rssEPA Clarifies: We Are Not Halting Mountaintop Mining
Wednesday, March 25, 2009 at 10:52 am
- 7 Comments
OK, so maybe elections don’t matter so much.
The Environmental Protection Agency, which yesterday proclaimed the likelihood that several mountaintop mining projects in Kentucky and West Virginia would ruin local streams in defiance of the Clean Water Act, clarified last night that its plans to scrutinize those operations should not be confused with plans to halt them.
The Environmental Protection Agency is not halting, holding or placing a moratorium on any of the mining permit applications. Plain and simple. EPA has issued comments on two pending permit applications to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers expressing serious concerns about the need to reduce the potential harmful impacts on water quality.
EPA also clarified that it “will take a close look at other permits” that have been the subject of lawsuits brought by environmental groups. But those environmentalists might not want to hold their breath for the Obama administration to side with them over the fate of mountain streams.
We fully anticipate that the bulk of these pending permit applications will not raise environmental concerns. In cases where a permit does raise environmental concerns, we will work expeditiously with the Army Corps of Engineers to determine how these concerns can be addressed.
The EPA’s first statement announced that the Kentucky and West Virginia mines “would likely cause water quality problems in streams below the mines, would cause significant degradation to streams buried by mining activities, and that proposed steps to offset these impacts are inadequate.”
Which begs the question: Why, then, is the White House not taking steps to halt them?
7 Comments
Pingback posted March 25, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
[...] life, Democrats, Environment, Government, Obama administration, Science at 8:38 am by LeisureGuy Mike Lillis in the Washington Independent: The Environmental Protection Agency, which yesterday proclaimed the likelihood that several [...]
Comment posted March 25, 2009 @ 3:10 pm
what in the world is going on? are the Democrats standing up for our environment or not, or just going to go along with these immoral mining operations, allowing our lands and waters to be degraded, ruined for now and our future generations! clean up the coal industry, don't let them tramp all over the poor folks in rural, coal rich areas, just because they can. fight this.
Comment posted March 25, 2009 @ 3:43 pm
Wow, I've been sooo disappointed on the Wall Street bail out, the undersized stimulus and the Bushian position on State Secrets. I was feeling so much better about Obama and then he pulls the rug right out from under me …
Comment posted March 25, 2009 @ 7:08 pm
That being said, their poor conceived press release and wording is to be blamed. While it is indeed very clear to me, the release deals with the communication between the EPA and (2) specific mining companies, this is not ambiguous. It would be a leap to assume otherwise but they did bury this little bit towards the bottom of the press release yesterday:
“EPA also requested the opportunity to meet with the Corps and the mining companies seeking the new permits to discuss alternatives that would better protect streams, wetlands and rivers.”
“…mining companies seeking the new permits…”
Plus, this little GEM was nestled into the opening paragraph:
“EPA also intends to review other requests for mining permits.”
So, that aside, let's say someone ran with the bait or at least, devolved into hyperbole?
The EPA really failed here as the 1st press release could have taken the shape of the “re-release” today and they would have saved themselves the perception that they're taking their marching orders for big business (coal mining).
Comment posted March 26, 2009 @ 1:57 am
Maybe the current adminstration would like to preserve the independance of agencies in promulgating rules, unlike the previous adminstration. Maybe the current adminstration realizes it's important to ensure that when agencies carry out the intent of Congress in fullfilling the goals of their organic statutes, and that they do so without political interference from the White House, even if they don't like the decision. Or maybe the coal lobby is just very strong. Besides, if it's really that contrary to the CWA, there is always the courts.
Comment posted March 26, 2009 @ 2:08 am
That being said, their poor conceived press release and wording is to be blamed. While it is indeed very clear to me, the release deals with the communication between the EPA and (2) specific mining companies, this is not ambiguous. It would be a leap to assume otherwise but they did bury this little bit towards the bottom of the press release yesterday:
“EPA also requested the opportunity to meet with the Corps and the mining companies seeking the new permits to discuss alternatives that would better protect streams, wetlands and rivers.”
“…mining companies seeking the new permits…”
Plus, this little GEM was nestled into the opening paragraph:
“EPA also intends to review other requests for mining permits.”
So, that aside, let's say someone ran with the bait or at least, devolved into hyperbole?
The EPA really failed here as the 1st press release could have taken the shape of the “re-release” today and they would have saved themselves the perception that they're taking their marching orders for big business (coal mining).
Comment posted March 26, 2009 @ 8:57 am
Maybe the current adminstration would like to preserve the independance of agencies in promulgating rules, unlike the previous adminstration. Maybe the current adminstration realizes it's important to ensure that when agencies carry out the intent of Congress in fullfilling the goals of their organic statutes, and that they do so without political interference from the White House, even if they don't like the decision. Or maybe the coal lobby is just very strong. Besides, if it's really that contrary to the CWA, there is always the courts.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
