More from our environmental President

[Jim]

This administration has no shame:

 

Bush Proposal Would Ease Mining Waste Rule

By J.R. Pegg

 

WASHINGTON, DC, January 8, 2004 (ENS) - The Bush administration has proposed industry friendly revisions to the "buffer zone" rule, which governs permits for coal mining activities that would disturb areas within 100 feet of streams. Currently the regulation prevents federal and state agencies from issuing such permits unless there is confirmation that the activities will not adversely impact water quality, but administration officials say the rule is onerous and confusing.

 

The proposed changes, announced Wednesday by the U.S. Office of Surface Mining (OSM), would strike the existing rule and instead call on coal operators to prevent and minimize damage to streams in the buffer zone "to the extent possible."

 

"These improvements will clarify our program requirements and reduce the confusion that has enveloped the energy producers, regulators and the public," said OSM Director Jeff Jarrett.

 

Critics say the change would allow coal companies to dump mining wastes directly on top of streams and contend the Bush administration is trying to protect a controversial mining practice called mountaintop coal mining.

Environmentalists believe the practice of dumping mountaintop coal mining wastes into valley fills violates the stream buffer zone rule and see the proposal as an attempt by the administration to remove a vital environmental protection.

 

Joan Mulhern, senior legislative counsel for the nonprofit environmental law firm Earthjustice, says the claim the proposal is a clarification of a regulation "is a lie and an insult to the people of Appalachia and anyone who cares about the fate of America's environment."

 

Mulhern said the proposal is inconsistent with interpretations of the rule advanced by previous administrations before federal courts - the regulation was adopted by the Reagan administration in 1983.

The stream buffer zone proposal was also part of a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) released in May 2003 that assessed the environmental damage of mountaintop coal mining and recommended new actions to protect Appalachian streams from effects associated with the mining technique.

The public comment period for the draft EIS, put out by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, closed Tuesday.

Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition Organizer Vivian Stockman said the timing of the OSM proposal shows the Bush administration is "essentially thumbing its arrogant nose at the over 70,00 people who commented" on the draft EIS.

 

The latest proposal will be open for public comment through March 8, 2004

[catbirdseat]

If Icicle Ridge had coal under it, the Bush Administration would advocate dumping the tailings in Icicle Creek. But we're talking about Appalachia where no one gives a shit.

[mr.radon]

Where the heck are you going to get power from? Don't like to dig up coal or burn it, don't want nuclear power plants, don't want to bury the waste of nuclear plants, don't want to burn natural gas because of green house gas. Solar and wind power you don't want because it costs too much. Power goes out because of a storm, your the first to call teh power company.

 

Bunch of whiners without any solutions. Lets just go back to living in caves, oh wait they burned wood to heat those.....

[Doctorb]

 

"We dun hate President Bush. He dun turnded ourn shack inta un mine-hole."

[RuMR]

Radon...move to colorado and solve washington's problems!!!

[catbirdseat]

Mr. Radon, all the rule said was that you had to store the tailings somewhere other than in the creeks and waterways. You had to put it back on the hill when you were finished getting the coal out. Moving the earth around costs more money. They wanted to just push the mountain tops into the valleys and just leave it there. No way.

[mr.radon]

The rule changes don't allow them to do that either. You're reading between the lines of the change. What the changes does do is prevent stupid lawsuit due to ambiguous language.

[Jim]

The rule changes don't allow them to do that either. You're reading between the lines of the change. What the changes does do is prevent stupid lawsuit due to ambiguous language.

 

Is this Karl Rove?