The Act needs stricter enforcement, not less, as industry wants you to believe. The people in longwall areas in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Illinois can verify my statements. The states need more oversight not less when it comes to regulating underground mines. The OSM and the ODOR can't give us a working definition of material damage, valid existing rights, or surface owners right to subjacent support. The DOR and the coal industry cannot even agree on the definition of a stream. These are typical examples of the way the game of regulation is played. The deck is stacked against the states and citizens from the beginning. Industry controls the board, makes all the moves, changes the rules at their whim. Not even the state or citizens stand a chance of keeping up with the action, let alone make any headway. Industry can change the interpretation of the law, sway decisions on enforcement, influence the hiring and firing of the state and federal regulators. This leaves us, the citizens, unable to be anything but loosers in the game of regulation. COAL has been unable to get anyone at the state of federal level to consider back-stowing as a means of preventing subsidence. The State of Ohio just refused to fund an aerial photography study, using infra-red and advanced methods, to help determine the long-term affects on area vegetation. Allowing the coal company to do all the nonitoring of the surface affects of longwall mining, is like turning your back on a weasel in the chicken yard. Five years have now passed and there is a definite pattern of major water loss emerging in Meigs and Vinton Counties. Eight streams have been impacted. Numerous wells have gone dry. And the land has cracks up to two feet wide in it. 5 We have evidence on several properties that the land is still subsiding after 5 years. The coal companies are still weaseling their way around regulations. We have a lot of unanswered questions. And we are tired of the "Gee, we don't really know what is happening," answers. No controlled subsidence" has a hidden meaning. The industry can't And these As you allow longwall mining to continue unregulated, your problems, as well as ours will worsen and you will be forced to do something. You aren't suffering. We, the residents in the coalfields, are and we are asking you to help us! The Ohio DOR has thousands of pages of legal and technical information and testimony. COAL has submitted over the past 5 years. The Ohio Reclamation Board of Review has 6 days of hearing records all covering our concerns about longwall mining. We believe it is neither desirable nor justifiable that this and future generations sacrifice their property and resources in the process of mining coal. Thank you! ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY INSTITUTE TESTIMONY OF JAMES S. LYON DIRECTOR OF THE CITIZENS MINING PROJECT BEFORE THE HOUSE INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS COMMITTEE HEARING ON FEDERAL SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT AUGUST 3, 1987 218 1 Street, S.E.. Washington, D.C. 20003 (202) 544-2600 Thank you Mr. Chairman, I am James S. Lyon, Director of the Citizens Mining Project for the Environmental Policy Institute (EPI). EPI is a national public interest environmental During organization dedicated to influencing public policy concerning the human and environmental impacts of energy, water, and agricultural development. I am proud to be testifying at today's hearing, for in the 1970's, EPI was the leading Washington-based national organization working for passage of this Act. those years, we worked with a diverse coalition of citizens, farmers, ranchers, and native Americans deeply committed to getting this act passed, Many of those organizations and individuals are here today on the witness list, and in the audience. Many, however, could not afford to come to town, but continue to very active. As the Chairman knows, it has been a tough ten years for this act. In the many areas of the coalfields, where the law was needed most, it has not been enforced. In some of those pockets, it is fairly safe to say that they are even worse off today than they were in 1977. Other areas, judging the success and failure under this act varies in degree from state to state, county to county, year to year, and governor to governor. There is no question that, on the whole, the on-the-ground reclamation in the great plains states or the Midwest looks much better than what is commonly found in central Appalachia, where the law has too often been outright ignored. Nevertheless, there is much more to successful reclamation than being able to get something green to grow on the ground. Successful reclamation is really a long-term endeavor that must be built on sound and valid technical analysis. There is no question when an operator leaves an unreclaimed moonscape that he has not complied with the law. But so too is the operator who cuts technical corners (and the regulatory authority who looks the other way) so as to evade expensive but necessary design facilities needed to ensure that the surface and ground water will remain clean and abundant, postmining soils remain 100% productive, and revegetation support the historical needs of the land for many years to come. What But let us dismiss, for a moment, the gross mining abuse that has been allowed to continue over the last ten years. is extremely disappointing is how this administration, through its demonstrated disdain for this law, has set a poor level of performance for the states to meet. As a result, states are again being forced to compete with each other to lessen regulatory standards so as to remain competitively attractive to industry. It was the primary intent of this law to prevent |