hold the power and
citizens do not and the citizens are on the other end of the stick trying to do
their best when they feel their rights are being violated.
32 Let me speak very briefly to two - one other point on the geology of the
area. One, in the mountains of West Virginia much of the top soil is extremely
thin. You cannot take it off and put it back.There is just not much to put
back. So, some sort of soil has to be put back there to revegetate. Also,
another thing is low pH materials find their way to the surface operations as
silt material after a period of time when they return to revegetate the area.
Another thing, we had to revegetate timber lands and turn them into grassland.
There is debate as to whether grasslands are used for any other ways of changing
the natural habitat for a lot of animals and birds in the area. Also, it is
documented that two-thirds of West Virginia is one of the major landslide areas
in the United States. Anything over 23 degrees of slope in West Virginia, it is
very likely, if you do anything like build a high wall, it is very likely to
cause landslides.
32 I have a statement in my testimony about the hydrological conditions of
the area too. In the mountains, if you start tampering with what is there with
what we have in West Virginia, since we have such an abundance of water, you
damage the water shed. You damage the drainage pattern and this causes
extensive flooding.
32 Also, another thing, because of the slopes you get a lot of the
sedimentation, and often after reclamation, that is currently happening now, 75
to 85 percent of vegetation that was there when we originally revegetated the
area is damaged.
32 I wanted to speak to the therefores of what all this means. What it
means is we have a lot of landslides, we have a lot of flooding and I would like
to speak about one flooding, Gilbert Creek, which happened in the early 1970's.
What happened was over a long period of time that whole region was stripped,
permit by permit to almost the entire top of the water shed and the extensive
area was strip mined. In 1972 there was a flash flood which cost $7 million of
damage and it was declared a national disaster area. It was by strip mining.
32 In Clear Fork, which is being strip mined now, there is an article in my
testimony referring to this, the people there have no water at all or are
flooded due to strip mine operations.
33 Another thing, in some counties is important is tourism. In Nicholas
County there has been a study and it has been projected into in the year 1980,
jobs created by tourism is 3 1/2 times that that could be created by strip
mining. This is a comparison not just of mining but of several other
industries.
33 Another thing that concerns a lot of people there, it seems there is no
respect for the cultural aspects of our own society there and how people value
their home land, from their own backyards, but if that is where the water shed
is you might not have any homeland left once the flood comes.
33 It has been estimated that 3.8 percent of the land can be strip mined.
The remaining 96 percent can only be deep mined. Thus, to obtain 3.8 percent of
West Virginia's coal some 12 percent of the State's area would be stripped
directly. Therefore one of the coal operators from Virginia who testified
before this committee on January 10, 1977 is correct that stripping disturbs 3
acres for every 1 stripped, then it follows that a total of at least 36 percent
of West Virginia's area will be disturbed to reach approximately 4 percent of
the coal reserves. With the new techniques the industry reports to have, the
area could be even greater than that.
33 The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for a very good statement. I had not realized
the concentration of land ownership in West Virginia.
33 [Prepared statement of Judy Stephenson may be found in the appendix.]
33 Mr. ASKINS. Our next speaker will be Mr. Earl Cheatwood from the Alabama
Conservancy.
STATEMENT OF EARL CHEATWOOD, ALABAMA CONSERVANCY
33 Mr. CHEATWOOD. I live in the northern part of Jefferson County
which contains the largest city of Birmingham and in the northern part of
Jefferson County we have numerous small cities and communities. Quite a number
of them, I want to say, are in need of a Federal code or legislation. The State
law has no provision for blasting in it to protect the people.
Under section 11 of the Alabama law it states an operator shall use
explosives only in accordance with the rules, regulations, and standards as set
forth by the Mine Enforcement and Safety Administration. The coal mining laws
of the State of Alabama also have provisions that they cannot blast at night
time. The only provision in it to protect the citizens in the surrounding areas
is a 300-foot setback from the occupied building.
Gentlemen, that is not far enough, by the standards that they blast today, to
remove the overburden of the coal. By blasting as heavy as they do you find in
the State of Alabama that we have the VA and FHA loans withdrawn from the
subscription in certain areas. We have homeowner insurance denials that are not
renewed. I have also documented proof in my testimony to this effect, while
property depreciates under economic penalties of 40 percent and more. If you
are a transit worker or the company you happen to work for requires you to
relocate and you are close to a strip mine area or if it is visual to you then
the 40 percent runs something like 50 to 60 percent. You have a hard time
reselling your home.
34 We have numerous physical damages to the surrounding area and I have
documented proof in my testimony of where it ranges from small amounts to better
than $10,000, damages to individual homes. That is strictly because Alabama
does not have a provision to protect the citizens.
I have also a newspaper article in the testimony of where the completion of
Interstate 65 Highway was being held up, a section of it, to whereas they can
strip mine before they complete the highway.
We have numerous civil suits within the area, 42 to my knowledge now.
I also included in my testimony in the back several newspaper articles where
the Strip Mine Commission that was created by the Alabama law, one of their own
commissioners of the seven that was appointed by the Governor of Alabama, has
pointed the finger at three of the others and asked the State Ethics Committee
to investigate.
I also have numerous articles that state conflict of interests on one of the
State senators. There are several articles pertaining to the conditions,
pertaining to the Alabama law, that are not being able to get an Alabama law
passed.
Gentlemen, I have been involved for the past 2 years in trying to get some
State legislation passed, in particular, to give relief to the blasting
conditions in Alabama. Last year I got some local legislation passed through
the house but it died in the senate. At this time I also - we do have local
legislation passed through the house now but the outlook is still dismal for it.
We have a hard problem of getting any legislation passed in the State of
Alabama, because of conflict of interest, in my opinion.
So, we ask that we have some strong provisions in this Federal bill
pertaining to blasting within the area.
I would like to stress the fact that there has been damage caused as high as
2 miles away. On February 5, 1976 Q. & T. Coal Co. put off a blast that
shattered a glass 2 1/2 miles away from the point and that was in a straight
line from a pit area, not going around the old country road. That is why I say
we need some strong provisions, even in the Federal bill pertaining to the
blasting.
[Prepared statement of Earl Cheatwood may be found in the appendix.]
The CHAIRMAN. You have a good collection of material.
Were you here last month when the Alabama officials told us they had the best
law in the country? You do not agree with that?
Mr. CHEATWOOD. No.
Mr. RUPPE. In a sense is the problem in the lack of a suitable law or is it
in the lack of adequate, tough enforcement? Where do you consider the nature of
the problem to be - in the fact that your State does not have an adequate law or
that you do not enforce the law but just have it on the books?
Mr. CHEATWOOD. Under the act 551 that was passed in 1975, it is a fact that
it has around 35 loopholes in it. There is nothing in it as far as blasting or
even the reclamation that can truthfully be enforced.
35 Under section 5, paragraph 15, it states that the seven-man commission,
they can accept or compromise or use their discretion as to what may be
dangerous to the State or take any action to recover penalties to compel
compliance with the act or any other rule or regulation and can waive or reduce
up to 90 percent of any penalty for person against whom the penalty is assessed
and take satisfactory action.
Under that paragraph alone -
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ruppe is making the point that you can have the toughest,
meanest law in the world but unless you have got the enforcement people,
people who are tough and enforce the law strictly, a good law does not matter.
Do you agree with that?
Mr. CHEATWOOD. Yes. This seven-man commission, one of the Commissioners,
the chairman, Mayor Bill Noble of Gardendale, is resigning because he accepted a
plane trip to the Alabama-Indiana football game in November. The Ethics
Committee asked him to resign.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you have more witnesses?
Mr. ASKINS. Yes. We have Mr. Phil Ronan.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK PHIL RONAN, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF APPALACHIAN
MINISTRY, VIRGINIA CITIZENS FOR BETTER RECLAMATION, INC.
35 Mr. RONAN. My name is Patrick Phil Ronan. I am director of the
Office of Appalachian Ministry, of the Catholic Diocese of Richmond, Va.,
located in Wise, Va. I am also a member of the board of directors of the
Virginia Citizens for Better Reclamation, Inc. Referred to hereinafter as VCBR.
35 VCBR, Inc. is a 250-member citizens' group concerned with the social,
economic and environmental effects of poorly controlled strip mining practices
primarily in Southwest Virginia's coalfields. Seventy-five percent of the VCBR
membership is made up of coalfield residents, 40 of whom have experienced some
type of strip mine related damages from landslides and stream siltation caused
by inadequate sediment controls to cracked home foundations, destroyed water
supplies and numerous other property damages resulting from poorly controlled
strip mine related blasting.
35 I would like to make it clear at this point that neither myself nor VCBR
is anticoal industry, as the membership of VCBR is substantially made up of coal
miners and/or relatives of coal miners. In fact, one member of our board of
directors is a UMWA surface miner and would have attended today's meeting except
for an illness in his immediate family. VCBR seeks to enhance the job
availability in coal mining through the encouragement of deep mining and the
improvement of labor-intensive reclamation techniques.
35 For this and other reasons VCBR has introduced legislation to improve the
State's reclamation and mine safety laws. Every effort to get a legislative
package out on the floor for a vote was foiled by delegates from Virginia's coal
counties. Out of 20 suggested improvements not one, not one got out of
committee in this 1977 session of the Virginia Legislature. All that one might
say we accomplished is to have these issues referred to further study and to
prove beyond any doubt that the State of Virginia is totally opposed to
improving the environmental and social standards of the mining industry in
southwest Virginia. The prospect of any future Statewide office holders to
recognize the plight of southwest Virginia is slim indeed. Already we have
experienced one gubernatorial candidate trying to sway testimony of a citizen
before this very committee and another candidate for the same office has written
the chairman of this committee endorsing a strip mine permit fee increase in
Virginia when in reality, he helped kill the measure by appearing before
Virginia's House Mining and Mineral Resources Committee and asking that they
study the matter further. The fee was consequently increased by a paltry 25
percent when the State Department of Conservation had substantiated a need for a
300-percent increase. This State mining committee did, however, see fit to pass
a resolution memoralizing the U.S. Congress to let individual States take care
of their own strip mine program without Federal intervention or guidelines.
This bill, House Joint Resolution 270, was copatroned by all four Virginia
coalfield delegates, three of whom voted against improving Virginia's
reclamation program, most notably by sabotaging the strip mine permit fee
increase which would have been used to bolster the Division of Mined Land
Reclamation's helpless enforcement program.
36 Let me deviate for a moment and offer to the committee some newspaper
articles from the Coalfield Progress, the local newspaper in Wise County,
northern Virginia, February 10, documenting what I have just said. I wanted to
do this in light of the testimony given by our illustrious State leaders earlier
this morning. I think it is important.
36 The CHAIRMAN. Do you intend to read the whole statement?
36 Mr. RONAN. No. I intend to summarize.
36 At this point I might add to the members, that this complete opposition
to strip mining had caused us to do a critique of a bill, 13850 which is H.R. 2
of this current session. The line numbers used on our notes do not correspond
so in my testimony they are different. I did not realize it. So, if you use my
testimony you should be aware of that.
36 The CHAIRMAN.I have flipped all through and see you have some very good
and specific criticisms and suggestions for the bill. I think we will want to
look at it.
36 Mr. RONAN. Then I will skip that and close out by saying VCBR and other
State and regional groups have identified Virginia as having the most severely
handicapped strip mine control program in the entire Appalachian coal mining
region. Accelerated strip mining activities in the past few years have left
thousands of acres of vital watershed irreversibly damaged due to the antiquated
method of steep slope mining so accurately termed "shoot and shove." This is a
process whereby the topsoil, subsoil and blasted, fractured rock is simply
shoved down the mountain slopes with little regard for public safety, watershed,
stability of disturbed lands, and future land use.
37 When VPI said they are doing research relative to the uses of strip
mined land, the research they are doing with regard to food production, garden
production, is one experimental project I personally know of. They started the
project last April and it is interesting to note that that particular topography
beyond the rolling hills is plateau stripping and it is not steep slope
stripping.
37 So you see, they find the need to heavily concentrate the area with
nitrogen consistently to keep vegetation alive, which is very evident from the
various plans they have and the various degrees of nitrogen they have used in
their efforts to experiment.
37 I have followed the process of H.R. 25 in 1975, H.R. 13950 in 1976, and
the preliminary process of strip mine legislation in both Houses of Congress
since about 1970. I must confess, gentlemen, I am astonished to find myself
here in Washington attempting to present some information this subcommittee can
use relative to strip mine legislation. I am surprised because it is not my lot
to be a lobbyist. I am not at ease in this position. But I am here because
many of my friends who have carried this concern of strip mine controls to the
State capital and to Washington, D.C. in the past, have given up hope or have
simply dropped out for lack of confidence in the system. I must confess I am
confused within myself of my participation in this political process on the one
hand, and the moral principles I see at stake on the other.My tradition teaches
me that we are stewards of God's gifts of creation, not the least of which are
our abundant energy resources. As responsible stewards we must take care to see
that these gifts are distributed in ways that provide for the basic needs of all
people and that the development of these resources does not infringe on the
basic human rights of people nor mistreat the land from which they come.
37 Specifically, I feel that national regulatory legislation is urgently
needed to promote the responsive development of our coal and other mineral
resources and to protect the people and the lands affected by such production.
37 With regard to the specifics of H.R. 2 I would like to point out a
sensitive concern of mine. Under title V, Control of the Environmental Impacts
of Surface Coal Mining, I would like to ask you gentlemen to be sensitive to the
human dimensions of stripping by including in the title of this section the
words "human and," before the word environmental so that title V should read,
"Control of the Human and Environmental Impacts of Surface Coal Mining." I
request this of you gentlemen, because too often persons are forgotten as we go
about the rationalizations of compromise.
37 When I consider that H.R. 2 is essentially H.R. 25 of 1975, and that the
process of H.R. 2 has a history of 5 or 6 years, then I am suspicious of its
value. I know the regulating of strip mining has suffered compromise in this
process. I am further amazed by the presence of the coal industry and their
aggressive attempts to water down this bill even further. It is with this
attitude that I would like to offer criticism of the bill.
37 Appalachian contour stripping presents the problem of reclamation in a
situation where steep slope stripping constitutes the major method used. When
this practice is complicated by multiseam stripping, acidation, sedimentation,
and siltation will result, unless controls are enforced that will ban stripping
on slopes in excess of 20 degrees or require the operator to use the haulback
method or blockcut method of mining. Regulation must prohibit outslope
overburden spillage, commonly known as spoil.
38 [Prepared statement of Patrick Phil Ronan may be found in the
appendix.]
38 The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask. We have a lot of people from other States and
we are in for a long, long session this afternoon. We had asked these group
presentations to try to hold down to ten or 15 minutes so that we do have some
time for questions.
38 We will break for lunch in just a moment.
38 Does this conclude what you have, Mr. Askins?
38 Mr. ASKINS. I have one more brief comment in closing. It is the
consistent opposition we have in this appeal for society.The three major ones
point to the fact of the very limited strippable reserves and the great quantity
of intentional and human damage that is done in mining those reserves and the
lack of enforcement in all the States and the apparent inability to achieve any
viable degree of enforcement; that, instead of continuing the destruction of the
land and of the people for the quick and easy energy and wealth that stripping
provides for some, logic dictates that we make the more responsible choice of
developing a deep mining industry that can provide, safely and over the long
term, a reliable source of energy to meet the national need until alternative
and renewable sources come on line.
38 It is in this context of an overall national energy policy that we
recommend the phasing out of strip mining on slopes above 15 degrees; the
phaseout should occur over a period of time adequate for increasing underground
production to replace the supply lost as stripping is gradually stopped. The
timetable which we recommend for the implementation of the phase out is
appendixed on the last page in the testimony.
38 Basically, it begins a phase out after 18 months from day enactment of
the law should be completed by 4 1/2 or 5 years.
38 We believe this schedule to be realistic and practical, providing for the
orderly and gradual cessation of strip mining over a number of years, during
which time the industry can plan and implement a program for shifting production
to deep mining.
38 An Appalachian coal industry based on deep mining and guided by an
enlightened commitment to safety and the national interest has social,
environmental, and economic advantages for the people of the region that this
committee can help bring to fruition. To those who live with the ravages of
strip mining, the desirableness of moving to deep mining has long been clear.
To those who are unfamiliar with our situation, we urge consideration of the
most convincing evidence available, come and see it.
38 Thank you. That concludes my presentation.
38 The CHAIRMAN. We all thank you very much.
38 I feel a deep bond of sympathy and concern for the panel this morning.
38 I have fought this fight all of these years with very few resources and
men against a well financed industry that sees this differently.
39 I know G.W. is kind of skeptical and pessimistic.
39 Mr. BRADLEY. I am a former dep miner so I, too, mined coal for less so I
would be willing to work in no other industry now that is not as safe.
39 The CHAIRMAN. I do not thinkyou have to convert me or Mr. Seiberling or
Mr. Ruppe, who has been supportive and sensible over the years on this problem.
39 We appreciate the work that has gone into the presentations and all the
love and devotion for the land.
39 I personally want to thank you for being here and doing what you have
done in the past.
39 I want to adjourn and we will reconvene by 1:30 or 1:45.
39 Mr. SEIBERLING.I am going to have to leave, too. I have a friend here
from the city of Akron that I promised to have lunch with at a quarter to
twelve. He has been very patient.
39 I would just like to say that I was the first cosponsor, in fact, the
coauthor of Ken Hechler's original bill to ban strip mining of coal.I think I
feel it would be better if we waited until the balance of our coal reserves are
stripped, whatever remains, instead of making that our first attack on the
problem. But I have to say the realities of the situation with respect to the
energy crisis, we have gotten ourselves out on a limb.
39 Now, we happen to have more than half our coal coming from strip mined
coal and with a tremendous increase in demand that is going to take place with
our future energy requirements, that is why I see no practical possibility of
phasing out.
39 So, the next question we ask ourselves is how do we control it? It is
obvious that all the industries will be coming in and saying the States are
doing it, and there are States whose mining laws are meaningless, but it is the
State mining laws that are going to impose a regional law which is adequate, and
comparable, to the one proposed by this bill, such as Pennsylvania. Or they are
not and in that case the fact that there is a State law does not answer the
problem.
39 I would like to ask Miss Stephenson, since I think she expressed some
very excellent comments about the problems involved and so did the gentleman
from Alabama, in enforcement, whether you think this bill is doing everything
reasonably necessary to insure that the enforcement will be effective by means
of Federal policing of the States?
39 Ms. STEPHENSON. I doubt that it will. I think there is one thing the
bill will do. It will allow for some standards and regulations to be set up as
far as inspectors reclamation plans are concerned that could be of value.
39 One of the big problems, as I said before, is who oversees what. I think
in West Virginia it may help some but I think it is really that so much of the
land and the politics are owned by people with money that is it going to be
extremely hard.
39 Mr. SEIBERLING. It will be a little harder to bribe a set of two
inspectors, one of them operating under Federal laws, though I recognize that
there is a fallibility in human beings at all levels.
40 Ms. STEPHENSON. One of the problems I have with the provisions of the
law is whether the way the departments are it will be possible to have the State
administer the program on its own.
40 Mr. SEIBERLING. Well, of course, the history of the coal industry is one
of brutality and corruption. I suppose that history will not be totally
obliterated. But it seems to me we have to give the regulatory process a try.
Where we find it is weak we will have to make it tougher. As experience
dictates, in coal mine safety there is a dangerous situation there, as we know,
particularly in deep coal mine safety and because all we can do there is where a
problem arises we can try to tighten it up.
40 Ms. STEPHENSON. In 1975 there were more fatalities per manhours in strip
mining than there were in deep mining. That is documented by the UMW report.
40 The other thing that we mention is there is no ban on mountain top
stripping and there is no ban on stripping, like after 23 degrees. That is
extremely important as far as people are and what happens to them.
40 Mr. SEIBERLING. As far as no ban on mountain top stripping, those things
we think are not adequate, but the coal company people come in here, just this
week, and protested this bill, that it would ban mountain top stripping. So it
all depends on what position you are going to take. It will not ban mountain
stripping, you are quite right.
40 I have no further questions.
40 Mr. RUPPE. Thank you very much. I am very impressed with the testimony.
It seems to me that in this session of the hearings there has been a great deal
more emphasis on the part of how to deal with the blasting problem than there
was heretofore. Perhaps it relates more to the particular witnesses we heard.
40 Do you feel that if there is good documentation in terms of when the
blasting occurs along with blasting material used, do you think that is
sufficient information available to nearby residents so if they feel there has
been damage done they would have sufficient evidence available to them to
properly make their case.
40 Mr. CHEATWOOD.Alabama State law, as it stands now, the people in the area
have to show negligence to the company.
40 Mr. RUPPE. If I live a hundred feet or a mile away and my windows fall
out at 10 o'clock in the morning and I show that the company let out a blast at
that time and the company has to register that information, I think I could make
a pretty good case.
40 Mr. CHEATWOOD. I would say it would depend on the information. There
should be some provision in it to set up as a permanent record kept the amount
of explosives in each blast. So, therefore, a geologist could look at their
report, look to see the actual areas, look at the statistics, and all and he can
fairly well determine whether that blast did do the particular damage to your
home.
40 Mr. SEIBERLING. Would the gentleman yield?
40 It seems to me that our first aim should be to put in some standards so
that rocks would not fall on Alabama. Isn't that what we really need to do?
40 Mr. RUPPE. There is a lot of damage done by explosives and there are no
rocks.
41 Mr. SEIBERLING. We have a lot of testimony about rocks being projected
as far as a thousand feet.
41 Mr. RUPPE. How about the damage to people at a distance from a mine
site. What these gentlemen are saying, I think, is that we want enough
information to have a good record kept of that blasting. At least we can make a
decent try under the Federal bill.
41 Mr. CHEATWOOD. There are 200 movements per second. Under those
conditions on the same street level you can experience damage 1 1/2 miles away
through seismic waves and convulsions that travel to the area from the strip
pits in Alabama. As I stated earlier about the shattering of the glass 2 1/2
miles away, that was actually a convulsion traveling through the air but we are
having extensive damage away from strip pit areas by seismic waves traveling
underground because there are an awful lot of homes on the same street level as
strip pits.
41 Mr. SEIBERLING. It does not seem to me that we ought to consider putting
a provision in this bill that shifts the burden to the proof and provided that
where the damage is established by the owner of the property and the timing of
damages is shown to have coincided with a blasting operation that from that
point the burden shifts to the mine operator to show that they did not cause the
damage. If they fail to have that kind of State law then the Federal regulation
would take over, that would be one way.
41 Mr. CHEATWOOD.In my opinion the way may be to find out whether the strip
mining operators actually did the damage. When a strip mine operator requires a
permit to strip mine, companies should have to go to someone in the general
area. They should be required before they even start operating to go into the
area, take pictures of the homes, do a complete survey of the area and then they
can start and then if there is damage