March 12, 1975
Page 6201
PROMPT ENACTMENT OF SURFACE MINING CONTROLS IS NEEDED
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, it is past time for the Federal Government to require protection of the land resources of America from the environmental damage caused by unregulated or inadequately controlled strip mining. Millions of acres of land in America have been lost or are threatened as a result of inadequate concern for the long term effects of strip mining.
Short-term effects of such activities have been ignored. Many people have been left homeless by irresponsible elements of the surface mining industry.
The lasting damage of uncontrolled or improperly regulated mining activities is evidenced by thousands of miles of polluted streams and barren land.
Last year's veto of this legislation was unwise. We needed this legislation years ago. Further delay caused by the necessity to enact this bill once again only means that more acres will be destroyed before adequate controls are placed on these activities.
To compromise this legislation further by weakening environmental standards in the hope that we might attract the support of the President would be equally unwise. The bill before us already is a compromise.
I want to compliment the members of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs for the work that they have done in pressing forward with this legislation early in this Congress. The distinguished floor leader, Senator METCALF, is to be complimented for his effort to bring out a bill which represents a significant progress toward effective protection of regional and national interests.
There are provisions in the legislation that have raised questions, which could use clarification.
To date the Congress has, in environmental legislation, asserted specifically the rights of States and localities to enact more stringent environmental controls if deemed appropriate.
Section 505 (b) of this law appears to continue past precedents in this area. This language protects the States from Federal preemption with regard to land use and strip mining laws. The language which appears on page 52, line 7, and states that protection is given to State law "which provides for more stringent land use and reclamation operations." I am assured by the committee that this language is broad in its construction and would include any air or water pollution
controls established by States in association with land use and strip mining laws.
Another concern relates to the language on pages 46 to 47, which requires:
(2) obtained the written concurrence of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency with respect to those aspects of a State program which relate to air or water quality standards promulgated under the authority of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 11511175), and the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857).
To clarify this language in the form of legislative history, I would point out that States do not meet "air or water quality standards," the phrase used in this text, but rather meet pollution control requirements, such as emission and effluent limits which are the enforcement mechanism. I know that it was the intention of the members of the Interior Committee to require that all aspects of the air and water pollution control requirements be met and, therefore, I merely make this statement in order to clarify the record.
Finally, Mr. President, I am particularly concerned with the language on page 84, lines 12 through 20, which is section 515(b) (10) (B) , which states–
(B) conducting surface coal mining operations so as to prevent to the maximum extent possible, using the best available technology, additional contributions of suspended solids to streamflow or runoff outside the permit area above natural levels under seasonal flow conditions as measured prior to any mining, and avoiding channel deepening or enlargement in operations requiring the discharge of water from mines.
The purpose here again is laudable. The best technology available ought to be used to control pollution. My only point in discussing this measure is that it should not be viewed as the final possible requirement. It is entirely possible, under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, that even with the use of the best available technology, the discharge from the mining activity might be such that the mining activity could not be done in compliance with that act. In that case, even the best available technology would not be sufficient to allow the mining to go forward. This is a concept which was dealt with extensively in both the air and water pollution control laws. I am sure that the intent of this amendment was to leave that stringent requirement in place and to simply insure that the best technology be used when pollution control laws allowed such discharge to occur. Rather than offer any language to amend this provision, I believe it is sufficient to simply clarify this matter in this discussion.
Once again, I commend the members of the Senate Interior Committee for the work they have engaged in over the last few years bringing this legislation forward. I hope that my colleagues will endorse it, and certainly urge the president to reconsider his veto and to sign the legislation this time when it is sent to his desk.