September 20, 21, October 21, 26, November 29, and 30, 1971
|
|
Legislative History September 20, 21, October 21, 26, November 29, and 30, 1971 |
| |
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1971
1 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR
AFFAIRS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MINES AND MINING, Washington, D.C.
1 The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:50 a.m., in room 1324, Longworth House
Office Building, the Honorable Ed Edmondson (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
1 Mr. EDMONDSON. The Subcommittee on Mines and Mining will come to order.
1 This morning we begin a series of hearings on a series of bills that have been referred to our
Subcommittee on Mines and Mining on the subject of strip mining regulations and, as a matter of
fact, on the subject of mining regulations in general.
1 These bills begin, I suppose, numerically with H.R. 60 by our colleague on the committee,
Mr. Saylor. They include a whole series of bills that are listed on the mimeographed material
containing the listing of witnesses here this morning, and include H.R. 5689 which has been
described as the administration bill which was introcuced by our colleague on the committee, Mr.
Hosmer, and a series of others on the committee.
1 They include H.R. 3299 by Mr. Meeds, also of the committee; H.R. 4556 by Mr. Hechler
and a series from our colleagues, including H.R. 6482 by our good friend and colleague, Mr.
Hays of Ohio, who is here waiting to testify along with Mr. Hechler and others this morning.
1 If there is no objection, the text of H.R. 60, H.R. 444, H.R. 4556, H.R. 9736 - I think I have
already referred to H.R. 5689 - and the text of the bill which the chairman has for introduction,
when a number is assigned to it, will all appear at this point at the start of the hearings.
1 Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
1 (Copies of the five above-mentioned bills plus the bill introduced by the chairman, H.R.
10758, follow:)
46 (Copies of departmental reports follow:)
46 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, D.C., September 17, 1971.
46 Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
46 DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This responds to your request for the views of the Department
on the following bills dealing with the adverse environmental aspects of mining operations:
46 H.R. 444 (and H.R. 3299 which is identical in content); H.R. 4556 (and H.R. 4557, H.R.
6484, H.R. 6485, H.R. 7675, H.R. 7695, H.R. 8386, and H.R. 9371 which are identical in
content); H.R. 6482 (and H.R. 7100, H.R. 9736, and H.R. 9737 which are identical in content);
H.R. 7447; and H.R. 8174.
46 We recommend against enactment of all of the above listed bills except H.R. 8174. We
recommend against enactment of title I of H.R. 8174 which is identical in content to H.R. 4556.
46 In lieu of these bills we recommend that H.R. 5689, the Administration's proposal "To
provide for the cooperation between the Federal government and the States with respect to
environmental regulations for mining operations, and for other purposes" be enacted.
46 As to the advisability of enactment of title II of H.R. 8174, which establishes a program
under the Secretary of Labor to provide economic assistance to workers put out of work by
mined area protection regulations, we defer to the Department of Labor and other government
agencies more directly involved.
46 All of the listed bills contain aspects of similarity to the Administration's proposal, H.R.
5689. That bill would encourage through Federal grants the States to regulate all types of mining
activity including surface and underground, coal and most other minerals. (It excludes oil and
gas). If the States fail within two years to propose a regulatory program which is approved by the
Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary will promulgate and administer mined area protection
regulations for that State.
47 The other bills contain variations on this basic scheme as shown on the attached table.
They are all restricted to coal (H.R. 7447 to bituminous coal). Two of them, H.R. 6482 and H.R.
7447, do not cover underground mines. The Federal agency selected to administer the program
differs in each bill: H.R. 444 and H.R. 3299, which are identical, follow the Administration's bill;
H.R. 7447 creates a "Land Reclamation Board" in the Department of the Interior; H.R. 4556
picks the Environmental Protection Agency; and H.R. 6482 creates an independent "Strip Mine
Reclamation Commission."
47 H.R. 6482 gives exclusive regulatory responsibility to the Federal government as does H.R.
4556 for surface mines. The rest recognize a dual Federal-State role similar to the
Administration's proposal.
47 The bills differ from the Administration's proposal or go beyond it in several major
respects.
47 Section 5 of H.R. 4556 would prohibit altogether the opening of any new, inactive, or
abandoned surface coal mine.
47 Section 8 of H.R. 4556 prohibits all future coal mining in areas established as wilderness
pursuant to the Wilderness Act. It further provides that underground coal mining on lands within
the National Forest System shall be conducted only under regulations "which will assure that
there will be no adverse effects" either on-site or off-site.
47 Titles II, IV and V of H.R. 444, section 9 of H.R. 4556 and section 17 of H.R. 7447 provide
for Federal assistance to reclaim and conserve areas damaged by past coal mining operations.
H.R. 4556 requires that such areasbe owned by State or local governments, and authorizes up to
90 percent Federal funding for acquiring these areas if all efforts have been exhausted to require
the operator to reclaim them or donate them to the State or local government. The
Administration's bill applies only to damage caused by existing and future mining operations.
47 H.R. 4556 and H.R. 7447 provide for citizen suits to mandamus government officials who
neglect or refuse to enforce the Act.H.R. 4556 goes further and allows suits against any person
alleged to be in violation of the Act or the regulations.
47 Section 14 of H.R. 4556 directs Federal agencies through contracts or assistance programs
to effectuate the purpose and policy of the Act and specifically prohibits contracting for coal
from a mine where a condition giving rise to a conviction under the Act has not been corrected.
47 H.R. 6482 exempts mines with less than 250 tons of production a year from regulation.
47 The following major differences between the bills are the basis for our recommendations
stated above.
47 (1) Limited coverage
47 Each region of the country has its own particular environmental problems from mining. In
many areas coal mining is the most troublesome, particularly open pit or strip mining. Other
types of mining, however, also pose a substantial threat to the environment. Underground coal
mines can constitute a major source of water pollution and underground coal fires both
contaminate the air and waste a valuable resource.
47 The Administration's bill is truely national in its scope, dealing with the entire range of
mining related environmental problems. We feel that the regulatory machinery to be created
under these bill should deal with all these problems, and not simply those related to a particular
region.
47 (2) Federal administration
47 The basic premise of the Administration's proposal is that environmental protection and
reclamation can be accomplished most economically by building it into the mining operation
rather than by patching up afterwards. It attempts to substitute careful advance planning for
costly control devices. Achieving this objective requires intimate knowledge of mining
operations and the physical environment in which they are conducted. The Bureau of Mines, the
Geological Survey, and the Bureau of Land Management of this Department possess paramount
expertise in these areas and are best suited to guide State efforts in mined area protection and
reclamation.
47 For this reason we oppose H.R. 4556 which places the program under the Environmental
Protection Agency. That agency would, of course, under the Administration's proposal, retain its
responsibility for enforcement of air and water standards against mining operators. It would also
participate with the Departments of Agriculture and Commerce, the Tennessee Valley Authority
and the Appalachian Regional Commission on an advisory committee created under the Act.
48 We also oppose H.R. 7447 which creates a new "Land Reclamation Board" within the
Department of the Interior and confers all regulatory authority on the Board. We feel that such
authority should run to the Secretary who can draw upon existing expertise and existing
administrative units or create new units as he deems best.
48 (3) Primary Responsibility to States
48 The environmental problems stemming from mining operations are essentially land use
problems. Such problems are, under the Federal Constitution, primarily the responsibility of the
States. Because of this and in keeping with the President's broad effort to return decision-making
responsibility to State governments, the Administration's bill encourages the States to accept the
responsibility for regulating mining operations within their borders. It offers Federal grants to
cover up to 80% of the cost to the States of developing a program and a percentage of the costs of
administering it during the first four years.
48 We oppose, therefore, H.R. 6482 which recognizes no State responsibility at all, and H.R.
4556 which recognizes none for surface mine regulation. We also oppose the other bills which
provide that the Federal regulations will cease to apply in a State which adopts laws at least as
effective but which allow the States no initial period of time in which to develop such laws and
which offer no Federal funds with which to do it. Moreover, in H.R. 7447 there is no provision
for Federal monitoring of the State program once it is developed, to assure that it continues to be
as effective as the Federal program would have been.
48 (4) Restoration of Past Mining Damage.
48 As stated in the letter transmitting the Administration's proposal, the solution to the
problem of healing damage inflicted in the past is largely one of spending taxpayers' dollars,
since the party responsible is typically not available for legal action and the value of the land
reclaimed does not generally justify the cost. All available remedies must be exhausted before
tax revenues are spent and care must be taken to avoid windfalls to private owners. H.R. 7447
makes no provision for these problems. H.R. 444 and H.R. 4556 avoid the windfall problem by
requiring that the land be in public ownership or by attaching a lien to the land until the Federal
funds are repaid. H.R. 4556 provides up to 90 percent Federal funding for acquisition of such
areas by State or local governments. H.R. 444 authorizes acquisition funds also.
48 We feel that the first priority in mined area protection must be to arrest the damage
presently being inflicted on the land and that Federal funding to restore lands damaged in the past
cannot be justified at this time.
48 (5) Prohibition of Surface Coal Mining
48 This Department strongly opposes the blanket prohibition in H.R. 4556 of surface mining
of coal. This country is facing a crisis in mineral supply, particularly in the fuels area. Known
reserves of oil and gas are being rapidly depleted. The potential of nuclear energy, while a
hopeful long-term solution, has not been developed sufficiently to carry us through the critical
period of the next 5 or 10 years. Domestic coal must supply a heavy share of the Nation's fuel
needs both now and in the future.
48 Fortunately, this Nation is endowed with vast coal deposits, many of them lying at
relatively shallow depths where underground mining is economically ludicrous if not physically
impossible.
48 We do not mean to minimize the potential adverse environmental consequences of surface
mining nor to imply that environmental degradation is necessary to maintain our standard of
living. The letter transmitting the Administration's proposal unequivocally condemns those
surface mining practices which have wasted the land and scarred the landscape, poisoned and
choked the streams and fouled the air. This country cannot tolerate such abuses of the
environment any longer.
48 The answer, however, is not a flat prohibition of surface coal mining but to find ways to
avoid or reduce to acceptable levels the environmental damage. The technology is presently
available for environmentally safe surface mining in many areas, particularly in the more arid,
western States. The Administration's proposal calls for further research to expand the technology
for mined area protection and reclamation. Moreover, the Administration's proposal contains
authority to prohibit surface mining where the areas affected cannot be adequately reclaimed.
The regulations adopted by the State under the Administration's proposal must contain
requirements designed to insure that the mining operation will not result in a violation of
applicable water or air quality standards and will control or prevent specified types of
environmental damage. We believe that the Administration's proposal provides a constructive
method for meeting the needs of the environment without sacrificing unnecessarily our ability to
acquire mineral resources on which this Nation's prosperity depends.
49 (6) National Forests
49 H.R. 4556 makes special reference to National Forests requiring that underground coal
mining operations in them be conducted with "no adverse effects". The Administration's proposal
requires that all mining on all Federal lands be conducted under regulations which assure at least
the same degree of environmental protection and regulation as is required by the State in which
the land is situated. It is essential that the Federal government itself practice what it preaches to
the States and we see no reason to limit this practice to National Forest lands.
49 (7) Citizens Suits
49 As a matter of general policy, we support citizen participation in enforcement of laws to
protect the environment and the repudiation of defenses to environmental actions based on
standing to sue and sovereign immunity. We have supported citizen suits in specific instances
such as the Clean Air Amendments of 1970 (Public Law 91-604) and the Administration's
proposed amendment to section 10 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (H.R. 5966 in this
Congress).
49 The citizen suits which we have supported are limited to enforcement of specific
environmental requirements which are capable of objective definition or precise measurement.
49 The Administration's proposed Mined Area Protection Act will result in a variety of types
of environmental standards. Those designed to assure that air and water quality control standards
are met may, as stated above, be enforced through existing or proposed provisions allowing
citizen suits. Those regulations pertaining to the approval of a reclamation plan will require the
judgment of a State official familiar with the mining operation and the local mining conditions.
We do not feel that the courts should become involved in this area except to review, in the
normal manner, abuses of administrative discretion.
49 (8) Federal Procurement
49 Section 14 of H.R. 4556 parallels section 306 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, which
prohibits Federal agencies from contracting with persons in violation of the Act until the
condition is corrected. We agree with the principle embodied in this section, that the Federal
government should not support through its procurement of goods a person's activities in violation
of the Act. We feel, however, that if the operator in accordance with the applicable law is in the
process of correcting a condition which has given rise to a conviction, under an approved
schedule of compliance that he should not suffer the added penalty of being prohibited from
selling to the Federal government. Therefore, we would have no objection to including this
section in the Administration's proposed "Mined Area Protection Act of 1971" provided the
words "coal mine" in subsection 14(a) are changed to "mined area", the words of any law or
regulation promulgated pursuant thereto" are added after "Act" on line 16, and lines 20 and 21
are revised to read "administering agency certifies that the operator is operating in compliance
with the applicable law and regulations".
49 Also, subsection 14(b) should be deleted as unnecessary and to assure maximum flexibility
for the administrative promulgation of government wide procedures coordinated with those being
developed to implement section 306 of the Clear Air Act.
49 The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to the
presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program.
49 Sincerely yours,
49 W. T. PECORA, Under Secretary of the Interior.
50
______________________________________________________________________________
__
*6*COMPARISON
OF PRINCIPAL
FEATURES OF
BILLS TO
REGULATE
ENVIRONMENTAL
ASPECTS OF
MINING
H.R. 5689 HR. 444 H.R. 4556 H.R. 6482 HR. 7447
1. Scope:
Mineral Bituminous
covered All Coal Coal Coal coal
Operation
covered All All All Strip Open pit.
2. Federal
agency to
administer Interior Interior EPA n(1) n(2).
3. Primary
regulator States n(3) n(4) Feds n(3).
Secondary
regulator Feds None
3.
Restoration
of past
damage None Included Included n(5) Included
5. Fed
grants:
Not
Reclamation n(6) None None available None.
75 percent 90 percent Not
Restoration None maximum. maximum. available Do.
6. Provision
for Federal
lands n(7) None n(8) None Do.
7. Citizen Mandamus Mandamus
suits None do n(9) only. only.
8. Special
provisions n(10)n(11) n(12)
______________________________________________________________________________
__
50 n1 Independent "Strip Mine Reclamation Commission."
50 n2 "Land Reclamation Board" within Department of the Interior.
50 n3 Federal Government unless State passes comparable law.
50 n4 Federal Government for surface mines already in operation, States for underground
mining or Feds if State fails to act Within 6 months.
50 n5 Contains authority for the United States to acquire and restore land already damanged.
50 n6 80 percent for program development, 60-45-30-15 percent for administration in 1st 4
years.
50 n7 Expressly authorizes and directs Feds to regulate as strictly as State law would.
50 n8 Provides for protection of national forests and wilderness areas only.
50 n9 Allows suits against any violator including public official.
50 n10 Prohibits opening new surface mine or reopening abandoned one.
50 n11 Prohibits mining in wilderness areas.
50 n12 Exempts small mines (less than 250 tons per year).
50 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, D.C., September 17, 1971.
50 Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
50 DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for the views of this
Department on H.R. 60, a bill "To provide for the cooperation between the Secretary of the
Interior and the States with respect to the future regulation of surface mining operations, and for
other purposes."
50 We recommend that the bill not be enacted but that H.R. 5689, the Administration's
proposal, "To provide for the cooperation between the Federal government and the States with
respect to environmental regulations for mining operations, and for other purposes", be enacted
instead.
50 Both bills are designed to combat the adverse environmental effects of mining operations.
These effects have been well documented and include unsightly spoil heaps, clogged and
polluted streams, wasted land and scarred landscapes, mine fires and unintentional cave-ins
causing surface subsidence.
50 There are many similarities between the two bills. Both would encourage States to
establish a regulatory program which, if it met the statutory criteria and was approved by the
Secretary of the Interior, would make the State eligible for Federal grants. Under both bills, if a
State fails after two years to produce a regulatory program meeting the standards of the Act, the
Secretary of the Interior is directed to issue Federal regulations governing mining operations in
that State.
50 Both bills contain provisions for advisory committees, Federal inspections, penalties, and
federally-sponsored research or training programs.
50 There are four major differences between the two bills which constitute the basis for our
recommendation that H.R. 5689 be enacted and not H.R. 60.
50 (1) Scope
50 The Administration's bill is broader in scope. It covers underground mines as well as
surface mines, while H.R. 60 covers only the latter. The potential environmental hazards of
underground mines are serious and, while the technology for dealing with them may not be as
advanced as it is with respect to surface mines, it is important that the framework be established
so that improvements in mining technology can be developed and applied to underground mining
as rapidly as possible.
51 (2) Regulatory Criteria
51 The Administration's proposal contains certain criteria for approval of a State program not
contained in H.R. 60. It contains provisions designed to control two major adverse effects of
underground mining, fires and subsidence, and it requires that maps of underground mines be
kept on file so that the danger of unintentional subsidence can be avoided. It requires that a
permit be obtained by all mine operators. It requires provisions to avoid waste of mineral
resources and to require that reclamation be made a part of the mining cycle. The
Administration's bill specifically requires that the program be administered by a single State
agency unless the Secretary approves an interstate agency. The State agency must coordinate
with State agencies responsible for air, water and other environmental quality standards.
51 The Administration's bill further provides that State regulations be developed with full
participation of all interested groups, that they be subject to regular review and updating and that
they be compatible with regulations of adjacent States.
51 The Administration's proposal provides that the statutory criteria will be further elaborated
by the Secretary through guidelines which will attempt to provide the operator of a mining
operation sufficient flexibility to choose the most economically efficient means of meeting the
requirements of the Act.
51 We feel that these provisions of the Administration's bill which spell out the criteria in
greater detail and allow maximum latitude to the operator to select the best way for his particular
operation to meet the environmental objectives is essential, particularly in those areas where the
technology for environmentally safe mining is still being pioneered.
51 (3) Funding
51 Both bills authorize appropriations as necessary. Under H.R. 60, Federal grants may not
exceed 50 percent of the cost of developing, administering and enforcing the regulations. Under
the Administration's proposal, the Federal assistance may cover up to 80% of the cost of
developing the program during the year prior to its approval and a share of the costs of
administering and enforcing the program during the four years following its approval. That share
may be up to 60% the first year, 45% the second year, 30% the third year and 15% the fourth
year. By that time it is expected that the heavy initial costs will have been met and that the
program would become self-sustaining through permit fees if the State chooses to impose them.
The Administration bill provides that if the Federal Government is obliged to administer a
program for a State the cost will be recovered from permit fees.
51 (4) Federal Lands
51 Neither bill would place Federal lands under the control of the State program although both
would require that mining regulations on Federal lands be as least as stiff as those on State lands.
The Administration's proposal states explicitly that Federal agencies are authorized to impose
environmental regulations on all lands under their jurisdiction.
51 In view of the differences between the two bills and for the reasons discussed above, we
prefer the Administration's proposal to H.R. 60.
51 The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to the
presentation of this report and that enactment of H.R. 5689 would be in accord with the program
of the President.
51 Sincerely yours,
51 W. T. PECORA.
51 Under Secretary of the Interior.
51 Mr. EDMONDSON. Our first witness here this morning on the list ready to testify is our
distinguished colleague from Ohio, the chairman of the House Committee on House
Administration, Hon. Wayne Hays. We are pleased to welcome Mr. Hays to the subcommittee.
51 My attention is called also to an executive communication dated February 10, on the
subject of mining legislation. If there is no objection, that executive communication will also be
made a part of the record at this point.
51 Hearing no objection so ordered.
51 (Department of the Interior letter of February 10, 1971, follows:)
52 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE
SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., February 10, 1971.
52 Hon. CARL ALBERT, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
52 DEAR MR. SPEAKER: Enclosed is a draft of a proposed bill "To provide for the
cooperation between the Federal government and the States with respect to environmental
regulations for mining operations, and for other purposes."
52 We recommend that this bill be referred to the appropriate committee for consideration and
we recommend that it be enacted.
52 This legislative proposal was referred to in that part of President Nixon's environmental
message dealing with environmental regulations for mining operations which was submitted to
the Congress on February 8, 1971.
52 The adverse environmental effects that can result from mining operations has been a
subject of growing national concern in recent years. The ever-increasing demand for minerals
coupled with dramatic developments in our ability to recover them has led to an increase in
mining activity, particularly surface mining.
52 These activities are an important part of the American economy and will continue to be.
But we are coming to realize that they may contain hidden costs in terms of environmental
deterioration that do not appear in the market transaction of the commodity.
52 Recent studies and investigations in the past 5 years documented some of the adverse
environmental effects that may result from surface mining. Over 3.2 million acres of land had
been disturbed by surface mining, with approximately 150,000 acres being added annually. By
1980, if this trend continue unchecked, 5 million acres will have been affected by mining
activity, an area roughly the size of the State of New Jersey.
52 Underground mines also pose a serious threat to the environment. Like surface mines,
underground mines can produce unsightly spoil heaps which disfigure the countryside and
contribute to water pollution. Mine fires and unintentional subsidence are also major problems
associated with underground mines in some areas.
52 In varying degrees State legislatures and mining companies have responded to the problem
with the result that much land is being reclaimed by the mining industry as a part of the mining
operation. Twenty-two States have laws regulating some aspects of surface or underground
mining. This effort, however, suffers from lack of uniformity and lack of unanimity.
52 There are two distinct problems involved in meeting the challenge which mining operations
can present to the environment:
52 (1) requiring ongoing and future mining activities to be conducted in a way as to minimize
the environmental impact, and
52 (2) healing the wounds that have been inflicted by past mining operations.
52 The proposed bill deals only with the first problem, the solution to which is largely a matter
of developing regulations which will require environmental considerations to be built into the
mining operation. An integral part of this effort will be research programs promoted by the
Secretary of the Interior with Federal funds.
52 The proposed bill recognizes that the initial responsibility for developing and enforcing
regulations should rest with the States. It also recognizes, however, that the effort must be
nationwide and based, to the fullest extent possible, on national standards, so that industry will
be placed on an equal footing in every State.
52 The proposed bill therefore gives the States the opportunity to develop and submit
regulations for approval by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with certain specific
criteria set forth in the bill.
52 If a State fails to develop an acceptable program within two years after enactment, the
proposed bill authorizes the Secretary to promulgate regulations for mining operations within the
State.
52 The problem of healing damage inflicted in the past is more complicated. Typically, the
party responsible is not available for legal action to require him to repair the damage he has
caused. Consequently the solution is largely a matter of spending taxpayers dollars. In order to
justify a massive Federal grant program to clean up past mined-areas, a detailed cost-benefit
analysis must be undertaken to assure that this problem deserves top priority among the great
number of other environmental problems the solution to which requires Federal funds. The tools
for such an analysis are in the formative stages. Until they have been further refined, it is felt that
a restoration program is premature.
53 A section-by-section analysis of the bill is enclosed.
53 This legislation is long overdue. The longer it is put off, the larger the ultimate cost will be.
53 The Office of Management and Budget has advised that enactment of this proposed
legislation would be in accord with the program of the President.
53 Sincerely yours,
53 ROGERS C. B. MORTON, Secretary of the Interior.
53 Enclosures.
53 A BILL To provide for the cooperation between the Federal government and the States with
respect to envirnmental regulations for mining operations, and for other purposes
53 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America
in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Mined Area Protection Act of 1971."
53 TITLE I
53 SEC. 101. Definitions. For the purpose of this Act, the terms -
53 (a) "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Interior;
53 (b) "mining operations" means (1) activities conducted on the surface or underground for
the exploration for or extraction of minerals from their natural occurrences, including strip or
auger mining, dredging, quarrying, in situ distillation or retorting and leaching; and (2) the
cleaning, concentrating, refining, or other processing or preparation (excluding smeltering) and
loading for interstate commerce of crude minerals at or near the mine site. It does not include the
extraction of minerals in a liquid or gaseous state by means of wells or pipes unless the process
includes in situ distillation or retorting;
53 (c) "underground mining operations" means those mining operations carried out beneath the
surface by means of shafts, tunnels, or other underground mine openings and such use of the
adjacent surface as is incidental thereto;
53 (d) "surface mining operations" means those mining operations carried out on the surface,
including strip or auger mining, dredging, quarrying, and leaching, and activities related thereto;
53 (e) "mined area" means the surface and subsurface of an area in which mining operations
are being or have been conducted including private ways and roads appurtenant to any such area,
land excavations, workings, refuse banks, tailings, spoil banks, and areas in which structures,
facilities, equipment, machines, tools, or other materials or property which result from, or are
used in, mining operations are situated;
53 (f) "operator of a mining operation" means an individual, society, joints stock company or a
partnership, association, corporation, or other organization controlling or managing a mining
operation;
53 (g) "State" means a State of the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam;
53 (h) "reclamation" means activity which is taken during and following a mining operation to
avoid or correct adverse environmental effects of mining operations.
53 SEC. 102. Congressional Findings and Declarations. The Congress finds and declares -
53 (a) that mining operations are essential activities affecting interstate commerce which
contribute to the economic well-being, security and general welfare of the Nation;
53 (b) that there are mining operations on public and private lands in the Nation which
adversely affect the environment by destroying or diminishing the availability of public and
private land for commercial, industrial, recreational, agricultural, and forestry purposes, by
causing erosion and landslides, by contributing to floods and the pollution of waters and air, by
destroying fish and wildlife habitat and impairing natural beauty, by frustrating efforts to
conserve soil, water and other natural resources, by destroying public and private property, and
by creating hazards to life and property;
53 (c) that the initial and principal continuing responsibility for developing and enforcing
environmental regulations for mining operations should rest with the States;
54 (d) that the cooperative effort established by this Act is necessary to the prevention and
elimination of the adverse environmental effects of present and future mining operations; and
54 (e) that it is the purpose of this Act to encourage a nationwide effort to regulate mining
operations to prevent or substantially reduce their adverse environmental effects, and to assist the
States in carrying out programs for those purposes.
54 TITLE II ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS FOR MINING OPERATIONS
54 SEC. 201. State Environmental Regulations for Mining Operations.
54 (a) Each State, after public hearings and within two years of the date of enactment of this
Act, may submit to the Secretary for review and approval or disapproval in accordance with this
section State environmental regulations for mining operations on all lands within such State,
except Federally-owned land or land held in trust by the United States for Indians. A State may
at any time thereafter submit revisions to such regulations to the Secretary for review and
approval or disapproval in accordance with this section. The Secretary shall approve the
regulations or revision of such regulations submitted to him if in his judgment:
54 (1) the regulations require that each operator of a mining operation obtain a permit from a
State agency established to administer the regulations, and file a mine reclamation plan
describing the manner in which his reclamation activity will be conducted showing that such
activity will be conducted in a manner consistent with the regulations;
54 (2) the regulations contain requirements designed to insure that the mining operation (i)
will not result in a violation of applicable water or air quality standards, (ii) will control or
prevent erosion or flooding, release of toxic substances, accidental subsidence of mined areas or
land or rock slides, underground, outcrop, or refuse bank fires, damage to fish or wildlife or their
habitat, or public or private property, waste of mineral resources, and hazards to public health
and safety:
54 (3) the regulations require reclamation of mined areas by revegetation, replacement of soil,
or other means; that a reclamation plan be prepared and approved in advance of initiation or
continuance of mining operations, and that reclamation work be made an integral part of the
mining operation and be completed within reasonably prescribed time limits;
54 (4) the regulations require posting of performance bonds in amounts at all times sufficient
to insure the reclamation of mined areas in the event that the regulations are not complied with or
that reclamation is not completed in accordance with the reclamation plan;
54 (5) the regulations provide for filing, updating, and permanent retention of engineering
maps of all active surface and underground mining operations and of all inactive surface and
underground mining operations for which engineering or other maps are available;
54 (6) the regulations provide that regular reports will be made to the Secretary concerning the
progress made by the State in carrying out the purposes of this title;
54 (7) the regulations require regular monitoring by the State agency of environmental changes
in mined areas to assess the effectiveness of the environmental regulations for mining operations;
54 (8) the regulations designate a single agency, or with the Secretary's approval, an interstate
organization upon which the responsibility for administering and enforcing the regulations is
conferred by the State which will insure full participation of those agencies responsible for air
quality, water quality and other areas of environmental protection;
54 (9) the State agency or interstate organization responsible for the administration and
enforcement of the regulations has vested in it the regulatory and other authorities necessary to
carry out the purposes of this Act including, but not limited to, authority to prohibit mining
operations where the area affected cannot be adequately reclaimed, to order cessation of mining
operations, and to bring or request the bringing of civil and criminal actions for violation of
applicable laws and regulations;
54 (10) the regulations were developed with full participation of all interested Federal
departments and agencies, State agencies, local governments, and other interested bodies and
groups;
55 (11) the regulations provide for regular review and updating, and for public notice and an
opportunity for public participation in their revision;
55 (12) funding and manpower are or will be committed to the administration and enforcement
of the regulations sufficient to carry out the purposes of this title;
55 (13) the regulations are authorized by law and will become effective no later than sixty days
after approval by the Secretary;
55 (14) training programs will be established, as necessary, for persons engaged in mining
operations and in enforcement of environmental regulations; and
55 (15) the regulations are compatible to the maximum extent practicable with approved
regulations of adjacent States.
55 (b) The criteria set forth in subsection (a) of this section shall be further elaborated by the
Secretary through guidelines which will be issued within 30 days after enactment of this act and
revised periodically as the Secretary deems appropriate. Such guidelines shall attempt to assure
that State regulations provide the operator of a mining operation sufficient flexibility to choose
the most economically efficient means of meeting the requirements of section 201(a)(2) and shall
be based on consideration of:
55 (1) the differences between the various States and regions;
55 (2) the effectiveness and experience gained under present State mining reclamation
regulations and Federal regulations for Federal lands;
55 (3) the available technology for achieving the requirements of section 201(a)(2);
55 (4) a comparison of the costs and benefits of achieving alternative levels of the
requirements of section 201(a)(2).
55 (c) To advise the Secretary in developing guidelines under subsection (b) of this section,
there is established an Advisory Committee composed of representatives from the Departments
of Agriculture and Commerce, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Tennessee Valley
Authority and the Appallachian Regional Commission and such other representatives as the
Secretary may designate.
55 (d) The Secretary shall not approve regulations submitted by a State pursuant to this section
until he has solicited the views of Federal agencies principally interested in such regulations. In
case of serious disagreement between any Federal agency and the State in the development of the
regulations the Secretary shall seek to mediate the differences. The Secretary shall approve or
reject the State regulations within 180 days after such regulations are filed. If no action is taken
by the Secretary within the allotted time it shall be presumed, as a matter of law, that the State
regulations are approved.
55 (e) If the Secretary approves the regulations or revision thereof submitted to him by a State
for approval, he shall conduct a continuing review and evaluation of the effectiveness of the
regulations and the administration and enforcement thereof.As a result of the evaluation and
review the Secretary may determine that:
55 (1) the State has failed to enforce the regulations adequately;
55 (2) the State's regulations require revision as a result of experience or the guidelines issued
by the Secretary pursuant to section 201(b);
55 (3) the State has otherwise failed to comply with the purposes of this Act.
55 Upon making such determination the Secretary shall notify the State and suggest
appropriate action, remedies, or revisions to the regulations affording the State an opportunity for
a hearing. If within a reasonable time, as determined by the Secretary, the State has not taken
appropriate action as determined by the Secretary, the Secretary may withdraw his approval of
the regulations, and issue regulations for such State under section 202 of this title. After
withdrawal of his approval and pending the issuance of regulations under section i02 the
Secretary may administer and enforce the State regualtions. Following the issuance of
regulations under section 202 and while they are in effect the Secretary is authorized to
administer and enforce such regulations within such State.
55 SEC. 202. Federal Regulation of Mining Operations.
55 (a) If, at the expiration of two years after the date of enactment of this Act, a State has
failed to submit environmental regulations for mining operations, or has submitted regulations
which have been disapproved and within such period has failed to submit revised regulations for
approval, the Secretary shall promptly issue environmental regulations for mining operations
within such State. The Federal regulations issued by the Secretary for a particular State shall
meet the requirements of the principles set forth in subsection (a) of section 201 of this Act.
56 (b) Regulations under this section shall be issued pursuant to the Federal Rule making
procedures set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553.
56 (c) The Secretary may from time to time revise such regulations in accordance with the
procedure prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 553.
56 SEC. 203. Where the Secretary administers and enforces the program for the State, or
when the Secretary administers and enforces State regulations under sections 201(e) of this title,
he shall recover the full cost of administering and enforcing the program through the use of
mining permit charges to be levied against mining operations within the State.
56 SEC. 204. Termination of Federal Regulations. If a State submit proposed State
regulations to the Secretary after Federal regulations have been issued pursuant to section 202 of
this title, and if the Secretary approves such regulations, such Federal regulations shall cease to
be applicable to the State at such time as the State regulations become effective. Such Federal
regulations, as changed or modified by the Secretary, shall again become effective if the
Secretary subsequently withdraws his approval of the State regulations pursuant to subsection (e)
of section 201 of this title.
56 SEC. 205.Inspections and Investigations. The Secretary is authorized to make such
inspections and investigations of mining operations and mined areas as he considers necessary or
appropriate to evaluate the administration and enforcement of any State's regulations, or to
develop or enforce Federal regulations, or otherwise to carry out the purposes of this Act, and for
such purposes authorized representatives of the Secretary shall have the right of entry to any
mining operation and into any mined areas. In order to enforce the right of entry into a specific
mining operation or mined area the Secretary may obtain a warrant from the appropriate district
court to authorize such entry.
56 SEC. 206. Injunctions. At the request of the Secretary, the Attorney General may institute
a civil action in a district court of the United States or the highest court in a U.S. territory for an
injunction or other appropriate order (1) to prevent any operator of a mining operation from
engaging in mining operations in violation of Federal regulations issued under section 202 of this
title or State regulations which the Secretary is authorized to enforce under section 201(e) of this
title; (2) to prevent an operator of a mining operation from placing in commerce the minerals
produced by a mining operation in violation of State regulations approved under section 201 of
this title; (3) to enforce a warrant issued under section 205 of this title; or (4) to collect a penalty
under section 207(a) of this title. The district court of the United States for the district in which
such operator of a mining operation resides or is doing business shall have jurisdiction to issue
such injunction or order.
56 SEC. 207. Penalties. (a) If any person fails to comply with any regulation issued under
section 202 of this title for a period of fifteen days after notice of such failure, the Secretary may
order cessation of such person's mining operations and such person shall be liable for a civil
penalty of not more than $1 000 for each day of continuance of such failure after said fifteen
days.
56 (b) Any person who knowingly violates any regulation issued pursuant to section 202 of
this title shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine not exceeding $1 0,000, or by
imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both.
56 (c) The penalties prescribed in this section shall be in addition to any other remedies
afforded by this title or by any other law or regulation.
56 SEC. 208. Research. The Secretary is authorized to conduct or promote research, or
training programs to carry out the purposes of this title. In so doing, the Secretary may enter into
contracts with institutions, agencies, organizations, or individuals and make grants to non-profit
organizations and collect and make available information resulting therefrom.
56 SEC. 209. Grants. (a) The Secretary is authorized to make a grant to any State for the
purpose of assisting such State in developing, administering and enforcing environmental
regulations under this title provided that such grants do not exceed 80% of the program
development costs incurred during the year preceding approval by the Secretary and do not
exceed 60% of the total costs incurred during the first year following approval, 45% during the
second year following approval, 30% during the third year following approval and 15% during
the fourth year following approval, at which time the Federal grants shall cease.
57 (b) The Secretary is authorized to cooperate with and provide non-financial assistance to
any State for the purpose of assisting it in the administration and enforcement of its regulations.
Such cooperation and assistance may include:
57 (1) technical assistance and training, including provision of necessary curicular and
instructional materials, in the administration and enforcement of the State regulations or
program; or
57 (2) assistance in preparing and maintaining a continuing inventory of mining operations and
mined areas in such State for the purpose of evaluating the effectiveness of its environmental
regulations for mining operations programs and identifying current and future needs of the State's
activities under this Act.
57 SEC. 210.In extending technical assistance to States under section 209 and in the
enforcement of regulations issued by the Secretary under section 202 concerning matters relating
to the reclamation of areas affected by surface mining, the Secretary may utilize the services of
the Secretary of Agriculture, and may transfer funds to cover the cost thereof.
57 SEC. 211. Rules and Regulations. The Secretary is authorized to promulgate such rules
and regulations as he considers necessary to carry out the provisions of this title.
57 SEC. 212. Authorization of Appropriations. There is authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.
57 TITLE III
57 SEC. 301. (a) The heads of all Federal departments or agencies which have jurisdiction
over land on which mining operations are permitted are authorized to promulgate environmental
regulations to govern such mining operations. Such department or agency heads shall issue
regulations to assure at least the same degree of environmental protection and reclamation on
lands under their jurisdiction as is required by any law and regulation established under an
approved State program for the State in which such land is situated.Each Federal department and
agency shall cooperate with the Secretary and the States, to the greaatest extent practicable, in
carrying out the provisions of this Act.
57 (b) Nothing in this Act or in any State regulations approved pursuant to it shall be construed
to conflict with any of the following Acts or with any rule or regulation promulgated thereunder:
57 (1) the Federal Metal and Nonmetallic Mine Safety Act (80 Stat. 772; 30 U.S.C. 721-740);
57 (2) the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 (83 Stat. 742);
57 (3) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (79 Stat. 903, 33 U.S.C.
1151-1175), the State laws enacted pursuant thereto, or other Federal laws relating to
preservation of water quality;
57 (4) the Clean Air Act, as amended (79 Stat. 992; 42 U.S.C. 1857); and
57 (5) the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended (79 Stat. 997; 42 U.S.C. 3251).
57 SEC. 302. Separability. If any provision of this Act or the applicability thereof to any
person or circumstance is held invalid the remainder of this Act and the application of such
provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
57 SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
57 To provide for the cooperation between the Federal government and the States with respect
to environmental regulations for mining operations, and for other purposes.
57 TITLE I
57 Section 101. - contains definitions."Mining operations" includes surface and underground
mining but excludes extraction of minerals in a liquid or gaseous state through pipes.
"Reclamation" means environmental protection built into mining operations.
57 Section 102. - contains Congressional findings and declarations and states specifically that
mining operations affect interstate commerce but that the initial and principal continuing
responsibility for regulating them rests with the States.
58 TITLE II
58 Section 201. - permits each State to submit for approval by the Secretary of the Interior
environmental regulations for mining operations. Such regulations must cover all land within the
State except Federally-owned land or land held in trust for Indians. The section contains criteria
for secretarial approval, including provision that the regulations contain requirements designed to
insure compliance with air or water quality standards and control or prevention of other specific
types of environmental damage. The section sets up an Advisory Committee to establish
guidelines further elaborating upon the criteria. The section allows the Secretary to withdraw his
approval of State regulations if he finds that the State has failed to enforce the regulations
adequately or otherwise failed to comply with the purposes of the Act.
58 Section 202. - provides that if, after two years from the date of enactment of this Act, a
State has failed to submit regulations to the Secretary for approval, the Secretary shall issue
regulations for mining operations within that State.
58 Section 203. - provides that, when the Secretary administers and enforces the program for a
State, he shall recover the cost of so doing through permit charges levied on the mining
operations within that State.
58 Section 204. - provides that Federal regulations issued under section 202 shall cease to
apply whenever the Secretary approves regulations submitted to him by the State.
58 Section 205. - authorizes the Secretary to make inspections of mining operations in carrying
out his responsibilities under the Act.
58 Section 206. - authorizes the Attorney General to institute a civil action in the Federal
district court to enforce Federal regulations, and to enforce certain other provisions of the Act.
58 Section 207. - prescribes penalties for violation of Federal regulations.
58 Section 208. - authorizes the Secretary to conduct research or training programs to carry out
the purposes of title II.
58 Section 209. - authorizes the Secretary to make grants to States to cover 80% of the cost of
developing the regulations during the year prior to approval and to cover the following portion of
the administering and enforcing costs for the four years following approval; 60% the first year,
45% the second year, 30% the third year and 15% the fourth year. The section also authorizes
the Secretary to provide technical assistance to the States.
58 Section 210. - authorizes the Secretary to utilize the services of the Secretary of Agriculture
in extending technical assistance to the States.
58 Section 211. - authorizes the Secretary to promulgate rules and regulations.
58 Section 212. - authorizes appropriations as necessary.
58 TITLE III
58 Section 301. - authorizes heads of Federal agencies to issue environmental regulations
governing mining operations on lands under their jurisdiction. It directs such agency heads to
require at least the same degree of environmental protection and regulation as is required by the
State on other lands within the State. The section also provides that the Act shall not conflict
with certain other Federal laws.
58 Section 302. - provides for the separation of any provision of the Act held invalid.
58 Mr. EDMONDSON. I might say to our distinguished colleague from Ohio, the
subcommittee deeply appreciates the arrangements which he made at the time of our inspection
trip in Ohio several months ago. I think an outstanding job was done of lining up some examples
of successful reclamation effort, and of half-hearted reclamation effort and no reclamation effort.
They were all viewed in the course of that trip. It was an informative and instructive trip, and the
gentleman from Ohio performed a distinct service to our committee. His leadership on this
subject has been apparent for a long time, and we are grateful to him for his help to the
committee.
STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE L. HAYS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO, ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN T. WALKER,
LEGAL COUNSEL
TEXT: 59 Mr. HAYS. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I have with me Mr. John T. Walker, legal
counsel of the House Administration Committee, who helped, in fact did the legal part of the
drafting of the bill introduced. Mr. Walker is an attorney of long standing from Ohio, was with
the Federal Trade Commission, and has a unique ability in this line since he was one time with
his father in the stripping business in the early days of Ohio, so he knows both sides of it.
59 Mr. Chairman, as we meet today, a disaster of enormous magnitude is occurring in my
home country, and in many like it throughout the land. It is not a natural disaster; no flood, no
forest fire or windstorm could compare in destructive capacity to the monster shovels which, in
the name of the energy crisis, are devastating my district 24 hours a day in search of coal. In
their wake they leave a desert of derelict land incapable of supporting any but the lowest forms of
plant or animal life, and mountains of rubble which resemble the surface of the moon far more
than the green, rolling farmland we once knew. The only comparable tragedy our Nation has
witnessed was the Dust Bowl of the 1930's. But, as Congressman Seiberling has said, this is a
tragedy all the more "poignant because it is entirely manmade."
59 This disaster can be prevented; as a matter of fact - if I may go off the text for a minute - it
is being prevented in some instances in my own district. At least it is being restored.
59 For example, in Europe, reclamation, carefully planned and conscientiously performed, is
both successful and economical. We know, too, that there are areas which cannot be reclaimed.
I think it is safer to say that there are some areas in West Virginia that just cannot be reclaimed
and therefore should never be stripped.
59 With 750 billion tons of coal available by underground mining - not more than 150 million
tons are available from stripping - there can be no justification for strip mining where it will
cause irreparable damage.
59 The opposition to legislation which would require strip miners to reclaim responsibly,
follows an old familiar pattern. The industry's lobbyists in Washington say that Federal action is
not needed because the States can solve the problem. At the same time, their counterparts in
Columbus, Charleston, and other capitals are lobbying to hamper responsible State legislation.
They advocate minimal controls in their pursuit of quick profits at the expense of future
generations. Once the land is stripped, a great many of them move on, leaving it barren and
unproductive.
59 Mr. Chairman, the legislation I propose, along with 42 of my colleagues from 16 States,
will not put an end to strip mining - I repeat, it will not put an end to strip mining - but it will
prevent the permanent devastation of our land which is now taking place. I have submitted for
the record a summary of the bill's provisions, and you have the proposed legislation before you.
Let me say right there, Mr. Chairman, that I have no pride of authorship in this bill. I don't care
whose name is on it or what number is on it or what provisions are in it so long as they do the job
adequately of requiring total restoration. I will be pleased later to try to answer your questions.
60 Some operators say that strip mining is the fastest and cheapest method of providing fuel
for the Nation's powerplants. They contend that though the abuses committed 20 or 30 years ago
were reprehensible, those operators are now gone and the current operators are doing a good job
of reclamation. They concede that someone - and this means, of course, the taxpayers - will have
to pay dearly to restore those orphan lands. They continue their claim that the strippers are doing
such a fine job of reclamation in current operations that no new legislation is needed, least of all
Federal legislation.
60 The stripping apologists warn in dire tones that any new controls will cost money which
will come out of the consumer's pocket. They warn that jobs would be eliminated, profits would
evaporate, and the Nation would suffer blackouts and massive power failures.
60 If I can interject there, again, Mr. Chairman, the money that comes out of the consumer's
pocket, the average householder, would be negligible, indeed. I will refer to that later on.
60 The operators and the public might be interested to know that the first - and certainly I was
surprised in research to find that the first strip mine legislation introduced in Congress was
sponsored by Everett McKinley Dirksen in 1940 when this eminent American was a Member of
the House. His bill was a strong one. It would have required backfilling, grading, and the
addition of such new soil "as may be necessary to make the contour of the land approximately the
same as before the mining operation was begun."
60 Since Mr. Dirksen introduced that bill 30 years ago, however, the problem has become
much more acute because of new technology; acres are being chewed up with astonishing sped.
This means that the extent of the problem has grown rapidly. But there is also evidence that this
technologically aided destruction is feeding on itself. In Belmont County, Ohio, where I live,
there is a huge shovel engaged in stripping which consumes more electricity, generated by coal,
than any city in the county.
60 Today, out of a total of 340,000 acres in Belmont County, 240,000 have been leased,
optioned, sold to, or stripped by the operators. Our population is declining, our tax base is being
depleted, and I may say that is true of 27 other counties in Ohio, more than a fourth of the
population and more than a third of the total area.
60 Even the burial plot of President Nixon's great-great-grandfather and his family, on the old
Milhous farm in my county, is threatened. At least let me just tell you a little story.
60 I was talking to a shovel operator the other day and I said, "You know, there are some old
family burial plots in this county and a lot of them are unmarked. Did you ever run into them?"
He said, "Oh, yes, I turned up six of them." I said, "What did you do with them?" He said, "I put
them in the bottom of the pit and I covered them up real fast."
60 I suppose the people who were upset, the six people, didn't care much about it, but it gives
you some idea of the attitudes of some of the people engaged in this business.
61 At least 3,000 square miles, an area the size of Connecticut, have been, to use the
industry's euphemism, "disturbed" by the coal strippers. It has taken 60 years to strip that much
land. But, according to Dr. MacDonald of the President's Council on Environmental Quality, at
the present rate 3,000 additional square miles, another Connecticut, will have been ravaged by
1980.
61 It is significant and alarming that the total area stripped in the last 60 years will at least be
doubled in only 10. And yet looking ahead further, the U.S. Geological Survey estimates that
71,000 square miles could potentially be stripped with profit. This is an area nearly the size of
Ohio, West Virginia, and Maryland combined. As difficult as the situation is which currently
faces us with regard to the effects of strip mining, there is no escaping the conclusion that by far
the greatest potential for damage remains in the future. It is plain, therefore, that the most serious
problems and our heaviest responsibilities lie ahead of us.
61 What is the status of the 3,000 square miles of the Nation's land which have been stripped?
The figures offer little encouragement for the future. The Geological Survey reports that no
reclamation work of any kind has been done on two-thirds of this land. Unfortunately, that does
not mean that the remaining 1,000 square miles have been successfully or even adequately
reclaimed. In some instances the results have been excellent.
61 Mr. Chairman, you referred to some of those instances which you and other members of the
committee saw with your own eyes where the land in my county is growing alfalfa as good as any
in the country and in some instances better, where it was carefully reclaimed, where the topsoil
was saved, the subsoil put back, the topsoil put back on it, et cetera.
61 Where careful practices have been performed concurrently with or soon after the mining
operation, the land has been restored and there are now homes, recreational areas, forests, and
yes, indeed, farms.
61 Nevertheless, the overwhelming import of the data is to show that the job is not being done;
moreover, the industry's figures confirm this. A publication of the National Coal Association
showed 64,263 acres were reclaimed in 1969. For 1970 the figure was down a full 10 percent, to
58,060.
61 But you can bet there were more stripped that year. I don't have the exact figure on that.
61 The quality of this so-called reclamation varies widely. Too often, as Senator Nelson has
said, what passes for reclamation is really "a green lie." When you get up close, it is not much
more than lowquality grasses or weeds, much of it thrown on the raw soil, which has not been
graded. It is, therefore, of little value; but the damage that may already have been caused - from
acid formation and erosion - before reclamation, is in many cases very severe. Poor as the record
is, however, the real tragedy lies in what the figures do not cover: ugly high walls can never be
reclaimed, acid which ruins waterways, blasting which damages homes and cracks watertables,
and in mountainous areas unstable soil banks which can and do cause dangerous landslides.
61 This is nothing like the story some strip operators will try to sell the public, and on which
campaign thousands of dollars have been spent. But these strippers offer a curious argument: On
the one hand, they tell of the money they are spending on equipment and manpower for
reclamation and assert that they often restore the land to a more useful state that the one which
prevailed before mining; on the other hand, we are told that a tough reclamation law would put
these companies out of business.
62 Well, they cannot have it both ways.Either they are doing a good job, in which case they
should welcome the new law because it would not affect them but only the unscrupulous,
fly-by-night operators who now have an unfair cost advantage, or they are not doing a good job,
in which case we need a strong Federal law to get the job done and spread cost burdens fairly and
uniformly throughout the Nation.
62 All evidence shows that we will have neither decent reclamation nor protection of those
areas which cannot be restored until we have strong Federal legislation.
62 We must begin to realize that our resources, including our land, are limited. The Europeans
do recognize this, out of necessity. France, for example, is smaller than Texas. So the
Europeans understand that their land is precious.This is why they restore strip mined land to
something very like the original condition in which it was found. They do not have a frontier
philosophy that you can waste vast areas with impunity.
62 They operate on the basis that restoration is a legitimate cost of strip mining. The result is
that their price accurately reflects the real costs; whereas in our system the long-term economic
burden is borne by the people in the strip mining areas. This is unjust and inequitable.The price
of strip mined coal should reflect the cost involved in reclaiming the land. It is my opinion that
those who use power would be willing to absorb the resulting minimal increase in power costs.
As things now stand, power is being produced at the expense of the beleaguered citizens of my
county and others like it.
62 There are even indications, Mr. Chairman, that it would not be necessary for the consumer
to pay all of the cost of decent reclamation. Prof. Samuel Brooke of West Virginia University,
testifying just recently before Ohio Legislature, told of two studies he conducted of West
Virginia strip mines. In one operation he estimated there was 102-percent profit, in another 126
percent. This makes it a little harder to accept the threat of some operators that "the consumer
will pay the bill for reclamation."
62 One informal study that I had made indicates that if the total cost were passed on to the
consumer, it would raise the average householder's electric bill by about 15 cents a month. Mr.
Saylor, I think, says I am high.
62 Mr. SAYLOR. You are high.
62 Mr. HAYS. Well, I may be, because we estimated from 10 to 15 cents; but I used the top
figure here because I didn't want anyone to say that I was exaggerating.
62 You see, if I can interpolate again, you get five different stories from five different
operators. One operator I talked to who is doing a fairly decent job of reclamation said it is
costing him 40 cents a ton. We used 50 cents in our computer study and came out with from 10
to 15 cents, depending on the city, whether it was Detroit, Cleveland or what have you. Another
operator told me it would cost $1 .60 a ton. I said to him how many tons do you get per acre?
He said it varies. I said would 5,000 tons be a fair estimate; he said yes, that would be a fair
estimate. Then I said, "Let's take $1 .60 because I can only do simple mathematics in my head,
and multiply 5,000 by $1.60 and you get $8 ,000 an acre." This man is a friend of mine and I
said, "My dear friend, for $8 ,000 an acre I will take a contract to level the Rocky Mountains."
63 I reiterate that an operator who is already doing a good job has nothing to fear from my
bill or a similar bill. I used the term "my bill" but as I say, I have no pride of authorship
particularly in it.
63 But unless a bill is enacted the operator who is doing a good job will remain at a
disadvantage. Moreover, there will continue to be no way of prohibiting stripping of an area
which cannot be successfully reclaimed or must be reclaimed at prohibitive cost. The consumer
nor legitimate operators have anything to fear from my bill. Mining on the public's land should
be strictly controlled. In fact, when we wrote my bill we prohibited it. I am not necessarily for
that total prohibition but I do think in view of some of the things which I will tell you about in a
moment in Ohio, it ought to be severely controlled.
63 Many citizens innocently believe that Government land is already exempt from this sort of
devastation. As a matter of fact, one stripper in Ohio who happens to be a member of the Ohio
Senate stripped 28 acres of the Wayne National Forest in Ohio "by mistake."
63 But stripping is moving with alarming speed into the West, including Federal and Indian
lands; and some of you on the committee know much more about this problem than I.
63 I am profoundly disturbed with this threat to the Nation's environment. This is not just a
matter of local concern.
63 Passage of some kind of decent legislation offers us an opportunity to save one of our most
previous natural resources, our land, and our scenic beauty. But it will also bring economic sense
into an industry where nonsense now prevails. It would replace greed with justice and
destruction with preservation and reclamation.
63 Other Members of this House have introduced legislation to abolish strip mining entirely.
My bill will permit strip mining under strict regulations that would meet the ever-increasing
demand for power while preserving our most valuable heritage - our land.
63 I honestly believe it to be the only practical solution to the worldwide dilemma of balancing
man's just needs for mineral resources against man's natural, and equally just, desire to preserve
the beauty and productivity of his environment.
63 I urge this committee act without delay on a matter which is so vital to the people I
represent and to all Americans.
63 That is the end of my prepared statement, Mr. Chairman. If the committee has questions, I
will attempt to answer them.
63 Mr. EDMONDSON. I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio for a very eloquent
statement, and for the research which has gone into it.
63 Let me for the record establish one thing, Wayne. There are several bills listed as bills that
you have either introduced individually or with others. Are all of those identical bills?
63 Mr. HAYS. Yes, sir.
63 Mr. EDMONDSON. There are no changes in the later bills?
64 Mr. HAYS. Well, the final bill - there are no major changes but the final bill was the
one that I introduced with many sponsors. I introduced an original bill and sent it around and -
no changes of any significance. There might be a typographical change or two.
64 Mr. EDMONDSON. You adhere to the basic idea of a National Reclamation Commission
and of presidentially appointed people on that Commission running the program?
64 Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, I am in a rather anomalous position. I have a thing about
commissions. I think there are already too many of them in this city.
64 I put that in the bill because I didn't know of any other way to handle it.I think it has got to
be handled in Washington. I think it has got to be handled under the close oversight of this
committee and subcommittee. I don't care if there is some department downtown, some bureau
of the Interior Department, or somebody else, that has a division that can handle it. You people
know more about that than I. But what I want is some impartial organization which will see that
legislation is enforced.
64 In Ohio we have a law of sorts which doesn't do much. It says you have to level the soil off
to 15 feet.But nobody even enforces that. Some operators do it; some do a lot more; some don't
do anything. And I have yet to hear of anybody being fined in Ohio for violation of the strip
mine laws.
64 So what I am concerned about is that this committee, which deals with these problems all
the time, in its wisdom finds some formula that will see that whatever bill you write is enforced.
I think that is the important thing. And so that the people who are in the business will know that
it will be enforced with an impartial and equal hand.
64 Mr. EDMONDSON. Your requirements for membership on the commission stipulate on
page 7 of H.R. 6482 that one member shall be a person representative of the public, one shall be
a person experienced in modern forestry programs, and one a person experienced in agronomy.
64 Mr. HAYS. That is right.
64 Mr. EDMONDSON. Do you have a feeling that some expertise in the mining or
earthmoving area might be desirable on that commission?
64 Mr. HAYS.I think it would be all right. The thing I am trying to do, Mr. Chairman, is to
prevent the committee or at least what we had in mind was to prevent the committee from being
loaded with industry people.
64 Now, in Ohio we have certain requirements but the committee in Ohio, which is the appeals
committee, we find the public member is a fellow who has had his farm stripped. And so when
we had for the first time, the first time a permit denied because the land was going to drain into a
State lake on which already $3 million of public funds had been invested, the public member
voted to override the director of natural resources.
64 So you know I don't know how you get around this and I have no objection to somebody
from the industry being on it. but I don't want it loaded in the industry's favor.
64 Mr. EDMONDSON. Have you made any estimates or has your staff made any estimates as
to the percentage of strip mining operations now in progress which would probably be shut down
or stopped by virtue of your requirements in this legislation that no strip mining shall continue
where the damage will be irreparable? Have you made any estimates of what -
65 Mr. HAYS.Anything that you would make on that, Mr. Chairman, would be at best an
educated guess. In my district in Ohio, where the hills are not as steep as the mountains are in
West Virginia, I must in all candor say I don't think there is any place that the damage would be
irreparable unless it would affect water supplies or streams.
65 What I am trying to say is that in my district you can put the ground back to its original
contour any place. Now, if it is done carefully and the topsoil is replaced and the ground is
reseeded, I don't think anywhere in eastern Ohio you would have to band it unless it would be, as
we have been afraid of, right around the perimeter of a lake.
65 Now, I would like to ask permission to include, and I don't have them with me, but I called
the Times Leader, which published a study by two students for their master's degree, I believe - at
Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland is where I believe they are from - in which they
did a study of Piedmont Lake, which is a 2,250-acre water surface lake built by the Army
Engineers for flood control and reclamation purposes. And the Muskingum Conservancy
District, which owns the lands around, in the interest of getting a few bucks, leased some of this
land for coal stripping.
65 In addition, other land adjacent to it was acquired and the stripping was done; the land was
allowed to lie there for a while and then the topsoil had all been covered up in the bottoms of the
pits and then they got in and leveled out the subsoil on top and did a pretty decent job of making
it look similar to what it had been.
65 But what is happening, the leaching effect of rainfall on this subsoil is carrying so much
mineral into the lake that the lake is beginning to die.
65 Now, here's a tremendous investment of the taxpayers. It was built back during the
depression at a nominal cost but if you were to duplicate that lake today, I hate to think how
many millions of dollars it would take to replace it and these are the kind of things I would seek
to prevent.
65 Mr. EDMONDSON. We would like to have the study that you spoke of for the
committee's study and for our files.
65 Mr. HAYS. It will be put in the mail today and I will turn it over to you the minute I get it.
65 Mr. EDMONDSON. We would also like to have for our files, unless committee consel has
it, and I am not sure about that, the fine series on the subject which was done by the newspapers
in your area out there. Bill, do we have that in our files at this time?
65 Mr. SHAFER. Yes, sir; we do.
65 Mr. EDMONDSON. I think I have several other questions but I would like to give other
members an opportunity to qeustion the gentleman.
65 I would like to begin with the chairman of the full committee.
65 Mr. ASPINALL.Mr. Chairman, I am glad to have our colleague from Ohio as a witness on
this legislation. I would ask unanimous consent that his summary of H.R. 6482 be placed in the
record immediately after his statement.
66 Mr. EDMONDSON. Without objection, so ordered.
66 (The summary of H.R. 6482 follows:)
66 A SUMMARY OF H.R. 6482 - THE "STRIP MINING RECLAMATION ACT OF 1971"
66 The purpose of the Act is to restore the land affected by strip mining to the same, or more
valuable, use as the land had before the mining, by requiring the operator to backfill, grade, plant
and revegetate the area. To accomplish this, the Act provides for a Strip Mine Regulation
Commission, which is authorized to issue a license to any operator of a strip mine whose
products enter commerce. The Commission is also empowered to revoke the license of an
operator if he violates any of the provisions of the Act.
66 An important authority given to the Commission is the power to declare an area unsuitable
for strip mining if, in its view, it would be impossible to reclaim the area, or if stream pollution
would result, or if a mineralization of water would follow, or if there would be a dislocation or
disturbance of subsurface streams, or if the mining would impair the health and property rights of
others, and create a situation filled with hazards dangerous to life and property.
66 The Act requires that an applicant for a strip mining permit must have in force a public
liability insurance policy of not less than $60,000 or not less than $1 ,000 per acre, whichever is
greater. In addition, the Act sets a performance bond of not less than $500 nor more than $1,000
per acre, with a minimum bond being set at $5 ,000. The purpose of the bond is to guarantee
reclamation of the strip mined area by the operator, who is also charged a "reclamation fee" of $4
0 per acre of land to be affected by the strip mine operation.
66 A "Strip Mine Reclamation Fund" would be set up in the Treasury Department into which
would be deposited any fee or fine collected by the Commission, as well as any deposit or bond
which had been forfeited. These moneys could be used by the Commission to reclaim land
affected by strip mining.
66 Additional pertinent features of the act are:
66 (a) No license application would be approved to mine any area of land which is within 100
feet of any public road, stream or lake, or within one mile of any publicly owned land, if mining
the area would have adverse affects.
66 (b) No license application would be approved for a violator of the Act, or a violator of any
State act or Federal act pertaining to strip mining, even if the violator assumes a different
corporate identity.
66 (c) No blasting would be permitted where the course or channel of any surface or
subsurface stream would be changed as a probable resuit of the blast, or where the banks of a
stream would be ruptured permitting water to enter the strip mining pit, or where vibration or
concussion would be felt beyond the licensed area unless written consent of adjacent property
owner (or owners) has been obtained. Ample warning must be given before an explosion is set
off.
66 (d) No land or interest in land owned by the United States or any Federal agency could be
leased, nor any present lease renewed, if the purpose of the lease is a strip mining operation.
66 (e) Any resident of the United States who finds any provisions of the Act are being willfully
and deliberately violated can bring suit in an appropriate Federal District Court.
66 (f) Any resident of the United States may sue for damages in any amount in an appropriate
Federal District Court, if he has been injured in any manner through the failure of an operator to
comply with the provisions of the Act, or plan of reclamation issued by the Commission.
66 Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio has made reference to an earlier
bill. All I can say to my colleague is I hope that those of us who are associated with our friend
from Ohio and others who have introduced this legislation don't have to wait 30 years before we
come up with a practical solution to the problem that we are facing.
66 More than likely this was a farsighted observation on the part of our late colleague from
Illinois, but it hasn't borne too much fruit as yet. And I think we are at the place now where we
must do something that is constructive and take care of it to as great a degree as Government can
with what is involved.
67 I think to show the seriousness of this I would like to make one reference. When the
Public Land Law Review Commission had its study, it came up with a figure of 36 square miles
of land that had been desecrated in the public land States because of mining under the law of
1872. Now that figure would amount to approximately 750,000 acres of land and yet the
statement that you brought to our attention, Mr. Hays, is the fact that we have 1,920,000 acres of
land that have been desecrated by the strip mining of coal, three times the amount of land that has
been desecrated by general mining activities under the law of 1872 as amended, and that shows
the seriousness of this situation.
67 You haven't been able to give us - and I think I can understand why - the number of acres of
lands that have been irreparably damaged because of strip mining of coal out of that 1,920,000
acres to which you refer.
67 This shows why Federal action is absolutely necessary. We cannot proceed further just
depending on States.
67 Now, while it should be the States who do their job, many don't do it properly. As I
understand it, your position, Mr. Hays, is that a real reclamation program in strip mining activity
is necessary where it is possible to have such an operation, and where such a reclamation
program is not possible then strip mining should be prohibited?
67 Mr. HAYS. That is my general position, Mr. Chairman, and I think we are going to have a
reliable, reputable group of people to make those determinations. I again say that in my district,
with the exception of around bodies of water and large streams, I think nearly anything in the
district can be reclaimed if somebody sees that they do it. But I am very familiar with the State
of West Virginia. My mother's people came from over here in eastern West Virginia, not very far
from Washington, and I have traveled through the State hundred of times and I think it is safe to
say there are some areas of West Virginia that never ought to be stripped. Some of those steep
mountains just cannot be reclaimed and damage will not only be done now but also it will
continue to be done by landslides and other things for the foreseeable future.
67 Mr. ASPINALL.You have in your legislation, as I understand it, a provision that reads that
no land or interest in land owned by the United States or any Federal agency could be leased or
any present lease renewed if the purpose of the lease is a strip mining operation.
67 Now, is it your feeling that the strip mining cannot be successfully done in public land
States as well as it can in private land States?
67 Mr. HAYS.No, Mr. Chairman, let me say to you that when I first started to draft this bill I
was thinking of the small, relatively small areas around, say Piedmont Lake and the other
conservancy lakes in Ohio. I have become a little more educated on this subject about stripping
in the Far West and I understand there are literally tens of thousand of acres out there of public
land that have been stripped and can be reclaimed and some day we will probably need that.
67 As I said in interpolation to my testimony which had been prepared, I have no personal
objection if the committee changes that so that this is done under supervision and under the same
rules and regulations that are applicable hopefully with a provision that if it cannot be restored it
won't be stripped - if it can be restored, that permits be granted, the public interest be protected
and hopefully the Federal Treasury be enriched by whatever royalties are involved.
68 Mr. ASPINALL. I think it is safe to say that strip mining operations as such have not
become quite so difficult in the public land States as they have in some of the privately owned
land States.Shouldn't a bill such as this apply to all mining activity, Mr. Hays, rather than just to
coal mining?
68 Mr. HAYS. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am a very pragmatic fellow and I believe in taking on
about what you can handle at one dose, and I didn't want to make any more enemies, have any
more lobbyists involved that I can help.
68 Mr. ASPINALL.That may be true, but -
68 Mr. HAYS. From an ideal outlook I suppose the only honest answer would be yes, but I
am trying to tell you why I didn't include it and to be perfectly candid with you, that is the
answer.
68 Mr. ASPINALL. You might be surprised if I were to tell you as a colleague who came to
Congress the same time you did, that I have not been approached one way or the other, adversely
or otherwise, by any mining operator against some kind of constructive strip mining legislation.
68 Mr. HAYS. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am glad to hear you say that, and let me say to you that
my experience has been similar. Most of the people who have approached me said, "I think there
ought to be legislation, but - " and the thing they don't want may be the high bond and the fact
that if they violate it they can be denied a license to strip again.
68 Now, to me I don't see any reason why a fellow who violates the law should be granted a
license to go out and violate it again. But the climate has changed, Mr. Chairman.
68 I don't mind telling you that I introduced the first strip mining bill in the Ohio Legislature
about the same time Mr. Dirksen introduced his bill and the lobbyist, who is now dead, for the
Ohio Coal Association came to me and said, well, buster you won't be in the next session of the
Senate, and I wasn't.
68 Somebody said, why haven't you introduced a strip mining bill before? The answer is
because I never felt we had a real chance to get one passed until now; and I think we do, but to
show how the climate has changed, that same lobbyist back in the 1940's was indicted for bribing
12 Ohio State senators.
68 Their salary in those days was $2 ,000 a year. The case kicked around for a long time. He
was taken before a friendly judge in Columbus who fined him $1 ,000. I thought this was kind of
an insult to the senators because that wasn't even $100 a head.
68 Mr. ASPINALL. Of course, my reaction to that is there are these kinds of operators
anyplace. I just happen to have a little more favorable relationships.
68 Mr. HAYS.As I say, I think the climate has changed, Mr. Chairman, and I think most of the
responsible operators have now come to the conclusion that, yes, some regulation is in the cards
and we are willing to go along with it. In fact, a half dozen operators in Ohio who didn't do any
reclamation 5 years ago are now doing a lot more than the law requires because they think it is
imminent and because public opinion has become aroused to the pitch that is more conducive to
good operations to do it; so those are all pluses.
69 Mr. ASPINALL. Wouldn't you agree with me, my colleague, that one of the reasons that
perhaps there has been a little change in the outlook upon such legislation is that we are coming
now to the conclusion that the consumer has got to pay the bill? Uncle Sam is not going to pay
this bill; the consumer is going to pay it?
69 Now, don't you think that that is bringing us all around to the fact that we are going to get
the job done?
69 Mr. HAYS. I think it is a very big help.
69 Mr. ASPINALL. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
69 Mr. EDMONDSON. The gentleman from Pennsylvania.
69 Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Hays, I commend you on your statement and the research that you have
done on this bill. I just want to say that when I came here in the same session of Congress as you
did, but a little later, a special election, I did some research on this project and very shortly after I
came here I introduced a bill on strip mining. Let me tell you, I can take off my shirt and show
you the scars that I got for introducing that bill. And I continued to introduce a bill in every
session and I have never been able to get any favorable action under any prior administration up
until the present time. I am delighted with the support that we are getting from the
administration and from the Members of the Congress and the public.
69 Very frankly, you are one of those that has been in the forefront.
69 Now, Mr. Hays, there is just one question I have with regard to your bill. You provide for a
bond, a minimum bond of $5,000 based upon not less than $5 00 or more than $1 ,000 per acre.
In view of all of the figures that I have been able to collect, which indicate that it probably does
take a minimum of 40 cents per ton to replace the ground, even in Ohio, and in certain other
places it would be higher, would you have any objection if the bond requirements were raised?
69 Mr. HAYS. No, I certainly would not, Mr. Saylor. I picked a figure, you might say, that I
thought was one that nobody could find very much fault with for being too high. I agree with
you that it wouldn't do the job if the bond were forfeited, but the kicker in my bill is that if you
forfeit your bond you don't come back again for another permit, which I thought offset the fact
that the bond wouldn't be sufficient to do the job if the operator walked off and left it.
69 Mr. SAYLOR. Now, one other thing. In your statement and in many of the other
statements where surface mining is taking place, there are operators who go in and expose or
mine tremendous areas without any reclaiming at all, and then when the project is over, they go
back.Would you see anything wrong with a provision, if I am able to get it in the bill, that would
limit the amount of acreage that could be exposed at any one time?
69 Mr. HAYS. No, I wouldn't see any objection, Mr. Saylor. As a matter of fact, I have it in
my bill -
69 Mr. SAYLOR. That is correct.
69 Mr. HAYS (continuing). That reclamation should be done concurrently and I can tell you
that the series of articles in the newspapers featured one small operator in my district who did the
reclamation job, one of the reclamation projects that I showed the committee. I showed them one
that a small operator did and some that the biggest operator did - Hanna Coal Company. The
small operator says that he finds that he can only do it economically when he does it, you know,
altogether, that is, he is taking coal out down here and putting the ground back behind it.
70 In the bill I wrote we tried to put in a time limit and also that it should be done
concurrently and certainly I would have no objection. I think that ought to be in the bill.
70 Mr. EDMONDSON. Would the gentleman yield for a question at this time?
70 Mr. SAYLOR. Yes.
70 Mr. EDMONDSON. On the question which I think is a highly pertinent issue, do you have
the feeling, Wayne, that the smaller operator who has been in the business in your own county,
one of the very finest reclaimers of the land, that he would be handling it more effectively by a
higher bond or by the provision that you have in your bill that would deny the right to operate in
the future if he didn't, if he forfeited his bond.
70 Mr. HAYS. To be perfectly fair about it, some of the things that have happened to this
fellow since he talked for publication to the press, his credit has been attempted to be shut off;
his bank loans - they have made efforts to have them called, some people have; and I would say
that that is one of the reasons I put in a lower bond and the cutoff because I think an extremely
high bond might make it impossible for a small operator to get it, whereas the threat of putting
him out of business if he didn't comply would be sufficient unless he were a one-shot operator
and how you are going to control them I don't know, but there aren't many of them because the
initial investment is too much now.
70 So I think you have got to have some flexibility there and that is why we tried to weigh the
piece of legislation I worked on in that fashion - with a two-approach control system.
70 Mr. EDMONDSON. Thank you for yielding.
70 Mr. SAYLOR. Now, one last question: You exempt operators who don't remove more than
250 tons within 12 months; 250 tons removed in the wrong place can cause just as much damage
as 1,000 tons removed in another place. Why that exemption?
70 Mr. HAYS. The reason we put in any provision at all, and that might be rewritten, is so
you won't prohibit people from drilling for testing purposes. Maybe you want to rewrite the
language in some other way, but when they core drill, as you know, they do bring up a certain
amount of coal and if you said, no, none at all, a flat prohibition, then you might get in a position
where you didn't allow a fellow to test.
70 I have a coal company that bought some land adjacent to my farm and I don't guess they
know this but they are going to know it before very long, that the fellow who drilled it for them
said there isn't enough coal there if they stripped the whole 25 acres to pay them back one-half
what they paid for the property. So I am going to propose to them that I buy it for half of what
they paid for it and they don't strip it at all, which would be better for them because, you know,
why go to all that work if someone will give them as much for not doing it.
70 Mr. SAYLOR. If we put a provision in the bill which says that core drilling would not be
prohibited, would that cover the situation?
71 Mr. HAYS. I think that would cover it if you can write the law so it exempts it.I tried to
be perfectly fair to the industry. I have been criticized - you know, which you go down the
middle of the road sometimes you get shot at from both sides.
71 I have been criticized for not going far enough on the one hand and too far on the other. I
realize coal is an important commodity but I don't think we should take it out with impunity,
decimate the land and go away and leave it.
71 Mr. SAYLOR. Thank you.
71 Mr. EDMONDSON. The gentleman from West Virginia.
71 Mr. KEE. Mr. Chairman, I had the privilege of joining you and the chairman of the full
committee in going to Ohio and we learned a lot and I commend the gentleman for his testimony.
71 Mr. EDMONDSON. Any questions, Mr. Kee?
71 Mr. KEE. No.
71 Mr. EDMONDSON. The gentleman from Idaho?
71 Mr. MCCLURE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
71 I thank the gentleman for what has been a very helpful statement, a very forceful one
dealing with a very difficult problem because often times the public knows far less about the
details of a problem than perhaps they should in making up their minds. It might be well to state
for the record something that is obvious to most of us who are fairly close to the problem.
71 On page 2 of your statement you refer to the fact that there are 750 billion tons of coal
available by underground mining. I assume that the source of that figure is the Bureau of Mines
report?
71 Mr. HAYS. That is correct.
71 Mr. MCCLURE. That same report did not indicate how much of that was economically
recoverable by present known methods, did it?
71 Mr. HAYS. I don't believe so. I don't think anybody really has an accurate figure on that,
because let me tell you - if I can take 30 seconds to tell you why.
71 When I was a young boy they said stripping really isn't going to be a problem because we
have only got a shovel that will take it from 20 feet deep. Now they are taking it from 120 to 130
days feet deep so the tonnage that can be obtained - I don't know whether it has doubled, tripled,
or quadrupled - but it has gone up tremendously.
71 Mr. MCCLURE. And as this technology has changed so they can go deeper, they are
shifting from underground operations on some deposits to stripping operations?
71 Mr. HAYS. Yes. No. 8 vein in Ohio, when I was a schoolboy, was completely and totally
underground; it is now almost completely and totally stripped except right along the Ohio River
where it lies much too deep.
71 Mr. MCCLURE. This is a more economical operation; therefore, the cost to the consumer,
presumably at least, is less; is that correct?
71 Mr. HAYS. Well, presumably. With the "presumably" in there, I will accept that.
71 Mr. MCCLURE. All right. This is also another cost to underground mining, that is, to the
health and safety to the people who are working. Strip mining operations are a more safe
operation than an underground operation?
72 Mr. HAYS. I don't think there is any doubt but what the number of men killed or injured
per ton is much, much lower in strip mining; nobody is going to argue that than underground
mining.
72 Mr. MCCLURE. I bring these facts out only that the public might know there is a balance
to be drawn in the kind of operation we have.
72 Mr. HAYS. That is why I don't take the approach of barring it altogether because I think
the resource is there and I think we are going to have to recover it.
72 Mr. MCCLURE. On page 9 of your statement, you refer to a study that shows the cost
increase to the average householder in his electric bill if your bill is adopted and I believe you
said offhand that there was a study conducted in your office; is that correct?
72 Mr. HAYS. It was conducted by a friend of mine who has access to a computer. I don't
know all the procedures he used but I know he used the figure of 50 cents per ton; then he got
figures from the electric power generating people about how many kilowatts were produced by a
ton of coal on the average, then the average electric bill in cities like Cleveland, Akron, Detroit,
Toledo, where much of the coal in my district goes, and the average householder's bill, and put it
all in the computer and this is the figure it spit out.
72 I couldn't take an oath as to its absolute accuracy but Mr. Saylor says I am too high.
72 Mr. MCCLURE. One other comment with respect to those figures on page 9. You refer to
studies conducted in West Virginia strip mines by Prof. Samuel Brook, West Virginia
University. Are copies of those studies available?
72 Mr. HAYS. I certainly can get you copies of his testimony before the Ohio Legislature.
That is where I got my information and I am sure that Professor Brook - somebody, if not I,
somebody in West Virginia can get your copies of his studies or summaries or whatever. But he
did make a very - I though - important presentation before the Ohio Legislature when he was a
witness there just within the past few weeks.
72 Mr. MCCLURE.Just one further question.
72 You have indicated that you have had a change of approach to the public lands problem
since this bill was drafted and have no objection to strip-mining operations on public lands if
they are done under proper regulation?
72 Mr. HAYS. That is correct.
72 Mr. MCCLURE. Do you feel those regulations ought to be exactly the same as the
regulations which apply to operations on private lands?
72 Mr. HAYS. Well, Mr. McClure, I am hopeful that whatever the committee comes out with
will be common sense regulations that will protect the land and the environment and I don't know
that you would require in my State of Ohio any different regulations on public land than you
would on private land.
72 Now, I am not so familiar with some of the areas in the West which I understand have lots
of coal under them which in some cases are deserts, et cetera, and I am not competent to speak;
but in this area of the United States I can't see why public lands should be treated any more
leniently, shall we say, than private lands.
72 Mr. MCCLURE. It seems to me if we are really concerned, as I am sure we all are, with
the kind of reclamation that is done, that we ought to do just as good a job on the public lands as
we do on private lands.
73 Mr. HAYS. Absolutely.
73 Mr. MCCLURE. And, conversely, we ought to require just as good a job done on private
lands as we require on public lands?
73 Mr. HAYS. That is exactly my feeling. You said it better than I did.
73 Mr. MCCLURE. Thank you very much. Again I commend you for a very helpful
statement.
73 Mr. HAYS. Thank you.
73 Mr. EDMONDSON. The gentleman from Missouri?
73 Mr. BURLISON. No questions.
73 Mr. EDMONDSON. The gentleman from California, Mr. Hosmer?
73 Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to congratulate the witness on his testimony and
reserve the balance of my time.
73 Mr. EDMONDSON. The gentleman from Montana?
73 Mr. MELCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
73 Mr. Hays, as I interpret your bill, the commission would decide where no strip mining
could be done; is that correct?
73 Mr. HAYS. That is correct.
73 Mr. MELCHER.And there would be public hearings and people would be allowed to testify
one way or the other if the commission so designated; is that correct?
73 Mr. HAYS. That is correct.
73 Mr. MELCHER. And it is your viewpoint that there would be very few areas in the United
States that would actually be declared not to be strip mined by this commission?
73 Mr. HAYS. Well, if I can change one word in your sentence, I think I can agree to it. It
would be relatively few. You said very few. I don't know because I am not enough of an expert
to know, for example, where in Virginia, we will say, there is strip coal; but, for example, if there
is some out in the Shenandoah National Park I would want to think a long time before I would let
anybody go in there and strip it.
73 Mr. MELCHER. There would be plenty of land available for stripping in the United States.
The vast percentage of area having coal would be available for stripping and could be reclaimed?
73 Mr. HAYS. I would say so, yes.
73 Mr. MELCHER.Now, if we would not go after this coal, where would we get our source of
energy in the next 10, 20 years?
73 Mr. HAYS. This is the reason that I have not cosponsored a bill to totally prohibit stripping
because realistically I don't know where we would go. I can see that there is an energy crisis and
even though, you know, we would prohibit people from using electric toothbrushes and a lot of
silly things that they use electricity for, still that wouldn't solve it. Even if we prohibited these
companies, and I get sometimes amused and sometimes exasperated by them telling you in 1 day
how terrible the energy crisis is and the next day with slick-paper ads and television and radio
saying heat your house electrically. Even if we prohibited all that - and I am not suggesting we
should - I still think in the next 10 years if we prohibited the strip mining of coal there would be a
severe energy crisis.
73 So I am trying to approach it as I see it in the most practical manner which would permit
them to extract the mineral and still not leave a terrible devastation behind.
74 Mr. MELCHER. Well, you said earlier that you are a pragmatic individual and I don't
contradict. I think I would agree, too, and you feel that there is now an opportunity to pass a strip
mine reclamation bill in this Congress?
74 Mr. HAYS. I certainly do.
74 Mr. MELCHER. Well, I commend you for that.
74 Now, there really isn't much likelihood that nuclear energy is going to come on in the next
10 or 20 years and pick up where coal would leave off in generating electrical energy, is there?
74 Mr. HAYS. Well, let me say to you, sir, that I am not an expert on that. I have listened to
the experts. I listened to a conversation at lunch the other day involving Congressman Holifield
who is very knowledgeable on it and I had the opportunity to be one of the few people who has
ever been allowed inside the French nuclear research plant at Catarouche in France in the spring
of this year. We spent a day there. We talked to all their experts and as I get the picture, that is
realistically 20 years down the road, and maybe longer.
74 Mr. MELCHER.Well, we are then looking at coal to supply the energy source to avoid this
energy crisis that you mentioned. Just one point in the cost of reclamation: I am from Montana
and I happen to come from an area where coal strip mining started in the 1920's by the Northern
Pacific Railroad for their trains. It was done with large equipment and the spoil banks tower
some 90 feet into the air and nothing grows on those spoil banks yet.
74 When the railroads ceased to use coal for their engines, strip mining ceased there, too; but it
is now taken up again and the coal - some of it is used in the State for generating electricity and
some of it shipped out of State, into Minnesota and Illinois.
74 Now, the freight rate per ton of this coal shipped by unit trains to Cohasset, Minn., is about
$2 .80 a ton and I mention this because if the railroad should apply these 6 to 8-percent increases
in freight rates that they have been getting every 6 months or every 10 months, if they wouldu
supply this to this unit train rate we would be talking about an amount that would be greater than
the cost of reclamation per ton. You have mentioned the figure of 40 cents and have stressed the
fact that it might vary according to where the land is and the type of land it is.
74 In our area we don't think it costs 40 cents a ton for good reclamation because the veins of
coal are thick which means more tons to the acre; and the needed reclamation may not be as
sophisticated as it would require in your State or some adjoining States such as West Virginia.
74 I mention all of this to arrive at one point which I think you have stressed, that the cost of
reclamation is easily within our attainment and even if it is all passed on, will not pass on to the
consumers a great amount.
74 The point that the gentleman from Idaho raised concerning the health requirement comes
into bearing here, too, because the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act, the recent legislation that
we passed concerning coal mine safety, added tremendously to the cost per ton of coal from
underground mines. Is that not true, Mr. Hays?
74 Mr. HAYS. I believe so; I believe it is, yes.
75 Mr. MELCHER. Then we could be looking at a cheaper way as far as the consumer is
concerned with strip mining if we could assure ourselves that reclamation could be followed
after; is that true?
75 Mr. HAYS. Yes. I think the cost of reclamation is perfectly within the reasonable limits of
the price of coal. As a matter of fact, the demand for coal is such now in my district where there
are generating plants up and down the Ohio River - in face, I think if they build many more we
are going to have boiling water in the river and maybe they can use that as a source of energy -
but they tell me, the smaller operators tell me, that they can get anything they ask; it doesn't make
any difference. The just say bring it in and we will pay you.
75 Mr. MELCHER. Thank you, Mr. Hays, for a very helpful statement.
75 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
75 Mr. EDMONDSON. Thank you. The gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Skubitz.
75 Mr. SKUBITZ. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to commend our colleague on his
statement today.
75 Mr. HAYS. Thank you.
75 Mr. SKUBITZ. I, too, am quite interested in the problems that arise from strip mine
operations. Since the introduction of bills such as yours, I have received a letter from the Kansas
Geological Survey in which there appears this paragraph:
75 Kansas already has established a Land Mine Reclamation Commission which has operated
most effectively in regulating strip mines for coal. Its provisions include filing of plans for
mining, detailed specifications.
75 Et cetera. It then urges me to oppose Federal legislation.
75 After receiving this letter, I went back to Kansas last August to investigate the strip mine
operation in my home county. Most of them are located in my county.
75 The law went into effect in January 1969, so it has had a chance to operate for 1 year. I
found all degrees of strip mine reclamation in progress. For example, a former student of mine is
operating a ranch in this area. He has in the neighborhood of 3,000 or 4,000 acres of strip land
that he himself has reclamed.
75 In discussing the cost of reclaiming acres with him, I said, "I don't see how you can come
out." He said, "Joe, I didn't go into this just for my health." He said, "I took land that we got at
round $30 an acre. We spent about $1 54 an acre and now it is worth over $200 an acre."
75 We drove through his field that is covered with lush grass about 10 inches high.
75 I mention this, Mr. Hays, for one reason: It shows what can be done if someone is really
interested in reclamining strip land.
75 I visited an area that has been reclaimed by one coal company that last year harvested - this
year - 36 bushels per acre.
75 I visited other land that was supposed to have been reclaimed. It had been "bulldozed" in a
fashion and seeded twice by air.This of course meets the requirement of our State laws. No
fertilizer had been used. No top soil applied. Hence, none of the seed had matured into grass.
75 Several years ago you could buy the land from the coal company at approximately $5 0 an
acre. Today you can't buy an acre from the coal company at any price. Yet they are doing very
little to reclaim this land.
76 We have land that was originally worth around $200 to $2 40 an acre now carried on the
tax roll at $10 per acre.
76 I wanted to read to you a statement made by the mine land reclamation office, January 15,
1971. It deals with Cherokee County, Kans.:
76 Mine land according to table I is appraised at $1 0 per acre. This $1 0 is supposed to
represent the market value of an acre of mine land. It is assessed at 30 percent of market value,
or $3 an acre. With the current levy of taxes that is 26 cents per acre.
76 What I am getting at is we are taking land that is worth $2 00 an acre, it is being stripped
and now it is on the tax roll at $1 0 an acre. At the present tax roll tye paying 26 cents an acre
taxes a year on land in Cherokee County. Any wonder we have a tax problem in Cherokee
County. Yet our State Commission tells me we have a good law and we are enforcing it.
76 Mr. HAYS. Mr. Skubitz, I think you are making an extremely good point. I intended to
make that point in connection with what Mr. Melcher said. He said, "Well, consumers could
afford to pay this."
76 If stripping goes on in Ohio and no reclamation is done and 28 counties in Ohio are more or
less completely stripped, can you imagine what that is going to do to the tax duplicate of that
State. Can you imagine what it is going to do to the income of that State? Can you imagine what
that is going to do to the welfare rolls?
76 I say we cannot afford not to do it. And what you are telling us is a typical example of what
can happen on an ever-growing scale as far as affecting the tax income of counties and States.
76 I am told - I am trying to get verification of this - I do know that in some cases when coal
companies acquire property they blow up the houses or tear them down so they don't have to pay
taxes on them. I am told until they strip it, they go ahead and collect - if the farmer is being paid
for not growing something, they collect that. And I suppose after stripping it, the way some of
them leave it, they would be paid for not growing anything indefinitely. They likely wouldn't
grow anything.
76 Mr. SKUBITZ. Mr. Hays, I ask you this question: Do you know how many tons of coal
they mine out of an acre of land in your State?
76 Mr. HAYS. Well, we use the figure 5,000 tons, Mr. Skubitz, to be extremely conservative.
I suspect the average is more likely 6,000 or 7,000 but the reason I say this now is that they have
found, and this is something that has become devastating in the last year, that we have a seam of
coal that nobody ever paid attention to about 2 feet thick which really won't burn much, but it
doesn't have any sulfur in it. So they are buying this and mixing it with high sulfur coal in order
to get the sulfur content down to permissible levels.
76 Now, I had some people from the REA in to see me the other day and they want to build
another big generating plant to use this type of stuff in my district where there are already three in
this little town now and the town already has the enviable record of having the most polluted air
in the United States, so I was giving them some hard questions about it. They admit that when
they shut down one of their generators because of low demand, which they do seasonally from
time to time, and sometimes weekly or more often, that when they start it up they have to use
20,000 gallons of fuel oil to start it up to get this black dirt to burn.
77 But, you see, there are so many interlocking phases and factors here. Ohio coal is very
good coal B.t.u.-wise, but it is very poor coal as far as sulfur content is concerned. So you have
this conflicting problem.
77 Mr. SKUBITZ. The reason I asked the question, Mr. Hays, is that I have a letter from the
Internal Revenue Service here concerning depletion allowances on coal. The percentage
depletion for coal is equivalent to 10 percent of the gross income of the property. Ten percent of
the gross income, or 50 percent of the net income for the property, whichever is the lesser.
77 Now, it seems to me if companies are going to buy land, strip it for coal and the profit
therefrom, and in turn claim depletion allowance, then they ought to be required to at least restore
the land, so that it can be used and restored to the tax roll.
77 Mr. HAYS. Well, I think you are right. I would hope that they would be required to totally
restore the land.
77 Mr. EDMONDSON. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Vigorito?
77 Mr. VIGORITO. No questions.
77 Mr. EDMONDSON. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. McKevitt?
77 Mr. MCKEVITT. No questions, Mr. Chairman.
77 Mr. EDMONDSON. The gentleman from Wisconsin?
77 Mr. KASTENMEIER. I have no questions.
77 Mr. EDMONDSON. The gentleman from Puerto Rico?
77 Mr. CORDOVA. Mr. Hays, I take it that it is considered necessary for the Federal
Government to control strip mining because the States or most of them haven't done a very good
job. This bill proposes to set up a Federal commission to regulate and to license strip mining.
Would it not be well to reserve power in the States to impose conditions on strip mining that are
more restrictive than the Federal commission might impose if the States were so disposed?
77 Mr. HAYS. They can do that under my bill. There is nothing that says they cannot be
more restrictive.
77 Mr. CORDOVA. But if the Federal commission has the power to license, would that not
deprive the States of power to adopt regulations which might interfere with that license right?
77 Mr. HAYS. No, I don't think so. I think the States, if their regulations were more
restrictive, they would have the overriding ability to apply their regulations.
77 Mr. CORDOVA. No further questions, Mr. Chairman.
77 Mr. EDMONDSON. Any further questions by members of the committee? I want to thank
you again, Wayne, for an excellent statement and for your very fine leadership role in
consideration of this question.
77 Mr. HAYS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the privilege of appearing. I know that this is a
complicated piece of legislation and I wish you well with it when you get to the markup stage.
77 Mr. EDMONDSON. Thank you.
77 Our next witness is a distinguished member of the Committee on Interior and of the
Subcommittee on Mines and Mining who has also had a longstanding interest in this question,
Hon. James Kee.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES KEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
TEXT: 78 Mr. KEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
78 Mr. EDMONDSON. The gentleman from West Virginia is one of the most valued
members of the Subcommittee on Mines and Mining and has, I think, been a leader in this field
for many years.We are pleased to have you here before us.
78 Mr. KEE.I am indeed grateful to you for giving me the opportunity to make this statement
concerning strip mining.
78 No. 1, I have a much more lengthy statement with nine pages and attachments; therefore, I
ask unanimous consent at this time that this be considered as read in the record and I be given the
opportunity to briefly summarize it.
78 Mr. EDMONDSON. Without objection, so ordered.
78 Mr. KEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
78 Mr. Chairman, I was born and raised in the largest bituminous coal producing
congressional district in the United States. Through the years I have walked in our coal mines
and I have talked to the brave men who actually produce America's most abundant, America's
most vital fuel - coal.
78 We have gone into this before in this committee, that without coal we could not have - and
I repeat not - have won World War I; we could not have won - and I repeat not - have won World
War II. In addition, I repeat that we could not have won the Korean conflict without coal.
78 The men that mine the coal, the men that put up the money, have done their part for the
benefit of both investors and workers. I repeat that again, have done their part for the benefit of
the land we love. Without the energy supplied by coal, we would not be meeting today in this
room as free people to discuss our domestic problems in order to determine the proper course of
action for the future of our Nation.In fact, we do have several bills pending and each one will be
discussed by witnesses before our committee.
78 Now, this is an important point. While most of the criticism of strip mining practices of the
past is completely justified, I believe Congress would be making a fatal mistake if it should
attempt to legislate strip mining out of existence.
78 The fact of the matter is that surface mined, strip mined coal is so important to our
economy that we would be in very serious straits without it.
78 Now, consider these facts: Coal is the fuel used to generate about half of all the electricity
produced in our Nation, and that includes hydropower and nuclear, as well as oil and gas.
78 Of the 600 million tons of coal produced in 1970, almost 265 million tons was surfaced
mined. And 75 percent of this surface-mined coal went to electric utility plants to produce power
for lighting, heating, air conditioning, and all the other uses we make of electricity.
78 The 198 million tons of surface-mined coal that went to electric utilities in 1970
represented 60 percent of total shipments of 331 million tons to the electric utilities in 1970 from
all bituminous and lignite coal mines.
78 Many people think of nuclear power as being the answer to all of our fuel problems. And
nuclear power is going to be needed more and more. We cannot argue about that; but it would
take about 60 of these nuclear plants to do the job that surface-mined coal did in 1970. When
you realize that it takes 7 or 8 years, or even longer, to have a nuclear plant in production - and
that's after many of the preliminary obstacles have been overcome - then it becomes clear why
surface-minedcoal is so important to the electric power industry.
79 There are those who argue also that we should do away with strip mining and recover all
the coal by underground mining methods. Now, the fact is this argument will not, repeat not,
hold water either. For example, a 3 million ton mine is considered a big mine. There aren't very
many underground mines in our country that large. Yet it would take 88 mines of this size to
extract the coal that we obtained from surface mines in 1970.
79 Now the question becomes where is the capital for such huge underground mines to come
from? I am told that it takes aro