- - 2 passage of the Act, 6000 mine sites have been mined and left unreclaimed as a consequence of lax enforcement of the Act's requirements. This represents one out of every four sites mined since 1977. One of the most important problems we have yet to address is how to deal with the significant off-site environmental damage caused by strip mining: specifically, how do we protect water resources off-site from quality and quantity deterioration from strip mining practices. Almost every major environmental performance standard violation found on a mine site has a negative impact on water resources off-site. For example, an operator who fails to successfully revegetate a reclaimed site leaves the soil surface subject to wind and rain erosion that, in turn, pollutes streams with sedimentation. Fortunately, we know how to correct reclamation violations such as these. The technology is available to reclaim the land. All that is needed is a strong enforcement program to ensure that the technology is utilized. But, little is known about the impact of mining operations on groundwater resources, much less the mechanisms to restore recharge capacity required by the statute. Industry, the office of Surface Mining and the state regulatory authorities all have failed to address this issue. - 3 Citizens in the coal fields know that mining has an impact on groundwater because they have witnessed their only source of water disappear during and after mining operations. Further, we know little about the cumulative effects of mining on water within a watershed. The Act requires operators to evaluate the "probable hydrologic consequences" of a mining operation. In addition, the Act requires the regulatory authorities to assess the cumulative hydrologic impact of all anticipated mining to determine whether the mine operation will damage the water resources off-site. These evaluations and assessments simply are not adequately conducted, and water users cannot be assured that the water supplies they depend on will not ultimately be diminished or lost. In the West, strip mining within a watershed may result in diminution of scarce water supplies over time. In addition, mining in aquifers and across hydrologic phenomena such as alluvial valley floors may lead to the loss of water for the surface users and the natural resources that inhabit the area long after the operation is complete and the land is reclaimed. Another critical concern of citizens who derive their water supplies from sources affected by mining is the long-term effect of mining on water quality. In the eastern coalfields, acid drainage from strip mines has already killed or polluted thousands of miles of streams. When the mining operation is complete, and the reclamation work is finished, acid-polluted water may still be leaking off the mine site and fouling waterways. Who bears the cost for the replacement of water affected by, or lost as a result of mining practices? If the company restores the site to original contour and gets the grass to grow, the Interior Department takes the position that it can take no enforcement action for environmental problems at the site after bond release. Who, then, is responsible for the long-term quality and quantity impacts on groundwater that are not detected when the bond is released but show up years after bond release? And who replaces the wells and stock water ponds that dry up when the aquifer is fractured and the waters are lost for public use? If the position taken by the Interior Department, that enforcement authority ends at bond release, is to apply to the potential long-term effects of mining on water, citizens in the vicinity of the fouled water supply will bear the cost of replacing that supply. To avoid the burden of correcting water resource diminution being placed on the head of citizens in the - 5 coal fields, we will have to re-evaluate whether mining that is likely to cause long-term water quality or quantity loss should be allowed. A clear demonstration must be made up-front, during the permitting process, that the mining activity and reclamation will not result in the impairment of water sources. If a mining operation is allowed to mine in a watershed, analyses should be conducted with the best technology available to determine the impact of that operation on water supplies. Adequate hydrologic data are needed to determine effectively the mining impacts. These data need to be sufficient to demonstrate that water resources will not be materially damaged before mining is permitted to take place. In addition, the analyses should take into consideration not only the existing operations, but any mining that is likely to occur within the watershed. The potential impact on the water resources is basin-wide. The analysis to evaluate those impacts should be similar in scope. My colleagues here today come from different areas of the country but have concerns with a common theme mining in a watershed has cumulative impacts and long-term consequences. These concerns need to be addressed by the regulatory authorities charged with implementation of the Surface Mining Act. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this momentous occasion. |