{"id":547511,"date":"2010-04-29T10:11:19","date_gmt":"2010-04-29T14:11:19","guid":{"rendered":"tag:www.southernstudies.org,2010:\/\/5.12242"},"modified":"2010-04-29T12:38:19","modified_gmt":"2010-04-29T16:38:19","slug":"voices-theyre-still-blowing-up-our-mountains","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/547511","title":{"rendered":"VOICES: They’re still blowing up our mountains"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Matt Wasson, Huffington Post<\/a><\/i><\/p>\n

A month ago, before the nation’s attention was drawn to the tragedies
\n at the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia and the oil rig off the
\nLouisiana coast, the EPA issued a blockbuster
\n announcement<\/a> about a strict new guidance for the permitting of mountaintop removal<\/a> mines in
\nAppalachia. The announcement left many people — reporters, politicians
\nand the general public alike — confused whether or not the EPA had just
\nput an end to mountaintop removal. The announcement generated headlines
\n ranging from a fairly modest “E.P.A. to Limit Water Pollution From
\nMining” in the New
\nYork Times<\/a> to “New regulations will put an end to mountaintop
\nmining?” in the
\n Guardian<\/a>. <\/p>\n

Certainly at the press conference EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson used
\n some strong language:<\/p>\n

“Coal communities should not have to sacrifice their
\nenvironment or their health or their economic future to mountaintop
\nmining. They deserve the full protection of our clean water laws.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"mtr_wasson_1.jpg\"<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

On
\n a recent trip through eastern Kentucky, set up by our good friends at Kentuckians for the Commonwealth<\/a>, the answer
\n to whether mountaintop removal in Appalachia has come to an end was
\nabundantly obvious.<\/p>\n

The photo of a new active mountaintop removal mine looming above
\nRoute 23 in Pike County, Kentucky, at right, tells the story. <\/p>\n

(All photos in this post were taken on April 18th in Kentucky: Here’s
\n a link a to flickr photo set<\/a> from that trip.)<\/i><\/p>\n

To the extent that some in the media overstated the impact of the
\nEPA’s new guidance, they can be forgiven. During the press conference,
\nJackson herself said, “You’re talking about no or very few valley fills
\nthat are going to meet standards like this.” <\/p>\n

Valley fills are the typical disposal sites for the waste that is
\ngenerated when coal companies blow the tops off mountains to access thin
\n seams of coal. As community activist Judy Bonds of the organization Coal River Mountain Watch<\/a> describes it,
\n“A valley fill is an upside down mountain turned inside out.” Most — but
\n not all — mountaintop removal mines require valley fills. <\/p>\n

But Jackson was also very clear that this was not a blanket ban on
\nmountaintop removal permitting and that the guidance would not apply to
\npermits that had already been granted. The standards Jackson said would
\n lead to “no or very few valley fills” establish limits on the
\npermissible level of stream water conductivity. Conductivity is a
\nmeasure of salt — and an indicator of metals including toxic and heavy
\nmetals — in water. Remember the experiment where you put salt in a glass
\n of water to make it conduct electricity and light a bulb?<\/p>\n

\"mtr_wasson_2.jpg\"<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

A
\n plethora of recent scientific research<\/a> has shown that conductivity
\nhigher than about five times the normal level downstream from valley
\nfills is associated with severe impairment of the ecological communities
\n in Appalachian headwater streams. The photo to the right that I took
\nbelow a valley fill in Magoffin County, Kentucky, illustrates the
\ntrouble these standards create for coal companies. According to a huge
\ncompilation of scientific studies<\/a> that the EPA simultaneously
\nreleased with their guidance, conductivity levels below Appalachian
\nvalley fills average around 10 times normal levels. The bright orange
\nwater coming out of this valley fill indicates enormously high levels of
\n iron, which in turn suggests both high conductivity levels and high
\nlevels of toxic and heavy metals regulated under the Clean Water Act.<\/p>\n

To be sure, the EPA’s move is a big first step that provides
\nimmediate protection to Appalachian families threatened with new
\nmountaintop removal permits above their homes. It’s a tourniquet that
\nwill stop the hemorrhaging, but here are five reasons why this guidance
\ndoesn’t immediately or permanently put an end to mountaintop removal:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The EPA’s action will not affect permits that have already been
    \nissued. Moreover, an     excellent
    \n piece of reporting<\/a> by Charleston Gazette reporter Ken Ward revealed
    \n that those existing permits will allow some companies to continue
    \nmountaintop removal operations without a hitch for the next couple of
    \nyears.<\/li>\n
  2. Not all mountaintop removal mines require valley fills and coal
    \ncompanies are already using loopholes by which they can obliterate miles
    \n of streams without the need to obtain a valley fill permit. The
    \nmillion or so acres of wholesale destruction that coal companies drove
    \nthrough a narrow loophole in the Surface Mine Control and Reclamation
    \nAct since 1977 is testament to their skill and creativity at exploiting
    \nloopholes.<\/li>\n
  3. Some valley fills will still be allowed under this guidance and the
    \nEPA even provided a set of “best practices” by which companies can do
    \nmountaintop removal in a manner consistent with it. Moreover, there are
    \n a number of recent cases where coal companies went ahead and
    \nconstructed valley fills     without
    \n even bothering to obtain a permit<\/a>.<\/li>\n
  4. While the guidance takes effect immediately, it is a preliminary
    \ndocument released in response to calls from coal state legislators and
    \ncoal companies for greater clarity on how the EPA was basing its
    \ndecision whether to grant a valley fill permit for an Appalachian
    \nsurface mine. The EPA plans to initiate an extended public comment
    \nperiod before the guidelines will be finalized.<\/li>\n
  5. An agency guidance document is different from a formal rule and can
    \nbe easily overturned by a new administration. Even if this guidance
    \nproves to be effective in curtailing mountaintop removal, environmental
    \nand community advocates still need to ask what happens when a
    \nhypothetical President Palin enters the White House in January of 2013
    \nor 2017.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    There are any number of laws and regulations that affect surface
    \nmining, and so there is no single mechanism to ensure mountaintop
    \nremoval is stopped permanently. But the first and most important step is
    \n for Congress to pass a strong law that prohibits the dumping of mine
    \nwaste into streams. <\/p>\n

    In 2002, Representative Frank Pallone of New Jersey introduced just
    \nsuch a bill called the     Clean Water
    \n Protection Act<\/a> (H.R. 1310). Pallone, together with Republican
    \nChristopher Shays, introduced this bipartisan bill in response to the
    \nBush Administration’s catastrophic “fill rule,” which made it easier to
    \npermit mountaintop removal mining and for coal companies anywhere to
    \ndump waste into streams. Since then, people and organizations across
    \nAppalachia have supported Pallone’s bill by carrying a simple message to
    \n universities, church groups and Rotary Clubs across America: They’re
    \n blowing up our mountains and there oughtta be a law!<\/b><\/p>\n

    Over the past eight years, the nationwide organizing efforts led by
    \ngroups in Appalachia have generated a remarkable 170 co-sponsors of the
    \nClean Water Protection Act — more than almost any other bill before
    \nCongress. Unfortunately, the bill continues to be held up in the House
    \nTransportation and Infrastructure Committee, with West Virginia
    \nCongressman Nick Rahall recently     claiming
    \n credit<\/a> in a West Virginia newspaper for bottling it up. <\/p>\n

    If Rahall’s contention is true, it’s a powerful testament to the
    \nlevel of influence he has accumulated, given that the bill has more
    \ncosponsors than any other of the 323 bills currently before the
    \nTransportation and Infrastructure Committee. More importantly, Rahall
    \ndoes not actually have the power to prevent the bill from being heard
    \nexcept through his influence over Chairman James Oberstar of Minnesota,
    \nwho is the only one with the actual power to decide whether the bill is
    \nbrought up in his committee.<\/p>\n

    It’s particularly unfortunate that House Democratic leaders and
    \ncommittee chairs like Oberstar would give Rahall so much power over
    \nnational policy, given how poorly his own constituents have fared under
    \nhis leadership. After 33 years in office, Rahall’s district ranked 434th
    \n out of all 435 Congressional districts in Gallup’s recently-released     2009
    \n well-being index rankings<\/a> (see map below<\/i>). <\/p>\n

    \"mtr_wasson_3.jpg\"<\/span><\/p>\n

    The only district that ranked lower was Hal Roger’s neighboring
    \ndistrict in eastern Kentucky. Notably, Rogers’ is the only district that
    \n has suffered more destruction from mountaintop removal mining than
    \nRahall’s.<\/p>\n

    A big question in the wake of the tragedy at Massey Energy’s Upper
    \nBig Branch mine is whether the obeisance of coal state legislators
    \ntoward the coal industry will change after the disaster. Traditionally,
    \nthe pandering of Congressman Rahall and Senator Rockefeller toward Big
    \nCoal has been almost embarrassing to watch — kind of like witnessing an
    \noverly-exuberant public display of affection on a park bench. But when
    \nit comes to the safety of the guys in the hardhats, these gentlemen
    \nstrike a very different tune. <\/p>\n

    Given that the same company, Massey Energy, is by far the largest
    \noperator of mountaintop removal mines, was assessed the largest penalty
    \nin the history of the Clean Water Act, and has a record of environmental
    \n violations to which their horrible safety record pales in comparison,
    \nthese legislators have a unique opportunity to lead their constituents
    \nin a new direction. And Senator Byrd of West Virginia has paved the way.<\/p>\n

    One of the most under-reported elements of the EPA’s announcement was
    \n that Administrator Jackson specifically mentioned the EPA had worked
    \nwith Senator Byrd to develop their new guidelines. She would not have
    \nsaid that without explicit approval from Senator Byrd. While Byrd has
    \nnot explicitly called for an end to mountaintop removal or co-sponsored
    \nlegislation to do that, his leadership in promoting a more thoughtful
    \nand reasonable view on climate and the future of coal in his state
    \nrepresents a sea change from the public statements of statewide elected
    \nofficials over the past few decades. Rahall and Rockefeller would serve
    \ntheir constituents and their country far better if they followed Byrd’s
    \nlead.<\/p>\n

    Is Passing a Law in this Polarized Congress Realistic?<\/b><\/p>\n

    More important than the enormous number of cosponsors that
    \nlegislation to stop mountaintop removal enjoys is the fact that the
    \nsupport is bipartisan. Immediately following the EPA’s announcement,
    \nSenator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, said in     a
    \n press release<\/a>:<\/p>\n

    “The new EPA guidelines are useful in stopping some
    \ninappropriate coal mining in Appalachia but Congress still needs to pass
    \n the Cardin-Alexander legislation that would effectively end mountaintop
    \n removal mining.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Alexander, together with Senator Ben
    \nCardin of Maryland<\/a>, introduced the     Appalachia
    \nRestoration Act (S. 696)<\/a> last year, a Senate companion to the Clean
    \nWater Protection Act designed to eliminate mountaintop removal (or at
    \nleast permanently curtail it — we’ll see what the final language says
    \nafter mark-up). That bill got a boost the same week of the EPA
    \nannouncement when coal-state Senator     Sherrod Brown of Ohio announced<\/a>
    \n he would become the 11th co-sponsor of the bill. <\/p>\n

    Whether the Senate bill can survive the committee mark-up process in a
    \n form that Appalachian citizens groups can support remains to be seen,
    \nhowever. The     Nashville
    \n Tennessean<\/a> recently published an     editorial<\/a>
    \n that gave voice to the concerns many coalfield citizens have about
    \nforms of mining that may not be covered by the Senate bill, particularly
    \n cross-ridge mining. Cross-ridge is a type of mountaintop removal mining
    \n that requires little or no valley fill and is based on the assumption
    \nthat a mountain can be put back more or less how it was after it’s been
    \nblown up — kind of like putting     Humpty
    \n Dumpty back together again<\/a>. <\/p>\n

    \"mtr_wasson_4.jpg\"<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

    The
    \n photo to the right illustrates one of many problems with the theory
    \nthat mountains can be put back together without causing major ecological
    \n degradation. While the type of mining shown in the photo would not be
    \nclassified by state agencies as mountaintop removal (only part of the
    \nridgeline has been removed and there is no valley fill at the headwaters
    \n of this stream), the impact of this mining on water quality is
    \nindistinguishable from the impact shown in the previous photo below a
    \nvalley fill.<\/p>\n

    Some insiders have also expressed concern that the EPA’s strict new
    \nguidance will take the wind out the sails of the campaign to pass a law,
    \n but from the perspective of Appalachian groups that have been working
    \nto ban mountaintop removal for decades, that concern is misplaced. The
    \ncitizens of Appalachia have led this fight from the beginning, and have a
    \n much more vested interest in making these protections permanent than
    \nany group in Washington, D.C.<\/p>\n

    It may be that some big environmental groups that have only recently
    \nmade mountaintop removal a priority will move on to other priorities
    \nonce the Administrative decisions are played out — and make no mistake
    \nthat the contributions of those groups over the past few years in
    \npressuring the Obama Administration to take action were exceedingly
    \nwelcome and timely. But it was not the Big Greens that made mountaintop
    \nremoval a national issue or whose organizing in communities across
    \nAmerica has generated such broad bipartisan support of the Clean Water
    \nProtection Act and Appalachia Restoration Act. <\/p>\n

    The people of Appalachia aren’t sitting around waiting for beltway
    \ninsiders to tell them whether or how to pass a law, they’re just doing
    \nit. The legislative effort is led by the     Alliance for Appalachia<\/a>, an
    \nalliance of 13 local and regional organizations that formed
    \nseveral years ago with the mission of ending mountaintop removal and
    \nbringing a prosperous new economy to the Appalachian coalfields that is
    \nbased on sustainable industries.<\/p>\n

    The Alliance for Appalachia represents by far the greatest number of
    \npeople impacted by mountaintop removal mining, and the alliance is
    \ncomposed of some organizations that have been fighting Appalachian strip
    \n mining for decades. The battle to end mountaintop removal will not be
    \nover until the Alliance for Appalachia says it is, and I’m confident
    \nthat won’t happen until, at a minimum, President Obama signs a law
    \nbanning the practice.<\/p>\n

    So What’s Next?<\/b><\/p>\n

    There is a window of opportunity right now to pass a strong law that
    \nwill rein in mountaintop removal permanently. Also, with coal demand
    \ndown dramatically due to the recession, now is the time to begin
    \nreplacing mountaintop removal coal with aggressive energy efficiency and
    \n renewable energy policies in states like North Carolina, Georgia and
    \nVirginia that are most dependent on this source of coal. <\/p>\n

    From a local perspective, more delays, half-measures and uncertainty
    \nabout the future of mountaintop removal will only lead to a myopic
    \napproach to rebuilding the Appalachian economy and bringing new jobs and
    \n new industries to the region.<\/p>\n

    And from a global perspective, at a time when America is finally
    \ngetting serious about addressing climate change and moving toward a 21st
    \n century energy future built around renewable energy, isn’t it absurd
    \nthat we’re still fighting to stop the wholesale destruction of the most
    \nbiologically diverse forests and streams on the continent in order to
    \nmine climate-destroying coal? Can we really address climate change if we
    \n can’t even stop mountaintop removal?<\/p>\n

    For people around the country that want to see mountaintop removal
    \nend — and that should be anyone concerned about climate change, human
    \nrights, clean water or endangered species — a great place to start is by
    \n     telling your
    \nSenators and Representatives<\/a> that the time to pass legislation to
    \nend mountaintop removal is now. There are     plenty of tools on
    \nthe web<\/a> to make it easy.<\/p>\n

    Let’s keep up the momentum, pass a strong law, and relegate
    \nmountaintop removal to its rightful place as just another tragic episode
    \n in American history books.<\/p>\n

    Matt Wasson is the program director of Appalachian Voices<\/a>, a grassroots environmental advocacy group based in Boone, N.C.<\/i><\/p>\n

    <\/em> <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    By Matt Wasson, Huffington Post A month ago, before the nation’s attention was drawn to the tragedies at the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia and the oil rig off the Louisiana coast, the EPA issued a blockbuster announcement about a strict new guidance for the permitting of mountaintop removal mines in Appalachia. The […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":247,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-547511","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/547511","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/247"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=547511"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/547511\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=547511"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=547511"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=547511"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}