https://www.buzzfeed.com/nidhisubbaraman/coal-companies-can-go-back-to-ignoring-water-pollution-now?utm_term=.txMJMpD3rp#.hy3edDGZzD
[links and images in on-line article]
Coal Companies Can Go Back To Ignoring Water Pollution Now
Lawmakers killed a brand-new rule that would have protected streams from
mining contaminants. The rule had required miners to report contamination.
Originally posted on Feb. 2, 2017, at 3:12 p.m. Updated on Feb. 2, 2017,
at 3:58 p.m.
Nidhi Subbaraman
BuzzFeed News Reporter
Blowing up mountaintops to strip them of coal just got easier, as
Congressional lawmakers on Thursday killed a freshly issued Obama
administration rule that protected streams from mining waste.
The Stream Protection Rule was announced by the Department of the
Interior in December after eight years of wrangling among industry,
conservationists, and the department. It defined how mining companies
treat the land and water they take over, requiring that they take some
measures to preserve the spaces as they naturally occurred.
It’s now only the second victim of the obscure legislative provision
called the Congressional Review Act (CRA), which lets Congress kill
regulations by a simple vote within 60 session days of their enactment.
The stream rule was killed on a 54–45 vote, largely along partisan lines
in the US Senate with support from some red-state Democrats. The US
House of Representatives voted in favor of killing the rule on Wednesday.
“The vote in favor of the CRA was a vote against the people of coal
country and a vote for Wall Street,” Joseph Pizarchik, director of the
office within the Interior Department under the Obama administration
that issued the rule, told BuzzFeed News.
“I had expected the House to vote for the CRA because they are more
reactionary,” Pizarchik said. “I had more expectation that the Senate
would not vote to pollute people’s water.”
The now-discarded rule was the first update to 30-year-old regulations
that dictate the environmental responsibilities of the coal mining
companies. A fuller picture of the chemical effects of mining activity
on surface and groundwater had emerged in recent decades, driving the
update.
Among other things, the rule required that companies test water quality
before and after mining, and report the results to the public. It also
defined safe zones around streams and lakes, within which mining
activity cannot take place.
“Part of the problem now is that the pre-mining surveys are limited and
the parameters are outdated,” Jim Hecker, environmental enforcement
director at the nonprofit Public Justice, who has brought six lawsuits
against coal companies, told BuzzFeed News.
For example, when the initial rule was issued, selenium had not been
identified as a contaminant, which is toxic to fish and aquatic life in
large quantities.
Eight years in the making, the Stream Protection Rule drew nearly
150,000 public comments from mining companies, communities,
environmental groups, conservation groups, and others.
Pizarchik called the Stream Protection Rule a “substantial improvement”
over the existing regulations: “The rules do a much better job of
protecting coal country’s water supply.”
But lawmakers were able to void it after an hour of discussion in each
house using the CRA, which had only been used successfully once before,
in 2001. More recent attempts by Republicans in the last eight years to
overturn rules by the Obama administration were simply vetoed at
President Obama’s desk.
Environmental groups are concerned that the CRA will undo or weaken
other regulations that are unpopular with conservatives, like the
methane rule and the Clean Water Act.
“The CRA requires a very unique set of circumstances to be used,” Stuart
Shapiro, the director of the public policy program at Rutgers
University, told BuzzFeed News. With a Republican majority in both
houses and a Republican president, this is such a time.
But critics say this tool overreaches, and subverts years of public
participation.
“It’s using an elephant gun to try to kill a fly,” Jane Davenport,
senior staff attorney at Defenders of Wildlife, told BuzzFeed News. That
“a rule that was years in the making is going to get tossed out with
minimal discussion is also extremely disappointing from the point of
view of public process.”
Sierra Club, the Natural Resource Defense Council, the League of
Conservation Voters, and Earthjustice are among the groups who have
stated their opposition to this move, because it fails to hold companies
accountable for known environmental harm.
The action virtually eliminates any chance of resurrecting these
protections — the CRA prevents an agency from proposing any rule
“substantially similar” to those it has annulled.
What “substantially similar” means is unclear, because the CRA has only
ever been used once prior to this session. “No one knows,” Shapiro said.
Mining companies have been lobbying to have the Stream Protection Rule
taken off the books, arguing that it adds too much of a regulatory
burden and will lead to lost jobs. Mining company Murray Energy, 14
states, and most recently the National Mining Association have filed
lawsuits against the Interior Department over the rule.
“Swift and decisive action on the Stream Rule is required to restore
balance, save high-wage jobs, and protect an energy source integral to
our nation’s success,” Hal Quinn, president and CEO of the National
Mining Association said in a release ahead of the vote, calling for CRA
action on the rule.
But not everyone on the other side is a fan of the rule. Joe Lovett, a
lawyer and founder of Appalachian Mountain Advocates, told BuzzFeed News
that the Stream Protection Rule is a toothless reincarnation of an
earlier Stream Buffer Rule that was proposed in the 1990s Clinton
administration.
“Under the current proposal [companies] can blow up mountains and
pollute like hell, as long as they report it,” Lovitt said. But even he
agrees that “it’s better than nothing.”
Without reporting from companies required by the Stream Protection Rule,
“I have to go out and take water samples myself before we sue them.”