November 16-17, and December 2, 1971 Hearing
|
|
Legislative History November 16-17, and December 2, 1971 Hearing |
| |
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1971
1 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MINERALS, MATERIALS, AND FUELS OF THE
COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Washington, D.C.
1 The subcommittee met at 9 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 3110, New Senate Office
Building, Senator Frank E. Moss (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
1 Present: Senator Moss.
1 Also present: Mary Jane Due, staff counsel; and Charles Cook, minority counsel.
1 Senator Moss. The hearing will come to order.
1 The reason we set the time for 9 a.m. is because we have a great number of witnesses that we
want to hear today and tomorrow and we will have hearings later on, in about 2 weeks from now.
1 This is the first of a series of hearings to be held before the Subcommittee on Minerals,
Materials, and Fuels on proposals now pending before the committee to regulate surface mining in
the United States. Measures presently pending before the committee are S. 77, S. 630, S. 993, S.
1160, S. 1240, S. 1498, S. 2455, and S. 2777.
1 Reading that long list of numbers, you can see there is a lot of concern about the problems we
will be discussing at these hearings and many different Senators have advanced various ways of
dealing with the problem.
1 The hearing will continue through tomorrow. An additional day of hearing has been scheduled
for December 2 at 10 a.m., at which we will be hearing witnesses particularly with regard to S. 1160
as well as the other bills.
1 The statistics available to us from the Department of Interior indicate that approximately 3.2
million acres had been disturbed by surface mining across the country. About 2 million acres are in
need of some type of rehabilitation. Approximately 90 percent of the disturbed land is estimated to
be in private ownership.
1 The report of the Interior Department estimated that the cost of basic reclamation of the
disturbed 2,041,000 acres is $6 58,270,000. Additional work such as the construction of
impoundments, planting, grading, and administrative costs brings the total to $1,211,112,000.
1 Federal legislative attempts to regulate and require the reclamation of surface-mined areas date
back over 30 years.
1 We are faced with serious environmental problems and we must find solutions.
1 Too often these hearings result in battlelines being drawn between the environmentalists and the
mining industry. We address ourselves today to the legislative proposals seeking to resolve the
impasse and find a workable solution to the problem.
2 Running throughout the arguments are deep philosophical issues and grave economic
considerations. Fundamental in our deliberations are two facts:
2 (1) The economics of this country and its concomitant industrial growth are built upon and
require the raw materials with which this country has been inordinately blessed; and
2 (2) There is a need for every man, women, and child in this country to have a quiet, beautiful
place to reside and to seek recreation unmarred by pollution of air, water, and land. In this
achievement of such a goal, lies the strength of the heart of our people.
2 In order to achieve the latter we must find some way to accommodate the former, because
without the economic security and the production of the country there is neither the need nor the
opportunity for the quiet place.
2 We can no longer remain wedded to the age-old processes and assumptions. Rather we must
recognize and acknowledge new values and new ways.
2 We can no longer afford to have conservationists lined up against industry in a "you did" or
"you didn't" confrontation.
2 The bills before us that I have read off will be placed in the record at this point including the
reports of the Department of Interior.
2 (The documents referred to follow; except that text of S. 2777 is on p. 823.)
33 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, W
Washington, D.C., November 12, 1971.
33 Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S.
Senate, Washington, D.C.
33 DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This responds to your request for the views of the Department on
S. 77, S. 1498, and S. 2455 dealing with the adverse environmental aspects of mining operations.
33 We recommend against enactment of all of the above listed bills and recommend that S. 993,
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.
33 All of the listed bills contain aspects of similarity to the Administration's proposal, S. 993.
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.
33 S. 77 and S. 2455 differ from the Administration's proposal in that they cover only surface and
strip mining and divide responsibility between the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture (S. 77), or
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (S. 2455).
33 S. 1498 differs from the Administration's proposal in that it vests Federal administrative
responsibility in the Environmental Protection Agency, applies to coal mining only and gives sole
regulatory responsibility to the Federal Government with respect to existing surface mines. It would
prohibit altogether the opening of any new, inactive or abandoned surface coal mine.
33 Section 8 of S. 1498 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.
33 Titles II, IV and V of S. 77 and section 9 of S. 1498 provide for Federal assistance to reclaim
and conserve areas damaged by past coal mining operations.Both bills require that such areas be
owned by State or local governments, and authorize Federal funding. The Administration's bill
applies only to damage caused by existing and future mining operations.
33 S. 1498 and S. 2455 provide for citizen suits to mandamus government officials who neglect
or refuse to enforce the Act and allow suits against any person alleged to be in violation of the Act or
the regulations.
33 Section 14 of S. 1498 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.
33 The following major differences between the bills are the basis for our recommendations stated
above.
33 1. LIMITED COVERAGE
33 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.
33 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
bills should deal with all these problems, and not simply those related to a particular type of mining.
33 2. FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION
33 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.
34 For this reason we oppose S. 1498 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.
34 3. PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY TO STATES
34 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.
34 We oppose, therefore, S. 1498 which recognizes no State responsibility for surface mine
regulation.
34 4. RESTORATION OF PAST MINING DAMAGE
34 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.
34 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.
34 5. PROHIBITION OF SURFACE COAL MINING
34 This Department strongly opposes the blanket prohibition in S. 1498 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.
34 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.
34 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.
34 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.
35 6. NATIONAL FORESTS
35 S. 1498 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.
35 7. CITIZENS SUITS
35 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 (S. 1014 in this Congress).
35 The citizen suits which we have supported are limited to enforcement of specific
environmental requirements which are capable of objective definition or precise measurement.
35 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.
35 8. Federal Procurement
35 Section 14 of S. 1498 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 "or 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".
35 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 Clean Air Act.
35 The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to the
presentation of this report and that enactment of S. 993 would be in accord with the Administration's
program.
35 Sincerely yours,
35 HOLLIS M. DOLE, Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
36 EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET, Washington, D.C., November 15, 1971.
36 Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S.
Senate, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
36 DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your requests for the views of the Office of
Management and Budget on the following legislation:
36 S. 77, a bill "To provide for the regulation of present and future surface and strip mining, for
the conservation, acquisition, and reclamation of surface and strip mined areas, and for other
purposes."
36 S. 630, 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."
36 S. 1160, a bill "Relating to the rehabilitation of areas damaged by deleterious mining
practices, and for other purposes."
36 S. 1498, a bill "To provide for the control of surface and underground coal mining operations
which adversely affect the quality of our environment, and for other purposes."
36 S. 2455, a bill "To regulate the practice of strip mining, to protect the environment, and for
other purposes."
36 The Department of the Interior has submitted a related bill, S. 993 - the "Mined Area
Protection Act of 1971", for Congressional consideration, and as stated in the Department's reports
on the legislation cited above, it recommends enactment of S. 993 in lieu of these bills. Enactment
of S. 993 would be in accord with the program of the President.
36 Sincerely,
36 WILFRED H. ROMMEL, Assistant Director for Legislative Reference.
36 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington,
D.C., November 17, 1971.
36 Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S.
Senate.
36 DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your letter of October 6, 1971, requesting the
views of this Department on S. 77, a bill "To provide for the regulation of present and future surface
and strip mining, for the conservation, acquisition, and reclamation of surface and strip mined areas,
and for other purposes."
36 This bill generally provides for the conservation and improvement of lands affected by surface
mining operations.
36 The President's Environmental Message to the Congress, dated February 8, 1971, proposed a
Mined Area Protection Act, S. 993, to establish Federal requirements and guidelines for State
programs to regulate the environmental consequences of surface and underground mining. This
proposal was submitted to Congress by the Secretary of the Interior and introduced on February 25,
1971, as S. 993. We recommend that the Administration's proposal be enacted.
36 The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection to the presentation of
this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program.
36 Sincerely,
36 J. PHIL CAMPBELL, Acting Secretary.
53 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, W
Washington, D.C., September 17, 1971.
53 Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S.
Senate, Washington, D.C.
53 DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for the views of this Department
on S. 630, 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."
53 We recommend that the bill not be enacted but that S. 993, 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.
53 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.
53 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.
53 Both bills contain provisions for advisory committees, Federal inspections, penalties, and
federally-sponsored research or training programs.
53 There are four differences between the two bills which constitute the basis for our
recommendation that S. 993 be enacted and not S. 630.
53 1. SCOPE
53 The Administration's bill is broader in scope. It covers underground mines as well as surface
mines, while S. 630 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.
53 2. REGULATORY CRITERIA
53 The Administration's proposal contains certain criteria for approval of a State program not
contained in S. 630. 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.
53 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.
53 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.
53 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.
54 3. FUNDING
54 Both bills authorize appropriations as necessary. Under S. 630, 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.
54 4. FEDERAL LANDS
54 Neither bill would place Federal lands under the control of the State program although both
would require that mining regulations on Federal lands be at 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.
54 In view of the differences between the two bills and for the reasons discussed above, we prefer
the Administration's proposal to S. 630.
54 The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to the
presentation of this report and that enactment of S. 993 would be in accord with the program of the
President.
54 Sincerely yours,
54 W. J. PECORA, Under Secretary of the Interior.
54 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C.,
September 20, 1971.
54 Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S.
Senate.
54 DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for a report on S. 630, 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."
54 The President's Environmental Message to the Congress, dated February 8, 1971, proposed a
Mined Area Protection Act to establish Federal requirements and guidelines for State programs to
regulate the environmental consequences of surface and underground mining. This proposal was
submitted to Congress by the Secretary of the Interior on February 10, 1971.
54 The proposed Mined Area Protection Act is somewhat broader in scope than S. 630,
encompassing underground as well as surface aspects. Accordingly, we recommend that the
Administration's proposal be enacted.
54 The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection to the presentation of
this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program.
54 Sincerely,
54 J. PHIL CAMPBELL, Under Secretary.
74 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, W
Washington, D.C., November 12, 1971.
74 Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S.
Senate, Washington, D.C.
74 DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This reponds to your request for the views of this Department on S.
1160, a bill "Relating to the rehabilitation of areas damaged by deleterious mining practices, and for
other purposes."
74 We recommend that this bill not be enacted but favor instead the enactment of S. 993, the
Administration's proposed "Mined Area Protection Act of 1971".
74 S. 1160 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to make grants to the several States to
rehabilitate areas damaged by deleterious mining practices. Grants would be made for the purpose
of sealing and filling voids in abandoned coal mines and abandoned oil and gas wells, and to reclaim
and rehabilitate lands affected by strip or surface mining. Grants would be restricted to 75 percent
of the total cost of any project, and the bill would authorize necessary appropriations for three years.
74 There are two distinct problems involved in meeting the challenge which mining operations
can present to the environment:
74 (1) requiring ongoing and future mining activities to be conducted in a way as to minimize the
environmental impact, and
74 (2) healing the wounds that have been inflicted by past mining operations.
74 The Administration's 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.
74 The Administration's 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.
74 The Administration's 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.
74 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.
74 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.
74 The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection to the presentation of
this report and that enactment of S. 993 would be in accord with the President's program.
74 Sincerely yours,
74 HOLLIS M. DOLE, Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
75 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington,
D.C., November 17, 1971.
75 Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S.
Senate.
75 DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for a report on S. 1160, a bill
"Relating to the rehabilitation of areas damaged by deleterious mining practices, and for other
purposes."
75 This Department recommends that the bill not be enacted.
75 The President's Environment Message to Congress, dated February 8, 1971, proposed a Mined
Area Protection Act, S. 993, to establish Federal requirements and guidelines for State programs to
regulate the environmental consequences of surface and underground mining. This proposal was
submitted to Congress by the Secretary of the Interior on February 25, 1971. In transmitting that
proposal, attention was called to the fact that there are two different problems involved in meeting
the challenge which mining operations can present to the environment: (1) requiring ongoing and
future mining activities to be conducted in a way as to minimize the environmental impact, and (2)
healing the wounds that have been inflicted by past mining operations.
75 We recommended enactment of the Administration's proposal which deals only with the first
problem, the solution to which is largely a matter of developing regulations that will require
environmental considerations to be built into the mining operation.
75 The problem of healing damage inflicted in the past is more difficult. Most of the lands now in
need of reclamation were mined when there were no statutory requirements that they be reclaimed or
where such statutory requirements were ineffective. Consequently, to relieve the adverse impacts on
the environmental treatment of these lands may well require a considerable input of public funds.
The investment of Federal funds will require a detailed cost-benefit analysis to determine the priority
of this problem in comparison with other environmental problems requiring Federal funds.
75 This Department has a long history of conducting research and giving technical and financial
assistance to private landowners in protecting land surface areas against erosion and runoff. Many
of the lands on which we have provided assistance were surface mined. At such time that proposals
for reclaiming lands affected by past surface mining may be submitted, this Department will
anticipate aiding in the development of proposals for consideration by the Congress.
75 The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection to the presentation of
this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program.
75 Sincerely,
75 J. PHIL CAMPBELL, Acting Secretary.
79 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, W
Washington, D.C., November 12, 1971.
79 Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S.
Senate, Washington, D.C.
79 DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your Committee has requested a report on S. 1240, a bill
"Relating to prospecting and exploring for minerals on public lands of the United States by means of
bulldozers or other mechanical earthmoving equipment."
79 We recommend that S. 1240 not be enacted and that S. 2727, the Administration's proposed
"Mining Law of 1971", S. 2401, the Administration's proposed "National Resource Land
Management Act of 1971", and S. 993, the Administration's proposed "Mined Area Protection Act
of 1971", be enacted instead.
79 Section 1 of S. 1240 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to prohibit the exploration
for minerals by bulldozer type equipment on certain public lands (including national forest lands)
where he finds (1) that fragile soil conditions make it inadvisable to use such equipment, or (2) the
use of mechanical equipment is likely to result in irreparable damage to the land surface. The
Secretary would be directed to publish a detailed description of the boundaries of designated areas in
the Federal Register and this description is to be made available for public inspection at the Office of
the Bureau of Land Management nearest to the affected area.
79 Section 2 provides that no one shall enter upon the public lands for the purpose of mineral
exploration with bulldozers or other earthmoving equipment unless he has filed with the Bureau of
Land Management a statement of intent and a performance bond, in such amount as the Secretary
shall determine, so as to assure reasonable protection of the environment.Section 3 of S. 1240 directs
the Secretary to consult with the Secretary of Agriculture before taking action affecting national
forest lands, and section 4 authorizes the Secretary to issue such regulations as he determines
necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act.
79 The basic purpose of S. 1240 is to protect the public lands from the damage caused by
mechanized prospecting permissible under the Mining Law of 1872. This Department recognizes
that unregulated exploratory operations conducted with bulldozers and other earthmoving
equipment can result in irreparable harm to the land resources, but believes that the scope of S. 1240
is too limited to accomplish the kind of comprehensive, coordinated regulation necessary to correct
abuses under the present system.
79 On October 12, 1971, this Administration proposed to Congress a "Mining Law of 1971",
introduced in the Senate as S. 2727. This bill emphasizes the Administration's concern that
protection of the environment should be a major factor in any legislation to reform the mining laws.
Section 10 of S. 2727 provides a program to regulate the environmental aspects of mining on public
lands. It would require, among other things, that the operator file an operation plan with the
Secretary for approval before he commences any activity which might cause a significant
disturbance of the environment. The plan would be in accord with the regulations issued by the
Secretary and designed to assure that the operation would not violate air and water quality standards
and would control erosion, subsidence and other specified environmental damage. The regulations
would require that reclamation be made an integral part of the operation while allowing the operator
maximum flexibility to determine the most economically feasible means of achieving the
environmental objectives.
79 This Department has also proposed a bill, S. 2401, which we believe provides a
comprehensive plan for the management of federally owned lands consonant with the needs for
environmental protection and effective land use planning. Enactment of S. 2401 would provide the
Secretary of the Interior with regulatory and enforcement authority sufficient to meet these needs.
Specifically, section 7(a)(2) of S. 2401 would direct the Secretary to require "performance bonds
guaranteeing such reclamation of any person permitted to engage in extractive or other activity
likely to entail significant disturbance to or alteration of the land." This authority is broader in scope
than that provided in S. 1240 and would include the mechanized exploration activities encompassed
by S. 1240.
79 In addition, title II of S. 993, the "Mined Area Protection Act of 1971", proposed to the
Congress by this Department on February 10, 1971 establishes standards for environmental
regulation of mining operations by the states on nonfederally owned lands within the state. Section
101(b) defines "mining operations" to include "activities conducted . . . for the exploration for . . .
minerals from their natural occurrences . . . " The enviromental regulation standards set worth in
title II of S. 993 specifically require reclamation plans and performance bonds to guarantee such
reclamation. Moreover, section 301 of S. 993 requires all Federal departments having jurisdiction
over lands on which mining operations are conducted to issue regulations governing such mining
operations which are at least as stringent as those promulgated and approved pursuant to section
201. These wise bills, then, would provide for protection of mineral resource lands whether public
or private. Enactment of S. 2727, S. 2401 and S. 993 would establish a coordinated, comprehensive
program for the exploration and exploitation of mineral resources, as well as the protection of the
environment, to a degree not attainable within the limited scope of S. 1240.
80 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.
80 Sincerely yours,
80 HOLLIS M. DOLE, Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
80 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington,
D.C., April 17, 1971.
80 Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S.
Senate.
80 DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: As you asked, here is the report of the Department of Agriculture
on S. 1240, a bill "Relating to prospecting and exploring for minerals on public lands of the United
States by means of bulldozers or other mechanical earthmoving equipment."
80 The Department of Agriculture recommends enactment of S. 2727, the Administration's
proposal to reform the mining laws, in lieu of S. 1240.
80 S. 1240 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to designate and establish certain areas
comprising the public lands (including the national forests) which would be closed to entry for
minerals prospecting or exploring with bulldozers or other mechanical earthmoving equipment.
Such areas would be fragile or steep areas where heavy equipment would cause irreparable surface
damage.
80 In areas not closed to entry with bulldozers or mechanical earthmoving equipment, no minerals
prospecting or exploration on public lands could be conducted by individuals, companies, or other
organizations unless such parties file a statement of intent regarding the nature of proposed
operations, and a performance bond in an amount determined by the Secretary of the Interior.
80 The Secretary of the Interior could take no action under S. 1240 affecting the National Forest
lands administered by this Department without the consent of the Secretary of Agriculture.
80 On October 12, 1971, the Secretary of the Interior sent to the Congress this Administration's
proposal to reform the mining laws, which is now embodied in S. 2727. This proposal, which would
cover the National Forest lands we administer, embraces the objectives of S. 1240. It would
authorize and direct the withdrawal from any mineral development of those lands which we
determine have a higher use or which should be removed from disposition to protect or enhance their
environmental quality. For those lands not withdrawn it authorizes the administering agency to
require conditions in prospecting licenses, and in exploration, development, and production permits
to minimize or avoid environmental disturbance. The Administration proposal would cover all
activities relating to disposition of mineral materials, and not just use of bulldozers and mechanical
earthmoving equipment.
80 For these reasons we believe S. 2727 would fully accomplish the purposes of S. 1240 and
provide the complete and comprehensive reform of the mining laws that is so strongly needed now.
80 The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection to the presentation of
this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program.
80 Sincerely,
80 J. PHIL CAMPBELL, Acting Secretary.
112 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington,
D.C., November 17, 1971.
112 Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S.
Senate, Washington, D.C.
112 DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your letters of October 27, 1971, requesting
the views of this Department on S. 1498, a bill "To provide for the control of surface and
underground coal mining operations which adversely affect the quality of our environment, and for
other purposes," and S. 2455, a bill "To regulate the practice of strip mining, to protect the
environment, and for other purposes."
112 These bills generally provide for the conservation and improvement of lands affected by
surface mining operations.
112 The President's Environmental Message to Congress, dated February 8, 1971, proposed a
Mined Area Protection Act, S. 993, to establish Federal requirements and guidelines for State
programs to regulate the environmental consequences of surface and underground mining. This
proposal was submitted to Congress by the Secretary of the Interior and introduced on February 25,
1971, as S. 993. We recommend that the Administration's proposal be enacted.
112 The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection to the presentation
of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program.
112 Sincerely,
112 J. PHIL CAMPBELL, Acting Secretary.
140 Senator Moss. The Department of Interior has made recommendations for certain bills and
consequently on others have recommended they not pass.
140 In an effort to correct a clerical error and oversight in the printing of S. 2455, there was a new
bill in the nature of a substitute introduced and it has a clerical error in it which we will correct for
the record.
140 In S. 2455, as originally printed, page 13, line 1, the figure 10 that is in parentheses should
be "8" in parentheses. So strike the 10 and put 8 in there, otherwise the printing is correct.
140 As I indicated we have many very important witnesses and we have requested today in this
hearing that witnesses who have lengthy statements place the entire statement in the record and
summarize down to approximately 10 minutes of oral presentation. If we do this we will be able to
complete the number on the list for each of these 2 days.
140 This is a busy time in the Senate and we are likely to have interruptions during the day with
roll call votes. When we do that we simply have to recess for 10 or 15 minutes while the Senators
go and vote and then come back and resume, which of course stretches out the time.
140 Our first witness today is going to be Hon. Russell Train, chairman of the Council on
Environmental Quality. Judge Train is probably the foremost spokesman in this Nation today on
environmental quality. We have asked him to testify first because of that fact but also because he
has pressure of an airplane schedule and getting to Boston and my colleague, Senator Nelson, has
graciously relinquished and urged that Judge Train be heard first. So we will hear from Mr. Train.
STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL E. TRAIN, CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL ON
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
140 Mr. TRAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me express first of all my very real
appreciation for your courtesy in scheduling this early hour and for putting me on first to permit me
to keep my other commitments and also let me express my appreciatives who have also Members of
the Senate and House of Representatives who have also cooperated in permitting us to keep this
schedule.
140 Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you on behalf of the Council on
Environmental Quality to discuss the subject of controlling the environmental effects of mining.
The attention recently focused on the environmental effects of mining has evoked not only a public
demand that something be done, but also an unusually broad range of suggestions about what in fact
should be done.
140 The administration's proposed Mined Area Protection Act of 1971 (S. 993, S. 1176) makes a
comprehensive attack on the adverse environmental effects of both surface and underground mining.
It would give each State a 2-year opportunity to develop effective regulations, pursuant to Federal
guidelines, for the environmental aspects of mining activities. It thus recognizes the initial
responsibility of the States in this area, but it also establishes nationwide criteria to guide the States
and to assure that the mining industry is placed on an equal footing in each State. If a State fails to
develop an acceptable regulatory program, or fails to enforce its regulations, the bill calls for the
Secretary of the Interior to promulgate and enforce regulations for both surface and underground
mining within the State.
141 I believe it is urgent that we begin now a coordinated, nationwide effort to ensure that
mining operations are compatible with a longrange concern for the environmental quality of our
land. For reasons that I will explain, the council believes that, of the bills before you, the
administration's proposal is best designed to institute that effort.
141 Protection of our land involves the control of a great number of interrelated activities. For
this reason the keystone of the President's 1971 environmental program in the land use area, the
proposed National Land Use Policy Act of 1971, is an effort to develop at the State level the
governmental machinery to control the use of the most important land areas.
141 That proposal, on which we are looking for action from your full committee, would
encourage the States to anticipate and channel the uses of critical areas, lands around key public
facilities, large-scale developments, and developments of regional benefit. However, even with this
institutional improvement, there will still be a need to deal directly with specific important land use
problems.
141 The President's program contains four major proposals to deal with such problems: A legacy
of parks program to increase the availability of recreational open space, particularly in and near the
cities where most of our population lives; a group of proposals to preserve historic buildings and to
facilitate restoration of other worthwhile older structures; a Power Plant Siting Act to require
advance planning of power facility sites in order to reconcile power needs with prevention of
environmental harm; and the Mined Area Protection Act, which would control the environmental
effects of surface and underground mining. Together, these proposals would help to bring more
rationality in the way we use our land.
141 The broad environmental problems caused by mining operations cover a broad spectrum of
environmental damage. Surface minig, without adequate restoration, has left millions of acres of
our land scarred and unstable.The legacy of underground mining is undermined land - not only in
the sparsely populated countryside but also in over 200 urban areas - whose use is limited by the
danger of subsidence. Underground mine fires and burning coal waste piles contribute to air
pollution, endanger health and safety, destroy valuable coal reserves, and impair wildlife habitat.
Silt and acid mine drainage from surface and underground mining damage streams and lakes, killing
fish and wildlife and impairing recreational values. And most important are the human
consequences of all this damage - destroyed landscapes, social environments that depopulate the
countryside, depressed employment and investment opportunities, and unacceptable hazards to
public health and safety. When the newspapers report homes being crushed by landslides,
environmental damage has become personal tragedy.
141 The amount of damage already done is unacceptable - and provides the strongest argument
for acting now to stop the growth of the backlog of land needing treatment. The land undermined by
underground mining alone probably exceeds 7 million acres - with 2 million acres already suffering
some subsidence and another two-thirds of a million acres expected to subside by the year 2000.The
Bureau of Mines estimates that new underground mining will affect 4 million more acres of land in
the meantime. Our actions now can prevent those 4 million acres from becoming a burden on future
generations.
142 The spread of surface mining is more spectacular. Advances in technology have enabled
surface mining to increase its share of total coal output in the United States from virtually zero early
in this century to nearly 30 percent 10 years ago and over 40 percent in 1970. By some estimates, it
may exceed 50 percent this year. Coal is being stripped from the earth at an accelerating rate by
ever more mammoth equipment - such as a giant power shovel known as "Big Muskie," said to be
the world's largest and able to take 220 cubic yards of earth in a single bite. Mounting energy needs
will provide a continued impetus for such strip mining by mechanical monsters. And vast deposits
of strippable coal - including desirable low-sulfur coal - in the West assure that the environmental
effects of surface coal mining will be a national, not merely an eastern problem. Further, the
possible development of our oil shale reserves would involve substantial amounts of surface and
underground mining in several western States where there is little such activity now.
142 Although coal mining is the most dramatic example, surface and underground mining for
other minerals has similar environmental consequences. The Department of the Interior has
estimated that the land potentially affected by all mining may increase from 10 million acres in 1965
to over 20 million acres by the year 2000.
142 I believe the need for Federal action to deal with these problems is clear, recognizing the
primary interest of the States in protecting lands within their borders. Considered together, the
extractive industries are virtually nationwide. Many of their environmental effects cross State lines.
Acid mine drainage and sediments from eroded soils add significantly to the pollution of our
interstate waters.Most important, mineral products compete on national markets where differing
State regulatory schemes can result in crippling cost disadvantages.
142 About 28 States have adopted some form of regulation of the environmental aspects of
mining. But in many cases these regulations cover only a few minerals, and most cover only surface
mining, not underground. Enforcement has been uncertain and has varied from State to State. The
specter of competitive disadvantage that has chilled State initiative can only be removed by strong
Federal leadership to assure that adequate action will be taken everywhere.
142 The administration's proposed Mined Area Protection Act of 1971 deals with the whole of the
environmental challenge from mining. It would regulate the environmental effects of both surface
and underground mines. And it would extend not only to coal but to other minerals as well.Several
of the bills before you have a more narrow focus:
142 S. 77 would authorize Federal regulation of surface mining only. The regulations would be
issued jointly by the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior, with authority for the States to take over
if they developed effective programs. S. 77 would also authorize Federal payment of up to 75
percent of the costs of rehabilitating lands previously damaged by strip mining.
143 S. 630, which I discuss below, would encourage State regulation of surface mining only,
with backup Federal authority in case a State failed to act.
143 S. 1160 would not regulate future mining, but would authorize Federal grants to the States to
reclaim mined lands. It would expand the scope of a similar program now limited to the
Appalachian region.
143 S. 1240 is directed to the specific problem of the use of heavy equipment in prospecting on
the public lands. It would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to control this practice.
143 S. 1498 would prohibit the opening of any new, inactive, or abandoned surface coal mine. It
would also direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate the
environmental effects of existing surface coal mines and to approve State plans for regulating
underground coal mines.
143 S. 2455 would authorize Federal regulation of surface mining only. The regulations would
be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior, subject to the approval of the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency. Again, the States would be authorized to take over if they
developed effective programs.
143 These more narrowly focused proposals do not adequately take account of the
interrelationships between different mining activities. In particular, foreclosing surface coal mining
would mean more reliance on other forms of mining which have not at all been proven to be less
damaging to human values. Congress is familiar with the serious health and safety problems of
underground mining, which can be reduced but not eliminated by strong Government regulation.
And the environmental consequences of underground mining, such as subsidence and acid mine
drainage, can be very serious without adequate controls. In light of the cost advantages of surface
mining, it may prove cheaper in human and economic terms to require surface miners to be
environmentally responsible than to rely solely on underground mining. Unless we can prove that
either form of mining has an overall superiority to the other, we must require that each be conducted
consistently with our environmental goals.
143 There has been previous recognition of the need for a Federal role and the appropriateness of
a cooperative Federal-State program. The previous administration proposed in the 90th Congress a
bill entitled the "Surface Mining Reclamation Act of 1968" (S. 3132). Based on a thorough Interior
Department study, it paralleled our bill in authorizing Federal assistance to the States for the
establishment of regulatory programs, with backup Federal regulation if a State failed to take
appropriate action. That earlier proposal has been reintroduced as S. 630 and is before you now. In
at least four respects, we believe the proposal we have submitted is superior to it:
143 First, the earlier proposal covered only surface mining, neglecting the environmental effects
of underground mining.
143 Second, our proposal contains improved criteria for State programs - emphasizing the need
for attention to environmental concerns from the very beginning of mining operations as well as
after-the-fact reclamation - and it authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to issue further guidelines
elaborating these criteria. An example of this improvement is the provision in S. 993 requiring that
the responsible State agency have authority "to prohibit mining operations where the area affected
cannot be adequately reclaimed." (Sec. 201 (a)(9).) I note that S. 2455 contains very similar criteria,
applicable only to surface mining.
144 Third, our proposal recognizes the extra costs of starting up a State program by authorizing
80 percent Federal financing of first-year costs, with assistance on a declining scale thereafter.
144 Fourth, our proposal expressly authorizes and requires all Federal agencies to issue, for land
within their jurisdiction, mining regulations at least as strict as the regulations issued under an
approved State program for the State in which the land is located.
144 This comprehensive attack on the environmental effects of mining is not a punitive measure,
and will not cut off the supply of minerals on which our society depends. Rather, it will effectuate
the principle enunciated in the President's second state of the Union address, that "to the extent
possible, the price of goods should be made to include the costs of producing and disposing of them
without damage to the environment." The costs of preventing environmental damage from mining
are real costs of our use of minerals. To require, through regulation, that mining bear these costs is,
as the President said, "not to abandon growth, but to redirect it."
144 The price of not acting is to watch the continued destruction of our land, water, and air by
mining operations. Each day that effective regulation is delayed, mining scars an additional 750
acres of land - adding to the Nation's backlog of unreclaimed land. This means that since the
President transmitted this proposal in his Environmental Message of February 8, 210,000 acres of
land have been affected by mining, an area five times the size of the District of Columbia. The pace
is accelerating. We cannot afford to delay any longer.
144 That concludes my prepared statement, Mr. Chairman.
144 Senator Moss. Thank you very much, Mr. Train, for a very good statement. Is the
administration bill concerned with the acres that are already damaged, or is it simply prospective in
application?
144 Mr. TRAIN. The administration bill, Mr. Chairman, only deals with prospective regulations
of strip mining. We believe this is the critical need at the present time and this is where we should
put our priority for action at this time. It does not deal with what I have described as the backlog of
affected lands that involves another whole range of problems that I could go into, if you wish.
144 Senator Moss. Yes.
144 The administration bill grants the States 2 more years in which to act on regulations. I
understand about 28 States already adopted some sort of surface mining legislation. Do you think
that because of the urgency of the problem that maybe 2 years is too long a time to give the
additional States time to move?
144 Mr. TRAIN. I don't think that the 2 years represents a judgment as to the urgency or
nonurgency of the problem but it represents a recognition of the realistic ability of the States to
legislate in view of the schedules of the meetings of their legislatures. I think that 2 years represents
probably the essential minimum for that action across the board.
144 I think that obviously we would be urging prompt State action, just as rapidly as possible and
where adjustments can be made simply by regulation, then every encouragement should be given to
the States to do so.
145 One of our concerns, if I might say, about S. 2455, which would institute Federal regulation
immediately as I recall, and then where the States develop adequate State systems, the Federal
regulations would be withdrawn at the end of the 2-year period. One of our concerns about that is,
as you point out, some 28 States do have regulatory systems at the present time. Few if any are
completely adequate in our view, but they do have systems. They should build on those systems, in
our view, until, in a sense, instituted Federal regulations with the effective date of action by
Congress would wipe all of that off the books in a sense, institute a Federal system which would then
revert back to State control after a period of time under the concept of that bill.
145 I suspect this might involve considerable disruption and perhaps unnecessary disruption in
the orderly development of State programs.
145 Senator Moss. One of the problems with leaving it wholly to States is that to some degree
States are competitive in seeking industry and, therefore, they have some motivation to be little more
lax in regulation of industry because more would be attracted to their State than the neighboring
States.
145 I am wondering whether giving them the extra 2 years might increase this backlog of
unclaimed lands you are talking about before the Federal action would be mandatory.
145 Mr. TRAIN. There is no question that it would have some effect in that direction. I repeat, I
think it is important to create every possible incentive for prompt State action to minimize that
problem.
145 Mr. MOSS.How good has the enforcement been of these State laws that are on the books?
Has it been spotty or rather effective?
145 Mr. TRAIN. I feel sure the Department of the Interior witnesses could address themselves
with more experience to that question, Mr. Chairman. My understanding is that the enforcement has
been very varied and very spotty, and, of course, this is a major portion of the problem, and this is
the reason why our legislation would not permit States simply to put a legislation system on the
books and thereby avoid real regulation. It would have to, in fact, have an effective enforcement
system in practice, otherwise the Federal Government would step in. So enforcement is a key
element in the whole picture.
145 Senator Moss. Does the administration have now in the planning stage some way of
attacking this backlog and getting it cleaned up? What are we going to do about that?
145 Mr. TRAIN. I believe from the studies that have been underway in the Department of the
Interior, and I cannot tell you the exact status of those, Mr. Chairman.
145 Senator Moss. There is a vast problem in the number of acres you have cited that have been
disturbed and have not been placed in an acceptable condition. They remain disturbed.
145 Mr. TRAIN. There is absolutely no question about that. There are many very undesirable
situations of that type around the country. One of the problems, of course, is that title is often shifted
in these lands. The owner who did the mining may well not any longer be holding title to the land.
Questions of who should bear the expense of the reclamation. If land is reclaimed, who should
properly benefit and whether a new owner should simply be the beneficiary of what could be a
windfall in terms of the reclamation of his land at public expense. There are a number of questions
of this sort. I'm not pretending at this point to present judgment but simply to mention, to indicate
the range of questions that are involved.
146 Senator Moss. Well, thank you very much. We had a slide presentation here in the
committee just a week or so ago of what they are doing in Germany on restoring the land in open-pit
cuts for low-grade coal. I know we do similar things in various places in this country, but I thought
it was a particularly good demonstration of what can be done to utilize the energy resources and to
place the land back in at least as good a condition and in some instances in better condition than
existed before it was disturbed.
146 Well, I don't know whether my colleague, Senator Hansen, who wasn't able to hear all of
your statement, has any questions or remarks, but I will ask him.
146 Senator HANSEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.I am sorry indeed I was not
privileged to be here to hear all of Mr. Train's testimony. I can assure you I will read it with great
interest. I do have a statement that I would like to ask be included in the record. I see no purpose
being served in taking the committee's time for me to read it. If I may without objection, I would
like to ask it be inserted in the record.
146 Senator Moss. It will be placed in the record immediately following your remarks.
146 Senator HANSEN. I would also like to ask that a statement by the Wyoming Association -
which I understand will also be submitted to the committee, or perhaps has been to the Committee
on Interior and Insular Affairs in the U.S. House of Representatives - be included in the record
following my statement.
146 It might very well be that some of the overall interests I have, Mr. Chairman, are subjects that
you have already covered; and if you have, I apologize. But in a general way let me say to you, as I
have talked with different mining groups and with different State representatives, I reached the
conclusion that it seems to be recognized that problems differ in different States. The problems that
are met or at least must be confronted in West Virginia, where there is a high degree of rainfall and
leaching of mined-out areas, are not duplicated necessarily in each of the other 49 States. Certainly
they are not duplicated in my State of Wyoming. So some of the problems that I suspect would be
of real concern and should be to all of us and particularly to those persons living in West Virginia,
might not have any appreciable impact in a dry, arid State where the condition isn't similar. As you
may know, we have what we call the Great Divide Basin in Wyoming. It straddles the Continental
Divide, and it is a rather sizable area, I have forgotten how many square miles, 4,000 or more, that
has no rainfall.All of the water that falls in that basin evaporates. I think the figures over a long
period of time show this may be around 7 inches a year. Obviously, in that sort of situation,
measures that would be called for in a State with a high amount of rainfall would not necessarily be
applicable there.
147 I refer you to your statement here on the bottom of page 1. It does recognize the initial
responsibility of the States in this area, but it also establishes nationwide criteria to guide the States
and to assure that the mining industry is placed on an equal footing in each State. With respect to
the observations I have just made, do you mean to imply by this that, generally speaking, the same
standards will be required by the Federal Government of each of the States?
147 Mr. TRAIN. The same broad criteria would apply to all the States, but it would be my
understanding, and I'm sure the Department of the Interior witness will be able to expand on this,
that the intention is to so design these criteria that they will lead to our national objectives of
protecting the environment from the effects of mining, but at the same time leave sufficient
flexibility, that account can be properly taken of the real differences, such as you have described: In
the circumstances, climatic, geologic, I suppose, soilwise, and so forth among the different States.
147 We are not recommending certainly at this time a single set of specific, detailed rules that
must be applied and complied with nationwide. We are recommending criteria for national
application.
147 Senator HANSEN. I can understand full well the desirability of uniform standards. If we
assume we have two States, a and b , side by side, and one State should impose very tough or very
strict requirements that would, incidentally, be quite expensive, and the sister State did not impose
those economic burdens and environmental responsibilities on the miners in its State, then I can see
that operators in one area as compared with those in another would be at a distinct advantage or
disadvantage, whichever State you happen to be in. So in that regard I think there is something to be
said for uniformity. On the other hand, I recognize this. We would not be able, in many parts of
Wyoming, to achieve the burden type of ground cover over a reclaimed area that would be possible
in most parts of Appalachia. We just don't have enough moisture ever to bring that kind of thing
into existence.
147 Mr. TRAIN.I presume the standard would be that which would be sought - and I am really
sort of guessing at this point, Senator - the standard to be sought under the criteria would be
restoration as nearly as possible to the type of vegetation and soil conditions that obtain prior to the
mining activity in the particular area involved. There would certainly be no attempt to require an
Appalachian-type forest in areas of Wyoming.
147 Senator HANSEN. There isn't any feeling insofar as you are concerned that we need to, or
indeed we should try to, cut back on the output of our coal mines as an example, is there? I mean, I
am thinking about the energy, the growing energy, requirement of the country. It seems to me if we
are going to do the job that must be done to clean up the air and water and remove the litter from the
landscape, much more rather than less energy will be required. And I see no immediate source for
this extra energy that I think can serve as well as coal can serve.
147 Mr. TRAIN. There is no question, Senator, that we will be relying upon coal for the
production of energy for a great many years to come, and relying, I would assume, to an increasing
extent.
148 Senator HANSEN. And your objective simply is to see that we do the best job we can do in
restoring the surface in reclamation efforts, rather than to try to actually put mine operations out of
existence: is that a fair statement?
148 Mr. TRAIN. Well, that is a very broad generalization, and I would certainly agree with the
generalization. It may well be that under some circumstances the damage from mine operations
could not be repaired because of the particular circumstances, and the extent of the damage would
be considered unacceptable. Under those circumstances, in particular places and under particular
circumstances, and under those circumstances it would be quite expected that mining would not be
able to be undertaken. But as a generalization, the purpose of this legislation is to regulate and
regulate effectively and not ban.
148 Senator HANSEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
148 STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFFORD P. HANSEN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF WYOMING
148 Mr. Chairman, surface mining in my State of Wyoming is now of vital importance to the
State's economy and is growing by leaps and bounds. According to the U.S. Bureau of Mines, there
are 23 billion tons of strippable reserves in seven major coal areas of the State.
148 Cutoffs used to define strippable reserves were:
148 1. Minimum coal bed thickness of five feet.
148 2. Overburden-to-coal ratios of less than 10 cubic yards of overburden perton of coal.
148 3.Total overburden thickness of less than 120 feet, except where reserves occur in multiple
beds or a single thick bed.
148 According to the Bureau, Wyoming has the largest coal resources of any State - 546 billion
tons within 6,000 feet of the surface.
148 The Bureau also predicts that strip mining of coal in the west will quintuple by 1974. There
are just no alternatives to the continuing demand for energy and the vast and relatively cheaply
producable deposits of low-sulfur coal and lignite in the Western States offer the best hope now and
in the future for the nation's insatiable energy demands.
148 Not only are these deposits now furnishing fuel to power plants in Chicago, Iowa, Minnesota
and other States but will fuel huge power plants now under construction in the State. These new
mine-mouth plants will furnish power to other states through high voltage transmission lines.Also
this vast source of energy holds out the promise of a long-term solution to the natural gas shortage
now facing the nation. Construction plans for two large coal gasification plants in New Mexico
have already been announced.
148 Strip mining in the nation now furnishes 35 percent of the industry's output and certainly
must continue to grow if the nation is to grow.
148 During hearings some weeks back on the President's energy message it was you, Mr.
Chairman (Senator Moss) who directed a question to Undersecretary of Interior Pecora as to how
does one as a matter of policy evaluate the tradeoffs between surface and underground mining in
view of the health and safety hazards to the miners underground and the environmental disturbance
by the strip miner.
148 Dr. Pecora's answer was as straight to the point as your question, Mr. Chairman, and, in
effect concluded that an open pit large surface operation is far safer, more efficient and better
adapted for restoration and reclamation than underground mines and the problems of underground
galleries and drifts and tunnels so that eventually one must look forward to some surface subsidence
if the underground operations are not too deep.
148 In Rock Springs, Wyoming there is a serious subsidence problem under the townsite and the
Bureau of Mines and Dowell have spent considerable money during the past year in an experimental
back-filling project there.This has, of course, been a problem in other areas, too.
149 As to safety, the Wyoming State Inspector of Mines furnished me a recent report on fatal
and non-fatal accidents in Wyoming coal mining operations for the period 1960-1970.
149 It showed during the 11 years that strip mining accounted for 33,654,000 tons of coal
compared with 1,817,000 tons from underground. There were three fatal accidents from strip
mining operations and the same number underground.
149 There were 82 nonfatal accidents reported for strip mining and 89 for underground. The
incidence would be one fatal accident for 11 million tons strip mined and one per 600,000 tons
underground.
149 Nonfatal would be one for about 400,000 tons stripped and one for each 20,500 tons
underground.
149 The University of Wyoming this last September issued a Research Journal on Reclamation of
Strip Mine Soil Banks in Wyoming. The cooperative study with Kemmerer Coal Company was
begun in 1964 with two objectives.
149 1. To determine adaptability of native or introduced plant species for revegetating
overburden piles.
149 2. To determine if fertilization, mulching, snow fencing for water accumulation, and/or
various mechanical soil treatments would significantly affect vegetation establishment and growth.
149 The report is a most comprehensive one and will, I am sure, be invaluable to surface miners
in Wyoming and the west in their land restoration work.
149 Wyoming, of course, has its own land restoration law as do most other western states and it
has been accepted in good faith by the mining industry.
149 The Wyoming Mining Association is of the opinion that the regulation of surface mine
reclamation activities remain the prerogative of the individual states and have asked that I submit
their statement for inclusion in the Record of this hearing. The Association cooperated with
Governor Stanley Hathaway in drafting mined-land reclamation legislation. The law requires a
reclamation plan and a mining permit before mining. It provides for inspections, annual reports,
enforcement provisions and for a bond to guarantee the reclamation of land disturbed by mining
activities. The law applies to all lands, private, state and Federal.
149 Mr. Chairman, I agree with the position of the American Mining Congress that if Federal
legislation is enacted, it should set minimum standards but leave the primary responsibility for
passing and enforcing specific surface mining laws to the individual states. Such laws must take
into account the diversity of terrain, weather and other conditions which exist in each state. It would
be almost impossible, Mr. Chairman, to come up with any workable legislation on a national level.
149 Mr. Chairman, the record is perfectly clear for those who care to see it that surface mining
and sensible land restoration are compatible and the alternatives are unacceptable - we must have the
energy now and in the years ahead.
149 STATEMENT OF THE WYOMING MINING ASSOCIATION
149 The Wyoming Mining Association is a trade association consisting of 40 mining companies,
78 service companies and 440 indivdual members and it represents the interests of those engaged in
the Wyoming mining industry. The Association appreciates this opportunity to submit its views on
proposed legislation to regulate surface mining activities. Rather than to comment on specific bills
now under consideration by the Committee, our comments will refer to the broad principles believed
to be important when considering legislation of this nature.
149 This Association recommends that the regulation of surface mine reclamation activities
remain a prerogative of the individual States. Slightly over half of the States have enacted
legislation on this subject and no State can long delay positive action in the face of public sentiment
in favor of this type of legislation. This indicates that there is little need for Congressional action as
proposed in the bills now before the Committee. While some of the existing State mined-land
reclamation laws may not meet all of the criteria proposed, it is reasonable to assume that
improvements will be made by the respective legislatures.
149 It is our belief that the people - the voters - in each of the States should be interested with the
problems of the conservation of their resources. They are directly concerned. They know the
variables that must be considered. They are knowledgeable and competent in the field of
conservation. Through State Government people can develop good mined-land reclamation
measures as well as other conservation improvements. State regulations should apply to all lands
within State boundaries - private, State and Federal.
150 There are many objections to Federal efforts to regulate mined-land reclamation. A major
one is the great variety of conditions - soil, topography, climate, etc., which will affect conservation
measures. Nation-wide regulations will be impractical. Another is that it takes from the people
within a State, some measure of their direct participation in the government of their State. The
citizen of a Western State has little knowledge or competency in the mined-land conservation
problems of an Eastern State. However, he does have considerable knowledge of his own State and
should have the responsibility for the conservation of its resources.
150 The Wyoming Mining Association has some positive views on the value of State-regulation
of mined-land reclamation. Beginning in 1965, the Association initiated some discussions on the
subject. Voluntary reclamation programs were encouraged. One company granted $2 5,000.00 to
the University of Wyoming for a research on the revegetation of surface mined lands.
150 Later, the Association cooperated with Governor Stanley K. Hathaway in drafting
mined-land reclamation legislation. The 1969 Legislature adopted this legislation. While the
Wyoming Law may not meet the approval of everyone, it is a good law and will be improved upon
in the light of experience with i. Enforcement of the law is in the hands of the State Administration.
It requires a reclamation plan and a mining permit before mining, it provides for inspections, annual
reports, enforcement provisions and for a bond to guarantee the reclamation of land disturbed by
mining activities. This applies to all lands - private, State and Federal.
150 This brief statement relative to the Wyoming Open Cut Mined Land Reclamation Law is
intended to emphasize that States can and should enact such laws and that they should be
encouraged to do so rather than to deny them this prerogative.
150 In summary, the Wyoming Mining Association respectfully recommends the following to the
Committee.
150 1. That States be permitted to retain their authority over the conservation measures to be
required on lands disturbed by mining operations. This should apply to all lands within the State -
private, State and Federal.
150 2. That the Federal Government encourage the reclamation of lands disturbed by mining
operations in past years by extending cooperation to the States in correcting these problems.
Possiibly research activities and financial participation with the States could be very helpful in
relaiming lands disturbed in years gone by.
150 Respectfully submitted,
150 WYOMING MINING ASSOCIATION, R. W. BEAMER, Executive Secretary.
150 Senator Moss. Thank you very much, Mr. Train, we do appreciate your testimony and look
forward to continuing to work with you.
150 Mr. TRAIN. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
150 Senator Moss. You are excused and the Honorable Gaylord Nelson, the Senator from
Wisconsin, will be our next witness. Senator Nelson has been a leader in the conservation area;
before he came to the Senate he was Governor of the State of Wisconsin and his State was one of the
first, I think, to get into conservation regulations on a large scale. Therefore we are pleased to have
Senator Nelson who continues his interest and activity. We will hear from you now, Senator.
STATEMENT OF HON. GAYLORD NELSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF WISCONSIN
150 Senator NELSON. Mr. Chairman, you have 16 more witnesses including me and at
the rate of 10 minutes per witness you are already far behind, although it is appropriate, of course
that the spokesman for the administration have time to respond to your questions. I will be very
brief. I ask that this statement be printed in full in the record and also a letter written to the
Secretary of the Interior respecting the Western mines, plus some editorial material in support of the
concept of establishing controls over mining in this country.
151 Senator Moss. That may be done. Your statement in full and the additional data that you
mentioned will be printed in the record.
151 Senator NELSON. Mr. Chairman, I think that in the past 6 years, in 1965 I introduced
legislation on strip mining and in the past 6 years, there has been a dramatic change in attitude, I
think, on the strip mining issue. For everyone, from environmentalists to industry itself, the question
is no longer whether Congress should act but how. With coal stripping increasing at an accelerated
pace, the urgency of the situation is universally recognized and the environmentalist and human
tragedy of strip mining itself has been brought home to the entire Nation by the eloquent persistence
and by the work of many environmental, human welfare, and other public interest groups, and by the
continuing coverage on this issue.
151 The subcommittee chairman's measure, S. 2455, includes, I think, a very sound definition of
reclamation and in the subcommittee's hearings and deliberations, it could seem important as to
whether and with what requirements these standards can be met and if they can be met.
151 If it is determined that meaningful reclamation is achievable, and as the chairman knows,
there is some serious debate about that, at the very minimum it would seem to me the following
would seem to be come of the essential requirements.
151 A ban on so-called contour mining for coal; a prohibition of any surface mining without a
permit issued by the Environmental Protection Agency or, if the State adopts a federally approved
implementation plan meeting all of the requirements of Federal law, then it should apply to a State
permit; a requirement of reclamation plans for strip mining which assures that the land will be
restored to a condition allowing its original use and potential to be fulfilled; a nationwide inventory
of all potentially strippable areas; a moratorium on the Federal issuance of coal leases and
exploration permits on U.S. public lands out West until a comprehensive environmental review is
done as required under section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act.
151 Reclamation of abandoned strip mined lands, financed by reclamation funds supported by
Federal moneys and reclamation fees collected from the mining industry based on their
environmental impact; establishment of underground mining controls similar to those for surface
mining; special Federal protections and aids to assure the restoration of any jobs that might be
displaced by surface mining controls.
151 Provision for full public participation at every step of the process and for citizen suits at least
for nondiscretionary provision for the legislation.
151 With a great rising concern about strip mining that has been demonstrated from all across the
Nation this past year, it is clear that the American people are not going to be satisfied with halfway
measures on this grave environmental abuse. Thus far, the greatest strip mining and greatest
concern is centered on Appalachia, a region where a wealth of coal and beauty has been bound
together.
152 Strip mining is bringing a destruction on a scale comparable to that of war itself. It is
environmental warfare. Now, the same possibility for tragedy is posed for the American West. Vast
beds of coal underlying 13 Western States constitute 77 percent of the strippable reserves in this
country. With the Nation's insatiable energy requirements, these vast deposits are now becoming
feasible to exploit. Already leases for coal stripping have been obtained by private interests on
3,500 square miles of U.S. public and acquired Indian lands with the vast bulk of it in the West.
152 I needn't recite the statistics, some of which have been put in the record by members of this
committee and Judge Train as well. I would simply ask this material be printed in full in the record
so that the committee may proceed with its hearings in time to conclude the witness list today.
Thank you.
152 Senator Moss. Thank you very much, Senator, for your statement.It is very complete and the
full statement will be made part of the record. We know of your constant effort in this field. Do any
of these bills as you read them, address themselves to the backlog that we were talking about earlier
with Chairman Train, of cleaning up what we have already done that is so bad?
152 Senator NELSON. The bill that I introduced addresses itself to that question. I think one of
our problems is what is the cost and it will vary, of course, depending upon the nature of the terrain.
I would think at the very minimum, I recognize that Judge Train expressed the opinion that the
urgent critical problem right now is controls over the future. However, there are urgent problems
where stripping has already gone on because in the whole Ohio River watershed, in several
thousands of streams draining into that watershed, there are pollutants going into the river basin
now. So I would think some provision ought to be made in any bill for proceeding at least on pilot
projects of restoration in those areas where no restoration has ever been attempted and where it is
maybe more difficult than it is in some of the areas, say Ohio.
152 Second, at the very minimum, in addition to pilot projects that we ought to have a rather
comprehensive survey of what is the size - dimension of that problem. In that study and survey, I
think it is important to crank in what are the profit sides of the ledger, so to speak, in terms of
restoration.
152 In terms of the utilization of the land for other purposes, scenic beauty, restoration,
reforestation. All too frequently we do our cost accounting by considering what is the out-of-pocket
cost of performing a certain function without computing the profit to be made by doing that.
152 As the Senator from Utah knows very well, in discussing the question of water pollution, for
example, we are always talking of what is the cost of cleaning up the water. It comes anywhere
from $75 to $100 to $2 00 billion to clean up the water to the highest current state of the art, all
over the United States for a period of 20 years or thereabout. Nobody seems to stop and say, "What
is the profit made from cleaning it up and the cost of not cleaning it up."
152 If you are going to continue to pollute the waters and in the East and Midwest, around
Chicago, west coast and gulf, you utilize your water supply 5, 10, 15, 20 times as we will, what is
the cost of cleaning up the water each time you use it versus the cost of requiring the installation of
equipment to keep it clean in the first place.
153 Second, what is the profit to be made, so to speak, with respect to the enhancement of
recreation opportunities? These kinds of questions ought to be cranked into any study. I would
think though it might be very difficult in terms of matching funds immediately to do a massive job of
restoration, because the argument will be made that the future stripping is much more important.
153 I would think it would be very important in any bill to do some pilot projects and a
comprehensive evaluation, study and evaluation of the nature and dimension of the problem that
these bills are doing something about.
153 Senator Moss. Thank you very much, Senator. Senator Hansen, do you have any questions?
153 Senator HANSEN. No questions, thank you.
153 Senator Moss. Thank you, we appreciate it very much.
153 (The material referred to follows:)
153 STATEMENT OF HON. GAYLORD NELSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF WISCONSIN
153 Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on
the strip mining bills, including S. 77 and S. 1498 which I have proposed.
153 In 1965, I first introduced a bill, S. 2688, for strip mining controls, including requirements
for Federal licensing of all surface mines and for reclamation. The measure was revised and
reintroduced from Congress to Congress along with other proposals, and hearings were held.
153 In the six years since, there has been a dramatic change in attitude on the strip mining issue.
For everyone from environmentalists to the industry itself, the question is no longer whether
Congress should act, but how. And with coal stripping increasing at an accelerated pace, the
urgency of the situation is universally recognized.
153 What has happened is that the American public has become educated and concerned about
the environmental crisis in general and the incredible destruction of strip mining in particular, and
the institutions of this society are finally beginning to respond. The nationwide environmental
awakening was represented and stimulated by Earth Day, 1970, with the participation of millions of
people, young and old. Because of the vast, peaceful outpouring of public concern, the
environmental issue was made a part of the national political dialogue for the first time.
153 And the environmental and human tragedy of strip mining itself has been brought home to the
entire nation by the eloquent speeches and persistent efforts of the Ken Hechlers and Harry Caudills,
by the work of many environmental, human welfare, and other public interest groups, and by
continuous, hard-hitting newsaper coverage.
153 Strip mining's permanent destruction of the values of the land has not only been a crime
against the environment, but an incredible economic waste. It levies a cost against the future far
beyond any short-term profit that has been gained.
153 Thus, from an environmental point of view, I support a ban on the coal strip mining, by far
the largest mining activity with the greatest impact. In addition to reintroducing my legislation to set
controls on all surface mining, I introduced this year in the Senate the bill to ban the coal stripping.
153 If in the committee's judgment, it is concluded that reclamation in certain circumstances is
possible, and the outright coal stripping ban is not adopted, at the very least, a strong, effective
regulatory measure with tough reclamation requirements, inspections and enforcement is essential.
153 The Subcommittee Chairman's measure, S. 2455, includes a sound definition of reclamation,
and in the Subcommittee's hearings and deliberations, it would seem important to determine whether
and with what requirements this standard can be met.
154 If it is determined that meaningful reclamation is achievable, at the very minimum the
following would seem to be essential requirements:
154 A ban on so-called contour mining for coal;
154 A prohibition of any surface mining without a permit issued by the Environmental Protection
Agency or, if a state adopts a Federally-approved implementation plan meeting all the requirements
of the Federal law, a state permit instead;
154 A requirement of reclamation plans for strip mining which assures that the land will be
restored to a condition allowing its original use and potential to be fulfilled;
154 A national inventory of all potentially strippable areas;
154 A moratorium on the Federal issuance of coal leases and exploration permits on the U.S.
public lands out West until a comprehensive environmental review is done as required under Section
102 of the National Environmental Policy Act;
154 Reclamation of abandoned strip mined lands, financed by Reclamation Funds supported by
Federal monies and reclamation fees collected from the mining industry based on their
environmental impact;
154 Establishment of underground mining controls similar to those for surface mining;
154 Special Federal protections and aids to assure the restoration of any jobs that might be
displaced by surface mining controls;
154 Provisions for full public participation at every step of the process of regulations and controls,
and for citizens suits at least for non-discretionary provisions of the legislation.
154 With the great and rising concern about strip mining that has been demonstrated from all
across the nation in just this past year, it is clear that the American people are not going to be
satisfied with halfway measures on this grave environmental abuse.
154 And instead of being allowed to continue passing along to the American taxpayer and to
future generations the mounting damage bill, the strip mining industry must be required to
internalize these costs, and must bear the burden of proof that reclamation of these lands can and
will be done.
154 Thus far, the greatest strip mining and the greatest concern have centered in Appalachia, a
region where a wealth of coal and of natural beauty seem to have been inextricably bound together.
154 But far more than just the ravaging and pollution of the region's scenic and other natural
resources, the strip mining is bringing the disruption and displacement of a people and all that they
care about and all that sustains them.
154 It is a story of the destroying of a part of the earth and all its resources.Appalachia has been
bought at bargain basement prices for the few.And for the people of that region and the entire
country, no amount of money could pay for what already has been lost.
154 In short, the pillage and plunder of strip mining in Appalachia are bringing destruction on a
scale comparable to that of war itself. It is environmental warfare on our own country.
154 Now, the same tragedy is posed for the American West. Vast beds of coal underlying thirteen
Western states constitute 77 percent of the strippable reserves of this country. With the nations'
insatiable energy demands, and with developing technology to convert coal to gas or other fuels,
these vast deposits are now becoming feasible to exploit. Already, permits for coal exploration or
leases for coal stripping have already been obtained by private interests on 3,500 square miles of
U.S. public and acquired and Indian lands, with the vast bulk out West.
154 It is quickly becoming apparent that vast portion of the region could become a mammoth
strip mine. Substantial underground coal mining is probable as well. Without proper environmental
protections, the West is in danger of becoming another Appalachia.
154 The huge scale of the planned Western strip mining for coal becomes dramatically clear when
one notes that some of the largest energy companies in the country - Mobil Oil, Peabody Coal Corp.,
Atlantic Richfield, the Sun Oil Co., and the Carter Oil Co. among others - have already obtained
large leases on the public coal deposits.
154 Reportedly, a confidential survey by a private gas association has already pinpointed 176
prospective sites for huge plants to convert coal to gas, mostly in the coal areas spread throughout
the West.
155 With these gigantic strip mining - coal gasification complexes, the face of the West would
be reworked, with thousands of square miles of public and private lands drastically altered, possibly
eliminating other uses forever.
155 Without reclamation, these lands held by the American public would in effect not be leased
but sold as consumable, disposable goods. And there is serious question as to whether strip mined
lands can actually be reclaimed.
155 If pollution were to result from the coal stripping and processing, and adequate controls were
not established, the consequences could prove devastating in an already water scarce region.
155 Many of the major river basins in the country could be affected by the massive coal
operations: the Colorado River Basin, with coal areas in Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico; the
Arkansas River Basin, by coal areas in Oklahoma and Arkansas as well as in Colorado; the Platte
River Basin, by coal areas in Wyoming; the Snake River Basin, by coal areas in Wyoming; and the
Missouri River Basin, by coal and lignite areas in Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South
Dakota.
155 November 5, I wrote a letter to Russell Train, chairman of the Council on Environmental
Quality and to Secretary of the Interior Rogers Morton urging a halt to the issuance of Federal
permits and leases and Bureau of Reclamation water permits for coal strip mining on the public
lands in the West until an environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) is made.
155 While some environmental study steps have been taken, and others considered, and a Section
102 statement under NEPA is being done on the power generating complex using coal from Black
Mesa in Arizona, the comprehensive environmental reviews necessary under the National
Environmental Policy Act to determine the cumulative impact of coal strip mining out West and
whether the lands can be reclaimed simply have not been done.
155 And while I am aware that the low sulphur coal in the West and coal gasification offer
potential environmental and energy supply benefits, my concern is that in our efforts to solve the
energy questions, we do not trade one set of environmental and energy problems for another.
155 I request that a copy of my letter on the Western coal leases and permits be included in the
hearing record at the end of these remarks.
155 Also, Mr. Chairman, last August, Ben Franklin of the New York Times did an excellent
piece on this development, and I ask that his article also be printed in the record when this statement
is concluded.
155 Thus in this Congress, we find ourselves at a watershed time in the history of the strip mining
concern: backed by a concerned, aware public, we must act to halt the destruction in Appalachia and
in other strip mining areas, and prevent similar devastation in the West.
155 And the strip mining issue poses a crucial test not only of environmental policies and
commitment, but of the ability of public agencies to act effectively in the public interest.
155 Time and again, we have seen Federal agencies who were established to act on behalf of the
public become handmaidens to the narrow, profit-seeking goals of private interests.
155 But with the broadscale intervention of the American public, legislative, administrative and
judicial actions have been taken in the environmental area that were more effective and far-reaching
than I think any of us would have imagined possible just a few years ago.
155 In effect, we are now on the way to establishing as national policy the principle that no one
has the right to pollute, and are putting the laws on the books necessary to back it up.
155 Our next big environmental step must be to establish the similar principle that no one has the
right to destroy or harm the land, and with continued strong and coordinated public support, I
believe this can be done.
155 The surest way to stop the destruction of the landscape by coal mining - by far the largest
mining activity with the greatest overall impact - is to ban the stripping. And from an environmental
standpoint, I support a ban on the coal strip mining.
155 This year, in addition to reintroducing my bill, S. 77, to set controls on all surface mining and
to prohibit it where reclamation is not possible, I introduced in the Senate the bill by Congressman
Hechler to ban the coal stripping.
156 Cosponsoring this measure, S. 1498, with me, are Senators McGovern, Kennedy,
Humphrey, Case and Harris.
156 As I noted in my floor statement on the introduction of S. 1498, of all the proposals, the
measure to ban stripping for coal most effectively raises a fundamental question of whether
reclamation is possible, and thus must be seriously considered.
156 The nationwide debate that this measure has stimulated has already been highly informative
and important in the legislative process, and I think that in its deliberations the Subcommittee can
benefit greatly from the delineation of the issues that is taking place.
156 If an outright coal stripping ban is not adopted, at the very least, a strong, effective regulatory
measure with rigorous and very specific requirements is essential.
156 Otherwise, in the coal rush that would follow, the hope represented by the current public
effort against strip mining abuse would turn to despair and disillusionment, knocking away one
more vital underpinning in the foundation of government credibility.
156 I request that recent editorials in the Christian Science Monitor, the Washington Post, and the
New York Times which note the great public interest and the need for action be printed in the
hearing record at the end of these remarks, along with a copy of my statement on the introduction of
S. 1498.
156 Short of an outright ban on all coal stripping, the following would seem to me to be minimum
provisions for a strip mining bill:
156 Ban so-called contour mining for coal, stipulating the specific degree of slope that will be the
cutoff point. - Among others, the Conservation Foundation has suggested the cutoff as a slope of 13
degrees or more, marking the point at which highwalls and benches are created, causing the most
severe environmental results. The 13 degree distinction exists in Kentucky and Pennsylvania laws,
whose controls are among the strongest in the states.
156 Especially useful comments on the economic effects of a ban on contour mining were made
by CF's Malcolm Baldwin in his statement in House hearings. He estimated that contour mining -
on slopes 13 degrees and above - accounts for about 20 percent of our domestic coal production.
156 This need could be filled by increasing coal production from underground mines or by
converting - temporarily if need be - to other fuel sources such as residual fuel oil, by adjusting our
import quotas and by encouraging more residual oil production from domestic refineries.
156 Studies also show that most deep mines work two shifts and that changes to three shifts a day,
six days a week, would alone produce an additional 150 million tons of coal a year, more than
enough to fill any energy gap created by the banning of contour mining.
156 Another 50 million tons of coal a year could be made available within six months from
expansion of deep mines and so-called punch mining in existing contour mines.
156 Another possibility would be establishing quotas on our own coal exports.
156 Finally, a special board could be created to investigate and recommend solutions, including
possible variances from phase out deadlines, where a genuine energy supply hardship could be
shown by a particular utility or industry.
156 Prohibit any surface mining without a Federal permit, or, where a state has adopted a
federally approved plan meeting all the requirements of Federal law, a state permit. - Permits would
be required for mining on all public and private lands.Similar to the water quality bill just passed by
the Senate, permits would be issued only on assurance of compliance with the requirements of the
Federal law and all regulations, along with water and air quality standards.
156 As under the water bill, permits would be issued initially from the Federal level, but the
program could be taken over by the state if the state adopts a Federally-approved implementation
plan which meets all the requirements of the act.
156 Though the permit system would apply to all surface mining, requirements would vary
according to the resources being mined.
156 In line with the important concepts stated by the President in submitting his reorganization
plans last year that enforcement should be kept separate from development functions, the
Environmental Protection Agency should be designated the administering agency for the permit
system.
157 Inasmuch as other committee have retained oversight of portions of EPA with which they
have historically been concerned, this would not appear to pose interference with this committee's
minerals jurisdiction.
157 The current status of state strip mining control laws around the country provides dramatic
justification for primary authority at the Federal level.
157 In Appalachian states, where there has been ample time to test the laws, the problem has been
lack of adequate appropriations, shortage of inspectors, and consistently weak enforcement, with
failure to adequately review and where necessary deny permit applications, or revoke permits or
licenses where appropriate.
157 The state programs have also been characterized by inadequate performance bonds allowing
only the most superficial efforts to pass for reclamation, failure to impose bond forfeiture where it is
merited, and yielding to industry pressures to be released prematurely from reclamation liability.
157 In the Western states, where massive coal strip mining is posed, requirements are even more
lax. Reportedly, in Wyoming only $2 0,000 per year has been budgeted for all inspection activities
for all strippable minerals in the state.
157 In Colorado, the performance bond to be imposed is not to exceed $100 an acre, far short of
what is necessary.
157 In North Dakota, the performance bond is set at only $2 00 per acre, and the reclamation
plan aparently does not have to be submitted prior to the date of the issuance of the permit.
157 In Montana, in addition to funding and personnel shortages, performance bonds are still far
short of meaningful requirements.
157 Reportedly, New Mexico and Utah have no laws as yet to govern coal strip mining.
157 Require for a strip mining permit a reclamation plan which will assure that the land will be
restored to a condition that would allow its original uses and potential to be fulfilled.
157 Far too frequently, what has passed for reclamation in the past has been a "green lie,"
revegetation and regrading of the most cosmetic sort, ignoring vital ecological and resource factors
that will actually determine the future of that area.
157 If strip mining controls and reclamation are to be successful at all, strip mining legislation
must be specific, assuring deadlines for completion of reclamation as well as minimum performance
bonds which are high enough so that a public agency can do the reclamation adequately if the
mining company forfeits.
157 And as other Federal program experience has clearly shown, no strip mining control program
will succeed without tough inspection and enforcement.
157 As an example, a prerequisite to any strip mining approvals should be assurance that the
enforcement agency has adequate funds and inspectors, and it would seem to be fair to require the
strip miners themselves to contribute toward the inspection program.
157 Tight inspection procedures should be established: for instance, it would seem reasonable to
require that inspections of reclamation progress be made as frequently as every two weeks, that they
come at irregular times, unannounced, and that the inspectors be rotated.
157 A national inventory and classification of all areas with potentially strippable minerals. - A
primary aim of such a study would be determination of which areas were possible to reclaim in strip
mining, based on factors such as acidity, aridity, elevation, and timberland which would have to be
clearcut before mining.
157 Such a study could be conducted within 18 months, and based on its conclusions, issuance of
strip mining permits in certain areas might be withheld until such time as technology had advanced
to the point where such lands could be reclaimed.
157 Especially if it were assigned the strip mining permit reponsibility, the Environmental
Protection Agency should conduct the study.
157 A moratorium on the issuance of coal leases and exploration permits on the U.S. public lands
out West until a comprehensive environmental review is done as required under Section 102 of the
National Environmental Policy Act.
157 In checking with the Bureau of Land Management recently, our office learned that no
environmental impact statements have been filed on the coal leasing on the Western BLM lands,
even though the National Environmental Policy Act specifically requires such statements for "major
Federal actions significantly affecting the qualing of the human environment." A Section 102 report
is being prepared in the Black Mesa operation on Indian lands in Arizona.
158 In response to my letter mentioned earlier, the President's Council on Environmental Quality
yesterday confirmed to my office that it is concerned about the matter and is looking into it further
with Interior Department agencies.
158 It should be noted that many of the Western coal leases were granted before passage of the
National Environmental Policy Act and what major acreages were leased even before Interior
regulations requiring on-site studies were issued in 1969.
158 In regard to building in environmental requirements for these prior leases before any mining
begins, I would point out that Section 103 of the NEPA requires all Federal agencies to review their
current policies and regulations and propose such measures as necessary to bring their authority and
policies into conformity with NEPA. It would seem to me that Section 103 would thus require a
review of the environmental impact and requirements of the past leases.
158 The same permit and reclamation requirements should be established for mining on the
Federal public lands as are proposed here for the state and private lands. In the case of the Federal
public lands, it would seem appropriate to require EPA certification of Bureau of Land Management
leases and permits.
158 Reclamation of so-called "orphan" lands that were strip mined and left some time ago, and of
lands affected by underground mining. - The reclamation would be financed by a Fund supported in
part by reclamation fees levied on the mining industry.
158 Already, the inventory of lands ravaged from strip mining exceeds an area the size of
Connecticut, and the destruction is accelerating.
158 As proposed in both S. 77 and S. 1498, a Reclamation Fund would be established to carry
out this program. The Fund would be financed by Federal contributions and by reclamation fees
which would be levied on current and future mining operations based on the amount and duration of
impact their activities would have on the environment and on other land use. The reclamation
should be administered by the Soil Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
158 In addition to a serious commitment to enforce the 1969 Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of
1969, underground mining controls similar to those for the strip mining must also be established. -
These should include provisions for a permit system and reclamation plans with specific
requirements, as well as a provision to prohibit any underground mining operation in wilderness
areas established pursuant to or by the 1964 Wilderness Act.
158 Land undermined by underground mining probably exceeds 7 million acres, with some 2
million acres expected to experience subsidence by the year 2000. Fires and silt and acid mine
drainage are also important underground mining effects. These devastating problems reflect a
combination of difficult geologic and hydrologic conditions, a recalcitrant industry, and economic
disadvantages experienced by deep-mine operators unable to compete with an unregulated stripping
industry.
158 Special Federal protections and aids must be established to assure the restoration of any jobs
that might be displaced by surface mining controls.
158 In achieving a decent environment in this country, we need not sacrifice the human welfare,
and I have long strongly supported measures to reconcile any potential conflict between these aims.
158 For instance, I proposed an amendment to the water quality bill to establish a program of
long-term, low interest Federal loans to small businesses that might be adversely affected in meeting
water pollution controls. The proposal was adopted by the Senate 92-0.
158 Regarding strip mining, Congressman John Seiberling has introduced amendments in the
House to aid workers who are laid off due to a mine shutdown. Authority would be given to the
Secretary of Labor to provide readjustment payments to an adversely affected worker. A worker
would be eligible for this readjustment allowance for up to 52 weeks. In addition, a relocation
allowance may be granted to a laid-off worker who can find work outside of a specified commuting
distance.
158 In addition, reclamation could also provide a major employment opportunity for any men
who may be out of work from the effects of strip mining controls, and any such workers should have
a priority in reclamation jobs. Special training and relocation assistance should be provided for this
purpose.
159 Public participation must be fully provided for at every step of the process of regulations
and controls. - This must include non-discretionary authority for citizens suits against responsible
Federal officials for violations of any provisions in the legislation, a provision similar to that already
included in the water quality bill passed by the Senate. In addition, public hearings should be held
on request before the issuance of any permits, and there should be public notification and the
opportunity for a public hearing prior to the release of a mining company from liability for
reclamation.
159 Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee is to be commended for holding these hearings on this
important matter, and once again, I appreciate the opportunity to comment.
159 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, Washington, D.C., November 5, 1971. Hon.
ROGERS C. B. MORTON, Secretary of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
159 DEAR MR. SECRETARY: It is quickly becoming apparent that the American West is on
the verge of a radical transformation. And the future that is posed for it will not be as glamorous as
the colorful era of its frontier past.
159 Vast portions of the region are about to become a mammoth strip mine that could make the
ravaged coal mined areas of the Appalachians look like hen scratchings. Substantial new
underground coal mining is posed as well.
159 Reportedly, 77 percent of the remaining strippable coal reserves of the United States
underlies 13 Western states. With the nation's insatiable energy demands, and with developing
technology to convert coal to gas or other fuels, these vast deposits are now becoming feasible to
exploit.
159 According to a recent press report, leases or permits for coal mining or exploration have
already been obtained by private interests on 2390 square miles of the U.S. public lands.
159 The huge scale of the planned Western strip mining for coal becomes dramatically clear when
one notes that some of the largest energy companies in the country - Mobil Oil, Peabody Coal Co.,
Kerr McGee Corp., U.S. Steel Corp., El Paso Natural Gas Corp., Atlantic Richfield, the Sun Oil Co.
and the Carter Oil Co. among others - have already obtained large leases on the public coal deposits.
159 Reportedly, a confidential survey by a private gas association has already pinpointed 176
prospective sites for huge plants to convert coal to gas, mostly in the coal areas spread throughout
the West.
159 With these gigantic stripmining-coal gasification complexes, planned for commercial
operation for the 1980s, if not before, the face of the West would be reworked, with thousands of
square miles of public and private lands drastically altered, possibly eliminating other uses forever.
159 If strip mine reclamation were to prove impossible, or economically infeasible, particularly in
arid regions, these lands held by the American public are in effect not being leased but sold as
consumable, disposable goods.
159 If pollution were to result from the coal stripping and processing, and adequate controls were
not established, the consequences could prove devastating in an already water scarce region.
159 Many of the major river basins in the country would be threatened by the massive coal
operations: The Colorado River Basin, with coal areas in Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico; the
Arkansas River Basin, by coal areas in Oklahoma and Arkansas as well as in Colorado; the Platte
River Basin, by coal areas in Wyoming; the Snake River Basin, by coal areas in Wyoming; and the
Missouri River Basin, by gigantic coal and lignite areas in Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and
South Dakota.
159 And ultimately, the pollution from much of the Western coal mining would find its way to
the Mississippi River, one of the major waterways of the world that even now we are spending tens
of millions of dollars trying to clean up.
159 If, while producing fuel for the urban areas of the U.S., the Western gasification plants were
to discharge substantial wastes, further serious contamination of the air, water and land could be
spread across one of the last unspoiled environments of the country.
160 Yet a check by my office with the Federal agencies that have cleared the massive leasing of
public coal lands and are aiding development of commercially feasible coal gasification, reveals that
they haven't even seriously begun to review in any comprehensive way the tremendous environment
factor involved.
160 For instance, according to the Bureau of Land Management, no environmental impact
statements have been done on the coal leasing ont he Western BLM lands, even though the National
Environmental Policy Act specifically requires such statements for "major Federal actions
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment."
160 Yet since the Environmental Policy Act became law on January 1, 1970, the Bureau has
granted at least 16 coal leases and some 160 exploration permits for the coal on the public lands.
160 While technical, on-site evaluations reportedly are being done under Interior regulations as a
basis for some reclamation requirements, there is little opportunity for public discussion in this
process. Further, this piecemeal approach simply cannot deal with the broad questions of the
long-term, cumulative environmental and social effects of massive strip mining for coal in the West,
and provides little or no chance for the consideration of alternatives. Additionally, major acreages
were leased before even these Interior regulations for on-site studies were issued in 1969.
160 The critical importance of doing Section 102 statements at the earliest possible stage in the
decision-making process is illustrated by another coal mining situation, this one involving the stip
mining by the Peabody Coal Company on Indian lands in New Mexico. There, although a Section
102 statement is being done and is already revealing serious environmental problems, the study was
started after the fact, after the mining had actually begun.
160 Equally important as the strip mining is the coal gasification, which poses as momentous a
change in the nation's energy and environmental picture as the proposed Alaska pipeline, oil shale
development, or breeder reactor. Yet environmental impact statements on coal gasification are
being prepared only on the tiny pilot plants being built by the Office of Coal Research and the
Bureau of Mines. To our knowledge, the question of the cumulative pollution potential of the
commercial gasification plants which could be 100 times the size of these test projects and may be
scattered all over the West is not being considered.
160 While I am aware that the low sulphur coal in the West and coal gasification offer potential
environmental and energy supply benefits, my concern is that in our haste to resolve the energy
question, we do not trade one set of environmental and energy problems for another.
160 In fact, the need to develop a more effective energy policy in this country is just one more
compelling reason for taking a comprehensive look at all the environmental implications at the
earliest possible stage in any energy development.
160 Thus, I am writing to urge that a comprehensive Federal review under Section 102 of NEPA
be started immediately on all the environmental questions involved in strip mining for coal on the
Western public lands, with thorough consideration for the cumulative impact as well as for lease by
lease effects.
160 It would seem to me that until this study is completed, the Bureau of Land Management
should be directed to issue no further leases or exploration permits on these public lands and to
approve no further mining plans on any existing coal leases. And the Bureau of Reclamation should
be directed to issue no further permits for water withdrawals from its projects for the coal mining
and processing plans for the same period.
160 A similar Section 102 study should also be started immediately on all the environmental
questions involved in coal gasification. It should include a thorough review and comparison of the
air and water pollution potential of all the possible gasification processes, the possible cumulative
pollution effects from a large number of gasification plants, and the state of technology and
regulations for controlling such pollution.
160 The gasification reviews should also take into account the possible environmental effects of
associated industrial developments - such as strip mining on st