Mr. VENTO. There apparently is in the Office of Mining-in the next page, looking at this testimony, a provision 522(e), which does deal with underground mining and says that you cannot, if you have subsidence damage 300 feet from the homes, schools, churches, or within 100 feet of where a cemetery is-in other words, it is prohibited, but they have never put that into effect, either the Department of the Interior or the Office of Surface Mining has not dealt with that.

MS. WELLS. That is horizontal and not vertical——

Mr. VENTO. But in any case, they have not implemented that part of the law.

Ms. BAISE. No, they not have, and as I indicated, beginning in 1985, they first announced that they planned on doing an environmental impact statement to decide if something needed to be done to-about this problem, and to see to what extent, if at all, the prohibitions against mining should apply to underground operations. Mr. VENTO. Obviously, an environmental impact statement would indicate interference with the water supply and other activities which would have to be remediated, I expect, in your plan, but apparently that also has been very loosely-do you have a problem with the State and national regulation of this sort of working partnership of the law?

What do you think the net effect of that has been? Let's ask that question of Richard diPretoro.

Mr. DIPRETORO. Yes, sir.

Mr. VENTO. I should be able to pronounce that.

Mr. DIPRETORO. No, sir. I like the Federal law. I enjoy reading it. Mr. VENTO. You may be one of the first that we have run into here in our experience that likes Federal or national laws, but what about the coordination between the State and the Federal Government with regards to the implementation of this law?

Mr. DIPRETORO. Well, I don't have nearly the criticism of the Federal agency that a lot of people have in West Virginia. Compared to our State agency, they are a shining example, although I do criticize them in West Virginia in allowing West Virginia to implement such a weak problem.

I believe that the laws there and even under the current weekend regulations at the Federal level, the program would be excellent if it were fully implemented, and I do believe there is a significant watering down effect-

Mr. VENTO. Pretty big if. Obviously, the idea was to say the State could take over the responsibilities, if they could exercise them properly, and your criticism of some of them, and others have criticized them, makes one wonder whether or not this sort of partnership is really undermined and given us less than what would be a euphemism of fair standards with regards to that.

I think that sort of delegation of responsibility is something that perhaps could be and should be revisited. Of course, I think the bottom line for States are you have to give them the opportunity to have the resources in place, and you want them to do the job, but if you don't have the dollars, obviously then that tends to cause the issue to draft off into obscurity and things not to get implemented. You know, we keep hearing all of these discussions about the energy problems, the price of gold, the economics of mining and so

forth, all of which are important concerns in terms of jobs and profitability, bu clearly the accounting here is someone is paying for them, som e is paying for the lack of enforcement, the lack of following these policies, and I think it is the cost of the land for future generations and the individual homeowners and the landowners that are suffering the consequences of the imperfect implementation of the law.

Mr. DIPRETORO. I certainly agree with that. I believe those costs should be internalized, and Mrs. Clark pointed out in order to have coal to compete on an equal basis.

Mr. VENTO. Well, I appreciate those insights. I wish there were easy answers. I think there will be a need for the Interior Committee to work on this next year.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Our next panel will address the future: Mr. James S. Lyon, Environmental Policy Institute; Connie White, Save Our Cumberland Mountains; Eddy Begay, Navajo Nation, Huersano Chapter; and Mary Jane Adams, Kentucky Fair Tax Coalition.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the committee and you proceed as you wish. We have copies of your written testimony.

[Prepared statement of James S. Lyon, with attachments, may be found in the appendix.]

PANEL CONSISTING OF JAMES S. LYON, REPRESENTING ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY INSTITUTE; MARY JANE ADAMS, CHAIRPERSON, KENTUCKY FAIR TAX COALITION; CONNIE WHITE, PRESIDENT, SAVE OUR CUMBERLAND MOUNTAINS; EDDY BEGAY, REPRESENTING NAVAJO NATION, HUERSANO CHAPTER Mr. LYON. I am James S. Lyon, director of the citizens mining project for the Environmental Policy Institute, EPI. EPI is a national public interest environmental 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. During 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 in town here today on the witness list, and in the audience. Many, however, could not afford to come to town, but continue to be very active.

As the chairman knows, it has been a tough 10 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.

In other areas, judging the success and failure under this Act varies in degree from State to State, county to county, year to year or Governor to Governor. There is no question that, on the whole, the on-the-ground reclamation in, say, 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-percent productive, and revegetation support the historical needs of the land for many years to come.

Dismissing for a moment the gross mining abuse that has been allowed to continue over the last 10 years, what is extremely disappointing is how this administration, through its demonstrated disdain for this law, has set a very 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 regulatory competition by the lowest common denominator. Nevertheless, this is one direction where this program is going.

This panel, however, is designed to use these past mistakes to chart out a course for the future. In some pockets of the coalfields, time is running out. While we have lost our faith that this administration will ever take this law seriously, we are here today to call upon the next one to put this program back on track.

And today, I would like to present to the committee a 26-point platform for mining reform. We have called it a "Coalfield Proclamation for the 1990's." It is a culmination of issues, initiatives, problems, and ideas we believe must be addressed over a span of the next several years.

This "proclamation" is the result of several meetings and discussions with countless citizen and environmental groups across the country. Some of the points call for specific action, others highlight complex issues where solutions must yet be developed. Either way, we believe that our leadership needs to begin addressing these issues today.

In respect for the committee's time, I will refrain from reading this platform in full. But I would like to briefly highlight just a few.

One, reclaim the coalfields. Since 1977, at least 6,000 to 10,000 mines have been left unreclaimed with little or no bonds to cover reclamation costs. They are ineligible for AML funding under the law.

In addition, there remains hundreds of thousands of acres of preAct mines that are still unreclaimed today because the AML fund is too limited. A comprehensive program is needed to fully address the reclamation needs on both sets of sites.

Among other things, this program must include a reauthorized AML fund that is broadened in scope and financial capabilities, sensible remining provisions, and innovative enforcement initia

tives aimed at achieving reclamation by those who were responsible for leaving it.

Second point: Ban the irresponsible operator from mining. When Congress passed SMCRA in 1977, it intended to prevent chronic violators from mining in the future. This principle has never been fulfilled due to lax enforcement, and nonexistent management systems.

In the 1990's, chronic violators, and their owning and controlling agents, should be banned from mining forever. To accomplish this goal of the act, a comprehensive and multifaceted program must be implemented that would include a credible violator permit denial tracking system, harsh criminal penalties for wildcatting, a regulatory system or agreement with electrical utilities to prohibit coal purchases from illegal operators.

Another area is mountain top removal and valley fills. The act has encouraged the use of mountain top removal operations as a way to maximize coal development in a limited area. In 1987, however, questions are being raised to the magnitude and severity of its cumulative impacts to a region's environment and culture.

The indiscriminate use of this technique begs assessment. So, too, does the use of valley fills to dispose of excess mine spoil, and due to the lack of comprehensive regulatory standards for their construction, and improper construction practices, they are a growing danger to coalfield communities.

And a final point, postmining land use. Too much postmining land is being returned to "pasture" land with little regard for the region's current or true historic land use. Pasture land is one of the least expensive ways to reclaim, and as a result, our eastern and midwestern premining woodlands and croplands are quickly being reclaimed to vast prairie lands resembling Wyoming.

SMCRA's exemptions. If 10 years has told us anything, it has been that the act's exemptions-2-acre, coal exploration, incidental mining, et cetera-have been regular avenues for gross mining abuse. Many of the unreclaimed mines since 1977 are a result of exemption abuse. These must be tightened or eliminated.

The future need not be as dismal as the past 10 years, Mr. Chairman. There are responsible operators who believe in the principles of this law, and that they can make profits under it as well.

Several companies have asked me to provide the committee with this book entitled "Surface Coal Mining Reclamation-The Proven Possibilities." I have supplied that to the Clerk.

While I cannot vouch for the success of reclamation on any of the sites portrayed, or for the records of the companies involved, I believe their message is clear: This act can work if it is enforced evenly and consistently, and that there are many operators who believe in the principles of this law and regularly comply with it.

I find the book refreshingly objective. I am also encouraged by their decisions to have us present it to Congress, rather than themselves. It is my sincere hope that this book is the future in coalfields in areas where mining should be sensibly allowed to occur, and where citizen rights are respected and upheld.

Thank you.

Ms. ADAMS. I am Mary Jane Adams, chairperson for Kentucky Fair Tax Coalition. I live in Leslie County. It is important for ev

eryone to realize that in Kentucky, the land or surface owner and the mineral owner are usually different parties.

In 85 percent-in fact, 85 percent of the minerals in eastern Kentucky coalfields are owned by absentee owners, mainly large energy companies. I believe you have a copy of the broad form deed. This is our actual deed taken from the longhand, very, very difficult to read, covers about seven or eight pages of the great big book.

I would like to read to you a page from my family's deed from 1906. Among other things, the deed gives the mineral owner the right to build, erect, alter, repair, maintain and operate upon said land, and at its option to therefrom remove any and all houses, shops, buildings, tanks, derricks, inclines, tipples, dams, coke ovens, store and wear rooms and machinery and mining, and any and all equipment that may be party of the second part, its second source or assigns be deemed necessary or convenient for the full and free exercise and enjoyment of any and all property rights and privileges hereby bargained, granted, sold or conveyed, and the right to thereupon convert, reduce, refine, store, dump and manufacture the said or any or all of said property or products in, upon or under said land or other land owned or hereafter acquired by the said party of the second part, its successor or assigns by purchaser or otherwise, and the right to dump, store, and leave upon said land any and all muck, cone, shale, water or other refuse from said mines, well, ovens or houses.

[EDITOR'S NOTE.-The above-mentioned deed may be found in the appendix. See table of contents for page number.]

Ms. ADAMS. I tell you, our forefathers did not sign this deed if they knew what it said. I say they signed maybe something else. Ladies and gentlemen, the minerals of eastern Kentucky were stolen from our ancestors and the only thing that protects us now is the 1977 Surface Mining and Control and Reclamation Act.

Because of the Kentucky Supreme Court, they recently decided that landowners have no rights in the coalfields, and I am here today to tell you that the only protection we have, that Federal law, is not being enforced.

Despite repeated warnings that problems existed, Nelly Wollam of Harlem County is dead because of a silt pond that broke loose and mud slides buried her.

Despite repeated calls to the inspector's office, the Phillips family in Peru County had their home smashed by a landslide and watched a surface mining operation above their house.

We know how it works. We live in Long Branch. At the mouth of our hollow, we have a coal mine. It is a deep mine; however, the outside is guarded or protected. They mined on the road opening it up, they were told that they could fill in another road, build it up so high.

They were told not to build it any higher than 3 feet. They built it at least 15 in places, some places even higher. The State had told them, don't go over 3 feet. When we contacted OSM, who came, OSM said there is nothing we can do about it. It is already done. This is what happens all the time, repeatedly to any of our complaints. Serious problems have resulted from State and Federal inspectors failing to issue violations, followthrough not being done on